Seems to be more and more the case that while Obama will outspend McCain, the overall battle between Democrat and Republican will be more equal:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised more than $22 million in June, his best fundraising performance of the year, and ended the month with nearly $27 million cash on hand.

Campaign manager Rick Davis said Thursday that McCain and the national Republican Party together entered July with about $95 million in the bank. The Republican National Committee, which has been raising money jointly with McCain, collected nearly $26 million in June and had nearly $69 million on hand, officials said.

The campaign’s fundraising has given McCain the ability to spend more on television advertising than Democrat Barack Obama in key battleground states. Davis said about half of its income had been spent on television advertising.

Obama has not revealed his June fundraising.

In announcing McCain’s fundraising, Davis portrayed the campaign’s financial position as far brighter than ever before. He said the joint RNC-McCain fundraising through direct mail is now exceeding President Bush’s direct mail fundraising in 2004.

“We will have significant resources to prosecute a campaign that is very robust,” Davis said.

I wonder why Obama hasn’t released his June totals yet? I guess he doesn’t have to – but you’d think that if he were greatly outpacing McCain, he’d want to trumpet that…hey, just askin’….

The really crucial thing here for the GOP is the $69 million the RNC has – McCain is taking public financing, so all the money McCain raises must be spent by the end of August. That $69 million (which is likely to rise) will be used on party efforts to help McCain – and down-ballot GOPers (where we are trying to turn expected losses at least into holding our own). Meanwhile, the DNC is effectively broke, the Democrats can’t raise enough to pay for their convention and while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a good sized bank account, it seems that Obama is sucking up all the rest of leftwing money, which opens the question about how down-ballot Democrats will fare even if Obama wins.

Things like the money totals; the continued ability of the military to secure recruits; the ability of President Bush to win on FISA and on war funding; the abysmal Congressional approval ratings….all fo this indicates that while Obama is still the favorite to win in November, he’s only marginally so and, meanwhile, the overall left – and the Democratic party – can’t figure itself a shoo-in (though, of course, they do believe that…and I hope they keep on believing they’ve got it in the bag).

My view is that the American people are worn out – tired out Iraq, true (but not so tired they are willing to lose in order to get out), but also tired of Congressional scandals (and, Donks, William Jefferson – you forced him to resign, yet?), tired of political back-biting, tired of heated rhetoric on energy while gas prices continue to rise, tired of shrinking home equity…change is, indeed, wanted and that is the whole point of Obama…but if specific change is proposed, which way will the electorate go? McCain is offering concrete proposals, while Obama keeps things as vague as he can. Which will actually resonate come November?

You get Barack Obama’s policies:

Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult

U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.

The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.

We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.

“We still have a ways to go. Number one, we’re working on security and it’s very encouraging, that’s true, but what we’re really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let’s look at the conditions.”…

…On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.

“If we pull out of here too early, it’s going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave,” West said.

Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, “The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that’s what we want. I don’t want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this.”

But Ussery added, “You can’t put a timetable on it — it’s events-based.”

The report further notes that while we may be able to get the troops out in 16 months, the logistics of getting all the equipment out makes a time table like that unrealistic. As a for-instance, moving out two combat bridages in a month means, among many other things, moving out 1,200 humvees. The fundamental problem with the left – other than the fact that leftwing thought is based on a lie – is that life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions. I doubt much that Obama has ever considered military logistics in formulating his policies – and not in the sense of he knew they were a factor but dismissed them, but that he didn’t know they were a factor. Most liberals aren’t concerned with such things – and this is the result of their over-concentration on purity of intentions as opposed to paying attention to results of actions.

Obama and his Democrats will pull us out of Iraq in 16 months…and they will “end” the war, which is another indication that Obama hasn’t actually thought about what he believes. Wars don’t “end” – they are won, or they are lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” – it was lost. People who have bothered to instruct themselves in matters of foreign and military policy understand that regardless of what one thinks of President Bush and the reasons for liberating Iraq, the fact that we are there now imposes upon us the choice to win, or to lose. Additionally, people who have bothered instructing themselves understand that losing a war is always worse than winning. No matter what high minded goal one has in life, it is better met with victory than with defeat. But in Obama’s fantasy world, intent trumps results and if he wins we’ll be given at least four years of leftwing fantasy clashing with life’s realities.

Thanks, but I prefer John McCain – warts and all – because he lives in the real world…

Lots of interesting things are going on, so feel free to discuss any of them you’d like.

…but screaming like a frightened, little girl at the mention of God is the root of, well, groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

The state of South Carolina faces a federal lawsuit seeking to block its plans to issue license plates which feature a bright-yellow Christian cross on a multicolored stained glass window and the words “I Believe.”

The bill permitting the license plates passed the state legislature unanimously, while South Carolina governor Mark Sanford allowed the bill to become law without his signature, CNN reports.

A similar design had been considered in Florida but was rejected because of First Amendment concerns.

“I think it allows people of faith to profess that they believe in a higher calling, they believe in God,” said South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who has offered to personally pay a $4,000 deposit required for the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles to begin production of the plates.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is leading the opposition to the law. He claims Bauer’s involvement “more deeply confirms this is a government-sponsored program.”

“I don’t believe that these license plates will ever be on any car in South Carolina, because I think our constitutional claim is so strong,” Lynn said, according to CNN.

Individuals can ask the DMV to print plates for other faiths, for a $4,000 fee, but the request is allegedly subject to significant limits and rules not imposed for the Christian plate. Other tags could feature a religious symbol, but no words would be allowed.

“The state has made believers of non-Christian faiths feel that they are second-class citizens,” Lynn continued. “Under our Constitution, that’s impermissible.”

Andre Bauer responded by arguing that the provision of Christian plates was an issue of freedom of speech.

To me, its not so much a freedom of speech issue – though it is that – as its a freedom to not have presumptuous busy-bodies sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. Its a license plate, for crying out loud – if you don’t want a cross on yours, then don’t buy one. Do the people of Americans United really think that someone having a plate with a cross on it makes us all less free? Lynn claims to be a reverend – isn’t there something he could do with his time more useful to the nation and more in accordance with the convictions he claims? How many meals for the homeless could be bought with the legal fees this case will generate? And if the plates are nixed, will everyone really feel freer?

We Christians are not supposed to hate – except, of course, a healthy hatred for Hell and all its works…and I’m beginning to perceive the demonic in the absurd lengths some people go to excise all mention of God from the public square. This is just stupid, stupid, stupid – in a rational world Lynn’s case would be laughed out of court and a really wise judge would slap a fine on Lynn’s group for wasting the court’s time. Enough is enough, already.

From Firedoglake:

He sure talks the talk. Too bad his health care plan isn’t universal. Hilary’s was. Edwards’ was. Obama’s isn’t. But don’t worry, Obama believes.

Mmm, those sweet hot whispers. Like Obama’s belief in abortion rights. You can have that abortion. ‘Ceptin’ all those women having late term abortions for kicks (anyone ever known even one?), so we need to make some rules so government can go all Schiavo on them at eight months. Let’s start having court cases over what counts as enough emotional distress to justify late term abortions. Obama’s for abortion rights, just not for women who don’t deserve them. Just like he’s for universal health care. Except not for everyone.

His sweet talk is the same as every other empty suit’s to a pretty woman – he just wants her to say “yes”, just one time, in this case – just one time in November.

But when they listen real close, they hear that his health care plan isn’t actually universal, and his support of Roe vs. Wade is only if mental illness isn’t involved.

Sweet but empty.

Obama. Obama. Obama.

Please, please, no more sweet and empty. It’s not Diet Obama we’re looking for.

Be for the 4th amendment. Be for abortion rights. And be for universal health are. Don’t just say you’re progressive one day, then the next day say “except…”

No more sweet nothings.

Real commitment will get you eight years, not just one day.

The left really does believe that America turned left in 2006 – that, in fact, America has always been left and the fact of conservative Congresses and Presidents is a result of stolen election and/or bamboozled populations…but everyone has “woken up”, now, and the left is on the march…so, Obama is (or, at least, was) the man..the ardent leftist who will change America into a hopeful, leftist nation where the whole, long national nightmare of President Bush will be put forever to rest and no more conservatives will ever arise to disturb the liberal orthodoxy.

And then Obama had to go and drop dime on them – and they’re all shocked, as if they didn’t go through 8 years of Clinton hanging the left out to dry because the left is only a tiny minority in America and can’t win elections on its own. Clinton knew this and, apparently, Obama has figured it out…and so Obama tries to shift right for the fall campaign and hopes and hopes that McCain will not be successful as reminding the voters that Obama has always been a far left extremist in thought and action. One might think that the left would be ok with this – confident that Obama will govern left once in office and so don’t rock the boat until November is in the bag…but this ignores something the left believes very strongly: Only an avowedly leftist candidate can defeat the GOP because the American people are yearning for leftism and only a leftwing clarion call will get them motivated enough to beat back the Republican noise machine and Diebold vote stealing. Obama’s triangulation, far from helping him for November, is seen by the left as not just a betrayal, but a formula for certain defeat.

What will the result of this be? Time will tell – certainly Obama will still overwhelmingly win the leftwing voters in November…but how many of them will show up? That is the real question…

Getting to be really old hat:

The Senate easily approved legislation to overhaul government eavesdropping rules in terrorism and espionage cases and effectively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in a secret domestic spying program, ending a contentious debate that has raged for more than two years.

The vote was 69 to 28; not even close. And, as I’m sure everyone knows, even Despserately-Seeking-Triangulation Obama voted in favor. Each time we get to one of these major issues the Democrats shout about how they’ve finally got President Bush where they want ‘im…only to fold like a house of cards when push comes to shove. This is, I think, simply because President Bush doesn’t back down when vital issues are at stake and, additionally, he’s just a much better politician than the Democrats are. Democrats are good at bribery and log rolling, but they’ve really got nothing in their bag of tricks when confronted by someone who is determined to do the right thing.

NRO notes a move in Congress to tinker with credit card fees charged to merchants:

…As credit-card use has increased, the credit-card fees have been a larger item in retailers’ budgets. So lobbyists representing them have gone to Congress to ask for help. Reps. John Conyers and Chris Cannon, a Michigan Democrat and a Utah Republican, have obliged. Their bill would create a panel of judges to force negotiations over the fees and, failing a settlement, impose ones they deem fair.

Remarkably, this attempt to impose price controls has won the support of 17 Republicans, including such conservatives as Joe Wilson (S.C.), John Sullivan (Okla.), and Steve King (Ia.). They should know better. Australia has tried these controls, and the results have predictably been an increase in credit cards’ annual fees charged to customers.

The flaws in the legislation do not end there. Credit unions and community banks that issue credit cards would get hurt badly. Since the bill applies only to credit-card networks that have more than 20-percent market share, American Express would be exempt from it (even though American Express tends to charge higher fees).

Supporters of the bill are said to be considering modifying it. To win over more Republican legislators, they would get rid of the price controls and instead create an antitrust exemption so that merchants could band together to negotiate. No economic libertarian should find this offer appealing. If one side to a set of transactions gets an exemption, so should the other. An antitrust waiver for the merchants would amount to a congressional attempt to rig a deal in the merchants’ favor. If it succeeded, it too would be likely to yield increased fees to customers. And, to repeat, the merchants are not being victimized. They just want a better deal. Which is fine: but they should not get one through an act of Congress.

This is an area I have some expertise in as for the past 7 years I have worked for one of the largest banks – and largest credit card issuers – in the United States and, indeed, the world. How shall I nutshell this complex issues?

Easy – Credit cards suck.

Not the basic concept – as a matter of convenience its hard to beat a credit card. Much easier to just swipe a card than to fumble with cash or tediously fill out a check. But the way credit cards are managed by the banks is just horrific. If there’s a thing a credit card issuer can do to make things worse for everyone (including, in the long run, for the issuer), the banks are doing it. I’ve personally seen circumstances where accounts have their APR more than doubled for no discernable reason. You can’t get a bank to cut you slack on your credit card debt until you’ve gone well past due. The answer to being over limit? Charge a fee, which puts the account even further over limit. And its not just banks being stupid – government stupidity has come into play, too. Like this: for fear of being accused of “red lining” an area of the country, banks have remarkably lowered the threshold for obtaining a credit card, so all sorts of people who are either shiftless or simply ignorant of how credit works are able to obtain credit cards…and run up debts with a large number of late fees, over limit fees and punitive interest rates. Its a massive problem and it invites further interference by government in the marketplace.

What to do?

Well, the problem with massive banks is the same problem with massive government – anything that big cannot run itself properly. We mindless drones stand agog at the practices coming down the pike; for the life of us we can’t figure out what would make an ostensibly knowledgable corporate executive make decisions which are clearly counter-productive. But they are made – again and again and again. We do have our theories – mine is that these executives are so fixated on quarterly statements that they just don’t care what is happening as long as the balance sheet looks good long enough for them to exercise their stock options. Added to greed and cowardice is distance – some CEO in New York City simply can’t know what the credit needs of, say, Nevada are. Nevadans know, but no one in NYC wants to know what Nevadans know – so decisions are ground out which bear little or no connection to the actual problems being confronted or the needs being identified…and a huge smiley face is put on the whole show as the corporation’s executives – desperate to be thought of as nice guys – implement “diversity training” and shovel money out to environmentalist groups.

So, my solution: re-work the tax code to heavily punish large corporations and greatly reward new corporations, and corporations that are small to mid-sized. Force the CEO’s to break down their behemoths (and they’ll do it, too, because they’ll own stock in all the successor corporations) into smaller, regional companies able to actually work within the economic realities of their respective areas…and this would include being able to be flexible in what rates to charge merchants who accept a bank’s credit cards (ie, “mom and pop” can’t afford large fees, but Wal Mart can). In my economic world view, bigness is usually the culprit when there is a problem – bureaucracies and corporations get so big they can’t function but at the same time are so big they crowd out good ideas and innovation. Human beings aren’t built for either a Department of Housing and Urban Development or a General Motors…we’re built for Catholic Charities and Dodge, get it?

Pajamas Media has the story:

[Editor’s note: Pajamas Media has spoken with “Reza Khalili’s” attorney in Washington, D.C. who confirmed Khalili “had a working relationship with a US intelligence agency.” We have also seen a copy of the June 5, 2008 email sent by the agency’s “Manuscript Review” department authorizing the publication of this article.

In an interview with Roger L. Simon, “Khalili” further amplifies his accusation of Iranian involvement in Lockerbie and addresses the controversial question of whether the Shiite mullahs would form alliances with Sunnis. A transcript of the interview is here. More interviews with “Khalili” in disguised video form will be coming in the future from PJM. ]

The men who ordered the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie and the bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia are pursuing the nuclear program in Iran and with one goal in mind: to obtain The Bomb.

And they want to destroy you.

After the Iranian Revolution, I was an officer in the Revolutionary Guards. I was also a spy working for the CIA, code name Wally. My position in the Guards gave me access to the Khomeini regime’s deep secrets and a firsthand look at the unfolding horror: torture, rapes, executions, assassinations, suicide bombers, training of terrorists, and the transfer of arms and explosives to other countries to support terrorist attacks. I risked my life and my family’s trying to expose this regime because I believed it should be stopped. Once again I incur such risks to bring awareness that lack of action endangers the world.

In the mid-80s, I reported to the CIA that the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence unit had information that Saddam Hussein had made a strategic decision to acquire nuclear arms. I heard this from several sources within the Guards and also in a conversation with a member of the intelligence unit, who told me that the Guards were informed through arms dealers in the black market that Saddam was desperately looking for an atomic bomb. It was then that the Guards’ commanders and Iranian leadership decided to go nuclear and actively shop for components in the black market because they made a determination that the Iran-Iraq war could not have been won without a nuclear bomb. Mohsen Rezaei, then-commander of the Revolutionary Guards, requested permission from Ayatollah Khomeini to make Iran a nuclear power. Khomeini agreed…

Do read the whole thing – most of what is discussed is pretty well known to those who have paid attention over the years, at least in the sense that some of the horrible things which have happened (Lockerbie, eg) almost certainly had an Iranian origin. Its good to get some inside confirmation, but more important is the light this sheds on the attitudes of Iran’s leaders – the people Obama wants to talk to without preconditions, that is.

As Winston Churchill once pointed out, “jaw jaw is better than war war” – let us, indeed, talk to the Iranians till the cows come home (or the 12th Imam arrives, which ever is sooner) but let us also have no illusions: we’re dealing with a hodge-podge of human debris which is cowardly, corrupt, cruel and insane, with the added uncertainty of never knowing which element is predominant at any given time. For our advantage, “cowardly” and “corrupt” work best…dealing with greedy chickens is pretty easy, after all. But given that “cruel” and “insane” can pop up at any time we must keep our minds fixed on this one thing: The current Iranian government must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

There is no set of circumstances where the world will be safer with nuclear-armed mullahs. There is no set of circumstances where military action to prevent such a thing will be worse than allowing the mullahs to obtain nuclear weapons. It is literally a matter of millions of lives – perhaps tens of millions – being at risk with a nuclear-armed Iran, while the life risk of military action would not run higher than into the tens of thousands, in the worst case scenarios (and, well done, would probably only risk into the low thousands). Do keep in mind that we never, ever have to invade Iran – military action would be naval and aerial, with some special forces work and, perhaps, some temporary landings on the Iranian coast to destroy missile and naval facilities. The bugbear the left throws at us of having to march on Tehran is just bluster designed to scare us off any action at all.

I would have preferred we dealt with Iran back in 2006, or 2007 at the latest – President Bush determined otherwise, and I hope to one day find out whether there was a really good reason for not acting. Be that as it may, its now mid-2008 and the mullahs are tooling along steadily towards a nuclear weapon (and, good people, there is no other possible interpretation on Iran’s nuclear effort – only the willfully blind could consider it as a peaceful use of nuclear energy); the next President will have to deal with this. And in so dealing, the next President – rather quickly in his term, I suspect – will have to decide whether he wants to allow Iran to obtain nukes (and thus place us in a junior-league, but much nastier, Cold War with the prospect of huge casualties if “insane” comes out on top), or if he wants to cut out the cancer by military action with a hope that by the time the mullahs can reconstitute their progam, they will finally have been overthrown by the long suffering – but increasingly restive – Iranian people.

It’s kind of ironic that at the same time Obama tries to moderate his position on abortion, he gets endorsed by Planned Parenthood, a group as far to the left on abortion as one can get:

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), saying his 100 rating by the fund for consistently backing pro-abortion legislation makes him the best choice for president.

“Sen. Obama supports a woman’s right to choose and is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Anne Brewer, Women for Obama coordinator for the Obama campaign, said in her blog on the Democratic hopeful’s official Web site.

Meanwhile, Obama’s public rightward shift on abortion enrages the left, but doesn’t fool everyone else.

Larry Kudlow notes the Reaganite rapidly emerging in John McCain:

Sen. John McCain gave two economics speeches in the last 48 hours. They were very strong, pro-growth, and pro-energy production. McCain also is finally slamming Obama on taxes and energy. Yesterday in Denver, the senator said, “If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Sen. Obama is your man. The choice in this election is stark and simple. Sen. Obama will raise your taxes. I won’t.”

This is good. Strong. I hope it’s the beginning of a Big Mac resurgence under the new management of Steve Schmidt, who is effectively running the campaign as of this past weekend.

McCain also slammed Obama on energy, essentially labeling him Doctor No. In the Denver speech McCain said, “My opponent’s answer is no to more drilling; no to more nuclear power; no to research prizes that help solve the problem of affordable electric cars. For a guy whose ‘official seal’ carried the motto, ‘Yes, We Can,’ Sen. Obama’s agenda sure has a whole lot of ‘No, We Can’t.’” This also is good.

Increasingly McCain is shifting his positions towards the supply-side: across-the-board tax cuts, keeping the Bush tax rates on investment, slashing the corporate tax rate, doubling the child deduction for family dependents, cutting pork-barrel spending, and producing more energy.

As I’ve said very often, Obama’s policies are right out of Jimmy Carter’s playbook – they’ve hardly been modified since Carter proposed them back in the 1970’s, when Carterism was orchestrating “stagflation” in our economy and American surrender around the world. If we’ll just sweat a bit more in summer, freeze a bit more in winter, ride the bus and turn our wallets over to Obama and his Democrats, all will be well…and please pay no attention to the fact that Obama and his Democrats won’t be joining you in the new era of limits…they need their proligate ways because, well, they are important – and smarter than you, anyways. Meanwhile, John McCain is issuing a bold challenge to the American people which, boiled down, says “I will clear your path if you are willing to work hard for yourselves and your families”. We’ll find out in November if we’re still strong Americans, or whether we’ve taken a sharp turn towards Euro-socialist despair and decline.