Mitt Romney Takes Idiocy To New Level

At a campaign rally in Las Vegas yesterday, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney proposed a constitutional amendment that would make anyone who does not have a business background as ineligible for the White House as if they had been born in Kenya.

“I was speaking with one of these business owners who owns a couple of restaurants in town,” Romney said. “And he said ‘You know I’d like to change the Constitution, I’m not sure I can do it,’ he said. ‘I’d like to have a provision in the Constitution that in addition to the age of the president and the citizenship of the president and the birthplace of the president being set by the Constitution, I’d like it also to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States.‘”

Romney continued: “You see then he or she would understand that the policies they’re putting in place have to encourage small business, make it easier for business to grow.

That's right folks, he'd make someone like Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, or even recent GOP candidates like John McCain, Mike Huckabee, or Rick Santorum ineligible to run for President because they lack so-called business experience.

Of course, this comes on the heels of Romney's courting of birther Donald Trump, so this isn't all that surprising. He's pandering to the extremists and thinks this is a winning strategy to win in November. It might help solidify his base, but it wont help him sway moderates or independents on which this election will depend (as it always done).

Far from moderating his positions to pull votes from the center, it seems that Romney is sticking to the hard right.

Romney's pushing this nonsense in an attempt to sway people on the economic conditions facing the nation, but his business experience isn't exactly the most sterling example of job creation. Bain Capital - the venture capital firm where he worked - was interested in making money for the firm - not job creation. Jobs were frequently killed in acquisitions and consolidations made by the firm. Creative destruction to be sure - someone made money on the transactions, but it doesn't help create jobs by shuttering factories.

Evidence Mounting In Taliban Connection To Times Square Bombing

I'm not particularly surprised that Faisal Shahzad apparently has connections with Taliban terrorists in Pakistan despite Shahzad's claims that he acted alone, although the Washington Post reports that such links are not yet confirmed. From the New York Times:

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.

On Wednesday, Mr. Shahzad, the 30-year-old son of a retired senior Pakistani Air Force officer, waived his right to a speedy arraignment, a possible sign of his continuing cooperation with investigators.

As his interrogation continued, Department of Homeland Security officials directed airlines to speed up their checks of new names added to the no-fly list, a requirement that might have prevented Mr. Shahzad from boarding a flight to Dubai on Monday night before his arrest at Kennedy International Airport.

The failed attack has produced a flurry of other proposals to tighten security procedures, including calls by members of Congress to more closely scrutinize passengers who buy tickets with cash, as Mr. Shahzad did. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, proposed stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asked Congress to block the sale of firearms and explosives to those on terrorist watch lists.

The whole notion of stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship is nonsense. There is a wholly appropriate crime that takes such actions into account, and that is treason. The US Constitution sets forth explicitly the crime of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

By taking up arms against the United States and working with the Taliban and received terror training at one of their terror camps in Pakistan's frontier provinces, Shahzad committed treason. He admitted to the actions of carrying out the bombing, which is an open admission (and if he allocutes in court, then the conditions for a treason conviction are met). People like Sen. John McCain and Joe Lieberman are stoking out space for campaign slogans and trying to show that they're tough on terrorists, but they could have also been tough by simply calling for the imposition of the appropriate criminal sanctions - treason.

So, why did Shahzad decide to join the jihad? Well, the Daily News reports that he was slowly radicalized because of the war on terror and personal failures. After downplaying the links, the US is now focusing on Shahzad's travels to Pakistan and his contacts there. Someone was providing him with the financial support upon his return to the US, and that has to be fully investigated.

It's also come to light that Shahzad made a dry run the day before, and even then botched things. He left the keys to his getaway car in the Pathfinder.

The source, who did not explain how Shahzad had attempted to set off the bomb, said he then took a number of turns and wound up entering Times Square by driving south down Seventh Avenue. The source said Shahzad told investigators he turned right onto 45th Street toward Eighth Avenue because he saw a place to pull over.

It's unclear why Shahzad left the Pathfinder's engine running and hazard lights blinking.

But because of an incredible goof, Shahzad couldn't use his escape car. He had accidentally left the keys to that vehicle in the Pathfinder that he thought was about to blow up, the source said.

He apparently went to a train station, where he boarded a Metro North train back to Connecticut.

That fortuitous goof on his part gave investigators still another piece of evidence to tie the attack to Shahzad.

UPDATE:
Emirates Airlines has pushed back against claims by the Obama Administration that it didn't check the no-fly lists more frequently, claiming that it complied with then existing rules for a check once every 24 hours. More pertinent is that the FBI apparently told the TSA not to warn airlines:

But officials could have called all the airlines themselves in such a critical situation — they've done it before.

This would have put Shahzad on the radar of the carriers, and it could have prevented him from being able to board the Emirates plane headed for Dubai.

The FBI asked the TSA not to make the calls, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the ongoing investigation. The FBI did let the TSA call a few domestic air carriers, which did not include Emirates.

It's possible that the FBI didn't want to compromise their investigation and hoped to perhaps catch any potential coconspirators and that alerting the airline might have tipped off Shahzad and others to the investigation. Still, there wasn't much more that the airline could do under the circumstances since it was the TSA responsibility to clear the flight's manifest.

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Supreme Court has overturned a rule that limited corporations from paying for candidates campaign ads.

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal political campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

***

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

So basically unions and corporations will be flooding our airwaves with campaign ads without limits. As can be seen in the Massachusetts special election, unions, especially the SEIU, spent enormous amounts of money in ads for their candidate, Martha Coakley.

It would not surprise me one bit if the 2010 election cycle is dominated by union and corporate advertisements promoting Democrats, who otherwise are in serious trouble for their support of Obamacare, Cap and Tax(trade), and Pork(stimulus)Fest. Will increased corporate and union ad spending save the Democrats this year? That remains to be seen. But this will certainly shape the election.

UPDATE (lawhawk):
Here's a copy of the decision, which also overturns several provisions of the odious McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law. Restricting political speech isn't healthy, and that ultimately is what McCain Feingold does.

Washington Post Admits Obama Bias

Well now that the election is over there is no harm in admitting that your nationally acclaimed newspaper was biased for a political candidate.

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

***

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

The Washington Post, and all most all of the media outlets in this country, let the American people down. They failed to report on every major issue regarding Obama, and by extension, Biden. If Sarah Palin said that America would be tested by its enemies in the first six months of a McCain presidency, the media would have been all over it. Biden mixes up Lebanon and Libya, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the media doesn't blink. McCain mixes up Sunni and Shite and the entire media claims he knows nothing about world religion. The double standard was incredible. Not only Obama's relationship with Rezko, but his relationship with Ayers and Reverend Wright were poo pooed by media cadre all to happy to worship at the Obama altar. Does anyone really think that if the LA Times had a damaging video of McCain at a dinner for a known associate of Yasir Arafat, former PLO spokesmen, toasting him and laughing at derogatory jokes against Jews, that the video wouldn't be all over the media?

The Washington Post needs to not only admit its problem, but to set up safeguards to ensure that this does not happen again. I am not saying that an editorial board cannot endorse a candidate. But the media must remain objective and impartial. To skew the results of an election by unfair and unbalanced reporting is tantamount to ACORN organizing voter fraud -- oh and where was the unbiased reporting of that issue in the Washington Post?

The Deep Breath Before the Plunge

Today is the last day before people start heading to the voting booths around the nation and casting their ballots for local offices on up to the Office of President.

I think I've made my preferences known as to who I think should be President. I don't think there really is any question that Sen. Barack Obama's policies will be harmful, corrosive, and undermine national security and our economic standing. However, perhaps nearly 50% of Americans think that Obama should be President. Of that number, some are not voting for Obama, but rather against Sen. John McCain.

The true believers for Obama may be in for quite a shock and disappointment, even if Obama wins. They'll quickly find out that Obama isn't going to do what they want him to do, even as some intend to push Obama to move even further to the Left than he already is. And I wouldn't even begin to wonder what might happen if McCain pulls off the shocker of our generation by beating Obama and forcing all the prognosticators, pollsters and pundits to eat a whole bunch of crow. Doug Ross comments on that possibility. Let's just say that the last eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome might not begin to capture the craziness emanating from the Democratic party should Obama go down to defeat. Of course, that possibility also opens the door to Sen. Hillary Clinton and her segment of the Democratic party becoming resurgent. It would also create serious turmoil in the Party and the ensuing internecine battle for primacy will be fun to watch, although Democrats who believed that the Presidency should have been theirs in 2008 will be fighting to assign blame for the disastrous results.

Either way, we're going to see quite a bit of buyer's remorse, no matter who wins. This was not an election of two qualified candidates whose executive experience and knowledge were substantive and measurable, but rather a choice between the evil of two lessers. This was the best that our nation's political system could come up with.

And that's truly a sad statement on the political process in the United States.

No Bias Here

Which story is far more important?

(1) Democrat running mate to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Biden, basically says that an Obama Presidency invites terrorists and our nation's enemies to engage in attacks and behavior that might lead to serious harm of US interests within the first six months of his taking the oath of office and that Obama might not be up to the task

or

(2) Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin spent $140,000 on clothes, courtesy of the RNC?

Well, by the way that the blogosphere is running these days, it's clearly the latter.

Try finding a story on MSNBC about Biden's latest utterances, and you'd be hard pressed to find them. Yet, Palin gets headlines for her wardrobe upgrade. It's amazing how that works.

Which story is more important in figuring out which candidate is best likely to lead the nation in a time of crisis? Clearly it's the Biden comments, but you'd be hard pressed to find coverage since it's deemed by the media to be not nearly as important as anyone would normally consider because it was Biden making those comments.

That's a curious situation. Biden was chosen supposedly because of his foreign policy experience (I call it tenure since time spent in office does not equate with experience, knowledge, or judgment), and yet he repeatedly shows that he doesn't exactly have a firm grasp of the facts, logic, or reasoning. It's also a stunning display of Obama's lack of judgment in choosing such a supremely unqualified running mate.

Still, everyone will instead focus on Palin's wardrobe makeover. I guess when you look great (and even Tina Fey has admitted as much) and need clothes, it's an excuse for everyone to try and fill Mr. Blackwell's shoes (RIP).

UPDATE:
Speaking truth to media, Gov. Palin rips the media a new one by noting that if she had said what Biden did, Palin would have been torn to shreds by the media.

Compare that with the crickets as the media simply ignores and/or buries Biden's latest statements.

Media Already Going After Joe The Plumber

Opposition researchers were already on the case yesterday when Joe the Plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher, called Sen. Barack Obama out on his socialist dream of massive redistribution of wealth.

So, what have the opposition researchers (and the media) found? Well, Politico claims that Joe isn't registered to vote.

I'm sorry to hear that.

How does that detract from Joe's cogent observation that Obama's policies are repackaged socialism? It doesn't. You don't have to be a voter to know what socialism will do to your business, your paychecks, and life in general. It will destroy businesses, put a serious crimp in your paycheck, and reduce the quality of life all around you as other businesses suffer similar fates to your own.

While it would be nice for Joe to be a registered voter (and it's possible that he is [update = via Jim Treacher, he is registered but there was a typo involved]), and that he'll vote (and still could with a provisional ballot), it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a plumber) to see that Obama's policies are wrong for America - we don't need socialist answers to our problems. We don't need redistribution of wealth. Socialism isn't the answer, and that's all that Obama is peddling. His taxing scheme is nothing more than taking money from the middle class and above and giving it to the poor - calling refundable tax credits a tax cut is a blatant lie and misrepresentation of what he's doing. That's redistribution of wealth on a massive scale and will not help the middle class.

It will not help Joe, nor will it help anyone else, even the 40% who already pay no taxes and would see federal payments increase as a result of the tax credits Obama proposes - because the economy will continue to sag under the weight of ever higher taxes.

Further, I don't seem to recall that the media had nearly the same reaction when learning that Obama girl didn't even bother to vote in the primary elections for her man.

UPDATE:
Joe Wurzelbacher better take Ace's advice. Ace also notes that the media is more curious about Wurzelbacher's tax situation than it was about Al Franken, who failed to pay tens of thousands owed to New York, California, and 17 other states (see here for my coverage of Franken's tax mess).

It's already getting ugly, as the Left will do what it must to protect Obama. It must try and destroy Wurzelbacher for exposing Obama as the socialist he is.

The ACORN Business

How does ACORN operate? I have some knowledge of how they work after spending several years working for the New York legislature in Albany. ACORN would bus up hundreds of people in NYC to lobby legislators to get them to vote for their pet projects - namely affordable housing. It's the kind of thing that those working in the legislature figured out - and those in ACORN likewise had the system figured out. They would arrange conferences and meetings with legislators from both parties, since they knew that it would require getting Senate Republicans to sign off on deals just as surely as it required Assembly Democrats (that's a situation that remains to this day as both chambers have been controlled by the same entrenched political parties for decades).

A few of the more professional types would lead around a group of seniors (since the legislature usually meets Monday through Wednesday (sometimes Thursdays) from January through July, you aren't going to get many younger folks unless they're taking the day off from school) from office to office. The professionals would do the introductions, make a few comments, and let a few of the seniors talk about how they're being squeezed on housing and other basics. The legislators or those legislative staffers filling in while the legislators were in chambers or otherwise unavailable would listen in, say a few words, and they'd be on their way. You would get 20, 30, or 40 people trying to stuff into the offices, and it could be overwhelming.

It would happen every year - like the swallows at San Juan Capistrano or the migration of Canadian geese or .. heck, you get the idea.

It was a ritual.

And other union groups and lobbyists would employ the same tactics.

SEIU, UFT, Local 1100, etc.

They'd use the same tactics because they worked.

Thus, it wouldn't be all that surprising that Sen. John McCain was seen at one of the ACORN meetings, or that he's pushed for his amnesty immigration package with ACORN backing since ACORN will often work across the aisle to get their leftist agenda passed. It's what they do, and their ultimate goal is to institute a leftist agenda. Amnesty is a leftist project, and it disturbs me to no end that McCain supports a process by which illegal aliens get to circumvent the legal immigration and naturalization process.

Cramming the voter rolls with bogus votes is one way they accomplish the task and they overwhelm election boards across the country, especially in urban areas. They'll even try and get Mickey Mouse on registered to vote. They tried to get thousands of registrations entered in Indiana, but out of the first 2,100 registrations, 100% were rejected for being fraudulent.

You want a complete guide to ACORN fraud? Here you go.

However, there's a difference between being at a conference and publicly backing and supporting this corrupt organization with hundreds of thousands of dollars as the Obama campaign has done.

They also cavalierly dismiss Obama's undeniable connection to ACORN, as detailed by Mark Levin at "The Corner" blog on National Review Online. Obama worked for and represented ACORN and has given $800,000 to it from his campaign. Remember how Democrats were ready to hang Republican politicians who might have gone to lunch with lobbyist pariah Jack Abramoff? You want to talk to me about guilt by association? But Obama's deep associations with corrupt people and organizations don't so much as flicker the liberal eyebrow.

We now know about the investigations of ACORN-related voter registration fraud in 10 states. But have you heard some of the particulars about its nefarious activities in Pennsylvania?

The American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord reports: "'Between March 23rd and October 1st, various groups, including ACORN, submitted over 252,595 registrations to the Philadelphia County Election Board' with 57,435 rejected for faulty information. 'Most of these registrations were submitted by ACORN, and rejected due to fake social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, clearly fraudulent signatures, addresses that do not exist, and duplicate registrations. In one case, a man was registered to vote more than 15 times since the Primary election.'"

There's no innocent explanation for any of this in Pennsylvania or for similar ACORN activities in other states. Why aren't honest Democrats joining Republicans in crying foul? How can they be so willfully blind to these threats to our system? I guarantee that if you ask, they'll give you their favorite liberal dodge, "Both sides are doing it." Dream on.

There is no innocent explanation for the $800,000 to ACORN; Obama and ACORN are tied at the hip.

Jim Hoft notes that ACORN, which claims to be nonpartisan, is openly running advertising calling for people to canvass for Obama in Ohio.

GOTV for Obama! Ohio ACORN is doing a Get Out The Vote project with the OBAMA Campaign. Ohio ACORN is hiring canvassers to go door to door encouraging voters to vote for Barak Obama.

ACORN is hiring in Cleveland (216)431-3905 , Columbus (614)425-9491, Cincinnati (513)221-1737, for Dayton (call Cincinnati), and for Toledo call Cleveland. Or email polnatoh@acorn.org and your inquiry will be routed to the appropriate person in each of these cities. Intake and training will be held daily at local ACORN offices. Canvass begins on Wednesday Feb. 27th and will work through election day. Please, only persons wishing to work all or most of these days (Saturday and Sunday included) should inquire.

Please do not contact the Obama campaign directly regarding this post as they are not the organization doing the hiring and it will only distract their staff and volunteers from the other important work they are doing on behalf of Senator Obama.

This reeks, but it's part and parcel of the ACORN business.

UPDATE:
Still more fraud courtesy of ACORN in Ohio. Thousands of bogus voters added to the rolls, and some have already voted:

The vote of Darnell Nash, one of four people subpoenaed in a Cuyahoga County probe of ACORN's voter-registration activities, was canceled and his case was turned over to local prosecutors and law enforcement, Board of Elections officials said yesterday.

Nash had registered to vote repeatedly from an address that belonged to a legitimately registered voter, officials said during a hearing at which the subpoenaed voters were to testify.

Board officials had contacted Nash this summer, questioned his address and told him to stop repeat registering.

But still, he breezed into Ohio election offices - the state allows early voting for president - reregistered with a fake address and cast a paper ballot, officials said.

"He came in on 9/30 and Mr. Nash again registered to vote at [someone else's] address, and he cast a ballot," said board official Jane Platten.

Nash did not turn up for the hearing.

How many hundreds, or thousands, of people have done what Nash did? We'll never know, because groups like ACORN have purposefully flooded election boards across the country so as to overwhelm them with ballots that they simply can't verify in time.

It gives new life to the quip - vote early and often.

Wizbang notes that the same thing is going on in Pennsylvania.

The Cleveland Leader reports that 5% of ACORN registrations in the Cleveland area are bogus. That's another 3,000+ registrations. With razor thin margins likely deciding this election, these bogus voter registrations that slip through the cracks are going to be sufficient to turn the election.

UPDATE:
Speaking of overwhelming the system, consider what Mark Steyn notes about how Democrat community organizers (ACORN?) went onto college campuses and to get people to polling places to overwhelm officials who had limited provisional ballots on hand, and auto-magically Democrat election lawyers arrived to demand that these people be allowed to vote directly onto ballot machines "to preserve the right to vote" despite their absence from the voter rolls. Watch for this to happen yet again.

McCain's Handling of Financial Crisis No Gambit

Yesterday, I questioned Sen. John McCain's efforts to put partisanship aside and work on the financial crisis by hoping that Sen. Obama would agree to suspending the campaign and to delay the debate scheduled for Friday.

I thought it wasn't exactly a great idea and that it would offer up plenty of fodder for the Democrats and left wingers.

The left wingers and Democrats indeed sought to spin this as somehow McCain was unprepared to be President because he couldn't multitask or otherwise handle the situation.

However, that position is severely undercut by two simple facts.

First, Hank Paulson personally called McCain to step in to save the bailout plan by getting Republicans on board with the proposal since they were reluctant to sign off on the massive bailout. According to Bob Scheiffer at CBS News:

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Second, even former President Bill Clinton thought that McCain was right to do so:


So, far from McCain acting in an irresponsible or purely partisan fashion, he was integral to trying to line up support for Paulson's plan and to craft a policy that might help stabilize the financial markets. Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Obama were left sucking their thumbs because they put rank partisanship ahead of the nation.

Still, I don't think voters will appreciate the situation as fully as they should. They'll still associate the bad economy with the Republicans, even though McCain has been at the forefront of trying to fix the problems and Obama has been on the sidelines (as usual).

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign continues to seek the advice of Jim Johnson, who is responsible in part for the financial mess.

McCain's Debate Decision

Sen. John McCain has stated that he would suspend his campaign and hoped to delay the first debate scheduled for Friday because of the fiscal crisis and that Democrats and Republican leaders, plus Sen. Obama and himself could work out a deal to figure out how to deal with the toxic paper crisis.

Democrats sneered at the idea. They mocked him as did David Letterman. Anonymous emailer thought that this made him look weak and that it was showing he was unprepared to deal with this week's debate. I didn't particularly think it was a good idea, either tactically or as a strategic position. It clearly was an attempt to get inside Obama's OODA loop again, and I think it misfired. A snap poll seems to bear this out - people want to see the debate go on as scheduled.

The media would never portray McCain's actions as the responsible thing to do. They'd portray it as a political stunt even if it was for the good of the country to come together to figure out how to deal with this toxic paper mess. McCain was weighing the following possible outcomes that Obama would choose from: 1) accept the idea to postpone the debate to work on the fiscal mess together and he looks Presidential in the process while Obama gets bipartisanship in the process; 2) Obama rejects the deal, and McCain looks presidential while Obama looks partisan; and 3) Obama lets others answer for him.

I don't particularly think it was a good idea for McCain to suspend his campaign to work on the fiscal crisis no matter how well intentioned. If anything, Democrats are portraying this as a sign of weakness and inability to handle multiple concerns at one time. In fact, the Obama campaign made that very point. They see this as a bluff, and claim to have called him on it.

Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, basically told McCain to shove it and that he isn't needed.

The fiscal mess was created by Congress and incessant leaning on the financial companies to lend to those individuals who were incapable of repaying, followed closely by those same lenders repackaging the now toxic paper to sell on the secondary markets spreading the risk and the losses throughout the fiscal system. Congress is quite unlikely to fix the mess no matter what compromise decision is reached, but billions will be spent nonetheless.

McCain trying to call attention to this mess by suspending the campaign and attempt to delay the debate so that McCain and Obama, two US Senators who have been spending their time of late running for President, but who are still US Senators with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, need to deal with the issue at hand might have been a noble idea, but it missed its mark.

Then, there's the issue of defining the problem. Is there indeed a credit crunch or not? Megan McArdle points to a possible wider meltdown, but Alex Tabbarok points out that most parts of the credit market are quite liquid, but short term asset backed securities, plus interbank lending is in trouble:

A credit crunch does exist in the sector of the market based on short-term, asset backed securities. In addition, interbank lending is unusually risky. But in light of what I have just said the "credit crunch" takes on a new meaning and potential new solutions are suggested. The first question I have is this. Investment banks were selling these securities and using the money to lend to whom? I do not know the answer. But let's suppose that the money being raised in these markets was being lent to productive businesses. If so, then any solution should focus on feeding those businesses that are starved for credit.

I look at the situation as follows. Banks are bridges between savers and investors. Some of these bridges have collapsed. But altogether too much attention is being placed on fixing the collapsed bridges. Instead we should be thinking about how to route more savings across the bridges that have not collapsed. Government lending may be one way of doing this but why lend to prop up the broken bridges? Instead, why not lend directly to the investors who are in need of funds? After all, if these investors exist and have valuable projects that's where the money is! Let the broken bridges collapse, taking the shoddy builders with them. Instead focus on the finding and rescuing the victims of any credit crunch, the investors who need funds.

On that latter point, the broken bridges involve real folks, real businesses, and billions of dollars. That's why we keep hearing about bailouts on massive scales. We're still in a process of trying to determine the scope and scale of the problem, identifying those who need to be bailed out, and what actions should be taken.

It should come as no surprise that someone like Warren Buffett is pushing for the bailout, since it clears the way for his company to make further acquisitions without incurring the risk of toxic paper. Those on Wall Street supporting the plan are those who see the bailout as a way of shifting the risk of loss from any business decision to the government - which really means taxpayers. So do foreign bankers, like the Japanese, who went through a meltdown of their own in the 1990s and are now awash in cash. In a way, the markets have already punished the banks and actors who were involved in the mess, and are being taken out by more nimble and capable businesses. Buffett and others figure that the process would go much quicker and be safer for them if the government greased the wheels with billions in bailouts.

The problem is that any bailout should not adversely affect those businesses that are on sound financial footing, which happens to be most banks and fiscal institutions:

While all financial intermediaries are being impacted by liquidity issues, this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions. It is extremely important that the bailout not damage well run companies.

Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors. There were a number of poorly managed institutions and poorly made financial decisions during the real estate boom. It is important that any rules post “rescue” punish the poorly run institutions and not punish the well run companies.

A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed “rescue” plan.

That plan would also have the benefit of supporting home prices by encouraging prospective buyers to get into the game, while giving sellers a possible buyer to help them out of their bad loan positions.

Meanwhile, the House passed a $25 billion bailout for the US automakers, and no one bothered to raise an eyebrow. Bad business decisions and unending regulations and union rules have made the US automakers unprofitable. A bailout will do little to fix these companies. It only enables them to limp along, but forces them to be far more beholden to their government masters.

UPDATE:
Lest you think that the Democrats aren't above blatant political theater of their own, you get this:

But yesterday, Reid demanded that the White House made sure the legislation had John McCain’s backing, and Reid floated this bogus piece of news clearly intended to force McCain’s hand: “I got some good news in the last hour or so … it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this.” McCain flatly denied that he had endorsed the plan.

So Harry Reid says that it’s essential that John McCain backs legislation designed to avert the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And when McCain says the highly problematic legislation, in its current form, is not good enough, Reid tells McCain to stay away from Capitol Hill. Who’s playing politics with economic crisis?

Reid tried to back McCain into a corner, and force him to support a flawed piece of legislation, and McCain responded in a way that Reid didn't expect so that Reid is now telling McCain to stay away.

UPDATE:
President Bush has called for a meeting on the crisis at the White House tomorrow. He wants House and Senate leaders plus both McCain and Obama to be present.

President Bush has invited both presidential candidates and the leaders of the House and Senate to the White House on Thursday in hopes of securing a bill to rescue the economy.

Bush took the unusual step Wednesday night of calling Democratic Sen. Barack Obama directly to invite him to the meeting, White House press secretary Dana Perino said. An Obama spokesman said the senator would attend. The White House has also invited Republican Sen. John McCain.

I don't think it's really that unusual, because the crisis isn't likely to abate after the elections and the inauguration next year. Whoever is the next President will have to deal with the mess, so having them involved in the process along the way makes good sense.

UPDATE:
This post by Big Lizard is an excellent primer on how we got into this mess in the first place, and what the Paulson/Bernake plan proposes. While the media calls it a bailout, the details suggest that it is something much less. It simply buys the toxic paper at a cut rate discount (since no one knows the true value). It then determines the value and resells them at auction. There is even the possibility of a profit on the deal. The $700 billion is an authorization limit, not what is expected to be spent.

NYC Metro Polling

Apparently there are polls out today showing that Sen. Barack Obama's grip on New York is slipping. It's bad enough that Democrat and Republican pollsters are stunned by the situation. I don't think the situation is nearly that dire, but if Obama's numbers are sliding in the overwhelmingly Democratic New York, it doesn't bode well for Obama's chances nationally.

It also means that the Obama campaign may have to spend more time and effort to shore up what should be a safe haven in the New York metro area. Maybe it's a Hillary effect, as the Obama campaign spurned Clinton as a running mate and voters are taking it out on the Obama campaign. That remains to be seen.

However, I'd take it with a grain of salt given that New Jersey's Record released a poll showing that Obama still held a sizable lead in New Jersey, even after Sen. McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Likely voters in New Jersey weren't particularly enthusiastic about Palin, though she rated about the same as Biden. New Jersey leans Democratic, given that Democrats significantly outnumber registered Republicans in the state. Independents make up a sizable portion of the electorate.

Obama, the first-term U.S. senator from Illinois, leads McCain, a veteran senator from Arizona, by 50 percent to 41 percent, with 7 percent saying they are undecided.

The likely voters surveyed said they think overall that Obama is better prepared to be president, but by a slimmer, four-point advantage. By double-digit margins, they believe Obama is better suited to deal with the nation's economy, environment and health care.

But when it comes to handling the war in Iraq or the nation's security, they picked McCain as more qualified, by an edge of 2 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

"New Jersey's blue [Democratic] - I don't think there's any question about it in the presidential race," said Del Ali of Research 2000, whose firm surveyed 600 likely New Jersey voters by telephone last Tuesday through Thursday. The poll has a margin for error of 4 percentage points.

Kerfuffle Over Flower Ceremony At Ground Zero?

Here's the video:



What exactly is wrong here? Sen. McCain gently laid down the flower, while Sen. Obama tossed his onto the pile of flowers. Some, including Michelle Malkin, are claiming that this shows some kind of breach of etiquette. I'm not so sure of that.

It's not necessarily something I would have done, but I don't think he's being disrespectful. I think if you go through the footage of the families putting flowers into the pool of water, you'd find that quite a few did throw the flower in, and not do so in a manner that McCain did.

Some are also complaining about how many people Obama shook hands with and the manner in which he did so. I think that too is overblown. McCain may be more comfortable in handling these kinds of ceremonial duties, something that comes with multiple terms in the Senate. Obama clearly has less experience than McCain and may have been uncomfortable at Ground Zero, but it's something that his advisers can work on.

Yesterday was the first time I was at Ground Zero at any point during a September 11 commemoration, and it was indeed a very odd experience. It was unsettling, partially because of the somberness of the occasion, but because of the silence of the crowds (but for the Troofers in the distance), and the reverential manner in which many comported themselves. It's unsettling to know that so many were murdered at Ground Zero, that so few actually were recovered from the site so that families could bury more than just an empty casket, and that comparatively little had been done in rebuilding.

I think this is an overblown issue. I'm not alone in thinking that either.

There are far more consequential issues than whether and how Obama comported himself yesterday, all of which I find to be disqualifying: his relationship to Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Bernadine Dohrn, his redistribution of wealth policies (tax, tax, tax and spend), his flimsy foreign policy knowledge and prescription for national security that is anything but.

The Gaffes Keep On Coming

The Obama campaign can't get out of its own way quick enough. These are unforced errors that do nothing but galvanize the GOP base and get people thinking about the character and fitness of the respective tickets. People are starting to realize that Obama simply doesn't have anything to offer beyond empty words.

Well, empty words except when he goes and makes still more unforced errors and personal attacks. Alluding to Gov. Palin as a pig? Are you kidding me? That's the kind of red meat that GOPers just love to sink their teeth into. These are unforced errors on top of unforced errors galore by the Democrats.

L-L-L-Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change too. Exce... an-an-and so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington! That's not change. That's... that's just calling some... the same thing, something different. But you know, you can... you-you can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

See for yourself. The Democrats will try to claim that the reference isn't to that of Gov. Palin, but if you note that Obama also refers to McCain as the old fish. He's using a rhetorical device, but for someone who is supposedly good with words, he gets in trouble because he sounds sexist in the process.

Sen. Barack Obama isn't getting any help from his running mate either:

Stay classy Democrats. You'll be scratching your head in November wondering where it all went so wrong. Still, you've got time to get back on your game, if you stop attacking Palin personally and stick to the issues, but even there, it would be nice if you stuck to the facts instead of inventing scandal where none exists.

UPDATE:
Instapundit has a good roundup, and notes that the Obama campaign is clearly rattled and off its game. These attacks are all meant to energize the base, which raises questions over what the campaign is seeing in their internal polling. While McCain and Palin are both targeting independents, Obama looks like he's shoring up his base. That's not a good sign with two months until the election. Throw in the fact that the Obama attacks on Palin galvanize the GOP base to come to Palin's defense, it makes it even easier for McCain and Palin to go after independents and moderates because their base has their back. OODA loop, and McCain is clearly inside Obama's.

UPDATE:
It's unforced error on top of unforced error - and it shows a lack of judgment and an inability to figure out how to adjust to the changed circumstances of the campaign.

If he can't do that now, how can we expect him to change and adapt as President.

The campaign season is a marathon. It's also a test of character and fitness. And it's a test to see whether the candidates can adapt to changed circumstances, such as they might face as President.

Obama is failing on those grounds.

Time to Put Up: McCain's Speech Sets Sprint To WH In Motion

Last night's speech by Sen. John McCain paled in comparison to the electrifying speech by Gov. Sarah Palin, his running mate. Palin clearly relishes speaking before large crowds and has very good oratory skills. McCain is much less accomplished as a public speaker, but he did end the speech on a strong note.

That may not be enough. He's now got to deliver on his rhetoric. Just as the Obama-Biden ticket have to show what they're going to do to change the situation in Washington, the McCain-Palin ticket will have to show their hand as to what they envision for the US in the future.

They will have to address a souring economy, national defense, foreign policy, and all the other issues that people find important. McCain's pick of Palin was clearly designed to let McCain do what McCain has always done - run as a maverick and run counter to traditional GOP themes, enabling him to attract moderates, independents, and those dissatisifed Democrats who may still be stinging from the Clinton snub.

Palin, whose star power appears to be growing by the day, will be able to bring in the crowds and comfort the base as well as speak to issues like energy with a knowledge that Biden simply cannot.

The debates between the candidates will help flesh out the policy differences and help prove that the candidates have the mettle to be in the White House.

Good luck.

We are going to need it.

Stage Managing the McCain Set For Tonight's Speech

I criticized the Obama camp for not only changing sets, but for completely changing venues for Sen. Obama's nomination acceptance speech last week. It was a bad move on his part.

I think changing the GOP staging for McCain's speech is likewise a bad move. It undercuts some of the arguments made about Obama's stage design, even though McCain's looking to make it a more informal setting.

I think it could have been done by simply removing the podium and allowing McCain to roam the stage freely. With the videoscreens behind him, they could adjust the background to look like whatever they wanted.

Parts of the platform at the Xcel Energy Center were removed by construction workers on Thursday to bring delegates closer to where McCain will give his acceptance speech, giving the stage a T-shape. Organizers said the change reflected the town hall-type forums in which McCain has campaigned.

"The extended podium will serve as a fitting complement to John McCain's preference for direct interaction with his fellow citizens," said Maria Cino, a convention official.

Meanwhile, party leaders added two speakers to the night's lineup. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will speak prior to Cindy McCain. Both are close to McCain. Ridge was considered a finalist for the No. 2 spot before McCain picked the Alaska governor. And Graham has appeared frequently with McCain on the campaign trail.

Delegates will also vote Thursday night to make the convention's nomination of Palin official. And McCain himself will close out the activities with his prime-time acceptance speech.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has video of the changes underway. It appears that this was in the works for a while. Still, I don't think it was a good idea.

The Attacks Have Already Begun on Palin

Sen. John McCain's pick of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has energized his campaign. It's knocked the Obama convention speech off the front page and people are asking questions about who she is and what she stands for. The McCain/Palin campaign have 66 days to inform the public, but on first blush, he's done right by his base as they've turned out their pocketbooks - $3 million in one day.

Still, this campaign is far from over and the attacks are already beginning. The primary line of attack is her experience or perceived lack thereof. That's right folks, the same media that refused to address the fact that Sen. Barack Obama came from obscurity and being a community organizer to being on the doorstep of the White House within a few short years is now looking to knock down Sarah Palin, even as she is a first term governor from Alaska. Palin impressed voters with gumption more than an established record.

The Times also writes that the Palin pick was bold, but undercuts the arguments against Obama (on experience, if you need a reminder). Let's see. Palin has more executive experience than Obama or his running mate Joe Biden, but somehow she has less experience? She has less experience at the national level, but she's still a governor of a state and has to deal with all issues.

And it's not like small states haven't produced Presidential material, just ask Bill Clinton, who rose to the Presidency from being the governor of Arkansas.

Obama has been running for President ever since he first stepped foot into the Senate and has no accomplishments to his name - at least none that are his.

He's tried to take credit for the work of others though.

You would think that if Obama was so sincere about energy policy and alternative, he would have crafted legislation to address the nation's energy needs. Nope. Didn't do that.

Palin has crafted energy policy for her state and implemented it. Given that Alaska is home to significant reserves of oil and gas, she has intimate knowledge of the energy industry while still respecting the environment. She's also served as chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, whose mission is to "...assist[s] member states efficiently maximize oil and natural gas resources through sound regulatory practices while protecting our nation's health, safety and the environment." The organization also has international affiliates including Canada, the Republic of Georgia, Egypt, and Venezuela. So, Palin has executive and foreign policy experience lacking in both Obama and Biden's resume.

Obama's supporters are also attacking her gender. That goes for the media as well (which is pretty much saying the same thing since the media is by and large in the tank for Obama). Given that those kinds of attacks on Hillary Clinton drove a wedge in to Democratic party unity, watch people rally to Palin instead of away from her.

Expect attacks on Palin for being a member of the NRA, being an avid hunter, and even that she's not adhering to traditional roles because she's running for office as a woman who gave birth just a few short months ago. She has five children, one of whom is set to deploy to Iraq in September. She had to weigh those decisions and chose to run for governor. She again had to weigh her decisions and accepted the invitation to be McCain's running mate. It's refreshing that we have someone who is able to balance both their family and work life running for office.

Palin does have some warts on her record. She does believe in creationism, and if she doesn't force that view on others, I don't have a problem with it. However, the media is already bowdlerizing her comments on it to make it appear that she is indeed seeking to push creationism into the schools alongside evolution.

Jonah Goldberg has already fleshed out many of her negatives, and I noted them, including the experience issue, yesterday.

This is a truly caption worthy photo of Palin, showing her attending some event in Alaska that could have been mistaken for a Viking gathering.

Doug Ross picks through the left-o-sphere to find nuggets of information that the left deems important to derailing Palin. Particularly funny is the one about Palin's approval rating. Apparently Democrats haven't noticed that Congress's approval rating since they took over in 2006 is the lowest in history, thanks to the likes of Pelosi and Reid - obstructionists who wanted to defund the war in Iraq and thwart victory by claiming that the Surge would never work. Oh, and that happened to be Obama's position as well.

Does she make the grade? Well, yes. She does. As I noted yesterday, she's a solid pick and bolsters McCain's base while giving him new ground on which to operate. In one of the two areas in which she's weakest, that she somehow lacks experience, is one on which she can flip to a strength since she's the only one among the contenders who has actual executive experience. Managing a presidential campaign isn't executive experience, and if Obama wants to go that route, then it undercuts the fact that he's a Senator since Obama has run for President pretty much from the day he took the oath of office as US Senator from Illinois.

The other area that is a weakness - that she doesn't deliver geographically, can't be helped as she's from Alaska. She can't directly deliver a battleground state like Michigan or Ohio because she's not from those states, but if she wins over enough voters in places like Michigan or Ohio, she'll have done her job.

UPDATE:
Kirsten Powers thinks the Democrats are falling into a trap of male chauvinism. Indeed.

UPDATE:
Obama had to throw his campaign staff under the bus for starting with the attacks on Palin without first congratulating her on her accomplishments - Obama released a statement congratulating Palin following an earlier release from his campaign attacking McCain's choice of Palin.

UPDATE:
Palin's background includes being a union member. That's going to help in the Rust Belt, where Democrats take union support for granted, and whose membership has routinely been screwed by Democrats in office.

David Frum isn't excited. He thinks this was a cynical pick. Nope, just politics. And from the look of the reaction around the blogosphere, it looks like McCain got a serious spark and bounce from choosing Palin.

AJ Strata notes how the media and snarling left are denigrating Palin because she's a woman. Way to alienate half the population.

Jammie calls it a brilliant trap and notes the Obama campaign's clumsy response to say nothing of how MSNBC reacted. Indeed. MSNBC wanted to smear Palin by claiming that she was a backer of Pat Buchanan - somehow indicating she is a racist or worse. Of course, Buchanan is regularly brought onto MSNBC and other outlets to spew his garbage, including on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Pot. Meet kettle. If Buchanan is so toxic (which he is), how come Hardball and other media outlets continue to bring him on?

UPDATE:
Hey, and once, Sarah Palin wore a bikini. And even was a beauty queen contestant. There's pictures too.

Knuckle draggers beware.

Who are the misogynists? Based on their reaction to McCain's choice of Palin, I have to believe it's the Democrats.

UPDATE:
Rasmussen Reports muses on the polling data relating to Palin and how she's seen more favorably than Biden was. Such data is fleeting and can change as people get to know more about her, but I suspect that she's going to remain a likable and personable figure. That's going to count for a whole lot.

She's the ultimate outsider and takes that particular claim away from the Obama campaign, who chose the longstanding insider in Biden as his running mate.

UPDATE:
Jay Tea at Wizbang has further thoughts on the experience question, and notes that Palin was also the commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard.

McCain's VP Choice: Sarah Palin

Democrats and their media minions are already beginning to attack Sen. John McCain's choice for his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Some are questioning her level of experience or comparing her to Dan Quayle. Right, let's just ignore all of Sen. Barack Obama's gaffes that make Quayle's statements look like minor league in comparison.

Good move there - just remind folks that Obama has even less tangible experience than Obama does. Palin isn't at the top of this ticket, McCain is. Obama had no choice but to pick someone who was more experienced than he was in the form of Joe Biden, but even there Biden has tenure, not knowledgeable experience.

Some may want to attack her personally because she gave birth to a baby earlier this year who has Down's Syndrome and she is pro-life. I think that's an argument and debate that Palin would relish. A debate with Biden over abortion rights is one that I can't foresee Biden winning.

Palin is a good pick on many levels. It clearly goes after a demographic that the Democrats have a big problem with. All those women who are disgusted with the way that the Obama campaign decided to throw Hillary to the curb out of spite, anger, or just miscalculation. The best Democratic ticket would have been some combination of Hillary and Obama, and he went with Biden instead. Women aren't going to forget that.


Daily Kos founder Markos claims that McCain had no choice but to choose Palin. Let me get this straight, he thinks that McCain's first choices - Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman would have caused problems for the McCain team and would have lost him the GOP base.

Markos clearly doesn't want to look at happened with his own party. You do remember Sen. Hillary Clinton, don't you Markos? The same Hillary who got 48% of the pledged delegates (46% factoring the supers) before she threw in the towel, and who won every big state in the country except Obama's homestate of Illinois.

That Hillary.

Obama chose Biden, whose biggest claim to fame is hanging around the Halls of the Senate for 36 years and two failed presidential bids, including this year where he couldn't even get out of Iowa? Badgering Supreme Court nominees and exposing his clear misunderstanding of the law? Or is it his foreign policy statements that would have been a framework to genocide in Iraq?

Obama had no choice but choose Biden because there was no one else who wanted the job or could give Obama the needed experience on the ticket without overshadowing him. Hillary's star power would have clearly overshadowed Obama and made a bad situation intolerable. Yet, that would have still been the best ticket the Democrats could have come up with. That would have been a winning ticket. Howard Wolfson, who worked for Clinton, concurs.

McCain has provided an inspired choice for the GOP, something that not only satisfies the base, but appeals to most Americans. Palin is down to earth and understands issues that affect most Americans. She's got a good grasp of energy policy, given that her home state of Alaska is where American gets a significant portion of its oil supplies.

For those who think that her pro-life stance will be a turnoff, keep in mind that Presidents (or Vice Presidents) cannot outlaw abortion. Even if the Supreme Court somehow overturns Roe v. Wade, it would still be left to the states to decide. As an issue, it's one that provides a visceral reaction, so watch for Democrats to focus on that.

Ed Morrisey speculates on other benefits to the McCain camp from choosing Palin. Don Surber notes that he's been for Palin since last December. Mark Levin is ecstatic, which is sure to bring much consternation among liberals since Levin is staunchly conservative.

Stop the ACLU has more.

UPDATE:
Ace has fun with the pick, and notes that Democrats are questioning whether she care for her family and be VP at the same time. Right, because only Democrats can do that?

UPDATE:
Charles Johnson isn't thrilled because Palin is a creationist. That's an avenue of attack that Democrats will attack, using it to smear Republicans in general over their religious views.

I still think this is a good choice, though like Charles, I'm not a fan of creationists. As long as she's not pushing her view on the rest of the country or demanding that creationism be taught in science classrooms, she can believe what she wants.

UPDATE:
The Democrats have had to play damage control, since they went on the attack about Palin's perceived inexperience without remembering that Palin was a historic pick, being the first woman on the GOP ticket. Palin's quip about being the woman to break the glass ceiling that Hillary first cracked was a good one.

McCain's VP Name Game Continues: UPDATE: Sarah Palin Confirmed As VP Choice

Who's it going to be? Romney is out. Tim Pawlenty? In or out? Out.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin? In? Out. She's on the outs with National Review to be sure, but is she still in the running.

The short list keeps getting shorter, although no one is really saying who it would be. McCain did a nice head fake yesterday with luring Drudge and others into thinking that McCain would "leak" the nomination last night during the penultimate night for the DNC. It got people thinking about who it would be, and it was a tactically good move. Now, it is up to McCain to deliver in terms of who his running mate would be.

UPDATE:
All of a sudden, a series of news flashes suggesting that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin. That includes CNBC.

So does the Chicago Tribune.

UPDATE:
Mark Levin, who's been as harsh a critic of McCain as anyone, thinks that a Palin VP nod would be a tremendous advantage and would get Levin on board. I guess the folks at National Review are having second thoughts about their second thoughts.

The McCain VP Leak

You could see this coming from a mile away. Sen. Barack Obama's VP choice of Sen. Joe Biden was known hours ahead of the text message that was supposed to be the clarion call to his supporters that they would get the news ahead of everyone else. That was because the media got tipped off to the presence of the Secret Service at Biden's home, which would happen only if Biden was chosen.

Now, Sen. John McCain is looking like he's going to do something similar - except that he's purposefully going to start leaking the name of his vice presidential choice while the Democrats are gathering to hear Sen. Obama's acceptance speech. He's hoping to undercut the Obama evening with news of his own.

McCain had gotten inside the Obama campaign decision making cycle, and has been putting on the hits with a series of ads attacking Obama's lack of experience, gravitas, and judgment. Don't expect that to change between now and November.

Still, the question remains who McCain has chosen. Watch for the media outlets to camp outside the last known locations where possible nominees are located. If the US Secret Service shows up, you know who's getting the nod.

Frankly, I don't have a clue who it's going to be. I have a few ideas of who I don't think should get the job, including Mike Huckabee or Carly Fiorina. Watch for someone who will help McCain with demographics or geographic regions. Names to watch: Sarah Palin; Mitt Romney; JC Watts; Rudy Giuliani; and Eric Cantor.

And it looks like Obama's finally gotten a bounce from the convention - anywhere from 3 to 6 points, depending on which outlet you rely upon.

UPDATE:
Is it Romney? Well, there's a report that a security sweep of Romney's family that has taken place. It could be a precursor for the Secret Service detachment to come. Romney would be a help with McCain's chances in Michigan, but Obama's team would likely have a few ads of their own showing Mitt attacking McCain on any number of issues in the primaries. That's a problem McCain would have choosing any of the other failed nominees. However, he's probably figuring the benefits outweigh any of those negatives.

UPDATE:
Rumors. They're just rumors that Romney's family got the Secret Service sweep. New rumor? Pawlenty.

The VP Name Game

Why exactly is Sen. Barack Obama being so coy about his selection for Vice President? Why wait until Friday to possibly name it - the usual slot for a Friday night news dump where bad news usually goes into the memory hole because media coverage is less on Saturday?

He's apparently narrowed things down somewhat - though from CNN's take, that would still be quite a few characters. One person who supposedly wont be standing next to Obama at the end of the day will be Sen. Hillary Clinton, who apparently never even got vetted by Obama's people.

The problem is that in practically every instance, the person Obama chooses would have more experience than Obama. It raises the question as to why that person is not at the head of the ticket instead of Obama. That's why some are throwing out obscure politicians, so as to bolster Obama's own case.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain is doing his own dance on the VP selection, but the timing for that will probably coincide with the day after the DNC convention ends, so as to preempt whatever dead cat bounce the Democrats hope to ride from the convention spotlight.