The International House of Bacon

* If you missed it, my account of last night’s Bob Barr campaign stop in Manchester.

* Don’t look now, but oil has dropped over $20 a barrel in 12 days.

* The surge really might become a bad issue for Obama if he keeps this up. When Katie Couric is turning the screws on you, there’s a problem. Also, when you can’t seem to follow the way things went, it doesn’t speak much to being ready.

* While the first few paragraphs are golden, the rest of the article isn’t that great, but speaking to some earlier comments, is Obama Constitutionally old enough to be President. Yeah, sure, he’s 46, but the Constitution was written in a much different time and didn’t account for longer life expectancies, etc. A fairly funny read.

* I remember the hoots and hollers when it was alleged that Bush was staging fake press conferences. Obama’s not even waiting until entering office to do it, allegedly. Change we can believe in, right?

* Finally, it’s official: Waldorf and Statler have found the internet.

Race free edition!

* No, really - some meta-blogging here - if you’re going to comment, please be aware that there are people who may not think like you do, and as much as we might not want to mince words, sometimes we have to to get a point across, and that means going by the basic expected norms. This goes for everyone, even though yesterday was a tipping point of sorts - I don’t want to or plan to monitor everyone or set hard and fast ground rules, just remember that we’re all human beings here is all. We have great conversations with these posts, I’d like to not see this turn into a morass.

* Now, onto real issues: Obama wants to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives. A more detailed explanation from the campaign can be read in PDF form here, and some statements from the man himself here. It’s okay that I find this whole thing completely laughable at this stage, right? Yet again, Obama, who was being praised again for this speech for its secularistic tendencies, decides to run from wherever he stood before to…what, exactly? I don’t even know who this is supposed to grab in this case, given his other positions. But this is still incredibly funny to me. I’m officially wondering where the line is for many of his supporters.

* More good news from Iraq: not only are we seeing great achievements in the benchmarks, but the Sunni boycott may be coming to an end. I still think Iraq is way overblown as an issue this election - the progress we’ve been seeing as of late almost definitely means that we’ll be seeing gradual withdrawals as we continue on anyway, and neither Obama or McCain are truly foolish enough to mess with that. Right?

* Surprise surprise - Justice Kennedy’s assertion about capital punishment for child rape? Not entirely true. I feel like this is what happens when you decide to create a “consensus” out of thin air.

* Yesterday marked 35 years of an all-volunteer military. Something to cheer about.

* The Heritage Foundation blog offers some comparisons with Obama’s tax plan and how it has affected others with similar situations.

* Oh, wait, something changed again - Obama apparently supports gay marriage now. Remember, he used to be against gay marriage. EDIT: I may have dove at this too early - this isn’t a de facto support for gay marriage, but it’s still an interesting move on his end.

* Obama in 2005: “We will NOT support the removal of [North Korea] from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism until such time, among other reasons, as a full accounting is provided to the Kim family regarding the fate of Reverend Kim Dong-Shik following his abduction into North Korea five years ago.” Obama in 2008: Apparently, as long as they meet disarmament conditions. I’m sure the Kim family is pleased.

* As gas prices rise, remember that Obama called for a global ban on fissile materials. You know, the stuff that makes nuclear power. The stuff that’s probably keeping demand for oil and coal-based energy at bay in many western nations. The stuff that could act as a clean, workable alternative for the United States very soon. Worth remembering.

* Obama’s also taking credit for welfare reform, even though he was against Clinton’s reform, against his state’s reform, and consistently dodged the question up to this point. Anyone want to tell me what positions Obama has that he won’t shift on?

* Protectionism sucks. You listening out there?

* Finally, a fun 1940 election ad.

Be good, folks!

Round one. More today/tomorrow as time permits.

* First, some old stuff: GDP for 1Q 2008 was revised upward, further staving off recession fears.

* One of the more damning pieces on Obama I’ve seen recently comes from CNSNewswire. Obama’s been consistently inconsistent as of late, but you’d think he’d make the easy things happen - like, for instance, providing equal pay amongst his own Senate staff when he’s touting “equal pay” on the campaign trail. Why, then, are the women on his staff paid noticeably less than their male equivalents? If “equal pay” is so important, why can’t he so easily walk the walk here? This doesn’t appear to be some bizarre Senate regulation - women on McCain’s staff actually make more than the men - so I’m not sure what the issue is unless, well, it’s proof positive that discrimination isn’t the default reason for income disparity.

* Where’d Obama’s state senate records go?

* Mississippi wants to make it illegal to serve the obese.

* The Mehdi Army led by Moqtada Al-Sadr? Essentially dissolved into an insurgent group, perhaps worse. Obviously, this is further indication of the need for a rapid withdrawal from the disaster therein.

* RedState provides a clearinghouse for Obama’s consistent position on gun rights.

* Kyle Smith on the gap between people’s personal fiscal perception and their perception of the rest of the country. It’s quite the disparity.

* QandO offers Obama observations. Among them is a discussion of Obama’s line in The Audacity of Hope, where he declares himself to be “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Charles Kesler, a professor and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, notes that “Democrats in general, I would submit, confuse change with improvement. They fail to weigh the costs and benefits of change, to consider its unintended consequences, or to worry about what we need to conserve and how we might go about doing this faithfully.”

* Obama finally condemns the folks behind the “General Betrayus” nonsense. Still waiting for him to condemn Murtha…

* Not shockingly, Wesley Clark strayed off script and Obama had to step out and say “oh, no, he’s not speaking for me.” The funny thing is what Clark was saying not too long ago, when it wasn’t a Republican with the war record. This sort of tit-for-tat is kind of silly, but shame on Clark for being so blatantly partisan about the whole thing.

* Joe Ponanski on Baseball Hall of Fame voting. Interesting read if you’re into that stuff.

* Fun with the American Family Association. When your autofilter consistently changes “gay” to “homosexual,” unintended hilarity ensues in Olympics coverage of sprinter Travis Gay.

* Finally, a fond goodbye to Coney Island’s masturbating walrus. If that’s not your style, enjoy the greatest Rickroll ever.

Just because there’s so much information about it and stuff to think of, so just a bunch of random thoughts about it.

1) How sad that a principle (referring to Heller specifically) that really isn’t that difficult to grasp, and is only hampered by a 18th century language quirk, can only be retained by a 5-4 ruling. This isn’t to say that every issue should be 9-0, but something like this realistically should have been, and probably more of them.

2) I’m ultimately glad to see FEC v. Davis ruled the way it was - while the Court ultimately punted poorly on some of the campaign finance provisions early, I feel like that ruling leaves a really good opening for eventual real reform involving an actual protection of our speech. Soon…

3) If I have one issue with Heller, it’s, ironically enough, Scalia’s dissent. I’ve mostly skimmed it and read the highlights elsewhere, but it’s not the Scalia Unleashed! I was hoping for. My money would be on his being restrained in order to protect what was probably a clearly frail majority to begin with. Which, again, is sad - compromising on what are supposed to be inalienable rights? Sigh. But considering the recent(?) habit of concurring opinions neutering otherwise sound rulings, I suppose we should take what we can get.

4) On a similar tack, a lot of hand-wringing appears to be happening regarding the narrow scope of the ruling. I again choose to credit that to the possible political realities, but I also wonder if it was a scope issue. Yeah, I’d love for the Court to wake up and say that one’s inalienable rights don’t disappear once you’ve served time for your crime, for example, but I also can’t be sure that it ever would have happened with this case. So yeah.

5) This can’t go without saying, and this has to be addressed: Obama is on record as stating that Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg are “models” for his type of justice, as “sensible.” Not surprisingly, these three were on the wrong side - the anti-Constitution side - of the two most obvious Constitutional rulings of the day yesterday. These are his models. This is what he thinks is “sensible.” Breyer penned a dissent in Heller, specifically, and that should trouble anyone who cares about the Constitution one lick. I’m not saying Thomas and Scalia are perfect - far from it, in fact - however, in terms of basic caring about the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein, there’s no one on the Court who appears to care more. And Obama wants their opposites. That’s a problem, period.

Some highlights from my Google Reader about the cases:

* From the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr on Heller’s limitations and Ilya Somin thinking in the context of Kelo, and Eugene Volokh offering his thoughts.

* Radley Balko is somewhat skeptical about Heller’s outcome.

* Jacob Sullum questions Scalia’s limits.

* RedState offers a general “quotes of the day” list regarding Davis

* Trevor Bothwell calls Heller a win/lose ruling.

* Ed Whelan at NRO highlights Stevens’s dissent (which was an embarassment) and Alito’s opinion, both regarding Davis.

Thoughts on Heller and Davis coming later on, scheduled to post around noon.

* Auto sales in China up big. More reason to remember that drilling is a necessity - there’s no way developing nations will be able to afford implementing the alternatives in the same time frame we will be able to.

* FiveThirtyEight highlights a recent Rasmussen poll showing similar favorables amongst identified party voters, but higher unfavorables for Obama. Combine this with 20% of Clinton voters not yet behind Obama, and there is a fairly interesting argument to be made about Obama having the base problem, and not so much McCain.

* Of course, if Obama keeps shifting positions with the blowing of the wind, he might have bigger problems than his base. His campaign, last, year, noted the Heller case and said that “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” Obama himself never corrected the record, and it remained consistent with Obama’s state senate questionnaire and his work with the Joyce Foundation and the Violence Policy Center. Yesterday, hours before the ruling was released, it was reported that Obama’s campaign was running from that, now stating that the “statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position.” Yes, Obama’s position appears to have been consistent - consistently against the Constitution, and consistently wrong.

* Dear John McCain, please keep Bobby Jindal out of your administration. I know he’s the most exciting Republican to come around in a while, but no one on the right needs him.

* Apparently, Hugo Chavez’s election scare not too long ago has resulted in a change for him. Instead of running campaigns now, he’ll just remove opposition candidates from the ballots.

* Lost in the shuffle? Another missile defense test success. The military is 35 of 43 since 2001, and has succeeded in 29 of the last 30 since 2005, with this being a successful test where the controllers had no clue where the missile was going. So much for this sort of thing “never working.” Remember, Barack Obama considers missile defense unproven and plans to cut spending on it. Maybe he’s right that we don’t necessarily need a missile defense program, but to claim that it’s unproven seems dumber by the day.

* Finally, a list of Hollywood’s top 10 worst kissers.

Still recovering from a whirlwind weekend.

* RIP George Carlin. I’m of an age where Carlin only exists in Kevin Smith movies and funny book titles, missing out on all the fun from the 1970s. Still, this one hurts a bit. Definitely lost a great.

* George Will had a pretty decent article on crime this weekend, arguing in part about how the rising incarceration rate isn’t telling the whole story. There’s a few realities here Barack Obama should take notice on.

* Also, our image in Asia: not too shabby. While some of the results may need some more investigation, it still further calls into question the idea that the last few years have wrecked our overseas relationships. It seems to be one of those truisms that doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny.

* Some catch-up from Friday: Obama not taking public financing for the general contest. My question is this - why did he have to lie about it? We all know that Obama’s essentially printing money at this point, so why does he have to lie about where the Republican funding is coming from? What benefit does this provide, especially when he’s going back on his original promise of taking the funding. I’m no fan of public financing of elections, but this is just an utterly fascinating turnaround.

* The other big news between posts was the FISA deal, which pushes the FISA “update” through while allowing for immunity for participating telecommunication companies if the federal government provides a certain type of evidence. This is being touted as a “compromise,” although it reads more like the Democrats knowing that they can’t win on this issue and trying to save face. I’m not against immunity - this whole issue was a giant bowl of idiocy on all sides - but there’s no reason to expand FISA at this point.

* Power Line dissects Obama’s statements about his comparisons between terrorists on trial, Nuremburg, and the reality of the 1993 bombings. I’m starting to wonder who Obama’s history adviser is.

* Did you know that Barack Obama outraised John McCain in May? Seems like a given, right? Barack Obama only beat him by $200k. It’s unlikely, but it’ll be interesting if that holds up.

* Oh, that whole thing about Obama and NAFTA, how things got “overheated?” His campaign still thinks that Obama’s committed to renegotiation/withdrawal. Anyone want to take bets on the campaign position this week?

* QandO asks “Where’s the outrage” in response to health care providers denying care to those who won’t benefit long term from it. Specifically, why it’s outrageous when a private company does it, but ignored when it’s the government.

* Speaking of international distaste with American foriegn policy, Europe is concerned about Obama’s Iran policy, which they fear would undercut the progress they feel they’ve been making. Change we can believe in, right?

* A great interview with Amity Shlaes with notes about the Presidential candidates. Her book, The Forgotten Man, is one of the better recent books about the Great Depression’s true economic impact, and when she says that Obama appears “unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name,” it’s worth listening to. The book is worth your time, too.

* This all brings us to a pretty interesting editorial from Michael Barone, about Obama’s refusal to allow the facts to dictate his policy slate. Considering that was/is a chief criticism of the Bush administration over the years…

* The Enumerated Powers Act is such a common sense law, it’s a shocker it’s not always in play, and it’s not the least bit surprising that it won’t get off the ground.

* Finally, baseball fun: What happens when a switch pitcher needs to pitch to a switch hitter? A great minor league baseball clip.

Plowing through as much as possible, corrections post later on…

* From the comments yesterday, Justice Kennedy essentially said the Constitution is unconstitutional in his opinion. This was a rather shocking read to me, and, more to the point - it seems to make sense.

* England to family: your 2 foot paddling pool needs a lifeguard.

* Surprise surprise, The Los Angeles Times appears to have distorted what was on Alex Kosinski’s website. One can only hope it was sloppy and inadvertent. Still doesn’t excuse Kosinski’s somewhat poor judgment or equal sloppiness.

* Barack Obama: “Sure, I’ll do a town hall meeting with John McCain. Let’s simply do it on the 4th of July weekend, when no one will be watching and the news cycle will be over before everyone’s vacation.” What is he afraid of, exactly?

* RedState compares and contrasts 2000 and 2008 coverage.

* Stupid meter laws in Arizona.

* Volokh reports on the removal of children from the home of an alleged Neo-Nazi. While we all can agree that it’s an intolerable belief, what line constitutes a belief that’s okay to hold while being a parent?

* From Strange Maps, an interesting look at federal land ownership.

* Finally, Don Luskin on Obama’s fuzzy math.

* The big news since Wednesday/Thursday was the Guantanamo decision. I was actually fairly pleased with the ruling until I read Scalia’s dissent, which really brought home a few thoughts regarding Kennedy’s overreliance on internationalism and the basic points about how we’ve essentially always done things in regards to foriegn fighters. While Scalia’s dissent isn’t quite as biting to me given his appeals to emotion on this issue, the point remains that we’re again faced with a decision that is proper as a matter of policy, but maybe not as much in terms of Constitutionalism - that yes, as a matter of policy and logic, we should treat foriegn fighters the way we’d want to be treated, but finding that in the Constitution in a situation like this is less clear, and notably wasn’t 2 years ago when the Court essentially instructed the Congress as to how to proceed. Of course, now an amendment is being floated, which is also the wrong idea, but that’s the kind of messes you get into when it comes to a poor judiciary. Ah well.

* Part 3 of Cato’s series on the relative importance of climate change is up.

* Ireland says no to the latest European Union treaty. I still can’t quite convince myself that the EU can work long term.

* Power Line goes to town on Obama’s Social Security plan. A must read for today.

* Another fun Obama story: Obama blames the government for high gas prices, repeating the allegation that the energy policy was “written by and for the big oil and gas companies.” This didn’t stop Obama from voting in favor of it. Also of note - McCain voted against it. I’m sure the bill wasn’t what he thought it was, or perhaps he was actually referencing a different bill, right?

* FivethirtyEight notes historically recent polling trends. Interestingly, the polling front-runner in June usually loses some significant support by the time the actual vote comes around.

* Take the windfall profits quiz.

* Introducing the new genetically-modified bug that poops oil.

* The MPAA? Still doesn’t get it. I’m a pretty big copyright booster, I could actually stand for broader expansion of it, but that doesn’t mean that the copyright holders shouldn’t embrace reality, either.

* Finally, two fun movie-related links: popcorn economics and Norton and The Incredible Hulk.

Interestingly enough, that’s all I’ve got.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* The stupid, stupid farm bill. And more.

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

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

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

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

Gotta try and make this quick.

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

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

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

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

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

* Did the New York Times threaten the McCain campaign?

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

* Finally, a Runaways movie? Yes, please!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 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.

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.

* 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.

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.

* It appears that Obama and Clinton are just as misguided on vaccines as McCain is. Great.

* I don’t know what was more puzzling about the ruling in Virginia v. Moore yesterday: the fact that it came out the way it did, or the fact that it was unanimous. Sigh.

* Citizen justice at its finest.

* It had to happen at some point: White Stuff People Like. For the record, mayonnaise is gross.

* Obama discusses how he’s not into the negative campaigning. He then changes his mind 30 minutes later. How lovely.

* You can also write a breakup letter to Hillary Clinton here.

* An awesome list for baseball junkies: retired numbers, who has them, and some information on why. Pretty cool.

* A fun gallery of World War I propaganda posters.

Gah!

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. W