The best summation of the VP debate I've read

Mark Steyn's humorous and accurate assessment of the VP debate. From the article:

The problem was that [Biden's performance] sounded drearily senatorial. Mention any global crisis — civil war in Bosnia, genocide in Darfur, Russian aggression in Georgia, the lack of five-star restaurants in Wales — and Biden has been there, usually within the last two weeks, and always at public expense. What the American taxpayer gets for the Emir of Delaware’s frequent-flyer miles is harder to discern. Biden was doing his best to turn in a decent karaoke version of Lloyd Bentsen, but, unfortunately, Governor Palin declined to play Dan Quayle. That left Joe sounding like an ancient pol being generically vice-presidential. Sarah, at her best, sounded like the citizen-politician this country’s Founders intended. She hasn’t voted 397 times against this or that in the U.S. Senate, because she’s been running a state, and a town, and a commercial fishing operation. She’s a doer, not a talker, which is why so many of my fellow professional talkers disdain her.

The Geeks Shall Inherit the Turf

Congrats Vandy. Amazingly, Vanderbilt is #1 in the SEC East and Tennessee is in last place. Ouch. Though I'm a Tennessee alum, Bobby Johnson is a class act, and you have to appreciate Vanderbilt's commitment to student-athlete-ism.

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.