Admittedly, this is from a conservative thinktank. But it is quite evenhanded and attempts to find the reasonable center between Obama’s sunny painting and McCain’s socialist rants. In today’s Washington Post:

While a few of Obama’s proposals may be sensible, the overall package would be bad for the economy. Unlike rate cuts for high incomes or reductions in investment taxes, most of Obama’s proposed tax cuts would do little to reduce the tax penalty on work and saving. For some households, the penalty on work and saving would even increase because the new tax credits would be phased out as income rises. These proposals wouldn’t deliver the economic growth that incentive-based tax cuts would.

Furthermore, there is no free lunch. Obama’s middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama’s plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings from reducing waste, the kind of savings that never seem to materialize. He also hopes to reap savings by accelerating our redeployment from Iraq, a project with an uncertain fiscal impact. At the same time, he proposes a wave of new spending on health-care, education, energy and infrastructure programs and declares his opposition to reforms that would reduce the growth of Social Security and other entitlement benefits. …

These tax increases are not as bad as some Obama statements during the Democratic primaries suggested they would be, and they fall well short of what some of his conservative critics claim. For example, Obama does not propose to tax dividends at 40 percent or to impose the full 12.4 percent Social Security tax on high earners….

In sum, Obama may very well give Joe the Plumber a tax break, but only if Joe does not become too successful. Obama is offering real tax favors for the middle class, but not real benefits for the economy.

Dear Christian conservatives,

The world is not going to end if Barack Obama is elected president.

Sounds hyperbolic, no? Well check this out:

Christian right intensifies attacks on Obama
By ERIC GORSKI and RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writers

Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb. Gay marriage in every state. The end of the Boy Scouts.
All are plausible scenarios if Democrat Barack Obama is elected president, according to a new addition to the campaign conversation called “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America,” produced by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family Action. …

Steve Strang, publisher of Charisma magazine, a Pentecostal publication, titled one of his recent weekly e-mails to readers, “Life As We Know It Will End If Obama is Elected.”

This is discomforting to me, a serious Christian who assumes people will think rationally and not resort to fear-mongering instead of reasonably discussing issues. And (though it escapes Dobson’s notice, because his strain of Christianity is the only one allowed) all four Prez/Veep candidates are self-proclaimed Christians. But, maybe one is more Christian than the others? Someone on Facebook thinks so, and they’ve drawn hundreds to a group called “Ten-4 Palin”:

Could it be that Sarah Palin has been uniquely fashioned for this time in History by the One, True and Living God. The confidence in my assertion is this: that it IS actually happening! …

She pleasantly redefines modern feminism, motherhood, living in humble submission to God, actually contributing to the improvement society instead of selfishly promoting anarchy or oligarchy, to an angrily muted mass of malcontents and Sophists. There is not a rainbow of nuance when “yea is yea and nay is nay”. The wisdom and robust nature of humble Truth is a lovely as it is durable. (Can you see the lipstick on the pit bull??) …

Also, for those who oppose her, take heed, lest you find yourself fighting against the God of Heaven and Earth. IF she tasked by God for this role, woe unto the ones who try to destroy her. Before you take up arms against her – read the biblical accounts of the Pharaoh, the Philistines, the Babylonians, etc… because you like they may not be fighting against man, but against your own creator. [bolds mine, misspellings original-R]

For all those on the right who deride Obama as “messianic,” I’ve seen no actual evidence that his supporters think of him in these deified terms. Palin, however, gets a Facebook page? Hmm… but what about the actual would-be president, John McCain? He gets a mention too, in the last paragraph:

The following is a call to action: She (and Mr. McCain) must be prayed for. They are private persons fulfilling a public calling.

Why am I bothering with this, I ask myself… the “converted” aren’t to be moved, and rational discussion doesn’t generally work if a faith is both blind and ill-reasoned. I do notice, though, that there’s a point at which such sure-headed notions that we can see what God is doing, that we know what He wants, can become absolute extremism. Honestly. It’s not that far a leap from the above to, well, this (received at the BGDN fax station):

These are the same people, mind you, whose faxes usually start off with ” (x number of) American troops were killed in Iraq this week. Thank God for their deaths!” and list a variety of reasons God is punishing us with his preferred weapon, the Islamofacist insurgent.

Somehow I missed this yesterday, but the inimitable Kathleen Parker’s latest outside-the-tent look at the election is really worth reading (full article here). Some choice bits:

Among the hidden factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, meaning that whites lie to pollsters about their support for a black candidate. It is cited as the reason Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost to George Deukmejian in the 1982 California governor’s race, despite polls showing him up to seven points ahead.

But equally significant this time may become known as the Reverse-Bradley Effect: whites who would never admit to voting for a black man, but do. And, expanding the definition somewhat, Republicans and conservatives who would never admit to voting for a Democrat, especially one so liberal. …

I’ve received too many e-mails and had too many conversations that began, “Just between you and me,” and ended with, “I wouldn’t want anyone at work to know,” to believe that this is an insignificant trend.

Sitting quietly at their desks are an unknown number of discreet conservatives who surprise themselves as they mull their options. Appalled by McCain’s erratic behavior, both in dealing with the financial crisis and his selection of an unsuitable running mate, they will quietly (and with considerable trepidation) vote for Obama.

Are they are worried about higher taxes, a premature withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama’s inexperience in matters executive? You betcha. But they do not want to vote for a divisive, anti-intellectual ticket headed by a man who, though they admire him, lately has made them embarrassed to be Republicans. [bolds mine-R]

I sense the same thing, speaking with coworkers and acquaintances who walk into the coffee shop. Even some very close members of my family, who heretofore have had nothing but bad things to say about Democrats in general and whose philosophies are right out of the GOP platform, are having a hard time envisioning themselves pulling the lever for John the Candidate. This is why, weeks ago, I started telling people that not only was Obama going to win, but in terms of electoral votes he was going to dominate. The polls followed my prediction (although some have since gotten much tighter), and I’m putting my chips on a 2-to-1 electoral margin.

Meanwhile, in the “salt in the wound” category, Parker spices up her “McCain’s bound to lose” column with another potent (if all too rare) criticism of the McCain-Palin camp’s painting Obama as terrorist:

“Palling around with terrorists,” as Sarah Palin said of Obama, gets to an underlying xenophobic, anti-Muslim sentiment. Using surrogates who strategically use Obama’s middle name, Hussein, feeds the same dark heart. … To McCain’s credit, he has tried to correct his audience — when, for example, a woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab. Gosh, wonder where she ever got that idea? But the McCain-Palin bad cop-good cop routine is what it is. The hot babe lathers the crowd; the noble soldier hoses them down. This isn’t a campaign; it’s a sideshow. [bold mine-R]

Everything’s out of whack this year. It’s Democrats who are supposed to be second-guessing their candidate’s strategy and lamenting of his imminent loss, right? More evidence that Obama’s “change” has arrived — to the modern presidential campaign, at least, if not to our actual government.

The increasingly catchphrasified presidential candidate went on Don Imus’ radio show this morning. It was a friendly venue; at one point Imus says that McCain “would make a great president.” But despite Imus’ leanings, he did attempt to ask some relevant questions, especially per the running mate: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president? Why couldn’t she name a single newspaper or magazine that she reads? Why won’t she go on “Meet the Press”? The answers… well, they sure tasted like they’d come out of a can.

Imus: What have you seen in Gov. Palin that (her conservative detractors) have not?

McCain: My question is, is what’s their problem? She’s the most popular governor in America! … I’m amazed! I’m amazed! … Because she hasn’t been at a Georgetown cocktail party? …

Imus: If you called me up and asked me what newspaper I read, I could tell ya that!

McCain: D’ya think that she doesn’t read newspapers? A whole lot of people get their news now offline… uh, online. That’s why newspapers are declining in circulation! It’s easy to make fun of people and ask them “gotcha” questions! … They like to see a person with five children and a great husband! …

Imus: Used to be said that a candidate had to get through a “Meet the Press” session with Tim Russert, and if they didn’t it was hard to recover. And (gets cut off)

McCain: (Hard chuckling) Who said that?!

Imus: Almost everybody!

McCain: That’s hilarious!! That’s HILARIOUS!! With thousands of people showing up at a town-hall meeting, I’ve never had one of ‘em say, “Why hasn’t she gone on ‘Meet the Press’”! NOT ONE! That’s very good, that’s VERY good! …

Oh, and the quote of the day from McCain (and an absolutely spot-on impression of Darryl Hammond’s portrayal of McCain): “The thing that should disturb Americans is (Obama’s) response to Joe the Plumber!”

Click here for full audio interview (and yes, it’s worth it):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

For a long time, “liberals” have seen their label turned into a four-letter word… its synonyms include “extremist,” “socialist,” “gay,” “weak,” “anti-American,” “elite.” Most have stopped using the word as a self-description — going instead with the rather vague “progressive” — though it’s blisteringly invoked by the opposition. “Conservative,” meanwhile, has experienced something of a resurgence. Seen in the ’70s and early ’80s as “old-fashioned” or “prudish,” conservative has come to mean “common sense” and “with the people.” (Note, please, that none of these “synonyms” really reflects the political histories and deep meanings of these two terms, and I endorse none of them.)

In the wake of a hypothetical likely Obama victory, however, it may finally be time to return these words to their rightful places in history — and, subsequently, to leave them there and come up with some that work. “Liberal” is already out except as a slander; “conservative” now has no relation to its previous meaning and will likely fall out of common use except for a few brainiacs and purists. This was foreseeable in the GOP primaries, when Ron Paul continually explained that HE was the “real” conservative — the guy calling for an immediate end to war in Iraq and American occupations in general; a return to sound financial principles and abolishing not only the IRS, but also the Federal Reserve; a cease-and-desist on warrantless wiretapping and torture and secret military tribunals. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, did his best (which was not very good) to stand as the Reagan caricature, while Mike Huckabee tried to revive the “compassionate” conservative label that George Bush shed as soon as he took office. John McCain, once the nomination was mostly locked up, stepped in and claimed that he was a Reagan “foot soldier” and a great conservative, until he got to the general election and instead took to calling himself, once again, a “maverick.”

(more…)

This is worth watching… whoever wrote these scripts is a lot better than whoever writes Leno’s. VODPODDED AT RIGHT IN TWO PARTS. —>>

(P.S.: 11:30 p.m. EDT tonight, McCain makes it up to Letterman by appearing on the show… I hear it’s pretty good.)

Johnny and Barry: A tale of two three-piece suits. (Photo by Charles Dharapak/AP)

John McCain brought the heat — but Mr. Freeze wouldn’t melt.

Certainly the most interesting of the three debates, this one made me laugh. (For more laughter, I point you to this hilarious retelling by third-party conservative Daniel Larison.) For one thing, the split screen on MSNBC would’ve been great even with the sound off: Obama with his toothy smile every time McCain urged him to “repudiate” this or “explain” that, McCain with his bizarre facial expressions. As an actual guide to voting, however, it (like the others) left something to be desired.

It wasn’t Schieffer’s fault: He gave the candidates plenty of time to explain and re-explain various points, and asked some great questions (“Why would your vice president make the best president if he/she had to take over?”). But both elephant and donkey preferred to bicker — often, admittedly, at McCain’s continually-interrupting behest — and spent way too much time pandering to Joe the Plumber (more on this sudden political phenom here).

High points: McCain’s quick rebuke to Obama, “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should’ve run four years ago”; Obama’s snappy retort, “If I get you two confused, it’s because…”; Obama’s observation that McCain’s suggested “spending freeze” would necessarily negate a lot of the other things he talks about doing; McCain’s pointing to his own participation in the “Gangof 14″ to confirm SCOTUS justices and Obama’s refusal to join said group; Obama’s pointing out that McCain’s campaign is almost singularly focused on terrorist-educator-neighbor Bill Ayers.

Low points: McCain’s saying that Obama “voted against Justice Breyer” (who was appointed in 1994!); Obama’s ducking most every McCain attack (he’s winning anyway, so why bother, that’s the rationale, I still don’t like it); McCain’s incessant whining about John Lewis and repeated urgings to Obama to “repudiate” the statement.

End result? McCain’s the longest shot in my lifetime, as evidenced by the latest Gallup tracking:

“If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

— Barack Obama, to Matt Bai of the New York Times

… or, at least, that’s what Barack ******* Obama wants you to think — ABC reports!

Found on Flickr — A pie we can believe in!

Barack Obama smashed his record.  No sooner did the Illinois Senator set a new bar for mentions of the word “pie” in a single campaign event, than he shattered his own mark. … A mere 2 hours after reaching the magic 13, Obama did better; 15 mentions of the word “pie” in 104 seconds.  … Here we go:

“We decided to stop at a diner because I was hungry  and I decided I wanted some pie (1). Pie (2). That’s what I wanted.”

At which point, as usual, someone in the crowd listening offered some pie of their own.

“You make pie(3)?” Obama asked?  “What kind of pie (4) you make? Sweet potato pie (5)? I like sweet potato pie (6). I’m thinking of having a sweet potato pie (7) here in Philadelphia? Because I’ve heard a lot of people are saying they can make sweet potato pie (8).  I’ll put it up against my mother in laws sweet potato pie (9). Alright, you give up? Nah. You. So anyway they did not have sweet potato pie (10) in South OH. So I had coconut cream pie (11). The governor of OH he had lemon meringue pie (12). So we ordered our pie (13)and I decide that I’m going to take a picture with the wait staff.”

It was at this point that he had matched his record.  Had he stopped here, it certainly would have been impressive…yet not historic.  … Nevertheless, the record was within reach. And Obama continued:

“Just as we were re finished taking the picture and the owner comes out, with our pie (14). So I take my pie (15).”

So, yeah. Just thought you might like to know that.

On the outside, looking in. (Photo by Carolyn Kaster/AP)

I wrote a couple weeks ago on the growing evidence that not only is Obama going to win, he’s going to win big. The evidence was there, and a few pundits were making the same predictions (though more muted, because as pundits they fear being wrong). Today, however, it seems the prediction of a McCain loss is a sure bet… just take a gander at these varied samples from around the web:

Bill Kristol, token conservative columnist for the New York Times:

The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.

He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.

Ex-Clintonite Lanny Davis, in Politico’s Arena:

this election is over. Obama is on the right side of most issues supported by most voters, especially economic, and Senator McCain cannot delete his erratic behavior when the credit crunch crisis hit, fatally undermining his key strengths on experience and steadiness in crisis. …

Given this Schmidt-driven politically tone-deaf Atwater-model strategy–if not changed–what is a certain Obama win on Nov 4 will be a blow-out – perhaps close to the Ronald Reagan landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984.

Former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins:

We have seen two major campaigns this year that could be described as internally divided — Sen. Hillary Clinton’s losing primary campaign and now Sen. John McCain’s general election effort.

And while chaos and disarray reigned supreme in Sen. Barack Obama’s opponents’ campaigns, the steady, disciplined and strategically driven Obama campaign marches forward toward likely victory. …

And no one seems to be in charge, least of all the candidate. The end result is a campaign suffering from “schizophrenia.”

John McCain is saying one thing on the stump, his running mate another. But the worst sin is that his advertising campaign is incoherent and putting out multiple and inconsistent messages. …

With one debate remaining and less than three weeks of campaigning left, John McCain’s 10-year quest to be president is coming to a close and — as of today — a dreadful one.