Like the classic comedy team of Abbott and Costello in their famous “Who’s on First” routine, Barack Obama and Joe Biden now are talking past one another when discussing economic and tax policy.

Joe Biden was on the “Today Show” this morning. at 1:31 of the following clip comes this exchange:

Meredith: Meanwhile Senator, you and Senator Obama are calling for increased taxes on the wealthy and there are many economists who say that would hurt the economy even more….
Biden: I don’t know any economists who are saying that!

Yesterday, Barack Obama said the McCain was living in denial over the economic challenges. If that’s true, than Biden is living in ignorance! Joe, can I give you just one, of the many I could find with about 1 minute of Google search, of the economists who say tax increases are bad…especially in a down economy; J.D. Foster, Ph.D. The summary paragraph from this paper:

The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade. As taxes are now above their historical average as a share of the economy, and are rising, Congress should look to enact additional tax relief to keep the economy strong.

Geez Joe, no economists? Not even you can be that naive, can you? Worse yet Joe, the man you’re running with understands the very concept that you say “No economists” agree on. As I showed you here, even Barack Obama is backing off of his tax increase plans due to the weak economy:
When Barack Obama was asked:

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Obama replied:

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”

With Obama and Biden we don’t know “Who’s on first” or “What’s on second.” It’s obvious though that “I don’t know” is running for VP!

From Barack Obama’s speech, yesterday in Grand Junction, CO

It’s not that I think John McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of most Americans. I just think doesn’t know. He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works. Why else would he say that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn’t something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days – just a few hours ago – that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?

After chiding McCain for his lack of sympathy and pathos for the “Average American,” Barack Obama stepped off the stage now equipped with his traveling telepromter, and headed to Beverly Hills! In Beverly Hills, Barack Obama will hold a fundraiser where the entry fee is $28,500 PER PLATE!

Nothing says “Average America” like Beverly Hills!

Two weeks ago, the Republican convention was in a tizzy about appearing too happy and enthusiastic while hurricane Gustav went through New Orleans. There was concern that if the Republicans appeared giddy while folks were hurting in New Orleans it would be seen as uncaring and out of touch with the realities of the Nation. There was a lot of discussion, especially amongst pundits, about whether the Republicans really needed to “tone it down.” In fact, was at least one very opinionated local pundit and occasional radio personality who called another respected pundit “stupid” when the latter suggested that giving up a whole day of the convention was unnecessary.

Republicans were worried about how they looked if they kept their convention going in the face of possible harm to American families. They were so worried that they used part of their convention activities to raise funds for those impacted by Gustav. Apparently, that same thought has not occurred to Barack Obama.

In the modified words of Telly Savalas, “Who REALLY loves you baby?”

Over at the HuffandPuff Post, Nancy Pelosi has this headline up on her blog:

Denial is Not An Economic Recovery Plan

(by the way, before we go any further, isn’t Nancy one of those who was attempting to shut down House members posting on blog sites? Anyone up for leading by example?)
I won’t bore you with much of her blog other than to tell you that her topic was the continual unwinding of excess credit in the financial markets which was most recently manifested by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the purchase of Merrill Lynch.

Nancy tries to use a series of quotes by President Bush and John McCain.   Quotes where if she used them in context, she would find them expressing concern about current situations and them expressing their ongoing optimism that the US economy remains on fundamental underpinnings.   She wraps these around the line that has become her mantra since becoming Speaker:

President Bush, Senator McCain, and their Republican Party are out of touch…

(then she ties it to her lament of the day)

and apparently ill-equipped to get our economy back on track.

As has become her practice, Pelosi avoids any responsibility Congress has in this issue and continues to blame all of society’s ills on President Bush, and now by association, John McCain:

Eight years of weakened regulation of our nation’s financial system — including a failure to regulate risky, and often predatory, lending practices — by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have led us to this point, and could further erode our nation’s economic health.

As she moved to head the “Do Nothing Congress,” Nancy told the world that she was now in charge when she said “it takes a woman to clean the House.” That was nearly two years ago.  I guess what Nancy is really saying is that while Buuuuuuuuuush has worked to tear down the nation for eight years, she has been completely incapable of catching up with the person Nancy would describe as the linguistically challenged frat boy. How smart does that make you Nancy?

For the past two years Nancy has become the greatest Monday morning quaterback since the guy who said “knew it all along,” the day after SuperBowl III. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuuush created the energy shortage to make incredible profits for the oil companies. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuuush created the housing mortgage problem. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuush allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to issue millions and millions of risky loans. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuuush has now allowed several large, venerable Wall Street firms to either implode or be bought on the verge of implosion. And, Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuush should have been stepping up regulation in all of these areas.

Now, before you jump up and down about all the things the government coulda, shoulda, woulda done to avoid our current issues, I’ll say 1. I agree with that, 2. Remember, the FED is not controlled by the administration, 3. Remember your Constitution, Congress has oversight responsibility.

If Nancy knew all the things that Buuuuuuuuush was doing on the day events ocurred, if she’s really that smart, why didn’t she see it coming? If Nancy is so smart, why hasn’t her House passed one bill in two years, dealing with any of these issues until AFTER they occurred?

The only denial I see, if you believe Nancy Pelosi’s view of the world, is that the President she called “a total failure” has managed to out smart her every step of the way and setting her up to head the Congress with the lowest approval level ever!   Who’s a “total Failure” now Nancy?

If you put politics aside, which is what Nancy should have done but is completely incapable of doing under any circumstance, we would say that we have seen once again why a “little” government is nearly as bad as a “lot of” government. Government, outside of the military, has never been good at anything but reacting. Unfortunately, the “good” that government could do in the current situation is to do nothing and let the markets settle themselves out. Also unfortunately, I doubt that is what they will end up doing.

I’ll bet you were expecting a critique of Barack Obama’s latest debate response with that headline.   No, actually, I’ve got a few thoughts that didn’t warrant a full post of their own but warranted comment.

I saw that headline and thought “Poor Charlie Gibson, the clerics are on to him!” Turns out the article was about Islamists who watch shows about horoscopes on TV.

When I first saw the Palin interview by Charlie Gibson I was, honestly, a bit underwhelmed.   But, as I told Mrs. Shoe, I couldn’t tell whether it was because of Gibson obvious condescension, the obviously hacked editing job or Palin’s performance.   Now I know I was right on 2 of the 3.

If you haven’t, take a look over at Mark Levin’s site  and see what the unedited version of the interview was.   It was a completely different interview!   ABC chose editorially, to put Palin in the worst possible light.   I knew these guys were in the tank for Obama but this is beyond the pale.   After reading the entire interview, Palin won, Charlie lost.
What began as a fairy tale, completewith the killing of a witch and an anticipated “happily ever after,” it now appears that the story of Obama’s campaign has been taken over by the Brothers Grimm. The difference between a regular fairy tale and one that the Grimm’s write is that in the Grimm’s version, the “hero” often doesn’t survive the story line.

Not only is Obama no longer able to (using the football vernacular) stretch the field by putting tradition red states in play, he’s now got traditional blue states in the “undecided” category.

My home state of Minnesota had a poll published today that shows the race tied. The poll was a “Star and Tribune Minnesota Poll.” The STMP has a nasty habit of giving the Dems a 5 or so point handicap in their polls (this was most recently exhibited in 2006 when they were calling Pawlenty down by 5 just a couple of days before he beat Hatch by nearly 2). If the poll is true to form, McCain may well have a few points lead in Minnesota. Along with Minnesota, Michigan, another traditional blue states is now in the undecided column…Hey Wisconsin, get a hop on!

Finally, Mr. Obama, meet Mr. Rock and Mr. Hardplace!
As Obama’s polls slide and he shows an inability to refocus the discussion with his own loquacious abilities, there is a small but constant and slightly growing murmur about Obama changing VPs.

It ain’t going to happen!

Obama has shown a great penchant for throwing under the bus anyone or anything that he believes doesn’t support his messiah persona. With his ability to even throw his grandmother under the bus, there’s no reason to believe Joe Biden couldn’t be seen wearing tread marks before the election. The problem is, who would Obama replace him with? The problem isn’t with Joe so replacing him with almost anyone else won’t change the game. Note I said “almost anyone else.”

The only person who could have changed the game for Obama would have been Hillary. Obama could have chosen Hillary initially. Had he done that he would have had the “change” game all wrapped up. By picking Biden, he allowed McCain to steal the “change” mantra by picking Palin. If Obama were to toss Biden under the bus and take Hillary it would be viewed as either a pure self serving (I want to be President so badly I’m willing to do anything) move or a “Me too but it should have been Me first” move. While I’m still leery of the PUMAs and their loyalty, I believe they would see any move by Obama to put Hillary on the ticket as just that, a political move. I don’t think even Obama is politically callous enough to attempt what is know politically as the “Triple Back and Double Down” maneuver.

While the old adage tells us that “Charity begins at home,” it apparently doesn’t start at Joe Biden’s home!

Joe Biden released 10 years of tax returns  today.   Joe would be considered amongst the wealthy, according to Barack Obama, as he’s averaged about $270,000 of income over the past five years.   And, while Joe managed to pay nearly $185,000 in mortgage interest during that five years, he was only able to find $2,655 to give to charities!   No, that’s not $260,000, it’s not even $26,000.   Joe Biden gave $2,655 to charities over the past five years.

While Barack Obama has increased his charitable contributions since he has received a significant income bump from his book royalties, the maximum he and Michelle were unable to give prior to that bump was $3,400.   In fact, prior to his bump, even though he and Michelle averaged over $240,000 per year, they could only find an average of $2,154 of contributions in the same years.

In Barack Obama’s mind the “wealthy” including himself and Joe Biden who make around $250,000 contribute less than 1% of their income to charity.   In fact, in Joe Biden’s case the contribution is only .3% of his gross income.

Like so many other things in life, our opinions about charity are often  derived by our own actions and influenced by the actions of those close to us.

I’m beginning to understand Barack Obama’s desire to raise the taxes on the rich.   I’m beginning to understand why Barack Obama doesn’t believe that individuals are better set to support charities that support the unfortunate rather than bloating the government ranks with more and ever less efficient, welfare programs.   Barack Obama believes the government needs to do that task because his own experience, and that of his friends shows that they don’t support charities.

In the world of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, charity does not begin at home it begins and ends with government!

Someone alert the Center for Disease Control!   There’s been a massive outbreak of Hoof in Mouth disease that has rapidly spread throughout the Democrat party!

The first reported case was of course, this doosey:

Wednesday morning, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) made this statement on the House floor:

Later Wednesday morning was the most recent documented case, when South Carolina’s Democrat Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler, was quoted in an article on Politico.com as saying:

John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion."

By the way, Carol Fowler is the wife of the star of this gem from a couple of weeks back:

Of the three, it appears that Carol Fowler may yet recover from her illness as later in the day she was quoted as saying:

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make.”

The average incubation period for Hoof and Mouth disease is 3-8 days. That would suggest that we will likely see additional cases over the next week as Obama and the Democrats try to figure out how the hell this happened!

I know it’s not polite to discuss the health or physical stamina of the Presidential candidates, but it appears that Barack Obama’s disease could be serious. In fact, it looks like the case is severe enough that he may not survive, politically speaking. Unfortunately for Joe Biden, Obama’s demise is likely to come before he’s been elected to office.

A key issue in this campaign has been whether Barack Obama has the experience to make  significant decisions.   We’ve seen partial answers to that question and they’ve not instilled confidence.  

In his response(s) to the Russian invasion of Georgia, we saw Barack’s ability to adapt to new situations.   Unfortunately his adapting came after his initial response to the invasion was horribly botched.

We’ve also seen Barack’s capability to be open and flexible in decisions making.   In Obama’s position on:

1. The immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
2. Accepting public financing
3. Handgun Bans
4. Immunity for Telecom Companies
5. Meeting with the leaders of terrorist nations with no preconditions

and most importantly, his desire to debate John McCain “anytime, anywhere,” we’ve seen Barack change his mind once he found that his earlier position was not politically  expedient.

Finally, we’ve seen Barack recognize the limits of his own  knowledge when at the Saddleback debate, in response to one of the most important questions politically and theologically, Barack Obama said  it was “above my paygrade” to determine when life began.

Today, in an interview with ABC’s “Thisweek,” Barack Obama gave his  “final answer”  on whether he is ready to make key decisions.   In a discussion about his tax policy and how/if he may alter it if the economy is weak, Barack said:

“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”

Whe further asked:

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Obama replied:

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”

With his first statement, Obama shows that he recognizes the importance of lower taxes.   He tacitly admits that leaving money in family’s pocket books, rather than the government’s, is the right answer.   Yeah for Barack!   In his second statement, Barack confirms his inability to lead.  

In his second statement, Barack confirms for us that the economy benefits from lower taxes even on those he considers “rich.”   Why else would he hold imposing his taxes increase?   They’re rich after all.   Whether the economy is doing well or poorly doesn’t affect their “richness.”   If they are by definition “rich” imposing additional taxes on them will do no more harm to them in a poor economy than in a good one.   In fact, those who are “rich” tend to do better in poor economies because arguably, they are in a better position than others, to invest in assets that have depressed pricing.   No, what Barack isn’t telling you, but what is inherent in his answer is that increasing taxes on the rich, has a negative impact on the economy.   Barack doesn’t want to stomp out additional economic embers in a lackluster economy.   He only wants to do it when the economy is good.

In this last answer we find the absolute worst kind of decision making by a leader; knowingly making the wrong and harmful decision because it is politically popular. That kind of decision is summed up musically in the following video:

Perhaps Barack Obama has a future doing the remake: “If taxing you is wrong, I don’t wanna be right!”

Now that Sarah Palin has given her acceptance speech, it’s clear why the Left had reason to attack her….She’s Really Good!   But that’s really hindsight.   As I watched the attacks become more and more personal and vicious over the past 3 days, I kept wondering why?

It’s obvious that the Left doesn’t like Republican or Conservative women.   However, I’ve never seen the level of attacks that Sarah Palin has experienced in just 72 hours. While women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole  and even Condoleezza Rice have been degraded, none of them have seen the full fledged, scorched earth approach that Sarah Palin has experienced.

As I’ve previously discussed, the Left is all about emotional responses, even to situations that require significant thought.   So, I know the response is emotional.   But, what was the stimulus for the level of emotion that is being vented?

I suppose part of it could be that the MSM, the Left and frankly just about everyone else, was surprised by Palin.   While Obama’s campaign had talking points on all of the other folks that were alleged to be on the short list, they completely overlooked Palin.   I could imagine that some of the ferocity was an attempt to catch up after having been caught flat footed.

I suppose part of it also could be that the  announcement of Palin took Obama out of the news flow.   With an ego as big as  Obama’s, I don’t imagine it was easy being upstaged…especially by a woman!

I also suppose it could be that  the pick of Palin made Obama’s first public choice, his choice of Biden for VP, look silly.   Obama had first pick in VP.   Rather than picking the person who could shore up his party, extend his meme of “hope and change” and solidify his party, he, with his first pick, picked the equivalent of the kid who has been playing right field and batting ninth his entire career.   As an aside, I agree with Rudy Gulliani that Biden may want to ensure that he has the VP offer in writing.   As the days go on Obama is going to second, third, fourth and many more times reguess that choice.

All of those issues could be the reason why the Left has come unhinged but it doesn’t feel as if any one, or the combination of the three really explain what’s happening.

Yesterday, it finally hit me.

Who on the left, defines what a woman should be and how she should act?   Yup, the National Organization for Women (NOW).  

Who did NOW support for President?   Yup, Hillary Clinton

There’s a woman running in this election, what is her name?   Nope, not Hillary Clinton, it’s Sarah Palin!

And there’s the problem.   The left is all about identity politics; identity politics and making sure that the various groups maintain the identity of victimization that the Left has scripted for them.   African Americans are supposed to suffer from the ills of slavery and racism and unable to advance in the economic strata.   Teenage girls who become pregnant are supposed to be reliant on Planned Parenthood for their “pregnancy options” to ensure that they aren’t “punished by a baby.”   Women are scripted to be continually “rising” but never “attaining.”  

Sarah Palin represents not just a cracking of the glass ceiling ala Hillary Clinton, but a complete shattering of it if she and John McCain win.   A shattering brought to you not by the party of victimization but the party that believes an individual’s value is not defined by their identity, but by their abilities and their hard work.   This leaves the Left and especially NOW, nearly apoplectic.   Sarah Palin is exposing the false claims  of victimization that NOW and the Left have spewed about women for over 40 years.  

NOW was organized in 1966.   It’s core mentality comes from women who came of age during the 60’s and early 70’s.   Those women are now in their 50’s and 60’s.  

The reason the Left has become so vicious towards Palin is a combination of the items I previously listed.   Those  and Sarah Palin  exposing and negating the victimization of women that has been perpetuated by groups like NOW.   NOW’s reason to exist, the thing that gets them up in the morning and gives them a reason to breath is about to be cut out from underneath them and that makes them mad.   But what really gets the cranky old women, the NAGs going,  is that they are about to lose the love of their life not to a peer, another cranky old woman but to a smart YOUNGER WOMAN with a positive outlook on life.   Losing your love to a younger woman, no matter that it’s your own fault, really pisses them off!

About ten days ago we were having a national discussion about Barack Obama’s abortion positions.   Along with his Saddleback performance, the issue was regenerated when tapes of his Illinois Senate floor debate, along with the transcript, surfaced.

One of the issues that Obama raised as onerous in the “born alive” bill, was having a second doctor involved to determine the viability of the child.  

From the transcript, Senator Obama discussing the need for a second doctor:

So — and again, I’m — not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limb and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Further on, Obama adds:

…an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

(Emphasis mine in both quotes)

A couple of things to note:

First note in the first quote that Obama is so far left on the abortion topic that he is unable to refer to a live baby as a “baby.”   Abortion extremists are loathe to refer to anything other than the birthling of a fully desired pregnancy a “baby.”   Giving anything other than this the term “baby” undermines their intent to keep anything unborn as nothing more than an inanimate object.   Calling it a “baby” undermines their desire to keep all abortion options open at all times.

Second, if you want some insight as to how Obama will handle Ahmadinejad, take another look at that first quote.   Obama didn’t even have the cojones to take a stand on whether they were discussing a fetus or a baby. He completely sidestepped the issue. Can you imagine him taking to Ahmadinejad? “I’d like to discuss your nuclear weapons or freedom tools, however way you want to describe them.” On the plus side, this may be the first core issue I’ve seen Obama hold to; he claimed it was above his paygrade to determine when life began, at the Saddleback debate and he had the same opinion back in 2002!

Third, this second doctor issue is a complete canard. When a premature birth occurs, it is very typical to have not only a second doctor, but a second medical team involved in the event. The obstetrician stays with the mother while the second doctor and team attend to the premature infant. In the event of a failed abortion what do we have? A premature infant! So if that is already typical procedure in most hospitals, why would that be onerous in this case? The answer to that is yet another quote from Barack Obama:

…that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

That last quote says all anyone needs to know about Obama’s position on abortion…it’s always about abortion, never about life.

After having been caught flat footed by the choice of Sarah Palin as the VP pick, Team Obama and surrogates have been scrambling this weekend to catch up.   In looking over the various stories posted, there appear to be two themes:

1. Palin is inexperienced
2. Palin campaigned for Gov. supporting the “Bridge to nowhere” and flip flopped after she won.

I don’t want to spend much time on the first issue except to say, Geraldine Ferraro.   Geraldine Ferraro had an entire 6 years of elected experience as a Congressional Representative from New York when she was tapped to be VP.   Evidently, 6 years of elected experience is adequate but nearly 8 years as Mayor and Governor (not counting 4 more years as City Council Person) aren’t enough.   I love that new math!

What about the Bridge to nowhere?  

I’ve read enough accounts that it appears sure that during her Gubernatorial campaign, Palin supported the bridge.   I’m also convinced that Palin changed her mind on the Bridge sometime in 2007.   However, I don’t think the “flip-flop” description fits on this one.

There appear to be a couple of different accounts as to why Palin changed her mind on the Bridge to Nowhere.   The first is provided by this article from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

As for the bridge money, Palin contacted Young the day after the Minnesota bridge collapse about giving them the Ketchikan funds, Leighow said.

Young advised her that he thought it would violate public law and the subject did not come up again. Staff members who were present during their meetings said they had no recollection of the governor suggesting the funds could be used for other transportation projects in Alaska.

The second is outlined in this article from Business Wire:

Treat: To Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) for announcing the state would drive a stake through the heart of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and focus on other transportation priorities. Gov. Palin directed the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) to create a list of other uses for the $36 million in federal money that will be freed up with the desertion of the project. The DOT will also work to come up with a more financially responsible solution, such as improved ferry services, to serve the residents of Gravina Island. “Bridge to Nowhere,” RIP.

So what do we have?

Either Palin rejected the Bridge to Nowhere because she thought the Federal Government could better use the funds elsewhere i.e. a major arterial that had just collapsed and needed replacing, or she felt that the price tag had gotten too high and that there were more cost efficient ways to solve the problem.

Washington is filled with people who believe that their entire value is determined by how much money they control. It’s filled with people who’s solution to every problem is to take more of other people’s money and throw it at their particular pet project.

Isn’t it refreshing to see an elected official actually use their brain, and the judgement we elected them for, and say “Hey, I know we were headed this way, but the circumstances have changed. Let’s find another solution!” In Washington, a person who tries that tack will either be labelled a “Maverick” or “inexperienced.”

If thinking that includes common sense, comes from “inexperience,” sign me up for a whole lot more of it!

In an article early last evening, the Politico reports:

Palin’s hubby and son not Republicans

(play dramatic conclusion music Duh, duh Daaaaaaaaaah!)

Are they suggesting that “hubby and son” wouldn’t or haven’t, voted for Palin? (by the way, would they use a term like “wifey” if Palin was male?   Or, as Heather points out, is “hubby” the male version of “Trophy Wife” which was the meme anytime the left talked about Jeri Thompson.) Are they suggesting that Palin’s husband and son would support Obama?

For those who may have a tough time keeping up, let me give you a likely and plausible explanation. While I struggle to remember the last, or for that matter if I have ever, voted for a Democrat, I’m not a Registered Republican. Why? Well, part of it is I don’t like being labeled part of any large group. It’s also because, especially over the past few years, I’ve been very dissatisfied with what the Republicans have been doing. Remaining unaffiliated gives me a clear conscience of supporting people like John Kline (my congresscritter) while still sending weekly emails and calls to Norm Coleman’s office as he hides behind the “R” label and does dumb things like joining the Gang of 16.

A big part of Sarah Palin’s story is that she has taken on corruption in Alaska. As I understand the information, a fair amount of that corruption was within the Republican party up there. If your spouse is coming home every day telling you about all the crap that the party they are a part of is doing, do you suppose you might be just a bit less enthusiastic about putting your name on the rolls of the assumed lock step agreement folks? I know I would.

Once again, Politico, what exactly is your point? It doesn’t appear you have one.

The day after the scene at Barackopolis was  a day when Barack expected to awake and bask in the glowing adoration of a fawing nation and media.   A day when he expected to reaquire is Chi and  his Mo.   Unfortunately for Barack,  McCain drew Obama into a trap of his own ego.   He  not only took the Chi and the Mo but made sure Barack will not see them again in this election, when  he announced Sarah Palin as his VP choice.   (As a complete aside, I’ll admit I was wrong on Pawlenty but I was right about Mitt)

Hard to imagine much worse could happen to “The One” but in fact, the day ended worse than it began.

PR newswire  released a poll this evening that showed:

A majority of likely voters and Catholics are at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the critical issue of abortion and “when life begins,”

When asked:

Recently, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life begins, in reference to the issue of abortion. Obama responded by saying that decision was above his pay grade. Knowing that the next president may be able to appoint two or three U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who may be called to make rulings on the issue of abortion, do you support or oppose a president who does not know when life begins?

The response was:

Fifty-five percent of likely voters said they would oppose a president who does not know when life begins, while only 28 percent said they would support such a president. Among likely voters who are Catholic, 67 percent would oppose a president who doesn’t know when life begins, and only 19 percent would support him.

Uh oh!

But it gets worse. Do you remember Barack’s closing attempts to show his views were just like us regular folks? Do you remember where he suggested that opposition to gay marriage showed small mindedness?

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

Well, this same survey shows that a majority of Americans still have “small minds.” When asked:

Would you support or oppose a ballot measure in your state that stipulates only marriage between a man and a woman will be legally recognized?”

The answer came back:

Fifty-eight percent of likely voters said they would support such a measure, while only 36 percent would oppose it. Among likely voters who are Catholic, 60 percent would support the ballot measure, and 36 percent would oppose it.

Barack appears to be on a roll. I’ll bet he didn’t expect to be rolling downhill at this point!

In case you missed it, as a counter to the Palin announcement, the Joebama team released a new theme song that highlights their team’s unique qualities. Joebama Theme Song

I haven’t found much, if anything, to cheer in the Democrat primaries or convention. In fact, I can’t remember agreeing with one of their candidates on a single issue until Joe Biden called out Nancy Pelosi in his speech last night:

I’ve never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up. Almost every night, I take the train home to Wilmington, sometimes very late. As I look out the window at the homes we pass, I can almost hear what they’re talking about at the kitchen table after they put the kids to bed.

That’s right! Even Joe Biden sees that Nancy Pelosi has “led” the least effective House chamber in history!

Joe goes on to list a series of woes:

Should Mom move in with us now that Dad is gone?

Fifty, 60, 70 dollars to fill up the car?

Winter’s coming. How we gonna pay the heating bills?

Another year and no raise?

Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care?

Now, we owe more on the house than it’s worth. How are we going to send the kids to college?

How are we gonna be able to retire?

Joe just continues to slap Pelosi down. Joe has evidently gotten religion on the fact that people’s financial situations are related to the growth of the US economy. He further understands that our economy is based on inexpensive transportation which is dependent on inexpensive oil.

The one thing Joe could have done to “seal the deal” last night would have been to put Nancy’s gas price chart on the big screen’s behind him:

What? Joe wasn’t calling out Nancy? Well, just another Biden gaffe then.

Steve will probably have this in the scramble but…

John Hawkins over at Rightwingnews.com polled a number of conservative bloggers.   The questions asked were:

1.   Out of the following VP candidates rumored to be on McCain’s short list, which one DO YOU THINK HE WILL TAKE?

2.   Out of the following VP candidates rumored to be on McCain’s short list, which one WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HIM TAKE?

3.   Out of the following VP candidates rumored to be on McCain’s short list, which one WOULD YOU LEAST LIKE TO SEE HIM TAKE?
We had our choice of 13 names including all of those having been rumored to be on McCain’s shortlist at almost any time during the campaign.

You can see the results here:

My picks, if you care were:

Pawlenty
Pawlenty
Fiorina