"I'd Rather Be Ruled By The Tea Party Than By The Democrat Party, And I'd Rather Have Sarah Palin In The Oval Office Than Barack Obama"

I agree with Norman Podhoretz.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

David Broder On Sarah Palin

Misunderestimate her at your own peril.

Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game—a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm. . . . This is a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past. There are times when the American people are looking for something more: for an Eisenhower, who liberated Europe; an FDR or a Kennedy or a Bush, all unashamed aristocrats; or an Obama, with eloquence and brains. But in the present mood of the country, Palin is by all odds a threat to the more uptight Republican aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty—and potentially, to Obama as well. . . . Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

(Via the WSJ)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2012: 538 Looks At Sarah Palin Vs. Mitt Romney Vs. Mike Huckabee Vs. Field

It's posts like this one that keep me going back to FiveThirtyEight. This kind of electoral and poll analysis play to his statistical strength. The rest, wherein he invokes his liberal condescension and plays Obama apologist, makes me want to bang my head against the wall, repeatedly. There's nothing learned in those posts and the tone makes them practically unreadable.

Back to his 2012 Republican primary post: There is a lot about this race that is unknown, like, who's going to run? There are so many names out there, even guessing who might be in it in 2012 is a crapshoot. Now add to that the difficulty of analyzing the prospects of various candidates who may or may not be running in 2012.

Of the 3 mentioned in the post title, readers know my preference: Romney, then Palin, and I don't care for Huckabee at all, and I'd love to vote for General Petraeus, though it's unlikely he runs.

The whole post is worth reading, I'll just excerpt the part on Romney:

Conversely, Mitt Romney's paths might look something like this, and are probably somewhat more straightforward than Palin's.

Romney Plan A. Win Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Game over.

Romney Plan B-1. (If Palin is knocked out) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Sweep orange states on the basis of organizational strength. Veer slightly to the left, emphasizing electability and cleaning up in delegate-rich states like California and New York. You probably outlast a Southern opponent like Huckabee, perhaps even fairly easily. A Midwesterner that could win states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania might be more challenging.

Romney Plan B-2. (If Palin survives) Lose Iowa. Win New Hampshire. Win Nevada. Split orange states with Palin on the basis of organizational strength. Hope that gold or purple states came up next, in which case you should build up a substantial delegate lead. If so, the party infrastructure may start to close ranks around you. If green states come up instead, Palin is tougher and you're in for a war of attrition with flagging momentum.

I'm headed to CPAC next week and will get to listen to Romney and a number of the other potential Republican candidates in 2012. I'll also get a sense of base enthusiasm for 2010 and a number of other things.

Watch for lots of CPAC-related posts 18-20 February.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

David Harsanyi On Sarah Palin & Her New Book

From the Denver Post via the WSJ:

These days, where you fall on the crucial issue of Sarah Palin tells the rest of us all we need to know about your character. You’re either a:

A) Scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist, or a

B) Radical, tea-bag-loving simpleton.

Yet, believe it or not, one can (as I do) admire Palin’s charisma and roots, appreciate her dissent on the policy experiments brainy folks in Washington are cooking up and at the same time believe she has no business running for president in 2012.

In fact, all you haters out there force me to root for her.

There’s nothing wrong, for instance, with The Associated Press assigning a crack team of investigative journalists to sift through every word of Palin’s book, “Going Rogue” (HarperCollins, November 2009) for inaccuracies. You only wish similarly methodical muckraking was applied to President Barack Obama’s two self-aggrandizing tomes—or even the health care or cap and trade bills, for that matter.

Comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama is the perfect case study of the different treatment given by the liberal media to conservative vs. liberal personalities. Palin goes through the ringer and Obama gets a pass.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With Tim Pawlenty

All you guys who hate social conservatives (Mike Huckabee), conservatives whose positions have changed/evolved over the years (Mitt Romney) and otherwise smart people who occasionally say dumb things (Sarah Palin--but you still love Average-Joe Biden!), are going to love Tim Pawlenty.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

The moves underscore, and will lend credence to, the emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican primary rival. The Minnesota governor has even gone so far as to contact some of Romney’s former supporters.

Congratulations to Liz Mair, a friend of this blog, who has joined Gov. Pawlenty's PAC.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Sarah Palin's Speech In Hong Kong

The Round-up:

- WSJ - Palin Speaks Out In Asia

- NYT - Palin Speaks To Investors In Hong Kong

- Bloomberg - Palin Attacks Fed On Hong Kong Visit, Wants 'Responsible China'

- Breitbart - Palin Slams Obama's Spending In Debut Speech In Asia

Mary Kissel in yesterday's WSJ Political Diary on the event:

Former GOP Veep candidate Sarah Palin made her first speech abroad at one of Asia's largest annual investment conferences in Hong Kong today. The event was carefully hyped and stage-managed by the hosts, French-owned brokerage house CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, with no press allowed into the venue. Even conference participants had to be "on the list" and show ID to get into the speech. (Local media were so keen to get the story that they staked out the Grand Hyatt hotel, frantically calling anyone in town with Republican Party connections.)

Nonetheless, in good Hong Kong-style, someone managed to sneak a recording device into the room and the transcript leaked.

The 80-minute talk was a broad affair, touching on everything from Alaska and trade protectionism to U.S. relations with China. The former governor took a realist's view of the authoritarian regime, calling for cautious engagement. "We can, must, should work with a 'rising China' to address issues of mutual concern," she said. "But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China's rise."

Unlike the Obama Administration, which has pandered to China's unelected leaders, downplayed human rights and snubbed the Dalai Lama, she spoke out strongly in support of China's democrats. Mrs. Palin also took a swipe at the Obama White House's trade policies, noting: "We want an Asia open to our goods and services." She labeled the White House-approved tariffs against Chinese-made tires "a mistake" and called on Congress to get the South Korea free trade agreement passed.

CLSA was thrilled by the speech, which brought the brokerage more press in a day than it's received in a year. In the French spirit of egalite, the closing night's entertainment will be left-wing icon Sheryl Crow.

Yes, I still like Sarah Palin.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

I Still Support Sarah Palin, Haters To The Left

What she has--charisma, charm & good looks--cannot be taught. And she has them in spades. Where she may lack or be a little deficient--policy (though not energy), etc.--she can learn.

To my mind, any objective survey of the national Republican political landscape--Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, Gingrich, whoever--must conclude that Sarah Palin is the one with the most potential.

If she didn't have so much popular appeal, her antagonists in Alaska & elsewhere would not be so dogged in their attacks.

For instance, check out the latest from John Fund in today's Political Diary:

The Associated Press report yesterday that Sarah Palin was about to be found guilty of violating state ethics laws set off a round of speculation that the Alaska governor was resigning later this month one step ahead of the sheriff.

In reality, it appears as if the improper leak may be little more than a parting shot against her by her critics, who have filed a total of 19 ethics complaints and hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests against her. The leaks indicated that the Alaska Personnel Board has concluded that Governor Palin used her public image and notoriety to raise money for a legal defense fund she created to pay the costs of defending herself against ethics complaints. The only sanction it recommends is that she no longer accept direct payments from the fund to reimburse her $500,000 in legal expenses.

So far none of the ethics complaints filed against Ms. Palin have resulted in any findings of wrongdoing. The leaked portions of the report indicate that an investigator concluded that because an average citizen would have been unable to raise large sums to pay for legal bills, Governor Palin should not be able to either. "Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund," says a preliminary finding by the investigator.

Team Palin pushed back quickly. The governor herself used Twitter to send an abbreviated defense of herself: "In violation of Ethics Act more allegations were filed today by serial complainer; gave to press be4 we could respond; ridiculous, wasteful," she tweeted. "Some ask why not sue abusers of Ethics Act bc state wastes 1000's hrs/millions of tax dollars to fight (and win!) frivolous charges, tho it costs political critics NOTHING to file/play their wasteful game; They should debate policy in political arena, not hide w/process abuse."

Other Palin supporters joined in. Thomas Van Flein, her personal attorney, noted: "There has been no board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution." The head of her legal defense fund, Kristan Cole, told reporters: "This legal expense fund was thoroughly vetted by numerous attorneys from Alaska to the East Coast [and is meant] to help the Governor with the crushing legal fees she has incurred solely because of her public service."

No one doubts Ms. Palin has made a series of boneheaded public relations moves since her surprise choice as John McCain's running-mate last year. But the ethics charges strike many observers as bogus or nitpicky. They have included challenges to her out-of-state trips that appear dubious and even a complaint that her husband, Todd, wore a jacket made by a company that sponsored his snow-mobile races.

What the leftists have done to Sarah Palin is classic, well, leftist behavior: Use of courts through frivolous suits, etc., in pursuit of the politics of personal destruction.

I mean, can anyone believe the latest charge?--that she used her notoriety as governor & former VP candidate to raise money for her legal defense fund to defend herself against frivolous ethics charges like the one that says she used her personal notoriety to raise money to defend herself and I think you get the picture. Ridiculous.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Sarah Palin vs. Obama (or Biden) [UPDATED]

Take your pick.

I often suggest this contest to people who critique Governor Palin for her verbal gaffes and miscues--as though they were unique to her. The Contest: I'll match 2 Youtube clips of either President Obama or VP Biden saying something stupid for every 1 clip you find of Sarah Palin.

No one ever takes me up on this challenge.

You know why? Because everyone knows in their heart of hearts that she's no more gaffe-prone than either of these guys (or liberal gals, for that matter) and that they hold her to a different standard because she's both a woman and conservative.

Now lets play another of my fav games--compare & contrast.

In his latest column, Victor Davis Hansen has done something very clever. He has replaced Obama with Palin (as President) and had the media react to the many dumb things Obama has done in his first 100 days as though Sarah Palin had done them.

Here's a sampling:

WORSE THAN 'NUCULAR'
ABC’s Katie Couric summed up the general disappointment with the president’s communication skills. “I tried to warn the American people in that interview a few years back what they would get if they voted for her. Let’s face it: She’s a walking embarrassment. I mean just count ’em up: The mayor of Wasilla thinks Austrians speak some lingo called ‘Austrian.’ Then she tries her hand at Spanish and comes up with some concoction, ‘Cinco de Cuatro.’ Next thing she’ll walk into the window of the Oval Office and expect it to open — oops, she’s already done that. No wonder that when her Teleprompter stalls, she shuts her mouth until it catches up. I’m surprised she managed to get sworn in. And did she think that tasteless ‘Special Olympics’ slur was funny? Or making fun of octogenarian Nancy Reagan’s séances? No wonder Wanda Sykes feels at home.”

This juxtaposition of Obama/Palin, while having the media respond as though she were the one who had done whatever very clearly highlights the different standard to which the one is held vs. the other. One is beloved of the media--indeed, is the media's Beloved--while the other is the exact opposite of all their ideal for a woman--conservative, pro-life, with a family, etc., etc.

UPDATE 20 May 2.28pm BST: Jansen G. writes:

The reason there are more youtube clips of Obama or Biden gaffes than Palin is b/c Obama and Biden have been in the limelight far longer than Palin.

OK, fair enough. For the purposes of this challenge, I will limit the scope to the following period: The day she was announced--29 August 2008--to the day of the election--4 November 2008.

Based on my preliminary Youtube search (on the remote chance someone actually decided to take me up on the challenge), I suspect I'll still be able to double every Palin-gaffe with two of either Biden or Obama.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'DisHonor Awards For The Lamestream Media'

The Media Research Center, parent organization of my sometime employer, NewsBusters.org, held their annual awards ceremony for some of the most ridiculous and outrageous "news" reports of the last year. John Fund has the report:

The Media Research Center handed out its annual "DisHonors Awards" to what some of its speakers called the "lamestream media" last night at a gala dinner in Washington D.C. The conservative group roasted what it called "the most outrageously biased liberal reporters as selected by a distinguished panel of leading media observers."

There were some truly rich moments provided by the nominees, many of them centered on the adulation reporters heaped on Barack Obama. Here is ABC News' Bill Weir reporting from the Obama inauguration: "Never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity."

Some TV anchors went way over the top in Obamamania even as they insisted they were just reporting the facts. Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who said last February after listening to an Obama speech: "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. . . . He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment."

An award mocking the "worst pummeling of Sarah Palin" was given out. Among the contenders was Newsweek's Howard Fineman for his dismissal of the Alaska Governor's credentials: "Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams. I mean, it's just, it's no contest."

The final category at the MRC dinner featured an award for "the stupidest analysis." The winner was CNN founder Ted Turner, who said that if global warming isn't rolled back, "in 30 or 40 years basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."

But my personal favorite was from that fountain of anti-America snobbery, the BBC. Correspondent Justin Webb stood next to an 18-wheel big rig truck while dismissing President Bush's tax rebate. He warned: "Many Americans drive private cars not much smaller than this truck, and the risk is that they use their tax rebate simply to buy fuel, boosting the profits of the oil companies but doing little or nothing for the wider American economy."

In the tradition of the MRC dinner, none of the winners showed up to accept their awards, so a conservative leader was chosen to come up on stage and acknowledge the award on their behalf.

I'm told good times were had by all.




If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Man Mitt

In 2008, I supported John McCain in his campaign for POTUS vs. Barack Obama, but it wasn't without reservation. He has always been unreliable, often discarding conservative principles in favor of currying favor from the press.

On balance, I thought, he was a far better alternative to the inexperienced, very liberal, Barack H. Obama.

And he was.

But there was a better one, and his name was Mitt Romney.

Sure, he had a few missteps, was mistrusted by some religious/social conservatives, but he was right on all the important things--foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, NKorea, Iran, etc.), fiscal policy (less government, lower taxes, less regulation, etc.), and the social issues (family, marriage, abortion, stem-cell research etc.).

So he was a "convert" on the last point (abortion), so what? So was Ronald Reagan. Don't we want to persuade everyone to value the rights of the unborn? Anyway, that's an old argument. Hopefully one we've moved past.

At CPAC, Romney gave an excellent speech. I wrote a bit about it in my review of CPAC Day 3.

You can read the full text of his speech here.

NRO's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, wrote an excellent article about the state of conservatism and some of the dustups between Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, and others. But most of the article is about Mitt and the possibility that he runs for President in 2012.

It's tough to look 4 years into the future; if we face the same problems we are today--that is to say, if we have yet to fully overcome them--Mitt could be part of the solution. I like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. But how about Romney-Petraeus?

Does that sound like a ticket you'd be interested in?

I don't think anyone else could put forward two more qualified people to deal with all the many problems this country faces right now. Seriously, does anyone have any confidence that Obama can lead us out of this economic quagmire?

The markets sure don't seem to think so. Their daily tracking poll (a constant downward spiral) leaves little doubt. Mitt Romney made a career of this sort of thing. Balancing budgets, restoring profitability, rooting out waste and inefficiency--that's his niche.

And though the model has been derided, how confident would you feel if Petraeus, in the Dick Cheney mould of VP, helped to shape our long- & short-term foreign policy goals? Instead of a complete idiot--Joe Biden (God love 'im)--you would have the guy who literally wrote the counter-insurgent book and has spearheaded our warfighting effort in Iraq and now, Iraq & Afghanistan. Do you think anyone knows how to defend America better than General Petraeus?

Most of this is just rambling speculation and wishful thinking, clearly. Right now I'm focused on 2009--hoping for a Republican win in New Jersey--and 2010--House, Senate & nationwide gubernatorial races.

With any luck, 2010 will look a little like 1994, and 2012 will resemble 1980. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost in the 1976 Republican primary before finally winning it all in 1980.

Romney could do a lot worse than following Reagan's example.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

I Am Pro-Life

If Sarah Palin doesn't become the first female President of the United States, it might be this little girl.

She's now 12 years old, the Constitution requires that she be 35, so, watch for her in 2032.



(h/t The Other McCain)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Rush Limbaugh To Colin Powell: 'Stuff It'

A lot has been made of Colin Powell's interview last week in which he called for wholesale changes in the Republican party. Of course, this comes from a man who has never really been a Republican. RINO/moderate Republican, maybe, but even then, has anyone ever heard him defend anything like a conservative principle? Apart from the fact that his career has been advanced by Republican Presidents--Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43--he hasn't ever been politically conservative.

And really, folks, are you surprised that a liberal would want to change the Republican party--make it less conservative, make it more like the Democrat party? This surprises you? More importantly, does this really persuade anyone?

I intended to post something about this earlier, but American Thinker makes a persuasive case for Rush Limbaugh as a leading American intellectual--not the pseudo-intellectual that populates the places I frequent--but a genuine intellectual in the sense that he sorts through all of the crap and makes sense of and explains the world. (note: by "places I frequent" I mean higher education in general and not the specific universities I've attended and especially not the professors with whom I have worked.)

Rush Limbaugh is far closer to the great tradition of Western intellectuals than anybody in the celebrity freak-show of the Left. It is the Rush Limbaughs who became Socrates and Plato in the ancient world. They composed the Psalms and the Book of Proverbs. They were not professional scribblers. They did not found a revolutionary cult designed to overthrow all the good traditions. They were talented talkers, and even better listeners. All good thinking starts from dialogue.

Read the article, it's very good.

Back to Rush & Powell.

Powell says, essentially, get rid of the social cons, Sarah Palin, they're dragging down the party. Rush responds:

Here is Colin Powell telling the Republican Party what to do after he voted for Obama! [...] The Republican Party nominated Powell's perfect candidate. The guy's going after moderates, independents, Democrats, a guy who is not conservative at all, McCain, didn't stand up for much conservative [...]

Colin Powell ... insists that conservatives and Republicans support candidates who will appeal to minorities like I guess McCain who led the effort for amnesty. He insists that conservatives and Republicans move to the center like McCain, who calls himself a maverick for doing so. General Powell insists that conservatives and Republicans provide an open tent to different ideas and views, like I guess McCain, who repeatedly trashed Republicans and made nice with Democrats. I mean, their tent's big, they just don't want us in it. John McCain is and was Colin Powell's ideal candidate. All these moderates that crossed the aisle and voted for Obama, they got their ideal candidate, and they got their ideal campaign in McCain. Once McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate, largely by independents and Democrats voting in Republican primaries, Colin Powell waited 'til the last minute, when it would do the most damage to McCain and the Republicans and endorsed Obama.

So if we try to understand Powell's thinking, which is difficult since it's incoherent, we should have all voted for McCain in the primaries, and once he was nominated, we should have voted for Obama for president. [...]

What's going on here with this Colin Powell thing is that the Washington establishment -- Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican. These guys are not even mavericks. They are Washingtonians. Washingtonians have their own culture and their own desires, and it is to matter. They don't care who's in power, they just want to be closely associated with whoever is. That's the name of the game and they want press adulation. They want to be loved and adored by the media, they want fawning treatment, they want to be thought of as something special, unique, dignified and so forth, and that's the Washington establishment. [...]

As long as you are a Republican, but you buy into an endless array of liberal causes, global warming to amnesty for illegals, and somebody who has the same fetish for compromising principles that you do, then they are going to love you. Then you turn around and you stab this person in the back by endorsing the most liberal Democrat candidate ever nominated days before the election, General Powell? [...]

I also have to question something here. How can he say he's a Republican? He gets the perfect Republican nominee, exactly the kind of candidate he wants, it's McCain, and then he sabotages McCain a few weeks before the election by endorsing Obama. How can you even claim to be a Republican, General Powell? When have you ever stuck your neck out for Republicans and conservatives? Never. I mean sabotage George W. Bush with the Armitage leak and Scooter Libby, that's just one thing, but Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 all helped advance General Powell's career.

[...] I've noticed on the one hand General Powell claims to stand above politics as a big claim to fame. Yet, on the other hand, he jumps in from time to time, but only to attack the conservative base of the Republican Party. When's the last time, the first time, when is any time he has let loose or criticized a liberal Democrat on any issue? Now, here's the problem. General Powell, and folks, this problem I think is systemic in the Republican Party in Washington. People like General Powell seek to ingratiate themselves with the people who despise the Republican Party and despise the conservative movement. They're out there preaching moderation all along the way, when instead you should be preaching principle.

Principle is what got you where you are. Moderation is what keeps you where you are with this great reputation, great image but no substance, no principles, no core belief. If somebody had to tell you who Colin Powell is, what would they say? What does he stand for? What does General Powell stand for? ... You don't know. There aren't any core beliefs you can go rat-tat-tat down the list and say, yep, this is who they are. Was Abraham Lincoln great because he saw compromise during the Civil War or was he great because he insisted on total and complete victory? Great people take stands on principle, not moderation. Some of us think that individual liberty, limited constitutional government, and increased support for the military by civilians are principles worth defending. Maybe General Powell can enlighten us, since he's failed to do that so far on the great liberal or moderate Democrat principles that seem to intrigue him. What is it about Obama that intrigued him? What are these principles? Or was it the way Obama speaks?

[...] One of the things he said is he resents Sarah Palin because she kept talking about small towns. He said nobody lives in small towns and that's why they're small. "I'm from the Bronx. Something wrong with my values?" he asked. What is this hatred for conservatives and small town people and Sarah Palin? It's because they are effective. They represent challenges to the Washingtonians' control of the Republican Party. I know a lot of people that are from the Bronx, General Powell, and if you think the values there in the Bronx today reflect the ones you grew up with, take a trip back and see if the street corners and the activities there are the same as when you were growing up, General Powell.

(emphasis added)

There's a lot more there, I just quoted (generously. fair use, right? right.) from some of the best stuff. I can see why the left hates this guy so much. He is smart and persuasive and very, very good at deconstructing the elaborate myths of the left and laying them bare for all to see.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Evidence Sarah Palin Didn't Lose The Election

Don't listen to David Brooks. He doesn't like Sarah Palin and doesn't like social conservatives. You know this before you read his column. This is his bias. Dick Morris hates the Clintons and wants to win. This is his bias. Here's his read on Sarah Palin's effect on the election:

Sarah Palin made a vast difference in McCain’s favor. Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender.

Add this to the numbers Palin drew to her campaign events--literally tens of thousands of people showed up. She rivaled Barack Obama. Nobody turned up to listen to Joe Biden. And John McCain didn't pull those kinds of numbers and the base wouldn't have turned out to GOTV for him either.

Don't believe the haters. Palin isn't responsible for the loss and McCain supposed "hewing to the right" didn't do it either.

On what positions, pray tell, did McCain go right and lose? Drilling? Polls throughout the summer showed Americans in favor of drilling, 70-30%.

Similarly, on immigration, Americans are opposed to amnesty and in favor enforcement. But McCain pretty much didn't say anything about immigration because he's personally in favor of amnesty.

Oh, and all that stuff about Palin supposedly believing that Africa was a country, and not a continent, get over yourselves, it was a hoax. Who's the idiot now?

Obama did in 2008 what Tony Blair did in 1997--he coopted traditionally conservative principles--like fiscal responsibility and tax cuts. How in the world could McCain let Obama steal tax cuts? But he did, by proposing "tax cuts" for 95% of Americans. On foreign policy, Obama even out-hawked John McCain with regard to Pakistan (proposing bombings and special forces incursions).

John McCain did not lose this election by being too conservative or adding Sarah Palin to the ticket.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

First Read (UPDATED)

A few things jumped out to me while reading MSNBC's (breaking down my confirmation bias, one liberal publication at a time) First Read:

*** What's next Grand Old Party: It's hard not to look at the map -- particularly in the House -- and not view the GOP as a regional party right now. If it weren’t for the party's relative strength in the South, the party would be in even worse shape. Later this week, as the party deconstructs this election, the recriminations will begin. Who will emerge as the next group of leaders? Mitch McConnell survived re-election, but will he survive any leadership challenge? What about House GOP leader John Boehner? No doubt he'll be challenged. Still, will McConnell and Boehner be the true leaders of the minority party? There will be a spirited race for the RNC chairmanship. State chairs from Michigan and South Carolina will run as will some former governor, maybe even Newt Gingrich. A group of current and former governors will also get together and attempt to have a say in the party. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana even has an Iowa visit planned later this month; Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush could all also play roles. As will Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour. Bottom line, there is a massive leadership vacuum inside the Republican Party and there are no shortage of candidates who will attempt to fill that vacuum. The first thing to watch for: Will the fight be to do this from inside the RNC or will there be a DLC-like organization that emerges from the outside?

*** Some first clues: NBC-WSJ GOP pollster Neil Newhouse did a post-election survey last night, and here's what he found: Just 12% of those surveyed believed Palin should be the GOP's new leader; instead 29% of voters said Romney, followed by 20% who say Huckabee. Among GOPers, it was Romney 33%, Huckabee 20% and Palin 18%. Look for more from this survey later today.

I know I shouldn't say this, especially the day after America elected its first ever black President, but I don't think they would ever elect a Mormon President. I hate to say it, but I believe it's true. While this country has prided itself on looking at people and not seeing race, even though it has become more "enlightened," anti-religious fervor has increased--especially among the militant secularists on the left.

Anti-religion (along with agism) is one of the acceptable bigotries of liberalism.

For this reason, if I were calling the shots, I would make Romney the new RNC chairman. I think he could galvanize the entire party and put us in a position to take back seats in 2010 and win the White House in 2012. Plus, and this is just my gut feeling, I don't think Romney wants to run for President again.

Also, like my brother told me last night, Newt Gingrich needs to be more involved in shaping the direction of the party. He is wicked smart.

How about a little Back to the Future--Spirit of '94 in 2010, anyone?

I would feel very good about a team of Gingrich, Romney, & Rove running the RNC.

One last thing: We may very well see another Mormon run, but my guess is that it will be John Huntsman Jr. who will be just concluding his second term as Governor of Utah.

UPDATE 5:51pm BST: Ben T. responds:

The fact that you're still looking for people other than Mitt Romney to blame for Mitt Romney's loss is scary. The guy ran a poor campaign, and was consistently incapable of connecting to people due to his total lack of self awareness. The bias this country had against black people went, and still goes far deeper (in some circles) than any other. For a church with 7 million members domestically (roughly?), thinking that the political establishment actively keeps us out of politics is so narcissistic. Particularly when you consider the number of military brass, CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies whose upper echelons are traditionally stacked with members of the Church. If either party fields a candidate who is a member of the Church who can communicate, raise money, and build alliances within a party - like Jon Huntsman Jr. - they will face opposition on partisan lines like any other but it will not bring them down (or up) solely because of their faith.

I agree, Romney certainly didn't run the best campaign. But it was clear that some voters had a problem with Romney's Mormonism. I don't think anyone taking an objective view of the exit poll data would disagree with that.

It's not that I think the political establishment (whatever that is) 'keeps Mormons down,' I just don't think a majority of the electorate would ever vote for a Mormon. Granted, the numbers cited above by First Read are encouraging, but they are from people who voted for McCain. I remain skeptical.

If Obama's win isn't a repudiation of all the racist theories about this country, I don't know what is. Exit poll data strongly backs that up. McCain's age played a far larger role in people's decision than did Obama's race. This ought to signal the death of affirmative action in all its forms.

Discrimination against people of religion in this country gets far less play because of the MSM's obsession with racial differences. By and large the press is irreligious--in some cases outright hostile. It's why racists are bigots (justifiably so) and anti-Mormons (or anti-Jew, -Catholic, -Evangelical, whatever) have "legitimate" objections.

Though I disagree, I do appreciate Ben T.'s optimistically open-minded view.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

They Called Ohio (UPDATED)

With Ohio being called for Obama, we can pretty much conclude that this thing is over. I can't remember seeing a single scenario that had McCain losing Ohio, but winning the election.

Keep an eye on the Senate. Republicans need to maintain the filibuster in order to stonewall radical liberal change in this country. Some of the worst kind would be single-payer, so called "universal" or government administered health care and "card check" unionization. These things are bad and only a Republican filibuster can keep us from them.

One other thing to keep an eye on is the popular vote. I still don't believe this is a "sea change" election in which the political orientation of this country has changed. A relatively close popular vote would confirm that.

I'm going to keep banging this drum until people get it into their heads: The Amazing thing about this election is how well John McCain has done despite the many things stacked against him: Bush, general dislike of Republicans for past corruption issues (see 2006), credit crisis/economic issues, Iraq (though diminished), Democrat GOTV & new voter registration, did I mention Bush?, voter identification--on all these things, Republicans have been at a disadvantage. Despite it all, McCain has done well.

Look, folks, you want to talk about a party without ideas? How about this: The policies we have heard about most from Obama are conservative issues. Tax cuts for 95% of Americans. Yeah, that idea is straight out of the conservative playbook. And it has gotten more play than almost anything else. Obama has also run as fiscally responsible, with promises to balance the budget. Yup, that one too is also a conservative policy. He even had the audacity to attack John McCains economically sound health care plan by calling it a net increase in taxes. Does that sound conservative or liberal to you?

Where are all these "new ideas" that have propelled Obama to victory? Anyone? Anyone? He has even adopted a hawkish position in support of Israel and on Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Pakistan, in particular, he out-hawked John McCain.

Now, I'm not saying that I believe that he actually believes or will hold to these positions, but they are the ones on which he has campaigned and which brought him this win.

Going forward, it is important that conservatives and Republicans draw the right conclusions and learn the right lessons from this loss. A wrong conclusion would be to say that Sarah Palin was the cause. This will be the clarion call of liberals and "moderate" Republicans. Because they don't like her. Don't believe them. She's part of the reason it's as close as it is. Without her, no one would be GOTV'ing.

UPDATE 4:14am BST: One bit of good news, it looks like Republicans will maintain their Senate filibuster. Assuming Democrats don't blow up long-standing Senate rules, this should keep them from adopting radical things like card-check unionization and government health care.

A simple thing like the filibuster means we don't have to rely on President Obama to moderate Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi--a scary proposition, indeed.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

You Gotta Question Their Assumptions

About turnout and voter registration and party ID, that is.

More encouraging words from ACE:

THE PATH TO VICTORY FOR McCAIN IS IN OUR HANDS

The media polls are heavily weighted towards Democrats in terms of Party ID. With that kind of heavy weighting, it would be impossible for McCain to show any lead even if he had a small led among independents. For example, Rasmussen currently assumes the following party id break down: Democrats 40%, Republicans 32.8%, and Independents 27.2%. He is assuming a whopping 7 percent advantage in party id for the Democrats. This is a big barrier to overcome in these polls. If we assume a 85% Democrat support for Obama and 85% Republican support for McCain and a 50/50 breakdown among independents (ignore undecided and third party candidates) this would translate to a poll finding of 52.5% for Obama and 47.5% for McCain which incidentally gives the same 5% spread as in the current Rasmussen poll.

Note that all of this is simply from the 7% party id advantage. If we reduce the party id spread to 3%, the numbers would change to 51% for Obama and 49% to McCain. Now if we assume that McCain picks off more Democrats than Obama does Republicans, 85% Democrats for Obama and 90% Republicans for McCain then the outcome will be 49.3% for Obama and 50.7% for McCain, a clear LEAD.

What this simple analysis shows is that there are two crucial things for McCain victory:

a) HIGH Republican turnout.

b) HIGH PUMA (Democrats against Obama) turnout.

I strongly believe that both are very achievable. It all comes down to TURNOUT, GOTV, and ENTHUSIASM. This is why Obama and his media acolytes are working overtime to demorialize and suppress the turnout among Republicans and PUMAs. We have to keep working hard, ignore their propaganda, and get out and vote.

One final thing. Rasmussen has been steadily increasing his Dem party id advantage over the last three months. I suspect the same with other pollsters working for major media news organizations. However, the Republican base and the PUMAs are as energized as the Dem base and may in fact be even more energized. In addition to this, if last minute deciders go overwhelmingly against Obama as happened during the Democratic primaries in the swing states, McCain should win by an even bigger margin. The media and their pollsters are in for a huge surprise.

From an ex-Democrat turned independent supporting McCain/Palin '08.

Come on folks, join me in making the calls for McPalin. Click the link and copy and paste it and mail it to all your McPalin-supportin' friends and family. Write up a note in Facebook and paste a link there encouraging your friends to do the same. Make it your status on Facebook or MySpace.

This is the word: We can still win this thing.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Henninger On Palin

This column is why, when people ask what I read, I say, "Dan Henninger" and not "Peggy Noonan."

Apart from my history binge reading: Dan Henninger, Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, Ace, Jonah Goldberg, & Rich Lowry. These are my fav pundits.

Back to Henninger. He defends Palin the way I wish I could (because he's a great writer).

The abuse being heaped on Sarah Palin is such a cheap shot.

The complaint against the Alaska governor, at its most basic, is that she doesn't qualify for admission to the national political fraternity. Boy, that's rich. Behold the shabby frat house that says it's above her pay grade.

Congress has the lowest approval rating ever registered in the history of polling (12%!). She isn't the reason polls are showing people want the entire Congress fired, with many telling pollsters they themselves could do a better job.

Sarah Palin didn't design a system of presidential primaries whose length and cost ensures that only the most obsessional personalities will run the gauntlet, while a long list of effective governors don't run.

These rules have wasted the electorate's time the past three presidential elections, by filling the debates with such zero-support candidates as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton, Duncan Hunter, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden (8,000 total votes), Wesley Clark and Alan Keyes.

Out of this process has fallen a Democratic nominee who entered the U.S. Senate in 2005 fresh off a stint in the Illinois state legislature, with next to no record of political accomplishment. He may be elected mainly because, in Colin Powell's word, he is thought to be "transformational." One may hope so.

By not bothering to look very deeply at the details beneath either candidate's governing proposals, the media have created a lot of downtime to take free kicks at Gov. Palin. My former colleague, Tunku Varadarajan, has compiled a glossary of Palin invective, and I've added a few: "Republican blow-up doll," "idiot," "Christian Stepford wife," "Jesus freak," "Caribou Barbie," "a dope," "a fatal cancer to the Republican Party," "liar," "a national disgrace" and "her pretense that she is a woman."

If American politics is at low ebb, it is because so many of its observers enjoy working in its fetid backwash.

The primary discomfort with Gov. Palin is the notion that she doesn't have sufficient experience to be president, that Sen. McCain should have picked a Washington hand seasoned in the ways of the world. Such as? Here's an opinion poll question:

If as Joe Biden suggests the U.S. is likely to be tested by a foreign enemy next year, who of the following would you rather have dealing with it in the Oval Office: Nancy (of Damascus) Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Joe (the U.S. drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon) Biden, Mike Huckabee, Geraldine Ferraro, Tom DeLay, Jimmy Carter or Sarah Palin?

My pick? Gov. Palin, surely the most grounded, common-sense person on that list of prime-time politicians.

[...]

The quick surge of party-wide excitement and campaign contributions after his selection of Sarah Palin made clear that the McCain candidacy was moribund and headed for a low-turnout debacle. If he had picked any of the plain-vanilla men on his veep short list -- Pawlenty, Sanford, Romney or Lieberman -- they'd have won approval from the media's college of cardinals, and killed his campaign.

The stoning of Sarah Palin has exposed enough cultural fissures in American politics to occupy strategists full-time until 2012. We now see there is a left-to-right elite centered in New York, Washington, Hollywood and Silicon Valley who hand down judgments of the nation's mortals from their perch atop the Bell Curve.

It seems only yesterday that the most critical skill in presidential politics was being able to connect to people in places like Bronko's bar or Saddleback Church. When Gov. Palin showed she excelled at that, the goal posts suddenly moved and the new game was being able to talk the talk in London, Paris, Tehran or Moscow. She looks about a half-step behind Sen. Obama on that learning curve.

Lorne Michaels, the executive producer of "Saturday Night Live," lives on the forward wave of American life. This week he gave his view of Sarah Palin to EW.com: "I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she's powerful. Her politics aren't my politics. But you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her."

Uh-oh. Sounds like the cancer could be in remission.

(per usual, emphasis added)

There is no problem with conservatism. Maybe the Republican party. But not conservatism. This country remains center-right in its political orientation. The reason McCain has done so well is because Palin energized so many people--and all of this despite Democrats' massive home-court advantage (Bush, Iraq, Ted Stevens, the credit crisis, I'm sure I'm forgetting something).

This country is looking for some excuse--any excuse would do--to vote for someone other than Barack Obama. I respect John McCain and certainly honor his service, but heaven knows I've had my problems with him as a Presidential candidate.

Above all else, a loss by McCain should not be viewed as a repudiation of conservatism or Sarah Palin. The opposite is true. Conservatism is still favored by a majority in this country (if not "Republicanism") and, excepting the media, Angry Left, and political elites, loves Sarah Palin.

That is to say, average Joes like Sarah Palin.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Responses to Krauthammer (UPDATED)

Yesterday's post--dominated by Krauthammer--which discussed the state of conservatism, prompted a number of good responses from readers, two of which I will post here.

First, Matt P. wrote about McCain and doing his job as Senator from the state of Arizona:

The Charles Krauthammer article that you posted reminded me of a conversation that I had recently about "McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago." The fascinating point that I never heard was about what McCain actually did... his job. He is not being paid by the American taxpayer to campaign for the presidency of the United States. He is being paid to represent the citizens of Arizona as a member of the U.S. Senate. If I decided that I wanted to interview and schmooze for a position on a board of directors somewhere, you better bet that I'm either taking vacation time, doing it outside of work hours or not getting paid for it. You can debate about how productive his time was while he was in DC for the matter, but you cannot dispute the fact that his paycheck shows that he was where should have been.

Careful, Matt P., with those crazy ideas of yours--that politicians should actually do the job for which they are paid.

Meanwhile, Matt B. "gets it":

If the GOP even thinks about hanging a McCain lost election around Palin's neck I am officially renouncing my membership and $ from the GOP and going independent. I cant stand these stories about McCain staffers who are infected with Potomac Fever complaining about Palin going off script and possibly costing McCain the election. Let her go off script, she clearly had to "wing it" at the convention and it was one of the most powerful and invigorating speeches I have ever seen and millions went into the GOP war chest in the days following. The whole reason they didnt call the election for Obama 3 months ago is because of Palin. She has rallied the base and alot of people (real americans) identify with her or want to identify her.

It's one thing to lose an election, it's a whole other thing to draw the wrong conclusions from that loss.

If McCain loses, Palin won't be the reason. Like I said yesterday and Matt B. explains clearly above, McCain wouldn't even have a chance without Sarah Palin. People who argue otherwise either a) don't get how elections are won or 2) are trying to cover themselves.

Sarah Palin motivates the base to vote and GOTV. W/o Palin, those people probably stay home. This is more than half of the battle. The other part is either persuading enough "independents" to put you over the top or depressing the other side.

I'm not going to join the MSM chorus declaring the election for Barack Obama because I've counted out John McCain in the past and been proven wrong. This election is still close enough (especially in the battleground states) that if the national trackers close to within 3 points, McCain will have an honest to goodness shot at pulling this thing out.

Plus, no one really has any idea what's really going on with the polls. They're all over the place and they're accounting for all sorts of supposedly new trends. Democrats are telling us, yet again, that this is the year young voters actually turn out to vote. We'll see. I've been hearing that as long as I've been following Presidential elections ("This is the year young Americans make themselves heard!!!1!!").

I don't want to say that I doubt the Obama hipsters, because that would make me cynical about young Americans, but, well, I doubt the hipsters.

Just about anything could happen in this election--Obama landslide, McCain landslide, close win either way, endless litigation of results in several battleground states--and I wouldn't be surprised.

UPDATE 2:49pm BST: Ben T. responds:

Don't you think McCain would have done far better picking Lieberman? The man he really wanted on his ticket? Yes, Palin rallied the base. But to be honest with you it is a base that is increasingly irrelevant. In an age where the middle majority are tired of partisanship, having a split ticket would have gone a long way. Not sure how it would have affected financing or GOTV efforts, but it would have been huge for middle voters.

I don't think McCain would have done better picking Lieberman because I don't think the Republican base would have voted for them. John McCain is already far and away more "centrist" than Barack Obama. Adding Joe Lieberman would have made it a center-left ticket--what Obama and Biden claim to be. The base would have stayed home and Obama's current 5-7 point national advantage would be in the double digits.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Krauthammer: The Conservative Case For John McCain

I'll take Krauthammer over Hitchens, Adelman, Powell, or Buckley (Chris) any day.

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

If McCain loses, I will blame his handling of the campaign, rather than his ideology (conservative), for the loss. One of the things that frustrated me the most was his me-too economic populism on the credit crisis when I thought there was a clear opportunity to strike a Reagan-like note on the power of free markets.

If McCain loses, it won't be because he has been too conservative, as some have alleged. The only example they can point to is his overt over-conservativeness in choosing Palin. You know what? She's just the VP. Presidential candidates have always chosen VPs for their perceived electoral advantages.

Let me lay some more truth on you: If it weren't for Palin, things wouldn't be even this close. Bush won in 2000 and especially in 2004 because he got his base to vote. If McCain has any shot at winning in 2008, it will be because Palin got the conservatives out to vote.

Don't buy the tripe that Palin is the reason McCain is behind or may lose the election. It's just not true.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

And, I'm Back (UPDATED)

Though I still don't have internet in my flat, I will be able gain interweb access while at "uni" (Brit-slang for school or class) briefly each day. This will limit me to fewer & shorter posts until the BT bureaucracy deigns to grant us flat-based access.

Since I was last plugged in (I'm w/o BlackBerry access too), the national trackers have moved towards John McCain while the Battle Ground and state-by-state analysis looks solid for Obama. Lets hope previous trends--where trackers were the early indicator, followed by state polling--hold and things move back to the 1-2 point status quo difference.

In case there were any question, I'm part of the righ-wing blogosphere that thinks McCain/Palin should attack Obama on the Ayers/Wright/Fannie-gate front whenever and wherever possible. I thought he should do this before he was behind and believe it even more now. For whatever reason (hope, change, etc.) a majority of Americans have chosen, at the moment, to support Barack Obama, the single most liberal candidate for President since George McGovern, at least.

Most of his liberal programs and associations and worldviews are cloaked in the aforementioned airy rhetoric. Part of the reason we know so little is because the media has not done its job in vetting The One. The other half of the fault lies with McCain who, since the end of the convention, has not done an adequate job educating the public.

He can lose this campaign and blame the press all he wants and there will be a lot of truth there. But he will also have to look at himself: Given the opportunity to take the fight to Barack Obama over Bill Ayers and Fannie-gate, John McCain mostly took a pass.

Instead, he filled in with me-too economic populism that neither appealed to independents/moderates (because Obama does a better job of selling it) nor to his conservative base. Seemingly, John McCain has done his best to kill the enthusiasm Sarah Palin brought to his campaign.

I'm not going to write a post-mortem with over 3 weeks left to go, because I think--I know--this thing can still change. If/when Americans wake up and realize that voting for Obama represents a radical change, not only for the prosperous Bush years they claim to hate, but from the entirety of American history, I think they will come home to the safe, moderate choice--John McCain.

UPDATE 5:17pm BDT: Reader Morgan H. sent me this WSJ article about the Obama tax plan and writes, "I found the McGovern reference quite timely." From that article:

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

[...]

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.