In the immediate aftermath of the Palin selection, I wrote that Governor Palin has been a reformer and a change agent in Alaska, has helped clean up politics substantially in the state and could–if mainstream theories concerning the electoral appeal of Vice Presidential candidates are to be believed–tip a close race in John McCain’s favor.

But the judgment of the efficacy of a Vice Presidential pick does not, of course, end with electoral considerations. More pertinently, it does not even begin there. Rather, the efficacy of a Vice Presidential pick needs to be judged ultimately by examining the policy stances of a Vice Presidential candidate and by determining whether a Vice Presidential candidate is prepared to be President of the United States on a moment’s notice.

I stand by all that I wrote concerning Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska and the potential that she might be an electoral force to be reckoned with. But careful readers of my previous post will note that I wrote nothing about Governor Palin’s policy stances or her preparedness for the Presidency. I break my silence on those topics with this post.

Read More →

Indeed.

Joe Biden, of course, was not intentionally trying to be funny.

Courtesy of Iowahawk and Tim Blair. Who says that this election season is bereft of laughter?

I find it more than a little amusing how the choice of Sarah Palin has given people on the other side of the partisan divide a serious case of intellectual whiplash. Up until now, anytime that Barack Obama’s experience was questioned, the reply from Obama partisans would be something along the lines of “Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had tons of experience and they ran the country into the ground!“

Now, with Palin, experience is evidently important again–unless the experience argument is used to criticize the Obama candidacy.

Get it? Heads, Obama wins. Tails, McCain and Palin lose. But of course. And to be sure, far, far, far fewer people were bleating on and on and on about how they were newfound devotees of experience when Tim Kaine’s name was in the running as a potential Vice Presidential candidate for Obama. I am sorry, do the people who have suddenly decided to lash themselves to the mast of Experience not know that we have Google and can call shenanigans on their hypocrisy?

Of course, there is a reason for all of this piling on Palin’s candidacy: I have often said that Vice Presidential picks carry little to no electoral weight but mine is a distinctly minority view and to the extent that my view is wrong, Palin’s selection could bode very badly indeed for Obama. It could help peel away disaffected Hillary voters and even if a minority are peeled away or become conflicted enough to want to stay home instead of vote for Obama, it could make all the difference in the world in a close election. As a dramatic choice, Palin’s selection helped stomp and tromp all over the news cycle–a news cycle that would otherwise have been devoted to waxing rhapsodic about Obama’s acceptance speech on Thursday night. Needless to say, the Obama people are not happy about that–and it showed in their intemperate response to the Palin selection. Palin is a reformer and a change agent in Alaska, having challenged the state GOP on the issue of corruption and having beaten establishment Alaska Republicans in order to become Governor and implement her message of change. And as a fresh face who is not from Washington, DC, she messes with Obama’s “change” game significantly.

The election will be won by the two candidates at the top of their respective tickets. But in a close election–as this one is increasingly shaping up to be–little things can help win the White House. And if Sarah Palin’s selection is the game changer that a lot of factors indicate it could be, this surprise decision may well be the one that John McCain thanks in the event that he is able to win the Presidency.

Yes indeedy–you read that right.

The Obama campaign responded by attacking the DNC delegates for hewing so closely to the discredited economic beliefs of the Bush-Cheney-McCain Administration. “This isn’t change,” remarked David Plouffe. “This is more of the same!”*

*I made this paragraph up. But admit it: It’s plausible.

A very good, very eloquent, very powerful case for a cause I do not believe in. It was delivered well, The atmospherics were impressive, if more than a little bit imperial. But at the end of the day, we have to decide whether we are going to buy into a political ideology merely because it is dressed up in eloquent words.

Can we? Harsh shot after harsh shot was leveled at John McCain and the Republican Party. That’s fine; politics ain’t beanbag. But once the harsh shots are finished, it is more than a little bit disingenuous to suddenly and self-righteously pronounce that we ought to put aside the old politics of imputing bad motives and ill intent to our political opponents. Republicans didn’t just get politely disagreed with in that speech. Republicans got accused of every nasty thing under the sun and merely because Obama stopped every once in a while to assure us that Brutus John McCain is an honorable man, doesn’t mean that he meant it. And it certainly doesn’t mean that he wanted his political supporters to believe that he meant it. The new politics of Barack Obama are not new at all. They are fake beyond measure.

(One can, of course, see the hypocrisy in all of this by examining the “thoughts” of the aspiring patron saint of Obamanian politics, Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan believes that a YouTube John McCain put together to genuinely and sincerely congratulate Barack Obama merely means that it is “very hard for a celebrity as celebrated as McCain to be upstaged. Or up-stadiumed.” He approvingly quotes James Wolcott’s statement that House Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor is “essentially an unregistered Israeli lobbyist,” calling such claptrap “entertaining.” Of course, we may remind ourselves that Cantor is Jewish while we reflect on the fact that Sullivan is pleasantly amused by the implicit–or not-so-implicit–accusation that as a Jew, Cantor has dual loyalties.)

Read More →

Like the RedState Directors, I join in endorsing Eric Cantor for the Vice Presidential nomination of the Republican Party. Cantor has experience in Congress that Barack Obama just cannot match. He has tremendous policy smarts and the ability to communicate those smarts to the public at large; he is a policy wonk with a gift for relating to people and explaining to them how policy will affect their lives. Since there are those who continue to wonder whether John McCain will show the appropriate degree of respect for conservative views, Cantor’s selection would show that McCain genuinely does respect conservative viewpoints and values and that he would want them represented in his Administration and throughout the Republican Party.

I would be lying if I didn’t say that Cantor’s Judaism does not attract me as well, given that I too am Jewish. Call me selfish, but few things would overjoy me in this election cycle as much as seeing the Republican Party reach out to members of my faith and letting us know that our values, our voice and our leadership is cherished and respected. To the extent that Vice Presidential picks and campaign surrogates matter in electoral outreach, having a Jewish Vice President–and having the support of the first major party Jewish Vice Presidential candidate in Joe Lieberman–would be an excellent way to show American Jews that they are welcomed in the Republican Party and thus wean them away from the Democrats. The fact that Eric Cantor is a highly intelligent, dedicated, disciplined, devoted and charismatic patriot makes him the best choice for the Vice Presidency.

There are a lot of good candidates out there for John McCain. But he needs to pick someone who is very smart, brings skills to the table that complement McCain’s and can be an excellent President if called upon to serve.

Eric Cantor is that person. He would make a superb Vice President and he would be a pathbreaking choice–both for his background and most importantly, for his talents and diligence. Here’s hoping he gets the nod. He deserves it.

1. A picture is worth a thousand words.

2. No matter how pretty the speeches, the Clintons are still angry.

3. The Census takers will love this.

4. They are large. They contain multitudes.

John Kerry: Bitter much? The entire speech was a catharsis for Kerry, one that was meant to lay out on full display just how upset he is that he came ever so close to winning the Presidency four years ago . . . and failed. The attacks on Karl Rove were amusing–you just know that Kerry wakes up at nights screaming in fury some epithet attached to Rove’s name for the way in which his campaign was comprehensively dismantled and defeated.

Bill Clinton: Best speech of the night–and thus far, of the convention. But it is a little lame to be protesting attacks on Barack Obama’s experience and trying to remind other people that the same attacks were leveled at Clinton 16 years ago when this is still out on the Internets:

Read More →

That’s the assertion.

It’s wrong.

It is depressing to see that Robert Mugabe still has the whip hand in Zimbabwe. But it is very heartening to see that there are more and more people willing to fight back.

Man, this speaks volumes doesn’t it?

“Obama does not like Clinton, and Clinton knows it,” asserted one longtime Clinton adviser, a refrain that several compatriots repeated almost word for word, though occasionally in stronger terms.

Whether the reverse is true, and whether it matters as much, are less clear. Clinton associates say he was embittered earlier this summer but appears to have moved past that. They noticed a change at a dinner in Las Vegas on Aug. 19 celebrating his 62nd birthday, where, as one friend put it, “he was very matter-of-fact about it all.” It appears obvious to people on both sides that Obama and Clinton are acute political animals who could bridge the divide if it became mutually beneficial for their long-term prospects. But Clinton and his friends are uncertain that Obama sees the necessity yet.

There is a history to all this, going back to the time when Clinton urged voters not to buy into the “fairy tale” of Obama’s rise, but the latest expression of unease surfaced this week in connection with the subject of Clinton’s speech. Several of his associates complained, though not for attribution, that it is a misuse of his skills and policy achievements to have him speak on national security instead of the national economy, which boomed during the eight years of his presidency. One old Clinton hand said he broached the subject with a senior Obama aide — arguing that no one could better deliver a new variation of the golden-oldie 1992 theme, it’s the economy, stupid — only to be dismissed vociferously with the exasperated phrase, “That’s so typical Clinton!”

How ’bout that party unity?

If you are either one of the Davids–Axelrod or Plouffe–you will be depressed beyond measure to read this:

Barack Obama has been struggling to maintain his Democratic base thus far in August, and according to weekly averages of Gallup Poll Daily tracking, the problem seems to be with conservative Democrats.

Within the Democratic Party, Obama’s losses are primarily evident among the relatively small group that describes its political views as conservative. The 63% of conservative Democrats supporting Obama over McCain in Aug. 18-24 polling is the lowest Obama has earned since he clinched the Democratic nomination in June. At the same time, there have been no similar drops in support for Obama in the preferences of liberal or moderate Democrats.

As a result of this, support for Obama among all Democratic registered voters fell from 81% in early August (Aug. 4-10) to 78% last week (Aug. 18-24). Obama’s support from Republicans over this period also dipped from 9% to 7%, while 42% to 43% of independents have consistently supported him.

The 78% of Democrats backing Obama from Aug. 18-24 ties for the lowest seen since early June. The 7% of Republicans for Obama is the lowest to date (since the start of Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the Obama-McCain race in March).

The poll points out that married women are also a problem demographic for Obama.

So, how did that Hillary Clinton speech go over? Let’s look at the aftermath:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most loyal delegates came to the Pepsi Center on Tuesday night looking for direction. They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn’t erase their frustrations.

Despite Clinton’s plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.

There was Jerry Straughan, a professor from California, who listened from his seat in the rafters and shook his head at what he considered the speech’s predictability. “It’s a tactic,” he said. “Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I’m still bitter.”

There was JoAnn Enos, from Minnesota, who digested Clinton’s resounding endorsement of Barack Obama and decided that she, too, will move on and get behind him. “I’ll vote for [Obama] in the roll call,” she said, “because that’s what Hillary wants.”

There was Shirley Love, from West Virginia, who smiled at Clinton’s composure, waved a button bearing her name and felt a renewed pang of regret that she had lost the nomination. “She deserves it,” Love said. “That’s the thing that sticks with you. Even if she can move on easily, that’s not as easy for everybody else.”

Read More →

And amazingly enough, if you point this out, people get huffy and accuse you of being out of touch.

It cannot be stressed enough:

The last place Kathy Archuleta could have ever imagined she’d spend the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, was at a happy hour sponsored by the Republican Party.

 But the 54-year-old Democrat joined several other Hillary Clinton supporters, along with volunteers and officials from John McCain’s campaign, at a Happy Hour for Hillary.

The event, sponsored by the Republican National Committee and approved by the McCain campaign, was a chance for McCain and Clinton supporters to come together for one cause: their opposition to Barack Obama’s candidacy.

“Four years ago, if you said we’d be at a Hillary happy hour at the DNC, I would have called you crazy. But today is a great opportunity for people who … agree that Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience to be president of the United States,” said McCain campaign regional communications director Tom Kise.

Events like these are not big deals in and of themselves. But they give comfort to those Democrats who believe that Barack Obama is not prepared to be President of the United States. The more such people realize that there are others out there who think the way they do, the more willing they will be to express their concerns–both by voicing them and by voting on the basis of those concerns.

And that can only benefit John McCain. I know that the Obama campaign won’t like that reality. But they are going to have to live with it.

In such business

Action is eloquence, and the eyes of th’ ignorant

More learned than the ears.

–William Shakespeare.

However rousing Hillary Clinton’s speech sought to be in praising Barack Obama, the fact remains that you can judge the Clintons better by looking at their actions rather than listening to their words.

Again, it bears repeating: Bill Clinton would not be throwing a fit if Hillary Clinton told him not to and told him that throwing a fit would hurt her politically by making her look less than loyal. The plan is simple: Hillary Clinton is the good cop. Bill Clinton is the bad one. She is complimentary. He isn’t. And while Bill Clinton may himself give a rousing speech to rally Democrats, that will be because Bill Clinton would not be caught dead giving a bad speech in a morgue. It will not be because he likes Barack Obama.

“Action is eloquence.” Ears are good things to have. But when it comes to judging the actions of the Clintons regarding their support–or lack thereof–of Barack Obama, use your eyes. They will serve you well.

Will Zeus be the Democratic nominee?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.

The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos’ National Football League team plays.

Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington’s Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party’s nomination for president.

I presume that he will also have the power to toss thunderbolts at people who don’t applaud enthusiastically enough. Or perhaps this is a celebration of a latter-day Plato and his very own Republic.

Whatever. Theatrics may impress for a time. But they don’t hide the truth. And to the extent that theatrics evince pretentiousness, no one will miss the message or fail to recognize arrogance when they see it.

Yeah, right.