Category: Politics

Obama And Redistribution

David Harsanyi has an astute piece on Obama’s collectivist tendencies:

Now, I’m not suggesting Obama intends to transform this nation into 1950s-era Soviet tyranny or that he will possess the power to do so. I’m suggesting Obama is praising and mainstreaming an economic philosophy that has failed to produce a scintilla of fairness or prosperity anywhere on Earth. Ever.

If you believe that “fairness” — a childishly subjective idea that ought to be quarantined to playgrounds and Berkeley city council meetings — should be meted out by the autocrats inhabiting Washington, D.C., your faith will be duly rewarded.

You know, once upon a time, the stated purpose of taxation was to fund public needs like schools and roads, assist those who could not help themselves, defend our security and freedom, and, yes, occasionally offer a bailout to sleazy fat cats.

Obama is the first major presidential candidate in memory to assert that taxation’s principal purpose should be redistribution.

For his talk about “hope” and “change”, Sen. Obama’s policy positions are nothing new, and nothing hopeful. They are based fundamentally on envy. “Redistribution” has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with greed. It is about demanding the work of others without having done anything oneself. Such an attitude is corrosive to democracy—the moment that the levers of the state can be used to rob from some to give to others, then such concepts as “equal justice under law” become just empty words.

I’m not so sanguine as Harsanyi about the future of this country. That so many Americans have been taken by the rhetoric of redistribution is itself troubling. The lifeblood of a democracy is in its citizenry, and when the citizenry decides to use government to line their own pockets with the wealth of others, they will inevitably take the country down the road to serfdom.

The Founders realized this, of course. That is precisely why they created a government of limited powers, enumerated in the Constitution. They lived in a time of out-of-control government when the Crown “redistributed” wealth from the Colonies to Great Britain. They saw the results of what happens when government controlled everything from the disposition of property to the publication of ideas. The strictures put in place in the Constitution exist to preserve the rights of the individual. Economic redistribution is premised on the idea that the individual has less right to their wealth than does the collective. Economic redistribution and individual rights are at odds, and for one to gain, the other must recede.

This country cannot embrace economic redistributionism and remain a democracy for long. The two will always be at odds. Obama is perhaps but a symptom of a larger sickness, and the cure is a reaffirmation of the principles of constitutional government.

The Case For McCain

While every election of the last few cycles seem to be called “the most important of our time,” the 2008 election may very well be a critical election for the future of this great nation. We have two candidates: one an eloquent speaker with scant experience and the other with a lengthy history of bipartisan accomplishment. The case for McCain is straightforward: John McCain has been tested, Barack Obama has not. McCain has had to make the hard choices that a leader must, Obama has not. In an election that puts hard-edged experience versus gauzy promises of hope, Sen. McCain offers the leadership that this country desperately needs.

In a crisis, we need someone who has demonstrated leadership. John McCain has done so…

The Obama campaign continues to run against a man who is not on the ballot. There is little room for doubt that the Bush Administration in profoundly unpopular, and it has dragged the Republican Party down with it. Politically, it makes sense for the Democrats to tie McCain to Bush. But outside of the world of political spin, George W. Bush and John McCain are radically different. No one can doubt that Sen. McCain has a long record of serving his country. McCain has stood on principle, even when it has put him at odds with his own party. McCain’s life experiences as a prisoner of war—something he has rarely mentioned on the campaign trail—has shaped his view of the world in a way that few can understand. John McCain has been tested in a way that few people ever have.

Sen. McCain’s record demonstrates his commitment to “putting country first.” McCain took a stand on the issue of torture, not because it was popular or politically expedient for him to do so, but because he believed that banning it was for the good of the country. He not only opposed the Bush Administration on this issue, but he pushed them towards his views. He opposed Donald Rumsfeld’s strategy in Iraq and asked for more troops at a time when it was neither popular nor politically expedient. John McCain was right about the surge before there was a surge. He stood on principle and won. On campaign finance reform, he worked with one of the most liberal members of the Senate on crafting a bipartisan solution. Whether one agrees or disagrees with McCain-Feingold, it demonstrates that McCain has reached across party lines to get things done.

John McCain

McCain bucked his party on immigration. It nearly cost him the nomination, but he did so because he honestly believed it was the right policy. He has been a firm supporter of efforts to combat global warming—not because it was popular with his own party, but because he believed it to be in the national interest. That is the character of John McCain. Even if the misleading statistic of him voting with the President 90% of the time were an accurate measure, the whole of his record demonstrates a politician who has reached across the aisle time and time again. The fact that conservatives often vehemently disagree with some of these choices makes it plain that McCain is anything but a party loyalist.

Contrast this with Sen. Obama. Obama has no executive experience. He has never led anything larger than a law school classroom. Obama has not one significant legislative achievement to his name. He has never been seriously tested in a crisis. He has grown up in a political cocoon, and the media is unwilling to probe into his character or his fitness to serve. Barack Obama remains an unknown quantity, an empty vessel into which his supporters are pouring their own hopes. That is not what a President must be. A President must make the hard calls, he must take controversial stands, he must be willing to challenge the system for the good of the nation. We know that John McCain has done these things. We know that McCain can lead, and we know that he will work across the aisle for the good of the country, even at the risk of alienating his party. Do we really know that Obama would do so, or is a large segment of the electorate blindly hoping that he will?

This election should not be about blind hope. Those who put their faith in a politician will always be disappointed. In a crisis, we need someone who has demonstrated leadership. John McCain has done so, Barack Obama has not. We know that John McCain has made hard calls. We don’t know what Obama may do in a real crisis. We know that John McCain has reached across the aisle on multiple occasions to do what he felt is right. We’ve yet to see Obama stand on any principle that significantly departs from his comfortable liberal orthodoxy. John McCain is a known quantity. Barack Obama is a cipher.

In a time of crisis, this nation should not take chances. With the economic meltdown, rash government action could make the situation worse. Handing control of the government to one party is a recipe for disaster. The likely outcome of an Obama Administration and a Reid/Pelosi Congress would be unfettered left-wing experimentation. Our system of government works best when there are checks and balances—and the best way of ensuring that our government produces the best policies is through divided government. There is a reason why Congress’ approval ratings are so abysmal. Do we dare give them a rubber stamp in the White House? Can we truly trust that the results will be any better than when the Republicans had control of the government? Are the Democrats truly any less corrupt, any less viciously partisan, or any more competent than the Republican? The record suggests that they are at best no better, and in many cases worse.

This is the reason why Obama can never be the “transitional” figure that his supporters promise. McCain will have to work across the aisle to get anything done. Obama can embrace the same sense of partisan entitlement that led to the excesses of the Bush years. Would Obama conciliate to a weakened Republican Party? He would not need to do so, and there’s no political reason to do so. The vicious partisan divide in this country will not be healed by giving one side unchecked power—can one honestly expect Obama to “heal” the nation while at the same time pushing his agenda? There is little in Obama’s policies that suggest bipartisan compromise. Taking him at his word, he will shift this country dramatically to the left, which will only feed the cycle of partisanship that has polluted Washington.

John McCain has led. He has reached across the aisle. He has the experience to be President. His record is one of someone who has put country above party. In a time of turmoil, taking chances on an unknown quantity is not a smart policy. McCain is the right man for the job, and the right choice for the nation.

Powell’s Flimsy Case For Obama

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama, although not unforeseen, is the big political story of the day. The Editors of National Review have a well reasoned response to the Powell endorsement that is well worth reading.

Contrary to Gen. Powell, Obama will be another divisive and polarizing political figure…

The problem with Powell’s endorsement of Obama is the same problem with the vast majority of endorsements of Obama: they’re all built on unsound logical ground. Even taking it for granted that the Bush years have been bad for the country (although not because Bush has been a radical conservative—he has not) and that some kind of “change” is needed, I’ve yet to see a coherent case for why Obama’s policies are the right direction.

Oh yes, I’ve seen plenty of ink spilled on why Obama’s personal qualities are so wonderful: everyone says that he’s intelligent, articulate, and vibrant. None of those mean a great deal in the long run. Many very intelligent men and women believe some very idiotic things: visit a college or university campus and ask members of the faculty about basic economic questions and you’ll get some profoundly unserious and utterly misinformed answers. Intelligence alone does not qualify one to be President: Nixon was a very astute thinker, but a lousy President.

Being able to use the bully pulpit of the American Presidency is critically important—look at what Bush’s failure to do so has done to his Presidency. But again, it is not nearly enough to make up for poor policies. Everything Obama stands for, from taxes to the Supreme Court to foreign policy is ill-conceived and often dangerous to the future of this great nation. Crafting lofty speeches will not make it less so. Being a good salesmen does not make the product any more safe.

Would Obama would be a “uniting” force—a “post-racial” President? There’s some good reason to believe that is so. But that is neither assured, nor is it enough. Obama has a history of being a political radical, a member of a virulently racial church, and surrounds himself with members of the extreme left. He has scant little in his record to suggest that he will govern as anything less than a doctrinaire across-the-board leftist—in a country that remains conservative. When Obama has to actually enact his policies, he will do so over the objections of a plurality of Americans who are increasingly seeing themselves as divorced from a left-wing elite. Obama will have to reach across party lines if he wants to avoid being another Clinton or George W. Bush. There is little in his record that suggests that he will do so.

In the end, Powell’s rationales are as superficial as the rest. Obama is a compelling figure, but the messianic nature of his campaign and his virtual coronation by a lickspittle media only makes it that much harder for Obama to govern with anything but a sense of institutional arrogance. Make no mistake about it, contrary to Gen. Powell, Obama will be another divisive and polarizing political figure. We do not need more of that kind of political division.

Sen. McCain, in contrast, has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment, including doing things that have put him against his own party. He stood his ground on campaign finance reform, on immigration reform, on torture, and especially on Iraq and each and every time his stand was based almost entirely on putting principle above politics. McCain can and will reach across the aisle—he’ll have no choice but to do so. Divided government would be healthy for the economy. A government totally controlled by the Democrats would lead to even greater political division than we have now. If an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government passes card check legislation, renews the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle criticism of their rule, and enacts legislation repealing the ban on partial-birth abortions, will that heal the nation’s political wounds, or will it make things even worse? The answer should be obvious.

Our Republic is a house divided, and Obama will only expand those divisions. He will not be the figure of “hope” and “change” and the great transformational leader that Gen. Powell would hope him to be. Instead, he will do what he has always done: act as a radical leftist in concert with a radical Congress and arrogantly impose a radical agenda on a divided nation.

That is not the change we need, it is the change that will tear us apart.

The Final Debate

The final Presidential Debate of 2008 is tonight. I won’t be liveblogging it, but may chime in with reactions at some point.

This is McCain’s last real chance to pull it out. The polls are against him, and if Virginia swings to Obama he has almost no hope of winning. He has simply got to do more that just attack Obama over his questionable associations. He has got to ask the American people to trust him. The problem is that he’s lost so much ground that he may just be unable to do much to arrest his slide.

If I were McCain, I’d essentially ignore Obama. I’d not do what the GOP pundits are doing. He has got to show that he can lead in turbulent times. He has to give the American people some real “straight talk” tonight about what we face in the next few years and why it’s so important not to go down the wrong path.

This race was always going to be a tough one for the GOP. 8 years of being tied to Bush and an arrogant Congress has left the Republican Party intellectually moribund. The Republican Party has lost its way, and while McCain is not the sort of Republican who got the party into this mess, he’s stuck with the bill. We can whine all we want about how the media has been constantly covering for Obama—and had they done their job this race might be different—those complaints are totally worthless in terms of winning.

There’s so much ground for McCain to make up that it seems impossible for him to win. Then again, that’s been said of the McCain campaign at least once in this political season. The difference is that McCain can’t count on his competitors melting down to win. He’s going to have to give the American people a reason to vote for him. If he can do that, he still has a chance. If not, an Obama Presidency will be a fait accompli.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder gives three bullet-points to consider tonight. I expect all three will be at play in the debate.

On Buckley And Obama

There’s a brouhaha over Christopher Buckley leaving National Review after his endorsement of Barack Obama. Buckley, like his father, is a brilliant and witty writer, but it seems hardly surprising that he’s getting such a reaction from conservatives. Buckley’s sin isn’t heresy, it’s shallowness. His endorsement of Obama hardly makes a conservative case for Obama. His critique of McCain is that somehow McCain has become “inauthentic” and his case for Obama is that he has a “world class intellect.”

Plenty of other wrongheaded individuals were brilliantly smart—and even though Sen. Obama is unquestionably smart and capable, he represents the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for. Conservatism is an ideology that desires limited government—Obama supports an even more dramatic expansion of government that what we have seen in the last eight years. Conservatism rejects cults of political personality—and yet Obama is skating by largely on the force of his personalty than the substance of his ideals. Conservatism rejects immenatizing the eschaton—that might as well be Obama’s campaign slogan.

That Mr. Buckley is so haughty in his folly demonstrates that while he has his father’s wit, he appears to have lacked his judgement.

This argument demonstrates exactly why Buckley’s judgement is so mistaken:

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

If Buckley’s judgement is incorrect, and Obama is exactly what every bit of his record suggests—an unrepentant and unabashed leftist—what would the result be for the country?

Conservatives made the mistake of putting their trust in a politician rather than in their ideas over the past eight years. Making the same mistake again won’t be any better for the country.

Buckley ends his piece with “As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.” God save us from such poor logic.

Trick Or Creepy Political Propaganda!

Now you can show your undying devotion to Dear Leader with your very own Barack-O’Latern!

Sometimes the thing that disturbs me the most about Obama is less the man himself, but his followers. There is something deeply undemocratic about the cult of personality that surrounds Sen. Obama. Supporting your chosen candidate is one thing—turning him into a secular messiah is another. Politicians are human beings, and frequently deeply flawed ones at that, and they should be treated as such.

The Loyal Opposition

Glenn Reynolds has a letter from a Republican who isn’t about to give an Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt on anything:

I consider myself a libertarian/conservative. Like many people of that bent, I was uncomfortable with Bush when he was nominated. But Al Gore’s increasingly-erratic behavior during the 2000 election made me hope Bush won.

Once Bush won, and it became clear that the Florida democrats were trying to steal the election, I became something of a Bush loyalist. Throughout his first term, I took note of all the really horrible things that were said about him, saw that a large portion of the left would rather see Bush fail than see America succeed, and was alarmed by the complicity (and often, participation) of the MSM and mainstream Hollywood. It wasn’t far into his second term that I succumbed to Bush Fatigue, due to his inability to make the case for his foreign policy to the American people, and his inability to find the veto pen. He has truly been a terrible steward of the Republican brand, and because of this, the Conservative and libertarian causes are suffering.

I’m no fan of McCain , but as I dislike Obama (and love Palin), I’ll be pulling the lever for McCain in November.

This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I’ll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a “Not My President” t-shirt. I’m sure that the mainstream bookstores won’t carry them, but I’ll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama’s watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.

Obama’s thuggish behavior thus far in this election cycle – squashing free speech, declaring any criticism of his policies to be “racist” (a word that happily carries little weight with sensible people these days), associating with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and ACORN – suggests that I won’t have to scrape for reasons to really viscerally dislike Obama and his administration. And even if he wins, his campaign’s “get out the vote fraud” activities are enough to provide people like me with a large degree of “plausible deniability” as to whether he is actually legitimately the president.

I’ve seen a President that I am generally-inclined to like get crapped on for eight years, and I’ve seen McCain and Palin (honorable people both, despite policy differences I may have with them) get crapped on through this election season. If the Democrats think that a President Obama is going to get some sort of honeymoon from the folks who didn’t vote for him, as a wise man once said: heh.

Prof. Reynolds finds this depressing. So do I.

Granted, I understand the sentiment behind it. Whatever Sen. Obama’s personal qualities, his policies will be devastating to this country. The Democratic Party has consistently and disgustingly put loyalty to party over loyalty to country, especially on Iraq. They have corrupted the Constitutional role of the Senate from “advise and consent” to playing partisan games with the Judiciary. They have acted like children with petty and childish attacks against the President—and even engaged in fantasizing about the assassination of President Bush. Individual Democrats may be honorable and patriotic, but the machinery of the Democratic Party is to be reviled.

Given all that, why would Republicans want to be like them?

That sort of thing didn’t help the Democrats in 2004, and it won’t help the Republicans—especially with our one-party media covering for the Democrats at every turn. The politics of hate are not the path towards a better country. What the Republicans need to do as a party, and what conservatives need to do as citizens, is become a loyal opposition.

I’ve been harping on this for a while, but it remains true—the Republican Party has to stand on principles to win. We have to uphold our principles in everything we do. That means that Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill need to uphold the highest standards of ethics and fiscal restraint. That means that people like Rep. Don Young, Sen. Ted Stevens, and Sen. Larry Craig need to be politely told to start acting responsibly, or leave. If the party machinery won’t do it, then the grassroots needs to take control of the party machinery.

We need to fight a war of ideas, not a war over politics. We are losing the war of ideas. We are letting the left define us. Conservatism is not an ideology of the rich, it is an ideology that encourages people to be rich. The American Dream will never be achieved by punishing the successful. Our strength comes not from the size and scope of our government, but from the ingenuity and spirit of our people. No government program can ever hope to do as much good as the American individual. Government is merely the most inefficient way of aggregating the power of the individual. We must be prepared to redefine our message, not spend all of our time engaged in stupid kneejerk politics.

The American people are sick and tired of politics as usual, and Barack Obama is nothing more than a typical machine politician. If Obama wins, the American people will be desperately hungry for a real alternative to what Obama will have brought upon them. The Republican Party had better be ready with a real and relevant alternative. We had better rediscover our principles, and be willing to stand firmly upon them.

There are far more important things to do than engage in the sort of childishness that marked the last 8 years of Democratic rhetoric against Bush. We are above that sort of thing, and if we want to win and save this country from taking a leap backwards down The Road to Serfdom we had better be able to do more than just attack the other side.

Spinning The Second Presidential Debate

My take on this debate: McCain was strong and substantive. If he were ahead, he would have done fine. But he’s not ahead, and what he had to do is strongly take down Obama. He played it safe, which is not what he needed to do. Objectively, McCain won. In the subjective world of politics, nothing changed, which gives the political advantage to Obama.

More spin as it comes in…

Stephen Green: McCain won, but not enough to matter. Sadly, that seems right.

On Fox, Fred Barnes attacks the format of this debate. I agree. This debate was far more boring than it should have, and that’s due to poor question selection on Brokaw’s part. So far, the best debate was the Rick Warren Saddleback event, and that was not an official debate.

Jim Geraghty agrees that this was a snooze-fest. Indeed, it was.

The biggest loser? Those of us who sat through this thing…

Debate 08 Part Deux

In just a few minutes, Barack Obama and John McCain will debate in Nashville for the second Presidential debate of 2008. I won’t be liveblogging, but I’ll chime in with reactions as they come. After the debate, expect the usual spin.

This is make-or-break time for McCain. He’s down in the polls (even though the polls are tending to massively undersample Republicans). The economy is in crisis, and he needs to show he can lead in a crisis. He needs to not only hit back against Obama, but position himself as a viable alternative. That’s going to be a tough job, but if McCain wants to win he’s going to have to do well tonight.

UPDATE: McCain FINALLY goes on the offensive on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issue. It’s about bloody time that he hit on that. He needs to tie Obama to the corruption in Washington tonight.

McCain also needs to hit back on Obama’s outright lie that deregulation is the promise. Europe is having the same problems we are, and they are heavily regulated. More regulations will cause the next crisis rather than prevent it.

UPDATE: I thought George W. Bush could only run twice, but apparently Sen. Obama thinks he’s running against him rather than the guy actually on the stage.

McCain needs to be running against Congress. Remind the people that a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress is a recipe for disaster. Americans don’t need more bipartisanship, they need a government that stops screwing everything up.

UPDATE: McCain needs to stop talking about energy. With gas prices dropping, that’s not the issue it was. McCain needs to hit on 3 things: 1) Corruption in Washington, 2) Corruption in Washington, and 3) Corruption in Washington.

Obama is full of blather, but unless McCain hits back, Obama will get away with it. He needs to hit back, and he needs to hit hard. He’s strong on substance, but that’s not enough for him to win tonight.

UPDATE: Watching Presidential debates is sometimes excruciating for me. Granted, I was never the greatest debater in the world, but if were me up there, I’d have taken Obama to the woodshed by now… why is McCain holding back?

UPDATE: McCain finally hits Obama on taxes, comparing Obama to Hoover. McCain is being substantive tonight, and if he keeps on the offensive he can win this. He’s got an uphill battle, but he’s doing well now. Not phenomenal, and perhaps not as well as he should, but well nevertheless.

Brokaw doesn’t let Obama respond–he’s doing what a moderator should.

UPDATE: Obama’s claim that only a few small businesses make more than $250K seems wrong.

McCain did a great job of reminding the American people that Obama has no record of being a tax cutter.

And bravo to McCain for pushing nuclear power. That’s the truly “progressive” strategy for energy independence.

UPDATE: On the Obama tax plan, even a (financially) conservative estimate is that it would effect nearly 500,000 small businesses. We can’t afford to lose 500,000 more jobs in this country. We can’t afford to lose any more jobs in this country.

UPDATE: Note that in every answer, Obama says that it’s one of the biggest issues. Every answer is paint-by-numbers.

UPDATE: McCain is speaking to small business owners, which is a smart move for him. He’s actually doing a fair job of connecting with the audience, which helps him. Obama’s too-cool-for-school demeanor doesn’t play as well with this format.

McCain should watch his time, though. He’s tending to go long when being short and punchy would be to his advantage.

UPDATE: Obama: health care is a right. No, it isn’t. Unless you want to say that you have a right to the hard work of others. That kind of attitude is antithetical to the very ideas that this country was founded upon.

UPDATE: Obama repeats the same line of BS about Iraq and terrorism. One of my biggest fears about Obama is that in order to show how “tough” he is, he’ll send troops into Pakistan. If that happens, the chances of him provoking World War III is scarily high. If McCain was smart, he’d hit back hard against Obama’s fundamentally mistaken worldview.

UPDATE: Obama: “If we could have stopped Rwanda…” Actually, Senator, we could have. But the same timid Democratic foreign policy you espouse prevented us from doing anything.

UPDATE: As a public service, I’m seriously considering writing a debating manual for politicians. They need one.

McCain hits back on the surge. He’s right on that, but he needs to hit even stronger. What he needs to say is that this is about judgment. Obama does not have the right judgment, and McCain does. McCain’s problem (and Obama’s as well) is that neither knows how to frame their responses.

UPDATE: Ms. Hamm has a very astute question about Pakistani sovereignty. And Obama talks about how Iraq is somehow involved. That answer is bull. If we had never gone into Iraq, it would make no difference. Bin Laden was in Pakistan sometime around December of 2001, long before Iraq.

McCain really needs to call Obama on his B.S. Again, his lack of killer instinct is letting Obama win by default.

McCain hits Obama using Teddy Roosevelt—which is a smart move. He needs to hit on a rather critical point—PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR POWER.

UPDATE: If Pakistan is unable or unwilling to take out Bin Laden then we should? Which means that we should—since Pakistan has no way of doing that.

If McCain were smart, he’d ask Obama if capturing Bin Laden is worth the threat of nuclear war. I would love Bin Laden’s head on a stick, but not at the cost of a nuclear exchange over Kashmir.

UPDATE: With a few minutes left, this debate isn’t changing the game. McCain is winning on substance, but he’s not doing enough to get over Obama’s supplicant press. He needed to take down Obama a peg, and so far he’s not done it. Even though Obama is light on substance, he looks just credible enough. McCain needed to cast doubt on Obama’s capability to be President, and I just don’t think he has.

The reality remains: Obama is wrong for this country. His policies are naive at best and dangerous at worst. But McCain needed to make the case tonight, and while he gave us a glimmer of that, he just didn’t do enough.

This race could change, and McCain hasn’t hurt himself. That would be fine if McCain were ahead, but he’s not. Winning on substance tonight isn’t enough to really help McCain.

UPDATE: The retired Navy chief asks a great question, and McCain has a great response. The way he shaked his hand was a nice touch.

Again, however, McCain is strong on substance, but he just isn’t drawing the contrast between himself and Obama.

Obama’s tepid treatment of the questioner comes off as aloof to me. This format really works for McCain—but he just hasn’t been as effective as he should in using the format to his advantage.

Obama’s blathering again, but unless McCain calls him on it, he’ll get away with it. Sadly, that seems to be the story of the night.

UPDATE: Obama had a strong finish, even if the words didn’t mean a damn thing.

McCain’s also had a strong finish. What’s interesting is that only now he talks of his POW experience, and only through allusions. “I believe in this country.” He daes. I’m not sure Obama really does.

A strong finish for McCain. But again, not as strong as it could have been.

The Minnesota Poll Strikes Again

If you believe the latest Star-Tribune poll, Al Franken leads Norm Coleman by over 10%.

If you believe that, I also have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

At PowerLine, Scott Johnson takes a sharp look at the poll and a contemporaneous SurveyUSA poll showing Coleman with a modest lead. The Minnesota Poll dramatically undersampled Republicans and oversampled Democrats. Given that Franken couldn’t beat 75% in a primary against an unknown opponent, not even Dean Barkley will be able to save him. Coleman’s negative ads are effective because they simply show the truth about Al Franken: that he’s a partisan bomb-thrower. The media is furious, but the voters deserve the truth about Franken’s propensity for violent outbursts.

Sen. Coleman has been a strong voice for Minnesota. He is not the unthinking partisan that the Minnesota left-wing tries to paint him as being. He is a thoughtful moderate running against an ideological extremist—and he will win. Al Franken is the antithesis of “Minnesota Nice,” and his intemperance and propensity to fly off the handle are character traits that are completely wrong for a deliberative body like the Senate.