The Debates, Polls & The Far Left's Bubble

Since Romney crushed Obama in the last debate, the polls have swung wildly in Romney's direction, erasing Obama's lead with less than one month and two debates to go before election day. Charles Krauthammer explains both the state of the race and the left's attempt to excuse Obama's debate performance:



The far left are irrational and intolerant of any competing ideas. In their world, their spin is fact beyond question. And in their world, any who disagree are to be demonized, not debated. What we are seeing today is that mindset bump up against reality, as the far left reacts to the Romney-Obama debate.

For much of the left, the post debate meme has settled on asserting that "Romney LIED" during the debate and that Obama simply did not point out those lies, ergo the defeat. That is a view very much from inside the left wing bubble, where it is seen as objective truth, for example, that Romney's tax plan will blow a $5 trillion dollar hole in our economy over ten years. The fact that none of the studies the left cites as proof support their claim is wholly ignored. Likewise ignored, for that matter, is the fact that Obama repeatedly made the $5 trillion claim during the last debate, and in a few sentences, Romney convincingly rebutted it. For the far left, Obama's problem was not objective fact, but that he didn't repeat his claim often enough and did not shout down Romney's rebuttal.

At any rate, Obama has two very clear paths in the upcoming debates. One, he can try to win based on a "vision" that he really will lead the U.S. to an improving economy in four years, an argument he needs to pepper with a heavy dose of class warfare. That seems to me to be his best bet.

But the far left doesn't want that - they want Obama to quite literally eviscerate Romney on stage come the next debate. They firmly believe that if Obama only gets aggressive, if he goes on the attack and screams "lies, Lies, LIES," he will win and reverse the far left's rapidly declining fortunes. Unfortunately for them, the only way this new strategy can work is if the rest of America is willing to join in their fantasies and denial. And given the reaction of America to the first debate, that does not seem likely. Indeed, it risks alienating the majority of voters.

I for one hope that Obama takes the advice of his fellow travelers on the far left. If he does, this race may be over after the second debate.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

A Reminder To All Readers

We are fast approaching Oct. 11. If you have not done so already, you need to insure that you have a comfortable seat readied in front of the television and that you are fully stocked up on popcorn and chips (beer and pizza are optional). This will be a show you do not want to miss.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Left Goes To Their Last Refuge Defense, Axelrod Calls Out To The MSM For Support

The left, in the immediate aftermath of the debate, was in shock - and at MSNBC, in meltdown. But the memos have apparently gone out, and the left's MSM response has coalesced. Yes, Romney won on theatrics and style points, but all of his facts were LIES - all lies, I tell you, LIES. We've seen this exact same thing play out a few weeks ago in the coordinated MSM response to Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican convention. There are some lies being told it - but that's projection on the part of the left.

Let's take a tour through the gutter of the MSM today and see what piles of excreta we can find. Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman is always a good place to start:

OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn’t or shouldn’t be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.

After that sweeping assertion, Krugman points to but a single example where he thinks Romney was less than honest. Others at least made a more concerted effort to justify their claim that Romney's speech was not but "lies."

Jonathan Chait at NY Magazine actually titled his commentary Romney's Successful Debate Plan: Lying. Chait's chief complaint relies on the original Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney's tax plan - an analysis done in part by one of Obama's former economic advisors. The upshot is that Obama claims that would add $500 billion a year for ten years to the deficit. But that presumption is based on simply dropping tax rates without closing loopholes - a patently ridiculous assumption.

More importantly. Chait, as do all the left relying on that TPC analysis, neglects to point to an update the TPC has done. TPC now finds that Romney's tax plan would come within $41 billion of tax distribution neutrality. I know that the left has trouble with math, so let me point out that $41 billion times ten is $4 trillion 5590 billion less than the $5 trillion dollar figure that Chait, the President and others are claiming would be added to the deficit by Romney's tax plan. And even that number is based on a static analysis of Romney's tax plan, neglecting any consideration of a growing economy bringing in more tax revenue. To call Romney's claims regarding his tax policy a lie based on the original TPC analysis - and assigning it a claim of raising the deficit $5 trillion over ten years - really is a lie.

Then there is Jonathan Cohn at TNR who writes about The Four Most Misleading Moments in Romney's Debate Performance:

The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.

The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.

Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. . .

Cohn too relies on the original Tax Policy Center analysis for much of his argument.

A special mention needs to be made of Igor Volsky of Talking Points Memo who claims to have found: At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes. I won't go down all of them, but just to give you a flavor, my favorite was:

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.”

Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

Talk about your non-sequiturs. Repealing Dodd Frank now means no regulation - despite Romney's calls for sane regulation? And talk about the insanity and hypocrisy of pointing to MF Global, led by one of Obama's top bundlers, Jon Corzine, who, incidently, Obama's DOJ has refused to indict for the second largest theft in history. MF Global is one example the left should avoid like the plague. One wonders if Igor is off his meds.

At any rate, the left is still reeling today. So what did the President's chief advisor, David Axelrod, do to stop the bleeding? He has called on his most loyal and stalwart allies to rally to Obama's defense:

Mr Axelrod, speaking on a campaign conference call, made an appeal to reporters to make the points that Obama himself had failed to make in the debate,

What does it say of the state of our MSM when Axelrod can call on them publicly to put out administration spin. The worst part is that you can bet the MSM is already pulling out the long knives to do precisely that between now and Nov. 7.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Debate: Romney In A Landslide

Wow. Last night's debate, posted in full above, was a spanking - one viewed by an estimated 70 million people.

Obama spent most of the past four years carefully limiting his appearances to friendly journalists and softball situations. His last appearance was being "eye candy" on the View. And last night, it showed. Of course, having an unsupportable record didn't help matters either.

The importance of last night just cannot be overestimated. It was Romney's one chance, for an hour and a half, to speak to America without having it filtered through the lens of the most biased press in my lifetime. For tens of millions of Americans who haven't followed the campaign up to this point, but have been subject to a tsunami of attack ads trying to frame Romney, it was a first chance to take their own measure of the man. Romney rose to the occasion.

Romney's performance was aggressive and respectful. His command of the facts was impressive. His performance was as good as Obama's was poor.

Now to be sure, Romney's performance was anything but a full throated defense of small government conservativism - it was Rockefeller Republicanism. But regardless, in this election, where the ghost of Rockefeller is facing off against the ghost of Marx, I'll take the former any time.

So how bad was Obama's performance? As Bill Maher tweeted: “i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter." And if you really, really wanted to revel in schadenfreude, you tuned into MSNBC for the post debate wrap-up, where the wailing and gnashing of teeth was deafening.

A couple of things were, I thought, high points of the evening. The first was when Obama repeated his talking point, that we shouldn't be giving "tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas." Romney's response - to paraphrase from memory: "Mr. President, I've been a business man for thirty years, and I have no idea what you are talking about." Obama's response . . . silence.

The second high point of the night was when Obama criticized the oil industry over its "tax breaks." Romney pointed out that those tax breaks, available to all companies as part of the tax code, amounted to about $2 billion a year. He then pointed out that Obama had given $90 billion in actual subsidies to the green energy industry, many of them Obama campaign donors and many of whom have gone belly up. Romney finished his thought by noting that Obama was even a failed crony capitalist - 'you don't pick winners and losers, you pick losers.'

Romney got across his points - and hit Obama repeatedly on his record. Obama for his part repeated the talking points from his inane attack ads - and on more than one case, completely refused to engage on his record. Lastly, there were several points in the debate, particularly during the comparison between Romneycare and Obamacare, when Romney seemed more like a HS teacher explaining something to a particularly dense student - and he managed to pull it off without seeming condescending. That was quite a trick. I must admit, while not a great supporter of Romney, he actually earned my vote last night.

Update: Here is Frank Luntz's focus group from last night - the one where a number of Obama voters go racist and say they now plan to vote for Romney. Enjoy.



Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Just What Does "Debate" Mean To The Warmies?

To justify his acts in fraudulently obtaining the Heartland Institute documents (for background, see here), warmie scientist Peter Gleick issued a mea culpa, stating in relevant part:

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

Oh really?

It turns out that on January 13, the Heartland Institute formally invited Peter Glieck to appear at their annual dinner to engage in . . .wait for it . . . a rational public debate over global warming. The offer came with all expenses paid plus a $5,000 donation to the charity of Glieck's choice. Glieck ultimately refused the invitation shortly before his act of fraud (well, fraud at least, and most likely forgery in addition). Climate Audit has all the details. If this doesn't spike the hypocrisy meter, nothing will.

And indeed, note that Glieck is accusing the innocent Heartland of doing what Glieck has actually done. Shameless bastard.

But Glieck is not alone in this. He is parroting the warmie line about the need for "rational public debate." The problem is that you don't get that from the warmies. What you get is evasion and dirty tricks on a grand scale in order to delegitimize contrary thought without having to debate. That was the whole gist of Climategate 1 and Climategate 2. What Glieck did was just take that refusal to the next slightly higher level of anti-science and hypocrisy.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

SC Debate 2.0

The two big moments of the debate belonged to Newt Gingrich. For a second time in two debates, Newt got a standing O. Tonight's was in response to the first question of the night, when the CNN moderator John King asked Newt to respond to his ex-wife's allegations that 14 years ago, he asked her to engage in an open marriage. It has got to be a candidate for the ultimate debate smackdown - perhaps now as pithy as "I knew Jack Kennedy, and you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy or as brilliantly humorous as "I will not hold my opponents youth and inexperience against him" - but equally as devastating.



The second big moment for Newt - probably in my eyes but few others' - was proof that he actually may know when to shut up. I don't have the video, but will post it when I can find it. The moderator asked Gingrich in essence to justify the charges in a recent mailing regarding Romney's weak kneed history on abortion. Gingrich did so, pointing out things that Romney had done that favored abortion after Romney's Paul of Tarsus moment on the issue. Romney responded in a huff, at which point the moderator went back to Gingrich for a counter rebuttal. Gingrich's response: "I cede my time to Governor Santorum." Heh. It was a pitch perfect moment, allowing Santorum to do all of the dirty work of really attacking Romney on the issue.

The candidates traded barbs all night, none of which I thought were too devestating. That said, the low point of the evening was yet another self inflicted wound by Romney, when he was heckled for trying to tap dance around why he didn't release his tax records in advance of the SC primary vote.



From Hot Air: "Exit quotation from Jonah Goldberg: “Romney can’t answer questions about his tax returns at all… He’s terrible at it and he needs to get better, quickly.”

The general feeling of the few sites I looked at was that Gingrich won the debate (here, here, here). We will see if SC agrees on Saturday.

I will say in conclusion that Newt was just ever so slightly off his game tonight, at least after the first question. In particular, he missed some real opportunities to make his case more forcefully. The one that struck me most was when Santorum accused Newt of grandiosity, implying that Newt would be too impractical to be President. Gingrich fended it off, but what he should have pointed out are that the problems facing the U.S. are themselves grand in stature today. Our regulatory bureaucracy - built up over 100 years - has become an anti-democratic nightmare that threatens the whole economy.  It needs to be reformed completely.  Our debt is about to choke us and the welfare state is going to bankrupt our country in the foreseeable future. Obamacare, Obama's war on energy, and the fact that the left has the keys to the courthouse on all environmental issues threaten the very foundation of our nation. The Arab Spring is turning into a nightmare throughout the Middle East, and there is Iran, playing the role of Germany circa 1937. Small solutions that move the bar just a bit are not going to solve these problems. But alas, Gingrich only alluded to that. It was one of several missed opportunities.

Read More...

Summary only...

Liveblogging the Fox Iowa Republican Debate

What a change from the ABC debate debacle, at least at the outset. This apparently will not be another moderator arranged circular firing squad.

Question - address the concerns raised about you and explain why you can beat Obama.

 Gingrich - "Electability" at this point is a red herring - citing to Reagan's win against Carter when he was 30% down in the polls a year out. As to the Romney "crazy" criticism, Gingrich goes over his many "conservative" accomplishments while Speaker. As to whether he lacks discipline - he strives for "very large changes." And he takes it to Obama. Good Answer.

 Romney - A non-answer to the question of whether he can be as effective as Gingrich in debating Obama. He simply claims that his business background gives him more gravitas when talking about jobs.

Paul - Claims that "we can all beat Obama." He also notes that he concerns himself with policies the others don't, such as monetary policy. Good answer.

 Santorum - I am the most conservative - gives no examples.

 Bachman - Claims that she can attract independents, despite being a doctrinaire conservative, by pointing to her elections in Minnesota.

 Perry - Cavuto asks him to address the fact that his debating skills have left many feeling that he is not up to the challenge. Perry says he's gotten much better and compares himself to Tim Tebow.

 Huntsman - claims that he is not a moderate, but a "consistent conservative." He is claiming to fix the country's "trust deficit" with government and Wall St.

 ------------------------------------------

 Question - What do you do to effect that gridlock playing out in Congress today.

Gingrich - Leadership and reaching across the aisle is the key - citing to what he accomplished in the Clinton administration.

Romney - Leadership and reaching across the aisle is the key - citing to what he accomplished as the Mass governor and with Staples.

Paul - Half the Congress wants warfare, the other half wants welfare. He would split the difference. It is a crazy answer.

Santorum - Somehow learned of the need for bipartisanship during a campaign.

Bachman - She would dictate the left what she is going to do. It is an incredibly weak answer.

Huntsman - People need to be told where you can take them and then deliver it. Not really an answer to the question.

 ------------------------------------------

 Question - The DC Culture

 Romney - Respond to Gingrich's criticism that he should give back the money he earned at Bain capital because he bankrupted businesses. Great answer - he created a lot of jobs. Failure is a part of capitalism and compared his stewardship to Obama's stewardship of GM. Very effective.

Gingrich - Respond to his own statement from 2007 on the Freddie Mac website that he "likes GSE's." He says that there are a lot of GSE's that do good work, and that he has long supported home ownership.

Bachman - Invited to criticize Gingrich for "lobbying for Fannie and Freddie." She demagogues the fact that Gingrich took a check from Freddie Mac. Has no evidence other than he took a Freddie Mac paycheck.  Bachman moves down a small notch in my estimation every time I listen to her. Claims that Politifact supports her. Politifact has apparently issued a denial over twitter.

 -------------------------------------------

Question - Gingrich's criticism of Paul Ryan's medicare plan was that of "right wing social engineering." How does he feel now that Ryan has changed his plan?

Gingrich - Good answer - we need to have the American people on board or it will feel like social engineering. The change to the Ryan plan is a good one. He also compliments Romney for his similar plan.

-------------------------------------------

Question - Huntsman how do you respond to China's pushing a 22% tariff on US Sports Utility Vehicles.

Huntsman - we need China to adopt American values and democracy. Only China and the U.S. will matter in the 21st century.  He does not explain how he will get China to adopt our values beyond inviting the Chinese, one at a time, to visit him in his office.

-------------------------------------------

 Question: What future areas will drive jobs in the US

 Romney - great answer. The markets decide. Cites to Solyandra and other Obama on crony capitalism. -

------------------------------------------

 Question - Would Newt abolish courts or impeach judges if they do not like the court rulings.

Gingrich - He gives a great answer - that the Courts have gone far beyond their mandate on Constitutional issues. The only thing he didn't say - the Constitution tells us two ways to amend the Constitution, neither of which involves fiat by the Supreme Court. As a historian, he understands this better than lawyers. He is 100% right. Big applause for his answers.

 Bachman - agrees

 Paul - thinks it is too dangerous to take on the courts.

 Romney - says he had to nominate conservative democrats for the bench in Mass. or they would not have been acceptable.

 -------------------------------------------

 Question - Paul, why are you to the left of Obama on Iran.

 Paul: There is no evidence that Iran is creating a nuclear weapon. IAEA apparently doesn't count. Iran has every reason to get a nuclear weapon. We don't need any more war - as if Iran does not get a say in that. Question: What about if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Paul gives a non-answer. Just used diplomacy to convince them not to close the straits.  This was Fox giving Paul a chance to push his self-destruct button, repeatedly.

Santorum: Fully understands the problem of Iran's theocracy. MADD won't work with Iran. We need to have a preemptive strike if Iran does not open up its nuclear sites to full inspection.

Bachman: Iran is extending its influence through Iraq and it is a huge concern. Paul is a dangerous nutter. heh. Good answer.

Romney: Gets a real softball question. Is Obama too timid with Iran over the drone? Wow. First ridiculous question.

Paul: No need to have defense beyond our borders.

 -------------------------------------------

 Question: Gingrich is critical of UN. Why?

 Gingrich: The UN is a snakepit. The degree of obfuscation on the Israel is intolerable. We need to change it or seriously reduce our contributions. There is no peace process with Palestinians rocketing Israel monthly. How would we react if it was happening to us. Biggest applause of the night. 

Bachman: Agrees.

 ------------------------------------------ Question - Keystone Pipeline

Gingrich - Trying to choose words that won't appear "crazy." Heh. The President's handling of this is horrid. Republicans need to attach it to every bill being sent to the President until he signs it. Big applause lines.

Huntsman - Wants to get us off imported oil. Wants to disrupt the domestic "oil monopoly." Hmmmmm. Then brings up natural gas. That part I agree with.

 Bachman - Obama's response to the BP spill hurt our economy more than the spill. Obama is holding up Keystone solely for his reelection effort.

 ------------------------------------------ 

Question - Immigration

 Romney - Is his plan realistic of having illegals register and return to country of origin. He claims so. Sites to Gingrich plan to have employers immediately check status of employees.

 Gingrich - Says in passing that he disagrees with Romney on the area of what to do with people here a very long time. He does go on to withholding funds from sanctuary cities, end law suits against Arizona, Ala. and Utah. Big applause lines.

 -------------------------------------------

 Question - The Romney Roast - whether his many changes of policy are heartfelt or pragmatic.

 Romney - Claims to have been a conservative at all times.  Hmmmmmmmm. 

Santorum - Romney sided with the Mass. courts over the Mass. Constitution in ordering gay marriage. An interesting fact I hadn't heard before.

 --------------------------------------------

 Question - On When Life Begins

 Bachman - Newt is a babykiller.

 Newt - Take a look at the facts, don't create them. Think Bachman is about to explode. 

--------------------------------------------- 

Quick scorecard:

Juan Williams and Krauthammer - Newt had the big answers

 Moderators - Bachman and Perry helped themselves.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Enemy Of Speech & Debate

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

-- George Washington

The modern progressive movement is intellectually bankrupt. Natural statists, they desire to rule by edict rather than have to debate and convince. It is why they so often resort to the race card to end debate. It is why they inevitably seek to demonize their opponents rather than face them in the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, this aspect of the left is so pervaisive and so deeply ingrained that it one of their defining characteristics.

Andrew Klavin, writing at City Journal, makes some cogent observations along these lines:

. . . [E]verywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on.

Take the e-mails that the Daily Caller obtained from the now-defunct lefty Web service Journolist. Never mind the personal or psychological implications of a radio producer who lovingly imagines Rush Limbaugh’s death or a law professor who doesn’t know that the FCC has no power to deprive Fox News of a license or a reporter who wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor. The point is not these people’s animus or ignorance or wickedness. The point is that what they desired was not victory in open debate but silence — the silence of censorship, intimidation, or the grave.

When has Rush Limbaugh ever wished a liberal’s mouth closed forever? Really, who can deny that Rush would happily argue a point with absolutely anyone anywhere? When has Fox News ever done anything to its rival cable stations but trounce them in a free competition for ratings? When has Fred Barnes ever tried to bully or intimidate someone into shutting up? . . .

Freedom of speech and the market place of ideas are anethema to our modern left.

Read More...

Summary only...

Remember Their Words

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have an article in the USA Today headlined, misleadingly, "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate." As odious as these two individuals are, and as "un-American" as I think that they actually are, they still make one very valid point in their thousand words of otherwise excreta:

[I]t is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included . . . protesters [who] shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." [emphasis added]

Remember their words. Burn them into your skull. The complete shut down of opposing speech has been a favored and common tactic of the far left for years. Go to Frontpage Magazine and you can find examples of conservative speech shut down daily in campuses across America. Read through the news of the last decade and you will find it replete with examples of conservative speech shut down by the left in political venues. And the past six months of Obama government have been one example after another of circumventing Congressional debate, a tactic in which both Pelosi and Hoyer have been complicit.

I concur strongly with that one, very narrow point made by Pelosi and Hoyer in their otherwise disingenuous piece. Opposing views should be allowed to be aired and drowning them out is "un-American." The fact that Pelosi and Hoyer are making that point is the height of hypocrisy, but it does not make it any less legitimate. And their words should now be quoted against the left at every venue where it is appropriate.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Final Debate

The last debate was the best in terms of format. McCain's performance was very strong. But in a year when the well has been poisoned against Republicans, in part by their actions, in large part by their inability to communicate, and in large part by an MSM thoroughly biased to the left, and with the economy tanking, was it enough?

Last night was McCain's best performance by far. His likening Obama's economic plans to Herbert Hoover, the man who led us into the Great Depression, and McCain's discussion of the Colombia free trade agreement were just a few of the high points of the evening for McCain. The low point of the evening for McCain, I thought, was in answer to the first question, when he began to expound on the economic crisis by citing to "Wall St. greed." The problem's we face are not founded on Wall St. They are founded on Clinton and the left's intervention into the mortgage market beginning two decades ago. They are founded on ACORN and other people - Obama included - who fought to degrade lending standards rather than seek color blind equality in lending. Wall St. is an important player in this collapse, but in the scheme of things, they are a bit player in what happened. McCain's failure to explain that last night was, perhaps, a fatal error.

Thankfully, it only got better then there for McCain. And on Obama's side, we were treated to falsehoods about abortion, Ayers and ACORN. Unfortunately, with a media in the tank , Obama could spin whatever fantasies he wanted up there, and by the time news of it breaks beyond the shield wall the MSM have created for Obama, the election will be long over.

At any rate, the long and short, I am feeling very pessimistic about this one. I think the chances of McCain winning the election are fading because popular perception is that Democrats are better for the economy. The problem is that, if that was ever, at any time true, that perception does not comport with today's reality. The people in charge on the left are not left of center democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are both on the far left end of the scale, a place where Adam Smith is not welcome. I think McCain made a last good effort, though I do not think it enough. I hope that I am wrong. If not, we will soon see America remade.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain-Obama Debate 2 - A Town Hall Travesty

The second McCain-Obama debate is in the books. The format, faux town hall, was horrid. The questions varied from reasonable to mindless - why do we need to know who either one of these two would appoint as Treasury Secretary? The time allotted for answers was ridiculously short with no follow-ups. This all worked in favor of Obama who is sitting on a lead in the polls and a commonly held belief among far too many Americans that the tanking economy is the fault of George Bush and Republicans.

This was by far the worst debate I can recall every watching. McCain needed to be aggressive and to attack on the economy. He did that within the limits of the debate format. Unfortunately, the debate format was so limiting, I doubt whether he was able to impact many people at all. My notes from the debate:

- Finally, McCain goes on the attack over Fannie and Freddie. That was good, but he needs to extend out that attack and repeat it every day between now and the election.

- Obama is referring to a letter written in 2006 when he supposedly warned of the subprime crisis and the need to take action against Fannie Mae. I want to see that letter. It doesn't appear on his website. Obama is a political coward who does not go against the grain of his party - all of whom were in strong support of Fannie Mae and their mission to purchase subprime mortgages at the time. Bottom line, I am not taking the One at his word on this one. Show me the letter. Release it to the public. McCain should have demanded this at the debate.

- McCain is going to buy up all distressed mortgages. My initial reaction is to recoil in horror. I will have to sleep on whether it actually makes some fiscal sense given that, one, it was government intervention in the market place that got us here in the first place, and two, McCain is selling it as a way to stabilize markets. I have more than a little doubt.

- McCain hit on a point I have been thinking about for a few days. How similar Obama's plans sound to Herbert Hoover's when he found himself facing a down economy.

- Conbama Law 101 - The right of the people to health care shall not be infringed. If we are staring disaster in the face in the long run from the growth of medicaid, what is going to happen when we extend health care to the nation as a whole as a fundamental right?

- Obama is going to add a trillion in spending while cutting the budget and reducing taxes. That will no doubt come after he walks on water and feeds the nation with a loaf and a few fish. I wish he would name one program he intends to cut with that scalpel of his. Fannie Mae would be a start.

- The foreign policy questions were mostly a repeat of the same ones asked at the last debate, bringing out repeat responses.

- Why does McCain allow Obama to get away with saying he will end the war in Iraq? We've won the damn thing - Obama cannot ideologically admit to it.

- Did anyone else notice Obama's refusal to answer the question whether he would immediately rise to Israel's defense in the event of an attack by Iran. He spent two minutes trying to wind his way around the question without ever answering it. This guy really is dangerous.

- Overall, McCain needed a far more freewheeling debate format if he was to have any chance of turning things around. Tonight was just horrid. If the next debate is like this, say hello to Presidnt Obama.

Read More...

Summary only...

She's Back

The Palin-Biden Vice Presidential debate is in the history books. You can find the transcript here. My overall impression – Biden did well and did not hurt himself; Ifell did a reasonable job as moderator; Sarah Palin did very well. She had a grasp of most of the issues and got much stronger as the debate progressed. She was confident and she was Reaganesque in her ability to communicate with clarity and optimism. This was not the woman that I saw stumble with Katy Couric or assume the deer in the headlights position with Charlie Gibson.

Tonight was make it or break it for Gov. Palin. She made it. That said, her performance was not uniformly good. She was weak in response to the first few questions on the economy. She was strong in response to the foreign policy questions.

Some thoughts –

Biden - strong out of the gate, charging the last eight years with being the cause of today's economic crisis. Palin's answer to this was very poor. Like McCain last week, she wholly failed to rebut this charge.

Palin - her populism is fine, but the economic problem is much more systemic than simple greed and predatory lending. The subprime crisis is a systemic crisis created by Fannie Mae and CRA.

Biden - was telling tall tales indeed about Obama and the subprime crisis. While McCain, two years ago, was sponsoring legislation to reign in Fannie Mae, Obama was AWOL. He was at the bank cashing Fannie Mae campaign contribution checks. Palin just completely miffed the response to this.

Palin - missed the opportunity to talk about deregulation. Her answer should have been regulation is neutral. Over-regulate and you shrink the economy. Under-regulate and you bring the economy to the brink of crisis. That is the perfect lead in to the subprime crisis which McCain and Palin have to educate the public on if they are going to win.

Biden - his claim to have always supported clean coal technology is just ridiculous. He’s given several interviews were he has spoken against clean coal – during his presidential campaign and again as recently as two weeks ago.

Palin - her support for carbon emissions caps left me shivering.

Biden - nothing is more counterproductive than a windfall profits tax on oil. It would only further punish an energy sector and increase the cost of energy. That combined with Obama's embrace of high prices for gas would be a knife in the heart of our economy. Palin never supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska. That is a gross mischaracterization.

Palin - very strong in the Iraq argument, though she could have quoted Biden from 2005 when he was still saying that we had to win in Iraq because the cost of failure would be unimaginable.

Palin - she should have eaten Biden alive over his claim that McCain voted against funding the troops when he voted against a plan that would have legislated surrender. That was weak.

Palin - forgot the name of the leader of al Qaeda – though she didn’t get called on it.

Biden - pointed out that Ahmedinejad does not control the power in Iran. Palin did not know enough to respond that, while Supreme Guide Khamenei holds true power, his mouthpiece is Ahmedinejad. It would be naive bordering on ludicrous to believe that, in theocratic Iran, the policies of Ahmedinejad vary from those of the Supreme Guide.

Biden – Hezbollah has been driven out of Lebanon? To the contrary, they are a state within a state the likes of which Iran has been trying to establish in Iraq also. That was a potentially major gaffe, but Palin did not call him on it.

Palin – I am pretty sure that Palin got the name of the commander of the ISAF in Afghanistan wrong. Gen. McClellan hasn’t said anything about counterinsurgency since he was relieved of command by Lincoln. Gen. McKiernan, on the other hand, may well have said that the general principles of counterinsurgency strategy are applicable to Afghanistan.

Palin – allowed Biden to claim as a strength what he has done as the head of the Senate Judiciary committee. She really missed a perfect opportunity to discuss how its been Joe Biden, more than anyone else, who has turned judicial appointments into a partisan circus and to discuss Obama’s embrace of activist judges.

Biden – Article I of the Constitution pertains to the Executive Branch? Wow.

Best line of the night – Palin: “Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.”

Dick Morris, in the video below, gave this as a hands down win for Sarah Palin, making the comparison to Reagan in her ability to communicate. Its also fun to watch as Morris goes for the throat of Alan Combes.



(H/T Stop the ACLU)

According to a Frank Lunz focus group of undecided voters, Palin was the clear winner – to the extent that Luntz said there should be a significant movement in the polls over the next 48 hours.



Over at TPM Central, they note that a CBS snap poll of 473 undecided voters gave Biden a clear victory. Obviously, one of these two findings is incorrect. Polls over the next few days will tell us.

Protein Wisdom has posted a McCain camp response noting 14 half-truths or untruths uttered by Joe Biden tonight

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thoughts On The First Debate

The first debate is in the record books.

McCain appeared confident. Any questions about his age or his mental agility have been answered. He was aggressive without being overbearing, and he won the debate on foreign policy hands down. The difference in experience and knowledge on foreign policy issues was readily apparent.

That said, it is economic issues at the top of the list today, and Obama did better on the economic issues than McCain. McCain did poorly in response to several of the questions on the economic issues, and I am left wondering whether he was saving the attack on “regulation” and the cause of our current fiscal crisis until after a deal is reached in Congress on the bailout. At any rate, given the importance of economic issues today, it is no surprise that, according to a CBS poll, undecideds gave the night to Obama.

_______________________________________________________

Obama did well on some of the questions, and he won the economic portion of the debate on at least an emotional level. In a Fox News survey of undecided voters, the majority thought Obama won the night because he seemed to understand and connect more with "Main St." I suspect that perception was likely set in the opening statements, before the first question was even asked. Obama's statement was a consise itemization of his priorities to address the fiscal crisis. McCain's statement, was not focused on the economy. First impressions and emotions matter to a large swath of people - and at seems a lot of them are among the undecideds.

In substance, Obama was on the defensive much of the night. He attempted to interrupt McCain on several occasions and seemed on the edge of anger at least once. McCain got under his skin. And while I did not think that Obama repeatedly stating his agreement with McCain’s positions sounded bad during the debate itself, cut and spliced onto a Youtube video even before the end of the debate, it sounds pretty cutting.



The debate format was very good. Jim Lehrer did an excellent job as moderator.

My thoughts on some the specific questions and responses:

McCain did a very poor job of explaining why his economic policies would be better for “main street” than those of Obama.

Obama kept trying to tie McCain to Bush’s economic policies, but McCain fairly well neutralized that. And indeed, later in the debate, McCain tied Obama to Bush.

McCain allowed Obama to pin the current fiscal crisis on “eight years of bad economic policies” without any substantive rebuttal. This is an issue McCain could rebut and explain clearly in ten sentences or less – and it would be a devastating indictment of the socialist policies of the left as well as Sen. Obama’s inaction. That was the low point of the evening, and it occurred within the first minutes of the debate. If McCain repeats that in the next debate, I think he can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye. People are too upset about the economy, and if he lets them wrongly blame he or Republicans generally, he will lose a close election. Thankfully, McCain will get another bite at that apple in the next debate. I hope that his reticence in making a rebuttal this time around was in respect to the negotiations going on in Congress over the subprime rescue operation.

McCain’s comments on reigning in spending and earmarks were good. They will play to the base. But he has the base with him now. A lot of Middle America will be somewhat swayed by this, but again, McCain needs to do a better job of explaining why it is far more to their advantage than Obama’s plan to increase spending by $800 billion. That is a massive chunk out of our economy that Obama plans to take from the private sector and turn it into public sector spending. That will do nothing to create wealth or grow the size of the pie for all Americans. It will merely result in greater shared misery.

The real high points for McCain on the economics issue came when he talked about a spending freeze and specific measures to cut wasteful spending, such as an end to ethanol subsidies. Obama would not name a single program that he would cut or freeze.

On foreign policy, McCain looked far more knowledgeable and confident than Obama. Obama committed no major gaffes, but the gravitas and experience gaps here were very visibly a canyon. McCain was speaking from experience, Obama was speaking from cue cards.

McCain was the aggressor and sounded much wiser on the answers to questions about Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. He let Obama get away with the tired and false meme that our standing in the world has deteriorated over the past eight years because of Bush policies. McCain should have mentioned that, today, there are more pro-American leaders of foreign nations than there were eight years ago. The only people who do not like us today were the same people in Europe who did not like us 8 years ago or 18 years ago.

There were a few minor gaffes by Obama, only one of which McCain pounced on. Obama claimed his policy to meet without preconditions with the heads of enemy states was supported by Kissinger. McCain told him that was wrong and, subsequent to the debate, Kissinger called the media supporting McCain. The other was Obama’s bizzare assertion on Georgia that McCain was not given an opportunity to respond to:

. . . back in April, I warned the administration that you had Russian peacekeepers in Georgian territory. That made no sense whatsoever.

And what we needed to do was replace them with international peacekeepers and a special envoy to resolve the crisis before it boiled over.

Does Obama know that Russian peacekeepers were there – and had been there for years - per agreement between Russia and Georgia? He's acting like he just found out some secret information. And what makes Obama believe that “international peacekeepers” would have stopped the Russian invasion?

McCain’s response to the 9-11 question was, I thought, very good. I must admit I had forgotten that he was one of the legislators who had taken on the administration to get the 9-11 Commission set up.

My favorite line of the night – McCain comparing the stubbornness of Obama in refusing to acknowledge the success of the surge to the stubbornness of the Bush administration in refusing to acknowledge the need for it. Let's not have another four years of McBama.

Most memorable lines of the night both came from McCain –

“Reform, prosperity, and peace, these are major challenges to the United States of America. I don't think I need any on-the-job training. I'm ready to go at it right now”

and

“I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.”

Most other blogs had a similar take:

Confederate Yankee

Hot Air

Jules Crittenden

Michelle Malkin

Tiger Hawk

Voldka Pundit

Jennifer Rubin at PJM

CNN had their debate report card.

Much more at Memorandum.

You can find the full transcript of the debate here.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Debate Is On

Fox News is announcing that John McCain will attend tonight's debate. More details to follow.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Townhall By The One

Friday was supposed to be a debate between McCain and Obama on national security and foreign policy. As of this writing, no deal has been reached on the fiscal crisis. It appears now fairly certain McCain will not attend the debate.

If Obama's campaign spokesman has not spoken inartfully (always a distinct possibility), then the One intends to show up and use this as a nationally televised town hall style campaign event in McCain's absence. Allahpundit, looking at the polls, thinks this would be a coup for Obama and a bad move by McCain. It is, I think, a huge risk by both Obama and McCain if Obama goes solo Friday.

Obama's argument justifying going forward on this debate is that Presidents must be able to do more than one thing at a time. Obama's demand that this debate go forward on Friday is undercut by the fact that he refused to the mass of townhall debates McCain had offered. And indeed, Obama's multitasking argument is wholly undercut by his failure to take a week off the campaign trail in the last two years to convene his European Affairs subcommittee and discuss with our European Allies the huge problem caused by NATO's failure to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

There seems little doubt that Obama is bound and determined to push for this debate on foreign policy now because, one, he sees a chance for additional partisan gain in the timing and, two, he sees problems if it gets pushed off. As to the former, Obama is weakest on national security. A debate held on the issue now would be greatly overshadowed by the crisis. As to the latter, Obama, who cynically withdrew from public funding for the general election, has to raise tons of money in October. If this is kicked into October, it will have more of an impact on Obama's ability to campaign and raise money than it will on McCain.

I think Obama would look incredibly foolish appearing for an hour and half in a solo town hall format. Regardless of any benefit, the question would be raised why is he doing this rather than being with McCain working on the fiscal crisis that threatens this nation with depression. I have no doubt the MSM will have the One's back on this and spin it to his favor. I think it clear though that a large part of America no longer trusts in the MSM spin and are making up their own minds. If Obama chooses to go through with this plan and refuses to reset the foreign policy debate, he is taking extreme risk that it will backfire upon him in the polls.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain The Chessmaster

John McCain, dropping in the polls, makes another bold move. He responds to the call Monday from Sen. Harry Reid to get involved in the issue of the rescue operation for our economy. He cancels campaigning, goes to Washington to take part in the negotiations on the operation, invites Obama to do the same, and announces he will not take part in Friday's foreign policy debate if the rescue operation has not been nailed down. My own take - a chess move that is both risky and brings a reasonable potential of high reward. Patterico worries that this was a mistake. I disagree.

I have no way of knowing how much of McCain's decision is cold political calculus and how much is "country first," but I would suspect it is both. This move does several things for McCain. One, it gives McCain the aura of being decisive and serious about this economic crisis, making Obama, who I believe has yet to take a position on the rescue plan, appear yet again indecisive by comparison. In a game of one-upsmanship, McCain just did a slam dunk. Bush has since invited Obama to take part in the negotiations and Obama has accepted.

Powerline thinks it is a mistake for McCain to pull out of the Friday debate. I disagree. While this crisis is ongoing, the crisis would grossly overshadow the Friday debate which is on McCain's greatest strength, foreign policy and national security. McCain's action gives him a viable reason for pulling the plug on this debate right now and rescheduling it.

I do not see how Obama could realistically justify refusing to reschedule this debate, but then again, given that Obama has the full backing of the MSM, we have to wait and see. I can see Obama refusing to reschedule and the MSM doing their best to support him. If that were to succeed, it would be a net negative for McCain. But given that Obama has argued that the debate should go on in the face of the greatest fiscal crisis since the depression because a President should be able to multitask, as I post below, McCain has a counter-argument that ought to really sting Obama.

This move also halts Obama's momentum. McCain was taking a bath in the polls as this economic crisis grabbed ever more attention. Regardless of reality, public perception is that the left are better stewards on economic issues. Obama has gained on the economic crisis while McCain has been flailing in response, still not yet responding effectively. This move stops the Obama camp in their tracks from attacking McCain on economic issues while McCain is in Washington. To do otherwise would reflect very poorly on Obama.

And this is one of those rare events where even the far left is - and should be - deathly afraid of playing their usual political games. They are very clearly the root cause of the subprime crisis and they are desperately trying to hide it. If the public sees them as putting the screws to this one and risking a depression for partisan gain, the Democratic party will become not but a historical footnote. So in other words, regardless of how much they want McCain to lose this election, the hand they normally use to stab people in the back with for partisan gain is tied as tight as it will ever be at the moment.

The danger to McCain is that he is unable to rally the right and Republicans get tabbed as being the roadblock to a solution. That would end the campaign here and now. And one can rarely count on our existing group of Congressional Republicans to act with any sort of sanity. That said, while McCain may drive Republicans wild, and while conservative opinion may be against the Treasury plan, I see no other alternative with a hope of passing. If McCain is smart, he will go into negotiations with a requirement that the plan coincide with a reduction in capital gains taxes to preserve people's savings during the hard times ahead. This will make him a conservative hero of sorts and ought to have great appeal to all Americans.

All of this said, when these negotiations are over, it is an absolute necessity that McCain and Republicans tell the tale of how this subprime crisis came to be. McCain clearly does not like attacking his fellow Senators. In this instance, it is his duty to America that this be spelled out from start to finish. Anyone who believes that the left is better trusted with our economy than even the existing sorry group of Republicans in office has bought into a fairy tale - only in this one, Hansel and Gretel get eaten by the Democratic witch.

Lastly, if you have not followed the naked political manuevering of the incredibly inept Harry Reid, inviting and then disinviting McCain, do read up on it at Hot Air. This guy doesn't have the skills or principles be a high school class president, let alone majority leader of the Senate.

Many more links related to all of this at Memorandum.

Other posts related to Subprime Crisis (from oldest to newest):

McCain, The Fannie and Freddie Crisis, and Obamafuscation - Obama and the entire Democratic Party are trying to blame Republicans for the subprime crisis. But this crisis was created by Bill Clinton and protected against Republican efforts to reign it in over a decade – until it failed, nearly pulling out entire economic system into a depression.

A Washington Post Front Page Hack Job - The Washington Post does a hit job on McCain, grossly distorting his record on regulatory matters and ignoring his cosponsoring of legislation to establish much stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Dodging a Depression - The NYT and WSJ document just how serious is the subprime crisis. Quite literally it brought us to the point of a complete and catastrophic stoppage of our financial systems as institutions lost confidence in their fellow institutions. This was not a stock market crash, it was a lending and credit crash. The WSJ describes the events of the week leading up to the crisis point.

Obama & The "Family" Of Fannie Mae - Documenting Obama’s relationship to Fannie Mae.

The Origins – And Foreseeability – Of the Subprime Crisis - A 1999 article in the NYT describes the Clinton Administration forcing subprime loans onto America and also forecasts that this will create a house of cards that will fall apart in a down market.

Covering The Left’s Fannie - The NYT tries to play up old ties of a McCain campaign worker with Fannie Mae while minimizing the fact that McCain himself, in 2005, co-sponsored legislation that may well have prevented the fiscal crisis we are in now.

The Left’s Subprime Meltdown - A post by the Anchoress discusses this subprime crisis as a creation of the left and a system that was protected to the end by the left. She adds additional sites, quotes and links to explain the mosaic.

Fannie & Freddie, McCain & Obama, Subprime & Wall St.
The WSJ discusses both how the subprime loan market came about and how Democrats, including Obama, were both the cause of the problem and the roadblock to a solution that would have averted this catastrophe. Dafydd at Big Lizard's explains how Mortgage Backed Securities worked on Wall Street.

A Doddering Fool & Charlatan - Chris Dodd is up to his ears in the subprime crisis. With our economy teetering on an actual depression due to the Fannie/Freddie/subprime loan crisis, it was not merely surreal to watch Senator Chris Dodd chair an emergency hearing of the Senate Banking Committee to evaluate the Treasury's proposed rescue plan, it was obscene.

Finally – Oversight - The FBI has finally announced criminal investigations at Fannie and Freddie.

When Will They File As A 527 – The NYT continues its wholly biased reporting on the subprime crisis, refusing to report on the genesis of the crisis and instead, reporting on the relationship between Fannie Mae and Rick Davis of McCain’s campaign team.

Read More...

Summary only...

Palindemonium

Naming Gov. Sarah Palin as the V.P. pick was a masterstroke by McCain. It has energized his base and opened up a multi-level trap for the left that they are powerless to avoid. Her resume is sufficiently thin that the left cannot resist attacking her on grounds of experience – drawing a very unfavorable comparison to Obama who has based his candidacy on the propositoin that experience doesn't matter. Two, character assassination and misogynistic attacks just are not going to work against this woman. In fact, it will very likely backfire. But precisely because of who she is and what she represents, the left is just powerless to stop themselves from going down that road.

A panic choice for VP? That is the first knock on Gov. Palin from the left in an effort to delegitimize her. But all indications are that Gov. Palin was anything but a panic pick. For one, at this point in the game, McCain is far ahead in the polls of where he could expect to be in historical terms. There was no reason to panic. But beyond that, it is coming out now that McCain had Gov. Palin at the top of his list for months because of her character and background. As the LA Times said today

It is easy to see why McCain was drawn to her; their political resumes have much in common. The 44-year-old Republican has sold herself as a political maverick willing to buck her party over principle, an ethics reformer who quit a lucrative job rather than play ball with the old boys' network and a pragmatist who will reach across the aisle to get her agenda enacted. Like McCain, she has at times been a black sheep in her own party. . . .

According to WaPo, McCain was taken by Palin from the first time he heard her speak in February at a Governor's Association meeting. He saw her as a "kindered spirit" from the start. As Newsweek calls her in a surprisingly flattering article, she is McCain's Mrs. Right.

And given her conservative credentials, she has energized the base like no other pick could have. Gov. Palin hits all the social conservative hot buttons, including that she is herself an evangelical. Add to that her strengths on the Second Amendment, her fiscal conservativism and her incredible political bravery in standing on ethics issues, and Evangelicals along with the rest of the base couldn't be more excited. Even Hillbilly Whitetrash, as committed against McCain as any conservative could be, is now going to be pulling the lever for the PALIN-McCain ticket. Donations to the McCain campaign have skyrocketed. McCain and Palin just drew record crowds – Obama numbers – to their campaign stop in Missouri.

The meme that Governor Palin was a panic pick – or even that she was an affirmative action pick – just cannot survive on the above facts. Clearly, her plumbing is secondary to her appeal to the base, regardless that said plumbing happens to likely be an asset in the current race.

And that, really, is why the far left just will not be able to help themselves in going after Gov. Palin with all sorts of ad hominem attacks doomed to backfire. Gov. Palin is a woman. As such, she is a victim and is expected to embrace her victimhood. But Gov. Palin doesn’t fit that bill. I dare say you are not likely to see tears coming from her during a campaign stop. You’ve seen the left attack others like her who have refused to embrace their victimhood. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell – all are classed as victims by the left but all failed to embrace their victimhood. Thus all have regularly been savaged by the far left. The far left can’t help themselves on this. (Update: The Daily Standard perfectly captures this is in the NOW reaction to Gov. Palin. She may be a woman, but she is not acting the victim and thus is to be fought against and denigrated)

Outside of an election, it does not matter so much. But in this case, the nation is watching and waiting to pull the levers in a referendum in November.

Thus you have most on the left doing all they can to denigrate Palin. Andrea Mitchell, appearing on NBC the other day, called Palin "Annie Oakley" and said that she would only appeal to the undeducated among Hillary voters. Then there are the attacks on Palin for her competence as a mother. This bizarre argument is predicated on her decision to fly back to Alaska to give birth after her water broke.

The Kos kids have been pushing the rather incredible rumor that Gov. Palin's son Trig, her four month old child with Downs Syndrome, is actually her grandson. That one goes beyond bizarre. Rightwing Nuthouse addresses this one in some detail, and Ann Althouse comments today

Stop prying into other people's vaginas, even if you happen to oppose them politically. What is wrong with you people?" The insane obsession with Sarah Palin's pregnancy rages on. This will all go down in the annals of feminism, people. So think before you write. Andrew? [AND.]

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Protein Wisdom has an entire round-up of all the ad hominem attacks on Palin. They run the gambit from incredible snobbery to charges of witchcraft and labels of trailer trash. And there is the half true but completely false rumor that Palin is a convicted felon. Ben Smith has the whole story on that one. At any rate, the floodgates have been opened. The far left are powerless. And if the other 90% of America – those not in the MSM, not members of Kos, or not drawing Soros paychecks – end up liking this incredible woman, then the blowback will be severe.

But that is just one level of the trap posed by Gov. Palin. While I would argue her experience is sufficient to be named Vice President, there is room there for argument. But there is a rule of thumb – you don’t attack an enemy - even a potentially weak one - when you’re weaker than they are. That just has not dawned on the left yet. They see weakness and they are going to go for the kill – not realizing that crossing that field is as suicidal as Pickett’s charge.

But charge they will – and thus the argument that Gov. Palin is too inexperienced to be VP is now front and center. You have to love all the irony in this question put to Obama in a 60 Minutes interview Sunday:

Does the fact that he chose as his Vice President someone who has less experience than you take that weapon out of his arsenal?

Wow. Think of just how that question is going to play when it is asked everyday between now and November. Pushing the inexperience meme against Palin in relation to Obama is a minefield of titanic proportions for the left. As McCain has noted, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden together, and she was serving in elected office when Obama was "still a community organizer." But far more importantly, that is an apples to oranges comparison. The real comparison is McCain to Obama. Obama has gotten this far on the argument that experience does not matter. If all of a sudden it does matter, Obama’s huge problems just grew exponentially.

The one thing I’ve been moderately concerned about is the ethics complaint made against Gov. Palin by a man she fired for cause, former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. I could not see McCain tapping Palin for V.P. without thoroughly investigating this and satisfying himself that this a charge with no validity. That said, I've been waiting for someone to explain the whole story. Joshuapundit has performed that service for us. You can read about it as his site, but it appears that, while there are a lot of moving parts to the story, none of them splash mud onto Gov. Palin.

All of this said, Gov. Palin is going to sink or swim over the next two months. She has her work cut out for her because, given that few really know her and given the short decision time, she has precious little room for mistakes. She needs to live up to her resume and she needs to show enough grasp of the issues to make people comfortable with her. That is very much borne out by a Frank Lunze focus group you can find at Hot Air. Probably never before has so much ridden on two months of campaigning and one VP debate.

But it does now. For the next two months, its going to be pure Palindemonium.

Read More...

Summary only...

Doubling Down On Defeat & A Pattern Of Avoidance

Doug Ross has a superb retrospective on how our Dems have embraced defeat at all costs. After detailing their perfidy, he characterizes their actions:

They were wrong. They were unbelievably partisan, putting their interests before those of the United States and the safety of its military.

No party has been more wrong, more often, on serious issues of national import than the Democratic party since 1864.

Read the entire post.

Plus there is not only an embrace of defeat, but a refusal to defend it - at least from our would-be Messiah-in-Chief. Gateway Pundit notes that Obama met with Maliki but DID NOT raise the issue of his sixteen month timetable during the meeting - apparently wanting to avoid any fall out that might require Obama to publicly discuss "refining" his plans. To put this in context, Obama also deliberately avoided raising his sixteen month timetable when he had the opportunity to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in April. He went AWOL from a town hall meeting before military families where the issue of Iraq and his embrace of defeat was almost sure to be raised - rather pointedly. And he is staying as far away as possible from any debates with McCain that are not both truncated and moderated by MSM synocophants. There is a pattern here.

What does one take from all of this. My take is that Obama is one cowardly SOB without the courage of his convictions to be able to defend his positions in any sort of pointed debate.

Read More...

Summary only...