Scott Ott over at Scrappleface hits the mark.

Drudge is reporting that the New York Times will state Obama is falling short of his fundraising goals…

Getting a tight feeling in the gut, lefties?

Gallup has McCain up by three.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: A USA TODAY/Gallup poll has McCain up by 10 points amongst likely voters…

The Republican National Convention has given John McCain and his party a significant boost, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend shows, as running mate Sarah Palin helps close an “enthusiasm gap” that has dogged the GOP all year.

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican’s biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

[…]

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

Which Democrat? Barry Warsch. Who’s he? Well:

Lifelong Democrat; Former president, Broward County, Florida Young Democrats; Former member, Broward County, Florida Democratic Executive Committee; Former city commissioner, City of Cooper City, Florida. Graduate of THE University of Florida. Practicing attorney in Miami. Member of The Florida Bar. Southernmost member of the North American Snowsports Journalists Association. Broward County Young Democrats’ Trailblazer of the Year, 1994. Broward County Young Democrats’ Young Democrat of the Year, 1996. Chabad of Southwest Broward Man of the Year, 1995. Ever hopeful Dolphin Season ticket holder, 20+ years. NEVER VOTED FOR A REPUBLICAN. NEVER. EVER.

What does he think?

I really like the way Palin drives the people I dislike to distraction.

Andrew Sullivan on the Palin selection:

“John McCain has demonstrated with this insane decision that he is unfit to be president of the United States. This was an act of near-criminal negligence. If he can behave this recklessly and impulsively with this decision, the idea of allowing him to become president of the United States is only a smidgen less terrifying than thinking of Palin in that position.”

This post has it all – – the Stalinistic psychological misdiagnosis of political opposition (“insane”, “recklessly”, “impulsively”), the attempted criminalization of political disagreement (“an act of near-criminal negligence”), and the paranoid hyperbole (“terrifying”).

Can you imagine how the Obamacans will freak when McCain/Palin wins, and they do a real steady, competent, level headed, moderate, non partisan job? You know, everything Obama promised until he wrapped up the nomination.

I think we’ve all had just about enough of the endless rancor – I do continue to blame the left for it, but assigning blame doesn’t get rid of the issue. Essentially, I’m willing to meet liberalism half way on a lot of issues, if they are willing to do so with the right. Some issues are intractable and we’ll just have to fight it out and see who wins, but there is room for compromise which doesn’t surrender core principles of either liberalism or conservatism.

Now, while a lot of liberals out there might find this mere partisanship on my part, the plain fact of the matter is that we are far more likely to get compromise with McCain/Palin than we are with Obama/Biden. Obama talks a good game, but in the end he’s an ultra liberal who hasn’t dared to compromise an iota on liberal ideas – we won’t get from Obama a willingness to, say, grant partial privatization in return for higher payroll taxes to fund social security for an additional decade or two; liberal ideology says “no retreat” on SS privatization, and Obama has given no indication that he’ll defy his base…McCain, on the other hand, has already defied his base at times and I can’t imagine a President McCain refusing partial privatization simply because the other side is insistent upon modest payroll tax increases.

To expand on my example for illustrative purposes, getting to any sort of privatization is key to our program, because we are convinced that once people see how superior it is, they will demand more and more of it…as for liberals, they are convinced that privatization is too risky, and in order to allay their concerns, they are getting more money into the SS system, and if their views are correct, privatization will fail and people will turn firmly back to the current SS system. This is actually a win/win for liberalism – if privatization works, they can claim partial credit for it, if it fails they can lay all the blame on the GOP…all it takes for this happy event is a willingness on the part of Democrats to concede a small point and allow partial privatization. On and on it will go with issue after issue, if we have people on both sides willing to give. McCain will, Obama won’t – or, more accurately, can’t; he can’t because he lacks the imagination and the raw courage it takes to defy ideological purists.

We have a stunning opportunity this fall to really do a good turn for our nation – by putting in to the Executive the skill, courage and flexibility – grounded in Reaganite principles – necessary to break the logjam and isolate the hardheaded people left and right (though its easier to dispense with the kook right, as its much smaller than the kook left). As long time readers will know, a primary goal of mine has been to isolate the far left and exclude them from the corridors of American power – I’ll never agree with liberalism’s basic premises, but I can work with liberals who have cut themselves loose from the kook left, as conservatism cut itself loose from the kook right about 40 years ago (with periodic purges since then as kook righties have slipped into the conservative movement). We’ll see how far this sentiment goes – though there are some indicators that it is large, and growing rapidly.

Just all too typical:

Democrats are not caring for their Stars and Stripes. At least that’s the message out of John McCain’s campaign.

McCain supporters, claiming they rescued 12,000 miniature American flags from the site of Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech last Thursday, redistributed the orphan flags to audience members ahead of a McCain rally in Colorado Springs on Saturday.

The move was an overt swipe at Obama from a campaign whose motto has been “country first.” But Democratic convention organizers claimed the flags were not going to be discarded — but instead were snatched from the site of Obama’s historic address to carry out a “cheap political stunt.”

McCain supporters said the flags were discovered by a vendor at Denver’s Invesco Field after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The vendor supposedly found trash bags full of flags in and near garbage bins, and turned them over to the McCain campaign.

Boy Scouts were sorting through 84 bags of flags in Colorado on Saturday, before a McCain supporter had veterans distribute them to the audience.

“We want to find good homes for these flags,” radio host Dan Caplis said at the rally, adding that whatever flags remained would be placed at memorials throughout Colorado.

Audience members, who booed when Caplis announced that the flags were left in Denver, waved the flags and chanted “U.S.A” before McCain arrived at the rally with his running mate, Sarah Palin.

Damon Jones, spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, released a statement saying McCain should applaud the fact that thousands of American flags were “proudly waved” at their convention.

“But instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play out a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism,” he said.

Two problems here:

Why didn’t the masses of asses take the flags home?

Is there no one in Team Obama who thought, “hey, US flags in a trash bag ain’t to cool”?

When I get a US flag, I keep it – and when the time comes for it to be retired, the trash isn’t the place I dispose of it. Somewhere in my garage there should still be, nicely rolled up, a flag I picked up by the side of the road shortly after 9/11…it was one of those flags people were attaching to their car windows and it must have blown off…I had noticed it as I was running to the scene of a car accident and I went back for it after the determination was made that no one was seriously injured and police and fire personnel were on the way. I just couldn’t let our flag lie in a ditch by the side of the road. The only thing I’d probably have more concern over would be the Blessed Sacrament (look it up). Its just too precious a symbol to be lightly cast away – too many men and women have shed their blood for it, you see?

And yet after Obama’s speech, it appears that thousands of Democrats lightly cast aside the semi-sacred symbol of the United States of America. The flags were just props – something to wave while the cameras were on, but not something needed at home, or to be treated with respect.

Really, Democrats – get with the program. Being patriotic isn’t hard, and holding in respect the symbols of our nation should come as naturally as breathing.

We interrupt this election campaign to bring you the latest bit of common sense to be spoken on the issue of global warming and its zealots:

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a “hysterical psuedo-religion”.

In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

“Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it,” said the minister.

Peter Doran of the Green Party said it was a “deeply irresponsible message.”

Mr Wilson said he refused to “blindly accept” the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.

“The tactic used by the “green gang” is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact,” he said.

The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified.

“Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists.”

John Woods of Friends of the Earth said Mr Wilson was “like a cigarette salesman denying that smoking causes cancer”.

Wilson is being a bit unrealistic here – I mean, to expect environmentalists to engage in “reasoned debate” is to set the bar too high…these are, after all, the people who told us we’d all die of famine and will suffer from a new ice age due to man-made global cooling in the 1970’s…people who can turn on a dime like that are not open to reason.

But it is good that some people are starting to have the courage to speak forcefully about the varied absurdities of environmentalism. If our enviro-whackos were only Luddites we’d be ok – Luddites just wanted to stop change…the whackos want to undo change and recreate what, in their view, the world must have been like before straight, white, Christian males wrecked it all because they are racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy imperialists (I know, very strange – work with me here, people; we’re dealing with what passes for thought on the left). While common sense dictates cleaning up messes and trying not to make new ones, only an idiot looks at stand of trees and says, “we must preserve this forever”…as if there is such a thing as a “forever” in this world. Pay attention, good people – whether you believe in God and the Last Judgement or believe in an entirely materialistic universe, the fact of the matter is that the death of our Earth is inevitible…preserving it “forever” is akin to putting water seal on the Titanic’s deck chairs.

We need to keep fighting these people off – for at least another 10 years or so they will continue to have the upper hand, but after the next decade has passed it will become increasingly difficult for them to hide the fact that “global warming” is just another in a long line of environmentalists scams designed to scare people into voluntary socialism.

As in Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, as noted by Jay Cost:

McCain did three things: (a) Reminded us that he’s a maverick; (b) Told us what the maverick would do if we elect him; (c) Told us why he’s a maverick. [So, contrary to some pundits, it was actually a very well-organized speech.] The confession at the end was the “why.” He fights for the country, not for a party, because it was in Hanoi that his country saved him. Country first, party second.

This might not resonate with strong partisans who see their party as the protector of the national interest, but there is a huge subset of voters who see politics the way McCain describes it. Get average people talking, and sooner or later you’ll hear them say, “Nobody stands for all of us. Everybody stands for their narrow faction.”

Ultimately, this speech was very Jacksonian to me. It was Jackson, as much as anybody, who made the president the representative of all the people. This notion can be oversimplified, for sure, but at its root it is accurate. The president should not speak for a mere faction, but should articulate the true public voice. I don’t know whether McCain can actually do that, but he clearly sees this task as his top priority, which puts him a notch or two above many previous nominees of both parties.

Final point. Contrary to some critiques I read, McCain’s middle “laundry list” section of the speech definitely defied Republican orthodoxy at key points. There might be plenty of reasons not to like this speech, but lines like this are not the things we hear from Republicans:

-I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn’t even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That’s going to change on my watch.

-We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities.

-For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we’ll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.

That middle one is actually quite noteworthy. Just a few months ago, I heard the exact same policy proposal…during a keynote address of a Democratic think tank! I thought to myself, “Now…that’s a good idea! Why doesn’t somebody do that?”

It was the last bullet point quoted that struck me last night – both in how it will not go down well with some of my fellow conservatives – those who lean too far towards libertarianism – but also how well it goes down with anyone who wants to help out his fellows who are hard working, yet temporarily down on their luck. It was Thursday night, after the speech, that I, my father and my father-in-law were chatting about it when my father noted that McCain’s speech hadn’t been given in the United States since the days of Andrew Jackson. Dad, being an ancient Democrat, was naturally delighted – and, I imagine, also a bit amused that it will be the GOP which will become the party of the common man. The world turns in strange ways, and who would have thought that the GOP – reaching back to its roots in pre-Civil War America and turning towards TR’s vigorous battle against special interests – would start to develop a popular conservatism to strip the political left of its commanding position in American culture and government? Continue reading →

From Rasmussen:

During his acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, John McCain told the audience, “We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don’t legislate from the bench.” Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice. The number who agree with McCain is up from 55% in August.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

In terms of how the Supreme Court currently makes decisions, just 42% of voters think the justices rule from what is in the Constitution. Thirty-percent (30%) say they are guided by a sense of fairness and justice. Democrats are more likely than Republicans and unaffiliated voters to believe the justices base rulings on the Constitution.

It is unsurprising, but still flabbergasting, that only 29% of Obama’s supporters believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution – showing how monumentally foolish liberal voters are; they don’t understand that what 9 justices give, 9 justices can take away…if we got a situation where a solid majority were activists from the right, then liberals would find themselves behind the 8 ball. Much better if we just have judges who look at the written law and apply it, and if its unclear they direct the legislative branch to clarify.

Meanwhile, this is yet another issue McCain/Palin can use to hammer Obama/What’s His Name – the people want judges who enforce the law, not make it up as they go along.

If true, this will be the most surprising bit of news for 2008:

During August, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans increased two percentage points to 33.2% while the number of Democrats was little changed at 38.9%.

That gives the Democrats a net advantage of 5.7 percentage points, down two points from a month ago and down significantly from the double digit advantage they enjoyed in April and May.

That poll was released September 2nd, which means it was pre-Palin speech, and one does wonder just how many people out there are saying, “If John McCain and Sarah Palin are the GOP, then I’m a Republican, too”? The Democrats still have a big advantage (and Rasmussen points out that over the past year the Democrats have maintained this strong advantage), but it does seem to be drifting downwards, and the effect of the past few days might have started to force it downwards quite fast – though we won’t know until Rasmussen puts out next month’s party ID result.

The GOP is being rebranded as the party of reform – and just as successful as that rebranding is by November will determine if the GOP – and not just McCain/Palin – comes out a winner. The GOP, as McCain pointed out, lost its way and was captured by the Washington ethos…now we have a chance to reclaim our outsider, insurgent reputation and really get to work on changing the way things are done.

Oprah, Oprah, Oprah…what are you afraid of?

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America — but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!

Oprah’s staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

“Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on,” an insider explains. “Oprah’s website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama.”

One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!

It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin’s historic convention speech.

OPRAH’S STATEMENT: “The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”(Emphasis added)

It’s your show, Oprah, and you get to choose who shall or shall not be on it – but someone like Palin who is both interesting and important, to block her because of a narrow-minded partisanship for your own personal preference? Really weak, Oprah, really weak.