I was never sold on this, not even remotely. Patterico gloats a bit, citing his older posts about McCain's presumed electability.

Back to the hobbyhorse: I cannot imagine any candidate except McCain being unwilling to pin blame for Fannie/Freddie/CRA on the Democrats.

That was all him. A weird and ultimately fatal mix of a strange sense of "honor" that prevented him from attacking Democrats, a determination to remain "bipartisan" and thus never take Republicans' side against Democrats, residual guilt over voting against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday which caused him again and again to play the race card on himself, and a general lack of fluency in economic issues making him reluctant to play on this turf at all.

No one else had that kind of perfect storm of suicidal stupidity working against him.

Oh: And add to that a bit of misplaced arrogance, or at least a firm belief that his instincts are well-nigh infallible. At least some of his advisers tried to convince him he was dead wrong on his notion that he should let the crisis "just pass" so he could get back to talking about the stuff he wanted to, character and integrity.

The really terrible thing is that the plan, apparently, was to "let the crisis pass" and then begin hammering Obama on Ayers (but not Wright -- he's black).

But when the time for this Mighty Hammering came, McCain largely demurred and spoke about it as if he were embarrassed to even be bringing it up.

Jim DeMint: McCain Betrayed Conservative Principles. He also alludes to Bush's responsibility for the loss.

Which is real. And I keep wanting to write on it, but I can't seem to gin up the enthusiasm for it yet.

He also notes that McCain hurt himself politically by supporting the bailout. This is undeniably true. Personally, I can't fault him for this, as I thought the bailout was the right policy to avert disaster. (I am slowly reconsidering that.)

But there is no doubt as regards pure political advantage that running against the bailout would have been helpful.

Except-- there's a chance McCain and Obama called each other privately about this, and both agreed they had to support it. If McCain ran against it, Obama might have too.

I was attempting to think of "Six at Sixty," six issues that command sixty percent public support. (This is a variation of Geraghty's "Nine at Ninety," an attempt to define nine issues that command 90% support in the GOP only.)

Without a doubt, running against any and all future bailouts -- giveaways; corporate welfare -- must be considered a strong entrant as one of the six at sixty.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 PM | Comments (126)
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

Or he's suing California authorities to block them certifying Obama's electoral votes until the certificate is produced. Whichever.

This is all probably a lot of nonsense -- remember how the story came about. It was asserted the certification of live birth he'd posted was a forgery, giving rise to speculation that he'd forged it to conceal the fact he was actually born in Kenya. Well, it turned out that certification wasn't forged, or didn't seem to be -- but the conclusion drawn from the forgery claim (born in Kenya, not permitted to be President) lived on, somehow.

Of course, Obama has been very dodgy about performing a simple action (requesting his birth certificate and presenting it for inspection) so suspicions continue. I really dislike that he did that -- showing his birth certificate is not some invasion of his privacy. If he's running for President, he's obligated to demonstrate he's constitutionally qualified for the position.

Still, I think he was being an arrogant dick for unrelated reasons.

Hopefully judges will concede that Alan Keyes, who ran as a presidential candidate, does in fact have standing to sue, and we can be done with this. (Someone must have standing to sue. It can't be that the Constitution specifies the requirements for office but no one has the power to actually compel proof of satisfaction of those requirements. If that's the case, ever section specifying requirements for federal office have been rendered dead-letter.)

So this should all soon be over. Unless Obama fights hard to avoid producing it here. In which case, I'd begin to suspect there is some kind of problem.

Thanks to DaveM.

Posted by: Ace at 11:46 AM | Comments (228)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

If'n ya want to throw down with your shit and all.

I have finally figured out the answer to the question What's The Matter With Kansas?

Defense. No bench, no secondary. Oh, and offensive turnovers.

The #22 Cincinnati Bearcats are surprising some folks (a nod to my Ohio friends. Ohians. Ohi-yo-yans).

In other games, #10 Ohio State up over the unranked Illini, #13 Georgia in a fight with Auburn (where Dave in Texas was actually bornd a long, long time ago) late in the 4th, #24 South Carolina takes on #3 Florida this afternoon, and #1 Alabama is wary of Miss. State.

You got to keep an eye on your neighbors like that.

Also, I'll be hitting the Austin moron meetup this evenin. Looking forward to it.

UPDATE: I can't add anything to this, really.

Roll Tide! Go Cocks!

Posted by: Ginger at November 15, 2008 03:54 PM (/JUXI)

I wanted to. Just couldn't.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:28 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Several commenters have wondered why the No on 8 protesters have focused on Mormons rather than Latinos or blacks. I'm certain that part of the reason is because it's easier to protest a smaller minority and because South Central isn't safe for gay people even when they aren't protesting. But that's not the whole story.

Mormons make up 2% of the population here in California, but they funded anywhere from 30 to 70% (depending on who does the counting) of the Yes on 8 campaign. There's also this letter from the church leadership telling members to "do all that you can" to pass the amendment.

PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART: This is not to say that attacks on Mormons or their churches are justified (or on anyone else, for that matter). That behavior is evil, it should be stopped, it should be prosecuted, and the leaders of the "No on H8" protests should loudly condemn it. Nor am I saying that these protests are a good idea in general.

The point is that the contemptuous, "I'd like to see them protest a black church, the sissies!" is a silly argument. The protesters have little reason to ignore the leaders of the Yes on 8 campaign in order to go out of their way to put themselves in danger or provoke a more violent confrontation.

Another Bad Idea: "No on H8" has a shiny, new fascist/futurist poster to go with their fascist/futurist protests: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:13 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

A good starting point for determining where you stand on the future of the Republican Party can be reduced to this one multiple-choice question:

"Republicans are losing right now primarily because of ________."

(a) social liberals, social conservatives, or another component of the Party
(b) the ignorant electorate (i.e. the economy or another external event determines the outcome)
(c) John McCain

Yes, I know, many will be tempted to say "all of the above." And the truth is that a combination of weaknesses must be addressed in the next few years. But we need to decide where to put the emphasis.

Those who said (c) have the easiest task. Simply get a new face to rally behind in 2012; one who won't run such a disastrous campaign. Sack John McCain. Nothing to worry about here, and could we please stop accusing each other?

I think far more people are likely to choose (a) or (b).

The first group is where Ted Nugent and David Brooks are. They want to change the Party and its message by excising members they don't like. Partially this is a defensive maneuver from two sides of the Party which have been fighting forever: blame the other side so the middle ground won't blame you. According to these folks, our emphasis right now should be in marginalizing groups who were not helpful in this year's election. It is also a call to change the Party's message.

The second group is interesting to me because it is very pragmatic: external events control the fate of our Party; we'll win when the electorate understands that our policies are flexible enough to withstand the unanticipated. Consequently, our focus should be on educating the public, rather than adjusting our politics to conform to that which is popular at the moment. This is, by the way, the most fundamentally conservative position of the three. It assumes that the Republican Party and its core message are correct and in no need of adjustment/triangulation.

Later: One thing to consider when selecting which issues we will either change (for the (a) people out there) or which ones we will simply emphasize (for the (b) people) is that not all issues are important in determining the outcome of elections.

Ed Morrissey, arguing against Christine Todd Whitman's assessment that the Republican Party has been hijacked by "social fundamentalists", notes that social conservatism had very little to do with this election:

What were the issues foremost on the minds of voters? The failing economy, ethics, and national security. In RasmussenÂ’s polling on issues, abortion didnÂ’t even make the top five:

• Economy
• Ethics & corruption
• National security
• Education
• Health care
• Taxes
• Iraq
• Social Security
• Abortion
• Immigration

Only the last two have anything to do with social conservatism, and they hardly drove the election.

Ed argues that the lack of social conservative issues in the Top 10 means those issues didn't hurt Republicans very much this year. However, the opposite is also true: they didn't help Republicans very much this year either. It means those issues weren't determinative and there was little reason to waste limited attention and scarce resources pushing them this year.

Florida and California went blue. . .but they passed some socially conservative ballot props. In other words, the social conservative message played a role, but supporting social conservative issues did not translate to voting for Republicans. It may have in the past (I'm thinking 2004), but not this year. Will it in the future?

Incidentally, I think it's a stretch to say that Immigration is a social conservative issue.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:04 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

Russell Roberts, some economist-guy, explains that Secretary Paulson's "erratic" response to the financial crisis is making it worse:

When no one knows how the rules of the game are going to change — and they seem to change from week to week — who wants to take a risk? Who wants to borrow money? Who wants to invest? Business and consumers are hunkering down, waiting for the storm of change to pass.

The problem isn't liquidity.

It's uncertainty.

Paulson doesn't realize that his erratic attempts at creating liquidity are creating the uncertainty that makes liquidity meaningless.

Paulson's contribution to our woes didn't merely begin when he started switching his proposed solutions every week. It started at least as far back as his panicked trip to Congress. If you thought that Congress might intervene and give you better terms than youÂ’d otherwise get, you might be less willing to lend too, at least until you figured out what Congress is going to do. By serially announcing that it will intervene, Congress has caused lenders to hold their cash more dearly, and thus contributed the very crisis it is claiming to prevent.

More than that, by spreading hysteria that we are on the brink of a second Great Depression, Secretary Paulson, Congress, and the media have encouraged individuals and institutions to hold onto their cash.

However, there is another side to this story. We wouldn't want Paulson to stubbornly continue with unhelpful or counterproductive recovery efforts if an alternative program could do a better job and we expect him to adapt to changing conditions. Unfortunately, Paulson hasn't been giving his proposed solutions a chance to work before switching to new tactics. The Troubled Asset Relief Program hasn't purchased a single troubled asset. As Roberts explains, Paulson will get peoples' hopes up by announcing on one day that he is "exploring" plans to spend TARP funds to prevent foreclosures and days later announcing that won't be possible.

Hey, I know he's got a tough job, but he signed up for it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:26 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

At long last, our national nightmare is over. For now. But now we know how it went downÂ…

Disturbing and gob-smackingly vile photo below the fold.

(also, overnight thread)
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:38 PM | Comments (198)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

I know the conclusion in advance: no hate.

Just some over-exuberant displays of tolerance.

Posted by: Ace at 03:28 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh dear.

Something about Vince Vaughn sure pissed off Esquire's anklebiting writer, because he spends the whole article calling him a big fat fatty fat-assed fatso.

Posted by: Ace at 03:15 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

I didn't post on this because I didn't believe it-- I thought it was a make-nice-with-Hillary gesture, an attempt to undo the snub for not even having considered her for VP.

I'm still not sure I believe it -- I think this is a bit of Kabuki theater designed to unite the base, suggesting that Obama and the Hillmeister are buddies now.

I cannot believe he'd want her on his team, and I definitely cannot believe she'd even consider joining his. For the reasons Allah lists and then some.

If Hillary wants to be President - - which I think she still does -- she needs a failed Obama Administration. And if she needs a failed Obama Administration, she certainly wouldn't want to be tainted by association with it.

I'm not saying she wants a a failed Obama Administration -- but if Obama is successful, she can't run in 2012. Only if he fails can she do so. Why would she serve in his cabinet then?

And why be Obama's employee?

Leaks: Hillary is more hawkish than The One. Hillary has spent years trying to build up her (sorta) tough-on-national-defense image; can she risk Obama undoing all that work by using her as the mouthpiece for his appeasement agenda?

No, she couldn't.

And could Obama afford the leaks that would certainly spring up should he claim that, say, Iran is no longer seeking nuclear weapons, when Hillary's classification level gives her access to intelligence saying the complete opposite?

Obama seems willing to sell out Israel for "peace." Is Hillary?

Posted by: Ace at 01:33 PM | Comments (104)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.