John McCain: 2008 Archives

As a pivotal election nears in Israel (on February 10th), the Middle East's leading political analyst Caroline Glick is concerned that the leader of the Israeli conservative Likud Party is making the same mistakes John McCain made in the U.S. presidential election. Her core conviction:

As we saw in the U.S. presidential election and in the current Israeli Knesset campaign, by moving to the left, right-leaning candidates demoralize their base. And far from convincing swing voters to support them, they make swing voters feel comfortable supporting their opponents.

And this:

By incorrectly identifying the object of both Republican dissatisfaction and swing-voter concerns, McCain demoralized his base and convinced undecided voters it was okay to support Obama. Indeed, it was McCain's anti-Republican campaign more than Obama's change campaign that brought a majority of voters to Obama. As polling data indicates, Obama did not move many Republican voters to his side.

Read it all.

How Conservatives Lose Elections

By: Caroline B. Glick

Wednesday, December 24 2008

It would seem that in recent years conservative candidates in both Israel and the U.S. have forgotten how to win an election.

A John McCain story.

Monday's Christian Science Monitor carried this argument for the election of John McCain composed b two of the brilliant lawyers who write for Power Line. We couldn't agree with it more. This is no time to gamble on a smooth-talking, inexperienced narcissist who wants to remake America in his image. We need John McCain to protect and defend the America we love.

A closing argument for John McCain

His mettle has been tested; he's ready to lead.

By John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson

from the November 3, 2008 edition

Minneapolis - Speaking in Seattle to campaign contributors behind closed doors earlier this month, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden all but endorsed John McCain for president.

"Mark my words," Senator Biden warned the assembled supporters. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden continued, citing the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you – not financially to help him – we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Recalling that Senator Obama selected Biden as his running mate because of his purported foreign-policy expertise, one might think that more attention would be paid to the obvious import of Biden's words.

Not surprisingly, Biden made no mention of the world testing the mettle of Senator McCain if he were to take office (although he did later, lamely seeking to dismiss the meaning of his words). And for good reason. McCain's mettle has already been tested – proved under conditions beyond the imagining of most Americans. If it is possible to give something beyond the last full measure of devotion to our country, McCain has.

We think that the country would be best served by calling on McCain for one last mission – as president.

The financial crisis in which we now find ourselves poses an economic challenge to American well-being unlike any we have faced since the Great Depression. Before it materialized, Obama supported substantial tax increases through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the highest income-earners (of shifting definition). Now that America faces a recession, Obama still supports counterproductive tax increases – on capital gains, the most productive workers, and successful small businesses – that are guaranteed to throw additional sand into the wheels of the economy.

When Obama explained to Joe the Plumber that he believed in "spread[ing] the wealth around," he meant it. He doesn't seem to have much respect for the income and wealth of those who have earned it. He seems to believe it the job of government to redistribute to those trailing "behind" Joe.

If he wins, Obama will take the oath of office, in which he'll swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet the record shows that Obama isn't particularly fond of the Constitution. In a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio, Obama noted that the Warren Court had "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." Obama asserted that the Constitution "reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." Obama seemed to think the Constitution deficient, because it provided only a guarantee of negative liberties – what the government can't do to citizens – rather than a positive right to welfare. The Founding Fathers would be shocked by Obama's attitude toward this cornerstone of American principles.

McCain is a more traditional figure. He advocates lower taxes on earned income and shared prosperity through economic growth rather than the redistribution of wealth. He supports the mutual economic advantage to be found in free trade, particularly with friends and allies such as Canada and Colombia, as well as the preservation of the secret ballot in union elections, a strong defense, and victory in war.

In short, Biden suggests that Obama would invite the kind of crises JFK faced when Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev tested him in the Cuban missile crisis, in Berlin, and in Vietnam. And he should know.

McCain, however, also harks back to JFK – the JFK who represented a generation "tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage – and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson are Minneapolis attorneys and contributors to the blog Power Line.

Vote for our fine Republican candidates.
God Bless America.
We are pround to be Americans.

McCain/Palin for President/Vice President
Jeff Beatty for U.S. Senate
Be sure to blank the vote for Congress or write in an opponent to the Democrat incumbent Delahunt, the self-described "close friend" of the Venezuela enemy of America Hugo Chavez. Delahunt is in our Hall of Shame for expressing delight at a congressional hearing that an intelligence professional had been forced to testify so al Qaeda could see what he looked like.
Don Howell for State Representative in the Fourth Barnstable District
Anastasia Walsh Perrino for Barnstable Registrar of Probate, running against a retiring Democratic legislator looking for a political job closer to home.
For Barnstable County Commission, vote Barros and Crowell into the two open slots.

Democratic policies promoting mortgage loans to those who couldn't afford them created the housing boom and bubble and its collapse that was at the heart of the worldwide financial panic that has cost American savers hundreds of billions of dollars of losses in their life savings. There was a chance to head off disaster in 2005 and 2006 but Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid and supported by Barack Obama and other Senate Democrats blocked the Republican bill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Democrats led by Pelosi and Barney Frank backed them up. The Democrats who pushed such policies deserve to be rejected. They sought to "spread the wealth" and instead impoverished tens of millions.

However, the most important decision on November 4th is electing our Commander-in-chief.

These are dangerous times, it is a dangerous world. Many don't want to think about it, but Islamic radicals are waging a world war against Western Civilzation targeting first and foremost the United States. Battlefronts are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Lebanon, Israel, Nigeria, across all of Western Europe and in the United States, Canada and Australia. In some places it's active warfare, in others, terrorism, in others, subversion of our values and way of life to replace them with Islamic law. And Russia and China are building military strength while Iran seeks nuclear warheads for its long-range missiles.

Only John McCain is qualified and fit for the job of Commander-in-Chief. 69% of our military polled agree. McCain loves America and will do his utmost to protect it. Obama finds it difficult to say a good word about America. He constantly disparages America, it's bad and it needs to be changed.

Not only is Obama unqualified, he denies the importance of these threats, has pledged to slash our military to help fund new welfare programs and seems to believe appeasement and a weakened military will bring us peace in our time, just as Neville Chamberlain did in 1939. What prize would he offer up to Iran as Chamberlain offered (and gave) the Sudetenland to Hitler? No wonder Israelis polled prefer McCain by a wide margin.

Mark Steyn looks at the choice for president and sees this:

An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

Would it really be that bad? Professor Thomas Sowell warns that an Obama election would represent a "point of no return," would be "transformative, in Mark Steyn's view. Mark Steyn elaborates on our historical context:

The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation — the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within. (Note: Exactly the point made by us earlier: "Having abandoned bombing as counterproductive, Ayers concentrated on early childhood education as the way to subvert the American system from within.")

All three liberal waves have transformed American expectations of the state. The spirit of the age is: Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it. Why can’t the government sort out my health care? Why can’t they pick up my mortgage?

Steyn concludes:

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

October 25, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Point of No Return
Will we vote for the same soothing siren song as our enervated allies?

By Mark Steyn, syndicated columnist, in the National Review

Across the electric wires, the hum is ceaseless: Give it up, loser. Don’t go down with the ship when it’s swept away by the Obama tsunami. According to newspaper reports, polls show that most people believe newspaper reports claiming that most people believe polls showing that most people have read newspaper reports agreeing that polls show he’s going to win.

In the words of Publishers’ Clearing House, he may already have won! The battleground states have all turned blue, the reddest of red states are rapidly purpling. Don’t you know, little fool? You never can win. Use your mentality, wake up to reality. Why be the last right-wing pundit to sign up with Small-Government Conservatives For The Liberal Supermajority? We still need pages for the coronation, and there’s a pair of velvet knickerbockers with your name on it.

Read the rest...

The Middle East's most perceptive observer Caroline Glick looks at an Obama presidency from the point of view of an American and an Israeli and shudders.

Some main points:

In speaking as he did, Biden essentially acknowledged three things. First, he recognized that Obama projects an image of weakness and naiveté internationally that invites America's adversaries to challenge him.

Second, by stating that if Obama is tested a crisis will ensue, Biden made clear that Obama will fail the tests he is handed as a newly inaugurated president. After all, when an able leader is tested, he acts wisely and secures his nation's interests while averting a crisis.

Finally, Biden made clear that Obama's failure will be widely noted, and hence, "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

IN LIGHT of Biden's dire warning about his running-mate, the central question that Americans ought to be asking themselves is whether or not Biden is correct. Is it true that Obama projects a posture of weakness and incompetence internationally and is it likely that this posture reflects reality?

Unfortunately, it appears that Biden knows exactly what he is talking about.

Obama has called for slashing the US military budget, cutting back the US's anti-missile programs and scaling back drastically the US nuclear arsenal. That is, although Obama has claimed that he will never take the option of the use of force off the table, by refusing to strengthen the US military which he perceives as weak, he is making certain that the US military option is ineffectual.

Iran will likely be the first US adversary to test Obama. And Obama will have no idea what to do. While Obama has stated repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is a "game-changer," Obama's own rule book for international relations has no relevance for dealing with Iran's game.

Obama views international relations as a creature of American will. If America is nice to others, they will be nice to America. But the fact of the matter is that regimes like Iran hate the US regardless of how it behaves. The only question with strategic relevance for Washington is whether the Iranians also fear the US. And Obama has given them no reason to fear him. To the contrary, he has given them reason to believe that under his leadership, the mullahs can defeat America.

AMERICA STANDS to elect its new president in times of nearly unprecedented dangers. Iran is on the threshold of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Bush administration, North Korea now feels free to vastly expand its nuclear proliferation activities. Oil rich states like Venezuela, Russia and Iran recognize that with global oil prices decreasing, now is the time to strike before they are impoverished. And the international economic turmoil will cause Western nations to recoil from international confrontations and so embolden rogue states to attack their interests.

Is Obama the man for this job? Clearly not.

Read the entire article, which includes comparisons to Israel's situation and the hugely increased existential risk and danger to Israel from an Obama presidency.

Testing Obama's mettle

Oct. 24, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

In a week and a half, American voters will elect the next US president. Their decision will impact the entire world.

Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama now enjoys a significant lead in the polls against Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. For McCain to win, a lot of Obama supporters will need to reassess their choice for president. This week, Obama's running-mate Senator Joseph Biden gave Obama supporters a good reason to change their minds.

Joe Biden was picked by Obama as his vice presidential running mate because he knew foreign affairs. So what's Biden's view of the dangerous world we live in today? He told us.

Lloyd Marcus is a black conservative touring the country with a pro-McCain/Paln organization called Our Country Deserves Better. His words are worth reading.

I’m Lloyd Marcus, a black conservative who is determined to fight for a bright future for America. I’m urging you to stand with me in rejecting the candidacy of Barack Obama. It saddens me to listen to Obama speak about America – he seems to always be speaking about all that he sees wrong with America.

Barack Obama doesn’t appreciate the value of hard work and self-determination. He shamefully urges Americans to view themselves as “victims” instead of celebrating the fact that in our great nation you can achieve great things – if you have the passion to dream, and the commitment and determination to strive for excellence.

Obama doesn’t understand the selfless service and sacrifice that our military men and women make on a daily basis to keep our nation safe and free. When our troops achieved great success with “The Surge” in Iraq, Obama refused to acknowledge the success, and then begrudgingly conceded things might have improved, but gave the credit to Sunni clerics.

Why would Barack Obama stand there at a campaign event and look down with his hands at his side while the national anthem was played and his Democratic challengers had their hands on their heart? Why would Obama make a point of not wearing an American flag lapel pin after 9/11? Why would his wife say she spent most of her adult life not proud of her country? Friends, how can we put America’s future in the hands of a man who doesn’t seem to understand the greatness of America? We don’t need a “citizen of the world” to lead us at a time of economic challenges and threats from foreign foes - we need a great leader who will champion the goodness of America, the greatest nation in the history of all mankind.

Lloyd is a singer/songwriter and he redid the lyrics of Sarah Smiles.

American servicemen and women prefer McCain to Obama in a landslide, 68% to 23%.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Read it all.

Joe Biden incredibly -- except the Senate's number one dunce keeps doing this, so how can it be incredible? -- predicts with 100% certainty that President Barack Obama will be tested within his first six months in a "manufactured crisis" to see how he responds and seems to suggest that Obama will flunk that test. If that what VP nominee Biden thinks, that's a firm recommendation of why McCain should be president.

Sarah Palin felt she should discuss this strange statement.

The text:

Two weeks from today, Americans will be asked to cast their vote for the next president of the United States. There’s no time to wait. Let’s get right to it.

Did you hear what Senator Biden said at a fundraiser on Sunday? He guaranteed that if Barack Obama is elected, we’ll face an international crisis within the first six months of their administration. He told Democrat donors to mark his words – that there were “at least four or five scenarios” that would place our country at risk in an Obama administration. Thanks for the warning, Joe!

He didn’t specify what all those four or five scenarios will be, but for clues, let’s review the Obama foreign policy agenda.

Our opponent wants to sit down with the world’s worst dictators. With no preconditions, he proposes to meet with a regime in Teheran that vows to “wipe Israel off the map.” Let’s call that crisis scenario number one.

Senator Obama has also advocated sending our U.S. military into Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism. We’ll call that scenario number two.

He opposed the surge strategy that has finally brought victory in Iraq within sight. He’s voted to cut off funding for our troops, leaving our young men and women at grave risk. He wants to pull out, leaving some 25 million Iraqis at the mercy of Iranian-supported Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq. By his own admission, this could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. Crisis scenario number three.

After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine next. That would be crisis scenario number four.

But I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden’s next speaking engagement. Let’s call that crisis scenario number five.

The real problem is that these warnings from Joe Biden are similar to his earlier assessment of Barack Obama. It wasn’t so long ago that he said Barack Obama wasn’t up to the job, and that, quote, “the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

The same Joe Biden said he would be honored to run on the ticket with John McCain because, quote, “the country would be better off.” And here we have some common ground. I want a president who spent 22 years in uniform defending our country. I want a president who isn’t afraid to use the word “victory” when he talks about the wars we are fighting. I want a president who’s ready on Day One. I want a president with the experience and the judgment and the wisdom to meet the next international crisis – or better yet to avoid it. I want John McCain as our commander-in-chief.

As Democrats aided by the media have been doing all they could to blame eight years of the Bush Administration for the financial panic now circling the globe, it was Congressional Democrats who allowed the housing bubble to get out of control, leading to the inevitable collapse that was so big it has shaken the entire financial system.

It started with local agitators across the country demanding banks make loans they never should have to people who couldn't afford them. In the forefront was ACORN, the national socialist organization, terrorizing and intimidating banks, bank and public officials into loosening lending standards. The ACORN chapter in Chicago was one of the national leaders in blackmailing banks; their people were trained in their intimidation tactics by none other than Barack Obama.

Then Democrats in Congress urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up all these risky loans that banks were more than happy to get rid of; they didn't want to make them in the first place. Then Fannie and Freddie had Wall Street package the loans and sell them around the world. With the assumed guaranty of the U.S. government behind the securities of these public sponsored agencies everyone bought relying on the credit of the U.S.

Efforts to slow down and stop the incredible expansion of subprime loans made possible by Fannie and Freddie (from 2% of total loans in 2002 to 30% in 2006) were blocked by Democrats in Congress led by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. John McCan was urging reform; Obama was not. Instead, Obama in just his very short time in the Senate became the second biggest recipient over 20 years of Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions (second only to Senator Dodd).

As a result of the Democrats' "do good' socialism, taxpayers will wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars. Investors have already lost hundreds of billions of dollars and it could get worse if the bailout doesn't succeed. Warren Buffet thinks the $700 billion bailout may not be enough to stave off recession or worse.

Before the bailout bill to rescue the financial system from Democratic excess passed, Fox News presented an excellent short summary of how it all came about.

So put the blame where it belongs -- on Obama-type Marxist socialism pushed along by Democrats in Congress.

This McCain ad was out before the presidential debate was over (which McCain won hands down):

Today's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is another look into how the financial crisis the world is now experiencing could have been averted or at least have been much more limited in scope and far less damaging.

Key paragraphs:

The strategy of [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the "arrangement" with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing." The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent. [Unable to muster enough Democratic votes for a filibuster-proof majority, the Republicans failed in their effort to get the bill out of the Senate.]

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

Barney Frank from Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was of critical importance in urging Fannie and Freddie into deeper and deeper risk filled waters. The two senators from Massachusetts Kerry and Kennedy were among those Democrats (including Barack Obama, number 2 on the Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions list) who failed to help the reform legislation pass the Senate and move to the House for possible favorable action and enactment.

OPINION SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess

By CHARLES W. CALOMIRIS and PETER J. WALLISON

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

Two different articles appeared over the weekend about how and why the current world financial crisis came about. We touched on this subject several days ago as well, dealing not only with the financial crisis but the self-imposed oil shortfall that is driving up prices of gasoline and heating oil and everything else for average Americans.)

It's simple: It all started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and loose lending standards to promote home ownership among those who realistically couldn't afford it.

In 2004 and 2005 a major effort backed by President Bush began in the Senate to rein in the two super government sponsored agencies. A reform bill, S. 190, co-sponsored by three senators, including Senator McCain, appeared to be gaining momentum, but then was blocked by Democrats in both the Senate and the House. If that bill had become law, the terrible consequences being experienced today would not have happened.

McCain/Palin bumper stickers are in such demand the printers are backlogged. While Jeff Beatty stickers are available, not everyone has access to them, but we have them here, too.

For those who would like something now, we have three offerings for McCain Palin and one for Jeff Beatty. These aren't "stickers" obviously, but they can go on the back ledge of a car or in a window or wherever.

What to do: There are three choices for the two big McCain Palin ones. They are actual size about eight inches or less long. It would be best to use photo paper, but regular paper can be used, too, but won't look as good.

Right cliick on either of them.

You will see a number of choices:

1. Print picture. Left click on that one and the print option comes up and just print as usual. (Hint: For "Country First," if you choose landscape when printing, the bumper sticker is longer.)
2. "Save target as" allows you to download the "sticker" to your desktop or to whatever folder you select. You can then print it out as many times as you want and you have it for future use.
3. Email. Left click on that option and you can email the picture to yourself and friends. The attachment can be printed when it arrives and saved to a folder for future use.

For the third McCain Palin "sticker" and the one Beatty, both shown small, there is one extra step to take first: Left click on it and a full-size bumper sticker will appear. Follow the steps as for the others.

On to victory.

What a mess.

Oil and gasoline prices are sky high because world oil supply growth is stagnating. The U.S., once the largest producer in the world, is seeing its mature fields fade and its oil reserves decline.

Suddenly, the U.S. financial markets are in free fall. Retirement savings in 401(k)s are vanishing. House values are collapsing. The world worries that the entire financial system will freeze up.

How did this all happen?

Democratic policies are responsible for both crises we face.

Oil blackmail. For decades Democratic Members of Congress, beholden to their extremist environmental backers, have prevented drilling for oil and gas offshore and in the most promising areas of Alaska. Since only recently has technology been developed to extract oil economically from Rocky Mountains shale, that was not included in the annual renewal of the drilling ban, so Colorado Democratic senator Salazar had a separate moratorium slapped on that.

The U.S. has within its land mass and its territorial waters enough untapped oil to make the U.S. totally independent of hostile and unstable oil producers overseas. Yet Democratic policies have made us vulnerable to supply imbalances that drive up oil and gasoline prices to levels the public cannot afford.

When it's finally obvious to all that it's imperative for national energy security as well as fair treatment of the public to drill now, the Democrats still say no, then say, well, maybe as part of a comprehensive plan and then produce sham bills that can't pass and are sure to be vetoed if somehow they get through Congress.

McCain/Palin are for doing all that is possible to increase our energy supplies starting with drilling for oil and gas in an environmentally responsible manner and developing all of the alternative energy sources that make economic sense. But make no mistake about it: Oil will be vital for a long time. Its use will not end in ten years, as Obama predicts. It will still power the world's ships and aircraft for many years to come.

The time to end the Democratic policy against developing our own resources is now.

Unaffordable housing. Democratic pressure to make home ownership available to those who really couldn't afford it built through the years, reaching a crescendo during the Clinton years. The two secondary mortgage market corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were universally considered as having 'implicit' federal guarantees and the debt they issued was rated high accordingly. Their job was to buy mortgage from originators, thus supplying them with fresh money to make new mortgages. More and more Fan and Freddie were pressured to buy loans that originated in subprime, often minority neighborhoods, when in the ordinary course local banks would shun such loans as too risky.

A study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 1992 suggested that banks were doing "redlining," refusing to make loans in tough, usually minority, neighborhoods. The usual charges of racism and discrimination followed and Fannie and Freddie said they would take such loans on their books. As standards loosened, more and more people bought houses that just a few years earlier they could not buy. Private mortgage buyers competing with Fannie and Freddie had to loosen standards even more to keep the quasi-federal Fannie and Freddie from "creeping" into their business.

President Bush expressed concern several times during his first and second terms and proposed new sweeping regulatory authority over the two agencies, backed by Senator McCain, but Democrats fought the proposals, armies of Fannie and Freddie lobbyists worked over Congress and the President's reform efforts went nowhere. The present chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank brushed off the proposed reforms as totally unnecessary as did the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd and after 2004 so did Barack Obama. Senator McCain was especially prescient in warning in 2005 of the dangers to housing and the economy Fannie and Freddie represented because of their huge size.

It is no surprise that the Dodd and Obama are among the top four recipients of Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions. The top four (John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are the other two) all received more than $100,000. Obama's money total was the most remarkable because he was number two after just a few months in the Senate, while the others had been collecting their loot over years. (Some have suggested that the least Obama can do is give back the $100,000 plus he received from Fannie/Freddie.)

Years of Democratic pressure to make loans easier to get resulted in the greatest homeownership in American history. But in 2006 the new building boom was not finding as many buyers and prices had run up so high for existing homes since everyone could now get a mortgage almost regardless of credit that existing home sales started to slow as well. Furthermore, the looser standards encouraged buyers "to reach," to buy a more expensive house than cash flow would support on a regular mortgage by getting an adjustable or interest only mortgage. As those mortgages started to reset, buyers found themselves unable to make the payments. Since house value increases were slowing, it was no longer possible to refinance with a bigger mortgage using the new money borrowed to pay the bigger mortgage payments.

So when housing slowed, then entered a serious dive it was only a matter of time before the ripples caught up with the secondary market mortgage buyers, from Countrywide Credit up to the biggest of all, Fannie and Freddie. Ironically and sadly, Richard Syron, who was CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston when it issued the "redlining" report that triggered the call for more "realistic, "affordable" and racially blind mortgage lending standards, was at the helm of Freddie when it collapsed and was taken over by the federal government.

The housing values domino was the first to fall, then mortgage defaults escalated and some tranches of mortgage-backed securities sold to buyers around the world fell to zero and world financial panic resulted. No one knew how big the bust was going to be or how long it would last. It's said by some it won't be over until housing values stabilize, which could be in 2009 or later.

This all started with well-meaning but financially disastrous Democratic policies to make it possible for more Americans to own homes. Money flowed into housing like never before from Fannie and Freddie and private mortgage lenders. But the music stopped and there aren't enough chairs to go around.

These crises are still unfolding. The U.S. has gone through difficult times before and has, with strong leadership, come out of them stronger than ever. Senator McCain has correctly said the fundamentals of the economy are strong and expressed optimism that this challenge will be met successfully. Obama, in contrast, said he sees a future America as poorer and meaner than today.

Democratic opposition to drilling and Democratic opposition to tighter lending standards for home mortgages and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have created these disasters. Yet Obama opposes comprehensive drilling and Obama's campaign advisors include former top officials of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who walked away with tens of millions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie money in severance payments even though they were authors of the failure that taxpayers will now have to pay for.

Reform is desperately needed in Washington, but will be difficult to achieve. McCain and Palin are two tough reformers who have bucked the system. Obama has reformed nothing. McCain and Palin can shake up Washington and will serve the taxpayers, not special interests.

The nation cannot afford a continuation of the disastrous Democratic policies that have already cost Americans billions and will in the end cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps even more.

Doesn't everyone now know this is the way it is? The media is panting to elect Obama and is doing all it can to destroy McCain and Palin. Joel Mowbray highlights how the New York Times, once the venerable paper of record and undisputed authority for truth and objectivity, has now become a propaganda outlet devoid of balance and fairness.

It's an incredible litany worth reading.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin shows that the Times is not alone, although it is leading the pack of jackals at the heels of McCain and Palin. Isn't the supposedly genial, affable and even-handed Charlie Gibson ashamed of his insulting and condescending interview of Governor Palin? Maybe that's it. There is no longer any professional pride in the mainstream media, so they no longer can feel shame. It's all about their power to sell their agenda, their candidates and to destroy anyone in their way. It's a war the media can't be allowed to win.

September 15, 2008

Into the Obama Tank for the Final Push
By Jennifer Rubin

John McCain believes he is in an existential war. America is engaged in a death struggle against Islamic terrorists.

But he is also fighting for his life: against a media establishment dedicated to his political destruction.

Any pretense of fairness by the mainstream media is gone. The MSNBC duo of anchor buffoons have been downgraded but not fired. The Washington Post runs dueling front page articles -- one a recycled tabloid-like piece (apologies to our tabloid friends who generally don't recycle old material) about Cindy McCain's past drug problems and one, made up out of whole cloth, that Sarah Palin's allegedly believes and told departing troops that Iraq was behind 9-11. Caught concocting the latter story, the Post tried a hasty edit on the piece (in the middle of the night, no less) -- a maneuver which bloggers quickly spotted.

We saw the oozing condescension of normally mild-mannered Charlie Gibson in his Palin interview. Assuring Palin he was using a direct quote (he was not) to accuse her of believing her son was on "task form God" and laying a gotcha trap on the Bush Doctrine (which has no single meaning), Gibson seemed himself to have a "task" -- to trip up a figure held in contempt by most of his colleagues.

Here's an interesting observation that was posted the day after this year's 9/11. When John McCain at a 9/11 forum at Columbia University spoke of his pride in American exceptionalism and how its men and women have shed blood for freedom in the world, his words were greeted with dead silence from the audience. Well, what does that mean? Blogger Dr. Sanity's blunt appraisal:

The dead silence at Columbia, one of the supposed "gems" of American academia bespeaks of a deadness of the soul that is truly pathetic.

To get the flavor of the situation, read this;

DEAD SILENCE AT COLUMBIA

I watched the [rather ridiculous, I thought] ServiceNation Presidential Forum at Columbia University last night and had the same reaction as a reader at The Corner at one point:

Did you notice how McCain received absolutely NO applause when he talked about how Americans have shed blood around the globe in defense of freedom and should be commended for that? I thought to myself — is there not an audience at this event? The camera panned back and did reveal an audience. What kind of people don't respond to such positive statements about the history of America?

Here is the portion in question:

WOODRUFF: Senator, I want to come back to something you said earlier, I think you used the word exceptional and unique about being an American. On this 9/11, this special day, what — help us understand what you think it means to be an American. And I don’t mean that in the obvious way.

I mean, people who live in Canada, who live in Mexico, around the world feel special about their country, so what is it that’s different about being in America? Are Americans better than people in some of these other countries? We hear the term “exceptionalism” about the United States.

MCCAIN: I do believe in American exceptionalism.

MCCAIN: And I think it was best articulated by our founding fathers. But I also think that my hero, Teddy Roosevelt, expressed it very well, and other leaders throughout our history.

We’re the only nation I know in the world that really is deeply concerned about adhering to the principle that all of us are created equal and endowed by our creators with certain rights. And those we have tried to bring to the world. And we have not so much militarily, but through example, through leadership, through economic assistance.

Look at what we did for Europe after World War II, look at the continuous efforts we make throughout the world. Look at the efforts we’re making to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. There’s a lot more America can do.

And I love these other countries, and I’m not trying to denigrate them. But I know of no other country in the world with the generosity of spirit and the concern for fellow human beings than the United States of America, and I think that goes back to our very beginnings.

WOODRUFF: Does that make America better than these other…?

MCCAIN: I think it makes us exceptional. I think it makes us exceptional in the kind of citizenry we have and the kind of service and sacrifice that we are capable of.

And I mean that in no disrespect to any other nation, our close and unique relationship with the British. I have — I’m not trying to in any way denigrate any other nation, but it doesn’t in any way diminish my pride in the history of this nation, which has literally shed our blood in all four corners of the earth many times in defense of someone else’s freedom and have tried to further the principles of freedom and democracy everywhere in the world. I think we’re dedicated to that proposition. And, frankly, I think we’ve done a pretty good job.

McCain's passionate statement about American exceptionalism (and Woodruff's sense of disbelief that anyone could possibly think America was better than any other country) evoked absolute dead silence from the Columbia crowd. I think John McCain was somewhat taken aback that there was no response to this.

I think this perfectly exemplifies what it has come down to in this country: a great number of Americans--mostly of the Democrat and brainwashed leftist persuasion--don't think America is anything special. They live in the freest, best off, most productive, most generous country on the globe, and they don't think that's anything special.

Instead of being proud of their own country, they feel shame. Instead of seeing America as a "shining light on the hill" they believe it exemplifies all that is evil in the world. "No, no, no! Not God bless Amerika! God Damn Amerika!" And you wonder why the Reverend Wright saga didn't take down the Obama campaign when far less incendiary comments have thoroughly destroyed previous presidential campaigns?

The dead silence at Columbia, one of the supposed "gems" of American academia bespeaks of a deadness of the soul that is truly pathetic.

Of the many comments, this one rang a bell:

I tuned in at exactly that point of the Q&A and was immediately disgusted by Woodruff's little drama - implying that America is not "better", then trying to trap McCain into saying that it was, thus creating a "gotcha" for all the widdle Progressives to perseverate incessantly about for the rest of their very sad lives. [Do these people remind anyone else of Dana Carvey's SNL Church Lady character?]

But McCain slam-dunked it right back down all their whiney throats, imo, with what I thought was a brilliant exposition of America's exceptional dream at work. He was so on fire that I was "speechless" myself for a few seconds.

The reality of Palin, especially vs Obama, already has these elitist infants nearly corralled within their playpens. It should be both interesting and gratifying to see what the America/self haters do if McCain keeps effectively slamming the reality of America as conceived and at work in the real world into their oso Progressive/Defeatist fantasyland bubble - as the rest of real America watches.

What do you think will work for the American economy?

Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful.

Texas, Florida and Arizona are right-to-work states, while Michigan, Ohio and Illinois are not. Michigan, Ohio and Illinois impose significantly higher minimum wages than Texas, Florida and Arizona. Yet with all the proclaimed benefits of unionism and higher minimum wages, Texas, Florida and Arizona workers saw their real income grow more than twice as fast as workers in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.

Obama will pattern the federal program after what has failed in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.

Here's the real killer example:

Incredibly, the business climate in Michigan is now so unfavorable that it has overwhelmed the considerable comparative advantage in auto production that Michigan spent a century building up. No one should let Michigan politicians blame their problems solely on the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.

Conclusion:

The states have already tested the McCain and Obama programs, and the results are clear. We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate.

The Financial Times reports (HT: Power Line):

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 THE PANIC SPREADS... ...to Capitol Hill: Democratic jitters about the US presidential race have spread to Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress are worried that Barack Obama’s faltering campaign could hurt their chances of re-election. ... “There is a growing sense of doom among Democrats I have spoken to . . . People are going crazy, telling the campaign ‘you’ve got to do something’.” The generic Congressional ballot is, indeed, getting closer. Likewise, the gap in party identification is narrowing. In general, the tide is flowing in the Republicans' direction. Of course, the Republicans are starting from a very bad point. Still, it appears that by November the Republican Party will be in better shape, broadly speaking, than has been the case for the last few years.

But what does a panicky Obama himself do?

He runs an ad mocking McCain for not being able to send an email.

Outrage immediately filled the internet. Jonah Goldberg pointed out that as far back as 2000, the Boston Globe reported on McCain's well known problem:

The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Instapundit has a round up of the many comments, one of which was this:

"It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief knows how to send an e-mail ...but not how to do a five-minute Google search." Or even how to hire someone who can . . . .

And another:

"I think they spent months trying to figure out how they can position Obama as better qualified than McCain, and basically came up with the fact that Obama can type."

John Hinderaker of Power Line had the most acid comments of all:

I've always thought that Barack Obama is unqualified for the office of President--he isn't qualified to be a Senator, either--but I've never thought he was particularly mean-spirited. Until now....

"I guess now we'll find out whether Barack Obama is capable of shame."

The British correspondent for the Times of London in the U.S. is home for a few days and is running into folks left and right who suddenly are startled, concerned and alarmed that The One, who they too adore, might lose the election to, well, a former beauty queen.

Baker tells them no, the real problem is the veneer is wearing off Obama and, despite the soaring rhetoric, promise of reform and bipartisanship, he's being revealed as what he has always been, a pol from the corrupt Chicago Democratic political machine, the most partisan Democrat in the Senate and a go-along guy when faced with a choice to back reform.

The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.

A specific example:

Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.

So what do you believe, the record or the rhetoric?

The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.

Gerard Baker's report appeared in The Times of London today, Friday, September 12th.

Barack Obama the speechmaker is being rumbled

There is a yawning gulf between what the Democratic candidate says and how he has acted. That's why the race is so close

Gerard Baker

It's funny how the harder you look at something, the harder it can be to understand it. I can't recall a US presidential election that has attracted more attention. But neither can there have been a time when the world has watched what goes on in America with the nonplussed, horrified incomprehension it has now.

Travelling in Britain this week, I've been asked repeatedly by close followers of US politics if it can really be true that Barack Obama might not win. Thoughtful people cannot get their head around the idea that Mr Obama, exciting new pilot of change, supported by Joseph Biden, experienced navigator of the swamplands of Washington politics, could possibly be defeated.

They look upon John McCain and Sarah Palin and see something out of hag-ridden history: the wizened old warrior, obsessed with finding enemies in every corner of the globe, marching in lockstep with the crackpot, mooseburger-chomping mother from the wilds of Alaska, rifle in one hand, Bible in the other, smiting caribou and conventional science as she goes.

Read it all.

Everyone is invited to the Chatham Wayside Inn Sunday afternoon, September 21, from 3 to 5, to hear and speak to representatives of John McCain and Sarah Palin and to the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate against John Kerry, Harwich's own Jeff Beatty.

Also attending will be Don Howell of Harwich, who is seeking to unseat Democrat Sarah Peake of Provincetown as State Representative from the Fourth Barnstable District.

Rounding out the field of candidates will be Brad Crowell and Ric Barros, who are contending for two seats on the Barnstable County Commission, and the Republican candidate for Register of Probate, who will be chosen in the September 16th primary, either Priscilla Young or Anastasia Walsh Perrino.

Bumper stickers, photos and buttons will be available. There will be food, music, a cash bar and a silent auction and a fun time for all.

We believe John McCain and Sarah Palin, both fearless fighters against corruption and special interests, are best able to clean up Congress, where both Biden and Obama, unfortunately, have been part of the problem. John McCain hates war, but knows that a strong defense is essential to keep us safe in these dangerous times of Russian adventurism and Islamic terror. Obama says he will slash our defense capabilities.

Jeff Beatty has a real chance to knock off John Kerry this November. Kerry's undistinguished 24 years in Washington have resulted in Kerry fatigue in Massachusetts. Jeff can't match Kerry's enormous wealth, but in courage, real experience, dedication and accomplishment -- and determination to fight for the people of Massachusetts, this former Army Delta Force Officer, former FBI agent,former CIA Counter-Terrorism Officer and small business owner comes out way ahead.

Don Howell has proven his worth serving his town of Harwich. Now he's ready to restore a sane voice for the people of the Fourth Barnstable District – one not beholden to any special interest -- to the State House.

Our county needs experienced, capable people who will value every taxpayer's dollar. Come hear why the Republican candidates for the county commission and the Office of Register of Probate are the ones on your side.

The Lower Cape Republican Roundup event is sponsored by the Lower Cape Republican Council (Don Howell, Chairman). Anyone may attend, but a special welcome will be out for voters in Chatham, Eastham, Harwich, Orleans, Provincetown, Truro and Wellfleet. Tickets are $30 each and can be obtained by calling Pat Klammer at 508-432-2963, Diane Bronsdon at 508-945-9218/945-3733 or Don Howell at 508-430-1672 or from a member of any of the Republican town committees or Howell headquarters at 14 Haskell Lane, Harwich.

Iranian exile Amir Tahiri takes the occasion of a joint visit by McCain and Obama to Ground Zero to contrast their views on the existential threat of Islam to the rest of the world. McCain calls it the "transcendent challenge" of our times. Obama doesn't see it.

WHEN all is said and done, this election may well have only one big issue: the existential threat that Islamist terrorism poses to America's safety. Since McCain and Obama offer radically different policies for facing that threat, American voters do have a real choice.

Tahiri's article:

THE LESSONS OF 9/11 By AMIR TAHERI in the New York Post

September 11, 2008 --
TODAY's joint visit to Ground Zero may give the impression that John McCain and Barack Obama share a common analysis of the causes of 9/11 and how to deal with its legacy. They don't.

The divide starts with the question: Why was America attacked?

McCain's answer is simple (or, as Obama might suggest, simplistic): The United States was attacked because a resurgent Islam has produced a radicalism that dreams of world conquest and sees America as the enemy.

In different shapes and sizes and under a range of labels, that radical streak of Islam has waged war on America since 1979, when Khomeinists seized the US embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

The killing of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983, the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and a host of other operations that claimed more American lives were episodes in a war - the reality of which the United States faced only after 9/11.

McCain doesn't hesitate to acknowledge that his country is engaged in a Global War on Terror. He doesn't believe that 9/11 might've been prompted by some wrong America did to others. To him, the nation was an innocent victim of "Islamic terrorism."

McCain asserts, "America faces a dedicated, focused and intelligent foe in the War on Terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities."

He'd pursue and fight these "enemies" wherever they are - including, especially, in Iraq. "If we run away," he says, "they are going to follow us home."

OBAMA, by contrast, doesn't use terms such as "the Global War on Terror" or "Islamic terrorism." Nor does he claim that America was simply an innocent victim.

In one speech, he used the image of a US helicopter flying over the poor countries in Africa and Asia, where it's seen as a symbol of oppression. He says his objective is to turn that helicopter into a symbol of American aid to the downtrodden.

For Obama, the threat comes not from terrorists but from "extremists" and their "program of hate." He never uses such terms as "jihadist," judging them hurtful to Muslims. He speaks of "violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims."

In one speech, he claimed that the Islamists aim only at "creating a repressive caliphate." He seemingly hasn't heard of jihadist movements whose declared aim is to destroy the United States in the name of Islam.

For McCain, the War on Terror is a "just war" in which Americans fight for their security and their allies'. Obama rejects the concept of "just war." He dismisses the Iraq war as both "unnecessary and unjust" - though the struggle in Afghanistan is "a necessary war."

ONE constant Obama theme is the claim that poverty and economic factors breed terrorism; this echoes the analysis of Jimmy Carter back in the '70s. Strengthening that impression is Obama's pick of Sen. Joseph Biden as running mate.

Read it all.

When news broke about Obam'a "lipstick on a pig" crack while campaigning, it didn’t necessarily mean Obama was taking a shot at Sarah Palin. However, Jake Tapper, reporting for ABC News thought so, since he said “some of them no doubt” thought Obama was alluding to Sarah Palin, obviously projecting his own reaction onto the crowd, which responded with laughter and applause.

As the controversy swirled and McCain took after Obama about the crack (and Tapper wrote another blog entry that of course Obama wasn’t doing that), it was only fair to go back and read the whole thing as reported by Tapper.

Here it is:

"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."
The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,'" Obama continued, "it's still gonna stink after eight years.”

Well, it immediately became clear that indeed Obama was calling Sarah a pig despite his denial, because, right after the dig at Sarah, he took a shot at McCain’s age, calling him “an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change, it’s still gonna stink after eight years.”

Apparently, Obama was pleased with his pig charge and decided to go after the "old fish." Too, too cute.

So the personal attack was actually a deliberate, double-barreled one: Palin is a pig (the ultimate Muslim insult) and McCain is an old fish that will still be stinking after eight years.

Well, at least he’s conceding that the "old fish" will be alive after eight years in the presidency.

Not nice.

Update: My, how disappointing to go back to Tapper's blog Thursday morning, September 11 to find that he had updated his entry to eliminate his own reading of the audience reaction where he said "some of them no doubt" thought Obama was referring to Palin, obviously putting his own reading onto the laughter and applause. Now Jake says,

The crowd rose and applauded, some of later telling reporters that they thought Obama had been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

Here Tapper is rewriting his own history, no longer revealing his reaction to the Obama line ("some of them no doubt" thought), but now saying that some later were "telling reporters." In other words, since he took the side of Obama in the denial when the controversy erupted, he had to cover what his reaction had been. The telltale evidence shows in the hasty editing: Note that there is an obvious extra word "of" that doesn't belong in the rewritten text. The original phrase had been "some of them" as seen in the original quoted first above. Tapper did note that his post had been updated, though he didn't say where. Tapper is thought to be a reputable reporter, but here he is jumping into the controversy as a player and rewriting his report to hide his own reaction to Obama's knock at Palin.

Not right.

McCain/Palin is out with a new ad emphasizing that they are "two mavericks" aiming to cut wasteful spending and expose the pork barrel politicians who feed on Washington goodies. (Obama is one of those, having steered taxpayer money to his wife's employer in Chicago.)

In this ad, the statement that Governor Palin killed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" is denounced by a hysterical Obama-man as a "lie." But as the estimable Power Line blog notes, even Alaska Democrats said so: 'Gov. Palin recently cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge near Ketchikan that would have connected the Alaska mainland with Gravina Island (population: 50)." Obama does have trouble dealing with the truth. As he admitted, even his two autobiographies were buffed up to make him look better. Can't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Now that the two national political conventions are history, an assessment is in order. Tracking polls are telling an interesting story: From before the Democratic convention to after the Republican convention there has been an 11-point shift in favor of McCain/Palin to put them up by three points.

Clark Judge provides an exceptional analysis on the Hugh Hewitt blog on why this is happening .

Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle (hardly a GOP mouthpiece) ran an op-ed by former city mayor and former Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown (hardly a GOP ally). His lead was, “The Democrats are in trouble.” Coming out of the McCain convention, he warned, “the Republicans are now on the offensive and Democrats are on the defensive. And we don’t do well on the defensive.”

But why?

...McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin – inspired though it was – could not in itself have turned the contest around so. After all, as we were told many times in the preceding weeks, the country picks presidents, not vice presidents. Instead, the time was right for the American people to take a second look at Senator McCain, and last week they did. This readiness to look again shouldn’t have come as the surprise that, for media and Democratic Party operatives, it was. Several weeks ago a poll surfaced that asked voters how much they knew and wanted to know about the candidates. A large proportion said that they knew all they needed to know about Senator Obama – not surprising given the saturation coverage of the prior few months. They wanted to hear more about John McCain. So of the five most telling statements from the podium during the week, four concerned and three were by McCain himself....

[A]s Senator McCain himself laid out his agenda, he began with an indictment of his own party in Congress. He said, we came to change Washington and Washington changed us. And he added, we lost the people’s trust. It was accurate and remarkably candid assessment of why the GOP lost both houses on 2006 – and established as the culprit the insider dealing and a self-dealing culture that afflicts both parties. In a moment, he seized for himself the post-partisan mantle from the increasingly partisan Senator Obama....

Finally, he told his personal story not as heroic but as sacramental – a confrontation through suffering with his sins. When, after that, he consecrated himself to his task and called on those who followed him to so as well – to do what’s right -- one felt a depth of personal commitment to restoring the honor of our democratic government as deep as that of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson to creating our democratic government.

Read it all.

William Safire was the token conservative on The New York Times opinion pages for years and it was a sad day when he retired. His successor David Brooks is such a pale imitation that the new editor of the opinion pages added Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard for once-a-week commentary.

However, for today, the Times asked Bill Safire to comment on the speeches at the two conventions. The most moving speech for the Democrats was Joe Biden's son tribute to his dad. Obama didn't live up to his Greek god temple settng.

He thought Joe Liberman was especially effective speaking directly to Democrats and indepdependents at home as to why in this time of increasing danger the battle-scarred man of judgment John McCain was the leader America needs. Safire noted that McCain has never been a very good orator, but what came through was "trust" in what he says and promises to do. As for Sarah Palin, Safire had this to say:

[T]he St. Paul convention was hit by Hurricane Sarah and her admirable family. The cliché is that — faced by part of a party long troubled by McCain’s different drumming — the governor of Alaska was able to “energize the base” of social conservatives. The more salient fact is that her skillful speech and joyful demeanor was even more impressive than Obama’s introduction to the Democratic Party four years ago. The establishment-shaking candidate was a happy warrior in the glare of major-league scrutiny. Most of the huge, uncommitted audience at home enjoyed this strong woman’s national audition.(emphasis added)

In a bipartisan aside, he warned the media that their ferocious attacks on McCain/Palin and "media adulation" of Obama would backfire. Public opinion of the media is now about as low as that of the Democratic Congress and polls show that substantial majorities know they are being treated like sheep and fed pro-Obama fodder by the mainstream media (led, of course, by The New York Times).

To read it all, click here.

John McCain had a hard act to follow coming after Sarah Palin. But he did a masterful job of expressing his commitment to serving America, fighting waste, earmarks and special interests while making sure America is safe.

His personal story of imprisonment and torture in Vietnam was told to a quiet, teary crowd. He confessed he had been broken by torture, but credited his cell mates with raising him from despondency to determination. It was in that Hanoi prison cell that he came to realize how much he loved America and dedicated his life to serving his country. All of this was delivered in a matter of fact manner, but his emotion broke forth as he called for all Americans to fight with him to make a great America even better than it is.

The audience responsed with a rising crescendo of yes, yes, we are with you, John and Sarah. We will stand up and fight with you for an even better America for our children and grandchildren. As you have, John McCain, we will put Country First.

It's pretty sad when you have to read a British newspaper (or the Jerusalem Post) to get a fair view of the McCain/Palin ticket. But Gerard Baker, the U.S.correspondent for the Times of London, thankfully continues his objective commentary about the campaign that is now entering its final phase. (Excerpts follow.)

So here's why she matters.

First of all she offers an opportunity for an ailing Republican party to reconnect with ordinary Americans. She's conservative, but her conservatism is not that of the intolerant, uncomprehending white male sort that has so hurt the party in recent years. She is much closer to a model of the lives of ordinary Americans - working mother, plainspoken everywoman juggling home and office - than any Republican leader in memory.

(June 30, 2008, with her youngest, Trig, food shopping.)

The contrast with Mr Obama is especially powerful. The very fact that Mrs Palin didn't go to elite schools but succeeded nonetheless - the very ordinariness with which she so piquantly jabbed Mr Obama on Wednesday - is what will make her so appealing to Americans. And as a pro-life conservative she debunks in one swoop the enduring myth that all women subscribe to the obligatory nostrums of radical feminism.

But there's more to it than that.

The opportunity for McCain-Palin is not reaction, but reform - a reform rooted in a distant conservatism that could be due for a comeback.

Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters.

This is an election, as the Democrats have realised all along, about an America on the cusp of change. With the moose-hunting, establishment-taunting Mrs Palin at his side, Mr McCain might represent a bigger change than the one that his opponents are offering.

More...

Rudy Giuliani was the keynote speaker of the Republican National Convention, but his excellent speech got overlooked in the excitement over Governor Palin's address. It's worth a look and a read.

The transcript is here.

The Middle East's most perceptive strategic analyst Caroline Glick wrote in the Jerusalem Post about the brilliance of John McCain in making a hard-eyed assessment of his own strengths and weaknesses and those of Barack Obama and in taking the bold action he did as a consequence. It's trite to say "Know thyself, know thy enemy," but too often that fundamental advice is forgotten or ignored.

What about Obama?

In Sen. Barack Obama, McCain faces a young, vigorous and charismatic opponent who has successfully energized his supporters and the powerful US liberal media establishment. Owing to that excitement, Obama has raised unprecedented amounts of campaign contributions. He has also rallied tens of thousands of loyal foot soldiers who have volunteered to serve his campaign. Both the donors and the volunteers are essential for winning voters and bringing them to the ballot boxes on November 4.

Obama's velvet tongue is also a formidable asset. His ability to mesmerize audiences with soaring rhetoric is compared favorably to president John F. Kennedy's eloquence.

Obama's other massive advantage is the liberal media. Since he first launched his primary campaign, the liberal media - which include the major US newspapers, television news networks and two out of three cable news networks - have been actively advocating on his behalf while downplaying his opponents.

But all of these formidable strengths are matched by countervailing vulnerabilities. While Obama's supporters are energized, the drawn-out primary election battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton splintered the Democratic Party base. Whereas most of Clinton's voters will no doubt vote for Obama in the general election, their support is more tenuous in swing states where Obama's cultural cache is less appealing.

And while Obama is a stunning speaker, his record of actual accomplishments is all but nonexistent. The combination of his extraordinary speeches and his ordinary empty resumé engenders a sense that Obama suffers from extreme arrogance.

Then, too, while the media has done its best to project a positive and credible image of Obama, his past political associations with radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres and corrupt influence peddler Tony Rezko call both his patriotism and his honesty into question.

So how did McCain see himself?

On the other hand, McCain has been unable to generate excitement in his party. His reputation as a maverick has often been earned at the expense of his political base, which is overwhelmingly socially conservative and suspects him of being a closet liberal. This has made fund-raising a challenge, and raised concerns that many conservatives will simply not vote on Election Day.

Moreover, McCain has never distinguished himself as a great communicator. His war wounds, which prevent him from raising his arms above his shoulders, make him appear even older than his 72 years. When compared to the vigorous, handsome 46-year-old Obama, McCain tends to look and sound like an old man.

This age and rhetorical distinction is only magnified by the disparity of media coverage of the two candidates' campaigns. The media have a pronounced and documented tendency to play up McCain's weaknesses and Obama's strengths while downplaying McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses.

What did McCain have to do?

IN LIGHT of these realities, McCain's strategic challenge has been on the one hand, to transform Obama's strengths into weaknesses while bringing Obama's actual weaknesses to the public's attention in a persuasive way. On the other hand, McCain needs to unify his own party around his candidacy without alienating independents and Democrats whose votes can be won.

In recent weeks, largely through the well-conceived, satirical use of television ads, McCain sought to meet these basic challenges. By comparing Obama's speech in Berlin to Moses's parting of the Red Sea, he playfully yet effectively drew attention to Obama's arrogance and called the credibility of his rhetorical skill into question. Other ads effectively brought Obama's slim record of actual achievements into view. Still other ads sought to attract disaffected Clinton voters by using her own primary campaign denunciations of Obama's record and radical associations.

Most importantly, in the lead-up to Palin's selection as his running mate, McCain has successfully provoked a public debate about the fairness of the media's support of Obama.

McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate, then, came after he had set the conditions for a strategic assault on Obama by successfully weakening him and discrediting his support base. The surprise entry of a young, accomplished woman with a compelling personal story who was all but unknown to the national audience, placed the Obama campaign and particularly his media supporters in a state of shock. And in their shocked reaction to her selection, the liberal media destroyed their own credibility - not to mention likability - among the general public.

The media instantly attacked -- inexperience, they shouted, thus highlighting the very meager accomplishments of Obama -- two books about himself.

She shouldn't be running because she has a special needs child. That blew up in their faces immediately.

Then they trumpeted the fact that Palin's unmarried daughter was pregnant and created a media circus that totally destroyed any illusion that the media was being fair in this election.

The unfair attacks instantly angered, energized and solidified the base, because, after all, Sarah Palin was one of them, and John McCain had shown, by picking her, he was, too, putting to rest any nagging doubts.

Far from a gamble, his move was a stroke of brilliance that showed an acute understanding of who Palin is, how he himself is perceived, and what motivates both the media and his own party base.

McCain's undoing of the elite, leftist media provides a universal lesson for contending with the Left. At base, the Left's ideology, whether relating to women's rights, human rights, academic inquiry or war and peace is not universal but tribal. Moreover, when the Left is challenged on any one of its signature issues, because it cannot actually make a case for the universal applicability or even logic of its views, it tends instead to embrace the politics of personal destruction while ignoring the obvious contradictions between its stated beliefs and actual behavior.

McCain has weakened Obama and exposed the hypocricy of the media.

Now McCain and Palin have to deliver. But McCain has shown outstanding judgment and leadership in positioning for victory when all seemed to be going against him.

McCain's strategic grasp of the requirements for a successful presidential race provide an important lesson for policy-makers and political leaders. To win in politics and war you must be willing to acknowledge both your strengths and your weaknesses, and those of your opponent. It is never easy to look reality in the face. But unless leaders are willing to do so, they will never win

Column One: John McCain - master strategist
Sep. 4, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

For those who may have missed it or want to read it now or download it, here is the text of Senator John McCain's speech accepting the mandate to shake up Washington and protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The video is courtesy of C-Span.

The morning after McCain promised he will win the election with a fellow maverick at his side, both determined to shake up Washington, Victor Davis Hanson observed that Palin Derangement Syndrome and overkill by the elites of the left may well make that happen.

When we consider. . .the latticed background of careers of successful contemporary female role-model politicians, such as a Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Mary Landrieu, or Hillary Clinton — or pundits like Sally Quinn, Eleanor Clift, Andrea Mitchell, Campbell Brown, Gail Collins (the list is depressingly endless, in which marriage or lineage provides either the necessary capital, contacts, or insider influence — or sometimes all three) — then surely, whatever one’s politics, there should be some concession that what outsider Palin has accomplished, given where she began, is nothing short of remarkable.

In short, Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman, who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking.

Instead this entire sorry episode of personal invective against, and jealousy toward, Sarah Palin is surreal. Given the rising backlash, Palin Derangement Syndrome may prove to be the one thing, fairly or not, that sinks Barack Obama.

Read it all.

Maverick John McCain made it clear in his speech to the Republican National Convention that he had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his VP because she was a maverick, too. She fought the establishment to root out corruption and waste, as McCain has done throughout his career. He said that together they will "shake up" Washington. To underscore that message, the campaign released a new ad.

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

Some of the comments after the Palin triumph:

John Hinderaker the Power Line blog quoted from an AP story:

"One speech does not a campaign make. ... Even as she spoke, airplanes in Alaska were unloading reporters and political operatives sent to pore through her personal and public life."

John notes:

It's interesting, isn't it? Where are the planeloads of "reporters and political operatives" poring through Barack Obama's "personal and public life?" Those poor newspapers and other media organizations have been strapped for resources for so long that they just haven't been able to look into Obama's career and associations. Now, thankfully, planeloads of reporters have become available. Maybe when they're done investigating Sarah Palin's daughter's boyfriend, do you think they will turn their attention to the Democrats' nominee for President of the United States?

That was just a rhetorical question, of course. After all, news organizations have to have priorities!

A reader's email to radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt:

I work in a small manufacturing facility in the greater Syracuse NY area. It is pretty darn "blue" around here, but kind of a "centrist dem, labor-oriented, working class value blue-collar blue". Not the "fever swamp truther, BushCo kind of blue". Anyway, to the point. No one EVER talks politics here, but the place is BUZZING with Palin fever. Everyone's talking about her, and the most often used phrase I hear is "finally, one of us!"

The left is in serious, serious trouble. I myself wasn't enthused about McCain, though my respect for the man's sacrifice alone gets my vote. But now I will be writing my first EVER check to any candidate. And I will gladly support the McCain/Palin ticket because she inspires me.

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

Some favorites from Sarah's speech:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

“What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to take more of your money…give you more orders from Washington…and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy… our opponent is against producing it.”

"With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers. To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both."

"But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate. This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."

"Some candidates use change to promote their careers. John McCain has used his career to promote change. "

My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain.

How did some of the Obama supporters take it?

At Talking Points Memo they are stunned:

Yet if you didn't sense last night how deeply Sarah Palin channeled some of the country's deepest, most powerful currents of pent-up indignation and yearning, you don't sense the trouble we Democrats are in.
Rhetorically, she was the anti-Obama,. She was stirring precisely because she was so artless, matter-of fact, and "American" — with no cadences or grand, historic resonances, but with plenty of mother wit and shrewdness. Credit her as much as the speechwriters.

In Canada, Andrew Coyne at Macleans isn't necessarily predisposed to liking Palin, but he admits he witnessed something very impressive, calling her "the best natural speechmaker since Reagan":

It was that good. No, she’s not qualified, and the substance was thin, but my God — that was perhaps the greatest bit of political theatre I have ever witnessed. Her critics in the media and in the opposition may regret having piled on quite so enthusiastically, and with so little heed for who they hurt — or angered. Watching the tumultuous, ecstatic reaction in the hall, I was reminded of the famous words of the Admiral Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Showing that some decency still flickers in the Democratic Party, law professor Susan Estrich, campaign manager of the failed Dukakis presidential bid, expressed outrage at the hatchet job Sally Quinn of the Washington Post and other elites, particularly feminist elites, were doing on Governor Palin. On the Greta van Susteren Fox News show, Estrich fumed:

I’ve never seen anything this bad in my life, and, Greta, I was with Geraldine Ferraro in ‘84 – and this is worse.... I don’t agree with Sarah Palin on the issues. I mean, she and I are very far apart, but I have never seen from some of my friends such vicious and mean-spirited attacks on her most personal choices, which is what they are. We ask that our choices be respected. Hers should be respected. And this questioning of whether she should as a mother of five be running for Vice President, I don’t recall anybody saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger shouldn’t run for governor of California because he’s got four kids. I think this is just really unfair, really sexist, and very likely to provoke a backlash.

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

Though US Magazine is trashing Sarah Palin in its cover article out tomorrow with a lurid cover caption "Babies, Lies & Scandals," their online readers seem to be rejecting the attempted brainwashing. (The owner of the magazine is a Obama supporter and contributor who has maxed out.)

Poll of US Magazine online readers

Sarah Palin entered history last night at the Republican National Convention with a stirring address that filled the auditorium with applause time and time again. Poised, witty, down-to-earth, Sarah told her all-American story and began the election contest in earnest. Unshaken by the liberal media's onslaught of lies and innuendo and the suggestion that a woman in her position couldn't do the job, she showed that she was ready to take on the elite naysayers. As one worried leftwinger noted, her performance was "alarmingly strong."

This is the full video of her address, thanks to C-Span.

Excitement! You want excitement? It was there last night when Sarah Palin showed she belonged on the big stage of American politics. A jubilant John McCain congratulated Palin for her stirring performance and asked the delegates, "Didn't we make the right choice?" and received a roar of approval.

In an article entitled "Palin's Home Run," The Wall Street Journal's John Fund said it well:

Sarah Palin electrified the hall, and from what I can tell from my e-mail inbox that excitement is being replicated in living rooms across the country.

If John McCain wins the presidency, he believes

one of the most enduring accomplishments of his term will have been what he did before it started: helping to fill the Republican Party's future talent bench with such a fresh and compelling figure.

The full report, with video.

Even the ever-sneering New York Times in its headline banner acknowledged the waves of excitement and welcoming approval that swept through the convention hall before, during and after Governor Palin's speech: "PALIN ASSAILS CRITICS AND ELECTRIFIES PARTY."

Delegates said they were enthralled by Ms. Palin. "I think she’s great; she’s giving it back to the Democrats for all the sorry things they’ve said about her and about America," said Anita Bargas, a delegate from Angleton, Tex. "She’s a conservative, and she has a great sense of humor."

ABC News quoted one delegate who made a telling point:

Oklahoma delegate Don Burdick was ecstatic after Palin's speech.

"I don't think anyone can deny that we saw a genuine person, she was great," Burdick told ABC News' Ron Claiborne.

While America still doesn't know who Barack Obama is because he is hidden behind the Daley machine's carefully crafted life story (and two Obama-written partly fictionalized autobiographies), Sarah Palin, who described herself as an "average hockey mom," is someone America can instantly relate to.

The text of Governor Sarah Palin's address to the Republican National Convention.

Just look at these covers of US magazine. Fair? Hah.

US Magazine is now owned by Jann Wenner, the founder of Rolling Stone . . . and a big-time donor to Barack Obama. In checking his contribution records to Obama, he seems to have maxed out. (It is not owned by Time Warner, as originally reported.)

The editor on Fox News this morning claims the article is really balanced, but Megan Kelly tore him apart on that; she had read it and went through several items to prove it wasn't.

But the major intended effect of the magazine was the cover. More people see US Magazine at the grocery checkout counter and it's the "Babies, Lies & Scandals" cover headline they knew millions would see who never read the article.

Disgusting.

The highlights of the evening were speeches by former Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Joe Lieberman. Just eight years ago Lieberman was the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, but last night he was urging Democrats and Independents to vote for America, not for a party, and to vote for McCain/Palin.

Lieberman in one reference contrasted McCain and Obama very well:

Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times.

In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.

Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget.

Click here for Lieberman's speech (video and transcript).

Click here for Fred Thompson's remarks (video and transcript).

Thompson made many fine observations, but this is an unanswerable one:

It’s pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves: ‘Who is this man?’ and ‘Can we trust this man with the presidency?’

The selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to run with John McCain has generated enormous enthusiam and expressions of support. In the first hours after the announcement more than $7 million of new contributions rolled in.

Jeff Beatty of Massachusetts, who more and more looks as if he will defeat John Kerry for the U.S. Senate on November 4th, has issued a strong message of approval for the selection of Governor Palin. Such a strong ticket as McCain/Palin can only help Beatty achieve his goal and our goal of seeing two-party representation of Massachusetts in Washington.

Enthusiasm to be effective has to be translated into action. Go to the upper right of this site and click through to both the McCain and Beatty sites and contribute whatever you can to help their campaigns. You'll feel good if you do and America will be the better for your participation.

Gerard Baker is the Washington correspondent for London's newspaper The Times. He has developed his own comparison of Obama and Palin as the liberal media try to rip Palin apart. His calm look is worth reading every word.

September 01, 2008
Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama
By Gerard Baker The Times, London

Democrats, between sniggers of derision and snorts of disgust, contend that Sarah Palin, John McCain's vice-presidential pick is ridiculously unqualified to be president.

It's a reasonable objection on its face except for this small objection: it surely needs to be weighed against the Democrats' claim that their own candidate for president is self-evidently ready to assume the role of most powerful person on the planet.

At first blush, here's what we know about the relative experience of the two candidates. Both are in their mid-forties and have held statewide elective office for less than four years. Both have admitted to taking illegal drugs in their youth.

So much for the similarities. How about the differences?

Political experience

Obama: Worked his way to the top by cultivating, pandering to and stroking the most powerful interest groups in the all-pervasive Chicago political machine, ensuring his views were aligned with the power brokers there.

Palin: Worked her way to the top by challenging, attacking and actively undermining the Republican party establishment in her native Alaska. She ran against incumbent Republicans as a candidate willing and able to clean the Augean Stables of her state's government.

Political Biography

Obama: A classic, if unusually talented, greasy-pole climber. Held a succession of jobs that constitute the standard route to the top in his party's internal politics: "community organizer", law professor, state senator.

Palin:A woman with a wide range of interests in a well-variegated life. Held a succession of jobs - sports journalist, commercial fisherwoman, state oil and gas commissioner, before entering local politics. A resume that suggests something other than burning political ambition from the cradle but rather the sort of experience that enables her to understand the concerns of most Americans..

Political history

Obama: Elected to statewide office only after a disastrous first run for a congressional seat and after his Republican opponent was exposed in a sexual scandal. Won seat eventually in contest against a candidate who didn't even live in the state.

Palin: Elected to statewide office by challenging a long-serving Republican incumbent governor despite intense opposition from the party.

Appeal

Obama: A very attractive speaker whose celebrity has been compared to that of Britney Spears and who sends thrills up Chris Matthews' leg

Palin: A very attractive woman, much better-looking than Britney Spears who speaks rather well too. She sends thrills up the leg of Rush Limbaugh (and me).

Executive experience

Obama: Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a vast crowd of traveling journalists

Palin:Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of 500,000 people in her state, and that impact crucial issues of national economic interest such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States.

Religious influences

Obama: Regards people who "cling" to religion and guns as "bitter" . Spent 20 years being mentored and led spiritually by a man who proclaimed "God damn America" from his pulpit. Mysteriously, this mentor completely disappeared from public sight about four months ago.

Palin: Head of her high school Fellowship of Christian Athletes and for many years a member of the Assemblies of God congregation whose preachers have never been known to accuse the United States of deliberately spreading the AIDS virus. They remain in full public sight and can be seen every Sunday in churches across Alaska. A proud gun owner who has been known to cling only to the carcasses of dead caribou felled by her own aim.

Record of bipartisan achievement

Obama: Speaks movingly of the bipartisanship needed to end the destructive politics of "Red America" and "Blue America", but votes in the Senate as a down-the-line Democrat, with one of the most liberal voting records in congress.

Palin: Ridiculed by liberals such as John Kerry as a crazed, barely human, Dick Cheney-type conservative but worked wit Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation.

Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz - a Democrat - said. "Gov. Palin has made her name fighting corruption within her own party, and I was honored when she stepped across party lines and asked me to co-author her ethics white paper."

On Human Life

Obama: Devoutly pro-choice. Voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that would have required doctors to save the lives of babies who survived abortion procedures. The implication of this position is that babies born prematurely during abortions would be left alone, unnourished and unmedicated, until they died.

Palin: Devoutly pro-life. Exercised the choice proclaimed by liberals to bring to full term a baby that had been diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome.

Now it's true there are other crucial differences. Sen Obama has appeared on Meet The Press every other week for the last four years. He has been the subject of hundreds of adoring articles in papers and newsweeklies and TV shows and has written two Emmy-award winning books.

Gov Palin has never appeared on Meet the Press, never been on the cover of Newsweek. She presumably feels that, as a mother of five children married to a snowmobile champion, who also happens to be the first woman and the youngest person ever to be elected governor of her state, she has not really done enough yet to merit an autobiography.

Then again, I'm willing to bet that if she had authored The Grapes of Wrath, sung like Edith Piaf and composed La Traviata , she still wouldn't have won an Emmy.

Fortunately, it will be up to the American people and not their self-appointed leaders in Hollywood and New York to determine who really has the better experience to be president.

Gerard Baker is US Editor and Assistant Editor of The Times of London.

P.S. Baker has a genius for characterization. If you missed his comments after Obama orated to 200,000 Germans, click here.

Bill Kristol is the token non-left op-ed writer in the New York Times. Today he weighs the Palin risk and says she will be the key to election or defeat for McCain. Was this a shrewd choice? Only if she does well. He thinks she will.

He's wrong about one thing he says, however:

Voters are unlikely to learn much that is new or surprising about Obama, McCain or Joe Biden over the next two months. Palin’s performance as the vice-presidential nominee, on the other hand, is the open and unresolved question of this campaign. She is, in a way, now the central figure in this fall’s electoral drama.

The carefully-hidden real story of Barack Obama is starting to come out. The fictional dressing is being stripped away and the real agenda behind the uninformative call for "change" is finally being dug out, against howls of protest from the Obama campaign. Why bespoil the romantic tale they have spun with an unblinking look at the hard facts about "God Damn America" Jeremiah Wright, unrepentant bomber of the Capitol and the Pentagon William Ayers and convicted felon Tony Rezko and the central role of the Chicago political machine in Obama's rise?

Kristol's take on Palin:

I think she can pull it off. I’m not the only one. The day after the V.P. announcement, I spoke with an old friend, James Muller, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. He said that Palin “has been underestimated over and over again. She took on the party and state establishments here in Alaska, and left them reeling. She’s a very good campaigner, a quick study and a fighter.”

Muller called particular attention to her successes in passing an increase to the oil production tax and facilitating the future construction of a huge natural gas pipeline. “At first the oil companies thought she was naïve, and they’d have their way. Instead she faced them down and forced them to compromise on her terms.”

Can she face down the Democrats, Joe Biden and the national media over the next couple of months?

John McCain is betting she can. Perhaps, as he pondered his vice-presidential selection, he recalled the advice of Margaret Thatcher: “In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”

It looks as if at least 90% of Republicans and conservatives are thrilled by Sarah Palin's selection and her fantastic debut on national television. Suddenly, there is energy in Republican ranks that had been lacking. Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard has high confidence in Palin's ability to connect with voters. Kristol thinks Palin is a "natural." She can handle herself and there should be no attempt to put her into a cookie cutter mold.

Palin could become the Democrats' worst nightmare. She is fearless. In becoming Alaska's governor she defeated the incumbent Republican governor in the primary (accusing him of insider politics) and trounced a popular former Democratic governor in the final. Midway through her first term her approval rating in male-dominated Alaska is in the 80s.

Let Palin Be Palin --- Why the left is scared to death of McCain's running mate.

by William Kristol
09/08/2008 The Weekly Standard

A spectre is haunting the liberal elites of New York and Washington--the spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism, rising out of the American countryside, free of the taint (fair or unfair) of the Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress, able to invigorate a McCain administration and to govern beyond it.

That spectre has a name--Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old governor of Alaska chosen by John McCain on Friday to be his running mate. There she is: a working woman who's a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who's broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who's a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who's a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who's a leader.

So what we will see in the next days and weeks--what we have already seen in the hours after her nomination--is an effort by all the powers of the old liberalism, both in the Democratic party and the mainstream media, to exorcise this spectre. They will ridicule her and patronize her. They will distort her words and caricature her biography. They will appeal, sometimes explicitly, to anti-small town and anti-religious prejudice. All of this will be in the cause of trying to prevent the American people from arriving at their own judgment of Sarah Palin.

That's why Palin's spectacular performance in her introduction in Dayton was so important. Her remarks were cogent and compelling. Her presentation of herself was shrewd and savvy. I heard from many who watched Palin--many of them not predisposed to support her--about how moved they were by her remarks, her composure, and her story. She will have a chance to shine again Wednesday night at the Republican convention.

More ...

The reaction of Republicans and conservatives to the selection of Sarah Palin has been overwhelmingly positive. Predictably, starting with the Obama campaign itself, Democrats have sneered at Palin as a small town mayor and governor of a state with a population (600,000) smaller than many mid-size cities in the U.S. Yet she has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.

A few thoughtful conservatives such as Charles Krauthammer think that the Palin selection was a mistake because it takes the issue of Obama inexperience and "readiness to lead" off the table.

Most disagree. Obama is still totally inexperienced in foreign policy and national defense, as he demonstrates on an almost daily basis. McCain's advantage is still universally acknowledged. McCain has been a fighter against corruption and pork; Obama is still someone who played ball with "the good old boys" and practiced pork politics.

The choice of Palin opens up some new territory for examination. The mainstream media will now go over Palin's history with a fine tooth comb because she's an "unknown." But the media have failed or refused to do that kind of examination of Obama's history. After months and months of soaring rhetoric about "hope" and "change" Obama is still a mystery to many because the media hasn't done its job.

Some examples of media neglect:

Palin is a fighter against corruption and waste in government. What has Obama done in his years in the Illinois senate and in Washington? He has indulged in pork barrel politics and played ball with Chicago's patronage-ridden Democratic machine, which is running his campaign. But you wouldn't know that if you just read the newspapers and watch television.

For many months bloggers have been asking the Obama campaign to open up the birth records in Hawaii. The campaign has refused and has only offered a copy of a supposed birth certificate to a left wing website that at least three forensic experts claim is a forgery. Not a word of this controversy has been seen in the national media. Since the matter can be cleared up easily by authorizing access to the original official records, why hasn't the Obama campaign done that?

Long-time Obama friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko, who helped Obama financially in his purchase of his Chicago mansion, has been convicted of 16 counts of political corruption. The media has brushed off the association. Why was Rezko, of Middle East origins who obtained large loans from an Iraqi convicted of grand theft from the Iraqi government, so eager to help Obama?

What has shaped Obama's economic views? Before college his mentor (as identified in Obama's first book) in Hawaii was or had been a member of the Communist Party of the U.S. who railed against the American economic system and white capitalist oppression. Obama's book also disclosed he sought out socialists and black power advocates while in college and progressively distanced himself from his mother's race (which is white). The media shrugs, even though Obama continued his association with haters of America and advocates of black power against white oppression by joining forces with "God Damn America" Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. He helped organize Nation of Islam's Million Man March and found inspiration in the words of black power zealot Louis Farrakhan. Why did he go to Chicago to learn the Alinsky method of community organizing for socialism, which stresses hiding the real purpose of changing the American economic system by uttering vague appeals to "hope" and "change"? Is none of this relevant?

Recently, sources outside the mainstream media have brought to light Obama's fight against the Illinois Born Alive Act and the fact he lied about why he opposed saving the lives of babies who survived failed abortions. Also, Obama's close association with unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers has been ignored by the media and only came to public light through a privately financed TV ad, which the Obama campaign is trying to force off the air.

So, as the digging into the life story of Palin begins, voters should demand that the same diligence be given to Obama's history, from birth to today. Obama's inexperience is known, but his character and the shaping of his worldview are not. Why are so many haters of America his friends? So far, the media has taken Obama's words as the last word. There is too much at stake in this election for the media not to live up to its obligations to the American public.

There is another reason why Palin is a big plus for McCain. She is an expert on energy, a champion of drilling now, including in ANWR (which is in Alaska). For many Americans gasoline prices are at the top of their list of concerns. Palin has been and is a strong voice for America to use its own resources to end dependence on hostile and unstable oil producers. Even if oil prices come down somewhat, America has finally learned its lesson: Let's rely on ourselves as much as we can.

There's much more to like about the selection of Palin, but these two reasons alone justify the choice. Let's finally learn the full Obama story as we learn the full Palin story.

And drill now.

Sarah Palin was introduced to the nation -- and the world -- in Dayton, Ohio today.

How was her introductory speech received?

One viewer emailed to National Review Online:

"I have never seen Governor Palin speak before in my life, although I have heard of her. Let me say that this hard core conservative has shed some happy tears during her speech. This is the day that the conservative movement took back control of the GOP and the day that McCain won the election. She IS from a small town, and it shows. We are blessed to have her on the ticket. The other side is looking a very old, tired, and a little cheap."

Having watched her introduction, there is no disagreement here. She adds an exciting dimension to the race and exudes warmth and human appeal. Yet she is tough, articulate and has a record of fighting waste in government, corruption and the "good old boys." She goes across party lines and cooperates with Democrats and independents, some of whom she has appointed to important offices in her administration.

Obama fails on bipartisanship. McCain and Palin excel.

Sarah Palin had her enthusiastic supporters before today.

The Club for Growth backs federal candidates dedicated to eliminating wasteful spending. It keeps an eye on what's happening in the state capitols on pork. The Club for Growth comments:

Club for Growth PAC on Possible Palin Pick

August 29, 2008

Washington – With all the talk about Sarah Palin being picked for vice-president, the Club for Growth PAC described the Alaska Governor as a genuine reformer who has taken on wasteful spending in her own state.

“At a time when many Republicans are still clinging to pork-barrel politics, Governor Palin has quickly become a leader on this issue,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “She is a principled reformer who understands how badly wasteful spending has marred the Republican brand.”

Governor Palin has proven herself to be a reformer unafraid to take on the establishment, which she did early on when she took on the incumbent Republican governor of Alaska in 2006. Only nine months in office, Governor Palin instructed the state to abandon the notorious pork project secured by Alaska’s politicians, the $223 million “Bridge to Nowhere.” While many Republicans in Congress are afraid to antagonize Washington’s biggest porkers, Sarah Palin stood strong for fiscal responsibility. Palin is also a persistent advocate of drilling in ANWR and expanding America’s domestic oil supply in general.

FLASH: CONFIRMED THAT SARAH PALIN IS THE CHOICE FOR VP.

A brilliant pick by McCain.

==================================================

Fox and Friends just reported that Palin's family is aloft flying to rendezvous with John McCain today.

Palin is extremely popular in Alaska, is strong on energy -- drill now! -- and is the mother of five. In her early life she was a basketball star and along the line was voted "Miss Congeniality." Her personal energy and drive are legendary. She is an outspoken advocate of pro-life policies.

More...

The United States needs a superbly qualified, tested leader in these dangerous times. That's John McCain.

Musings:

Hugh Hewitt, a popular radio host on the West Coast and in the Midwest, is appalled by how Obama knocks America. Just in the past day or so, Obama waxed eloquent (Doesn’t he always wax eloquent?) about how great the infrastructure in China is and how much better it is than in the United States. Tell that to the majority of Chinese living beyond the Beijing region where the Olympics were held. And recall the denigration of America before 200,000 in Berlin. Hewitt observed:

It is an unusual strategy to seek the presidency by arguing that American conduct abroad is the equivalent of Russia's, that China's engineering and architectural achievements are superior to ours, and that it could be understood how a business might think it would be better off relocating to the PRC.

Obama is definitely not running on American exceptionalism, but we knew that when he told the seven-year old that "America is no longer what it could be, what it once was."

And now Obama has chosen good old Joe Biden for his VP. John Hinderaker, one of the lawyer bloggers on the very popular Power Line blog said it well:

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BIDEN Some time in the next 48 hours, Barack Obama will announce his running mate. The current favorite seems to be Joe Biden. I hope it's true: if Obama chooses Biden, it will be more evidence that he, and the Democrats generally, are living in a bubble. Personally, I kind of like Biden. He can be disarming at times, and occasionally borders on the moderate. But how can he possibly help Obama? Throughout his long career, Biden has been anything but a powerhouse. His several Presidential runs have gone nowhere. On the national scene he is, frankly, a bit of a joke. What is he going to do, help Obama carry Delaware? You can see the logic behind choosing Biden. Obama is young, so he wants an old Veep. Obama knows little about American history, diplomacy, foreign affairs or military matters, and Biden is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Superficially, it seems to make sense. The problem is that, whereas Obama is a young lightweight, Biden is an old lightweight--Obama with a hair transplant. While Obama has only been a lightweight for 47 years, Biden has been one for 65. Is this a big plus? I doubt it. If you put Biden on a stage next to Tim Pawlenty and ask voters which one is the serious candidate, two-thirds will say Pawlenty. [Same for Romney.] So: Slow Joe Biden for Vice-President? Absolutely! It's one more sign that Obama, the supposed harbinger of change, is running an unimaginative, paint-by-numbers campaign.

Hinderaker practices law in Minnesota, so knows its governor Tim Pawlenty very well. Pawlenty is shaping up as McCain’s VP choice. It really comes down to two excekkebt choices Romney and Pawlenty, but, sadly, polling shows that anti-Mormon prejudice would hurt a McCain-Romney ticket, which for America would be a very strong team. Nonetheless, Pawlenty is bright, savvy and articulate and a popular Republican in Democratic Minnesota. Pawlenty has been featured prominently on television lately to build up his exposure and has handled himself well. So the Republican team will be a strong one with Pawlenty in the second slot.

Surprises can happen, but Pawlenty appears to have the inside track.

Why does John McCain describe radical Islam as the "transcendent challenge" of our times?

Unless there is a revolution of the natives, European civilization in Europe will disappear before the end of this century. Already 20 to 50 million Muslims are in Europe, most of whom have refused to assimilate. They cluster in their own neighborhoods living as they would in Pakistan or Sudan, maintaining their alien Islamic culture and intimidating the natives to change their practices and ways. Continuing immigration and high birth rates -- while the natives are failing to even reproduce their numbers -- are leading to increasing Muslim dominance. Amsterdam and Rotterdam, for example, are close to being majority Muslim cities now.

What will a Muslim-dominated Europe be like?

Under Islamic law, if one refuses to become Muslim, one is subject to death unless he or she agrees to a humiliating, underclass status (dhimmitude) and pays special (historically onerous) taxes not levied on Muslims. During the so-called Golden Age of Islam Islamic centers such as Baghdad and Damascus flourished with the riches of those taxes and the hired talents of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and other non-Muslims. As the generations went on, non-Muslims tired of their underclass status and converted to Islam and became as warlike and and uninterested in real work as their fellow Muslims. So Muslim society collapsed and has been revived only because of the discovery and development in Muslim lands -- by westerners -- of oil and gas vital to the West.

Europe is succumbing to a demographic and ideological takeover, the kind of jihad that is already being waged against the United States.

Muslims are smart enough to realize they have the best chance now in 1400 years to take over the world: They have the oil, they have the money, they have the true believers (growing greater in numbers every day as Saudi madrassas recruit the young to what Mohammad commanded was every Muslim’s duty – jihad until Islam rules the world). What Iran’s leaders say about killing Americans (Great Satan) and Israeli (Little Satan) is no aberration, no departure from Koranic teaching at all. They and the House of Saud may be contending for leadership of the Islamic masses or ummah, but they are united in their goal of achieving power over the world.

With their supreme sense of superiority, an imperial ideology, more than a billion adherents (whom they are willing to sacrifice in the millions) and, soon, nuclear weapons facing off against an anxious-to-please, politically correct, pacifist, let-us-reason-together West, who will have to lead the fight against them if not the United States?

Unflortunately, for America's and the world's sake, Obama doesn't see the challenge at all. As he said in Berlin, all walls between Muslims and the rest of the world should come down and peace will prevail. History tells a different story.

Sometime ago the Canadian-born writer Mark Steyn, who now lives in New Hampshire, wrote this paragraph which encapsulates the entire problem with how blind Americans are to what is in reality an existential threat:

I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with.

But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood.

There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.

This is why John McCain says radical Islam is the "transcendent challenge" of our times.

Democrat Speaker of the House Pelosi seems to be reacting to the pressure by McCain and Congressional Democrats to drill now with the same slippery ploy that Obama used.

She is now open to consideration of offshore drilling as part of a larger energy package.

How cute. The 2007 energy bill took two years to put together and it was inadequate. Like Obama, she is trying to put off an up and down vote on drilling to provide relief to average Americans at the gas pump till after the election, indeed, until next year.

A simple up or down vote can eliminate the moratoriums on offshore, Rocky Mountains and ANWR drilling. Already, just the possibility of such a vote is contributing to oil prices coming down.

A great majority of Americans now say they want drilling now. McCain and the Congressional Republicans should keep the pressure up. Get an up and down vote on drilling now. If that doesn't work, don't let Pelosi-Obama-Reid try to sneak a renewal of the moratoriums through in an omnibus budget bill; any such bill should be voted down. Pelosi-Obama-Reid will be responsible for shutting down the government to avoid a vote Americans want.

Russian troops have invaded Georgia far beyond the two provinces where Russian agents have been infiltrating for years seeking to cause unrest. Civilian deaths are mounting, some say in the thousands. Displaced persons are said to be in the tens of thousands.

The U.S. and the EU have demanded Russia withdraw its troops, but that is not happening. Western governments are considering what actions to take, but no plan as yet has emerged.

Senator McCain has called for an emergency meeting of NATO and a reconsideration of its decision last spring not to invite Georgia to become a member of NATO.

"NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.

Russian aggression in Georgia is no doubt also intended to intimidate Ukraine, which like Georgia applied for membership in NATO. With its new wealth from energy sales, Russia appears to be attempting to re-establish a Soviet-like sphere of compliant satellites.

Tuesday morning's Daily Mail of London has a lengthy report on the Russian invasion with a number of on-the-scene photographs of civilian casualties.

Our best friend in the Caucuses the nation of Georgia is being attacked by Russia and hundreds of civilians have already been killed by Russian tanks and planes. Russians appear to be making bombing runs against a vital oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean that bypasses Russia by going through Georgia.

The Russian aggression has been condemned by the United States government, NATO, the European Union and very forcefully by John McCain. When the attacks broke out, the Obama position was that both sides were to blame and called upon the United Nations to mediate. With Russia on the Security Council, that's close to being a sick joke.

John Hinderaker, one of the lawyer bloggers of the excellent blog Power Line, expressed his disgust:

It is often said that Obama is not ready to be President, but I don't think this is exactly right. It seems pretty obvious that Obama, given his temperament, his self-regard, his blithe ignorance of history and of the material conditions of life on this planet, will never be ready to be President. He is not unready: he is unsuited for, and inadequate to, the office.

Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who has herself admittedly become enthralled by the messianic orations of Obama, says that feelngs are shifting and concerns are rising:

A new ATV/Zogby poll taken July 31-August 1 shows that Obama's lead has evaporated. The race is now neck and neck, down from a 46-36 Obama lead.

Key findings:

-Among voters aged 18-29, Obama lost 16 percent and McCain gained 20. Obama still leads, 49-38;

-Among women, McCain gained 10 percentage points. Obama now leads 43-38;

-Among independents, Obama lost an 11 point lead. They're now tied;

-Among Democrats, Obama's support dropped from 83 percent to 74 percent;

-Among Catholics, Obama lost the 11 point lead he had in July and now trails McCain by 15.

Zogby said Obama also lost ground among minorities.

The most astonishing turnaround is in the Catholic vote. Obama's support fell 26% and he now trails McCain by 15%.

The more voters get to know Obama, the better McCain looks.

Democrats are working hard to win this November's presidential election, as the old adage says, "by hook or crook." History provides us with key evidence about how the "crook" side of things work in voter registration, so is there any doubt that registration fraud is happening now and will be happening in the run-up to election day?

Democrat candidate Obama is intimately aware of how the system works. During his years as a community organizer and lawyer in Chicago, Obama worked closely with and later represented as a lawyer ACORN, a group dedicated to registering Democratic voters, using whatever it takes, including fraud or, indeed, especially fraud.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal did some investigating and came up with an extraordinary number of fraud cases involving Acorn around the country, including this one from the state of Washington:

But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven workers for Acorn, a union-backed activist group that last year registered more than 540,000 low-income and minority voters nationwide and deployed more than 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The Acorn defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam Reed says is the "worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history" of the state.

The list of "voters" registered in Washington state included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Tom Friedman, actress Katie Holmes and nonexistent people with nonsensical names such as Stormi Bays and Fruto Boy. The addresses used for the fake names were local homeless shelters. Given that the state doesn't require the showing of any identification before voting, it is entirely possible people could have illegally voted using those names.

Local officials refused to accept the registrations because they had been delivered after last year's Oct. 7 registration deadline. Initially, Acorn officials demanded the registrations be accepted and threatened to sue King County (Seattle) officials if they were tossed out. But just after four Acorn registration workers were indicted in Kansas City, Mo., on similar charges of fraud, the group reversed its position and said the registrations should be rejected. But by then, local election workers had had a reason to carefully scrutinize the forms and uncovered the fraud. Of the 1,805 names submitted by Acorn, only nine have been confirmed as valid, and another 34 are still being investigated. The rest--over 97%--were fake. (emphasis added)

There are many sharp differences between the positions of John McCain and Obama. McCain wants to give kids at the bottom of the economic ladder a chance to get a better educuation. Parents should have a choice. John McCain puts it very well:

"When a public system fails, repeatedly, to meet these minimal objectives, parents ask only for a choice in the education of their children." Some parents may opt for a better public school or a charter school; others for a private school. The point, said the Senator, is that "no entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity."

Obama backs the teachers union in opposing that opportunity, brushing it aside by calling it nothing but "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice." It is no coincidence the teachers unions support Obama for president.

The Wall Street Journal calls the nation's failure to provide a decent education to children in the inner cities "The Greatest Scandal." It is a tragedy not only for the children and their parents, but for the communities and the nation. HIgh drop-out rates lead to more crime, lower lifetime incomes, more welfare dependency and the loss of a productive citizenry.

The success of alternatives which parents can and do choose is overwhelming. But the Democratic Party is doing all it can to deny families school choice -- in Congress and at the local school boards in inner-city neighborhoods, wherever the unions are strong. Democrat Obama exercises his choice and sends his own children to private school in Chicago instead of the public schools in his district.

Just another reason why the nation will be far better off with John McCain as president and Jeff Beatty as a senator from Massachusetts.

Read the WSJ piece here.

It's even worse if you read the full story: 100 to 1.