Obama's Afghan Turnaround?

Former General Stanley McChrystal put President Obama into a near impossible position and President Obama may have turned that into a deciding turning point in the Afghan war.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and nominated Gen. David Petraeus to replace him while affirming support for a counterinsurgency strategy encountering problems.

The dramatic shift came a day after McChrystal's disparaging comments about America's civilian leadership surfaced, and reignited the national debate on the war in Afghanistan -- now in its eighth year with a June death toll of coalition forces that is close to becoming the highest of the war.

Obama accepted McChrystal's resignation "with considerable regret" and named Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to take over pending Senate confirmation.

Folks like Joe Liberman and John McCain are fond of saying...

General Petreaus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency

That's because that is true both figuratively and literally. With the successful campaign in Iraq, Petraeus showed the world how to run a counterinsurgency manual. Meanwhile, his actual counterinsurgency manual was published in 2006, shortly before he went to Iraq. Petraeus is taking over with the Afghan theater in disarray but then again, nothing liked more dire than Iraq circa the beginning of 2007. Petraeus has an opportunity to make a case in every history book as America's greatest military person.

Afghanistan has three x factors: the rules of engagement, the timeline for withdrawal, and most importantly, Karzai. Immediately, we'll see if Petraeus will make the rules of engagement. The confirmation hearing should also be a pre qual to his battle over a timeline. Karzai remains the biggest concern. In Iraq, however, no one thought that Nuri Al Maliki could be a great leader right up until he was. Will Karzai go the way of Maliki or the South Vietnamese?

Obama to Send Guard to the Border

President Obama will send 1200 National Guard troops to the border.

President Barack Obama is preparing to send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, amid growing concern about cross-border criminal activity and a simmering debate over illegal immigration.

Obama plans to submit a request to Congress for $500 million in supplemental funding to secure the border and enforce federal laws, according to an administration official.

Details are still sketchy however here's what we know so far. Today, there was a pow wow between the Republicans and the President and illegal immigration was the main topic of debate. Republican sources call this a contentious meeting. According to Republicans, John McCain was adamant that the border must be secured first. Republicans also say that the President wasn't all that receptive to border enforcement. The White House has said little about the meeting and so this has been a one sided analysis.

That said, this announcement came out hours after details of the pow wow came out. It's also nothing more than a token effort. To get serious, President Obama needs to send about fifty thousand national guard to the border and he needs to give them a directive to speed up building the fence the Congress authorized in 2007.

Instead, Obama sends twelve hundred. That won't do much of anything. It's a way to appease the border security without really doing much for border security. This will do little to appease anyone serious about border security. Given the polling recently, that's most of the country.

First Health Care Now Immigration?

Does anyone remember when the public trusted Democrats over Republicans overwhelmingly on health care? It's true. Go back to 2000-2008 and you'll find a near two to one polling number on which party was favored on health care.

Then, we had a substantive health care debate and those numbers are just about mirror images. The public inherently believed that the president was promising everything to every body and he was promising everyone that no one would have to pay for it. The public believed this was simply impossible.

We are in the beginning stages of a national debate that will likely be as consuming on illegal immigration as the one we had on health care. This happened once before. That was in the summer of 2007. Then, the Republicans didn't just lose but were slaughtered. They came off as weak and wobbly to their base and racist to Hispanics. It played a not so insignificant role in their upcoming losses.

Republicans still seem like racists to Hispanics but things are turning around with their base. Take a look at this advertisement by John McCain.





















I have some electoral advice for President Obama. If he wants to improve his job approval by five points minimum, he needs to hold a simple five minute speech. In that speech, he needs to announce that he's calling up fifty thousand national guard troops to back up the border patrol on the Southern border and their initial task would be to fast track the building of the fence passed in 2007. That would immediately improve his standing.

Of course, that's not the tack that Obama is taking. Instead, he's criticizing the Arizona law as misguided, unconstitutional, and a violation of basic civil rights. Unless President Obama takes tangible steps to secure the border, that tack will cause the Democratic party to lose their advantage on immigration like they already lost it on health care.

Everyone from President Obama, the Los Angeles City Council, to an Assistant Superintendent in Highland Park, Il. have given the liberal perspective in illegal immigration. That perspective has been routinely rejected by polling in Arizona and nationwide. Every time this inconvenient fact is pointed out, liberals compare their stance to Jim Crow laws, Nazism, and even slavery. Thus, they've compared the majority of Americans to those that supported those acts.

Now, if John McCain can go from teaming up with Ted Kennedy on immigration to going way right, that's where the party is going as well. It's very simple. Back building the fence asap, putting the guard behind the border patrol, a national id card for immigrants, and serious sanctions against employers that hire illegals, and you win this issue. That's where Republicans are going and Democrats are calling them racists as they get there. As such, illegal immigration will flip to Republicans much like health care already has.

Immigration Reform Back on the Table

The L.A. Times has this curious story.

Despite steep odds, the White House has discussed prospects for reviving a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, a commitment that President Obama has postponed once already.

Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections.

In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.

According to the report, this bill will be eerily similar to the failed immigration reform effort in 2007. It will include a path to citizenship for the nation's illegals, fines, waiting periods, and stricter enforcement.

The bill in 2007 caused so much opposition that the switch boards in Capitol Hill were often overloaded with phone calls. That bill went down to a very public and bruising defeat. It nearly cost McCain his nomination before he made a remarkable comeback despite his association with it.

Then Senator Obama played a very minor role then offering criticism of the "process" from time to time. Now, we're supposed to believe that following his own public and humiliating defeat on health care reform he's going to take up immigration reform that will differ from an equally unpopular immigration reform bill in no discernable way.

On Bayh, Hypocrisy Everywhere

Conservatives everywhere reveling in the left's fuming at Evan Bayh. Progressives have no use for his brand of bi partisanship.

So Evan Bayh, the Senate's poster boy for bipartisanship, is, in the immortal words of the Jackson 5, "goin' back to Indiana." The senator explains, "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress [in Congress]--too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." Bayh is correct--there isn't enough practical problem-solving in Congress. But his brand of bipartisanship should not be mourned. In fact, the country would be better off with a lot less bipartisanship, in any form, right now.

Liberal bloggers are fuming and calling him a traitor and a phony.

Obviously, Evan Bayh’s never been my favorite Senator. And the more one learns about both the manner of his departure, and the thinking behind it, the clearer it is why. Simply put: He’s an immoral person who conducts his affairs in public life with a callous disregard for the impact of his decisions on human welfare. He’s sad he’s not going to be president? He doesn’t like liberal activists? He finds senate life annoying? Well, boo-hoo. We all shed a tear.

Meanwhile, conservatives are reveling in all of this.

Evan Bayh's announcement that he will not be running for reelection in November is but one of many warnings to the liberal left that Americans do not want the liberal left agenda enacted, just as they don't want the country run from the far right.

Independents, Moderates and Centrists are by far the largest voting blocs in comparison to liberals and conservatives, yet the lesson does not seem to be getting through to the far left liberal Democrats as the party as a whole continues to try to push through their agenda

.

Most of the same folks reveling are also ready for a fight in Arizona.

Early polls suggest Arizona Sen. John McCain leads former Rep. J.D. Hayworth by a healthy margin in the GOP primary. Among conservative radio talk show hosts, however, McCain is losing by a landslide.


As McCain gears up for a vigorous challenge from the former six-term House Republican, national conservative talkers are picking up where they left off in the 2008 presidential campaign, blasting McCain as insufficiently conservative and unloading on him with all the bombast they can muster.

So, let's look at the score here. The same progressives that claim the Republicans are too far right now say that Bayh was nothing more than a conservative with no place in the Democratic Party. The same conservatives that see the Democratic Party as having no place for anyone but progressives are now ready to unload on John McCain because he's nothing but a RINO.

In fact, McCain and Bayh are similar to each other. They worry more about getting things done than ideology. That's what makes ideologues hate them. It's also amusing to see how ideologues love one while hating the other.

Another Dem in the Crosshairs?

Politico reports that the Republicans sent out John McCain to try and woo another Democrat to cross over.

Democratic Rep. Chris Carney received a phone call Wednesday from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asking him to consider becoming a Republican, a top GOP official told POLITICO.

Carney's office at first did not comment other than to acknowledge the call, but Carney released a statement Wednesday night saying, in part, "I appreciate the Republican Party's outreach, but I have no plans to change parties."

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen spoke to Carney Wednesday and received assurance that the Pennsylvanian was not switching, according to a senior Democratic aide.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aides talked to Carney staffers, as well, and received the same assurance.

This is nothing if not ironic. McCain was wooed by John Kerry to be his running mate in 2004. The Democrats also wooed McCain earlier through Tom Daschle to switch parties.

Whoever leaked this (the "GOP source") to Politico needs to be fired. This is not something you leak to the press. It does show a renewed vigor and confidence on behalf of the GOP in taking advantage of the veritable mess created by the Democrats.

O'Reilly Vs. Palin I

During her whirlwind tour, the only Sarah Palin interview I was looking forward to was the one she was going to have with Bill O'Reilly. It isn't only because O'Reilly is my favorite broadcaster, though that helps. O'Reilly's interview wasn't going to be the softball interview that most conservatives would give her, and it wasn't going to be the touchy feely interview a la Oprah. O'Reilly said his would focus on policy and that's what interested me. In that, I was disappointed.

Part one focused on everything but policy. If there is a headline it was that Palin readily admitted that she screwed up in response to Katie Couric asking her what newspapers she has read. Conservatives tried to defend Palin after that snafu, but Palin offered the best defense in the interview when she said, "who cares".

She didn't answer Couric's question well. That doesn't mean she wasn't a good Governor, mayor, or otherwise a good politician. Some gaffes go unnoticed. The best example was Barack Obama's nightmarish speech two days after the Virginia Tech shooting in which he compared that violence to all sorts of "violence" including: the violence of not being able to have an abortion, losing your job to outsourcing, and not having your voice heard. The media ignored that trainwreck. They've decided to latch onto this. So what?

Palin also broke no news in revealing some of the tension between herself and McCain's operatives. Palin wanted to do the Factor during the campaign but the operatives thought that would be a bad idea. What O'Reilly referred to as being assertive, Palin referred to as the media calling it "going rogue".

My main beef with the interview was that O'Reilly, again, calls Palin "normal". I don't know if I would call her extraordinary but definitely unconventional. She's certainly not normal. There aren't many former state champion basketball players, former sports casters, former hockey moms, that wind up being Governor. She does however have an opportunity to lead a populist movement. She's not normal and any such reference is totally off base. She can however connect and appeal to the masses, which is what I assume O'Reilly meant.

This part of the interview was certainly in Palin's wheel house. She was allowed explain some of the inside baseball of the campaign. She set the record straight on Couric and Gibson. She took the offensive against the MSM, or as she called them the lamestream media. Still, what's important is how she handles policy and those parts are still coming.

The Worst Thing About the Bruhaha Over the New Palin Hit Piece

The worst thing is that it gives this long, tedious, very poorly written hatchet job publicity it doesn't deserve. At about 9000 words, it's almost a chapter in a book. The piece is full of unsupported accusations, digs by unnamed sources, as well as leaps made frankly out of the clear blue sky. The first paragraph is a sign of things to come.

Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska’s charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn’t always jibe with reality. As John McCain’s top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the author tracks the signs—political and personal—that Palin was big trouble, and checks the forecast for her future.

How exactly does Purdum measure "disastrous"? Is it by the crowds she attracted, the fundraising she created, or the new excitement that surrounded McCain's campaign following her selection? She had several disastrous interviews but that doesn't make her entire selection disastrous.

The piece is full of these types of accusations. They aren't really supported. Worse than that, the accusations are often those with no context. As such, they are almost entirely done as nothing more than a salacious attack on Palin. My favorite part, if you will, was this.

More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--’a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy’--and thought it fit her perfectly.

Is Pardum serious? Does he really expect the readers to believe that layman use such clinical terms? Does he really expect us to believe that non psychiatrists consulted the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders"? Pardum's piece is another in a long line of pieces that can't seem to find one person in all of Alaska that could say a nice thing about her despite the fact that she's still overwhelmingly popular there. There it is. The article is 9000 words more or less like those I quoted. The New York Times published a similar hit piece during the campaign. That received scant coverage. I wish this had wound up the same.

The difference with this article is that it also quoted former McCain staffers, who anonymously attacked Palin. The most infamous attack insinuates that Palin had post partum depression.

Some top aides worried about her mental state: was it possible that she was experiencing postpartum depression?

There was several attacks like this one, though this has received the most attention. Of course, not one of the people that attacked Palin for this piece would put their name behind the attack. That's for good reason. If they did, they'd never work for any Republican ever again. Redstate once identified Nichole Wallace as the author of one previous anonymous Palin attack. Wallace now works for the liberal online publication, the Daily Beast. It's likely that's the sort of employment Wallace can expect going forward.

The worst part about all of this is that the piece once again makes the absurd allegation that Palin cost McCain the election. It's one of many things that anonymous sources told Pardum. Of course, that's absurd, and frankly, even if true, exactly whose fault would it have been if not the very folks making the accusation?

McCain lost the election the minute the economy tanked. He didn't help himself when he claimed the economy was on steady ground. He put the final nail in his coffin when in the debate he came out in favor of the bailout. None of that had anything to do with Palin. The only time the McCain campaign had any steam was in the weeks following her selection. When the economy tanked, that became the issue.

Her initial interviews were in fact disastrous. Of course, whose fault is that? Why would the campaign have her sit down with the MSM first? Wouldn't it have been much better if Palin was first rolled out with several friendly media? Furthermore, why did they cut her off after a few bad interviews? Wouldn't that have reinforced her image? A lot of the blame for the bad interviews of course goes to Palin herself but some go to these very anonymous advisers now attacking her.

Frankly, it's high time we stop rehashing the 2008 campaign. It's worse yet, when doing so, gives unneeded publicity to a terrible hit piece.

The President Loses on the Omnibus Bill

There are three types of promises in politics. There are those you keep. There are those you break even though very few notice. Then, there are those that you break and are devastating to your own standing. Which of these three depends of course on the politician. It also depends on the visibility of the promise broken. For instance, there is no greater example of the third than George HW Bush. In a televised debate, he famously said "read my lips, no new taxes". Then, he even more famously broke that promise and raised taxes. Ultimately, that broken promise lead directly to his losing the election in 1992.

Politicians often say all sorts of things on the campaign trail. Most they don't have any intention of following through on, and some they find very difficult to hold once they reach office. Candidate Obama made a point of saying that he would make serious earmark reform. He even more than once said that he would go through each and every budget "line by line" in an attempt to purge earmarks from the budget.

This promise stands in stark contrast with his intention to sign the omnibus bill currently being debated in Congress. This bill has nearly 9000 earmarks. At $410 billion, it also means an increase in spending of about 8% over the last budget passed last year. This omnibus budget has not only received the ire of Republicans but even a few Democrats that also oppose it.

The president, for his part, has said that this budget is "last year's business" and this is why it is loaded with earmarks. The Republicans, for their part, have asked for about 40% of the earmarks, but this has stopped its leadership from using the budget as a bludgeon against the president.

As each earmark has been brought to light by the media, each more ridiculous and embarrassing than the next, the whole fiasco has eaten away at his credibility. For this reason, he must be shrieking at the length that it has taken to pass this bill. Last week, two weeks after first being introduced, Harry Reid realized that he still didn't have the votes. He passed an emergency five day extension hoping to take up the issue in the week coming up.

What this did was keep the issue on the front burner for the weekend talk shows. It gave John McCain another opportunity to rail against it on Fox News Sunday, for instance. It allowed for another round of scathing editorials like this one. The problem for the president on this issue is that has capitulation has no real excuse. It was done out of pure cynical political calculation. (exactly the thing he said he would rise above on the campaign trail) He needs the leadership on other bigger and more important matters like health care, climate change, and taxes. He didn't want to take them on fearing he would lose their support on other issues.

As such, he made a political calculation. He figured that the backlash from his broken promise wouldn't be that large. He figured that this broken promise would be in the second category. He didn't count on this going as long as it has. The longer this process goes, though, the more it will wind up in the third category. While it's unlikely that this broken promise will cost President Obama, the way that the first President Bush's broken tax promise did. Still, every president only has so many broken promises like this one before the public turns on him. I won't say that President Obama lost the war on this, but he certainly lost a major battle.

The Legacy of John McCain

McCain's concession speech last night was vintage McCain.


When John McCain says the country must come together, he is one of the few politicians out there that really does mean it. McCain will never hold the highest office in the land, but I believe that when history is written it will be much kinder to him than many that have.

Few folks in the history of this nation have ever been greater patriots than John McCain. From the moment he entered the U.S. Naval academy all John McCain has done is serve this nation and serve it with honor. He went to war. He spent time as a P.O.W. Then, he spent the rest of his life in public service and he continues to do it into his seventies. Very few in the history of this nation have given so much of themselves back to it. For this, I believe John McCain's legacy will stand the test of time and like a fine wine only get better with age.

John McCain will win no favors in the legacy of any ideology. He was in some ways a cross between Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt, however he could never decide which to follow on any given issue. He was generally a tax cutter. He fought long and hard against wasteful spending. (even helping to create the group Citizens Against Government Waste) Yet, at the same time, he wasn't afraid of stiff and harsh regulations against the likes of big tobacco. His campaign finance reform bill, McCain/Feingold is an aversion to most true blue Conservatives. He cemented his legacy as the Conservative scourge when he got into bed with Teddy Kennedy on illegal immigration. Of course, all the liberals that so championed him for years also now have their problems after he supported the surge and fought Obama so hard in this election.

Where history will be most kind to him, I believe, is on the issue of the Iraq War. His steadfast support of the surge in the spring of 2007 was one of those thankless principled stances that won him absolutely no favors or political gain, in the present. Yet, it is on the issue of war where legacies are made. Despite the insistence of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, McCain was the most right politician on Iraq. He immediately observed that we didn't have enough troops and he called for the surge as early as 2004. Then, when supporting increasing operations in Iraq was near political suiciden, he proclaimed that he would be the last man standing if necessary in support of the surge. His support of the surge is best characterized by this brillian speech he gave at VMI.


In my opinion, only General Petraeus himself will be given more credit for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq. There is no more important thing than being on the right side of history in war. John McCain's legacy will endure as the politician most singularly responsible for bringing that victory to Iraq.

Legislatively, John McCain's legacy will be as a doer. Especially in the last ten years, John McCain has been in the middle of nearly every single important piece of legislation. The aformentioned McCain/Feingold will certainly irk conservatives however they won't be the only ones contributing to his legacy. The gang of 14 was one prime example of McCain's ability to bring a coalition of legislators from both sides together to get things done. McCain always more firmly believed in the spirit of bipartisanship than he ever did a particular ideology. That may have done him in as a Presidential candidate, but I do believe it will enhance his legacy as time goes on.

The Ten Most Important Moments and Events of the Campaign

1) Bush announces financial meltdown.

Nothing has affected the campaign more than the announcement that the economy was on the brink of collapse, that we are in need of a bailout, and that major financial institutions were no longer in a position to lend. As Barack Obama then said over and over, "this is the final verdict on the policies of the last eight years". We can debate whether or not this is actually fair, but politically it is correct. McCain has been tied to the policies and they turned a few point lead into a multi point disadvantage.

2)McCain decides to back Bush's bailout in the first debate.

McCain stuck his neck way out and suspended his campaign. The Republicans appeared to be holding their ground against the bailout. The bailout was nearly as universally despised as the President that proposed it. Why in the world did McCain back it? We will never know. He had an opportunity to tie Obama to a bad bill and an unpopular President and instead he blinked.

3) McCain picks Palin

For about two weeks it was all Sarah Palin all the time. The Obama campaign couldn't have been more flat footed. For a week, they attempted to argue that Barack Obama was more experienced than Sarah Palin. Wow!! She vowed crowds. Her speech was tremendous, and she continues to be infinitely fascinating. All of this would matter a lot more had it not been for number 1.

4) Senator Obama opts out of public financing.

He took a little heat but just a little. In the end, it meant that he raised and spent four to five times that of Senator McCain. He has hit McCain in all sorts of niche votes: seniors and Hispanics, most prominently, where McCain can't counter. It has allowed his ground game to dwarf that of McCain. He was able to do an infomercial. If anyone in the MSM cared, some would call this unfair and hypocritical (given that he himself says he wants to "spread the wealth around"), but they don't.

5) Inflammatory sermons by Reverend Jeremiah Wright surface


They speak for themselves, and it was the first time the Obama juggernaut hit a road bump. Once they found their way into a loop, Obama's image was forever tainted.

5) Obama calls Pennsylvanians from small towns "bitter Americans"




Just as Obama was recovering from the Wright fiasco, he gets caught on tape in San Francisco disparaging those from small towns. Obama's campaign was in free fall. Three things saved him. 1) He had an insurmountable lead in the primary. 2) It was still in the primary. 3) It was nearly impossible for a Democrat to lose.

6) McCain wins New Hampshire

His campaign was left for dead following the debacle of the immigration bill in which he got into bed with Ted Kennedy. He was nearly out of money. He was flying coach and carrying his own bags. He made a desperate play for a state he could win, and it paid off. He never looked back and coasted to victory.

7) Hillary and Senator Obama go after each other in the Democratic debate hosted by Stephanopolis and Gibson.

If you are Conservative, there was never a finer moment than the mudslinging at this debate. Clinton accusing Obama of hanging with slumlord. It doesn't get any juicier. The scars haven't left completely, however the two sides toned it down afterwards and didn't allow this debate to send the campaign over the cliff.

8)

8)Senator Obama tells Joe Wuzelacher that he wants to "spread the wealth around"


Whatever chance Senator McCain still has, he owes it all to Joe the Plumber. By pronouncing that he wants to "spread the wealth around", Senator Obama allowed a whole new line of attack against him. Joe the Plumber has become a media darling/villain depending on where you turn. The election has turned as a result. The only question is will it be enough.

9) Obama wins Iowa

The "presumptive nominee" Hillary Clinton got beaten. Senator Obama first discovered that his base was tailor made for the caucus system. Suddenly, we not only had a race, but we had a race in which the first term Senator was the front runner.

10) Hillary beats Obama in New Hampshire.

My how fortunes change. Obama comes out of nowhere to beat Hillary in Iowa. Hillary turns the tables in New Hampshire, and it was on. It didn't end until the next spring.

In Defense of Sarah Palin

I have had more than one conversation with liberal friends and acquaintances in which my counterparts have told me that Sarah Palin was the biggest mistake that John McCain made. Most of those folks are not far left but rather merely liberal. As such, while they would be natural opponents of Palin, they wouldn't necessarily have such a visceral reaction.

I have heard these folks describe her using such words as stupid, uncultured, a zealot, and utterly unprepared. They have pointed to several bad performances in interviews, her sharpened and vulgar attacks on Obama (palling around with terrorists is the one most mentioned), and what they view as out of the mainstream beliefs.

These friends and colleagues laugh when I suggest that Palin is the future of the Republican party and that I believe she will be our candidate in 2012 (if not then certainly in 2016).

There are several things that need to be made clear about Palin. First, I believe that the McCain campaign mishandled Palin in a nearly politically criminal manner. The problme was NOT that she had a couple of bad interviews. Every politician since the beginning of time has bad interviews. Every politicians says dumb things in interviews. So what. The problem is that they left the Couric/Gibson interview hanging without allowing her to do more to overcome how poorly she had done. The MSM did a gotcha game as they should have expected. So what. Why wasn't she all over television so that these gotcha moments could be countered with other interviews.

The reality is that Sarah Palin viewed by some as some sort of imbecile because she didn't identify what Charlie Gibson meant by the "Bush Doctrine", couldn't name three Supreme Court cases off the top of her head, and couldn't recite McCain's legislative work on regulation. So what. This would have been nothing more than a blip had she become a fixture all over television, radio and the internet. The McCain campaign had found their secret weapon, Sarah Palin. She was interesting, intriguing, and people were drawn to her. Then, she had a couple of bad interviews and they hid her away so that no one could get to her. Why? No one will be flawless each and everytime they are in front of a camera. The campaign should have let her make mistakes but move onto the next interview. Instead, they allowed two bad interviews to define her.

Second, as the Vice Presidential candidate, she is the attack dog. Of course, she will hit Obama hard. That's her role. The fact that some find her attacks offensive and over the top is a sign that she is managing her role as she is supposed to do. Of course, liberals find her characterization of the relationship between Obama and Ayers "palling around" offensive. It's a sharp attack, and supporters aren't going to like it. If she had treated Obama with kid gloves, liberals would likely have found her "charming". They still wouldn't have voted for her but she would have been charming. That, there is a visceral reaction to her is a sign that her attacks are as sharp as they should be.

Third, the MSM has done everything they can to demonize her. The level of hate and venom to the Governor is unprecedented when directed at the Vice Presidential candidate. Everyone from feminists, gun control advocates, to late night comedians have taken an extraordinary amount of pot shots at her. If you get the bulk of your news from MSM, then no doubt you will find Governor Palin some sort of a stooge. Of course, we all need to keep in mind that most of the people taking pot shots at her are political opponents. Some have made hay of the likes of Kathleen Parker and David Frum, both conservative pundits, that have come out against Palin. Yet, Palin is still almost universally adored in the Conservative movement. You are never going to please everybody, and Obama has plenty of detractors on the left. It's just that the media, in love with Obama, pretends they aren't there.

The same things that first drew Conservatives to Palin are still there. She is still quite charismatic. She still has about an 80% approval rating in Alaska. This didn't happen by accident and it didn't happen because she governed like some extremist. Often in debating said liberals, they downplay her accomplishments in Alaska by saying the state is small. It's as though cutting taxes, reducing government, and fighting corruption is somehow easier in a small state than somewhere else. I'm always reminded of a friend of mine who attempted to change cable companies in his condo. He joined the seven member cable committee. He went to every meeting including through the months of January-April, when he an accountant was in the middle of tax season. Try as he might he couldn't get the rest of the group to see that the cable company, RCN, wasn't the best choice. The point of the story is that change is hard anywhere: D.C., Juneau, or on the condo cable committee. The idea that Palin's accomplishments are inconsequential because they were done in Alaska is the height of elitism.

She is still the same infinitely fascinating hockey mom, turned PTA mom, turned city coucil woman, turned mayor, turned whistleblower, turned Governor who hunts, fishes, and once won a state championship in basketball on a bad ankle.

Make no mistake. Sarah Palin is going to be a political force for years to come. She has arrived and she isn't going anywhere, win or lose tomorrow. Like any other political force, she will continue to irk her opponents for years to come. Just ask Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Whatever mistakes the McCain campaign has made one of them was NOT choosing Sarah Palin as the VP pick.

Some Context on Bankrupting Coal

Is this the eleventh hour October surprise?






It remains to be seen. This is an issue that is difficult to judge. On the one hand, the McCain campaign would likely have loved for this to run in a loop for about four days. That would have been devastating. Of course, the MSM would have never allowed that anyway. In fact, I have only seen it on Fox News so far. That said, it will be heard by the coal community and it is rather large in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia. On the other hand, being released this close to the election, it also doesn't give the Obama campaign enough time to respond. We will see.

What the comments reveal is the utter nonsense of cap and trade itself. The Obama campaign claims these comments were taken out of context. They weren't. The more effective cap and trade is the more likely it will be to bankrupt and industry that doesn't conform to its guidelines. Here is how cap and trade works.

Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.

A coal power plant in Germany. Due to emissions trading, coal might become less competitive as a fuel.

A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can
easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.[1]

The problem with cap and trade is that it forces new behavior not through market forces but through government will. That is always dangerous. Cap and trade sets mandates for the amount of emissions and company's technology can emit, and then it punishes with extra fees any company that goes over. Furthermore, it gives rewards to those that emit less than is mandated. It forces a change in behavior set to an arbitrary government guideline, and the change is forced even if new technologies aren't viable or economically sustainable. Of course, in an aggressive cap and trade system, coal will go bankrupt. That's because coal won't meet the emissions standards, and it will be punished with exorbitant fees.

Once again, we are shocked by something that Barack Obama said even though it isn't really new. He hasn't hidden his agenda for aggressive cap and trade. It just appears the public hasn't yet processed what it will all mean.

Personally, I think there is a much better approach to being eco friendly. Rather than punishing bad behavior, I would reward good behavior. My plan is similar to my plan for energy independence. Set emissions standards, or better yet, isolate those technologies that are conducive for less emissions, and reward those technologies with a break in income tax, capital gains tax, and dividend tax. (or better yet make all those taxes zero) Doing this would unleash the market forces necessary to innovate to better technologies. Government mandates for changes despite market forces. That's the flaw in Obama's plan, and it's why in reality his comments were perfectly in context.

Of course, it should be noted that McCain also supports cap and trade so he would likely impose a system similar to Obama's.

The Ad McCain Needs to Make

In light of recent developments, here is an advertisment that McCain needs to put up immediately. Since I cut can't cut and paste videos like I would, please bear with me.

(voice over)

Senator Obama has made a lot of promises this campaign...

$65 billion-a-year health plan $15 billion in green energy spending$85 billion in tax cuts and credits A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid$18 billion a year in education spending $3.5 billion for a national service plan. According to the Hill , Barack Obama's spending proposals could add as much as $1 Trillion in new spending per year.

He's also promised a tax cut to every working middle class family...

How does he plan on paying for all this? He promises to only raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? How does he define wealthy? First he said it was anyone making $250,000 then $200,000. Fortunately, his surrogates are more truthful than the Senator.
(video should start at 28 seconds in)






(start about 25 seconds in and stop 40)


$250,000?...$200,000?...$150,000?...$120,000?...$70,000? Where will the tax cuts start and the tax increases end? The number gets lower and lower. That's because Senator Obama's plan doesn't add up. In the Senate, Senator Obama has voted 94 times to increase taxes and cut taxes for those making as little as $42,000 per year. Only the wealthiest 5% will get a tax increase, that just doesn't add up.

(John McCain voice over) I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

...

since it's likely you aren't going to see that ad, enjoy another that was desperately in need of eyeballs.

Huckabee Vs. Obama: A Thought Experiment

As I have watched the campaign unfold, I can't help but get a troubling feeling out of my head. Did the GOP choose the wrong guy to face off with Barack Obama? Would another candidate have changed the dynamic and likely beat Obama as badly as he appears to be beating Senator John McCain. Now, unfortunately, at the beginning of the year, when the Republican primary effectively ended, the nature of the way in which the race appeared to be is NOT the way in which the race wound up being. It appeared that national security would share the spotlight with the economy. One of the reasons that John McCain wound up grabbing the nomination is the tragic irony of the timing of the killing of Benazir Bhutto. With national security grabbing headlines right around the vote in New Hampshire, John McCain had the election timed on issues relating to his best traits.

Mike Huckabee has four things that John McCain doesn't: charisma, no discernible connection to President Bush, a consistent economic populist message, and opposition to the bailout. Watching John McCain debate Barack Obama, I couldn't help but wonder just how Huckabee would have handled Obama. McCain missed several opportunities in debates to point out that Barack Obama's tax policies were nothing more than income redistribution. It took Joe the Plumber to do it. I don't think that it would have taken an unlikely surrogate for Mike Huckabee to do it. John McCain also missed many opportunities to point out that Barack Obama's tax policies would include tax cuts for 40% of the population that currently pays ZERO in federal income taxes. This is yet another opportunity that Mike Huckabee wouldn't have missed. In fact, anyone that saw Huckabee debate knows that he would have fared far better than McCain did.

The other thing is that Huckabee ran on an economic populist message from the beginning. He didn't come late with a message in fighting for the little guy. He was talking about the pinch of the middle class, foreclosures, and high health care bills. In fact, Huckabee's message was so populist, economically, that his opponents effectively painted as liberal. Of course, this was a bit of a distortion. In fact, Huckabee had the innovative conservative idea of the fair tax. Putting Huckabee's fair tax against Obama's income redistribution proposal would have been the kind of contrast that would have made a real distinction. Rather than fumbling through an explanation of why we need to cut corporate taxes, we would have had a charismatic salesman selling an innovative tax idea. Rather than a debate over who should and shouldn't get tax cuts, we would have a debate over a change in a failed tax code and a revolutionary change to the tax code.

Where Huckabee would have wound up with the most traction is the bailout. He is one of the few politician to come out against the bailout. I believe John McCain lost the election when he supported the Bush bailout. This was an opportunity to distance himself from Bush and instead, John McCain doubled down on "a bi partisan proposal". Rather than running away from President Bush while Obama was siding with Bush, McCain took the easy way out and signed onto the bailout. Furthermore, he doubled down on his own quasi socialism when he proposed a massive bailout of borrowers. Neither of these are small government, fiscally conservative ideas, and neither would be supported by Huckabee. It muddies the waters when you call your opponent quasi socialist when you yourself propose quasi socialist ideas. Imagine the debate as the bailout was being debated. Imagine Mike Huckabee firmly saying that bailing out the irresponsible is not something he would sign onto. Now, on the single most important issue it would have been Senator Barack Obama that was allied with President Bush, and it would be Mike Huckabee that ran against President Bush. The bailout is overwhelmingly rejected. By running fiercely against the bailout, Huckabee would have pulled off the greatest political jujitsu. He would have hung the President Bush noose around Senator Obama. The centerpiece of Senator Obama's current attacks would wind up being used against him.

I believe for these four reasons mean the Republicans picked the wrong candidate and had they picked Mike Huckabee we would see a Republican in the White House.

Will the Tape Be a Game Changer

Definitely...maybe. First here is the tape again.




There are many ways to examine its effect. First of all, you go to the source. So far, it has had just over 1.5 million viewings on Youtube and approaching fifteen thousand comments. That is a stunning amount. Clearly, it has had an immediate impact. What remains to be seen is just how many viewings it will have in a week. If the video has had its run and we seen only a small gain from here then its impact from this angle will be limited. The magic number for me is ten million and one hundred thousand. If it gets ten million viewings and one hundred thousand comments, then it will have a serious impact on the campaign from the You Tube angle.

That's just one way to look at it though. The other way is how does this tape affect the news cycle. Let's take a look.


and...





Here is a sampling of the media coverage on the net. Finally, here is some anecdotal evidence. I wrote this piece comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx. Since this tape has come out I have had about three hundred looks at that piece. I normally get anywhere from one to ten. In other words, there is enormous interest in the idea that Barack Obama is like Karl Marx. Of course, what I don't know is if all the interest is coming from the right. Still, clearly this tape has an immediate effect and it has now dominated the media coverage.



That won't be enough to be a game changer. So, what John McCain needs to do is continue keep making this an issue. McCain has a them upon which to attack Obama incessently for the next seven days and he must take it. Joe the Plumber opened up this attack, and that's what makes this tape so potentially devastating. What it really does is reinforce a major vulnerability. By reinforcing his initial gaffe, the idea that Barack Obama wants to redistribute our wealth becomes that much clear to the voters. The rest of the campaign will be spent dissecting Barack Obama because that's what happens when you are in the lead.



Now, a couple of days ago, I suggested that John McCain repeat over and over this quote.



FROM THOSE ACCORDING TO MEANS TO THOSE ACCORDING TO NEEDS



Now after a couple of days, I think that is likely too loaded a line of attack. Openly comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx (the author of this quote) is something that might make some sense for a provocative blogger, but it is likely too provocative for a Presidential campaign. Rather the McCain campaign should continue to attack using the same line they have been using.

INCOME OR WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

That frankly is one of the most important concepts in Socialism or Marxism and so frankly it's much the same as calling him a Marxist only doing it in a more tactful way.



The most important thing the McCain campaign needs to verbalize in interviews, on the stump, and in commercials is this. Each and everytime a Democrat defends the Obama tax cut they proclaim that giving a tax cut to the middle class is not income redistribution. Cutting taxes for 95% of the people is not income redistribution.



The McCain campaign needs to make crystal clear that Barack Obama intends on getting the money for all of these tax cuts by raising taxes on those that are wealthy. This isn't merely raising the income tax. It is raising the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, the inheritance tax,
and a brand new payroll tax on the wealthy only (to go to fund the Social Security income of those that aren't as wealthy)

What Senator Obama believes is that those that already pay about 40% of their incomes toward don't pay enough and should pay more like 50%. Meanwhile those that pay ZERO in federal income taxes pay too much and they will pay less. That's the definition of income redistribution. If Senator McCain that point forcefully and does it over and over, he will make the sale that Senator Obama's plans are nothing more than income redistribution. (something that polls 84-13 against).

Is the Constitution a Living, Breathing Document

One of the biggest shames of most Presidential campaigns is the total lack of attention that the Supreme Court and judges in general receive. The Supreme Court is the most lasting legacy of any President. Earl Warren became one of the most liberal jurists in history and yet he was chosen by the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

In this election, we have two very different philosophies. Senator Barack Obama believes that the Constitution is a living breathing document to be updated and refined by the Justices on the Supreme Court. John McCain believes that the Constitution is a static document to be strictly constructed and interpreted by the Justices.

I firmly believe that the Constitution is NOT a living breathing document, and that Justices should construct the Constitution strictly. My biggest problem with those that believe the Constitution is living and breathing is that it is position that comes from hubris. After all, you aren't going to find one person that wrote the Constitution itself that believed that this document would update and change unless amendments were added. Worse than that, those that believe that the Constitution should be living and breathing then also believe that their judgment is better than that of the folks that wrote the Constitution. After all, how else can you explain that these folks want the Constitution to live and breathe and thus be updated as they see fit? It's only because they don't believe the Founding Fathers were wise enough to construct a document that could stand the test of time. Instead, they believe that it is their duty to update it and make it better. This, to me, is hubris of the highest order. Finally, the founding fathers created the amendment system for all those that believed in a living, breathing Constitution. In order to change it, one must go through the amendment process. Those that believe in a living, breathing Constitution also think that unelected judges should usurp the role of everyone involved in amending the Constitution.

Those that believe that the Constitution is a living and breathing document also fail to appreciate the nuance and sophistication of the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers were plenty wise enough to construct a document, in its original format, that could itself adapt to the future. That's because the Constitution was to be precise where the Founding Fathers believed that a principle needed to stand the test of time. On the other hand, it was vague in other areas where the Founding Fathers couldn't predict the future.

Let's look at an example of each. First, let's look at a place in the Constitution where it was precise. Let's take a look at the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Now, this particular part of the constitution is extremely specific. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that Congress, and Congress only, is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't prohibit the states from doing as much. In fact, the tenth amendment gives all powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. By both of these portions, the Constitution allows for the states to do as they please regarding the Constitution.

A great example of a jurist that believed the Constitution was a living and breathing document, as it relates to the first amendment, was Everson V Board of Education

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

Neither a state northe Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.

Now, it's interesting that Justice Hugo Black, who wrote this opinion, referenced Thomas Jefferson. That's because Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. Furthermore, Black used Jefferson's interpretation of the establishment clause rather than simply interpreting it himself. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. It was put in there by someone that believed that the Constitution was "living and breathing". As such, a matter of state's rights turned into a matter of the separation of church and state even though the founding fathers never meant it as such.

Now, let's look at another portion of the Constitution. Let's look at the Commerce Clause.

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

This portion is precise in that it enumerates the powers of regulations of Commerce to Congress and Congress alone. Just as the Constitution forbids the Congress, and the Congress alone, from making any law establishing religion, it also gives the Congress, and the Congress alone, the power to regulate commerce. The regulation of commerce though is a vague and nebulous concept that can change and evolve as time goes on. As such, as the country evolves, so to will the Congress' role in regulating commerce. As such, while the Founding Father could never have imagined a force like the internet, they were smart enough to give the Constitution enough foresight to give the Congress the power to regulate something as vague as Commerce which includes the internet and many other forces the Founding Fathers could never have imagined.

The Constitution doesn't need to be living and breathing as the Constitution is vague enough, in those places where it needs to be, to allow those that follow it to adapt with the changing environment around them. It's full of the nuance and sophistication that you can find in both the first amendment and the commerce clause. If we are faithful to its original intent, we can find that it is an ingenius guide that allows just enough flexibility where it is necessary, and also, it provides strict guidelines where they are necessary.

From Each According to Their Means To Each According to Their Needs: McCain's Last Play

In response to a recent post, I received this astute comment with an advertising idea for John McCain.

(voiceover)From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This was the philosophy of Karl Marx.

When a hardworking plumber, concerned about Barack Obama's tax plan, asked him why he was going to raise his taxes here is how Barack Obama responded.

(Cut to the video clip of Obama saying this)I don't want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everyone that is behind you. They have a chance for success too.

(voiceover)We don't need a President whose tax policies were inspired by Karl Marx, nor do we need a president who thinks he is Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. We need someone who understands our country and our history.

Barack Obama. . . Not ready to lead.

(John McCain voice over)I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

In fact, Joe Biden was recently asked about this Karl Marx quote in a recent interview.



If you think the comparison between the philosophy of Karl Marx and the policies Barack Obama, look at it this way.

What do you think it is when someone thinks that "when you spread the wealth around that's good for everybody". Of course, it's as Karl Marx said.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

Still not convinced...Let's try it this way. Barack Obama has promised to raise the taxes of the top five percent as much as an extra ten percent. Furthermore, he will raise the capital gains taxes on these same folks, re install the inheritance tax, and raise the corporate tax. What will he do with this money? He will give tax breaks to everyone below them.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

You still aren't convinced. Who does Barack Obama intend on giving a tax cut to? It's to the middle class of course? How does he plan on paying for this tax cut? He plans on raising taxes on the wealthy of course.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

If you still aren't convinced, just listen to Joe Biden himself from the very interview I have embedded

All we want is to focus on the middle class and to give them a fighting chance. That's why we focus all of our efforts on the MIDDLE CLASS and giving them a tax cut...while John McCain gives a tax cut to the wealthiest people and corporations.

Like I said again,

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

Barack Obama's tax policies, and frankly economic policies, are classic Marxian policies. From the blatant class warfare, to income redistribution, to his insistence thatjobs be created by the government, his economic platform is a reincarnation of Karl Marx.

John McCain needs to say it, say it, and say it again.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

On the stump, in interviews, and in every commercial they can spare...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When Barack Obama talks about giving the middle class a tax cut by raising taxes on the wealthiest what he's really saying is...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When Barack Obama says he wants to spread your wealth around what he's really saying is

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When he proclaims that the last eight years has created an income gap that he will resolve what he's really saying is.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

McCain needs to say it again and again until he forces the media, like this Florida reporter, to ask it of the Obama campaign. That's because you can't get around this fact. What's the Obama economic philosophy...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

...

How Obama Has Ridden Class Warfare and Gimmicks to the Brink of the Presidency

In many ways, it is amazing that such a blatantly Socialistic economic proposal could put someone on the brink of the Presidency. In other ways, once you examine the dynamic that has brought Obama to the brink of the Presidency, his blatant income redistribution, class warfare, and Socialism is actually perfect political strategy. Here is why.

1) Barack Obama learned great lessons from Karl Marx.

Socialism, class warfare, and income redistribution has one very effective political tool...strengths in numbers. From the beginning, Barack Obama has been touting that his plan will cut taxes for 95% of the people. Barack Obama has been able to carry this simple message of economic populism

Economic populism, the staple of the Democratic left, demonizes Wall Street and glorifies Main Street. It rails against unequal distribution of wealth and warns, perpetually, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. From Andrew Jackson's frontier democracy to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, economic populism has powered the left.

Give credit where it is due. Barack Obama has effectively sold his message. He bemoaned the growing income gap, wage stagnation, tax cuts for "the rich", and a deregulation environment that benefits the few at the expense of the many. Furthermore, Obama has effectively framed those getting a tax increase as Warren Buffett and himself. In this way, Obama is not that much different than Marx. In much the same way, Marx bemoaned the capitalistic system benefitted the few at the expense of the many. He said the system was taking advantage of the proletariat and unfairly rewarding the bourgeoise. Obama is doing much the same thing.

2) Americans are economically illiterate.

Think about Obama's tax plan for a minute. He wants to raise taxes on the top earners by as much as 10%. Meanwhile, 40% of the population pays no income taxes, only the 6.5% payroll tax, will get a tax cut. (or in reality a tax credit since you can't cut below 0) This is his tax proposal. So, why is he leading? It's because far too many Americans are simply economically brain dead. They see a tax proposal that will cut their own taxes far more than the opponent, and the tax increase comes to someone else.

Most Americans can't make the simple connection. If you punish the job creators, there won't be as many jobs. Americans are simply not economically literate enough to understand that this is boiler plate tax and spend income redistribution. Americans lack of economic understanding is truly frightening really. Obama will lower no one's income tax bracket. Yet, he will raise the top two income tax brackets, the capital gains tax, and the corporate tax. Every single one of his so called tax cuts is a actually an obscure tax credit. That's his plan. Raise the top two tax brackets, the capital gains tax, and corporate tax and every single tax cut is in the form of an obscure tax credit. Meanwhile, he's proposed one trillion Dollars in new spending. Yet, the American people are willing to elect him the new President. Not despite making this the centerpiece of his economic agenda, but because of it. That's simply economically brain dead.

3) The McCain campaign has been totally incompetent in exposing the policy

The most obvious example of this is that Joe the Plumber has been more effective in exposing Obama's plans than the McCain campaign has. Until recently, we have heard nothing from the McCain campaign about the fact that Barack Obama plans on cutting taxes for 40% of the people that currently have an income tax rate of zero. Senator McCain should have been visiting successful small businesses all over the country and ask the owners what would happen to their business if Obama's tax plan went into effect. Why did he need Joe the Plumber to expose the obvious fallacy that raising taxes on the most successful hurts everyone? McCain has done little to point out that a series of targeted tax cuts, tax credits, and tax increases will complicate the tax code. In fact, I've never once heard McCain point out that Obama's so called tax cuts are actually nothing more than a series of tax credits.

4) Time and Place

The only time we have ever had a President swoop in with a promise for so much government expansion was in 1933. The similarities between FDR and Obama have a lot to do with the state of the economy. One would never be able to propose Socialism and income redistribution unless the economy isn't merely doing bad but on the brink of collapse. The reality is that our economy is on the brink of collapse and most folks blame the naked capitalistic system for getting it there. Barack Obama hasn't merely been effective in selling this economic populism, but he has sold it at just the right time.

The Political Science Class Lessons of the McCain Campaign

1) Sarah Palin is dynamic, charismatic, and telegenic on television and yet the McCain campaign decided to hide her.

(H/T Race 2008 I just took a peak at this interview of Sarah Palin by CNN

I can't understand what in the world the McCain campaign was thinking when handling the VP. She should have done all sorts of interviews. First of all, I wouldn't have rolled her out with Charlie Gibson. The first interview I would have had her done was local or state. I would have done something unconventional and given the local television station from Wasilla have to first interview. Then, I would have done a national interview. She should have done Rush's show right away. She frankly should have begun to do a lot of talk radio. Prior to her being

She frankly should have shown up every. She should have given local interviews in battleground states like in Philadelphia, Santa Fe, Grand Rapids, etc. Heck she should done interviews with bloggers.

The bottom line is she should have been in front of the camera and microphone as much as possible. Instead, we heard one of the greatest speeches of all time. Then, a week later a set of the worst set of interviews of all time. Then, we basically didn't hear her anywhere until the debate. Why would they hide her? It was mind boggling how badly they mishandled her.

2) Either you define your opponent or the opponent defines himself.

It was irritating watching McCain allow Obama to define his tax plan as being a tax cut for 95% of the people. I didn't hear him even point out that 40% of the people don't pay tax cuts until a couple weeks ago. He never once responded to Senator Obama's proclamation in any debate that 95% of the people would get a tax cut by pointing this out.

Then, Senator Obama's tax cut is a series of gimmicks and McCain couldn't figure out how to expose them. Joe the Plumber knew better than the McCain campaign how to attack Obama's plans. The McCain campaign should have been visiting successful small businesses all around the country showing how Obama's tax cuts would negatively affect their business. I would find a business like a successful company doing something in alternative energy.

The small business owner could point out that they could hire less workers as they walk through their staff. They could have shown some of the equipment that they use and would have to cut back on. Again, Barack Obama has been allowed to define the tax cuts as folks like himself and Warren Buffet. It could have been successful small business owner.

The issue goes on and on like this. Obama is able to define each portion of the tax issue in his favor. I watched Mike Huckabee on Fox News the other day, and he would have been able to pick apart the plan.

3) If you are going to stick your neck out, stick it all the way out.

So, McCain suspends his campaign, goes back to D.C., and then he winds up spending one day at his Virginia office. What was the point of coming back if all he did was massage a bad bill. The Republicans in the House had a great alternative. By sticking with them, he could have instantaneously distanced himself from Bush. Furthermore, Obama would have been left agreeing with Bush. The worst part from McCain's perspective, was that he always had an ace in the hole. The Democrats controlled both chambers. He could have always stipulated that if the Democrats wanted to pass a bill they could, but if they wanted the Republicans on board it wouldn't be a bailout.

It would have been the effective and astute political move. He would have come out taking control of the economic issue. It was mindboggling watching John McCain in the first debate simply saying that he wanted a bi partisan bill. This is where he likely lost the election.

4) Your opponent is far left economically. You don't need to move to the left on the issue.

For some odd reason, Senator McCain decides to propose a massive bailout of borrowers effectively blunting any attack on Obama's economic record. This mortgage bailout is mind boggling. Not only is it an asinine idea, it is totally politically brain dead. How can you say Barack Obama wants to increase the size of government and propose a $250 billion bailout for borrowers.

5) It's never over till it's over.

He learned it starting in the summer of 2007, and it isn't over now.

Here is how I viewed the other side.