Have you stopped supporting Violence Against Women, yet?

If you watched the VP debate last night, there's a good chance you heard Joe Biden mention his signature legislative feat a couple times . . . it's VAWA or the Violence Against Women Act. Sounds like something you should support, right?

Biden also mentioned VAWA in his recent, stellar(!!) interview with Katie Couric. VAWA was the law at issue in Biden's response to Couric's question about "any decisions of the Supreme Court with which he disagreed."

Well, Sarah Palin referenced Federalism in her response to Couric's question, and if you know anything about the SCOTUS' VAWA decision, you can immediately appreciate a major difference between Palin and Biden. Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the Left generally, are eager to ever-expand the authority and scope and "jurisdiction" of the Federal government. I think Biden said more than once something along the lines of, "John McCain twice voted against the Violence Against Women Act." I pretty much concluded at the end of the VP debate that the curtain of Biden's impressive debate performance would be pulled back in due time to reveal a disingenuous political shyster. Change? Hope? I don't think so.

Here's a great analysis of VAWA and Federalism (co-written by InstaPundit).

Can't we just disagree?

Jonah Goldberg had some interesting observations about the Tolerant Party's treatment of Sarah Palin: ("Feminist Army Aims Its Canons at Palin"):

It’s funny. The left has been whining about having their patriotism questioned for so long it feels like they started griping in the Mesozoic era. Feminists have argued for decades that womanhood is an existential and metaphysical state of enlightenment. But they have no problem questioning whether women they hate are really women at all.

Since we know from basic science that Palin is a woman — she’s had five kids, for starters — it’s clear that these ideological thugs aren’t talking about actual, you know, facts. They’re doing what people of totalitarian mind-sets always do: bully heretics, demonize enemies, whip the troops into line.

Biden's foreign policy "experience" . . . impressive!!!

Palin's supposed to be gaffe prone? inexperienced on foreign policy? Ol' Biden had this whopper during the VP debate.

Here's another, regarding spending on Iraq v. spending on Afghanistan.

Who you callin' a reckless deregulator?

Biden's distortions . . . at least one of them

I felt all during the VP debate that Joe Biden was very vulnerable on the assertions he made. For whatever reason (uh, probably that debating is very difficult, especially on the defensive) Sarah Palin didn't blast away at Biden's blatherous assertions. This article denudes one particular assertion--that John McCain wants to do for healthcare what he did (?) for the broken banking industry"; from the op/ed: ("An Unhealthy Debate" by Yuval Levin on National Review Online)

Biden offered several criticisms of John McCain’s health-care plan which tracked precisely with the line of attack the Obama campaign has taken up against the plan in recent days, and which are flatly untrue and deceptive.

The Deregulation Canard
The approach involved two basic elements. First, after (somehow) implicitly attributing the current financial crisis to deregulation, Biden argued that McCain wants to do the same thing to the health care sector and so presumably send it into a similar crisis. “As a matter of fact,” Biden said, “John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health-care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.” The same argument is advanced in a new Obama campaign commercial. Over images of Fannie and Freddie logos, the ad asserts that McCain wants to do to health care what “Bush/McCain policies have done to our economy,” by which they mean deregulation. The ad says:

McCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation; said he'd reduce oversight of the health insurance industry too, "just as we have done over the last decade in banking.”

The line they quote comes from an article by John McCain (i.e by his campaign) about the McCain health plan in the latest issue of Contingencies magazine. In a passage arguing for more competition to lower the cost of health insurance, McCain writes:

I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field.

The Obama ad of course doesn’t quote all of that, but merely suggests McCain is endorsing some supposed deregulation of Wall Street. In fact, McCain is very plainly talking about the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act, passed in 1994, which permitted banks to establish branches nationwide by eliminating the requirement for separate subsidiaries in each state and the prohibition against banks accepting deposits from customers out of their home states. This very sensible reform updated a 1956 law to modernize American banking, and there is simply no question it has been successful and useful. It passed the Senate 94 to 4, and Sen. Biden voted for it.

That important act of deregulation had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the economic crisis we now face, and on the contrary has contributed to American prosperity and competitiveness. The Obama campaign could raise questions about how close an analogy there might be to that law in allowing health insurers, like banks, to work across state lines. But the tack they have actually taken — accepting the analogy and asserting it reflects poorly on McCain’s plan — is either dishonest or ignorant. Either way, it makes no sense.

Aw heck, you ought to read the whole thing. It is the BEST articulation of McCain's healthcare proposal that I've seen.

The Couric interviews

It's interesting to watch these dueling clips from the Couric VP interviews. I indeed cringe when watching Palin's answers about Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions. Biden did a good job of describing the white-washed, Liberal view of Roe v. Wade--the truth is that the application of the Liberal view equates to abortion on demand. But it is intriguing to note that Joe Biden--who has been marinating in Federal issues for 35 years, serving (forever it seems) on the Senate judiciary committee, could only think of a SCOTUS opinion relating to a law he wrote . . . then he filibustered. The question nicely isolated a perceived weakness of Palin; It would be really impressive if a 44 year old, non-lawyer who has never served in, nor run for, Federal office was articulate on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, under the circumstances, her answer(s)--as they bear on her ability to lead effectively, were not significantly less impressive than the answers given by Biden.

Joe Lunchpail (Biden) . . . not exactly

Here's some great reporting from the New York Times about Joe Biden's "everyman" image.

It is an interesting read, and it demonstrates how Joe Biden is rather like every other Senator or Congressman in enjoying perks not available to the little people. ("An Everyman on the Trail, With Perks at Home" - NYTimes.com).

Obama and Biden folks will certainly have a reverse spin on this report, and there is typically a legitimate "other" side to the story. But it is ironic that in 1996 Biden sold--through "word of mouth," his "manor" at a premium ($1.2 million to a politically connected and interested buyer) and then purchased four acres of lakefront property at a "wholesale price" because "the real estate market was soft." Sure.

Obama voted "present" . . . Dems voted "no"

How did we come to this credit market crisis? McCain pushed for accountability, Obama voted "present," Dems voted "no."

Biden's "experience" . . . impressive!!

In response some pre-VP-debate trash talk from Sean Braisted, I was reminded of a splendid analysis (here) of Joe Biden's much-ballyhooed (by the Left) foreign policy "experience." The conclusion any objective observer would reach after reading Andy McCarthy's extensive report, is summed up in this sentence:

For all Biden’s twaddle about doctrines and concepts, there is a simple technique for divining this foreign-policy solon’s bobs and weaves: Consult the polls and the calendar.

We'll have to wait and see if any "foreign policy" questions during the debate go beyond, "how many years have you been sitting in on foreign policy discussions?"

As Thomas Sowell asserts in a recent op/ed"experience":

[Biden] has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.

The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental.

You ought to read the whole article. And feel free to attempt a rebuttal.

Ifill's obligation

Initially I was conflicted a bit about the whole Gwen Ifill as "moderator" story. Revelations that Ifill is publishing a seemingly fawning book about Barack Obama might compel Ifill to strive for evenhandedness, I thought.

Well, Michelle Malkin article on the subject has changed my opinion. For example, learning that Ifill has responded to questions about her objectivity by bringing up race raises concerns. Ifill stated last week, “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”

Malkin's response to this statement? "It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics." I'd say the "political color" of this particular media personality/journalist are unexceptional. I'm more concerned about the color of money--the financial interest that Ifill has in Obama's political fortunes.

Ifill made the decision to publish a book that fairly raises questions about her objectivity in covering politics and in covering this campaign in particular. I'd like to trust Ifill to play it fair in this high-stakes debate, but once the horse is out of the barn, it'll be too late. I think the professional thing to do would be to step down from moderating a debate this time around. Of course, that's easy for me to say, but I believe that as a journalist, the least that Ifill should do is begin this debate with an "in the interest of full disclosure" statement.

Marsha v. NRO

Tennessee's own Marsha Blackburn was selected for an interview with NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez ("One Conservative’s ‘No’"--Interview on National Review Online) regarding her vote not to approve the "Bailout" plan. I'm glad to see Blackburn in a lead role on this issue, but the questions said more about the presumptions of the "Financially-Sophisticated" than Blackburn's seemingly truncated answers said about the rationale for her vote. I'm not sure that Lopez wanted to hear the answers to the questions.

Dems circled the wagons on Frank, Freddie and Fannie

Here's some fascinating video footage of House hearings (from several years ago) during which Democrats circled the wagons on behalf of Obama advisor (and then Fannie Mae Chair/CEO) Frank Raines and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Well, not everyone circled the wagons . . . watch all the way to the end for the statement by Bill Clinton.

Now Democrats are attempting to pin the failure of these institutions (and their millstone effect on financial markets) on Republicans? Talk about audacity.

Maybe if McCain had been preparing . . .

Maybe one more debate prep session (as opposed to DC debates on the bailout) would have helped McCain respond to this fat pitch from Obama:("Saturday-Morning Quarterbacking" by John J. Pitney Jr.):

Early in the debate, Obama asked rhetorically: “The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?” Instead of talking abstractly about greed, McCain might have said: “Senator Obama wants to know how the trouble started. He might ask his close adviser Jim Johnson, who headed Fannie Mae and got an exorbitant pay package.”

Don't wring your silk stockings

A friend (one a little politically squishy, I'd say) lamented/announced to me this morning that Palin had really messed up in her interview with Katie Couric and blahblahblah. Yes blahblahblah, even when National Review writers like Kathleen Parker (a bit squishy, though certainly more politically conversant than my friend) are urging McCain to pull Palin off the field. ("Palin Problem" by Kathleen Parker on National Review Online).

Why this reaction? I've mentioned the squishyness factor(common among those I affectionately refer to as "Silk-stocking Republicans"), but a second reason for my indifference to such criticism is the fact that what follows is Parker's best evidence of Palin's incompetence:

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

Though that answer may have been worded more succinctly, what exactly would Ms. Parker propose as an answer to that question? Maybe something predictable (even if accurate) like accusing Democrats and their PR ops in the MSM of class warfare and vacuous "change" rhetoric?

Dem marketing

If marketing's objective is making a product a household name, nobody's better at political marketing--the negative kind, than the Dems. You can't spell demonize without D-E-M, as I was reminded in The Center for Public Integrity | PaperTrail Blog - ELECTION ’08: Scoring Secretary of State Seats for Dems">this email alert today blaming Democrat losses in 2000 and 2004 on Republican Secretaries of State (and promoting a 527 devoted to continued demagoguery of same).

CHILL OUT NASHVILLE

Anxious about lines at the gas station? Feeling powerless in the face of the fuel shortage? You're not powerless . . . and there's not much of a shortage . . . as WSMV is reporting, demand for gasoline in Middle Tennessee has DOUBLED over the weekend (they cited TEMA as the source for that figure). Panic Grips Area During Gas Shortage - Money News Story - WSMV Nashville. CHILL OUT NASHVILLE. Fight the urge to hoard gasoline.

The American Left and the War in Iraq

While reading a post about another outrageous Keith Olbermann statement, I was reminded of a recent (National Review) book review about Bing West's new book on the war in Iraq (The Strongest Tribe):

Bing West has many useful insights on the Iraq War. The nuggets are there for anyone willing to mine them. But two points in particular are worth noting.

The first is the danger of conducting war when American society is divided. One division, notes West, has been ideological and partisan: “Although sacrifice on a national scale is not required for every conflict, a healthy society does not treat war as an extension of domestic political competition. . . . National security cannot be sustained when domestic party affiliation and ideology determine the support for a war. Iraq was a symptom, not the cause of the ideological polarization of American society.”

The second insight is related to the foolishness of leaving Iraq without regard to the long-term consequences, another penchant of the American Left:

The second point concerns the endgame in Iraq. West argues that while the wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place can be debated by reasonable people, four factors should determine whether the U.S. perseveres in Iraq. First, a stable Iraq advances U.S. interests in the region. Second, any reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq should be done prudently, not in such a way as to signal that the U.S. has given up. Third, a precipitous pullout would most likely shatter Iraq, unleashing centrifugal forces. Fourth, if Iraq were to hold together in the face of a precipitous withdrawal, it would “resent America for having given up.” This would have serious implications for the regional balance of power.

It's for the children

Nutroots activists reportedly hacked into Sarah Palin's personal email account and this Ted Bridis AP story was shillingly amazing. From the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business as Alaska's governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate.

. . . .

The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago - prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate - after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.

(emphasis added) Evidence of what? And what an interesting read on the story, "the disclosure (of illegal and astonishingly invasive activity) raises questions about" . . . drum roll please! . . . something bad about Palin. Give me a break.

To be sure, any illegal or unethical behavior by these Liberals is most certainly for the children.

Hillary has no time for non-partisan event, thank you

This seems like a major misstep in light of Barack Obama's strained relations with Jewish Democrats and Independents (read: Jewish voters). Hillary has cancelled an appearance (here) at an Iranian accountability rally because . . . the she-devil (aka Sarah Palin was also invited. Ironically, Clinton's people are complaining that the event is "partisan":

“Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event,” said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. “Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending.”

I think she should have just gone, but I'll concede that graciousness is not a Hillary strong suit.

Change Fannie Mae can believe in

Barack Obama--after only three years in office, has outpaced all but one other Federal legislator in campaign donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past 20 years.

Ironically, "Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Saturday that any government takeover of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must put the interests of taxpayers and homeowners first," (here), while McCain, "said it was essential to restructure the mortgage giants."

Obama's crass Iraq politics

Change we can believe in? Give me a break. ("OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL" - New York Post). From the article:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

Evolving definitions of "election fraud"?

Tennessee Democrat leaders' weekend vote to punt on the Kurita/Barnes election controversy ("On Politics: Kurita was robbed on Nashville City Paper") has multiple "levels." Incidentally, none of the reports (e.g., Tennessean or the City Paper), provide any details about Barnes' basis for challenging his losing tally so it is difficult to know the validity of his claims (personally, I want the MSM to be my eyes and ears, not my brain).

But I have my suspicions. One thing that Barnes appears to have camped on is that some Republicans may have voted for Kurita in the primary . . . for the record, Dems, is cross-over voting in an open primary now a legitimate basis to void an election?

I can sympathize with Tennessee Lefties' spite for a maverick party member and bi-partisan Wilder votes, but this is just how these folks work . . . whatever it takes to win, right?

Obama's radical sex ed agenda

I've posted previously (here and here) I just came across this article chronicling a nationwide effort by a motley crew of organizations--the ACLU and Planned Promiscuity Parenthood Federation of America ©, to get states to reject Federal funds to pay for abstinence education in schools.

That in and of itself was disturbing, as the Crisis Pregnancy Center where I am involved saw grant money dry up following Gov. Bredesen's choice not to file the simple paperwork to receive the federal funds.

But another interesting angle to the story was all the Left-wing verbiage about "scientific" instruction about sex (read the article). That reminded me of the sex education legislation Barack Obama fought for in Illinois. I'm a bit embarrassed that I wasn't more aware of the "code" these groups were using, but it does help a voter connect the dots in discerning the values and priorities of Barack Obama, the person voted the "Most Liberal U.S. Senator" by National Journal.

People . . . if students receive Abstinence-only sex ed, it is not the only sex ed they get. I, like most parents, want my child to at least hear more than PPFA & Co.'s obligatory line: "Sure, the only way not to get pregnant (or otherwise punished, like by getting a STI) is to abstain from sex, but now everyone pick up the cucumber and the condom I've placed on your desk, and . . ."

Praising Palin with faint damnation--Part II

Here's another example of an article intended to reflect poorly on Sarah Palin which actually bolsters her image. By the way, all of the scandal-ish allusions in the article are teased up like beehive hairdos . . . feel free to challenge me on that assertion.

Gloves being challenged to go for jugular

As if Liberals haven't already taken the gloves off in regard to Sarah Palin, I came across this HuffPo article that throws down the proverbial gauntlet for the nutroots (I presume) Naomi Foner: We're in Big Trouble. There's some disturbingly Liberal clap-trap in the op/ed, and here's a sample:

Leaders need to be chosen from the most talented among us, not from the bottom of the barrel. And we shouldn't be afraid to say so.

What kind of misplaced chivalry would keep the Democrats from calling Sarah Palin what she is? An ignorant, misinformed, inexperienced, bigoted fraud. And unless we find a way to do it, she will be running the country before we have time to turn around.

As far as "talent," isn't it most important what someone does with their talent? And aren't a person's views on issues at least equally as important as whether they are "talented"?

Keep typing, idiots.

Is this "age appropriate," Senator Obama?

I posted previously about Barack Obama's radical views on sex education (here), but I just came across this story about efforts by HRC (the "Human Rights Campaign") in Minneapolis public schools to normalize homosexual behavior . . . among kindergartners.

I wonder if Barack Obama thinks this type of sex education is "age appropriate"?

Gearing up for "election fraud" fraud

Since Democrats are (now) facing some pretty ugly polling data, it would be wise to gear up for the inevitable, Left-wing "election fraud" stories to come, because Liberals don't ever lose elections.

Well this is an example of how some Democrats--in this case it is the Democratic Governor of Montana,* work to influence elections: hindering transparency of the process (I wonder why that is?). Such Dem tactics happen even in little ol' Nashville, as I observed while poll watching a number of precincts for Corker . . . various officials in these Democrat-heavy precincts weren't interested in anybody making sure that things were done according to the law. Hey, whatever it takes to win, right?



*Of course we now know that being a governor is not that big of a deal for Democrats.

Who's "lying" about the "bridge to nowhere"?

I know that Liberals/"Progressives" have a different standard for "lying," but I think this issue is a wash (see here and here)--voters can judge for themselves which campaign is over-reaching in their characterization of how the "bridge to nowhere" reflects on Palin's political character.

Obama and sex education for kindergarteners--UPDATE

You may have heard, but Barack Obama has long supported sex education for kindergarteners (link).

And I hope you'll forgive me for not implicitly trusting the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate (not to mention Planned Promiscuity Federation of America ©) to define "age-appropriate" and "explicit."


Incidentally, the Bill-that-Obama-Wishes-He'd-Voted-"Present"-On has this language:

"Factual information" includes without limitation
30 medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, and
31 statistical statements.

-2- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 "Medically accurate" means verified or supported by
2 research conducted in compliance with scientific methods,
3 published in peer-review journals, where appropriate, and
4 recognized as accurate and objective by professional
5 organizations and agencies with expertise in the relevant
6 field.

(emphasis added) We know who those "organizations and agencies" are, don't we?

It's about time: Bishops criticize politicians "who claim to be Catholic"

Bishops criticize Biden’s abortion remarks for flawed reasoning. In response to Sen. Biden who,

said that he is “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception” but would not impose that belief on anyone through law. He claimed that to do so would be “inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”

A number of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. released a statement of their own:

“Any human being -- regardless of his faith, his religious practice or having no faith -- any human being can reason to the fact that human life from conception unto natural death is sacred,” he argued. “Biology -- not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology -- Biology tells us, science [says], that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species.”

Glass ceilings; coat tails

I came across this (What is McCain Thinking? One Alaskan’s Perspective. « Mudflats) blog post (yes, they have a nutroot outpost in Alaska!!) this a.m. It is apparently garnering the blogger a lot of attention (1,246 comments/responses), but this howler deep down in the post needed a home on my blog:

"18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling

It was obvious anyway, but became beat-you-over-the-head-with-a-two-by-four obvious when Palin referenced the ‘glass ceiling’ line, that this choice is a blatant pander to women. I would like to believe that women will actually feel insulted by this. Yes, it would have been historic if Hillary had gotten the nomination. It was historic that she made it as far as she did. Yes, it would be great to have a woman in the oval office, or in the VP slot if they are the right woman…a woman who got there with her own drive, grit, determination, intelligence, skill and merits. When you’re hand-picked by a man to win votes simply because you are a woman, that doesn’t count, and it doesn’t break any kind of ceiling. Would we have had a Stan Palin as our VP pick? No. So choosing a woman because you think her gender will get votes is insulting."

No doubt Hillary is intelligent and a hard worker, but to read the name "Hillary Clinton" in a paragraph about someone who got to where she was without a male's coattail is just stupid.

Sarah Palin's affair

While standing in the grocery store checkout line this evening, I saw a National Enquirer hit piece on Sarah Palin touting "the affair that almost ruined her career." As Byron York had discovered, though, there's no "there" there:

Concerning the allegations in the new National Enquirer of an extramarital affair involving Sarah Palin, I called the tabloid this afternoon and asked for a copy of the new story. They obliged, and here is the portion of the story dealing with the alleged affair:

Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.

“Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy,” charges an enemy. “Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug.”

And that's it, as far as the affair is concerned. In the brief cover story, the Enquirer also says this:

The ugly family feud stems from a three-year battle between the 44-year-old governor and her former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten.

“Sarah has many enemies in her hometown – but a lot of them are in her own extended family,” a source close to the Palin family told The Enquirer.

Family members loyal to Wooten are now waging a campaign to drag Palin’s reputation through the mud.

This, on the heels of the now notorious US Magazine hit piece.

I guess if they similarly smear Democrats, I could believe that it is just a way to sell papers, but . . .

Did someone say "equal time"?

This is quite an admission from NBC and MSNBC. They've realized that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are not journalists. But I had no idea how over-the-top they were--until I watched some of the "work" on youtube (Olbermann and Matthews on youtube) the DNC couldn't have done it more partisan-ly.

Praising Palin with faint damnation

This Politico article ("Palin’s cold shoulder - Kenneth P. Vogel") actually enhances Gov. Sarah Palin's maverick reputation, in my estimation, but you need to read the entire article. I especially like the verbiage pulled out of a "wrongful termination" complaint/pleading, which was ultimately dismissed (the only pleading you could expect to be more borderline defamatory would be a divorce petition . . . GET PALIN %&$@%#^*&+!!!!)

From the article:

While Sarah Palin’s supporters tout her personal warmth and openness, the newly minted Republican vice presidential nominee can be brusque to allies, advisers and employees who fall from her favor.

Palin has unceremoniously ended relationships with an aide who was dating a family friend’s soon-to-be ex-wife, a campaign adviser whose mother-in-law fought Palin’s legislative agenda, a local political mentor who she felt represented the “old boys' network,” a police chief who she said tried to intimidate her with “stern look[s]” and a state commissioner who refused to fire her sister’s ex-husband.

I was discussing this weekend with a close relative the uneasy feeling I get when an opposing party's attorney begins to demonstrate a willingness to throw his client under the bus in the interest of a quick resolution of a lawsuit. Unlike Palin (it seems), such attorneys forget who they work for.

For the first time in his adult life . . .

Bill Whittle (at NRO) explains why he's proud of the GOP for the first time in a while:

And I don’t know whether or not we will win in November, but for the first time I feel like we deserve to win more than they deserve to lose. And I find myself at peace for the first time in . . . well, it seems like forever. Because now I know that we will win or lose based on what we love and what we believe in, and that we have managed to find two politicians who have lived those values through good times and bad.

Community Organizer in Chief

I think the best line from Sarah Palin's acceptance speech was her response to Obama's denigration of her time as Mayor of Wasilla:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.

(Though the line about having authored two books but no reform legislation either in the U.S. or Illinois senate was a good one).

Mark Hemingway of NationalReviewOnline
details how the "community organizer" line has the Left indignant and Michelle Malkin provides more background on the kind of organizing Obama has done.

The wrong kind of strong woman

Victor Davis Hanson explains why Palin Derangement Syndrome is "surreal":

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.

Could they do it again?

Despite a protracted military struggle (in Eyerack), a sluggish economy, high fuel prices and the advantage of being out of office for eight years, the Dems could snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory once again.

Drudge is reporting larger viewership for the GOP convention, more popularity for the GOP’s VP candidate and more popularity for the Conservative network than the opposition.

Must be racism.

Michael Moore proved wrong again: who serves in the military?

Yep, Michael Moore is proved wrong again--likewise for John Kerry. Here's a new study on those who serve--and those who are signing up to serve, in the U.S. Military.

Updated to include MM's crocumentary's assertions.

Palin: Miss Congenial Warrior

After reading this blog post from Andy McCarthy at NRO I remembered a draft post from last weekend about a great NPR story from 2006 on Sarah Palin in which you can see a glimpse of the "happy warrior"--like Ronald Reagan.

I think she showed that same winsome toughness last evening.

Ann Coulter on Palin

Perhaps one reason Glen Dean is keen on Sarah: ("The Best Man Turned Out To Be A Woman"):

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him -- a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.

Otherwise, this is an op/ed that sums up my views on Palin.

A tribute to the family dog

I just came across this heart-rending tribute to a blogger's family dog--Charlie. I encourage you to read it if you want a nice respite from politics and/or a reminder of the simple pleasures of life.

They'll get over it--Education reform and the Democrats

This article at getliberty.org asserts that there may have been a "bitter breakup" between the Democrats and the Teachers' Unions:

"It appears that the demands of teachers unions have become so unpopular that not even the drafters of the Democrat Party platform this year wanted to fully embrace them."

At best, this is a "marital spat" and, based on the DNC's history in this area, this looks more like Bill Clinton's Federal School Uniforms Initiative than a sincere effort to reform/improve education.

Thompson delivers for the GOP

Fred Thompson is getting rave reviews for his performance at the RNC convention last night, and if you happened to miss it, here 'tis. Aside from his distracting throat-clearing, I think it was a notable testimonial.

Dems' working theory of working class

Andrea Tantaros has a nice op/ed related to how Sarah Palin threatens the Left:

This could only mean there must be something about Sarah Palin that is deeply threatening to the left, a constituency that has long believed they have cornered the working mother market. Five kids? She should be at home begging Democrats for a handout. A husband in a union? He should be on the picket lines.

Liberals like to pretend they are tolerant and accepting of those who are different but when it comes to anyone not ensconced in their progressive, elitist dogma they mock and attack their lifestyle to inspire hate.

And Rich Lowry writes,

As such, she’s the object of the cultural disdain of a Left that loves the working class in theory, but is mystified or offended by its lifestyle and conservative values in reality. If there’s ever been an exemplar of the rural America that, in Barack Obama’s telling, “bitterly” clings to its guns and religion, it’s Sarah Palin.

Nutroots discover "sermons on-line"

Though not in time to adequately vet Democratic candidate Barack Obama, it appears that the Liberal nutroots have discovered that church sermons are available on-line. "Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview," Nico Pitney and Sam Stein on the Huffington Post.

I'm kind of doubting they'll conclude that Obama's church for the last 20 years has "shaped" his worldview.

Show your donkeys, Democrats

Wow.

A couple things regarding Bristol Palin's pregnancy. First, I hope--HOPE, that her decision to keep (as opposed to place for adoption--chopping up said human isn't an option) the child and marry the father has been made completely without regard to her mother's professional goals.

Second, it is disheartening to observe the Left's reaction to the report (in the comments).

Next, even people with morals fall short of their standards. That doesn't mean that we should do away with morals.

Lastly, teaching kids that self-control is inferior to birth control isn't the answer to out-of-wedlock births. And using a teenage daughter as a demagogic prop is wrong.

Identity politics and Sarah Palin

As they say, "great trains . . ." Glen has posted a response (at TennesseeFree) to Newscoma's "Girl Politics" post, so I thought I'd post my Friday night draft on the subject. I have a little different take on it, but . . .

Newscoma raises the issue of identity politics in regard to McCain running mate Sarah Palin. It's a fair-minded and lucid post on the subject, but it highlights how most Democrats/Liberals are exaggerating (for effect) one purported consideration of McCain in making this choice: the potential for peeling off some of the likely Hillary Clinton voter demographic.

As Newscoma concedes, Palin is right on most issues important to the GOP base; she's talented and winsome; she's a rising political star with more than winning political campaigns to her credit (especially campaigns against inveterate, carpet-bagging, firebrand opponents). Actually, Newscoma didn't concede the parenthetical comment . . .

The Hillary Clinton voter that McCain has in mind is not this variety, which makes up a very small portion of the American population. As Rich at ShotsAcrosstheBow asserts, it is the "uncommitted moderate female vote" he was after.

Which raises, for me, another issue that ACK touched on yesterday. I think the Left, especially in the area of "social issues," doesn't realize how out of touch it is with the average voter, much less "traditionalists."

"Average voter" doesn't mean the 15-20% on each end of the political spectrum, mind you. And given that the diehards of each party/movement often drive the political debate, the key in winning a presidential election is how much a party's respective diehards overlap--in values, with the average, middling, non-partisan voter.

I think Democrats are misunderestimating Palin's strength in this area.

Just a pretty face?

In a post commenting on a Frank Luntz focus group of voters answering the question, "Why vote for Obama?" (video included):

But what, besides winning elections, has the guy actually done for America? For his state? What has he accomplished besides winning elections while black? For goodness sake, even Ms. America has a talent competition.

This line might come in handy when responding to derisive Democratic comments about Sarah Palin's history in beauty pageants.

Something to pray for

Ilisa Gold seizes upon (and links to) a Religious Conservative's (politically) unfortunate tongue-in-cheek political commentary, in which said-Dobsonite said he was going to pray for God to open the flood gates on Obama's outdoor acceptance speech.

Ugh. He should probably have spent his time countering Democratic prayers for a sluggish economy and non-success in Iraq.

The process of picking Palin

Here's an interesting report on how McCain settled on Sarah Palin ("How Palin Got Picked"). But I especially liked this quote from the article:

Many political observers are astonished the secret held. The McCain campaign is not. 'The key to keeping secrets is not telling people,' says Matt McDonald, a McCain adviser, who was one of only a handful to learn about the pick Thursday night.

Kristol on Palin

Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard provides some great advice for the McCain campaign--Let Palin Be Palin. From the first paragraph:

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.

News to me . . .

I just learned that Shawn Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance at the Democratic National Convention.

They say the Pledge of Allegiance at the Democratic National Convention?

McCain's Maverick Pick

I was discussing with BCM and Toni last evening that I was really wondering if McCain could make a "surprising" (but not shocking) choice for his running mate--a serendipitous choice, shall we say.

I think he did. All the data supports the conclusion that a choice of VP rarely makes a direct impact on the final polling results, but it is one tool in a candidate's belt to energize your volunteers and to frame the "story" of the candidacy. I think that Palin, known for her own brand of maverick-ness, and having demonstrated executive talent, is a great pick. Way to go, John.

Those Dems . . .

Today's email from Democrats.com was a keeper, with its mix of (1) identity politics, (2) a (refreshing, frankly) confession, (3) promises to end war, and (4) promises to end natural disasters. Dang, maybe I do need to vote for Obama:

Last night the Democratic Party made history by nominating the first major-party African-American candidate for President, Barack Obama.

Tonight, Barack Obama will accept our nomination. It is fitting that a 20,000 seat arena isn't remotely large enough to mark this moment. Even a 75,000 seat stadium will be too small and many will be turned away.

Rightwingers will mock the white columns. (1)Everyone else in America and the world will marvel at the black man who stands before them.

Incredibly, it was the first viable feminist candidate, Hillary Clinton, who put him over the top. In that single act, the parallel lines of the civil rights and feminist movements met to transform American history.

(2) And we did it through the oldest and largest political party in the world - the party that once fought civil rights - our party, the Democratic Party ...

The Republican plan is more disastrous war with Iran or Russia; less health care, education, justice and jobs; and environmental catastrophe. (3) The Democratic plan is the opposite: ending war, more health care, education, justice and jobs; and saving the planet before it is too late. That is our choice, and it leaves us no choice.

In Berlin Barack Obama declared , (4) "This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands."

When identities collide!

I think it was Rush yesterday asserting that Obama is a flawed candidate because he got the nomination by "identity politics." It was interesting to read this Chicago Tribune article about the smash-mouth identity politics going on in the DNC:

An African-American woman who is an Illinois delegate for Sen. Hillary Clinton maintained Monday that Senate President Emil Jones, a mentor of Sen. Barack Obama, called her an “Uncle Tom” at the Illinois hotel for the Democratic National Convention.
. . . .

“When the question of why Hillary Clinton supporters aren’t coming over (to Obama) and jumping up to joy comes up, this is not an isolated incident. This has been going on for months now. Now, here we are. Be gracious in victory.”

Gentleman, this is a judge.

For those who spend a lot of time involved in a subject or an activity (e.g., politics) it is easy to lose sight of the fundamentals. This is particularly problematic in the political realm because most of the voters being wooed are not similarly immersed.

So, in the spirit of the legendary Vince Lombardi, I encourage you to read this splendid op/ed about the fundamentals of American judicial principles. This distinction between how Democrats and Republicans generally view the judiciary, is one reason, among many, that I am not a Democrat.

Kathryn Jean Lopez on "Democrats & Judges" on National Review Online

On messiah complexes

Maybe I'm just more aware of this type of thing of late, but in reading this great Byron York op/ed, I realized how disturbing is Obama's construct of his or government's role in America. It is almost messianic.

York is writing about the corner into which Obama has painted himself in the run-up to tonight's acceptance speech--I agree with York, and I'm still wondering how/if the Obama campaign can pull off this high-risk event. But what really jumped out at me from the article was a quote from Obama that manifests his perception of what voters need and/or want in a president. I don't want to take these comments out of context, but they seem to betray an overwrought view of (a) how intractable/bad things are in America and (b) how much of a positive, specific role "government" can play in an individual's life:

Speaking to reporters in Illinois this week, he took pains to play down the razzle-dazzle. “I'm not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric,” he said of his upcoming speech. “I'm much more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families live their lives.”“People know that I can give the kind of speech that I gave four years ago,” Obama continued. “That's not the question on voters' minds. I think they're much more interested in, what am I going to do to help them in their lives?"

(emphasis added). Anyone paying attention knows that the, "I feel your pain," shtick is classic Democratic fare, but should we foster this type of mindset?

Dramacrats in Denver

I'm sorry, but it's hard not to laugh at the fabricated "drama" in Denver. For example, the breathless reporting about Ted Kennedy's "surprise appearance" at the DNC convention. We had heard reports (akin to Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve) that the "Liberal Lion" had secretly touched down in Denver. Give me a break.

Not to mention, he appeared in DC six weeks ago to cast one of nine extra votes to override a GOP filibuster.

But wait, there's more "drama":

Barack Obama addressed the delegates in a short message via satellite at the conclusion of his wife's speech.

"Now you know why I asked her out so many times, even though she said no. You want a persistent president," he joked. Obama's two daughters, Sasha and Malia, grabbed the mic to give their father a quick "hello."

Obama watched his wife's speech from Kansas City, Missouri, where he is scheduled to campaign Tuesday.

Republicans will probably try something similarly stupid, but I think such Santa sighting reports appear stupid to all but party die-hards camped out at the convention looking for something to cheer about.

"Working the refs" and playing the (tin) foil

Something came to mind as I read a headline about the "protesters" and police preparing for the Democrats' Convention in Denver. It is intriguing to speculate about whether these Liberal loons will serve to marginalize the Democratic Party with average voters or whether they (the Loons) will make the Democrats seem more mainstream by comparison. I guess it all depends on how the story is spun by the MSM.

But over-the-top Leftyness is getting results, it seems, in its mastery of the 24/7 war room--the never-ending campaign. Here's a great article at Politico.com about the Nutroots' efforts to "work the refs" in this latest election cycle. :

Gone are the days when only the right howled about bias and malice from network anchors and star political reporters. What began roughly a decade ago as frustration from Democrats over coverage of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment and adulterous escapades has morphed into an informally organized rapid response network, ready to pounce on any and all perceived media slights against Barack Obama.

But even as I write this, I think there is a good argument, based on the past few presidential elections, that Libs seem to be getting diminishing returns on this strategy. Voters kinda get numb to the extreme rhetoric, and there's only so much antipathy that readily transfers from chimpybushitler to McCain.


Aside: I don't know whether it is politico or the Liberal dimwits being interviewed, but it is interesting that they mistakenly used "tenants" where they meant "tenets" and "slack" where they meant "flack." Impressive.

Frothy cup of Joe

Here's a PowerLine profile of Obama's choice of running mate:

Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate is underwhelming for many reasons, but it affords an opportunity to review a few of the moments that might have provided all the embarrassment a normal man would have needed to escape from public life.

Indeed . . .

Think globally, lose locally

I enjoyed this quote from Obama about his VP announcement ("Obama notifies candidates on shortlist" - CNN.com):

Obama said Thursday that he had made his decision but declined to give any further details.

Obama has told some other potential running mates over the past few weeks that he would not be choosing them, the Democratic source said.

'I won't comment on anything else until I introduce our running mate to the world,' he said in Emporia, Virginia. 'That's all you're going to get out of me.'

(emphasis added)

Democrat's class(less) warfare

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., showed his backside in a Wednesday interview regarding Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday:

"[Lieberman] has a close personal relationship with John McCain. I don't fully understand why he does," said Reid, who said Lieberman called Tuesday from the Republic of Georgia to alert him to the move.

"I told him last night, 'You know, Joe, I can't stand John McCain.' He said, 'I know you feel that way,' " Reid said.

(emphasis added)

Gold medals and the 20 something %

What a shock to see--in a typically annoying (to me, at least) Olympic "winner's circle" interview last evening, Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh going out of their way to speak highly of the President (approvingly, you might say).

On the heels of Kobe Bryant's refreshingly patriotic comments the other day, this Olympics' "human interest" stuff is almost inspiring. Maybe McCain can make inroads with the Soccer Mom demographic this election.

Maybe he IS the messiah . . .

SI’s Selena Roberts Predicts Olympic Softball Might Be Saved by Obama | NewsBusters.org:

Sports Illustrated’s Selena Roberts, when asked during an interview on the SI website about the future of softball as an Olympic competition on Thursday, added some liberal commentary into her prediction about the sport’s redemption: "One other wildcard for 2016 is the exit of the Bush administration. The undercurrent of anti-Americanism within the IOC, which some say has hurt the U.S. because of its softball dominance, may abate somewhat with a potential administration led by Barack Obama, a rock star in Europe."

As an aside, I hope the Redeem Team is paying attention to the softball story.

Recycling and "Cap and trade" nonsense

Stephen Moore takes on "Gang Green" at WSJ.com:

But now the environmental movement has morphed into the most authoritarian philosophy in America. The most glaring example of course is the multitrillion-dollar cap-and-trade anti-global warming scheme that would mandate an entire restructuring of our industrial economy. This plan, endorsed by both presidential candidates, would empower climate-change cops to regulate the energy usage and carbon emissions of every industry in America. If we do this, the best estimates are that we could reduce global temperatures by 0.1 degrees by 2050 and save on average about one polar bear a year from early death. But no burden is too great when it comes to helping the planet -- even if the progress to be made is infinitesimal. To weigh costs and benefits is regarded as sacrilege -- the refuge of global warming 'deniers.'

. . . .

Many studies have shown that the environmental benefits from household recycling are minimal or at least highly exaggerated (because it uses a lot of energy and those recycling trucks emit a lot of greenhouse gases). America is not in danger of ever running out of landfill to store our garbage. For example, a study by Daniel Benjamin, an economist at Clemson, finds that we could store all of America's garbage for the next century within the property of Ted Turner's ranch in Montana, with 50,000 acres undisturbed for the horse and bison.

By the way, McCain's susceptibility to stupid (and typically "populist") arguments like the "green" agenda is the most troubling thing about him.

Ridge is out of touch.

Don't be so sure, Mr. Ridge. Ridge: GOP would accept abortion-rights VP (OneNewsNow.com):

"'I think that would be up to, first of all, to John to decide whether he wants a pro-choice running mate; then we would have to see how the Republican Party would rally around it,' Ridge said. 'At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever choice John makes.'"

Maybe this type of statement is calculated to appeal to "the muddled middle" on the issue of abortion, but "comfortable"? You gotta be kidding me.

If it's above your pay grade, then shut your pie hole

Warren: Obama dodged question on when life begins (OneNewsNow.com):

The moderator of Saturday night's presidential forum on faith -- Pastor Rick Warren -- says Barack Obama failed to adequately address the question of when life begins.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Warren that it was 'above [his] pay grade' to determine at what point a baby should be given human rights.

Following the forum, Pastor Warren criticized Obama's decision to dodge the question. In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Warren said 'to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.'

Warren went on to suggest Obama's non-answer will not sit well with many Christians. As Warren puts it: 'If an evangelical really believes that the Bible is literal -- in other word[s], in Psalm 139 God says 'I formed you in your mother's womb and before you were born I planned every day of your life' -- if they believe that's literally true, then they can't just walk away from that. They can add other issues, but they can't walk away from the belief that at conception God planned that child, and to abort it would be to short circuit the purpose.'

In all fairness, I have to admit that Obama's answer--when analyzed closely and viewed from a Liberal worldview--was not as glib as it sounds. He was basically asserting that he is not a scientist or a theologian (though I'm not sure the self-deprecating angle is credible, e.g., scientists or theologians are at a higher "pay grade" than legal dynamoes, U.S. Senators and community organizers? Come on.)

Nonetheless, Obama was dodging the question because the question of "when an individual human life begins" is pretty basic Christian theology and pretty basic biology.

It's baaack.

History, that is.

Call me easily distracted, but the Olympic Games (the back story of the Olympic Games is probably more accurate) combined with Russia's invasion of Georgia in the past week or so have gotten me dwelling on foreign policy. Too bad I couldn't have been on vacation in Hawaii.

Anyway, I just read a profound op/ed over at the Weekly Standard called, History's Back. I think Robert Kagan accurately assesses the post-Cold War global situation and demonstrates how the New World Order's honeymoon--as well as the viability of Liberal and neo-Conservative global visions, has ended. From the article:

Nor has the growth of the Chinese and Russian economies produced the political liberalization that was once thought inevitable. Growing national wealth and autocracy have proven compatible, after all. Autocrats learn and adjust. The autocracies of Russia and China have figured out how to permit open economic activity while suppressing political activity. They have seen that people making money will keep their noses out of politics, especially if they know their noses will be cut off. New wealth gives autocracies a greater ability to control information--to monopolize television stations and to keep a grip on Internet traffic, for instance--often with the assistance of foreign corporations eager to do business with them.

Exactly; and though I have defended Dubya from unhinged rhetoric about nefarious motives for invading Iraq, I have long believed that the aspiration of planting a republic in Islamic Iraq was uber-wishful.

But, it's comforting to know that we're still doing pretty well in the medal count . . .

NCLB swamping State Dept.'s of Ed.?

I don't follow public education stories (especially when my children aren't directly impacted), but I happened upon this story about the rising influence of Nashville's teachers' union, and it got me to thinkin' . . . in sum, it is intriguing to me that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may inadvertently be fostering the influence of local teachers' unions at the expense of local school systems (and, frankly, at the expense of students in said systems). As State Departments of Education are given authority (read: responsibility) to control local failing (per NCLB standards) school systems, are State Education officials practically forced to let special interest foxes in to help guard the henhouse?

From today's City Paper article regarding the controversy of MNEA's potentially extensive role in principal and vice princpal assignments in Nashville:

The state has authority to make principal and assistant principal changes due to the d[i]strict’s repeated failure to pass certain benchmarks required by state and federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) laws. MNPS, as a district, is currently in NCLB’s “Restructuring” status, giving the DOE authority to approve all staffing resources.

One school board member, Steve Glover, recently organized a meeting with three state legislators to discuss the state’s role with the school district. At that meeting, Glover noted that some of the principals moved by the state had brought about success and change at their schools, in terms of NCLB. There appeared to be other factors playing a role in principal moves, and Glover highlighted public statements from Smith that the MNEA had contributed to the process.

. . . .

“It appears that they [MNEA] had a considerable amount of influence. …It unnerves me to think that they may have a hand in determining who the principals are, because I think that’s clearly a management decision,” Glover said. “Any time you’re in management, it’s a very fine line between the ‘respect’ and the ‘like.’”

. . . .

[Metro Nashville School] Board chair Marsha Warden said Thursday that she agrees that the MNEA’s relationship with the district has changed. She added that she hopes the union will play a larger role in helping the district monitor the effectiveness of individual teachers. A positive relationship with the union will be helpful to MNPS, she said, as long as the teachers’ union serves as a professional organization with a focus on teacher and student success.

“I think one of the most beneficial results for children would be a beneficial relationship with the MNEA,” Warden said.

The obtuseness (and naivete, INMHO) of that last statement by Board Chair Marsha Warden is odd . . . and it almost makes you wonder exactly how concerned she is about having her school system in "restructuring" status.

Above his pay grade, indeed*

Mark Rose links to Michelle Malkin on Barack Obama's radical abortion record.



*Here's a great write-up on Rick Warren's Saddleback Church Civil Forum.

The Evangelical-driven Night

Well, I'm jumping between the Olympics (which right now consists of the Women's Marathon--btw, do competitors typically drop like flies during World Class Marathon competitions?) and Rick Warren's Presidential Forum.

I was kind of surprised to hear that people were paying up to $2,000 for a ticket to the event . . . then I read <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-tickets-saddleback-2122308-members-ross">that EVERYone had to pay</a>. Then I was surprised--despite all the hype about Obama's purported entree to Evangelicals, to see a standing ovation when Obama made his appearance, not to mention when people applauded--mid answer, Obama's circuitous (as all his answers were) reply to some "social issue" question.

I had assumed that this was more of a Saddleback event than simply an event staged in Saddleback facilities. I would have preferred--and I generally prefer, debates that don't have live studio audiences. I'm not sure what I think about that, and I'm not sure I agree with Saddleback using this event to raise $$.

I must admit I didn't watch the entire event, but several other things occurred to me as I watched, all related to the candor of the candidates. Both men face a challenge of wooing skeptical Evangelicals, and I think that McCain's forthrightness will be a serious asset in a campaign against a personality like Obama. Warren asked for names of the three wisest counselors he had and he gave three. Obama's answer was, shall we say, less than forthright, though I was disappointed that he did not attempt to rehabilitate Rev. Jeremiad Wright as he did his grandmother.

Obama's Clarence Thomas answer was also disingenuous. Based on his follow-up, Liberally-obligatory swipe at Scalia, Obama seems to think that Thomas is not intelligent enough (lacks "intellectual brilliance") to be a Supreme Court justice. It was a knee-jerk jab at Thomas and indisputably ironic in light of Obama's bid to be president . . . as Obama said, he's "been on the stump a long time" . . . 140 days after becoming a U.S. Senator.

One other seemingly disingenuous statement I heard from Obama was his statement about being concerned about the election (I think): "As a person of faith, I believe things will work out and we will get the president we need." That is a smooth answer for the Evangelical target demo, but I'm guessing Obama thinks God was out to lunch each time Dubya was elected?

The Chinese girls' gymnastics squad

Okay, I'm new to gymnastics-watching, so I hadn't realized that people were questioning the age of China's "women" gymnasts prior to yesterday.

I had been thinking (in light of the regrettable reality that commies treat citizens--to include children, as tools of the state), "so what if they're young?" But tonight I couldn't help but notice how "cool" one of these Chinese gymnasts was as she did a vault. And then I came across this somewhat dated NYTimes article on the subject with this interesting quote:

"An advantage for younger gymnasts is that they are lighter and, often, more fearless when they perform difficult maneuvers, said Nellie Kim, a five-time Olympic gold medalist for the former Soviet Union who is now the president of the women’s technical committee for the Swiss-based International Gymnastics Federation.

“It’s easier to do tricks,” Kim said. “And psychologically, I think they worry less.”

And sorry, China; the extra layers of eye shadow aren't fooling anyone.

The ABA needs more cowbell!

This WSJ op/ed reports on ABA (American Bar Association) plans to take over the appointment of Federal judges by means of so-called "merit selection." The article highlights the problem with "merit selection"; in particular, do we want the politics of picking judges out in the open or behind closed doors? And I assure you, the process is very political.

Ironically, Tennessee and other states are moving in the opposite direction. It must really be irritating to the ABA, George Soros, et al, that states are refusing to go along with the ABA agenda. Whatever . . . the ABA needs more cowbell!

Pommeling credulity in China

For whatever reason, the ugly side of Communism and China is increasingly coming to light during the Olympics. Today, it appears that several members of the gold medalist Chinese women's (girl's) gymnastics squad were not old enough to compete in the Olympics. I thought this quote from a Chinese official was funny:

Asked whether the federation had changed their ages to make them eligible, Zhang said: 'We are a sports department. How would we have the ability to do that?'

'We already explained this very clearly. There's no need to discuss this thing again.'

The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) has said repeatedly that a passport is the 'accepted proof of a gymnast's eligibility,' and that He and China's other gymnasts have presented ones that show they are age eligible. The IOC also checked the girls' passports and deemed them valid.

Yeah. Riiiight.

Which reminds me of a clever post (an "interview" with the coach of the Chinese Gymnastics team). Enjoy . . .

Dems' not exactly embargoed script

The folks at Democrats.org are scaring up money for their opposition research operation so as to be ready to come out swinging the moment John McCain announces his running mate--the website is named thenextdickcheney.com.

Which goes to show that Dick Cheney is probably not as outrageous as the Left purports . . . he's just the Republican guy. So, like producers of the next Bond movie, Democrats.org has already written the script for "Villain." Likewise, the Dems' hollow "message" is garnering them little more than a Margin of Error lead in the midst of an unpopular war and a flagging economy.

Not pretty enough for the Motherland

We love us some Olympics around the Williams household. My wife and I have always been fans, and it appears the fruit is not falling far from the tree: the other day my oldest daughter rebuffed a request to do Something Kids Love To Do by saying, "I'm watching women's beach volleyball and it only comes on in 4 years!" In our family, the Olympics is almost like 14 Super Bowls in a row.

That being said, Olympics spectating is more complex than it used to be (you could say it is "nuanced," kind of like John Kerry's political views). It was much simpler, before the dissolution of the Soviet empire and before the advent of heart-wrenching human interest segments on athletes, to pick a team or competitor to root for. And having little eyes and ears spectating on our spectating makes it more complex, as well.

The Olympics have certainly lost most of their political dimension, but this article provides a glimpse behind the curtain to what makes America different than other countries, like China. The Beijing opening ceremony was literally awe-inspiring for our family, and I couldn't help but wonder whether we could pull off such a spectacle in America. America definitely has her problems, but this story helps to illustrate--for my children and for me, at least one difference between America and China, and at least one reason to be proud of our Republic. ("Official: Child Singer Not Pretty Enough for Olympics Opener; Girl Lip-Syncs Her Song").

We decide, then report.

Interesting to consider: ("Clinton aide: If affair pushed Edwards out, she would have won") from CNN.com:

"If reporters had nabbed former presidential candidate John Edwards lying about his extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton would have captured the Democratic presidential nomination, her former communications director said."

Side effects of BDS

We have some dear friends that live in Tbilisi, Georgia, and we're really concerned about what is happening over there. What should America do in the face of such aggression?

One unfortunate side effect of the Left's radical, reckless rhetoric after 9/11 is showing up of late. As a result of the over-heated, irrational and partisan campaign waged against All Things Republican (or Anything Bush Touched), the President--and our country and our allies, are in a very difficult position in responding to the Russians' veritable invasion of Georgia.

"Adults" are better at remembering who the real enemies are in the world. But hey, maybe this election they will finally beat Bush.

Barack Obama: Painful indeed

Life in the spotlight must be grand . . .

Obama's holding out . . .

There's an interesting (and unsurprising) Time article about the Clintons' struggle to move on from the Primary loss to Obama. Karen Tumulty reports:

But behind the united front, says an adviser, "it's not a great relationship, and it's probably not going to become one." In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That's a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012. Clinton is also annoyed that Obama has yet to deliver on his end of an informal bargain, reached as part of their truce, that each would raise $500,000 for the other. "Hillary has done her part in that regard," says an adviser. "Obama has not."

Dude doesn't have $500,000 for Hillary?

As an aside, it is interesting to see how Bill Clinton is handling the loss. I always thought it would be awkward for an ex-president to campaign for his spouse.

How did I miss this? Al Gore's hot air baloon

I can't believe I missed this "protest" story concerning environmental alarmist Al Gore. From the article:

"A 70-foot-tall hot air balloon was launched and sent floating toward the Belle Meade home of former Vice President Al Gore Friday, emblazoned with large, white letters that read: 'Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom.'

The launch and flight over Gore's home was part of the national 'Hot Air Tour,' organized by the libertarian group Americans for Prosperity. Its aim was to point out what the organizers describe as the folly of concern over global warming."

Is that a cricket I hear?

At least the WSJ is reporting some of the good news out of Iraq:

Good news out of Iraq is becoming almost a daily event: In just the past week, we learned that U.S. combat fatalities (five) dropped in July to a low for the war, that key leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have fled to the Pakistani hinterland, that troop deployments will soon be cut to 12 months from 15, and that Washington and Baghdad are close to concluding a status-of-forces agreement.

Now this: Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq.

That's good to hear.

BigAppliance: public enemy #1!!

Here's a great article (linking to a WSJ article) about the demagoguery related to purported windfall profits for Oil Companies. It's ironic that household appliance makers (who almost doubled the profit margin of "BigOil") aren't being vilified by the Left.

America, The Exceptional

Jonah Goldberg has a great op/ed today about what makes America exceptional:

The interesting question isn't "Why is there poverty?" It's "Why is there wealth?" Or: "Why is there prosperity here but not there?"

At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own.

For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was misery and alienation.

A recent World Bank study found that a nation's wealth resides in its "intangible capital" — its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. "Natural capital" (minerals, croplands, etc.) and "produced capital" (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet's wealth. In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.

McCain and MLK

Here's the latest meme I've seen emanating from the Left: John McCain is a liar . . . a LIAR!!!! . . . because he stated in a debate that he worked for recognition of a day commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. AND THEY'VE GOT THE VOTING RECORD TO PROVE IT!!!! (google McCain, MLK, liar)

NOTE: Beware political shills bearing legislative scorecards.

McCain did support an MLK day after having opposed it. He apologized way back when and acknowledges that he made a mistake. Here's a recent example of his attitude on the subject.

No doubt pointing out a candidate's vote in black and white on a particular "hot" issue is powerful. That's why many candidates try to avoid having a voting record. Take Barack Obama, for example.

The Chosen One

Okay, I've been a little out of the loop lately (only lately, mind you--I know how you Libs think), so I just watched McCain's ad "The One."



I like it. Just tongue-in-cheek enough to get the point across without being "mean spirited." Too bad they couldn't have patched in a scene from Eddie Murphy as "the Chosen One" in The Golden Child.



But thankfully, in America voters (not the MSM) do the choosing.

Who you callin' a science denier?

Once again, it appears that research on adult cells is more promising than that on cells harvested from human embryos. The score is now 7851 to 0 . . . goose egg . . . zip.

Dja hear about Obama's church, pastor favorite artist?

Hey have you heard rapper Ludacris' ode to Barack Obama? Some lyrics from Ludacris' "Politics as usual":

Said I handled his biz and I'm one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I'm ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant

. . . .

You can't stop what's bout to happen, we bout to make history
The first black president is destined and it's meant to be
The threats ain't fazing us, the nooses or the jokes
So get off your ass, black people, it's time to get out and vote!

Paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified
McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped.

Folks love to talk about how "smart" rappers are. If he was smart, and if he really wanted Obama to be president, Ludacris would have kept these "clever" hip hop ideas to himself. And I love the irony of a forced-rhyming, grammatically-challenged rapper calling someone "mentally handicapped." I also love the irony of Ludacris accusing ANYone else of being racist.

But, don't let the man keep you down, Ludacris! Keep speakin' truth, bro!

Obama's Rosie O'Donnell moment

Here's an interesting story in light of my recent viewing of "Iraq For Sale" about--among other baaaad companies, Blackwater. At the end of the article, "Blackwater protected Barack Obama in Afghanistan," Toby Harnden writes:

In his Washington Whispers column, the well-connected Paul Bedard reports that Obama was overheard saying that 'Blackwater is getting a bad rap'. A fairly startling alleged observation given his previous utterances about the company - though perhaps unsurprising given he was in a war zone and his life was in the hands of Blackwater guards.

A tight-lipped Anne Tyrrell, spokeswoman for Blackwater, said she could neither confirm nor deny that the company had been involved in the visits by the senators to Afghanistan or Iraq. My request to Bill Burton, Obama's national spokesman, for comment on the Bedard story - including whether the alleged quote or its sentiment was genuine - went unanswered.

But a source familiar with Obama's security arrangements told me that Blackwater, along with the Secret Service, did pull security for the three senators in Afghanistan, though not Iraq.

Deceiver describes this as Obama's 'Rosie O'Donnell moment' That's maybe a tad harsh but it will be interesting to see whether Obama's public position on Blackwater changes as a result of his up-close time with their personnel in Afghanistan.

(emphasis added).



Also at tennesseefree.com

At least one celebrity the Left won't respect

I was a bit shocked to read what actor Jon Voight (Oscar winning actor, mind you) had to say about Obama and the 2008 election. He makes some good points--nothing spectacular other than some admissions, but you gotta give him credit for sticking it out there for Lefty media types to hack away at. Washington Times - JON VOIGHT: "My concerns for America":

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Uh, Mr. Voight, I don't think Libs care what your concerns are, even though you are a bona fide celebrity.

Attempts at Darwinist dogpiling

I stumbled across Darwinism apologist John Derbyshire's post about an e-argument between folks at Little Green Footballs and The Discovery Institute. I'm not sure there is much substance to the dispute, but Derb thnks it is entertaining:

"Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs has been doing a few rounds with the Discovery Institute, in which the DI sleaze tactics come through loud and clear. It makes for entertaining reading."

Of course Derb is entertained, because the LGF crew are masters at pithy in the trenches combat (which I typically am pleased about) and the fact that Derb despises--desPISES, those who criticize Darwinism.

But I think it is hard to doubt LGF's intention in writing "radical Islamic creationist movement," and LGF ignored the reality that "Christian" is not an accurate description of the Discovery Institute.

Derbyshire spends a paragraph (though it seemed like two) accusing the Discovery Institute of disingenuously (I guess?) pretending to be "a pure-science institute" when it is "a Christian-proselytizing lecture agency, pressure group, and publisher." Derb also appears to have missed that DI is not "Christian," and naively thinks (or pretends) that other groups that he would surely feel comfortable labeling "pure-science" institutes also engage in lecturing, pressuring and publishing with a particular message.

What Derb and LGF seem not to appreciate is that many (on their side of this "debate") will knee-jerkedly dismiss as "unscientific" the scientific assertions or conclusions of anyone who might not share their naturalistic view. Derb, et al, are wont to cut intellectual/rhetorical corners in taking out them dishonest, unscientific, Covert Creationists. But those whackos deserve it, you know?

Re. the barackstar in Europe

Victor Davis Hanson analyzes Obama's Berlin speech. Here's one great paragraph from the blog post:

"When Obama shouts,

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

it is the world, not the U.S., that needs to listen most. In this regard I would have preferred Sen. Obama of mixed ancestry to have begun with “In the recent tradition of African-American Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice,” rather than the less factual, “I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.”"

Of course, Powell and Rice don't count because they're not Democrats.

And it is interesting to consider Obama's juxtaposing of "reject[ing] torture" and "rule of law" when I'm not sure there is a cut and dried legal definition of "torture." Nonetheless, it is fun to see Liberals getting all morally absolutist on something.

Dems and their "wedge issues"

John McCain has announced his support for the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which Roger Clegg reports "would ban preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in the state’s public contracting, education (including university admissions), and employment programs." Clegg also report:

"Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: 'I think in the past he'd been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.'"

Yep, if an issue doesn't help Democrats win elections, it's likely "divisive" or in the "wedge" phylum.

Bredesen: Buyout offers should have been sweeter on Nashville City Paper

This story caught my eye the other day, but I didn't have time to post about it. "Bredesen: Buyout offers should have been sweeter," on Nashville City Paper From the beginning of the story:

"If he had to do it over again, Gov. Phil Bredesen said Wednesday he might have “sweetened” his voluntary buyout package to state employees.

So far, with about two weeks to go before the Aug. 5 deadline, about 1,400 state employees have applied for the buyout, well short of the about 2,300 goal. The Bredesen administration had offered it to about 12,000 state employees.

Bredesen said he likely didn’t make the $50 million buyout package “quite strong enough” to attract eligible state employees."

What occurred to me the moment I heard the report was that this seems wholly predictable from my experience inside (and, like everyone else, as a consumer of) state government.

I'm not sure you can reasonably sweeten any buyout enough to lure state employees away from a secure job. The folks Bredesen et al are hoping will accept this buyout aren't typically the type to take risks or strike out into the unknown. Good thing for Tennessee Democrats that he won't have to lay off anyone until well after November.

Support impeachment! (virtually, if not otherwise)

This just in: erstwhile Liberal presidential contender Dennis Kucinich is getting a few minutes this Friday to further erode the Democrat-controlled Congress' low approval numbers argue in favor of impeaching the president. From the Democrats.com email:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.

When Speaker Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).

Maybe Kucinich should add Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the list of people who need impeachin' . . .

See also at Tennesseefree.com