The International House of Bacon

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.

* 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.

* 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 governmental disdain for citizen-approved budget votes. It’s a cool quirk of the New Hampshire system in some places that we get to vote on the budget - and thus make it easier to say “no!” to worthless increases. Naturally, town officials are appalled by the activity, and accuse the townspeople of not knowing what they’re doing. Classy.

* A great interview with Antonin Scalia on 60 Minutes last night. I’m a big Scalia fan, even if I don’t agree 100% with his brand of originalism, but this interview gives a good idea as to how thoughtful he is as opposed to the public perception.

* The growing cigarette black market in Massachusetts. I’d say “what are they thinking,” but that implies there’s any serious thought going on at the state level of government in Massachusetts.

* Power Line covers another source of discomfort with me regarding McCain. It has nothing to do with him criticizing the President and everything to do with his apparent acceptance of how opponents of the right perceive the right - note to McCain: being like Teddy Roosevelt isn’t really something to embrace. In a way, it’s a decent campaign tool - use the names of revered Americans to try and counter the more insane quarters of the left when securing the center, but it’s obviously at the extent of the solid right, the ideological base that needs more solidification at this point. It’s especially infuriating when he can have that and this in the same campaign cycle.

* There’s only one word I can use to describe this post: Yes.

* Joystiq’s Mario Kart Retrospective. I haven’t played about half of these, actually.

* 10 reasons the superdelegates should pick Clinton.

* Finally, this must have been uncomfortable.

…while being annoyed by the Bruins…

* Obama dropped out of the 27 April debate “couldn’t agree to terms” on a debate originally planned for the end of the month. Not that he necessarily has to debate anymore, or that it would actually do much for him if he did have to, but the timing is really classic, is it not? EDIT: Technically, saying Obama dropped out of the debate is incorrect, so I’ve fixed it for the sake of accuracy. I think we all know what the story is, though.

* McCain is taking public funding. Knock against him, for sure, but how else will he catch up?

* PowerLine on the problems with the McCain temperament issue. Putting aside this single-source/no-source reporting we’re getting from the press as of late, is there even any evidence that this is a continuing issue?

* A good read from Reason regarding the inevitable Supreme Court vacancies. I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s an interesting look at one of the more important issues coming up.

* A great column on the ethanol folly.

* It’s not a perfect op-ed y any stretch, but this post on ways the environmental movement has hurt people is still interesting enough for a look.

* The war on passive drinking. When will it end?

Back to the inevitable Bruins loss…

Ignoring the fingergate controversy because someone like Obama could never stoop to that level…

* Not that I’m one for pimping my own work, but my ideology post from this morning (LJ link might help some newcomers understand where I’m coming from, generally speaking.

* So, Pelosi took communion at the Papal mass today, even though the Pope has essentially said that pro-abortion types shouldn’t take communion. I mean, yeah, there’s more than a little arrogance to defy the Pope when he’s standing right there, but this is also a great example of the American (and perhaps Western) mindset when it comes to religion. I suppose it’s annoying to no one but the religious and me, though.

* I can’t decide what’s better: A college masculinist group, or the fact that their charter has a detailed section regarding calling Shenanigans.

* Interesting story about the sinking of the Titanic, with new scholarship.

* The Wall Street Journal pretty much eviscerates Obama on the capital gains issue:

As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That’s one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it’s one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn’t really care because he’s a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.

It also covers how Obama is either outright lying or is generally unserious about his pledge to not raise taxes for people under a certain income threshold. One of the best pieces of mainstream opinion journalism I’ve seen about Obama yet.

* Elephant 6 band The Minders are no more. I never got to see them, either - a shame.

* FiveThirtyEight discusses the recent SurveyUSA numbers for Obama v. McCain. This is why Obama’s getting hurt by issues like Wright - even though they don’t show up in the Democratic numbers (which is really a scary concept in itself), they do head to head:

As you can see, Obama’s win percentage against John McCain has declined to its lowest ever number, 41.4%, which leaves him essentially tied with Hillary Clinton, who is presently at 40.2%. When we began this project, the polls indicated that Obama was at a hair over 60% to win an election against John McCain; that number has now fallen by more than 20 points.

That’s a 20 point swing in this indicator since the beginning of March - the Wright issue reared its ugly head midway through March. Also, this SurveyUSA poll was taken before the whole “bitter” controversy came about, and before the debate earlier this week. It’ll be interesting to see how this works out.

* An interesting study suggests that it’s cheaper to treat an illness than prevent it. I.E., one in four high cholesterol, overweight people will have a heart attack, but we treat them all the same preventatively. It’s an interesting study in the context of the health care debate, which focuses so much on preventative care.

Yay weekend!

McCain drives me up a wall. It’s official.

I want to like the guy. I desperately want to like him, I want to support his candidacy, I want to be able to ignore the whole Campaign Finance Reform Act and the Gang of 14 and just dive right in. And when he presents this, I want to stand up and cheer from the rooftops:

* A one-year freeze on the amount of money Congress allocates to discretionary programs.. Imagine if we got that any of the last 8 years. Or during either of the tax cuts.

* An alternative tax system that would consist of just two tax rates and a larger standard deduction than under the current code.. Yes, yes, YES. Further simplification helps everyone - the 2001 cuts did a great job of this, and if you don’t like it, you can stick to the old one!

* A suspension of the federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. I’m in favor of scrapping the poor-crunching gas tax altogether, but bully for him for saying what needs to be said on the matter.

* A corporate tax cut. Also not quite far enough, but considering the alternative, again, we need this.

I mean, his plan is far from perfect - any bailout on mortgages is a bad idea - but it’s amazingly, incredibly good for someone who a) admitted to needing to learn about the economy, and b) brought on people who have apparently taught him very well.

But then we get stuff like this:

KUDLOW: Let me begin, in your speech today, and also in recent speeches, you’re really blasting corporate greed and reckless corporate conduct. It sounds a little bit like the business attacks by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Can you tell us, what do you mean by these criticisms? What are you driving at?

Sen. McCAIN: I’m driving at the people who get compensation which is not approved of by the stockholders, even a nonbinding fashion. I’m talking about people like Mr. Cayne, who the day–right around the time the government took over Bear Stearns–or bailed out, excuse me, bail–Bear Stearns–who went to the market and got $11 a share rather than $10 a share. I’m talking about people that when their corporation has losses, that they are rewarded with exorbitantly high pay packages. And it gives Wall Street a bad name, Larry. And that’s–and that’s pure and simple. I do not believe in government intervention, I do not believe in government control, I do not believe that. But I do believe we should take steps to increase transparency and also
shareholder input into the compensation of CEOs. After all, that’s who the CEOs work for. And I also think CEOs and chairmen should have–be different people.

…

KUDLOW: When you are criticizing these corporations, I mean, there’s 140 million Americans work for corporations, in rough numbers. Companies are the ones who create jobs in America, they’re the ones who really generate the family incomes, and of course companies need capital investment. Do you ever worry that you’re sending a very tough anti-business message to the firms, to the work force and to investors?

Sen. McCAIN: Larry, in all due respect, don’t you think that when corporate executives take exorbitant pay packages that are not justified by the–by the performance of the corporations that they have stewardship of and millions of–and 250,000 Americans in the last short period of time have lost their jobs, that that gives corporate America a bad name and then increases the
influence of those who are basically anti-business? Don’t you think that is also one of the–one of the spillovers here?

It goes on a bit, and kudos to Kudlow for holding McCain’s feet to the fire a little bit, but this sort of ignorant economic populism is dangerous. It’s inconsistent, it’s ill-thought out, and it’s yet another thing that gives me great, great pause when it comes to this man. I know I’m unlikely to find a candidate to fit my ideological mold perfectly, but I also don’t think that you have to pander to economic idiocy to get votes in this case. It doesn’t benefit his candidacy in any specific way against Obama, which leads me to believe that he actually buys into it, and that’s troublesome.

So I dunno. Consider me more conflicted today than I was on Monday. I don’t know, folks - help!

Two days worth in one bite-sized package!

* My favorite piece from the debate the other night? Obama conceding that the capital gains cut had a positive effect on revenues, but thinks the rate should rise anyway. How completely, utterly foolish. He’s your candidate, folks. I’m sure the promise to halve poverty in ten years will work out great when revenues start stalling. My second favorite part? Obama throwing Tom Coburn under the bus - one guy is a distinguished senator, the other blew things up in terroristic acts. Great comparison, that’ll go a long way toward unity, throwing out those “same old Washington politics.”

* The Supreme Court made a ruling yesterday about whether lethal injection was cruel and unusual, and 7 justices agreed it wasn’t. What was cruel, not at all unusual, and quite lovely to see, was Scalia eviscerating Stevens in his concurrance. Patterico highlighted one part, but the whole thing was a fun read, as was Thomas’s opinion.

* Who didn’t see this coming?

* When I talk about the alienation Obama has called, I’m not talking about dyed-in-the-wool liberals, but rather people like this guy, who sounds somewhat conservative, consistently votes Democrat, and is unlikely to shift to Obama if he’s the nominee when someone like McCain is the opponent. It’s why polls like this are telling - McCain is a better choice for some voters than the alternative Democratic candidate, regardless of how closely they may match policy-wise. When Obama has his spiritual mentors spewing hateful invective and views religion as a coping mechanism rather than a value, it’s going to turn off people who you might otherwise snag. Period. While Jonah Goldberg is an instant turnoff to a lot of you, he properly encapsulates the situation here. If you don’t get why the comment is a problem, read that.

* Jim McGovern (D-MA): Ethanol bill was probably a mistake.

* It’s not the United States media saying it: Iraqis feel safer once Iraqi troops flooded Basra. Kind of sounds different than the spin we heard from before?

* Obama also plans to further waste everyone’s time before his butt warms the chair in the Oval Office.

* Why should I trust law enforcement again?

Expect more later.

“They’re going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year, and they have the audacity to hope you don’t mind.” - John McCain, 15 April 2008

Quote of the campaign so far? I’d think so.

“At a personal level, it speaks to the alienation of the individual, stressing the need for caring and sharing and the politics of meaning. At a regulatory level, it seeks to identify specific sectors in which there is a market failure and then to subject them to various forms of government regulation.” - Richard Epstein on modern socialism.

* Not surprisingly, Obama’s “bitter” statement isn’t dying out. It’s quickly becoming a larger problem for him, and mostly due to his own statements on the matter, now attacking Clinton and McCain rather than admitting he was completely off base. Lance touched on the initial issues with the statement better than I could (short answer: focusing on the “bitter” aspect isn’t the problem), but it really continues to feed into a wider meme that Obama (and perhaps Democrats as a general group) are, at best, out of touch with who they’re trying to help, and at worst unable to comprehend anything that isn’t within their worldview. Obama didn’t see the problem with Wright, and he doesn’t see why people are upset when he says people value their rights or beliefs not due to thought or community, but rather due to a reaction to their lot in life. It’s a really negative view of people.

The worst part is that Obama’s not hurting in the polls with Democrats on this. He’s unlikely to hurt himself any worse in Pennsylvania against Clinton (a state he was unlikely to win anyway), and that says a lot about the Democratic electorate and about Obama in general - is it that these sorts of statements aren’t controversial to them because it’s the only reason they can comprehend some of these positions?

I’m generalizing here, I know, but as wrong as I believe many liberal positions to be, I know I don’t see it as some sort of position borne out of bitterness or resentment, and most mainstream conservatives don’t buy into that sort of rhetoric either (although it does exist on the more radical areas). Imagine if John McCain came out today and said that Democrats were in favor of national health care and abortion rights because they were bitter, clinging to these issues in response to their own life events? He’d be absolutely savaged by everyone involved. But, for whatever reason, it’s apparently okay and “in touch” to say that about religion and guns. Okay then.

I’ve not been more bullish on the ability of McCain to win the Presidency as I am this week. If McCain actually goes on the attack, Obama’s going to have to find a way to talk himself out of this, and he’s already whiffed big time once.

* Along the same notes, a piece at Politico notches a couple more instances of Obama being “in touch.” My favorite parts? That Obama feels he “understand[s] the world better…than John McCain” and that he feels that he’s “still almost normal.” If his appeal is that he’s like you or I, and he’s this completely out of touch right now, where is he going to be in a year?

* QandO on the progressive backlash on Obama.

* More great energy news, this time out of Japan.

* I’m not going to lie - it’s either McCain or Bob Barr for me.

* Most fascinating story of the day - Stalin’s body double.

* Radley Balko at Reason on the Jefferson Memorial arrests. The memorial is open 24 hours a day, so about 20 people decided to have a 10 minute dance party. Cops showed up, arrested one person, and dispersed the crowd. Why? Who knows.

* Judicial Watch is trying to get Hillary Clinton in trouble for the Elton John concert, which may be an FEC violation. Our campaign laws are insane.

* Finally, a great blog post compendium on the