What’s going on here?

There are now enough “early voters” in many states to allow for polls on them.  Surprisingly, at least to me, there were also enough for some polling in 2004.  Either way, given that most states have party registration (mine, Virginia, does not), the early polls are providing either tea leaves or entrails (pick your metaphor based on your confidence in this stuff) for E-Day.

Jim Geraghty has been trying to keep track of the data and tease some meaning from them.  Here’s what we have so far (I think).

Florida: If Obama was genuinely competitive, why are his early voting total worse than John Kerry’s were.  That’s not good for the Audacity of Hype.

Nevada: Obama has a very slim lead, but the turnout is Dem-heavy so far.  If the Republicans can get their voet to turn out (and again, Nevada has party registration), McCain should win this one, too.

Colorado: Also a Dem-heavy early turnout, but without a poll of early voters, no one can really say what it means (although Geraghty’s correspondent certainly tries).

As for a deeper, national meaning – if one can be found – this would imply McCain is outperforming his poll position so far.  Before anyone reads too much into this, though, please note “imply” and “so far.”  By E-Day (five days hence), I may be able to convince myself McCain will win, but if I do, rest assured I’ll have a lot more than this.

Washington Times endorses Gilmore

The editors of the Times simply cut through the fog of Mark Warner’s rhetoric and looked at the truth:

. . . Mr. Gilmore is strongly opposed to the $700 billion mortgage-bailout bill passed by Congress earlier this month; Mr. Warner supported it.

Mr. Gilmore favors making permanent the federal tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003. Mr. Warner, by contrast, has suggested repealing tax cuts on persons whose family income exceeds $250,000 a year.

. . .

Mr. Gilmore favors offshore oil drilling in Alaska and off the Atlantic Coast. Mr. Warner opposes drilling in Alaska and says more study is needed before drilling is permitted off the Atlantic Coast. Mr. Gilmore opposes and Mr. Warner favors the Orwellian-titled Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it much easier for labor unions to coerce workers into joining.

As governor, Mr. Gilmore is best known for his work to repeal the oppressive car tax. Mr. Warner’s major political achievement as governor was his success in pushing a $1.4 billion tax increase through the General Assembly in 2004. Only weeks after passage of the tax increase (which Mr. Warner asserted was essential to balance the budget), state officials acknowledged that Virginia was actually running a budget surplus. (In other words, Mr. Warner’s dire warnings of imminent fiscal collapse had been proven false.)

It’s easy to see why – as the Times put it – “Mr. Gilmore would be the superior choice.”

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Jim Gilmore

Rasmussen has McCain within 3

So one day after the Ted Stevens conviction, Rasmussen has McCain cutting Obama’s lead from five points to three.  For those keeping track, McCain has picked up five points (net) in two days.

Among voters “certain” to vote, the difference is one point.

Six days to E-Day . . .

Washington prepares to give up on Afghanistan (and why Obama would make it happen)

I have caused many a person (including in my own family) to lift an eyebrow at me when I predict that Barack Obama will cut and run in Afghanistan – for the new readers, you read that right: Afghanistan.

Yet I am more sure of it today than ever before.  Why?  Simple, the Washington elite is talking about it before Obama would even take office (Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal).

Now, it’s all couched in we-just-want-to-turn-the-Taliban-against-al-Qaeda, which would make sense except for the fact that al Qaeda kept the Taliban afloat for years before Afghanistan’s liberation began.

Once it becomes clear (as I suspect it will) that the Taliban have little or no interest in an Anbar-Awakening-style flip (non-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan are another matter entirely), we will be faced with the decision to press on and do the hard work needed, or shrug our shoulders, call the whole thing unwinnable, and pretend it wasn’t that important anyway.

Those of us who know the flaccid nature of the Washington establishment don’t need to guess how they’ll react.  Here’s the important question: who do you think will stand up to them and refuse to cut and run? 

Brack Obama’s entire career is built on making nice with the powers that be wherever he goes.  He has repeatedly downplayed and discounted the significance of the WBK War.  His priorities are clearly with redistributing American wealth at home, not protecting her interests abroad.  Pulling out of Afghanistan and blaming Pakistan, while leaving the entire war behind as a Bush-era bad dream, would be a lead-pipe cinch for him.

On the other hand, John McCain has repeatedly told the foreign policy establishment to stuff it – most recently when it seemed ready to throw in the towel in Iraq.  He is exactly the person we need to reject the slowly creeping malaise in Washington and get the Afghan theater of the WBK War back on track.

There hasn’t been a lot of talk about Afghanistan in this election, but it will decide the fate of that nation and our efforts to liberate it.

McCain calls for Ted Stevens’ resignation

From the Weekly Standard Blog:

John McCain released a statement this morning calling for Alaska senator Ted Stevens to resign:

 

“Yesterday, Senator Ted Stevens was found guilty of corruption. It is a sign of the health of our democracy that the people continue to hold their representatives to account for improper or illegal conduct, but this verdict is also a sign of the corruption and insider-dealing that has become so pervasive in our nation’s capital.

It is clear that Senator Stevens has broken his trust with the people and that he should now step down. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will be spurred by these events to redouble their efforts to end this kind of corruption once and for all.”

Perhaps this is what Colin Powell meant when he said he was upset about the course of the modern Republican Party.  After all, he can’t be happy with the “sterling” Stevens being hounded out of town by McCain, right?

Barack Obama and Ted Stevens: Colin Powell sure knows how to pick ‘em

Upon hearing Ted Stevens’ conviction on seven counts of corruption, I just assumed there would be no way to spin that in John McCain’s favor; at best it would be a one-day, neutral event.

Clearly I need to read Not Your Sweetie more often:

Collin Powel’s (sic) “other” endorsee – guilty on 7 counts

Before endorsing Obama, Powell testified for Ted Stevens

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ reputation for integrity and truth is “sterling.”  The four-star general testified today as a character witness in Stevens’ federal trial.  Alaska’s senior Senator faces seven felony counts of lying on his financial disclosure forms. (audio included)

Today, Stevens was found guilty on 7 counts

WASHINGTON – Ted Stevens a pillar of the Senate for 40 years and the face of Alaska politics almost since statehood, was convicted of a seven-felony string of corruption charges Monday – foung guilty of accepting a bonanza of home renovations and fancy trimmings from an oil executive and then lying about it.

What a takedown!

Gallup has the race back in a statistical dead heat (UPDATED)

John McCain just won’t go down.  Gallup‘s likely voter model (or as they prefer to call it, “traditional likely voter model”) has McCain back within two points of Barack Obama (49-47 to be exact).

Now, the Audacity of Hype is soon to have his half-hour of TV, plus I suspect the Ted Stevens verdict will mean more rough sledding, but once again, McCain has managed to get himself “back in the game,” as it were.

We’re a week out, and I still have no idea what’s going to happen on E-Day.

UPDATE: I would also note that every single indicator Gallup used had McCain gaining three points on Obama.

Blast from the past

Barack Obama, the man would would be President, had some problems with the Warren Court – just not the ones anybody would expect (Leslie Carbone and Write Side):

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution . . .

Darn those founding fathers.  Didn’t they know how much trouble they’d be for community organizers?

Meanwhile, we also discover what “change” really means (Jim Geraghty, emphasis added):

I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

“Redistributive change”?  Somehow I don’t think that would have gotten him where he is today.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch gets it (this time)

Readers of this blog know that I’ve been pretty hard on the editors of the Richmond Times-Dispatch (I was especially – thought deservedly – rough with them during the summer debate on transportation taxes).  Still, I try my best to give credit where it’s due – and it is most certainly due the folks at the RTD for their endorsement of John McCain.

It’s not the endorsement per se that earned such praise, it was the rationale – one that desperately needs repeating over, and over, and over again (from their editorial, emphasis added):

We believe that Obama is qualified by temperament to serve as president, though his limited experience does give pause. We believe he possesses the depth and the eloquence to inspire his fellow citizens and to spread America’s message of liberty and freedom abroad.

But we are troubled by many of his policy positions. His devotion to higher taxes on work, capital, innovation, and risk-taking seem particularly dangerous during a year in which the U.S. economy is struggling. His tepid, on-again-off-again support for free trade is equally frightening. He seems not to understand the forces that created the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago — at a moment when that understanding is absolutely essential.

I’ve been saying for weeks now that McCain is better on economic issues than Obama.  I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who understands this.

The question is, will enough Americans see it to make the right choice next Tuesday?

The latest victims of the Wall Street panic – our enemies?

Those of us who have noticed the effect of the Wall Street panic on oil prices remain very few.  So far I’ve focused mainly on the effect to the domestic economy (and possibly the presidential race), but apparently the oil shock is having geopolitical effects too – and long before the supposed finance-forced decline of American power.

Take a look at what the editors of the Washington Post (of all people) have noticed:

Unless oil prices quickly recover, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are likely to face even tougher domestic economic challenges in 2009 than the next U.S. president. According to independent estimates, both countries need an average oil price of up to $95 a barrel to fund the populist subsidies and social programs they have launched in recent years — not to mention billions of dollars in arms purchases from Russia. Venezuela has been furiously importing food to fill empty shop shelves, while Iran heavily subsidizes domestic fuel. Even if Mr. Chávez and Mr. Ahmadinejad manage to continue those politically sensitive programs, they may find it harder to sponsor foreign clients — from Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East to Cuba’s Castro brothers. Already Mr. Chávez has stiffed Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, to whom he had promised a $4 billion oil refinery.

Ouch!  Rejection from fellow left-wingers is not something with which Ortega is familiar.  Meanwhile, the great Russian bear is suddenly finding that the bear-market in oil is much scarier (same link):

Though somewhat less reliant on oil revenue, Russia may be even worse off, because of its dependence on foreign investment. The Russian stock market has dropped more than 70 percent since last spring, and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has had to commit more than $200 billion of the country’s reserves to shore up banks. In the past several years, Mr. Putin has several times interrupted energy deliveries to European clients to make political points; he may have less financial leeway to wield that weapon in the future.

Will the decline of revenue lessen the hostility of these regimes toward the United States? There are some intriguing early signs. Russia unexpectedly announced last week that it would not oppose an extension of the U.N.mandate for U.S. troops in Iraq. Though it has refused to rein in its nuclear program, Iran has at least temporarily curbed Hamas, Hezbollah and the “special groups” of Iraq, which in recent months have all but ceased attacks on American and Israeli targets.

Whether the mullahcracy is looking more towards keeping out of the headlines until its first nuclear test (allow me to set myself up for further embarrassment by mentioning my May 31, 2009 prediction for that event) or out of a genuine inability to fund the terrorist adventurers cannot be known.  However, it is fairly clear that the folks who figured America was on its last legs economically are getting a painful lesson in their own vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile, at least one pollster (admittedly, Zogby) has John McCain cutting Barack Obama’s lead in half – in one day.  John Zogby says McCain “is finding his message again” on the economy.  It may also be that the drop in oil and gas prices means more Americans are willing to listen to him.

No matter who is in the White House, though, the enemies of this nation are finding themselves unexpectedly hobbled.  Bismarck’s wisdom continues to resonate.