The International House of Bacon

As noted, I’m having a really hard time talking myself into voting for McCain, mostly because of a wealth of reasons that seem to keep cropping up when I least need them to. The fact that I think he’s generally a good choice for the left on a whole doesn’t help that feeling, and a piece on Reason’s blog yesterday really highlighted that for me a bit more, even if it wasn’t the intent.

Matt Welch wrote a book on McCain, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick (a book I have yet to read but still plan on reading), and his piece at Reason was not entirely positive, but not completely negative either. Two of the three highlights, however, were what tipped me off, even if I don’t necessarily agree with Welch on them.

The first, of course, is Iraq. For better or for worse, McCain at least appears to be framing himself as the war candidate, and while it might have been a tactical mistake a year ago, but with perception starting to catch up with reality, it may not be a terrible thing for McCain to focus on at least in terms of gaining significant distance between his eventual opponent (as he lacks it in other areas). The highlight of Welch’s Iraq note was this speech, where McCain stated that he “will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country’s interests secure and our honor intact.” While Welch somewhat mocks the apparent dismissal of the “should we have gone” question, I think it’s a much better way to view it at this stage - no matter how you feel, felt, or plan on feeling about the Iraq War at this point, essentially everyone is in agreement that the sooner we can leave without causing any extra problems, the better. McCain’s dedicated to doing it right, and there’s no question that he’s in the interests of making sure that happens - a stark difference from Clinton, who isn’t looking to rush but is concerned chiefly with getting out rather than solving the remaining problems, and Obama, who’s looking to rush and is fine with going back in if things go sour (which would likely end up costing more and taking longer than any other plan out there currently). Plenty of the Democratic/left-wing anger and hunger for “change” is tied into Iraq policy, but if it’s a major issue for you, the true “change” you want is a complete separation from Iraq, which can only be done via a changeover that ensures that there won’t be a need to go back caused by ourselves. Can we really be confident that the Clinton and Obama plans provide that? Sure, McCain’s might not be able to either, but McCain’s plan is at least aware of the realities that the country is facing.

The second, and perhaps more importantly, is trade. If we learned anything about Ohio last night, it’s that a) lying about your trade statements on the campaign trail isn’t going to help you in the polls, and b) that voting Democrats have wildly poor views regarding trade realities. While McCain has a very checkered economic record, if there’s one thing he has been relatively consistent on, it’s trade. He has generally understood the need for free trade, and he’s been pounding that point home as of late, which is a sharp, sharp contrast from the Clinton/Obama mantras. As others have said in the comments, it’s not like the Republicans have been perfect on trade, or that everything is completely hunky-dory, but compare McCain’s more recent statements (and most of his recent career) with Obama’s alleged desire to renegotiate NAFTA or Hillary’s fairly schizophrenic record on the issue - with global trade a reality, it’s hard to sy that either Democrat is a solid choice.

I’m sure more will crop up as time goes on, but once we see the two parties seriously campaign against each other, I think we’ll see more of this sort of thing reveal itself.

* The news of the day is that Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, has died. This isn’t just news because I’ve started playing, but more because if it wasn’t for this guy, RPGs and fantasy gaming (both tabletop and computerized) wouldn’t exist in the way we know it. RIP, and no saving roll jokes, please.

* The Wall Street Journal has a great piece about the differences between Ohio and Texas. I’m very glad I’m not in a union.

* A list of questions for Barack Obama. Some miss the point, but others, such as how his positions aren’t really representative of “change” or his Constitutional interpretation, are questions that need to be asked but probably won’t be.

* I learned something new today: Barack Obama is against gay marriage, but somehow can justify same-sex civil unions by using the Bible. Oh, but that part in the Bible about homosexuality being a sin and an abomination is “an obscure passage in Romans.” I’m very much in favor of gay marriage, but if this isn’t an incredible example of Obama’s use of speech to somehow at least partially please everyone, I don’t know what is. This was absolutely stunning to read.

* Of course the media is being hard on Obama.

* Of course the tax cuts were for the rich.

Someday, things will calm down.

ETA: fixed the WSJ link.

I’m not going to go as far as to say that the wheels are coming off after one spectacularly bad press conference, but if this is what we can expect of Obama when he’s faced with tough (and not even hard) questions from a largely local press contingent, what’s going to happen when he faces some significant questions from a national media?

Some of the spin I’m reading goes along the line of “but he answered 8 questions about it!? What more do you want from the guy?” The problem isn’t the appearance of brevity in the conference - he may have answered a typical amount of questions, maybe even more than usual. The problem is his handling of the only two blemishes that have been thrown on his record so far - the Rezko flap and the NAFTA one. That the media isn’t trusting the Obama campaign’s statements - or the Canadian embassy’s for that matter - on the meeting between Obama’s advisor regarding the NAFTA comment is significant on a number of levels - it indicates the end of taking Obama’s words at face value, and, more importantly, the Obama bait-and-switch tactic we’ve gotten so used to didn’t work, leaving a number of questions on the table about it that Obama didn’t touch.

The Rezko questioning didn’t go much better. That Obama felt he had answered the questions locally two years ago doesn’t much matter today, as the news is back out and is a big deal. Yes, the media is latching onto it because it’s a “hot story,” as Obama says - that’s the story of your campaign!

It will ultimately be interesting to see how Obama handles this going forward. Indications are that he’s going to lose big in Ohio today (still a shock to me considering his pandering on NAFTA) and if he wins in Texas, it won’t be by a significant margin. This means a month more of campaigning, probably another debate, and more questions that he’s not going to want to answer. Will he be a little more poised next time, or have a minor tantrum whenever someone takes the eye off the ball Obama’s placed in front of us for so long?

* Patterico comments on the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Wesley Clark and former Joint Chief of Staff vice-chair William Owens. His statement is worth repeating: “Hillary, by virtue of 8 years as first lady and 8 years in the Senate, with her 80 trips abroad, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief that McCain, who graduated from the Naval Academy, had a real military career, and has spent 24 years in the Senate, serving a significant period of time as Armed Services Committee Chairman.”

* Did you know that Barack Obama once proposed a federal ban on gun shops within five miles of a school or park? And yet we’re supposed to believe that he’s in favor of Constitutionally-protected gun rights.

* Mark Perry notes pre- and post-NAFTA numbers on manufacturing and employment. More here.

* Meet McCain’s schizophrenia on taxes. I pulled this from Reason’s Hit and Run, but they’re much kinder to him than I’m going to be - it’s one thing to do the right thing and note that the corporate tax rate is too high and that it would be helpful to economic interests if people and businesses knew that their taxes weren’t going to go up. It’s another entirely to only drop the corporate tax rate 10 points (which won’t make a difference in most states) and not make a very simple vow that taxes won’t go up on your watch. Want to prove you get it economically? You’re missing a really good chance right here.

* Byron York at National Review notes that Clinton might have similar NAFTA problems to Obama. This is kind of reminding me of the “John Kerry has talked to other world leaders who endorse him” thing, except that this story isn’t really going away.

* Dear Netroots Left: Republican doesn’t equal conservative. The idea that Obama would fill his cabinet posts with some Republicans is laughable at best - one commenter said it best that it’s just a “you can’t trust your own party with X” waiting to happen - but to act as if Hagel and Lugar are somehow strong conservatives is a disconnect that I’m surprised still exists. Yeah, so Hagel votes with the Bush position - if you guys could move past the knee-jerk reactions to even seeing Bush’s name, you’d know that he’s not a conservative, either.

* The Jerusalem Post puts together a very fascinating piece about Obama and the youth vote. The piece really is great, here’s my favorite part:

His evident charisma aside, a clue to the source of Obama-mania may be found in the demographics of his support: he is far and away the favorite of younger voters and college students, routinely winning over 75% of the votes of Democrats under 30. Obama has tapped into is the first generation educated in schools focused on “self-esteem.” Now, the products of self-esteem education have come of political age in substantial numbers, perhaps with profound implications for this and future elections.

Being an Obama supporter, in a way, is like getting a participant ribbon on field day. It completely makes sense to me.

* Howard Kurtz on the media treatment of Clinton v. Obama:

Would Clinton have skated as easily if she were found to have visited radicals tied to violence? Or bought land from an indicted businessman, as in the Rezko case? Or if the pastor of her church had talked about “this racist United States of America,” as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who heads Obama’s church, has?

I’m not all that into the “association” games that a lot of people like to play - it’s normally a distraction and is usually false or misleading anyway. With that said, however, considering how often these things get talked about, why isn’t there more examination with Obama’s associations?

* WizBang (in two parts) shows how conservatives and percieved conservatives can’t win on certain issues, no matter what. A hint - voting against a certain budget doesn’t mean you hate children.

* A note on the “costs” of drinking.

* I talked a bit about Obama’s rhetorical strategy, and forgot to link you to this example from the John Locke Foundation. “Sure, the free market is great, but…”

* Obama’s idea to have pre-filled out tax forms is pretty much the worst idea in the history of ideas for the IRS. I mean, apart from having an IRS…

Whew!

Back on schedule, I think.

* Charles Krauthammer wrote an excellent piece on lobbying Friday. The idea that any candidate or politician would go against the right to petition the government is really pathetic.

* You know a tax bill is completely moronic when it raises taxes on domestic companies, but inadvertently provides a break to Venuzuela. Great job, Congressional Democrats. Way to live up to that approval rating.

* A fun little memoriam: The Collected Controversies of William F. Buckley.

* From Volokh: Barack Obama, Sept. 26, 2002, where he said that the Iraq war was “a cover-up for a failing economy.” “Right from the beginning,” right folks? This would be one of the most ignorant things I’ve heard from the candidates yet if it weren’t for…

* …McCain buying into the thimerosal/autism allegations. For me, this is one of those issues that bothers me more than the creationism/evolution thing. This is my creationism. Remember how I’ve been trying to talk myself into McCain? This essentially put me back to square one. Pathetically dumb.

* Victor Davis Hansen at National Review put up a great article about what the next President faces “After Dubya.” Puts a lot of things in context.

* I’m not sure what to make of this yet, but 60 Minutes may have been duped again. Whether it happened or not is still being looked into, but the fact that we can’t even rule it out without a second look is more damning about the sad state of affairs in the mainstream national media than anything else.

* Cool link of the day: the incredible expanding Dubai. Yet we still haven’t rebuilt the World Trade Center.

* That the United States incarceration rate is as high as it is is quite shameful. Reason puts it into perspective a bit, though.

* A link I keep forgetting to post: Stuff White People Like, a blog dedicated to stuff that white people like. Pretty funny.

* This is why I avoid Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall essentially decides, with no evidence of a link but plenty of evidence of ignorance from sectors that weren’t even behind McCain until he was the only choice left, that McCain will run a bigoted campaign against Obama. That’s the hard-hitting analysis we’ve been looking for, right?

That’s all for now.