The International House of Bacon

* If you want campaign finance laws, then enforce them. It ain’t hard. When people named Doodad Pro are donating to a political campaign, it’s time to do something about it. It’s not even a partisan issue here.

* While I’m slightly ranty, is this what passes for objective journalism? Yes, I know most of you see Sarah Palin as a curiosity more than a serious politician, but that shouldn’t be seeping into the mainstream reporting. The media really should be ashamed about the way this election was covered, but, well…. I liked this cartoon, and the final frame is probably my favorite part.

* Speaking of Palin, RedState provides an infodump showing how the post-election stories are, as anyone could have predicted, falling apart at the seams. Then again, I know people who still think she tried to ban books in Wasilla, so I suppose I should just be happy some people are speaking up.

* I don’t agree with everything here, but Thomas Sowell’s latest column on intellectuals is worth reading, if only to get a different point of view on things.

* File this under “things I’m surprised the Obama campaign didn’t try to get out into the open earlier,” an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on his religious faith. You’d think requesting this to be released sometime in 2007 might have squelched the “secret Muslim” rumors from the beginning.

* Here, I’ll take a position no one will like: let GM die, already. Manufacturing in this country will be dead as long as the unions have such a stranglehold on things that a forklift driver for a domestic automaker can make 6 figures. Kill the automakers, see if anyone wants to try and make low cost cars at a reasonable but realistic rate of pay, and be done with it.

* I’m glad to see the true history of the Great Depression finally getting some traction in public circles. It’ll be too late to fix the problems we’re going to run into in the next few years, but maybe three will be a charm. More from economic columnist Amity Shlaes on FDR’s “leadership.” If you haven’t read her book The Forgotten Man yet, add it to your list.

* Obama probably won because his tax cut plan was more credible to voters. I’d laugh if I wasn’t so busy crying.

* Considering how much examination Joe the Plumber got for daring to question Obama on his tax plan, I wonder when the media will get curious about new Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s lack of property taxes on his “home.” Maybe it’s nothing, but it’s worth a look, isn’t it?

* Could Obama’s possible regulations on health care providers result in the closure of Catholic-sponsored hospitals? This could be serious.

* Finally, how South Park pulled off the election episode less than 24 hours after the election was decided.

* Okay, this may sound empty to plenty of you, but I don’t care: This Weekly Standard piece is good, and the final paragraph is what I’m thinking:

We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD congratulate Barack Obama on his impressive victory. We pledge our support for those of his policies we can support, our willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty, and our constructive criticism and loyal opposition where we are compelled to differ. We hope President Obama’s policies and decisions will strengthen the nation he will now lead, and that our country and the cause of freedom in the world will emerge from the next four or eight years even stronger than they are today.

I don’t think Obama has the policy slate to repair things. I do think he’s lacking the understanding to make things better. This is not, however, my wishing him failure for anything, because I don’t think failure is a good thing, obviously. I’d love to see him prove me wrong.

* Record turnout? Not so much. The next step clearly has to be getting the states to figure out that the nation perceived as the bastion of democracy shouldn’t have lines at their polling places.

* For those of you insisting on Palin being a drag on the ticket, the exit polls say otherwise. If anything, a) Palin provided base energy to the ticket, but b) couldn’t repair the damage McCain did on his own. Kudos to him for trying to spin “maverick” into something positive, but even Sarah Palin couldn’t change McCain’s fundamentals. Furthermore, a recent Rasmussen poll shows plenty of positives regarding Palin in Republican circles.

* Speaking of Palin, in case you missed it.

* Jon Kyl wants to filibuster bad Obama judicial picks. This is why Kyl is one of my favorite Senators.

* Five myths about the Great Depression. Point one worries me in today’s context.

* More on the stagnant income myth. There are a ton of great graphs here. More on middle class wealth here.

* Freedom to Tinker discusses “orphan works” and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I found this very fascinating given some of my research lately.

* This is kind of old, but baseball fans might enjoy Joe Posnanski on the scary, scary Tampa Bay Rays. The AL East is officially going to be even tougher.

* Another fun article on The War of the Worlds broadcast and the mythology behind the “widespread panic” the broadcast is generally believed to have caused.

* A strange thing: the Beacon Street Girls YA novels apparently help fight childhood obesity.

* Finally, it took a mathematician to figure out the opening chord to “A Hard Day’s Night.” Music is weird.

President - John McCain over Barack Obama: No, I wasn’t a fan of the last four years, either. Why? Not the war, not the political posturing, but the government spending, the government interference, and the lack of a consistent, coherent domestic policy. In terms of what we’re going to get in the next President, neither McCain or Obama have significant answers to deal with those issues, but the utter naiveté and incoherence of a possible Obama Presidency should turn anyone off. Yet the mantra of change and the mistaken beliefs of what’s actually happened over the last eight years have seem to taken over any real true discussion of the issues on either side. This isn’t 2004, where we had a pretty lousy President but a defining issue that drew a clear line - this time, Iraq is off the table and yet many are looking at that as a key issue still. What’s left, then? An untenable energy policy? An unsustainable spending plan? A tax plan that will harm the economy by Obama’s own admission and will increase your taxes? And yes, it will - if the Bush tax cuts expire and you pay federal taxes, you’ll see an increase with no guarantee that Obama’s preferred tax credits are anything you’ll qualify for. This is where the Obama candidacy falls apart - the details.

If this election were a referendum on honesty, we’d all be forced to vote “none of the above.” I’m pretty sure we can all agree on that. But if you want actual change - not the hopey snake oil kind that Obama’s been peddling - McCain’s the guy you want in there. His voting record is more moderate, his reputation for reaching across the aisle well-known, and his ability to get things done in the face of what appear to be impossible political circumstances legendary. More importantly, no one can doubt his commitment to what he believes is right. This is not some knock on Obama’s patriotism or anything like that, but a knock on Obama’s judgment - when a person so blatantly makes decisions based not on what he believes is right, but what appears to be politically tenable or desirable (see: Iraq, FISA, public financing for campaigns), that’s not real change, that’s the same thing you’ve been complaining about for the last 8 years. Obama reminds me of the exploitation filmmakers that I spend so much time researching - sure, you get to see naked people in their natural habitat, but you’ll have to sit through an uncompelling frame reel of native people to get there. If you really think you’re going to get what you’re voting for, I’m not sure what to say.

I’m damning McCain with faint praise here. My reason for voting for him is singular - Sarah Palin. It’s a shame that the campaign foolishly allowed the media to define her before she got the chance, because she’s a dynamic, intelligent, and capable politician who, if there’s any justice in the world, should have a long career ahead of her. She’s still a politician at heart - anyone who gets to this level ultimately is - but when I say she’s “change I can believe in,” I mean it because it’s true - she walks the walk where the head of the Democratic ticket is merely talking it. But here’s the only pitch I can give you in a time where I simply didn’t have the personal mental energy to make the pitch for the last few months - McCain has actually been someone who’s stood for change repeatedly. Often, you’ve liked the change, often not. But McCain will be up against a Democratic Congress, and that’s a situation he absolutely relishes. In a term where Iraq won’t matter, universal health care isn’t on the table, and the Court really truly isn’t in the balance (let’s be blunt - I’d rather not see the three liberal seats filled with clones of their predecessors, but a Democratic Congress shouldn’t let the opposite happen and there are only two rock-solid anti-Roe votes in the conservative wing anyway), where do we go?

If you’re “voting for change” Obama-style, you’re doing it because you want to see things get done. Does Obama give you that confidence? More importantly, are you truly confident that the Obama platform, whether you agree with it or not, is one that’s best for the country under the current circumstances? Are you really confident he has it in him, when he didn’t even have it in him to do it while he’s had power, when he didn’t have it in him to stick to his plans on the campaign trail? The parallels between 2008 and 1932 are really scary to me at this point, and we know how that turned out. Let’s not fall into the same trap.

As Americans, we deserve better than Barack Obama. It’s that simple for me. Maybe his opponent is far from optimal. Maybe your guy got bounced out in the primaries. Maybe your favorite politicians never run. Maybe you’ve never wanted to vote before this year. In any regard, if you refuse to give a third party your vote, then consider going with McCain. This is important enough to me where I’m voting for a major party ticket for the first time ever. I was once a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. Go figure - it’s that important.

Polls as of Sunday night put Obama up anywhere from +5 to +16 in New Hampshire with significant overweighting of Democrats. Internals for the campaigns appear to be as such where both McCain and Obama spent time here this weekend. My vote might actually matter on this one.

US Senate - John Sununu over Jeanne Shaheen: John Sununu has been one of my favorite Senators since he was elected. Again, imperfect, but he’s principled and energetic, and stands for the right things economically, which is a big deal for me. Jeanne Shaheen, on the other hand, was the former New Hampshire governor who increased taxes, fees, and spending up here in ways that were completely unnecessary and antithetical to the attitude up here. I’ll be honest - I want Sununu to win this, and I’ve done what I can to make that happen, but you could also make the argument that he didn’t deserve to get in the first time, so I’m of two minds about the possible loss for Sununu. I think he’s more politically deserving, but karma is a harsh mistress.

Polls as of Sunday night say Shaheen +8, again with significant overweighting of Democrats. My gut calls it for Shaheen, but if McCain turns out the vote as well as he’s known to do up here, who knows.

New Hampshire Governor - Joe Kenney over John Lynch: The only good thing I can significantly say about Kenney is that he’s not a governor who drove the state into a $250m budget deficit, signed a smoking ban, floated a seatbelt law, and signed various tax hikes in otherwise individual and business friendly New Hampshire. Unfortunately, Joe Kenney’s campaign has been absolutely pathetic, and he’s nothing more than a token opponent for Lynch to destroy. I’ll vote for Kenney because he’s not Lynch - hardly a ringing endorsement, but there you have it.

The most recent poll I’ve seen had Lynch beating Kenney 65-14. Worse, that’s the best showing I’ve seen Kenney get yet. This is probably the only sure thing we have going up here.

United States House of Representatives: NH-1 - Jeb Bradley over Carol Shea-Porter: The best I can say for Bradley is that he got swept out in the 2006 Republican purge, and was one of the few who truly didn’t deserve it. If you look at Shea-Porter’s “achievements” as our representative, it’s stunning how completely contradictory it is to basic New Hampshire ideals. That I only moved up here 18 months ago and appear to “get it” more than Shea-Porter does is fairly damning. Her worst position by far is her apparent support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which removes the requirement for a secret ballot for unionization, but to highlight that alone fails to even begin talking about her robotic party line stances on taxes, health care, and the war. She’s among the worst American politics has to offer period, and Bradley deserves to get back in based on that alone.

The latest local poll I’ve seen has a statistical dead heat, Shea-Porter +3 on a 5.5% margin of error, with Bradley closing the gap in particular. This poll is also among the same overweighting of Democrats, so I’m very confident about a Bradley victory on this.

State Representatives - Keith Murphy, Rich Tomasso, Dick Martson: One libertarian conservative, one actual Libertarian, one standard Republican. We can vote for eight, but I’m not 100% comfortable with re-electing any of them, since all they’ve done is carry water for John Lynch. George Katsiantonis, Democrat, is one of my current Representatives, and he doesn’t offend me that much, but he’s still in there and should go on principle. On his vote, however, I reserve the right to change my mind.

I had to laugh at the ballot questions in Massachusetts, and I figured I’d chime in anyway since I really wish I could vote on the first two ballot questions:

Question 1 - YES to End the State Income Tax: This is the second coming of a ballot question that first appeared in 2002 and somehow got 45% of the vote. This time, they’re organized, and this time the idea is better - move the income tax from 5.3% to 2.65% in 2009, and then eliminate the individual income tax outright in 2010. The income tax represents roughly 39% of the state’s budget, meaning that essential services would not have to be cut and there would still be more than $18b in revenues to spend.

It’s funny to see who is most against this bill - the same people claiming that the middle class need the tax breaks. Meanwhile, this could result in more than $2000 a year for the middle class in money they’re not sending to Beacon Hill for god knows what. The reality is that, like the income tax decrease Massachusetts voters approved in the 1990s, there’s no chance of the legislature actually allowing this to go through as presented. One can vote for this knowing that, while at the same time sending a message to the state government that the Massachusetts situation is untenable tax wise. Up here in New Hampshire, the tax situation (no income no sales) is often referred to as the “New Hampshire Advantage.” Massachusetts could use an advantage of its own.

Question 2 - YES to Decriminalizing an Ounce or Less of Marijuana: Frankly, this is what I call “a good start.” The bill ain’t perfect in a lot of ways, but the simple act of becoming yet another state to begin the process of normalizing drug policy in this country is something any sensible human being should be able to support. The best news is that polling suggests significant support for the measure, but this is Massachusetts we’re talking about.

And one more that may not, in fact, matter to anyone electorally:

California Proposition 8 - NO Eliminating the Right to Same-Sex Marriage: I don’t know exactly how this is set up as a law (for instance, , but I know this much - while putting people’s rights to a vote may be a little backwards to some, it is the only way to truly make acceptance the norm. For all the complaining conservatives can do about California, this would be the perfect opportunity to see some democratic action toward making the law more equitable for all. More importantly, this leaves the law open - it does not put something into the statute while democratically affirming the right to marry whom you want. Another “good start,” but one with much deeper implications. If you can vote in California, do the right thing.

—

My final comment on all of this? Get informed, and then get voting. It’s that simple. Just do it.

That’s the question I have to ask after seeing this pop up. I’m linking to Fox only because it’s a full transcript with a link to the original audio. Here’s the problematic parts, straight from Obama’s mouth:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

This is literally unreal. Keep in mind, it’s been hammered home for over a year now that Obama’s a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR and omg he knows what he’s talking about. Then he comes up with this - the Warren Court wasn’t radical because it didn’t completely ignore what makes the Constitution and this nation great: the separation of powers, the limits of government, the basic equity in that no one’s more or less deserving in the eyes of the law. Obama was angry because the Court didn’t replace that with something that isn’t there, namely “what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

This is absolutely ridiculous. Jana summed this up beautifully:

I’m having trouble coming up with words to describe how these remarks make me feel. They’re antithetical to the values that we’ve come to understand as fundamentally American. This isn’t about abortion rights or gay marriage, it isn’t about war or terrorism, it is about something more significant. It’s about the philosophies upon which this nation was founded and has flourished for centuries.

This is the problem in a nutshell, right there - Obama’s idea of government and leadership run completely contrary to reality on the ground and the very reason this nation exists. It’s bad enough that we learned nothing from the tyranny (and I use that word deliberately) of FDR, but now we’re willing to let someone hoodwink us into it again? Really? For all the stuff surrounding the “Joe the Plumber” hysteria, this ties in quite nicely with that statement about “spreading the wealth around,” as the interview quoted above combined with the Joe the Plumber clip demonstrates that he not only still holds these views, but has held them for a not-insignificant amount of time. Combine that with his praise of Saul Alinsky, his time with the New Party (puts the AIP handwringing in context, doesn’t it?), and we’re not talking about a quirk, but a pretty sad trend.

And, again, while the media spends time complaining about the vetting process of Sarah Palin, only news junkies who get their information on the internet know this, and even then, it’s no guarantee. Why is this only popping up within 10 days of the election? People reading this have already voted in many circumstances. Absolutely unforgivable. But I’m sure that the media is entirely objective here. Absolutely objective, nothing to see here, move along.

If there’s any reason not to vote for Barack Obama, if you have any question at all, this really should seal it for you. Face it - John McCain won’t be able to radically change the Court with close to a filibuster-proof Senate, and McCain has a history of reaching across the aisle and urinating on the shoes of conservatives time and time again, so you’ll likely get your way anyway. Of course, I’m sure this won’t change many people’s minds. I’d love to hear why, but I doubt it’ll be forthcoming. But hey, at least I can say I fought against it. Maybe you even like what Obama’s saying up there. All well and good, but the point still stands - Obama didn’t want you to know it, the media didn’t want you to know it, and people who are voting for him who may not want this (and, if this poll is any indication, they overwhelmingly do not want to “spread the wealth around” Obama-style) don’t know it and probably won’t know it unless their friends tell them.

That is the true tragedy of the 2008 election.

More to read:

* Ace of Spades on American political schizophrenia.
* A fairly angry article at National Review from Bill Whittle.

It’s not even that funny - I just can’t stop watching:

I sometimes feel like the internet is made of stupid, and the swarm over Palin’s comments about the role of the VP (”in charge of the Senate, etc.”) is one of those stupid things. Why? Because, fortunately or unfortunately, she’s right.

1) From Reality Hammer, the Senate website itself gives a history of the VP position within the Senate. While the VP role has evolved into a more or less exclusively executive position, that’s due more to precedent and tradition rather than duty.

2) Ace of Spades is fun more for snark than commentary, but a story was offered up yesterday which demonstrates how useful this role can be. When the President of the Senate can essentially dictate who is recognized and shape the debate, that’s pretty huge.

I know Dick Cheney’s kind of ruined the concept of a strong VP for a lot of people - myself included in some respects. This isn’t the same thing. But, as a basic point - Palin was right.

I can’t formulate long-form thoughts right now, sorry.

* This is on the top for a reason - I’ve waited quite a while to see if anyone would condemn this, especially those who pushed the “Palin tried to ban books” meme. If you’re that interested in free speech and the dissemination of information, why are you not completely up in arms about this? Obama is actively seeking to silence an NRA ad concerning Obama’s positions on firearms, and is threatening legal action on it in order to keep the ad off the air. The issue is that Obama thinks the ad is unfair and false, even though every word of it appears to check out. Why are people silent about this? This is not an isolated incident, either - it’s bad enough that the media won’t report on this business, but Obama apparently feels like legal pressure is a good response to criticism. And from the left? From his supporters? From the folks who wanted to know how a librarian could support someone who banned books? Dead silence. Curious, isn’t it?

* Related: Instapundit notes an anonymous message about exactly how complicit the media is concerning Obama. I would normally disregard this sort of thing as anonymous ranting except that it fits the way things have been going this year to a T. I fully expect this to be dismissed as more conspiracy-mongering, however.

* A few subprime fallout links: First, Amity Shlaes on handling the debacle. She makes some pertinent comparisons to the Great Depression. Her book on the Depression, The Forgotten Man, should be required reading for everyone, especially those considering a vote for the one candidate this election who’d like to return to a more New Deal-style form of government.

Second, QandO linked to this 1999 New York Times piece on Fannie and Freddie expanding subprime lending due to “pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.” I’m not blaming Clinton alone for this - yes, he pressured them and yes, he did revamp the Community Reinvestment Act, but there’s more than enough blame to go around, and tell me that there aren’t some cringeworthy predictions in there.

Thirdly, I’m shocked to see such a good piece on CNN regarding the bailout possibilities. He took part in a Reason forum on the economy that’s worth reading, as well.

Fourthly, one would think this might be problematic.

Finally, the best ten minutes on the economy you can find. It’s worth your time, watch the whole thing. It’s worth noting that the original version was pulled from YouTube due to a copyright complaint from Warner Bros, even though this clearly falls into a fair-use exception. Warner Bros. and Google, though? Two of Obama’s top contributors. I’m sure there’s no relationship.

* If you haven’t seen it yet, Ralph Nader’s new ad is hilarious. I should do a parody with Pigeon, my cat.

* I’ve been fretting a bit about FactCheck.org being sloppy, but their recent whiff on guns, Obama, and the NRA is nothing short of embarrassing.

* Remember to stay on topic: McCain’s the dishonest one in this campaign, not Obama. But the major outlets won’t bother letting you know that.

* A Marine cleared in the Haditha shootings is suing John Murtha over his comments. He is the third Marine to do so thus far. Still no word from Obama, who said at one time that he “would never second guess John Murtha… I think he’s somebody who knows of which he speaks.”

* So, again, what is Obama’s position on missile defense?

* Another classy piece of reporting from the AP: Don’t vote for McCain, he might die!

* More stupidty from your favorite Democratic House leadership. No wonder their ratings are so low.

* If you’re not significantly bothered by this, I want to know why. I’m not saying Obama’s behind this, I know full well he isn’t, but this is wrong on any number of levels. Namely, all of them. I feel bad for any parent who’d subject their child to this. Then again, Obama’s views on service border on involuntary servitude, so perhaps it’s not entirely shocking.

EDIT: The video’s been locked up, unsurprisingly. This is the homepage.

EDIT 2: The video’s back.

* Lighter fare: io9 on Eureka’s interesting sponsorship deal, a list of restaurants worth visiting.

Let’s see what I can’t tear through…

* My only thoughts on the bailout - immensely stupid, shows a complete disregard for history and good government, and those of you who laughed when I compared Bush to FDR can begin eating your hats anytime now. But let’s not pretend it was deregulation - the regulatory structure is at the root of the crisis. Also, a good editorial from The Atlantic about the bailout that’s worth reading.

* Speaking of which, if you’re an Obama supporter upset about tossing $700b in cash away, are you as angry about Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which costs around the same amount? Just wondering.

* I’m ashamed to say I liked Paul Hackett. On one hand, I felt that he was the type of Democrat Democrats should look at. It seems that he’s just another nutter.

* On one hand, Eoin Colfer is a good-to-great children’s author. On the other, we REALLY don’t need a new Hitchhiker’s Guide. No, really, we don’t.

* Interesting poll: 89% of Americans believe taxes are too high. Obama wants to raise those? Oh, wait, the economy’s not in good enough shape. But still…

* Remember, McCain’s the only one running a dishonest campaign.

* Most of you won’t find this funny, but here’s an Obama word cloud from his speech in Hollywood last week.

* Matt Welch (author, McCain: Myth of a Maverick, a must read) on the libertarian case for McCain.

* QandO dissects Obama’s tax plan.

* Obama’s failure to create equal pay in his Senate office is coming up again. Why can’t he practice what he preaches?

* It’s John Lott, so this link comes with a huge grain of salt, but the numbers don’t really back up the “McSame” meme. Most of us who pay attention already knew this, though.

* The misleading numbers behind the uninsured Census numbers.

* McCain is at his best when he’s attacking, and when the McCain campaign calls out the New York Times for being partisan, that’s a plus for him. It doesn’t hurt that it’s true. More from Patterico and the campaign itself.

* Dear Barack Obama: $40 billion is not a “deep cut” in a $3 trillion budget, and $40b is not a cut at all when you’re proposing hundreds of billions in new spending. Same old politics?

* I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again - when the media reports on Sarah Palin, it’s probably safe to assume the opposite. The whole charging victims for rape kits issue keeps coming up. The problem? It appears that no one was ever charged for a rape kit in Wasilla. Follow the links in the second link to the discussions in the legislature where no one knows of any kits being charged, and that there’s a state agency that pays the bills already. Did CNN bother to research this? Probably not.

Okay, I’m done for now.

This is what happens when Geometry Wars and a pennant race end up replacing political writing in my evening free time.

* First, I may have jumped the gun on this: maybe the McCain ad about Obama and sex education wasn’t completely wrong. Someone also dug up this ABC report, where Obama comes right out and notes the situation. Honestly? It’s not a huge issue for me in either direction, but it’s lose-lose for Obama at this point - he can’t outright deny it without going back on both his word and the wording of the legislation, and he can’t endorse it without igniting a culture battle he can’t win.

* Also, perhaps the most important campaign issue that’s surfaced in the last week is Obama’s attempts to delay the troop withdrawal agreement until Bush leaves office. More detail here, there’s obviously a lot to pore through, but it makes one wonder why he’d complain about the money being spent on Iraq and call for an immediate withdrawal, and then turn around and try to delay a withdrawal plan. It’s very strange.

* With the financial news this week, it’s worth highlighting Don Luskin’s piece on the economy in the Washington Post. Few people get it the way Luskin gets it.

* Beldar on why Palin was right on the Charlie Gibson interview regarding the Bush Doctrine. The revisionism on the Doctrine is nothing short of astounding to me, and Gibson is complicit. By the way, ABC? Great editing job, really. Again, don’t trust the first thing you hear from the media regarding Palin. Ever.

* Oh, and that NYT piece on Palin over the weekend? That’s all they’ve got? He said, she said anecdotes? Riiiight.

* The Volokh Conspiracy had two posts on the whole book banning thing in Alaska as well. They’re very detailed and worth a look.

* Obama doesn’t consider commissions useful, unless he wants them.

* The Democrats bear no responsibility for the financial crisis, says Nancy Pelosi, except when they blocked a call for oversight of Fannie and Freddie. I don’t think anything other than the ridiculously large regulatory structure is to blame in terms of government, but the Pelosi claim doesn’t hold up considering the ideology.

* For some fun: Palin bags a Bigfoot, grading Obama’s response to the financial “crisis”, and viral Spore DRM protests.

This is how most political conversations at our pad have been going as of late:

Ann: “Hey, did you hear about [story about Palin].”
Jeff: “Yeah, pretty interesting. Too bad it’s not true.”
Ann: *scream*

I don’t know what’s sadder - that there’s still this much nonsense bandied about concerning Palin, or that I feel I have to do a third post on it. For those sick of it, a) too bad, and b) I’ll have (hopefully) two non-political posts up today as well. First post here, second here. Share, laugh, enjoy! Palin on top, other stuff on the bottom.

* For a great dump of every rumor, check this out. Staggering, really.

* FactCheck has started getting into the act, too, killing four rumors, including the book banning one that at least 9 people linked me to. Not to mention the library listservs. And Facebook. And I’m sure I’ll see it in Publisher’s Weekly and School Library Journal.

* May as well address this once more, even though people have largely given up on it: Sarah Palin was no surprise.

* Her experience as Alaskan National Guard Commander in Chief isn’t insignificant. I also don’t think it matters much, but some do.

* Palin is pro-contraception and is not in favor of abstinence-only education.

* There’s nothing to the per diem “scandal”.

* Another reason to like Palin: only one of three governors to sign a “Jury Rights Day” proclamation.

* The decline and fall of The Olbermann Empire. Okay, so he’s probably not going anywhere, but I can’t help but chuckle at this entire thing. I grew up watching the guy on ESPN, and to see where he’s at now is more than a little sad.

* An interesting read on the Catholic priest shortage.

* I can’t believe I’m apparently the only person to refer to this as “Fauxba Chamberlain. To give it context, some guy is apparently a dead ringer for Yankee pitcher King Hippo Joba Chamberlain, and was able to get free food, booze, and over 100 ladies with this. Now he’s been arrested. Kind of a neat metaphor for the Yankees season, ain’t it?

* Someone is willing to donate marble to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to replace it. The federal government won’t take it because it hasn’t gone through a bidding process.

* The Census shows 3.6m more people have health insurance in 2007 than the year prior. Naturally, Barack Obama sees this as evidence that 7.2m more people were uninsured. Mmmm, math.

* Fun with statistics.

* Obama as community organizer.

* A history of Gallup bounces. Interesting statistics.

* If this doesn’t sicken you politically, nothing will. “While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.” How is this even remotely acceptable?

* In some good news, the Supreme Court is willing to rehear Kennedy v. Louisiana in the wake of Justice Kennedy’s “national consensus” commentary. Good move.

* In a surprise, independents appear to be breaking hard for McCain. How much of this is bounce and how much is permanent remains to be seen.

* WANT. If anyone has disposable income and loves me, they should get me this.

* Finally, how Robert Heinlein responded to letters. Such a fascinating man.

Oh, and one other thing? The lipstick on a pig thing? Dumb by Obama, but dumber to keep pressing on. The McCain ad about sex ed? Dumb dumb dumb. C’mon people, seriously.

* More to the point about the entire RNC - did they hire Democratic hitmen to do the video montages? Those were horrid tonight.

* McCain really needs to start worrying about Palin overshadowing the ticket. I’m not sure that’d be a bad thing in some regards, but I can’t imagine it being a good thing either.

* Also, dudes - green screen? Blue screen? Seriously?

* McCain isn’t horrible tonight, he’s just not great. He didn’t need to be great, but he didn’t need Palin to overshadow him either. He’s bad at this kind of speech - part of me wonders if they just should have handed him a list of topics and let him riff for 30 minutes.

Palin on top, other stuff on the bottom. No rich creamy center, I’m not that kind of blogger. I’m way behind on links anyway, so this’ll be a doozy.

* To start, another note on the Bristol stuff - Sarah gave her oldest son, Track, a veto over her considering a Senate run in 2004. Beldar (a blogger who’s been more on top of Palin information than anyone else this week) notes quite obviously that it’s quite reasonable to suggest that the same offer was made regarding the VP slot.

* Cato notes that Palin’s tax record isn’t perfect, which we knew. Note the accurate description of the severence tax - you listening, Washington Post, New York Times, etc? As a counter, here’s a defense of the severence tax issue and more positives from Palin’s tax record in Alaska.

* Want to compare Obama and Palin a bit? Real Clear Politics does a solid job right here. Perhaps too heavy handed on the abortion stuff, but still a good general primer.

* Obama spokesperson Mark Bubriski had to retract a statement regarding Palin and Pat Buchanan. Defending on Robert Wexler’s nonsense about Buchanan being a Nazi sympathizer, it was a classy move by the Obama campaign to make that statement and to do so without any factual evidence. It turns out that Palin served on the Steve Forbes campaign, not Buchanan’s. Didn’t stop the media from running with it, though. The irony? Buchanan and Obama share similar Israel preferences.

* Sarah Palin: the best candidate small ‘l’ libertarians can expect on a major ticket.

* More on Vettinggate: Yuval Levin, Patterico channeling Beldar (see, Beldar!), The Washington Post (and don’t tell me the Post claims the opposite - you have to actually read the article to notice the important points), Jan Crawford Greenburg (who has always been good, and perhaps accidentally makes the case in the second half of the post), and Wizbang, and most importantly, Byron York (which should put this nonsense to rest). Let’s be clear - if an outlet is telling you that Palin wasn’t vetted, they are simply lying to you. It doesn’t pass the smell test or the fact test.

* More irresponsible media factchecking: Note the claim that Palin cut benefits for teen moms. The fact? The “cut” was actually slashing an increase from $5 million in additional funding to $3.9 million. In other words, the teen pregnancy center increased its funding significantly, just not as high as proposed before Palin got her knife out. Nope, no benefits were cut here, folks. Dead wrong. The worst part is the evidence linked on the Post website with it - it clearly says expansion. Ridiculously sloppy work.

* A religion-themed question and answer with the writer of Sarah Palin’s biography via Christianity Today.

* Palin’s administrative accomplishments. Put that up against Obama any day of the week, in my mind.

* Palin in a 2006 debate. Biden’s not going to eat her alive.

* The New Republic: The Case Against the Case Against Palin.

* If a lot of the above shows one theme, it’s that the media may be in for a heap of backlash for how they’ve treated this Palin situation. If they spent even a quarter of the time on Obama as they have on Palin, one can only imagine the outcome. But the right isn’t happy - in fact, it has probably set things back considerably in terms of media perception. And then people wonder why people believe the media is helping Obama win the election.

* Possible lazyblogging because I may have discussed this before, but did anyone notice environmental groups coming out against a CO2 scrubbing technology because it would reduce the need to reduce usage of fossil fuels? I don’t like the hype that environmentalists are trying to shove us into a technological dark age or trying to knock the west down a peg, but stuff like this doesn’t really help that perception, either.

* Considering the Palin mythbusting that has to occur, it’s lax of me not to have linked Wizbang’s McCain Mythbusting post from a week ago. Irresponsible all around.

* Did everyone see the new Census figures? They came out the day of the Obama DNC speech, which makes one wonder why it didn’t get a mention. Among it’s findings - there are fewer people without health insurance (both number and ratio), the number of poor and middle class have both decreased while the number of upper class have increased, and median income rose.

* Fact: I drove through this tax revolt on my way to work the day it happened, and if I didn’t have an EZPass, I would have been late.

* QandO offered a critique of Bill Clinton’s speech at the DNC.

* The Aussie meat pie revolt.

* Fred Thompson is rolling out a new political action committee, FredPAC. I got the e-mail announcement last night - it’s designed to reach the goals of a Constitutional federal government and responsible taxation, among others. This could end up being a very positive PAC for me to look into.

* Speaking of taxes, an informal poll of Democratic delegates regarding tax rates at the DNC showed some surprising results.

* Randy Mott, a guy who doesn’t blog enough, has a huge data dump regarding the last 10 years of climate change.

* One final fun link: Seven gaming consoles that were never meant to be.

Still loved it. I assumed I’d come down from the high a bit, but seeing the reactions on both sides of the aisle tell me I wasn’t wrong in seeing the speech as a winner. The killer part to remember is that the speech was factual - unlike most of what’s been thrown at Palin this week - and can easily be backed up by her actions. A lot of people want to compare it to Obama’s 2004 speech, and I’m not sure they’re in the same league - Obama was just talking in 2004, this was more.

I’m anxious to see the polls in the next few days. I’m anxious to see McCain not blow it tonight. I’m anxious, so here’s the cutest/funniest part of the speech last night, for those who didn’t get to watch:

I’m very excited about this speech. Between seeing the leaks and the fact that she needs to hit a home run here, there’s a lot for me to be excited about. So yeah…

10:30: Here goes nothing. Huge ovation…don’t screw this up…

10:31: Still cheering. She’s got quite the game face - if she’s really thrown by this, she’s not showing it.

10:33: A pin - “the hottest VP from the coolest state.” Love it. I’d like to not hear about the POW stuff anymore. Sarah, it’s your time to shine!

10:35: Ann: “She looks very comfortable.”

10:36: Cut to Alaska, and they’re going nuts, the way only Alaskans can - with beer.

10:38: It may be my inherent pro-Palin bias talking, but my goodness she seems quite determined talking about her kids. It doesn’t really affect me much, but I can imagine it being a hit.

10:40: Old chicks LOVE Todd Palin.

10:41: OMG. Sarah’s daughter licking Trig’s cowlick down. OMG OMG.

10:44: Okay, she’s cruising now. The community organizer line killed, so did the pitbull joke (which isn’t all that funny), the “bitter” stuff. Way to go, CNN, on cutting to the Code Pink moron during the best line of the night so far, though. Idiots.

10:48: She’s doing the resume stuff now. She’s pretty much establishing the meme the media wants to ignore, which is good. The eBay line was fun, too. Got a good reaction.

10:50: Sarah Palin has spent the last 2 minutes, and is still, factchecking the numerous errors we’ve been seeing promoted. Good for her - I’m really glad she’s doing that, and I hope she keeps that up in the coming days and weeks.

10:53: It just dawned on me how easily she’s addressing the multiple international issues concerning energy. It’s not stilted at all, and if the media can do its job a bit, it might note how well she’s able to deal with that.

10:54: And if anyone can seriously disagree with this energy plan, I dunno what to say. It’s so basic.

10:56: Oh man - she is really hitting Obama hard right now. It’s nice to hear. The right balance of humor and substance - good move, great line with the columns.

10:58: “…and let me be specific.” And then she is - fancy that. Dead on on the taxes, McCain needs to push that hard.

11:01: Things I didn’t realize about Sarah Palin: she can really deliver a small dig at someone with amazing ease. It’s very amusing.

11:02: Ann: “She looks like she’s enjoying herself.” I can’t disagree - that’s why this is working, I think, because she seems to be having fun.

11:06: Okay, seriously, enough POW talk. Everyone who is going to vote, along with everyone who isn’t, along with my cat, knows McCain was a POW and a war hero. We get it.

…and that’s it. I personally loved the speech - she certainly knows how to deliver one, that’s for sure. I’m curious as to how I’ll feel in the morning, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is going to play very well and silence a fair number of critics. If this is the Sarah Palin we’re going to get the next two months, the McCain camp is in good shape. She very much made the speech she needed to, and then some.

Also, wow - ballsy to bring Bristol out with the fiancee. Very ballsy. An interesting postscript.

EDIT: Full text for those interested.

This will hopefully be my last Palin-only post for a while - even I’m getting a little exhausted by the nonstop coverage of all things Sarah. With that said, I’ve seen so many good pieces worth highlighting that I may as well put them all somewhere.

For the record, the whole “Bristol is pregnant” thing is more annoying than anything else. There’s a lot of impolite things that could be said about it, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Things happen, y’know?

With that said:

* Factcheck #1: Palin was against the “Bridge to Nowhere”. The “Bridge to Nowhere” was the name given to the waste in Congress, not the project itself, which is apparently still going forward. Confusing? Sure, but worth noting that the problem was the waste, not the project.

* An example of Palin’s foriegn policy experience. This is not to say she has a ton, or much at all, or even to say that Cindy McCain has much of a clue, but it’s not like she’s unaware of basics.

* Palin may be pro-life/anti-abortion, but she’s not anti-contraceptives. This might actually put her at odds with the head of the ticket, interestingly.

* Factcheck #2: With all this stuff that’s coming out - from Troopergate to the daughter’s baby to whatever else, the common theme is that Palin wasn’t vetted. She was. Don’t let the hype take the lead - they met numerous times, and no one can know for sure how often they may have spoken beyond that, but if McCain was as smitten by her as is being reported, it surely happened.

* How is the evangelical right apparently taking the pregnancy news? Grover Norquist reports positively, as does James Dobson, and so on . The pregnancy appears to have been an open secret, and the delegates are supportive. Also, kudos to Obama for stepping up quickly. A classy move by him.
* From Monday’s Rasmussen tracker:

Obama receives favorable reviews from 85% of Democrats while McCain is now viewed favorably by 90% of Republicans. Both men are viewed favorably by 60% of unaffiliated voters. Enthusiasm among Republicans for McCain is up significantly since the announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Fifty-one percent (51%) of GOP voters now have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain, the first time he has ever topped the 50% level in that measure. On Friday morning, just 43% were that enthusiastic about McCain.

Palin is a bonafide hit early on. Popular with the core GOP, popular with conservatives, popular with evangelicals, and a financial boon as well: $47m in July with $10, coming since Friday, 11am.

* Factcheck #3: Palin didn’t push for a windfall profits tax, but rather renegotiated the existing severance tax, and for good reason. A quick and dirty - a severance tax is a one-time fee for resources being removed from the state they reside in. I don’t care much for them, but it’s standard, and the one that was negotiated by Palin’s predecessor was not done in public, so she fixed that. If only all government was that open.

* Compare and contrast Palin and Biden on energy. Who do you want filling in?

* Why not two more: Palin may have been part of the the Alaskan Independence Party for a time, but didn’t support Buchanan. The latter would worry me more than the former - again, Alaska is very different. VERY different. I know that there was more than a bit of an adjustment from Massachusetts to New Hampshire in terms of basic political activity when we moved up here, and I can’t imagine isolated Alaska is what we’d call “normal.” But Buchanan? He was - and still is - a bit of a douche.

That’s all I’ve got. I’m trying to get on a consistent schedule this week, but it’s already 10pm on Monday night for me, so we’ll see.

Someday this will stop being a Sarah Palin zone, but this is too rich to not highlight.

* Sarah Palin’s 5th baby isn’t really hers, but rather her daughter’s! Sarah claimed her daughter’s baby as her own to hide a scandal! That this is even considered plausible by anyone is disturbing to me on many, many levels. In the unlikely event it is true, I’ll videotape myself eating something gross. Need a pregnancy picture? Here ya go.

* Sarah Palin took nudie photos! I wish…

* Sarah Palin is a lesbian! Again, unless we can confirm at the same time as number two…

Here’s the deal - at least on the first two, we’re seeing these sorts of things come from otherwise, er, “reasonable” portions of the left wing blogosphere. That the Daily Kos is leading the charge on the first one especially shows how completely useful useless they are as any sort of worthwhile entity. The closest thing I can think of in terms of how this applies to anything is the crazy “Barack Obama is a secret Muslim” nonsense, which, while vile, at least had some sort of root honesty (he was technically born Muslim, but clearly isn’t now). This is completely idle speculation with no useful evidence.

It’s awfully funny to see these sorts of things and then hear that McCain was the desperate one in appointing her. Seems more than a little panicky to try and make these things work out.

This essentially sums up my feelings:

I’m 27 years old. I have not once ever felt significantly optimistic about national politics - there’s never been anyone who’s sniffed power in my lifetime who even comes close to how I think today, and I’ve always been more than a bit cynical about the whole thing.

Palin’s nomination changes everything.

First, Palin is imperfect. She’s still too much of a “social conservative” for me to be comfortable with, but, as I’ve said before, I’ll likely always have to compromise on that, and she’s not that different than Obama and McCain on gay rights, as an example, offering some . Second, I’m with a lot on the right - her having at least a full term in Alaska under her belt would have been much better, but I think that’s part of the risk factor and pulls an issue off the table in a way. Third, there’s a good chance her audience yesterday was the largest crowd she’s ever been in front of, and it’s only going to get crazier. I’m not 100% sure she can handle that, but she seems to have the ability. Again, it’s WAY too soon to tell.

With all that said, though, I think one note I read put it best - she’s the closest to a libertarian candidate we’re ever going to see come near the White House, and that stands for something. I think the Republican Party would be smart to promote Palin types within their ranks (and if yesterday’s fundraising is an indication, they have about $3m early reasons to look at it), and I think even the opportunity for Palin to influence policy at the executive level is a net benefit to the country and the Presidency. Plus, this shoves her onto the national stage, and, if her popularity sustains, nearly guarantees a run from her in 2012 or 2016. Talk about a fast track.

To make a joke, this is the first time in my lifetime I’ve been proud of a national candidate. I never thought I’d say it, but forget ideological purity - I’m voting McCain/Palin this year. I’m voting McCain/Palin because I want people like Palin to have more power, and I want America to have an opportunity for real change from the Bush-style politics that have dominated this nation the last 8 years. Palin proves that there can be ideological Republicans who stand up to the establishment, and Palin proves that there are conservatives who can provide realistic, innovative ways to deal with the issues invariably coming along the way. I never once thought I could stomach voting for a Republican ticket for President, and Palin has the chance to really significantly change that. That’s exciting to me.

Some links for your perusal:

* Some bios: Ambinder, Swamp Politics, the AP, official bio.

* American Thinker with rebuttals to the early criticisms/attacks.

* Flopping Aces on the Troopergate Timeline.

* Two videos: Palin on Kudlow, Palin on CNBC. Anyone who tells you that Palin can’t handle Biden doesn’t know Sarah Palin.

* Finally, a more substantive list of Sarah Palin Facts.

I’m fired up.