The International House of Bacon

In the event that I don’t get to mess with this between now and Wednesday morning, keep in mind that much of this was written on Monday evening, and mostly concerns links from the weekend. We will continue with regular link posts tomorrow.

* So Obama is 99.99% the nominee, even though superdelegates can change and Clinton hasn’t dropped. The more things change…. I will say this much - Obama losing South Dakota should be considered a bigger deal than it will be. He was up quite a bit only a couple weeks ago - where’s his momentum?

* The Next Right posted a venn diagram of GOP archetypes. It’s a pretty decent breakdown - if I were Republican, I’d likely place myself in the overlap between neo-libertarian and paleo-libertarian.

* I love things like this: photos of some of Earth’s last remaining uncontacted tribes. I’m constantly amazed that stuff like this exists - to think that, even with all the exploring and advances we have in the world, there are people we’ve never met and cultures we may never know. If anyone knows any books on this sort of thing, I’d love to read one.

* McCain proposes Parliament-style question time for the Senate. I’d watch that - I used to always tune in when they played it on TV here, I wonder if they still do…

* Okay, now Obama is considering an Iraq trip. Someone please defend this. Someone please explain what Obama WON’T fold on. Someone still explain why he has any appeal to anyone beside the D next to his name.

* MADD is insane. To summarize, a cop goes into a classroom, says a classmate was killed by a drunk driver. They’re then brought into an assemly and told that, no, they weren’t really killed, but every 15 minutes someone is. I’m sorry, that’s sick. Why do people think this is okay?

* The Cato blog discusses global warming’s impact on mortality. Interesting stuff here, even if you’re not one to like Cato.

* More from The Next Right, this time on McCain’s strong grassroots presence. It’s amazing how many McCain memes are floating around that simply aren’t true.

* The Washington Post puts it out there: The surge worked, so will Obama be changing his tune? My answer is probably not - the only principles he appears to hold are wrong ones.

* $225k in earmarks to Rev. Phleger while Obama was in the Illinois legislature. Same old politics, etc.

* From RedState, McCain mulled a one-term pledge. I think this would have been a bad move overall, but I would be more likely to vote for him if he made it, I won’t lie.

* Finally, happy anniversary to the Berlin Wall and its wife. No, really.

‘Tis all!

Okay. Very few links today, just musings on what I’ve heard in the crossfire of the last few days and other meta notes. I essentially didn’t check my Google Reader regularly again until Saturday morning, so I missed about 800 possible links, and didn’t follow up on others - I’ll start catching up on links as the week progresses, and I have some other things mostly prewritten that’ll post at some point later this week. That doesn’t mean I’m completely unaware of what’s been happening, though.

* First, the DNC meeting was actually rather riveting to watch. I love this sort of thing, which was fascinating, and most of my thoughts may be completely off-base if Clinton in fact drops out later this week, but I have to say: a) that the DNC made rules that they have no way of adequately being able to force compliance on (re: primary dates) is ridiculous, and to penalize voters for those issues when the voters have even less say in it makes even less sense, b) Florida getting half-seating makes sense given the bylaws as I understand them, c) Barack Obama absolutely, unquestionably, unfairly benefited from the Michigan resolution. I understand why you assume that he would have gotten the remaining delegates, but that ornery Ickes guy got it right - the Democrats have a rule for uncommitted delegates already, and there was no logical reason to suspend those, especially when it hurts a candidate that much as a result. There was no good answer for Michigan, but I really think they picked the dumbest one.

I don’t think the DNC will remain fractured long-term. People are angry, but this isn’t THAT dramatic in the grand scheme of things - if you’re so aligned to a party as is, you’re looking at party over person already. I do think, however, this may be a harbinger of things to come in the general - Obama’s going to lose a bit of support in the general based on these shenanigans, and the Democrats have all but lost the “make every vote count” narrative that has worked generally well for them since the 2000 debacle. I’ve been wrong before, but that was some nasty stuff I saw there.

As for Clinton? I don’t think she’ll resign/concede, I think she’ll “suspend,” allowing for a challenge at the convention and the possibility of buyer’s remorse to set in on the Obama side while not having to work too hard. I hesitate to say that she was screwed by the system, since she ran a pretty horrid early campaign, but if the superdelegates are going to get behind Obama on this, I think that’s a mistake given the electoral maps. But hey - I’m jut a bystander.

* Scott McClellan’s book? Honestly, who cares? Really. At this point, assuming the leaking we hear is within context, we have a guy who stuck around for years doing something he was uncomfortable with for…what? And he was so comfortable being duplicitous in that role that we’re ready to trust him now because he’s saying things we want to hear? Okay. I mean, truly, I didn’t care about Feith’s book, I didn’t care about O’Neill’s book, and I don’t care about McClellan’s. Sadly, when the book proposal gets leaked, you know this is going to take up some cycles, and that’s just pathetic, and I don’t care any further.

* Obama left his church. We’re supposed to believe that you can’t ditch a crazy uncle, unless that crazy uncle possibly goes too far by calling you a politician, and maybe if that family decides to mock your Democratic opponent. I mean, I wonder if this helps him long term. I can’t imagine anything with this church can help him at this point. I dunno. It’s all so stupid and weird - to think that if he had left a year ago he could have avoided this should infuriate any Obama fan.

* I’m cautiously monitoring The Next Right. It’s a new conservative blogswarm created in part by Dale Franks (QandO) and Patrick Ruffini, and populated with mainpage guys who are conservative bloggers NOT in the Malkin/LGF mold. While I’m afraid of it turning into a conservative-style Daily Kos, I was cautiously optimistic enough to sign up for an account, and I’ll be crossposting New Hampshire information there unless it devolves into a morass of xenophobic lunacy.

* Speaking of xenophobic lunacy, Rachael Ray’s man hands are much more offensive than any scarf she may have been wearing. Enough already, please.

Plan for the week - probably no posts through the weekend. With the upcoming extraction, I have no clue how I’ll feel and probably won’t be interested in parsing political commentary. I was going to pre-write a few things, but my allergies are acting up again and I’ll likely go to bed earlier than normal tonight, so yeah.

I’m sure many of you will be devastated.

* Ken McKracken notes Obama’s unawareness regarding Iran policy. This is a pretty interesting note - how did he miss that?

* Adventures in legal prostitution.

* Why is Obama against the South Korean trade deal? Seriously, this is absolutely baffling.

* I have to say, Obama turning down a joint trip to Baghdad with McCain is really ballsy, especially stating that “We don’t need any more ‘facts’ to know that this war has been lost.” I liked the McCain move here - take a calculated gamble and see if you can’t get Obama to change his mind, and it ends up being lose-lose. The simple fact remains that if Obama was at all confident in his position regarding the situation in Iraq, he’d go along with this. He won’t because, I suspect, he knows he’s wrong and this is an issue he feels he simply cannot shift on. After all, for the amount of change he’s espousing, he simply has to stay as closed minded on this issue as his supporters tend to be.

* Jim Geraghty has some questions regarding Obama and his return to the “agricultural specialists” line.

* Adam, you were looking for me to bitch about Bush, here’s one: he signed that anti-genetic “discrimination” law into effect last week. Absolutely ridiculous. Even discounting the whole “government again intervening in the private sector,” the problem with this bill is that it forces insurance carriers to carry risk that they shouldn’t have to carry. I’m sorry, but at what point does it make sense for, say, an insurance company to offer flood insurance to an area that floods twice a year?

* Tom Coburn on the prescription for long-term Republican gains: Act like Republicans. Almost sounds too easy.

* Finally, some poll numbers. McCain beats Obama and Clinton on favorability, Obama’s unfavorables are higher than his favorables (very surprising), and a quarter of Democrats plan to vote for McCain.

We’ll see how this week goes.

* Bob Barr is your libertarian nominee for President. It’ll be interesting to see how, if at all, it affects the electoral map.

* For the record, I have no interest in the “Obama gaffe machine” past today other than noting that some feel it exists. Kudos to Tapper at ABC for somehow seeing the Obama the rest of the media doesn’t, but the fact remains that Presidential candidates (and Presidents) say dumb things, whether it’s spelling p-o-t-a-t-o-e or putting food on your family. While I’m sure there’s a bit of joy in Republican circles about having a Democratic candidate with some similar (although obviously not as pronounced) issues in speaking as of late, that’s not going to win anything.

* Is it an Appalachia Problem or an Ohio River Valley Problem?

* More class-act politics from the Massachusetts legislature. Prior to the 2004 election, the governor of Massachusetts had the ability to appoint a replacement to the Senate were the seat vacated. In 2004, with John Kerry as the nominee and Republican Mitt Romney in office, they stripped him of that power. Now, with a Democratic governor and Ted Kennedy falling ill, they’re trying to give that appointment power back. Too funny.

* Worth reminding: a windfall profit tax on oil companies is worthless if oil companies don’t own that much oil. It ain’t helping the prices. Also, Maxine Waters - you’re an idiot.

* Linked last week, only getting to it now: the sad story of Alice Walker’s daughter.

* This article is telling for two points: One, that Obama appears to not care much about the allies when it doesn’t mesh with his ideas (sound familiar to any perceived situation?), and two, that Obama appears to be considering a “military surge” in Afghanistan. I thought it didn’t work in Iraq…

* 50% of workers in Colorado’s United Food and Commercial Workers Union may want out. Boo closed shops!

* Finally, the new Weezer video is fun.

I meant to do some writing last night. But Grand Theft Auto IV took over my brain for a couple hours, so I get to rush this today. Whee.

* The best story of the day is the Texas court ruling which states that the government was wrong to remove the FLDS children from the Yearning for Zion compound. I’ve linked the Volokh post on it because it’s really the best overview out there (and at least 3 people linked me to various articles yesterday, so thanks), but the gist is that the religious beliefs alone are not evidence enough of a threat, and that there simply isn’t enough evidence to hold them for other perceived threats based on the evidence available. Like I said before - still more than a little uncomfortable with the goings-on there, but this is ultimately a good step in favor of religious freedom and a major slap in the face to government authorities.

* “We really in this last election, when I say we…the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn’t say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts…and people ate it up.” On one hand, we have a Democrat admitting that the Democrats stretched the truth about their war plans. On the other, we have Democrats who claim, with no supporting evidence, that the Bush administration stretched the truth about their war plans. Which one is going to get more play in the next 6 months?

* Barack Obama, the ball is now in your court.

* “I don’t think Obama really understands economics.” - Billionaire investor Carl Icahn saying what the rest of us who are paying attention already know.

* There are pros and cons to this bill, but the fact remains that neither side should be playing around with benefits for our troops, period. That there’s any significant debate on this is shameful on both sides.

* The stupid, stupid farm bill. And more.

* Something I learned yesterday: we have an import tariff on coat hangers. Aplia Econ blog maps out exactly why it’s stupid.

* Obama, JFK, and talks “without precondition”: What Obama should learn from history. One point they miss is where the US stood strategically following the Cuban Missile Crisis. While common wisdom tells us we had such wonderfully firm leadership, the fact remains that we ended up in a worse strategic defensive spot after the Crisis than we were before the missiles were being set up - once it was over, the Soviet Union had no new missile areas, and we lost some in Turkey. And that’s a victory?

* There’s been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the whole “Barack Obama’s 75k rally was that high only due to the free Decemberists show” thing the last few days (here’s a good link dump), especially since it’s come out that there are more than a few music/Obama rallies that have been held in recent months. First, let’s get some things straight - the Decemberists, while a great band, aren’t pulling 75k people on their own. I highly doubt they could - they got under 20k for the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles and I think that’s their biggest show so far (and a few readers here can correct me, being much bigger Decemberists fans than I am). The fact remains that a) Portland is heavily liberal, and b) The Decemberists draw an indie rock crowd that’s overwhelmingly liberal. Even if the band drew an extra 30k to an Obama rally, the crowd would more than likely be extremely sympathetic to the Obama campaign already, and 45-55k is still an astounding number, even with Portland being pretty well known for its attendance at these sorts of rallies. The simple fact remains that the music world is overwhelmingly liberal - there are few artists (country excepted) that consider themselves conservative, and probably more than a few who do and won’t say anything about it. There may very well be a sour grapes argument to be made by the righties who are most upset about this, as it’s unlikely McCain (or any other conservative right now) could draw this kind of crowd with or without musical help that isn’t twangy. Yes, the media should be mentioning if Obama’s rallying with Stevie Wonder, but let’s not pretend it makes a difference.

* Finally, if you need a timesuck today, check out GraphJam. Conversely, if you’re in St. Paul, Minnesota, you may want to go to the Saints game for Larry Craig Bobblefoot Night.

Gotta try and make this quick.

* A relevant question for Barack Obama. Essentially, war he supports = have to win. War he doesn’t = screw it.

* Judges trump Iraq for Republican voters. If this continues to increase, this will only help the GOP in November. Might make a devastating GOP loss a more manageable one in Congress and keep McCain competitive.

* Kudlow on stocks and Obama. This could be coincidence, but it’s too interesting not to point out.

* On one hand, I’m glad that New Hampshire’s Governor Lynch is getting a credible opponent in Joe Kenney. On the other, if his plank is going to be composed more of social issues than the fact that the Democratic government here is overspending and overregulating us, I can’t get excited.

* Compare the Obama I highlighted this week with the Obama from 2004. Political expediency what?

* Did the New York Times threaten the McCain campaign?

* Chuckle at the Congressional Democrats completely screwing up the farm bill. If the Republicans were smart, they’re seize on this and vote it down just to make a point. But they’re not, so they won’t.

* Finally, a Runaways movie? Yes, please!

* The big news is Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor. As most of you are aware, Ted Kennedy is not my favorite human being, but he’s still a human being and I can speak from very close experience that brain tumors suck, and no one deserves that, period. Here’s hoping for a full recovery.

* McCain on trade. The stark differences on free trade between McCain and Obama are really one of the issues that should be shouted fro the rooftops this election.

* How do you make an obsolete highway project more obsolete? Toll booths! I wonder if these will be “temporary” like the ones on the Mass Pike.

* Obama from earlier this month: “I think actually Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who is a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.” Yeah, that pretty much speaks for itself.

* For whatever reason, the White House decided to lash out at NBC for some creative editing of an interview, and decided to bring up a few other issues while they were at it. A major flaw in the Bush White House was their complete and utter inability to coherently defend themselves from otherwise idiotic attacks. I often wonder how different things would have been had the White House actually bothered to defend itself rather than ignore it.

* CQ Politics puts Obama’s weekend rally into context. No, Georgy, it wasn’t creative photo editing. d;-)

* Interesting Rasmussen poll: More people consider Iraq victory likely if McCain is President rather than Obama, and by a pretty wide margin. If Iraq is still an issue come November, this could be a neat split.

* I hate smoking, but not as much as anti-smoking zealots.

* More contrary wisdom on the “income inequality” gap.

* Finally, the best article I’ve read about Jon Lester’s no hitter was written by Joe Posnanski yesterday. Excellent piece. If baseball isn’t your thing, though, there’s always The 9 most Devastating Insults From Around the World to tide you over.

* Another day, another pile of horse doo-doo from Barack Obama. Now he’s railing against “media consolidation”, that non-existent ghost that the left loves to bring up as some sort of evidence that the world is horrible or something. The facts are these: not only are we facing a more diverse media in terms of ownership and reach than we have in most points of our modern history, but the relevance of those larger markets is waning - from radio’s reach to the ascendence of blogs and alternative media to the generally wide reach of the internet making local news nationally available. This more highlights the point that it appears Obama dislikes the free market (we all heard his “we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want” commentary, right?), and will promise anything he feels he can get away with to slow it down. This isn’t change we can believe in, this is change that didn’t work in the 1930s and certainly isn’t going to work in the 2010s.

* More good economic news. I’m surprised, I’ll be honest. Most indicators are positive, and growth numbers for Q1 may be adjusted up? Not too shabby.

* So, a few days ago, Obama decided that Iran actually isn’t a threat to the United States. We’ll let Obama’s lack of actual historical context/knowledge slide for the moment, but Jim Geraghty at the National Review pretty much handles it better than I could. Maybe some of it got through to Obama, though, because he wants to assure us that he’s “made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave” before trying to spin it into yet another unsubstantiated criticism of the Bush administration’s foriegn policy. Obama, you can’t have it both ways here - either Iran’s not a threat, or it is a threat. Make up your mind, because if you’re President, the way you handle foriegn policy is going to depend on it.

* Volokh covers the US v. Williams child pornography case. I’m of two minds about it - on one hand, I don’t think there is much of any reasonable defense of child pornography that anyone can make. On the other, there’s the Reason argument which notes, quite reasonably, that this is still a criminalization of what amounts to discussing something that may be illegal. I think Volokh’s argument is more sound, but it’s obvious that Sullum at Reason didn’t do an in-depth treatment of it (at this point, at least).

* Patterico with some sobering thoughts on the Court if you’re part of the “overturn Roe immediately” camp.

* This story is making the rounds, and it’s still ridiculous: A man offers a ride to a woman, who insists on paying him. She essentially traps him into picking a number, and then he gets cited for providing illegal taxi services as the woman he gave a ride to was undercover. What the hell is wrong with this country?

* Finally, salivate over Fox’s 2008-09 television schedule and keep your fingers crossed that Fox doesn’t do the Fox thing and cancel the good stuff 3 episodes in.

* Another story on the “people fleeing Massachusetts” trend.

* I’m glad Obama is willing to lie on the campaign trail so easily. No, Bush never pushed for privatization of Social Security, much to my chagrin, nor is anyone else with a chance in the race. But Obama has to play the faux populist, which requires dishonesty, so hey. Same old politics as usual, right?

* Oh, as if that’s the only dishonest thing out of his mouth that’s been put out there the last few days.

* Is Texas facing a freedom of religion situation if child protective services uses the FLDS association as a bargaining chip for the parents to get their children back?

* Finally, some entertainment fun: the trailer for Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse, which looks fantastic, and McCain/Schrute 08!

Slow weekend, I suppose.

* The big news of yesterday is the California Supreme Court affirming same-sex marriage. While I’m in favor of gay marriage (as well as plural and whatever other kinds of consenting marriages one can conjure up), and I say this without having read the entire piece nor having read any detailed analysis as of yet, I still wonder if the use of the Courts to force this through is ultimately dragging down the acceptance of this sort of thing or not. Even if the legal reasoning is sound, there’s a good sized subset that will never truly accept such a ruling and cry “judicial activism!” while causing an extreme pushback, which we’re likely to see in California if and when the Constitutional Amendment to ban the marriages lands on the ballot. Without even getting into the way it changes the electoral landscape (Obama’s only a +7 against McCain in the most recent SurveyUSA poll in California from a month ago), I’m just wondering if the Court challenges are ultimately the wrong tactic.

* A couple via Melvin today, the first about a 95 year old man who’s garbage wasn’t picked up for 2 weeks in England. Why? A ketchup bottle and coffee jar were placed in the incorrect bucket for recycling.

* Second, why does CNN assume a recession in its exit polling?

* ThinkProgress - not smarter than a fifth grader.

* Live by McCain, die by McCain. Another week over, another pretty interesting and positive speech by McCain that offsets previous speeches early in the week that seemed designed to tweak the right. If Obama wasn’t such a weak candidate, I’d be more concerned.

* Speaking of McCain, agree with him or not - this is some fairly solid thought behind foriegn policy and American intervention. It’s apparent he has thought these issues through, and should, if critics stay smart, put to rest any idea that McCain will continue the perception (and I use that word specifically) of Bush’s “cavalier” policy.

* A lot’s being said about Bush’s speech to the Knesset in Israel, and whether it was a shot at Obama (personal opinion? Most likely). The point that a lot of people seem to be missing is that, even beyond Obama’s ridiculous foriegn policy (a record he’s trying to run from), Obama is likely to have a serious Israel problem in the general election. That it hasn’t been highlighted by now is somewhat surprising to me, because there have been more than an isolated instance or so: there’s the “understanding” as to why Hamas would endorse him - and a rather tone deaf “understanding” at that, the belief by some that he may be hiding some thoughts on the Israel/Palestine situation (”I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front,” Obama’s advisor being in regular contact with Hamas, McPeak, Samantha Power - there’s a lot here. I’m not sure how much it will effect Obama long term, but I’m surprised we haven’t seen any significant discussion of it. Well, only somewhat surprised - that would come with the expectation that the media is doing its job.

* If you’re into this stuff, some crazy numbers about video game console sales during the month of April. Keep in mind - this includes Grand Theft Auto IV and Mario Kart Wii.

* Finally, a compilation of Manny Being Manny.

Still not feeling 100%, but better than yesterday, so let’s see…

* The “big news” was the John Edwards endorsement. I saw this coming if only because dirty populists need to stick together (I’m respectful to a fault toward a lot of ideologies that aren’t mine, but populism crosses a line for me - the rank dishonesty combined with policies that do the opposite of what’s intended is a bit much), but as a wider-scale issue, is an Edwards endorsement really going to help Obama in the general election at this stage? Does Edwards really bring anything to the table that would make the centrist voters that Obama needs give the Democratic ticket a second look? If there’s even a hint of Obama making Edwards the Attorney General, won’t that scare some people off? I don’t see the benefit past the mostly-already-decided Democratic primary, quite frankly.

* In the rare instance Obama does something right, I think it’s my duty to present it: Obama may relax the federal prosecution of medical marijuana, allowing the states more leeway. If we could get him on board for other issues of state’s rights, he might actually be worth someone’s time, but for the moment, let’s applaud him getting one thing right.

* Willisms on taxes and tax policy.

* RedState on Obama’s lack of momentum. He’s lost 7 of the last 10 primaries, and (I think) is likely to split the final ones. It’s an interesting side note to a primary that Obama otherwise has locked up, and the narrative is ultimately what will keep him from truly locking it up in the next few weeks, barring a Clinton withdrawal.

* Related from Rasmussen: nearly 30% of Democrats want to see Clinton run an independent campaign. She’s not that dumb, is she?

* Chicago overturns its foie gras ban. Good move.

* I’m kind of sad I slept through this yesterday: Manny being Manny, 2008 edition. Those of you not seeing Boston baseball on a regular basis are missing out on some really bizarre stuff, let me tell ya…

* The polar bear is set to be an endangered species. One of those bizarre things that the Bush administration has done, and I can’t for the life of me understand why. I’m not predicting economic apocalypse like many others are, but this is a really problematic listing for me, since the full population of bears has risen noticeably over the years. What’s the benefit?

* Proving that New Hampshire’s Democratic leadership does, in fact, wake up from its daze every so often, the income tax proposal they’ve been floating has been put on hold. This has been a bizarre run for a while, and I need to expand further on this when I have the time.

* More Obama mistakes: They apparently speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and we’ve diverted too many agricultural specialists in Iraq. I remember, either in Newsweek or Rolling Stone back during the 2000 election, a long article about Bush’s relative lack of knowledge of world leaders and things of that nature, complete with caricature of Bush at a desk with Condi Rice as the teacher. Somehow, I doubt the media will be printing anything significant like that as the Obama gaffes keep piling up. It’s a bit much to expect a domestic leader to have a strong grasp on all areas of international affairs during the campaign (although you’d think something like this he’d bone up on just a little more, given the Obama narrative), as they will learn on the job, but the treatment of candidates in this area is telling.

* I may have linked to the story earlier, but the dance ban at an Arizona restaurant has been lifted.

* Finally, Spider-Man’s greatest Bible stories.

* Mark Steyn on The Obama Rules. The best part:

He can’t be called a “liberal” (”the same names and labels they pin on everyone,” as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can’t be questioned (”attempts to play on our fears”); his extreme positions on social issues can’t be exposed (”the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives” and “turn us against each other”); and his Chicago background too is off-limits (”pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy”). Besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign.

…

This is, of course, an impossible standard. Obama doesn’t expect anyone to live up to it except John McCain.

Partisan? Sure, duly noted. But it’s also not wrong - Obama’s attempts to set the tone of the campaign should fall flat to any aware observers, as he can’t even hold himself to the same basic standard. I’m all for a no-holds-barred campaign, personally, but Obama isn’t the one who gets to decide the rules.

* The inconsistency of polling: On general issues, the population appears to trust Democrats more than Republicans on the general issues, but Rasmussen also notes that the polling shows a belief in the Republican positions, at least on the economy. Republicans never seem to do well on these generic polls, which further suggest the branding issue more than anything else.

* Speaking of candidates and brands, the Republicans lost another seat in a special election. I know little about Davis, unlike the Louisiana seat which the former Democrat who is now a Republican lost a seat to a Democrat, but a lot of people seem to be pointing to an alleged failure of an Obama linking. I wonder if this ridiculous ad campaign the DCCC put out there may have tilted a few thousand votes. For the record, it’s ridiculous because it’s completely factually incorrect. But hey, too late now, right?

* I find this W movie intriguing. Not necessarily because I have any interest in it, or expect it to do well, or even expect it to be historically accurate (which early signs say probably not), but I just wonder about what possesses people to get involved with something like this, I suppose. It’s one thing for Michael Moore to peddle his own distorted view of the universe on his own, but it’d be another to be an actor who reads the script, and either a) fails to recognize how bizarre the take is, or b) simply doesn’t care how bizarre the take is. I dunno.

* We can all agree that this is all kinds of screwed up, right? Guys, don’t get upset when I mention the qualities of the Obama campaign when people are putting out stuff like this.

* A follow-up on the Obama and the Court mention - I’ve presented two different quotes over the months about Obama’s personal litmus test for nominees, but his statements on the actual legal situation throw a wrench in that: On Wolf Blitzer’s show earlier (I haven’t found the transcript yet), he apparently said that the number of cases where the law isn’t clear would be “5 percent of cases or 1 percent,” which would ultimately boil down to maybe one case per term. The problem is that those with the moral compass to see the little guy, or the underrepresented, or whatever, don’t tend to really understand the law - we see that on the Court with the Souters and Ginsburgs all the time. If it were a situation where the Court only heard the cases that fit into that small percentage, Obama might have a point, but do we really think that an Obama nominee would be on the correct side of the coming DC gun case?

* I have a feeling we won’t be hearing any griping about this ad in the near future.

* Power Line demonstrates, again, the media’s treatment of Obama.

* Gotta love that war on drugs.

* Finally, two bizarre stories: the woman who remembers everything, and The Boston Weekly Dig’s poncho ad.

Gotta plow through these a bit today…

* Good luck to the End the Income Tax groups in Massachusetts. They got 45% in 2002, we’ll see what happens this year.

* A very interesting piece from ABC about Obama’s propensity for blaming his staff for gaffes. It does happen a lot, it appears. It’s interesting - in my mind, it could be entirely reasonable that his staff is somewhat less than 100% competent on these matters, but whether he’s using them to cover his backside or being 100% honest, is that really a change at all from the perceived leadership of the last 8 years?

* I agree with the blogswarm - this piece is pretty fawning, and I have a lot of personal doubts that the media will be doing its job this summer. How they can give Obama a free pass on so much in this is ridiculous.

* This New York Times piece is interesting in the context of foriegn relations. I could care less that Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law and left to be a Christian (I had said Catholic earlier, but old habits die hard and this is more accurate), or that it could cause some interesting problems in terms of international diplomacy, but it does throw an incredibly odd wrinkle into the process that a lot of people may think about. Of course, this information will be preyed on by the wrong people who’ll make the wrong connections, but it’s still a very different take on what could occur.

* Bob Barr is officially running. The Libertarian Party convention is in a few weeks, I’m a little scared.

* RedState makes a valid case for experience.

* Locally, we’re finally seeing some activity in getting my local representative, Carol Shea-Porter, out. Now, if only John Sununu would get moving…

* Fun with statistics: the price increases on stamps are greater than the increases on gasoline.

* An odd take in the Washington Post, describing evangelicals who believe that we may “deserve” an Obama presidency in line with prophecy. Somehow, I don’t think John had the second coming of Jimmy Carter in mind when writing the Book of Revelation, but hey…

* Congratulations to Homeland Security, which achieved zero compliance as of the 11 May deadline for Real ID. I promise, I’m not at all complaining about that outcome.

* Finally, check out this music video by unsigned Manchester, UK bank The Get Out Clause. They had no money in the budget for camera crews, so they performed in front of CCTV cameras and then requested the footage from the government per the Data Protection Act. Pure genius, and the song is pretty good, too.

All while wondering whether Sufjan Stevens is cursing himself with knowing that there may be 10 more states for him to write about…

* Jeff Flake, Republican from Arizona, is one of my favorite Congressfolk. He proves it again this week by introducing the Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008, which will essentially end the government ethanol handouts. This bill is such a good idea, I doubt it’ll get to the floor for a vote. After all, we know that the ethanol production isn’t working, so between this and Harry Reid’s proposal for $300b more for farms with ethanol as a point, which makes more sense?

* More polling problems for Obama. According to the Pew polling results, “[h]e is perceived as a liberal. He is perceived by many voters as not well grounded on foreign policy and not tough enough . . . and he has a potential problem, distinct from race, of being seen as an elitist, an intellectual.” When you have Obama facing an opponent who has centrist credentials, this is not a good formula for success.

* Of course, we are already seeing evidence of Obama’s race to the center now that the common wisdom is that he’s got the nomination locked up. The new tack is saying that McCain is lying when he says that Obama advocates meeting with folks such as Adminijad unconditionally. The problem is that Obama has said that. Multiple times, it appears. Same old Washington politics, folks.

* Yes, they are Crooks and Liars and we have the proof. Well, maybe not crooks, but definitely liars.

* Students suspended for not reciting the pledge of allegiance. Sigh.

* Considering how much Obama’s a fan of expanding government intervention in as many facets of American life as possible, how does one explain his support of ending federal oversight on union activity? How does this fit into Obama’s narrative, exactly?

* Patrick Ruffini on the left and the idiotic attacks they’re attempting to make on McCain. He points out that, contrary to popular belief in some areas of the left, Republicans most fed up with Bush tend to support McCain the strongest, he lists some examples of opposition, and he doesn’t even touch upon issues such as the Gang of 14. But, again, why should we be shocked by this?

* Is the New Hampshire school funding proposal unconstitutional? We’re talking the state Constitution, for the record.

* Hugo Chavez aiding a Colombian terror group. Naw, really?

* More judicial lunacy from Obama. And this guy taught Constitutional law?

* I was reminded of one of my favorite bizarre stories from college this weekend, about a teacher in 1966 and the “Third Wave,” his experiment to show how easy it was to get people caught up in the fervor of Nazi Germany. I’ve been familiar with his story about it for a long time, but this weekend was the first time I had read accounts from the students. There’s some creepy stuff in here if you look at it with a modern context, but it’s still a fascinating read no matter what.

* Obama also lacks the facts on taxes, but that shouldn’t come as a surprise. To go back to Clinton-era levels (as Obama advocates) would result in a much higher tax burden than what was experienced back in the 1990s.

I think that’s all for now.

Time really gets away from me.

* More economists back McCain’s economic plans than Obama or Clinton. It’s not without its problems - fewer than 50 economists responded with a preference, and many had some interesting reasoning (calling McCain the “least horrible,” which I agree with, and the Obama supporter who apparently based his position solely on the gas tax holiday) - but this is still fairly important to note, and something McCain should really explore further and hammer home.

* Also, the McCain camp responded to Obama’s little mention of McCain “losing his bearings” with a pretty damning indictment of his campaign style: “We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.” If McCain and his staff can continue with these sort of responses, they’ll do quite well for themselves.

* Adventures in conservation: because the people of Fulton County did so well with the conservation efforts during the drought, the county will raise rates to make up for the lost revenue during the conservation. There are no words.

* The best editorial I’ve seen addressing those who compare the Wright situation to McCain’s endorsing evangelical, John Hagee. The best line for me:

Hagee is not McCain’s pastor and never has been. Nor has the pastor of San Antonio’s Cornerstone Church been McCain’s mentor or spiritual adviser. Not for 20 years. Not for two seconds…McCain didn’t have his children baptized by Hagee. Or donate thousands of dollars to Hagee’s church. Or name Hagee to a prominent position in his campaign. In sum, McCain did none of the things that would make for an apples-to-apples comparison to the Obama-Wright connection.

But don’t expect Obama and his supporters - or the media - to note this.

* Victor Davis Hansen has the right prescription on conservatism: “not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservativism, not less.” It’s a fairly blunt, yet completely rational, listing of what needs to be presented, often to a new voting bloc who have no understanding of the principles outside of the distorted view they get from the press and from left-wing pundits, and while the problem may not be something McCain is equipped to address in a useful way, this line is absolutely true: “In an honest debate, Obama’s alternatives to the above would be to turn toward more government, higher taxes, more bureacracies, more dependence of the individual upon the state, etc. And I can’t believe the public wants a prescription that historically simply doesn’t work.” The one flaw is that Obama has at least convinced a large segment of the population that his prescription does work, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. The issue is breaking through that barrier with some simple facts and evidence, which is going to take longer than a single election cycle.

* Barack Obama, strengthening relationships with our allies.

* Things are apparently quite dull in Nebraska.

That’s all I’ve got.

* I’m glad that someone’s taking the alternative view on the gas tax holiday, and Bryan Caplan’s piece in the New York Times is pretty much the best argument that will gain no traction. I think the holiday is a poor idea because “holiday” implies (or ensures, depending on your perspective) that the tax will be reinstated. The problem with the holiday is that it’s too short - by the time we can see real changes in the pricing, it’ll be time to put the tax back into place. Given that the tax is a relatively small piece of the revenue pie (Which hovers from $30-40b depending on the source (here’s one)) and that state dollars aren’t always allocated properly, it’s a tax we could do without on a longer-term basis. You’ll never see Obama or Clinton push for that, though - while a $27 savings over a summer might not be much except for the very, very poor, you’re getting into the hundreds or perhaps thousands for some if there’s a moratorium on those taxes. That’s good politics and good economics, but that’s not the Democratic way at present.

* Want my superdelegate vote? That’ll be $20m, please.

* A blog post I read reminded me of the craziness coming from the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the toppling of the statue. I recall a lot of people looking at the wide view picture and automatically assuming the event was staged because, well, the crowd was small and the pictures were tight and the tanks were everywhere, ignoring the point that anyone came out to begin with. I’m wondering if we’ll see any sort of similar commentary on this Obama rally, which was presented as a full house. Of course, major events in war do have a difference of scale to a campaign stop and context is clearly necessary, but considering the Obama narrative of the campaign from the media, surely this is a clear manipulation of the situation. The question is - for what?

* A story and video of the treatment of an anti-abortion demonstration at a college. This is kind of shameful, regardless of what side you fall on.

* The CQPolitics blog puts some context in the Republicans voting against McCain in the primary meme being floated.

* Power Line on Obama’s improbable history. There are a lot of problems with Obama’s position on “speaking with our enemies” beyond historical context, but that’s for another time.

* Finally, Israel turns 60 today. Happy birthday.

* So, we all know the story from last night, with Obama showing some surprising resiliency and Clinton hitting a pretty rough patch. Looks like she’s still going, though, which isn’t surprising at all.

* Interesting exit poll out of Indiana: half of voters were influenced by Wright, and 75% of those voters broke for Clinton.

* John Edwards on Barack Obama: “Sometimes I want to see more substance under the rhetoric.” Because if anyone could recognize a complete lack of substance, it’s John Edwards. I love it.

* An interesting piece on libertarian paternalism. I don’t like it for a lot of the same reasons the folks at Reason don’t, but it’s still more enticing than the alternatives that get thrown out there.

* The continued annoyance of the McCain candidacy: on one hand, he again vows to push for Alito/Roberts-style judges, a very good thing. On the other, he praises the Gang of 14 as allowing for the existence of them. Uh, wha? I wonder if he simply knows that the vast majority of conservatives will have to hold their nose, so he’s just sticking to the same old script. The only bright side is Obama’s response, which continues to sound completely tone deaf on what is one of the more important issues of the campaign.

* An interesting timeline of Obama’s electoral history. This is likely to be his first race contested to the finish, and those are some pretty neat tricks he pulled in some cases to cruise into office.

* Substitute teacher does a magic trick, and was accused of wizardry.

‘Tis all for now.

* This piece on a self-selected survey on what kids are reading kind of irritated me a bit. Granted, the article does note that many of the books that are listed are due to assignment, but this self-congratulatory praise of the list by the same educators who don’t want to deviate from what they know and instead widely push the same books that only resonate with a subset of kids is discouraging to me. Furthermore, they even cite the decline in the amount of books read per year, and fail to note any possible correlations between the often-dated, unrelatable, and typically preachy fare that they assign as opposed to some of the more interesting writing available, many of which share similar values and information while actually relating, either in character or style, to the kids who are reading them. The disconnect is absolutely incredible to me. There’s a longer rant about books and assignments and “classics” and whatnot that isn’t really good for right now.

* Jonah Goldberg on the Tuskegee experiments, separating the myths from the reality. I learned something here.

* I’m pretty sick of our marijuana laws. This has to be a new low. It was prescribed, you morons!

* New Zealand’s laws are so insane that it’s illegal to buy Grand Theft Auto IV for your child. As bad as it gets here…

* Heh.

* CNN’s decided that the news isn’t really important anymore. In the tank, indeed.

* I think I’m gonna throw up.

Prediction for today? Clinton by more than 5 in Indiana, Obama by no more than 7 in North Carolina. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Clinton pull within 5 in North Carolina, but there are a lot of African American voters in that primary, and I assume they’ll continue to break in favor of Obama the way they have.

* Way to go Vermont for incentivising organ donation. A good start.

* A small piece on GraniteGrok about one of my favorite Senators, John Sununu. He’s currently trailing behind Shaheen by uncomfortable amounts, and his campaign seems incredibly slow to get rolling, considering that it’s May now and no one’s heard as much as a peep, but here goes nothing…

* Also, Sununu’s name coming up in the VP talks for McCain. He’d be a great choice if we didn’t need Sununu in the Senate.

* From Urgent Agenda, Jeff Greenfield’s piece on Orwell and elitism. Provides a nifty contrast to the current race.

* I love this concept.

* More problems for Obama: people aren’t buying is comments about Wright. This is at least more plausible than the “closet Muslim” smear that went out there, which is why Obama can’t ignore this. Although, it appears, he just might anyway.

* Remember, these are being touted as improvements to Canada’s health care. No thanks…

* Is the media really taking it easy on McCain? Power Line puts another notch in the no column, thanks to the New York Times.

That’s all for now…

All while dreaming of GTA IV and Mario Kart Wii…

* I’ve said all that needs to be aid about Wright at this point, I’m just glad the left is finally waking up on this. Kinda.

* Evidence that gas price predictions are completely useless.

* From the Club for Growth, the economics of panhandling.

* Barack Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes? Here’s a likely scenario if that occurs. And McCain is allegedly the one without economic knowledge?

* The Supreme Court upheld a voter ID requirement. I’m not against this, and I’m surprised that it was upheld, moreso that Stevens came on board with it. A voter ID is free in Indiana, which aids in the situation, but as long as the state doesn’t put any roadblocks up in terms of ability to get a voter ID (i.e., money or transportation issues), I see no reason why we shouldn’t require it.

* Unexpectedly funny shopping bags from Oddee, one of the more fun blogs out there.

* Free Tibet flags made in China. The jokes write themselves.

* I have to laugh at how organized the Ron Paul people are even at this stage of the game. This may be the bite in the rear end the GOP needs to rekindle its roots a bit.

* Child services removes kid from father’s custody after he mistakenly gives his son a Mike’s Hard Lemonade. I wish this was a joke, it’s completely pathetic.

* Harkening back to yesterday’s question, a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart cannot sell generic prescription drugs for less than $9 or it will violate anti-trust regulations. Who are they helping here, exactly?

* I’m not a fan of McCain’s health care plan. While it’s a step in the right direction, it’s not enough to really make a legitimate impact at this point. In situations where the health insurance is costing upwards of $1000/month combined employer/employee, a $5000 tax credit isn’t going to make a difference and isn’t going to change the employer/employee relationship. McCain’s been a pleasant surprise economically thus far, but he’s not quite there yet on health care.

* Is Jimmy Carter our worst ex-President? I’m starting to wonder.

* Finally, GraniteGrok on government