SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Our next subscription drive will be in October.  However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time.  Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going.  Subscribe in the right-hand column.

--------------------------------------------

For those of you who might be interested, I did a podcast for the excellent Skewz website.  You can listen here.

THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER 4,  2008

11:59 P.M. ET:  We now await the polls.  The trackers tomorrow will be the first to reflect Sarah Palin's speech last night.  Not until Monday will the tracking polls - taken over three days - fully reflect the GOP convention.  Generally, according to Karl Rove, the party holding the second convention gets the smaller bounce.  But, of course, that doesn't take into account the effect of an unusual, dramatic event - like the emergence of Sarah Palin.  First tracker will be out at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. 

11:39 P.M. ET:  Just switched to CNN, but one can only take so much of the snideness and contempt.  The incoherent Carl Bernstein, once a journalist, attacked McCain, and a fellow named Toobin called the speech one of the worst he'd ever heard.  Brilliant, penetrating analysis.  You learn so much.

11:26 P.M. ET:  I see that some of the TV pundits didn't have as high a regard for the speech as I did.  But I'll hold firm.  I think the speech, and the man making it, had a gut appeal to the citizen watching at home.  You had the impression of a man who's lived a full life. 

11:04 P.M. ET:  McCain has finished.  His ending reminded us of a coach inspiring his team.  Well done.  Well delivered.  For a man not known as an orator, he outdid himself.  He passed the test.

11:01 P.M. ET:  McCain is now telling the story of his prisoner years.  There is risk here, but he's handling his story well, with humility, not bravado.  Again, there's some fine writing at work, and a decent delivery.

10:45 P.M. ET:   McCain is going through the usual laundry list for Republican candidates.  But he is giving some details, lacking in Obama's campaign, on how he would get things done, especially in job retraining and education.  Effective, I think.  The speech is well-written.  It has a strong narrative drive.

10:27 P.M. ET:   McCain has never been a great orator, but he's good tonight.  He sounds sincere and fluent.  He's not Obama, but he's holding his own.  There were some demonstrators in the hall - how they got in is an interesting question - but they seem to have been cleared out.  McCain clearly has practiced his style.  He is connecting with the audience.

10:14 P.M. ET:   McCain is now onstage.  The camera just switched to Sarah Palin, who's in the hall.  Let's see how McCain does.

10:04 P.M. ET:  An introductory film on McCain is on.  Of course, it stresses his military service.  Well done, with style.  Now it goes on to his political service.  This is one of the best of this kind of film that I've seen. 

10:02 P.M. ET:  Waiting now for John McCain to speak.  His wife, Cindy, spoke.  She performed with dignity and class, but no one remembers the spousal speeches.

9:02 P.M. ET:  Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is speaking.  He's talking about the success of the surge in Iraq.  It's fine, but I'm concerned that there's been too much military talk at the convention, as much as I agree with it.  You have to have a broad appeal, and I hope McCain reflects that need in his acceptance speech. 

I'm also concerned about the overall appearance of the convention.  I don't care for identity politics or the idiotic quota system of the Democratic Party, but there has to be some recognition of different groups.  Elections are about winning, and winning is about numbers.  One analyst said, correctly, that McCain must make an appeal to Hispanic-Americans.  It's a natural for him, and yet the convention hasn't done a thing to help.  I hope his speech eliminates the deficiency.

8:51 P.M. ET:  Just watched O'Reilly's interview, on national security, with Barack Obama.  As usual, Obama was engaging and articulate.  The problem is that he used a familiar rhetorical technique.  He gave a brief answer to each question, often a vague answer, then went into a set piece filled with talking points.  There wasn't enough time to deal with the details of security policy, like Obama's "promise" to eliminate missile defense, but the candidate didn't destroy himself.

8:37 P.M. ET:  Bill O'Reilly is about to air Part 1 of his interview with Barack Obama.  Now, apparently, this was set up to run the same night that McCain accepts his nomination.  Frankly, I think it's a little tacky of Obama.  But under the polished surface of the Obama campaign there is the tackiness of Chicago street politics.  So don't be surprised.

8:28 P.M. ET:  We'll now start our regular blogging for tonight's GOP convention.  Senator McCain will accept the party's nomination in about an hour and a half.  He has a heavy burden - not only to convince Americans that he is young enough, dynamic enough, and forward-looking enough to be president, but to try to equal the performance of his vice-presidential nominee last night.

Karl Rove made the point at Fox that McCain must show that he understands "kitchen table" issues.  Rove is right.   

BULLETIN AT 7:36 P.M. ET:  From the AP, Earth-shaking news:   SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.

I had to rush this to you, as I knew you could not go on without information like that.  Your world has been changed, hasn't it?

Readers, that's the kind of thing the mainstream press is digging for.  Really relates to the future of the country, doesn't it?

NOTE AT 6:20 P.M. ET:  I just checked in at CNN, and guess what they were talking about.  Troopergate - the so-called "scandal" involving Sarah Palin and her alleged attempt to get her former brother-in-law fired by the state police.  Now, there are plenty of strange things about Barack Obama's activities in Chicago, but, for some reason, the news organizations can't seem to find Chicago on a map, and thus can't send reporters there.  We understand, we really do.  Alaska is so much more accessible.

Yuch. 

BULLETIN AT 5:30 P.M. ET:  A new CBS poll just released shows a dead heat, with Obama and McCain getting 42 percent each.  The poll was completed before Sarah Palin's speech.  It closes the eight-point Obama advantage that CBS reported in a poll taken last weekend.  This survey was conducted Monday through Wednesday.

We must stress that this poll is at variance with our daily trackers, which show Obama either seven or five points ahead.  We'll watch the trends.

ROVE

Posted at 2:36 p.m. ET

Karl Rove, based on his own excellent instincts, and after speaking with scholars on the subject, has this take on the impact of Sarah Palin over the next two months:

Taking on Alaska's good-old-boy politics and beating the incumbent Republican governor might be seen as evidence of the political courage and independence voters are looking for this year. And with women more undecided than men, Mrs. Palin could add more than a point to Mr. McCain's total -- maybe two or three -- which could make the difference in a close contest.

Note the numbers.  Historically, even outstanding vice-presidential choices have had only limited impact.  Could this year, though, be different?

The threat Mrs. Palin poses is why Mr. Obama's campaign has moved rapidly to disparage her record, and why left-wing bloggers have engaged in nonstop character smears against her and her family. Some in the press have aided and abetted this because they feel left out of the preannouncement vetting process. The danger for Democrats is twofold: in highlighting Mrs. Palin's inexperience, they may focus attention on Mr. Obama's; and the harsh attacks levied against Mrs. Palin could completely undermine the Obama promise of a "new politics." In the vice-presidential debate, Democrats must be concerned about Mr. Biden appearing bombastic and condescending -- which is almost a permanent state of mind for the Delaware senator -- while Mrs. Palin comes across as fresh, straight talking, nonpolitical and therefore appealing.

I say, let Biden be Biden!  It could help us.

This will be history's shortest general-election campaign. The race is tight, so every new variable carries substantial risk and opportunity. So while the GOP vice-presidential pick is by far the more creative and bold, it is also the more dangerous.

But even if Mrs. Palin does well, as I believe she will, it is still Mr. McCain's performance in the next 61 days that will matter most. Sarah Palin can help advance the McCain reform narrative, but the hard work still rests squarely on the shoulders of John McCain. And that's exactly where the maverick and war hero wants it.

Which is why tonight's speech is so critical.  John McCain doesn't generally do well in set speeches, but his campaign staff knows it.  I have to believe they've prepared him well. 

Look for the following things:  Tracking polls in the next five days, and the size and intensity of crowds as McCain and Palin go out on the campaign trail.  Will Palin now become the phenomenon the GOP hopes, or will her appeal be limited to those already converted?

We're going to get some important answers in the next week.

September 4, 2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:15 p.m. ET

Both trackers for the day are now out.  Rasmussen, as reported below, shows no change.  Obama up five.

Gallup confirms that, in practical terms, nothing has changed.  In fact, Gallup shows a one-point gain for Obama, who's up seven.  May just be statistical noise.

The trackers were done before Sarah Palin's speech last night.  However, in fairness I should point out that both included the speeches by Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman the night before.   Were they completely ineffective?  Can't tell.  This was also the period of maximum assault against Sarah Palin. 

At this point, we're only speculating.  In looking at these numbers I've become a bit concerned.  I'd hoped that the assault on Palin would produce an immediate backlash in her favor.  That has not happened.  I'd hoped John McCain's compelling life story would draw undecideds to him.  That also has apparently not happened. 

The key will be polling over the next few days, and into the weekend.  If Palin's speech produces no bounce, and if it's ditto for McCain's tonight, then the public is sending a blunt message that it wants a new party in the White House, and that nothing else matters.  But we're not there yet, and I hope we don't get to that point.

One additional comment:  The Republicans have correctly emphasized the national-security theme, and I'm sure McCain will do so again tonight.  But there's a danger of carrying it too far.  To me, national security is the key issue.  But to millions of Americans, especially young Americans, other issues are equally critical.  McCain must address their concerns as well.

The next five days of polling will tell a major story.  Not final, to be sure, but major.

September 4, 2008.       Permalink          

BULLETIN AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  The first tracker of the day is out.  Rasmussen has Obama up five points, the same as yesterday.

Cautionary note:  Trackers are done over a three-day period.  Today's result reflects polling from Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, when the full brunt of the assault on Sarah Palin was being felt, but before her speech last night.  We won't begin to see the impact of that speech until tomorrow or even the next day.

Rasmussen adds:

Last night’s polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign rather than help. Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly believe that a double standard is being applied to Palin because she is a woman. Democrats disagree. Perhaps most stunning is that, among unaffiliated voters, just 42% believe Obama has better experience than Palin to be President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Palin has the edge on experience. Again, most of the interviews for this survey were completed before Palin’s well-received speech last night.

NOTE AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  Reader Mike Melcher, in response to hairdressers' distress at Sarah's hair, writes the following: 

As you probably know by now, Sister Sarah's hairdo is related to her religious faith. Locally, it is a common "look" among Pentacostal women who believe that their hair is a "crowning glory". In fact, one can distinguish women from the various Assembly of God churches on the street by their hairdos.

Fascinating. 
 

BULLETIN, AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Hairstylists denounce Sarah's hair!!

Thought you'd like to know.  Obviously, this changes history.

SARAH

Posted at 7:16 a.m. ET

It's all Sarah all the time.  Her speech last night will be the main subject of political talk throughout the day.  The usual suspects will either praise or condemn her.  Most "observers," as usual, will be more concerned about how they sound than about how she sounded. 

There will, of course, be the contingent from Snideville, that little suburb of Washington, who'll whisper that the speech was written for her.  I'd be careful about that one.  Knowing just how much a candidate contributes to a speech is virtually impossible before the histories are written.  The Georgetown party crowd thought Ronald Reagan had everything written, and thought out, for him.  We later learned that he was probably the most effective script editor in presidential history.

I have no problem with reasonable criticism of Sarah Palin.  As the Washington Post points out this morning, her speech - and it was good - does not erase legitimate concerns about her readiness.  I do, though, have a big problem with a few practices, however:  First, I wish the same standard for "readiness" was applied to Barack Obama, who proves, in his contradictions, in his secretiveness, in his strange past, that he is woefully underequipped for the presidency.  Second, I wish reporters would stop asking the trick question, "Was she the best-qualified person to step into the presidency?"  Those same reporters might ask, and they haven't, whether Barack Obama is the best person for the presidency on the Democratic side.

There is no one "best" person.  And no presidential candidate in history has ever chosen, or even sought, that mysterious individual.  A vice-presidential candidate is usually a mixture of qualifications and political usefulness.  John Edwards, best qualified in 2004?  Al Gore in 1992?  Geraldine Ferraro in 1984?  How about Spiro Agnew in 1968?  Ironically, the best-qualified candidate was probably Dick Cheney in 2000, and he's become the most controversial vice president in history.

So spare us the "most qualified" question.  It's a gimmick.  "Sufficiently qualified" is fine.  If "most qualified" continues to surface, then the Republicans must tear into Joe Biden, asking whether he is the most qualified, pointing out his breathtakingly bad foreign-policy judgments over the years, and wondering whether putting in time is a qualification for anything.  Mr. Biden has no executive experience whatever. 

Sarah Palin did well last night.  She certainly impressed us as a serious and engaging leader.  But I've always believed that the impact of conventions is overrated.  Does anyone remember anything that was said at last week's Democratic conclave?  The full measure of Governor Palin will be determined by her performance over the next two months.  So will the full measure of all the candidates.  And that judgment will be filtered through a disgracefully biased press.

I'm hesitant about predictions.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if Governor Palin does better on the campaign trail than does Senator Biden, who is prone to gaffes and outbursts.  The question is, will we know about those gaffes and outbursts?  Or will we only know about Sarah Palin spelling some leader's name wrong?

Once again, the media will be the fifth candidate.  And we've seen this week how much damage that candidate can inflict. 

But I have a kind of faith in Sarah.  Don't sell her short.

September 4, 2008.      Permalink          

SARAH FROM THE U.K.

Posted at 7:14 a.m. ET

Of the pieces I've read on Sarah Palin, one of the most incisive comes, as usual, from a British writer.  Jane Daley has always been one of my favorites, and has a particularly good eye when it comes to the United States:

There are few sights more bloodcurdling than the liberal pack in full cry. The viciousness of the attacks on Sarah Palin is a testimony to the degree of panic her appointment has generated in Leftist circles.

It would seem that it is only sexist to trash a woman candidate if she is a Woman Candidate, which is to say a liberal.

Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Sarah Palin terrifies those on the political left
It took about 20 minutes after John McCain announced her as his running mate for the attack machine to mobilise: woman candidate (bleep, bleep), no previous warning (nee-naw, nee-naw), exterminate, exterminate.

At first, it was pretty tenuous stuff: her husband had once been caught on a drink-drive charge - when he was 22 years old. You don't say. In blue-collar America, having only one drink-drive offence pretty much qualifies you as a Grade A wimp.

Then the piranhas got hold of a real prize (or so they thought): the 17-year-old daughter of this Christian Evangelical family was pregnant.

Wonderful.  And...

I personally am, and always have been, fervently pro-choice on abortion. I do not consider this to be the only sanctified Woman's point of view because I am aware that huge numbers of women disagree with me.

Whenever I touch on the subject, they write in and tell me so, often in eloquent and passionate terms. But according to the official feminist sisterhood (which was taken over by the totalitarian Marxist tendency long ago) you can represent the views of Women only if you accept the tenets of their ideology. Ergo, Mrs Palin is not a Woman Candidate.

She is a renegade, the gender equivalent of an Uncle Tom. In the US, her position is particularly incendiary because it is part of the culture war between metropolitan liberals and provincial America: that vast fly-over country where people (or "folks", as they call themselves) still live by the standards the Palin family embodies. Life is about hard work and hard play.

Hot dogs versus tofu.  Construction versus anthropology.

Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who claim to represent "ordinary people".

What the metropolitan sophisticates failed to understand in the 1980s when Thatcher won election after election is even more the case in the US: most (and I do mean most) ordinary people actually believe in the basic decencies, the "small-town values", of family, marital fidelity, and personal responsibility. They believe in and honour them - even if they do not manage to uphold them.

She understands this country.

The life of small-town USA is based on the principles of those Protestant colonial settlers who founded the nation: hard work, self-improvement, personal faith and family devotion. Mrs Palin speaks to and for them in a way that patronising "liberal" elitists find infuriating.

A very great senator, and a man whose resumé read "elite," once advised me, "Never underestimate the values of a small town."  Although Paul Douglas was a senator, a war hero, and a distinguished college professor, he never forgot those values.  His descendants in the Democratic Party have, to their eternal discredit.

September 4, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 3,  2008

11:52 P.M. ET:  I've been monitoring the TV commentary.  Clearly, Sarah Palin made a powerful impression.  I was surprised at how positive the reaction was at CNN.  I'm now watching a reply of the Palin speech.  I have to say that it sounds even better the second time around.  (One problem with blogging as you're watching is that you break your attention, which is unfair to the speaker.)  I want to know how this played in the country, and we'll begin to know that over the weekend when the tracking polls pick up the reaction.   

11:10 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has now finished.  She obviously wowed the crowd.  Did she wow the country?  Hard to say.  It was a solid speech, well delivered.  I wish she'd ended it with more about herself and less about McCain, who's now come onstage.  I felt I wanted to hear more about Sarah.  I also felt the writing, which had to be done quickly, might have been sharper.  But, on balance, after taking a beating in the media, Sarah Palin acquitted herself well and certainly dispelled any doubts that she was up to being a national candidate.  She's an attractive person, very warm, the kind of person you want to know.  That counts.

10:52 P.M. ET:  Sarah is delivering a solid, effective speech.  She has to convince the public that she has the seriousness, wisdom and expertise to be vice president.  I think she's doing it.  She's at her best when discussing her own achievements as governor.  The image of Sarah as chief executive comes alive.  

10:30 P.M. ET: Rudy has finished, spectacularly, and Sarah Palin has now marched out.  She's getting wild applause.  She looks poised, in control, an executive.

10:20 P.M. ET:  Rudy is fantastic.  His case against Obama and for McCain is served raw and strong.  Now he's praising Sarah Palin.  Fact after fact.  Rudy is like a fleet of bombers. 

10:07 P.M. ET:  Rudy is on.  Red meat is served, hot and juicy.  He's tearing into Barack Obama, especially for the 150 times he voted "present" in the Illinois state legislature.  The crowd is whipped up.  Sarah next.

9:57 P.M. ET:  Kyra Phillips is interviewing Sarah Palin's sister on CNN.  Phillips is the reporter who drew William Bennett's ire a few nights ago when she turned a "news" spot into an advocacy piece for sex education.  Bennett correctly expressed outrage at the injection of personal opinion into a news spot.

Phillips just asked Palin's sister if Palin could be leader of the free world.  Gee, has anyone at CNN asked that about Barack Obama?  Palin's sister gives a fine response.

Now Philips is bringing up the teenager with the baby, and...

Who cares?  Philips never learned.  It's a patronizing interview.  Typical CNN.

9:48 P.M. ET:  Awaiting Rudy Giuliani.  Sarah Palin speaks in about 32 minutes.  Her family is already seated in the hall.  Excerpts of Palin's speech have been discussed by the news commentators, and the general feeling is that it's a solid, well-written speech.  I agree.  There is a tremendous sense of anticipation. 

9:14 P.M. ET:  Mitt Romney is speaking.  He's a pretty forceful speaker, and he's handing out the red meat in large bites.  But the fact is that no one is interested in anything other than Sarah Palin.  Anyone else, no matter how effective, is an opening act.

8:35 P.M. ET:  We'll now start our coverage of tonight's Republican convention, featuring the acceptance speech of Sarah Palin.  Apparently the TV people expect huge ratings.  I hope they're right.

Dick Morris had the most diabolical interpretation of events.  He feels that the GOP is drawing the enemy attackers in, and trapping them, and that the trap will be Palin's speech.  In a way, under this interpretation, the media assault on Palin is a good thing because it gives her a chance to counter with a great performance.

I'm sure she'll do well.  The key to a Republican victory this year is the same as it was when Ronald Reagan ran in 1980 - speak over the heads of the press, and directly to the American people.  Don't depend on fair press coverage, and don't expect it.  Make the press look foolish.  The press will cooperate fully in this.

NOTE AT 7:12 P.M. ET:  Reader Howard J. Klein writes the following, in response to the criticism by some that McCain's slogan, "Country First," is somehow fascist.  (See "Latest Disgrace," down below):

Seems to me the slogan “Country First” is a shorthand way of saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”  The Dems have slipped so far to the left that JFK is now a Nazi in their eyes.

Thoughtful.  JFK couldn't be nominated by today's Democratic Party.  He wouldn't even recognize it.

 

HANSON

Posted at 7:08 p.m. ET

We're now about three hours away from the most anticipated speech by a vice-presidential candidate since Richard Nixon introduced us to his kids' cocker spaniel, "Checkers," in 1952.  Sarah Palin speaks at 10 p.m. ET, according to the current schedule.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson examines why so many Americans seem already to like Palin.  Don't expect Hanson to get any offers from Ivy League schools because of this column, but he doesn't seem to care.  He states it well:

Much has been written why Palin both brings strength to the McCain ticket and is a gamble at the same time. Why then the growing wave of popular sentiment in her favor?

Various reasons, but one I think is that millions of Americans are simply tired of being lectured at by smug elites. Jetting Al Gore made tens of millions finger-pointing at us about our global warming. Obama's America, apparently unlike Rev. Wright's Trinity Church, is a cruel, downright mean and dysfunctional place. John Kerry's United States is one of the half-educated in need of Ivy-League enlightenment and tutorials.

Applause.

Palin's symbolism is the antithesis of the metrosexual wind- or body- surfing politican, and hair-plugged, neurotic TV pundit So at this time, right now, millions apparently like Palin's atypical 19th-century profile. Again, it's a pleasant change of pace from Harvard Law School, DC politics, "community organizing" and the can't-do, 'they raised the bar on me' collective complaint.

Yes it is.  But the MSM will never recognize that.

If she can beat off the frothing Newsweek/MSNBC/New York Times inbred rabid wolves, and do it with the grace she has shown so far, she will fill a deep yearning among Americans for someone like her. A lot of Americans, if they watch reality shows, prefer truckers on ice or Bering Sea crab fishing to endless psychodramas of thirty-something suburban whiners.

Finally...

Right now, there are millions rooting for her in a way not true of Biden—and many who are criticizing her don't have a clue why that it is so.

Thank you, Professor Hanson.  Well stated.

September 3, 2008.      Permalink          

NOTE AT 4:37 P.M. ET:  Jesse Ventura is quoted in our story below, "Latest Disgrace," saying, "And yet, Thomas Jefferson said dissension is the greatest form of patriotism."  I suspect he meant dissent, not dissension.

Reader Alan Bell notes that there is no record of Jefferson ever saying that.  He quotes from the Jefferson Encyclopedia:

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but to date we have found no evidence that he said or wrote this. Its true origins are uncertain, but the saying may have entered popular culture during the Vietnam era.

The earliest usage of the phrase we have found is in a 1961 publication, The Use of Force in International Affairs: "If what your country is doing seems to you practically and morally wrong, is dissent the highest form of patriotism?"

The phrase was used repeatedly during the Vietnam era, and this may be when it came into general currency.

Thank you, Mr. Bell.

NOTE AT 3:54 P.M. ET:  Whether you like Tom DeLay or not, his quotes today are gems:  "The media has done more for John McCain in the last two days than he’s done for himself in the last year and a half," DeLay said.  "Trashing her is waking up the sleeping giant, and the sleeping giant is Republican women," he claimed.

Yup.

LATEST DISGRACE

Posted at 2:05 p.m. ET

Another sickening example of what some people will say in politics.  Tom Bevan, at Real Clear Politics, reports on an exchange on Larry King's show:

ST. PAUL - On the heels of Robert Wexler and the Obama campaign pushing the Nazi smear on Sarah Palin, the Nazi talk strikes again. Last night on Larry King, Dee Dee Meyers described the theme of last night's convention program - Country First - as a "very exclusive message" that she interpreted as meaning "basically either you're a Republican or you don't love your country."

King used Meyers' response as a segue to his other guests, Jesse Ventura and DL Hughley, and this is what they said:

KING: Yes, wasn't that surprising, Jesse, even though you didn't see it, that the theme was "we're the patriots"?

VENTURA: Well, you know, the Republicans have been pushing really Hermann Goering on us, the Nazi, since 2001. I mean, you know...

KING: Hermann Goering?

VENTURA: Yes. He said that it's easy to take a country to war. You have to convince them they're under attack. Denounce the pacifist for being unpatriotic and also for putting the country into danger. And yet, Thomas Jefferson said dissension is the greatest form of patriotism.

I like to follow the teachings of Thomas Jefferson a little bit more than Herman Goering.

KING: D.L., are you...

HUGHLEY: To follow...

KING: I'm sorry.

HUGHLEY: To follow up on what Jesse was saying, it did remind me -- I promise you, the first thing I thought when I saw those "Country First" signs, it reminded me of Nazis. It really -- I mean they just seemed so, you know -- that seemed to be a country that I don't recognize.

I didn't hear a single word at the Republican convention claiming that only Republicans are patriots.  Not one word. 

The term "McCarthyism" is flung around quite loosely, especially by the left.  McCarthyism, a somewhat exaggerated concept, consisted of a number of offenses, one of which was labeling someone a Communist based on a vague suspicion, or on something the person had done many years earlier.

Today, most McCarthyism is practiced on the left.  You see it in the discussion we've just reprinted.  Republicans - all Republicans - are essentially labeled as Nazis. 

Some conservatives have raised questions about Barack Obama's past political associations, and most of those questions, since they deal with working associations, are legitimate.  Yet, the mainstream media refuses to look into any of these concerns, apparently believing that to do so would be a kind of McCarthyism.  But referring to Republicans as Nazis elicits hardly any condemnation.

Double standard?  Of course.  Harmful to the country.  Well, was McCarthyism harmful to the country?  Almost two generations have been taught that it was.  Maybe those who teach should speak out today, and condemn the new McCarthyism.  I hear only silence.

September 3, 2008.      Permalink           

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:28 p.m. ET

Both trackers for today are now out, and they tend to confirm each other - a slight drop for Barack Obama.

As reported earlier, just below, Rasmussen has Obama up five points, in contrast to six yesterday. 

Gallup has Obama up six, in contrast to eight yesterday.

Trackers are taken over a three-day period.  Gallup reports:

This latest rolling average probably does not reflect much impact of the delayed opening of the Republican National Convention now underway in St. Paul, Minn. There was little convention activity Monday night due to Hurricane Gustav, and interviewing on Tuesday was, to a large degree, completed before the major prime time speeches at the convention were televised, particularly in the Midwest and Eastern portions of the country. A review of last week's tracking during the Democratic convention shows that Obama did not begin to show major gains until the tracking averages reported on Thursday, covering the first three nights of the Denver convention. So it is possible that any potential McCain convention bounce may not be evident for a few days.

Let us look forward to the bounce. 

September 3, 2008.      Permalink          

BULLETIN, AT 9:34 A.M. ET:  First tracker for the day is out.  Rasmussen has Obama up five points.  He had him up six yesterday.  Today's result would be based on polling done Sunday night through last night, but probably did not include reaction to last night's speeches.  There's no evidence in this result that the revelation about Sarah Palin's teen-aged daughter has scored much of an impact.

We await the Gallup tracker this afternoon. 

TONIGHT

Posted at 7:09 a.m. ET

Normally, during conventions, we begin with a review of the previous night.  No need to do that now.  I mentioned last night that it was a successful session, excellent speeches, solid arguments. 

That's not what's important now.

What's important now is tonight, the most important night of either convention.  Sarah Palin accepts the nomination for vice president tonight, after being subjected to two days of the most disgusting press assault I've seen in my lifetime.  The journalistic left is panicked by her.  How dare she be a woman who doesn't take orders from NARAL or NOW or all the other red-letter clubs.  How dare she allow her teen-aged, pregnant daughter to keep her baby.  How dare she think for herself.  How dare she go to any college outside the East.  Who does she think she is, an independent woman?

My belief is that the entire McCain campaign, indeed the election itself, may be riding on Sarah Palin's performance tonight.  I hope they allow her to be herself.  I also hope they allow her to come out swinging, especially at the journalistic hacks who've tried to destroy her.

If I were Sarah Palin tonight, this is the way I'd start:

Good evening.  My name is Sarah Palin, and I'm governor of the largest state in the Union.

Oh, and by the way, have you heard that I have a teen-aged pregnant daughter?

And have you heard that she's pro-life and that she's keeping her baby?

And have you heard that I once got a parking ticket?

And that my husband, more years ago than I can remember, had a DUI conviction?

Of course you've heard these things.  That's all some so-called journalists seem to care about.  You wonder sometimes whether some of them are in journalism or pornography, and whether they know the difference.

Well tonight, I'm going to talk about what I would do as vice president of the United States - to help John McCain keep this nation safe, to expand prosperity to every citizen, to solve our energy crisis - solutions in which my state will play a large part - and to make this greatest of all nations even greater.

And if there are people in the liberal media who don't think the little lady should be talking about these things - especially the crowd at The New York Times or CNN - they can shove it where the moon don't shine.  I'm a governor, an executive, a businesswoman, a proud mother, and I intend to fill this office completely, and to excel.

Oh, I'd love to hear her begin that way.  But, you know, they probably won't let her.

If I were running that campaign, I'd make media behavior an issue.  The public would roar its approval.

We count down the hours to Sarah Palin.  Why do I think history will be made tonight?

September 3, 2008.      Permalink          

WHY THEY HATE SARAH

Posted at 7:06 a.m. ET

The Wall Street Journal, which knows from media, gives an excellent analysis of why some in the media hate Sarah Palin.  They don't hold anything back:

Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain's veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.

And...

This is the same media whose chant for weeks -- no, months -- has been "let McCain be McCain." If we know anything about John McCain, it is that he is by instinct a reformer, sometimes to a fault. Yet when he acts like McCain and picks a maverick reformer in his own mold, his former media cheering squad turns on him for not conforming to Beltway mores and picking someone they've all met 10 times in the CNN green room.

Wonderful.

They want a VP to be a kind of parliamentary choice, someone they have already vetted, someone who's made them laugh with insider jokes at the Gridiron dinner. The Beltway class whines constantly about how it wants fresh voices in politics, but we guess this means a first-term Democratic Senator rather than a first-term Republican Governor from some godforsaken U.S. state few of them have ever been to.

Equally wonderful.

The spin du jour is that her choice reflects poorly on Candidate McCain because she wasn't properly vetted. Yet this seems to be false. Campaign vetter A.B. Culvahouse, White House counsel under Ronald Reagan, says Mrs. Palin told the campaign about her pregnant daughter and her husband's DUI at the age of 22. On Monday, Time magazine's Nathan Thornburgh wrote from Wasilla, Alaska, that Bristol Palin's pregnancy had been known by virtually everyone there, with little made of it. But what do these private family matters have to do with Mrs. Palin's credentials to be Vice President in any case?

Because the kid won't be modern and hip and have an abortion.  That's what they can't stand.

There is nothing more dangerous to entrenched Washington power than a populist conservative who looks unlikely to buy into Washington's creature comforts. Take a close look at Governor Palin's record on ethics and energy in Alaska, and it becomes clear what this Beltway outburst is actually about. The irony is that while Senator Obama is running on change, his acceptance speech made explicit that he's promising only more power and money for Washington. Sarah Palin's history of taking on the career politicians of a corrupt Alaskan GOP machine -- her own party -- shows that she's the more authentic change agent.

Joe Lieberman made the same point.  Drive that home!

If Sarah Palin succeeds as a national candidate, she could help John McCain proceed to a reform Presidency. Even if he loses while she does well, she could emerge as a major figure in GOP politics for years to come. This is why the media and political classes are so eager to discredit her. They can't let it happen.

We hope Mr. McCain and the GOP are prepared to fight back. On the evidence this week, it looks like an army of volunteers is forming up to help them.

Great. 

September 3, 2008.      Permalink          

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked,

What would you like to see President Bush accomplish in his last five months in office?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

This question was drawn from an idea by reader Bill Palmer:

What are the three most absurd positions put forward by Barack Obama?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker