Obama is polling pretty well. This is not a statement intended to get me into some drawn out and pointless argument over the validity of polls; it is merely a statement of fact. The fact is, even if we, the GOP, manage to pull this thing out, it is very likely going to be very close. If we do not want Obama to win, then, I think it’s safe to say we have work to do.

When I was volunteering my time to make phone calls and write letters for Fred Thompson, the mantra among the detractors was “the campaign isn’t doing enough.” Now that we’re a couple weeks away from the general election (and, really, before now), that same defeatist monster is again rearing its ugly head: “the campaign isn’t doing enough.”

I’m here to say, the campaign isn’t doing enough — because a vital part of the campaign is too busy complaining to pick up a phone or send a letter. Back before there was such a thing as the Internet — before telephones and television, even — campaigning was done by word of mouth. That is, a guy picked a candidate based on issues, and told his neighbor. If his neighbor agreed, he told his neighbor. And so on. The advent of electronic communication did not eliminate word of mouth — only expedited it. Until now.

There is a level of apathy from those removed from the Left side of the aisle that is nearly unprecedented. Many people are simply unexcited by our choice of candidates. We’re not even sure we want to vote. Or, we say, we will vote, but we’re not about to put time and effort into campaigning. Well, campers, we have a matter of days to get this going. And, regardless of your motivation for voting McCain, it is up to you, and it is up to me, to find like-minded individuals and convince them of our cause. Or, regardless of your vote, there will be an Obama presidency.

There are two basic groups of people not voting for Obama: there is the McCainiac — he who supports John McCain for President — and there is the “Nobama” voter. The McCainiac takes no convincing. He will come to the polls, and he will pull the McCain lever.

The rest of us, however, need incentive to vote McCain. A reason. For some, Sarah Palin was exactly what was needed. Her addition to the ticket took many a lukewarm conservative voter and transformed them to diehards. There is the PUMA voter — the former Hillary voters who somehow have managed, in all of this, to be far more realistic than many Conservatives: they choose McCain over Obama because no other candidate has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this election.

Then there are the “See, I told you so” voters (I find myself in this category). We are voting for McCain because if Obama wins and mucks it up (which, we know, he will do if he wins), having voted McCain gives us standing to say, “See? I told you so.” We vote McCain because we know that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote in this election — and our “see I told you so” is drastically reduced in authority.

The final group — the group that must be addressed — is the third party group. Now, it goes without saying that a GOP candidate will never, ever, draw votes from the Nader crowd. However, there are two other parties, at least, who may still be converted, at least temporarily, to the GOP platform. Libertarians and members of the Constitution Party alike have plenty of reason to dislike the GOP. Indeed, were it not for a few core issues, I would easily find myself among these groups rather than Republican. However, it is the reasons they dislike Republicans that may give us our strongest standing in winning them over.

Both of these groups — Libertarians and Constitutionalists — hate Big Government. With a passion. Even more than many who call themselves “Conservatives” in many ways. Now, if they truly mean this, an Obama presidency can only register as a nightmare. Regardless of how they feel about McCain, Obama will tax higher, create more government waste, spend more and regulate more. Neither of these groups can honestly stand by and watch this happen. This is not to mention the Supreme Court issue — possibly the single most powerful difference between these two candidates.

It is time for Libertarians and Constitutionalists to face facts: your candidates will not — cannot — win. At best you will make some barely noticed and quickly-forgotten statement, while helping to hand the election over to somebody who has neither the intellect for foreign experience, nor the principles for smaller government.

We cannot force those in the third parties to view a McCain win as a true victory. Indeed, I’m not sure I view it that way — but rather as a place-holder for the future Conservative Leadership. But, in politics as in war, there are many small skirmishes — many fights of dubious outcome — that create a path for real victory. And while McCain may or may not be considered a “win” for Conservatism, Barack Obama is most certainly a loss.

Something stinks in the Legislature… and it ain’t the chili. Chris Dodd’s senate investigation on the failure of the economy has the same cynical reek as did OJ Simpson’s vow to find Nicole’s killer.

As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday:

At today’s hearing, his mission is to weave a tale that somehow manages to avoid mentioning his own role in this debacle. That won’t be easy, but Mr. Dodd has shrewdly selected a series of witnesses who, like him, contributed to the mess, and have every incentive to point fingers elsewhere.

Of course, WSJ is one of the only old media outlets to officially notice this. Dodd, of course, has been talking up the idea that the market meltdown was a direct result of deregulation. He blames regulators who, he says, “willfully ignored the abuses taking place on their beat.” He fails to mention that in 2005, while Republicans were warning about the dangers posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Dodd himself was declaring the mortgage market to be “one of the great success stories of all time.” Dodd conveniently forgets, in his crusdade for the truth, his sweetheart loans from Countrywide, or his $165,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie — not to mention Barack’s $126,000.

It seems some idiot put the fox in charge of the henhouse, and now the fox is looking around for somebody to blame for eating the chickens.

(h/t NightTwister for WSJ link)

I recently picked up a copy of Misunderestimated (Bill Sammon, 2004), an excellent book so far, and one that I would recommend to anyone interested in hearing unfiltered truth about President Bush and his administration. The first chapter in this book is called “Rise of the Bush Haters,” and talks about the devolution from simple political discourse to the hate-filled rants, violence and liberal vitriol that Rush Limbaugh comically calls BDS — Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The opening scene is one of GWB staring in bewilderment at the hate-filled mob in Portland, OR, as they carried signs reflecting complete misapprehension of history and hurled rocks, vegetables and insults at police and the President’s motorcade — all in the name of peace. These warriors for peace would go on to bully and intimidate Bush supporters and bystanders who happened to be staying in the same hotel. They would also attack police cars, push the police line — injuring at least one cop in the process — and then cry “peaceful protest” as the officers responded with pepper spray and mace.

From Portland to the rest of the nation, this virus of hatred and spite would spread like wildfire among the ranks of netroots and liberal elite alike.

I’ve been watching this curious development for a few years now, but it wasn’t until my children turned three that I really began to understand it. When my children want something, in general, they first ask politely. If I say no, they start to become belligerent. When I say no again, they become more so. If not nipped in the bud, this behavior will quickly develop into name-calling, throwing things — and ultimately result in them being sent to bed. Behavior very similar to what took place in Portland in 2002 and has been going on ever since.

So what happened? Is it all about Bush? The vitriolic protests against Sarah Palin and other conservatives suggest that no, this is not really much about Bush at all. This is about a group of people who believe themselves to be better and smarter than the average person, and their failure to understand why the rest of the world doesn’t seem to grasp their genius and just obey them. It’s about a level of frustration that Bush got elected to a second term — and that a Democrat, namely Barack Obama, could possibly be so close to losing this election. This frustration has smoldered until it has turned to anger — and from anger to pure and total contempt.

But it goes still deeper, I think. When these liberal elites get frustrated, they go off-script. Obama himself is a good model for liberal psychology in this way. When Obama gets flabbergasted or angry, he goes off-script and accidentally says what he really means. That’s where comments like the now-infamous “bitter clinger” remark come from. When you frustrate a liberal beyond his ability to cope, you meet the real man. And that man is not a pleasant one to behold.

So, knowing this, how then does the Conservative respond? This new brand of liberal, like children, act and react based purely on emotion and feeling. As puerile as as it may seem to us, what we’re observing when we see these violent and noisy protests is essentially a mass temper-tantrum. Is there a right way to deal with this nonsense?

My fellow independent thinker and RedState poster NightTwister was good enough to offer me some parenting advice. Advice that, given the parallel behavior from the moveon.org crowd, we may all do well to heed:

Best solution is to tell them once. If they become belligerent, ignore it. They’ll still escelate, but when they see that it’s not getting a response, they’ll quit doing it. If they throw themselves on the floor, just walk over them, paying no attention at all.

Good advice indeed.

-streu-
(cross-posted at SIT)