'Concern trolls' at Maverick HQ?

One of the useful phrases that the blogosphere has contributed to our lexicon is "concern troll" -- the fainthearted naysayer whose modus operandi is a fretful concern that the home team's basic strategy is wrong. A specialty of the concern troll is to worry that attacks on the opposition are too harsh. It seems that there some of these weak sisters are top advisers to John McCain's campaign:

Top McCain campaign officials are grappling with how far to go with negative attacks on Sen. Barack Obama in the final weeks of what is turning into a come-from-behind effort. . . .
Some McCain campaign officials are becoming concerned about the hostility that attacks against Sen. Obama are whipping up among Republican supporters. During an internal conference call Thursday, campaign officials discussed how the tenor of the crowds has turned on the media and on Sen. Obama.

Maverick wouldn't be in the dire situation he's in if his campaign had been in attack mode from the start. He effectively clinched the nomination in February, when Mitt Romney dropped out, then spent the next four months doing . . . what? Nobody knows. The Obama-Hillary contest dominated the media, and McCain couldn't focus his attack on either one without being accused of interfering in the other party's nomination process.

After Obama clinched the nomination in early June, however, the McCain campaign should have gone on the attack and didn't. It was not until Steve Schmidt took charge of the campaign that it began to be effective in July and started getting traction. The campaign got off-message in September, deploying a defensive media strategy around Sarah Palin and then scapegoating capitalist "greed" and SEC Chairman Chris Cox for the financial crisis.

Now, with scarcely three weeks left in the campaign and their candidate way behind in the polls, Team Maverick not only has to "take the gloves off," as the cliche phrase goes, but they have to take the gloves off, put on a hockey mask and pick up a chain saw.

Welcome to Nightmare on Election Street, folks. Like it or not, the only conceivable way John McCain can win this thing is to be as relentlessly vicious as a horror-film monster. If the concern trolls don't have the stomach for bloody slashing, they'd best find a new line of work.

On the future of journalism

Does journalism even have a future, and why should anyone care? Paul Farhi says journalists are victims, not perpetrators, of the collapse of the newspaper industry. Jeff Jarvis begs to disagree:

The fall of journalism is, indeed, journalists' fault.
It is our fault that we did not see the change coming soon enough and ready our craft for the transition. It is our fault that we did not see and exploit -- hell, we resisted -- all the opportunities new media and new relationships with the public presented. It is our fault that we did not give adequate stewardship to journalism and left the business to the business people. It is our fault that we lost readers and squandered trust. It is our fault that we sat back and expected to be supported in the manner to which we had become accustomed by some unknown princely patron. Responsibility and blame are indeed ours.

I think the key idea here is Jarvis' accusation that journalists "left the business to the business people." The overwhelming majority of journalists simply never think of what they're doing as a business.

That a newspaper is a business -- that it exists to generate profit by providing a product to consumers, in the same sense that a shoe store sells shoes -- is an alien concept to most journalists. Notions like value-added, market share and comparative advantage never enter the minds of most journalists, who conceive of themselves as pursuing a profession that has nothing whatsoever to do with commerce.

So much of what newspapers have done, they've done at the behest of consultants, or by following the conventional wisdom doled out in ASNE conferences and journalism trade publications. In the '80s, I remember, everybody was into page re-design, trying to emulate USA Today -- every section front had to have a color chart of something, and it didn't really matter what it was. In the early '90s, the reigning idea was that newspapers needed to get away from straightforward just-the-facts "breaking news," since TV would always beat us to the punch. Instead, newspapers should deliver "context," in-depth, background, etc. Thus was born the ponderous five-part series, the award-bait special feature.

Then along came the Internet and blew all that crap out of the water. Charts? Drudge don't give a damn about your charts. He wants the good old-fashioned scoop. And that five-part series is a waste of manpower, a frivolous luxury in an age where there's scarcely enough staff to do basic metro coverage. Besides which, most of those five-part series were targeted at the awards judges, not ordinary readers.

There is still a public appetite for basic meat-and-potatoes news, if only so many editors and reporters weren't obsessed with serving up eat-your-broccoli journalism.

Iceland for sale

Bankrupt island nation. Low mileage. Recent repo. Cash preferred, but terms negotiable.

Fifty-first state, maybe? C'mon, compared to Puerto Rico, Iceland is a bargain.

UPDATE: A commenter says Iceland has the "best looking women in the world." This called for some research on my part. Ladies and gentlemen -- especially, gentlemen -- I present Miss Iceland 2006, Sif Aradottrr:

Surely some Saudi sheikh will bid for that.

'Don't tell me that we're doing nothing!'

Michelle Malkin talks "crap sandwich" on Cavuto:

(Via Hot Air.) It seems that a lot of people think that markets should never go down, that home prices should be exempt from the laws of supply and demand, that nobody should ever lose money. However, if you really believe in capitalism, you understand that the long-term prospect is for economic growth and this temporary downward cycle is no cause for panic, whereas expanding the power of government to intervene in the private economy is truly frightening. I would rather lose money than to lose liberty.

So, no, we are not "all socialists now," and it infuriates me to hear people claim that we must "do something" -- anything! -- to save their 401Ks and prevent a few months of recession. Let the market correct, let people lose whatever they lose in the process, and then rebuild on a solid foundation. It's not 1929, and we'll muddle through, if only people would stop freaking out about it.

'Socialists taking over our country'

Which guy should be running for president?



(Via Hot Air.) Michelle Malkin doesn't like Maverick's reply:

McCain gets a softball -- and bungles again.
Banging. Head. Against. Wall.

She's also sick of Republican socialism:

A year ago, I might have gotten as worked up about this as everyone else seems to be.
But after watching a GOP White House and Republican collaborationists fork over billions upon billions in socialist aid to private businesses, presiding over the most massive nationalization efforts I've seen in my lifetime over the past year -- and then watching John McCain pitch his Treasury Department-as-national loan servicer plan during the debate -- it's hard for me to muster up much more angst than I already have.

This is how bad policy becomes bad politics. Give people a choice between a big-government Republican and a big-government Democrat, and you've taken the size-of-government argument off the table. If it's acceptable for the federal government to take over the mortgage industry, then what's not acceptable? Instead of arguing about policy, you're just arguing about personnel: Put Republicans in charge of the massive unconstitutional Leviathan!

"Jobs For The Boys" is not a winning slogan.

Hugh Hewitt, Republican albatross

An inerrant harbinger of doom:

One campaign book that has already bitten the dust is right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt's How Sarah Palin Won the Election ... and Saved America, which the literary agent Curtis Yates sent to publishers in New York last week.

Hewitt is not, and has never been, "right-wing." He's a Republican. There is a difference. Left-winger Steve Benen of Washington Monthly notes how persistently wrong Hewitt has been:

In 2006, a few months before the midterm elections, conservative blogger/talk-show host Hugh Hewitt published a book on the drive for a "permanent Republican majority." Soon after, Democrats won a sweeping, historic victory, and reclaimed the majority in both chambers.
In 2007, a few months before the primaries, Hewitt published a book on Mitt Romney and the prospects of a "Mormon in the White House." Soon after, Romney blew leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and withdrew from the presidential race after a surprisingly poor showing.

Hewitt is an all-purpose GOP cheerleader who doesn't distinguish between a useless open-borders RINO like George Voinovich and real conservatives like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint. So long as they have an "R" beside their name, he's shaking his pompoms and shouting "Yea, team!"

In 2004, with Republican fortunes on the upswing, he published If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat, and looked like a prophet. But his 2006 book, Painting the Map Red, was published when Bush fatigue, congressional scandals and the McCain-sponsored amnesty destroyed whatever brand advantage the GOP had previously gained.

Being a Professional Republican means you can't tell the truth about the GOP when it goes off course. Even now, Hewitt is spinning fantasies of how John McCain -- who is so deeply implicated in the party's brand-damage problem -- is going to come from behind to win.

The whole purpose of the conservative movement, going back to Up From Liberalism and the Sharon Conference, was to create an independent, external focus of criticism for the failures of the Republican Party. Making GOP electoral fortunes the barometer of the success of conservatism means that the party controls the movement, rather than the other way around.

If anyone who wins a Republican primary is automatically entitled to the uncritical support of conservatives -- and this is what the philosophy we might call "Hewittism" boils down to -- then the conservative movement is toothless and unprincipled and as such will be disregarded by Republican officials as politically irrelevant.

The salt has lost its savor.

UPDATE: I knew I had written this earlier:

McCain is not a conservative, he will lose in November . . .

But until I looked it up just now, I'd forgotten the context. It was Super Tuesday, and the day before Bill Kristol in his New York Times column more or less accused Maverick's conservative opponents of treason, as I wrote:

Notice this tactic: To fail to support John McCain -- the candidate whom Mr. Kristol and his associates have labored diligently to impose on an unwilling Republican Party -- is to unpatriotically endorse defeat in Iraq.

He decides who the candidate is, then slanders those who disapprove. Nice work if you can get it.
Kristol's Weekly Standard had been all aboard the Straight Talk Express in 2000 -- seeing it as a vehicle to "National Greatness" -- and on Super Tuesday this year, Kristol went on Fox to call Maverick "the almost prohibitive favorite" for the nomination, which prompted my response:

McCain got 48% in Illinois, 51% in New York , 52% in Connecticut, and 56% in New Jersey -- all states that Democrats will carry easily in November. But in Florida he got only 36%, and today, he didn't even break 50% in Arizona. These aren't the kind of numbers that indicate a strong Republican candidate. McCain is not a conservative, he will lose in November, and Kristol doesn't even seem to care.

Some of my prognostications have been way off, but I predicted the Nov. 4 outcome nine months in advance.

Free cellphones for the poor!

Did you know there is a government program that provides free cellphone service to poor people?

SafeLink Wireless is a government supported program that provides a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers.

Eligibility requirements:

How to Qualify
The process to qualify for Lifeline Service depends on the State you live in. In general, you may qualify if...

• You already participate in other State or Federal assistance program such as Federal Public Housing Assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid.
  OR
• Your total household income is at or below 135% of the poverty guidelines set by your State and/or the Federal Government.
  AND
• No one in your household currently receives Lifeline Service through another phone carrier.
• You have a valid United States Postal Address. In order for us to ship you your free phone you must live at a residence that can receive mail from the US Post Office. Sorry, but P.O. Boxes cannot be accepted.

In addition to meeting the guidelines above you will also be required to provide proof of your participation in an assistance program, or proof of your income level.

What next? Plasma TVs and hot tubs?

UPDATE: Cellphone service is a right:

"Having a telephone service, just in general, is not a privilege, it should be a right of each one," said TracFone spokesman Jose Fuentes. "Everyone should be in contact, everybody should have the opportunity to get a phone call, especially if it's an employer."

And don't you just know these people -- who rely on government for their food, housing and medical care -- are burning up the minutes on their government-provided cellphones trying to get a job. Maybe they can get jobs as community organizers?

UPDATE II: Gee, handing out taxpayer-funded "free" cellphones to 1 million people in the key swing state of Florida. Want to guess how many of these "low-income" people are actually college students working as Obama campaign volunteers? I'm going to guess it's not zero.

Gallup: Obama still +11

Latest tracking poll: Obama 52%, McCain 41%. Tsunami warning remains in effect. And it gets worse with every debate:

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama convinced many more viewers to think more favorably of him during Tuesday night's presidential debate than did his Republican opponent, John McCain, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll signals.
While 53% of the 735 people surveyed said their opinions of Obama had not changed, 34% said they thought more favorably of him and 12% viewed him less favorably. . . .
The reactions to McCain were almost mirror opposites: 54% said their opinions about him had not changed, 33% felt less favorable and 12% felt more favorable.

Hmmm. Maybe trying to cancel the first debate wasn't such a bad idea, after all.

UPDATE: Dan Balz interviews Team Maverick honchos Mark Salter and Mike DuHaime, who are in charge of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And I'm thinking back to Feb. 7 at CPAC. Mitt quit that morning, and Romney supporters were shocked and angry:

The announcement stunned many of Romney's supporters, especially hundreds of college-age supporters who had been handing out Romney lapel stickers in the hotel lobby just minutes earliers.
"I am incredibly shocked . . . profoundly saddened," said Ruth Malhotra, an activist with Evangelicals for Mitt. "I can't support John McCain. He is not a conservative. . . . He's stabbed his party in the back and he's betrayed the conservative movement."
Her sentiments were echoed by Orit Sklar of Jews for Mitt. "There's no way I'm voting for John McCain," she said.

The McCain campaign squad arrived triumphantly that afternoon in the lobby of the Omni Shoreham. McCain hadn't even attended CPAC the previous year, and had somehow won the GOP nomination by running against the conservative movement.

Now that he's clearly on his way to an embarrassing defeat Nov. 4, many of those same conservatives are subjecting themselves to emotional trauma by heeding Karl Rove's cynical talk of a miraculous comeback. Ah, what short memories they have!

NRA endorses McCain; not vice-versa

So, it's official:

The National Rifle Association is endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain despite differences with the Arizona senator on gun-show rules and campaign finance restrictions.

John McCain on CNN eight years ago:

"The NRA is entitled to their advocacy. I don’t think they help the Republican Party at all, but I don’t think they should in any way play a major role in the Republican Party’s policy making."
-- John McCain, May 12, 2000

Feeding the hand that bites you.

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

Tsunami warning

A tidal wave of Hope:

Four large states McCain once seemed well-positioned to win -- Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida -- have in recent weeks shifted toward Obama. If Obama were to win those four states -- a scenario that would represent a remarkable turn of events -- he would likely surpass 350 electoral votes. Under almost any feasible scenario, McCain cannot win the presidency if he loses any of those four states. And if Obama actually captured all four states, it would almost certainly signal a strong electoral tide that would likely sweep the Southwestern swing states -- Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada -- not to mention battlegrounds from New Hampshire to Iowa to Missouri.

North Carolina still strikes me as an unlikely pickup for Obama, but the fact that he's even within single digits there (Bush won North Carolina by 12 points in 2004) indicates how bad the Maverick meltdown has become since Sept. 24.

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

Team Maverick ad: 'Ayers'

Documentation from McCain campaign:

• Barack Obama's Relationship With Ayers "Went Much Deeper, Ran Much Longer And Was Much More Political Than Obama Said." CNN'S DREW GRIFFIN: "Barack Obama confirmed during a primary debate that he knew Ayers and when pressed, said they served on a charitable foundation board together. And Obama condemned Ayers support of violence. But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said." (CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 10/6/08)
• Barack Obama First Met William Ayers In 1995 During His First State Senate Campaign, When Obama Held Event At Home Of Ayers And Wife Bernardine Dohrn, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him" In First Campaign For State Senate. "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. ... 'I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. '[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.' ... Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
• CNN: The Meeting Was Widely Considered As "Barack Obama's Political Coming Out Party And It Was Hosted By Bill Ayers." CNN'S DREW GRIFFIN: "Anderson, this meeting at Bill Ayers home has been classified in many different ways. What I can tell you from the two people who were actually there, is number one, former Senator Alice Palmer says she, in no way organized this meeting and she was invited and attended it briefly. And Doctor Quentin Young, a retired doctor, told us this indeed was Barack Obama's political coming out party and it was hosted by Bill Ayers." (CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 10/6/08)
• Barack Obama Led Education Foundation That "Poured More Than $100 Million Into The Hands Of Community Organizers And Radical Education Activists" And "Translated Mr. Ayers's Radicalism Into Practice." "Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. ... The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto. ... CAC translated Mr . Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with 'external partners,' which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)." (Stanley Kurtz, Op-Ed, "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools," The Wall Street Journal, 9/23/08)
• From March Of 1995 Until September Of 1997, Barack Obama And Ayers Attended At Least Seven Meetings Together Relating To The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Board Of Directors Meeting, Minutes Of The Board, 3/15/95, 3/31/95, 4/13/95, 6/5/95, 9/30/97; National Annenberg Challenge Evaluation Meeting, List Of Participants, 5/24/95; Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Chicago School Reform Collaborative Meeting, Minutes, 10/23/96)
• CNN: The Paths Of Barack Obama And Ayers "Repeatedly Crossed" At The Annenberg Challenge. CNN'S DREW GRIFFIN: "One place their paths repeatedly crossed, according to a CNN review of board minutes and other records, was Chicago's Annenberg Challenge project where a $50 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation matched locally raised funds to improve schools. According to participants and project records, Bill Ayers fought to bring the Annenberg grant to Chicago, Barack Obama was recruited as its chair. For seven years, Bill Ayers and Obama among many others, worked on funding for education projects, including some experiments supported by Ayers." (CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," 10/6/08)
• Barack Obama "Served On The Board's Governance Committee With Mr. Obama, And Worked With Him To Craft CAC Bylaws." "The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative." (Stanley Kurtz, Op-Ed, "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools," The Wall Street Journal, 9/23/08)
• Bill Ayers Was Asked To Help Barack Obama Formulate The Chicago Annenberg Challenge By-Laws. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board Of Directors Minutes, 3/15/95)
  Barack Obama "Was The First Chairman Of The Chicago Annenberg Challenge." "In the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was awarded nearly $50 million by a foundation to help reform Chicago schools. Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Republicans have been highlighting his ties to Ayers through the group." (Pete Yost, "University Won't Open Obama-Related Records Now," The Associated Press, 8/19/08)
• Chicago Annenberg Challenge: "Distributed More Than $100 Million To Ideological Allies With No Discernible Improvement In Public Education." "With Ayers directing the project's operational arm and Obama overseeing its financial affairs until 1999, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in public education." (Editorial, "Obama's Friend, America's Enemy," National Review, 8/27/08)
• Barack Obama On Ayers At Democratic Debate: "This Is A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood." "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." (Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democratic Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)
• Bill Ayers Was A Leader Of "The Violent Left-Wing Activist Group The Weather Underground." "Senator Obama's ties to a former leader of the violent left-wing activist group the Weather Underground are drawing new scrutiny as he battles Senator Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination." (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties to Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
• Bill Ayers' Wife, Weather Underground Leader Bernardine Dohrn, Appeared On FBI's "Most Wanted" List. "Bernardine Dohrn, the former leader of the militant Weather Underground who turned herself in after 11 years on the run, says she looks forward to spending time with family and friends and intends to continue a rebellion against 'the system.' ... 'I remain committed to the struggle ahead,' Ms. Dohrn told reporters Wednesday after a court appearance. 'Given the system which perpetuates ... harsh oppression and suffering, rebellion is inevitable and continuous.' Ms. Dohrn, 38, pleaded innocent to nine charges -- seven stemming from the 1969 'Days of Rage' anti-war demonstration in Chicago and two more for jumping bail. She was released on $25,000 bond and a hearing was set for Jan. 13. Ms. Dohrn, who once appeared on the FBI's most-wanted list, arrived in court with a lawyer and William Ayers, another ex-radical who said h e lived with Ms. Dohrn in New York and is the father of her two children." (James Litke, "Fugitive Leader Surrenders With No Regrets," The Associated Press, 12/4/80)
• In The 1970s, Weather Underground Bombed The Capitol And The Pentagon. "As an Illinois state senator in 2001, Mr. Obama accepted a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s." (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties to Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
• New York State Supreme Court Justice's House Was Bombed By Weather Underground. "In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we'd call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night. ... Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family's life , there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers's wife, promised more bombings." (John M. Murtagh, "Fire In The Night," City Journal, 4/30/08)
• In His Book, Bill Ayers Writes About Participating In The Bombings Of The Capitol And Pentagon. "Now he has written a book, 'Fugitive Days' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972." (Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)
• In The September 11, 2001 New York Times, Ayers Was Quoted Saying "I Don't Regret Setting Bombs ... I Feel We Didn't Do Enough." "'I don't regret setting bombs,' Bill Ayers said. 'I feel we didn't do enough.' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago." (Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)

Love Palin, hate media

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post mocks Republicans in Pennsylvania:

[VIDEO REMOVED DUE TO TECH PROBLEMS]

Milbanks demonstrates the arrogance and condescension that are the chief cause of the MSM's evil reputation. His entire points is that ordinary Americans aren't to be taken seriously. The only way that Milbanks ever looks at these people is by looking down his nose.

That kind of attitude doesn't produce useful reporting. The entire point of a newspaper sending a reporter to a campaign rally (rather than just running the wire-service report) is to try to capture some local color and gauge the mood of the community. People aren't going to talk to a reporter if he disses them the way Milbanks did. Look at what I did, for instance, when I covered a Hillary Clinton rally near Pittsburgh in March:

Campaign volunteer Vickie Sackett could scarcely contain her excitement Tuesday as she worked the door at Hillary Clinton's appearance here.
Ms. Sackett's elderly parents had been selected to share the stage with Hillary at a
"Solutions for America" rally at the University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg, where the former First Lady's speech focused on her "plan to help families in Pennsylvania have a secure retirement."
Collecting tickets at the entrance to the gymnasium where the Clinton rally was held, Ms. Sackett beamed with pride that her parents -- like her, they're loyal Democrats -- had been chosen for such an honor. "They're backstage meeting with her right now," she said. "I'd give anything to be back there myself."
More than 1,200 Pennsylvanians evidently agreed with Ms. Sackett, waiting in line for hours to gain the privilege of being in the same building with Mrs. Clinton. The Democratic presidential candidate was greeted with a standing ovation that lasted more than a minute, and repeatedly drew cheers by dishing up a red-meat message of economic populism. Clearly, she knows what Democrats in suburban Pittsburgh want to hear.

See? I might not share their enthusiasm, but those Democrats were treated with respect. Do you think I would have found out the part about Ms. Sackett's parents being backstage if I hadn't shown some humanity?

Highlight of the Milbank video: Audience member at the rally shouts out to Palin: "You're a hottie!" To which she laughingly replies: "What does that have to do with anything?"

Ah, but she didn't deny it, did she?

Looking for Macaca

Leftoid blogger takes a video camera to a GOP rally in Ohio:



Leftoid blogger says:

It’s no wonder that the slightest incitement from Sarah Palin or John McCain will turn one of their rallies into a lynch mob. Just talk to the folks who attend. . . .
I’ve been doing blog video for a while, and presidential rallies a lot longer. And this is the most strange, ignorant, uninformed, angry, up-to-no-good, and gullible group of people I’ve ever seen at a political rally.

Don't worry, lefties -- as soon as Obama wins, opposition will be illegal.

Sarah Palin: Racist?

Black Democrats are calling her the "r-word," and I don't mean "Republican":

As the McCain campaign ratchets up the intensity of its attacks on Barack Obama, some black elected officials are calling the tactics desperate, unseemly and racist.
“They are trying to throw out these codes,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York.
“He’s ‘not one of us?’” Mr. Meeks said, referring to a comment Sarah Palin made at a campaign rally on Oct. 6 in Florida. “That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.”
“Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it’s unfortunate,” said Representative Ed Towns, also from New York.

Hey, Democrats, ease up with that crap, OK? I keep telling you: The election's over. Conjuring up this "code" nonsense only makes you look paranoid and inflames tensions that otherwise wouldn't exist. Obama's got this one in the bag, and you need to start concentrating on trying to look gracious in victory.

Two-parent families 'privileged'?

George Packer interviews Barbie Snodgrass of Columbus, Ohio, who is " forty-two, single, overweight, and suffering from stomach pains":

"These days, you have to struggle," she said. "As a kid, I used to be able to go to the movies or to the zoo. Now you can't take your children to the zoo or go to the movies, because you've got to think how you're going to put food on the table." Snodgrass's parents had raised four children on two modest incomes, without the ceaseless stress that she was enduring. But the two-parent family was now available only to the "very privileged." She said that she had ten good friends; eight of them were childless or, like her, unmarried with kids. "That’s who's middle-class now," she said. "Two parents, two kids? That's over. People looked out for me. These kids nowadays don't have nobody to look out for them. You're one week away from (a) losing your job, or (b) not having a paycheck."

What's "privileged" about getting married and having kids? People do it all the time. A marriage license is cheap enough, and kids -- yeah, there are costs involved, but it's not like they're a luxury item.

Furthermore, I object to the suggestion that there was ever a time when working-class and middle-class families didn't have to struggle to make ends meet. My folks grew up in the Depression. Don't tell me they didn't know anything about struggling.

Packer goes all into political demography and economic trends, but I think if he had dug a little deeper into the situation affecting Ms. Snodgrass, he might have discovered something about the sociological catastrophe that the breakdown of the traditional family has inflicted on the working class.

Did it not occur to Packer to ask why neither Ms. Snodgrass nor any of her friends had husbands? Does no one else see how weird it is that 80% in her social circle are childless, and 100% are unmarried? As a journalist, such an oddity would arouse my curiosity.

Whether or not two can literally live as cheaply as one, a successful marriage is probably as important to economic security as anything else, including education. The evident inability of so many people nowadays to form enduring marriages is a contributing factor to our nation's economic problems that gets too little scrutiny.

Karl Rove and a certain river in Egypt

Pumping sunshine up Republican skirts:

What about swing voters? There are probably more undecided and persuadable voters open to switching their choice than in any election since 1968. . . .
To win, Mr. McCain must demonstrate he stands for responsible conservative change, while portraying Mr. Obama as an out-of-the-mainstream liberal not ready to be president.

Let's inject some cold reality into this scenario:

• Gallup - Obama +11
• Rasmussen -- Obama +6
• CNN -- Obama +8

You can cherry-pick more favorable national poll results for Maverick, but none of them show him winning, and let's try some recent battleground state polls, shall we?

• Virginia -- Obama +2
• Nevada -- Obama +2
• New Hampshire -- Obama +8
• New Mexico -- Obama +5
• Missouri -- Obama +3
• Colorado -- Obama +6
• Florida -- Obama +2
• Ohio -- Obama +3

Again, you can cherry-pick and find other polls where Maverick is doing better in some of these states, but it takes a pathological level of optimism to draw a map that gives him the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win. It's a sort of delusion that psychologists call "magical thinking" -- if you want it bad enough, you can will it into existence -- and it's symptomatic of severe psychoses like paranoid schizophrenia.

Karl Rove doesn't believe this crap he's shoveling. He knows as well as anyone that this election is over. When Maverick called off his campaign to push the bailout Sept. 24, he blew it. When his campaign pulled out of Michigan, it was an admission that the harebrained stunt had failed. We've already had three out of four debates. In the last Gallup daily tracking poll before the first debate Sept. 26, Obama led by 3 points. Now he leads by 11: The more voters see of John McCain, the more they favor Barack Obama.

Rove is just a cynic, exploiting the magical-thinking delusions of Republicans who desperately want to believe that victory is still possible. False hope is bad for your mental health.

Jules Crittenden, optimist

If you want something beside Stygian gloom, but can't handle the undiluted Hugh Hewitt trip, try Jules, who entertains the possibility that undecided voters will break 2-to-1 against Obama.

Mortgages: Who's screwed?

The Wall Street Journal has a map showing where the worst "upside down" mortgage problems are: California and Florida, which were the biggest boom markets during the housing bubble.

Ordinary Americans in other areas, as well as renters and those who didn't leverage their equity during the bubble, are being asked to bail out the 1-in-6 who are "upside down."

What part of "HELL, NO!" don't they understand?

UPDATE: Perhaps I should clarify the grounds of my opposition to any scheme to bail out homeowners who leveraged up during the housing bubble.

Either you believe in the market economy or you don't. You can't be pro-market when times are good and then advocate statism when times are bad. Nor can you be pro-market when it benefits you personally, then turn against the market as soon as you face a personal loss.

During the bubble, we heard a lot of whining from "affordable housing" advocates: Oh, the working class is being priced out of the market! And I said, "Tough noogies."

Now that the bubble has popped, we're hearing a different kind of whining: Oh, the middle class has lost their equity and might lose their homes! Once more I say: "Tough noogies."

The market is right. Supply is supply and demand is demand, and if you're on the wrong side of that equation, it's not my fault. Hey, you want to try being a journalist when the newspaper business is in a death spiral? My lousy career choices are not your fault, and your lousy real estate investments are not my fault.

"Creative destruction" means that the collapse of the newspaper industry frees up my talents for some endeavor for which there is an actual market demand. And the wipeout of 1/6th of U.S. homeowners frees up those resources for people who didn't wager their fortunes on the housing bubble. "Affordable housing" is what I call it when a foreclosed McMansion is sold for back taxes at the sheriff's auction.

The market is right. Tough noogies. God bless America!

DAVID KERNELL INDICTED

From U.S. Department of Justice:

WASHINGTON – David C. Kernell, 20, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Knoxville, Tenn., for intentionally accessing without authorization the e-mail account of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney James R. Dedrick for the Eastern District of Tennessee announced today. Kernell turned himself into federal authorities for arrest and will be arraigned today before U.S. Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley.
The single count indictment, returned on Oct. 7, 2008, and unsealed today, alleges that on approximately Sept. 16, 2008, Kernell, a resident of Knoxville, obtained unauthorized access to Gov. Palin’s personal e-mail account by allegedly resetting the account password. According to the indictment, after answering a series of security questions that allowed him to reset the password and gain access to the e-mail account, Kernell allegedly read the contents of the account and made screenshots of the e-mail directory, e-mail content and other personal information. According to the indictment, Kernell posted screenshots of the e-mails and other personal information to a public Web site. Kernell also allegedly posted the new e-mail account password that he had created, thus providing access to the account by others.
If convicted of the charge, the defendant faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three year term of supervised release. A trial date has not been set.
The case is being prosecuted by Section Chief Michael DuBose and Trial Attorney Mark Krotoski of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Weddle of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Anchorage and Knoxville field offices.
An indictment is merely an allegation. Defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.

The indicment in PDF format.

UPDATE: Knoxville News Sentinel and WBIR-TV are also reporting. (Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin and Allah are blogging it.

UPDATE III: More blogging at Spin Cycle, JammieWearingFool and Gateway Pundit.

PREVIOUSLY:

• 9/25: How to blow a scoop
• 9/23: David Kernell lawyers up
• 9/22: News? What news?
• 9/21: Search warrant for 'Rubico10'?
• 9/19: Hey, an online lynching!
• 9/19: FBI surveilling David Kernell?
• 9/19: Pray for the Kernell family
• 9/18: David Kernell under investigation
• 9/18: Palin hacker ID'd?
• 9/17: Left-wingers hack Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account

Only one man can save America

And I think we all know who that man is!

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT!

The Great GOP Freakout of '08

For some Republicans, last night was the shocking revelation that it's over. But some are still in denial, as Andy McCarthy accuses his NRO colleagues:

With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side. I'm dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so. Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do. What am I missing

This morning at the Corner, Ed Whelan writes: "McCain’s performance was a dismal failure."

I could, and perhaps should, write an entire blog post on the fundamental folly of John McCain's proposal to buy up bad mortgages. (If you leveraged your home equity in 2005, why is that my fault in 2008?) Instead, I'll just collect a few reactions from a couple of other conservatives. Here's Dr. Melissa Clouthier's liveblogging reaction:

McCain says that Americans are angry, upset and a little frightened. McCain has the answers. Energy independence and home values -- buy up bad home loans in America. Isn't that socialism? SHIZEN! The problem in America today is that "we don't have trust in our institutions". Ugh: First impression -- McCain is sounding like a bumbling Senator. Why didn't he go over the regulation deal that Obama said? Does he want to lose?

And at the end, Dr. Melissa adds:

My feeling is that Obama will pull away after this, but time will tell. If I had to say, though, I say Obama wins.

Michelle Malkin is furious:

I can't underscore enough what a rotten idea John McCain’s ACORN-like government mortgage buy-up is. . . .
This was his supposed "game-changer." This was the very first thing out of his mouth during the debate tonight -- his big pitch right off the bat.
If Obama had proposed this, the Right would be screaming bloody murder about this socialist grab to have the Treasury Department renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation.

Tough to resist the urge to go on a full-blown rant about why Maverick's idea is so lousy, but let me give you the short version:

You bought a $100,000 house in 1990. By 2005, homes in your neighborhood were selling for $250,000 and up. So you got an appraisal and took out a home equity loan, spruced the place up a bit for resale -- and also paid off your kid's college tuition, took a vacation to Key West, got your teeth capped and a few other little things.
But you didn't get any good offers on your house -- you rejected a guy's low-ball bid of $215,000 in 2006 -- then six months later, the housing market cratered and you couldn't even get $175,000, which is what you now owe.

This is not my fault. It's not the fault of U.S. taxpayers. And since you're the one with capped teeth and souvenirs from Key West, you're the one who ought to deal with the consequences. What part of caveat emptor don't you understand?

Debate night live!

UPDATE 10:45 p.m. -- I don't think there's anybody out there who saw this as such a hands-down win for Maverick as to put Obama on the defensive. The MSM are putting their final touches on the "triumph of Hope" ledes they've been working on since February. The features department at the Washington Post probably just green-lighted the special 16-page "Obama's journey" section they'll publish Nov. 5. For the first time in eight years, Democrats won't be biting their nails and sweating exit-poll results on Election Day.

UPDATE 10:33 p.m. -- Maverick's wrapping it up. "I've spent my whole life serving this country." Trying to win on biography.

UPDATE 10:31 p.m. -- "The last 8 years," again!

UPDATE 10:23 p.m. -- Obama again references "the last 8 years." Cheers!

UPDATE 10:22 p.m. -- Russia. Zzzzz.

UPDATE 10:20 p.m. -- My American Spectator colleagues are live blogging and not impressed with Maverick's performance. John Tabin: "Obama gives the wrong answer to the question, McCain gives an answer to the wrong question. We are so screwed."

UPDATE 10:16 p.m. -- Maverick: "I'll get bin Ladin. I know how to get him." Hey, John, how about you go ahead and share that with the Pentagon now?

UPDATE 10:14 p.m. -- Obama's making a big thing of saying, "Pockystahn" instead of Pakistan.

UPDATE 10:04 p.m. -- Obama has avoided saying "Senator McCain is right" over and over, as he did in the first debate.

UPDATE 9:59 p.m. -- Obama really has that Clintonian touch. He lies boldly, confidently, emphatically. He promises you the sun, the moon and the stars, and then insinuates that Republicans, in proposing to trim out a constellation or two, are cheating you out of what is rightly yours, and will leave you destitute and helpless.

UPDATE 9:54 p.m. -- Maverick's in the tall grass again. Details, details, details. Damn it, just call Obama a Marxist and be done with it!

UPDATE 9:51 p.m. -- Question from an "undecided" voter for socialized medicine. Plant! Plant!

UPDATE 9:46 p.m.: Maverick's going for the Al Gore global-warming vote. Jules Crittenden is liveblogging without apparent aid of alcohol. Obama's making ample use of the patented Clinton "investment" as a euphemism for "spend taxpayer money."

UPDATE 9:38 p.m.: In responding to Brokaw's "America got drunk" question, Obama wants to go into a class-warfare spiel, talking about tax cuts for Fortune 500 CEOs, but has to choose his words very carefully

UPDATE: Obama says deregulation caused the crisis. Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post says:

The claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.

But John McCain's idea that the federal government's going to buy up all the bad mortgages in America is a non-starter. Better idea: Buy up all the good mortgages. (A better idea, but still a very bad idea.)

PREVIOUSLY: Even though I've already called the election, tonight John McCain and Barack Obama have a chance to make a liar out of me. The town-hall debate at Belmont University in Nashville affords Obama a chance to blunder away a sure thing. Maybe Maverick will actually be awake for the start of this debate, as opposed to Sept. 26, where he sleep-walked through the first 45 minutes, then woke up all grumpy.

Jimmie at Sundries Shack will liveblog it, as will Ace, Michelle Malkin and the Hot Air gang. (Michelle predicts lots of insipid questions. Ace expects liberal house plants.) Cassy Fiano also has a liveblog.

Of course, VodkaPundit has already knocked down three martinis as a warm-up for drunkblogging the debate. Having watched Stephen Green during the drunkblogging experience for the Democratic convention, I can testify that he's not exaggerating about his martini intake. He handles his liquor very well. Constant practice is the secret, he says.

I'll be back with periodic updates.

Ayers: A Republican scandal?

Silly season is underway:

Barack Obama's campaign is citing the University of South Carolina's speaking invitations to William Ayers and Republican Gov. Mark Sanford's role as school trustee to counter GOP efforts to link the presidential candidate to the 1960s radical. . . .
In an e-mail to reporters, the Obama campaign said Ayers is a "distinguished scholar" at the University of South Carolina, where Sanford serves as the ex-officio trustee while governor.
"By Governor Palin's standards, that means Governor Sanford shares Ayers' views," the e-mail read.
Sanford rejected the argument.
"This is a totally bogus story. I've never even heard of the guy" until this weekend, Sanford said Tuesday. "This is a guy I don't know, I've never met."

Team Obama's insistence on responding quickly to every accusation, lest their guy be "swift-boated," is beginning to look like thin-skinned defensiveness. Which means the GOP should be making more accusations.

Could I be . . . wrong?

Having declared the election over, I'm now beginning to have doubts. Why? Because the Left seems to be starting its victory lap early, convinced that calling Americans racists is the winning ticket.

Exhibit A - Glenn Greenwald:

[O]ne of the ugliest, nastiest, most invective-filled personality attacks a major candidate has ever delivered, blatantly designed to stoke raw racial resentments and depict Obama as a Manchurian candidate funded by secret Arab Terrorist sources -- a truly unstable and hate-mongering rant . . .

Exhibit B - Mike Dukakis:

"That ad with Frank Raines was despicable. . . . I mean, what was that anyway? First, it was bald-faced lies. Right? These guys had met once, and Raines is not his housing adviser. Secondly, he put two black guys up there with this older white woman who's losing her house or whatever. What do you think that's all about? It isn’t even subtle."

Exhibit C - Firedoglake:

I can't wait to see these people completely broken and humiliated. I really can't.

Self-righteousness and hubris are a bad combination in politics, and it's possible that Democrats are mounting a desperate last-ditch effort to lose this election.

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

Clergy call you a racist

First it was Barney Frank, now it's the National Council of Churches:

At its September board meeting, the National Council of Churches approved a resolution essentially supporting virtually open borders for the U.S, ascribing support for border control to "fear" and racism.
"We acknowledge the ease with which we as human beings are prone to fear people who we consider 'other,' yet our faith challenges us to overcome such natural fear of those who are not like us," the NCC intoned. It recalled America's struggle to overcome "racial, ethnic, gender and religious discrimination." And it expressed distress that America may currently succumb to "fear, xenophobia, and racist impulses directed against new immigrants."

And, as always, remember: If you deny that you're a racist, that only proves you're a racist.

Michelle Obama's cousin, the rabbi

Oy!

As a state senator, Democrat Barack Obama awarded $75,000 in government grants to a Chicago social service organization led by a rabbi who is also his wife's cousin, records show.
In 1999, Obama arranged for $50,000 for adult literacy and counseling services offered on Chicago's South Side by a group called Blue Gargoyle. A $25,000 grant for the group's youth services followed the next year.
The group's executive director when the grants were awarded was Capers Funnye, a South Side rabbi and Michelle Obama's first cousin once removed.

Which, if I remember my genealogy, means that one of the rabbi's siblings married Michelle's cousin. Rusty's all excited about the conflict-of-interest angle. Me, I'm just laughing at the anti-Semitic tin-foil hat conspiracists, whose heads will explode at this news: Those neocons have everything covered!

Is your church supporting ACORN?

If you're a Catholic, your tithes and offerings help fund ACORN and other "community organizer" groups. In fact, during Barack Obama's time as a community organizer in Chicago, his group received two grants totallying $73,000 from Catholic charities.

New ad: Obama 'lied'

Well, he's a Democrat. What did you expect?

Barney Frank calls you a racist

Yes, you there, the one who thinks it's a bad idea to pressure banks to make risky mortgages in the pursuit of "social justice."

Let's bring some evidence to bear on this issue:

• Blame Fannie Mae and Congress for the Credit Mess (Wall Street Journal)
• The Left's Crony Capitalism Exposed (Heritage Foundation)
• The Real Culprits in This Meltdown (Investor's Business Daily)
• The Fannie Mae Gang (Paul Gigot)
• Illegal Immigration and the Mortgage Mess (Michelle Malkin)
• Bailout Bills, Illegal Aliens, and Weird Lending Practices (Hans Bader)
• The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (Howard Husock)

All of these journalists and economists who say that Barney Frank, Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson and the Community Reinvestment Act helped cause the mortgage meltdown, they're just racists, see? And if you don't agree, what does that make you?

Fraud against 'An American Carol'?

That's what Little Miss Atilla says, and the producers are investigating. I have no problem believing that biased ticket clerks would sabotage a conservative film, since biased bookstore clerks do everything they can to sabotage conservative books.

You should go see An American Carol -- it's funny. Here's my mini-review, and here's the trailer:

How John McCain lost

That's my latest American Spectator column:

John McCain lost the election Sept. 24 and Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. Nothing that is likely to happen between now and Nov. 4 can change this outcome.
Since Sept. 24, polls have increasingly pointed toward a Democratic landslide. Obama not only has an outside-the-margin advantage in nearly every national poll, but leads strongly in enough battleground states that if the election were held today, the Electoral College vote would be 353 for the Democrat, 185 for the Republican. Even Karl Rove's electoral map now shows Obama winning.
Two weeks ago, after polls first began showing a trend toward Obama, I warned against a Republican panic. The candidates had not yet met in their first debate and it was possible that a strong performance by McCain might shift the momentum back toward the GOP candidate.
On Sept. 24, however, the McCain campaign suddenly freaked out. The Arizona senator announced that he was suspending his campaign activity, seeking a postponement of the Sept. 26 debate, and flying off to Washington to push for the Wall Street bailout bill.
WHAT HAPPENED? . . .

Read the rest. It's been headlined at Hot Air and linked by Mark Harvey, who isn't exactly a fan.
A lot of the angry reaction can be boiled down to abuse of the first-person plural -- "we." You see this in some of the Hot Air comments, e.g.:

Jesus. We’re supposed to just concede a freakin month before people even vote? No thanks. . . .
When did we become the quitters? When did Republicans lose their nerve?

In other words, "we" (conservatives) are responsible for the success or failure of Republican politicians and their campaigns. This is a sort of identity issue, like the Dallas fan who speaks of the Cowboys as "we" -- "We won Sunday!" -- as if he were actually wearing a helmet out on the field. Therefore, if a Republican politician loses, "we" are responsible.

This kind of thinking is bass-ackward. It exempts politicians from responsibility for their own actions. Did "we" tell Maverick to support the bailout? Did "we" tell him to blame Chris Cox for the financial crisis? Did "we" tell him to blame the problem on greedy capitalists? No. He runs his own campaign, and if he runs it off a cliff, "we" are not to blame.

The headline on my Sept. 24 blog post, reacting to the news that Maverick was suspending his campaign to push for the bailout was, "Holy crap!" That move made no sense. Despite a slow post-convention fade in his numbers, McCain was still in a statistical dead heat on Sept. 24 -- trailing 3 points in Gallup, down by 2 points in Rasmussen.

Just two days before the first debate, and the GOP presidential nominee does a total freakout. It was inexplicable then, and I've never heard any plausible explanation of why it was necessary as policy or politics. The fact that it sank his campaign -- well, it's just a fact. And "we" didn't have anything to do with it. I have no doubt that Maverick will blame conservatives for his defeat (he always does), but there's no reason we should volunteer as scapegoats.

BTW, I notice that one of the most vicious commenters at Hot Air, slagging me as a "Paulbot" -- wrong! -- is "funky chicken," who just happens to be the same guy that sneered at pro-life activist Becky Banks as "trout pout and kind of fugly." Irony.

UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini: Bringing up the Ayers connection in October looks "desperate."

UPDATE II: Obama +10 in Virginia.

UPDATE III: RCP averages:

• Ohio - Obama +3.5
• Florida - Obama +4.0
• Colorado - Obama +4.0
• Nevada - Obama +1.8
• Iowa - Obama +9.5
• Pennsylvania - Obama +9.4
• Michigan - Obama +7.0
• New Hampshire - Obama +8.0
• New Mexico - Obama +7.3

If this is not evidence of an incipient landslide, what is it? And if you've got some idea of how Team Maverick can reverse that momentum, how about you tell them about it?

UPDATE IV: Linked by Jules Crittenden, who loves him some celebrity cleavage.

The truth too late

Ed Morrissey is ecstatic that John McCain has decided to "take off the gloves" and blame Democrats for the mortgage meltdown. Michelle Malkin thinks maybe the Republican actually wants to win. But the election is already over -- it ended when Team Maverick pulled out of Michigan -- and nothing Crazy Cousin John says now can compensate for his earlier blunders:

• On Sept. 16, John McCain said the cause of the financial crisis was "reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed . . . on Wall Street."
• On Sept. 18, John McCain said the cause of the financial crisis was SEC Chairman Chris Cox.
• On Sept. 21, John McCain said he would replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo.
• On Sept. 24, John McCain suspended his campaign, called for postponing the first presidential debate, and said he would go to Washington to push for the the bailout bill.

So now, more than two weeks after blaming the crisis on "unbridled greed" and Chris Cox, Maverick belatedly decides that maybe Democrats had something to do with it. Would have been nice if he'd thought of this on Sept. 16, when the Gallup tracking poll showed him leading by 2 points.

It is too late to make up for those weeks wasted sending the wrong message, because his advisers were afraid to blame Democrats. The ironic thing is that the right message was there all along:

• On July 14, the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll detailed the "crony capitalism" at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the roles of Democrats Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick in the corruption at these government-sponsored firms.
• On July 23, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot examined "The Fannie Mae Gang."
• On Sept. 11, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that the top three recipients of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac campaign contributions were Democrat Sens. Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and John Kerry.
• On Sept. 15, Investors Business Daily detailed the role of Raines and the Clinton administration in the mortgage meltdown.
• On Sept. 23, an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal explained how Barney Frank's push for "affordable housing" and Senate Democrats blocking a 2005 reform measure contributed to the meltdown.

As long as a Republican was blaming capitalism and Republicans for the problem, Team Obama was only too happy to let him. And now he tells the truth too late for it to make any difference. Since Obama's already won the election, perhaps Loco Juan won't mind explaining the role of illegal immigration in the mortgage mess.

UPDATE: Just got an e-mail:

F--- you
So the election is lost. There still a lot of good men and women still running and still in a fight. How much help are you with this s---.

I am not a Republican strategist, consultant, or operative. I have no role in how the GOP runs its campaigns. I am not paid to promote Republican candidates. Nobody at GOP HQ has ever solicited my advice, and on those few occasions I have volunteered advice, I've been quite rudely ignored.

If you have complaints about the Republican Party and its candidates, if you are angry at how easily they have let Barack Obama win this election, lashing out at me is not the solution. Perhaps you should complain to the Republican National Committee (202-863-8500). Good luck with that. They only listen to professional consultants and Beltway pundits -- you know, the guys who've been giving them bad advice for years.

You can't explain what you don't admit

The refusal of certain Republicans to admit that John McCain has already lost the election means surrendering control of the narrative to Democrat who aren't afraid to claim victory for Obama:

Republican philosophies have been discredited by events. Voters understand this. This is a big election about big issues. McCain's smallball will not work. This race will not be decided by lipsticked pigs. And John McCain can not escape that reality.

Facing reality is not "panic." Denial is not a strategy.

PREVIOUSLY:

• 10/5: Albatross sighting
• 10/5: Palin: 'I wanna try!'
• 10:3: Bailout passes, 263-171
• 10/3: Campaign Pre-Mortem, Part I
• 10/2: Team Maverick hoists the white flag

New Maverick TV ad

'The race-baiting progressive playbook'

Taking as his text an Associated Press propaganda piece, Jeff Goldstein conducts a semantics seminar on the "Red Queen" method of liberal demagoguery.

UPDATE: Patterico:

There is literally no argument you can make against this man that will not be countered by cries of racism.
Are you listening, McCain advisors?
I’m told that McCain advisors are reluctant to argue Democratic responsibility for the mortgage crisis, because they might be accused of being racists.
Wake up, McCain advisors. You are already getting accused of racism for making other perfectly legitimate points. Why on God’s green Earth would you hold back on one of the best arguments you can make because someone might play the race card?
Do you people even want to win?

A very good question, but I think it's being asked too late. It should have been asked before Maverick proposed replacing SEC Chairman Chris Cox with Andrew Cuomo.

Team McCain: Afraid of the facts

James Pethokoukis begins a sentence with this remarkable statement: "Here is what Team McCain is telling me . . ." Campaign staffers actually talking to a reporter -- wow.

What the campaign staffers actually say is, of course, a total bummer: John McCain is afraid to place the blame for the mortgage crisis where it belongs:

There is a racial component to criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act that can make it sound like you are scapegoating minorities for Wall Street's problems.

Via Michelle Malkin, whose "ugh" speaks volumes. A government policy that promotes lending to people with bad credit histories is a bad policy. Look at this chart:

Mortgage Delinquency Rates, 2003

Prime:

• 30 days 2.26%
• 60 days 0.58%
• 90 days 0.64%
• Forclosure: 0.48%

Subprime:

• 30 days 6.75%
• 60 days 2.12%
• 90 days 3.98%
• Forclosure: 3.38%

So, the total percentage of prime mortgage loans that were at least 30 days in arrears is less than 4%, compared to more than 16% for subprime mortages. When you combine the number 90 days past due and the number in foreclosure status -- i.e., what the Federal Reserve Board classifies as "serious delinquency" -- the total is 1.12% for prime mortagages, versus 7.36% for subprime. Thus, subprime borrowers are more than six times as likely to be in big trouble on their payments, compared to prime borrowers.

Now, who are subprime borrowers? About 7% of white homebuyers and 9% of Asian homebuyers, according to the FRB, compared to 16% for Native Americans, 19.6% for Hispanics and 27% for blacks. In other words, compared to whites, Native Americans are 2.3 times as likely to be subprime borrowers, Hispanics 2.8 times as likely, and blacks 3.8 times as likely.

Let us make some facts clear: The overwhelming majority of homeowners of every race (e.g., 73% of black homeowners) qualify for prime mortgages, and the overwhelming majority of homeowners of every race also make their mortgage payments on time, whether their loans are prime or subprime. And no homeowner who makes his mortgage payments on time is to blame for the current crisis, whatever their race.

However, a policy that encourages banks to increase the number of home loans to minorities (and threatens to penalize banks that don't comply) will necessarily have the effect of increasing the number of subprime loans. QED. And because subprime loans have a six-fold greater rate of foreclosure, such a policy will necesarily increase the number of foreclosures. QED.

So, what happened under the Clinton administration, which used the Community Reinvestment Act as a weapon to force lenders to make more home loans to minorities? Between 1994 and 1997, the total value of new mortgages that were subprime increased from $35 billion (4.5% of all new mortgages) to $125 billion (14.5% of all new mortgages). The percentage of subprime mortages shrank thereafter, falling to 8.8% by 2003, but the Bush administration, eager to promote the "ownership society," did nto reverse the Clinton policy.

This massive expansion of subprime lending sparked a rise in foreclosures. According to one study, more than 16% of subprime mortgages issued in 1999 had entered foreclosure within five years. Of subprime mortgages issued in 2000, 12 percent entered foreclosure within two years.

As troubling as that rise in foreclosure rates might have been, it was not a major financial hazard so long as home prices also kept rising. If someone took out a $120,000 loan in 1999 to buy a $130,000 house and then defaulted in 2004 (as 16% of subprime borrowers did), the rising housing market meant the bank could still recoup the full loan value. Once the housing bubble burst in 2006, however, most of these short-term foreclosures involved borrowers who were "upside down," owing more principle than the house could bring at resale.

Liberals have blamed all this on "predatory lending," but it was federal policy, begun under the Clinton administration, that encouraged such practices. By enforcing what were, in effect, racial quotas for the mortgage industry, this policy encouraged lending to a greater percentage minority clients with shaky credit and smaller down payments, who could not possibly qualify for regular mortgages and instead ended up with adjustable rates, "balloon payments," etc.

To speak bluntly about these facts is not, as McCain staffers told Pethokoukis, "scapegoating minorities," most of whom pay their mortgages on time. It is bad policy that is to blame, and the fact that this bad policy was intended to benefit minorities ought not make it exempt from criticism.

This is certainly not the first time that liberals pursuing good intentions have enacted bad policies and then tried to blame the failure on conservatives. And unless conservatives stand up to such tactics -- which is what the McCain campaign is afraid to do -- liberalism triumphs, Democrats win and more bad policies will be the result.

Albatross sighting

When Hugh Hewitt headlines an item, "With One Month To Go: Why McCain Will Close and Win," you can safely conclude that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.

Hewitt spent October 2006 telling his readers that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Republicans were going to come back and win, maintaining their majority in the mid-term elections. Wrong. He then jumped aboard the Mitt Romney bandwagon, which should have been regarded as a sure omen that Romney wouldn't win the GOP nomination.

The man is not a conservative, he's a Republican Party cheerleader. When Republicans win, Hewitt takes credit for having led the pre-game pep rally. So why not make him the scapegoat for the impending GOP defeat? It's only fair.

Palin on Michigan: 'I wanna try!'

Blown out by Obama's attack ads in Michigan -- see here and here -- the McCain campaign hoisted the white flag Thursday, a move that I argued amounts to concession of Republican defeat nationwide Nov. 4. Sarah Palin offers to fight it out in Michigan:

Sarah's a gamer, but McCain's high-profile support of the unpopular bailout bill has doomed him. He performed poorly in the Sept. 26 debate, and even if he were to perform better in Tuesday's debate, his bailout stance turned independents decisively against him.

There simply aren't enough undecided voters left to persuade. Of 11 national polls published since the first debate, five show Obama at 50% or better, including both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls -- and none show him below 48%. John McCain has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

This election is over and, despite my profound respect and deep admiration for Mark Levin, denial is not a strategy:

"If we don't engage now, four and a half weeks out, then when are we going to engage? When it's too late?"

Mr. Levin, sir, "we" are not responsible for the blunderheaded peregrinations of a candidate whose response to the mortgage crisis was to suggest that SEC Chairman Chris Cox be fired and replaced with Andrew Cuomo (who has "respect" and "prestige").

Good candidates win elections. Bad candidates lose elections. If conservatives are to be true to their rhetoric of responsibility and accountability, then we must agree that John McCain is responsible for his own campaign.

The McCain campaign has spent something like $200 million to lose this election. If you're going to insist on blaming someone other than the candidate for his defeat, why not start by blaming the advisers, consultants and top staffers who've enriched themselves as architects of this debacle?

Don't blame me for being the bearer of bad news. I'm a journalist, and it's not my job to pretend that a train wreck is anything other than a train wreck.

Coleman +10 or -9?

Friday, one poll showed Republican Sen. Norm Coleman leading by 10 points in Minnesota. Saturday, another poll showed Coleman's Democratic challenger Al Franken leading by nine points.

Obviously, both polls cannot be right. The phrasing or sequence of questions can influence answers. Beyond that, there was one difference in the two polls: The poll released Friday was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, while the poll released Saturday also included surveys taken Thursday, after Coleman voted for the unpopular bailout.