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.

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

Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here.  The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

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

I did a podcast with Silvio Canto Jr., who is active in the Cuban-American community in Texas.  For those interested, you can hear it here.

TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 23,  2008

FINANCIAL ANGER

Posted at 7:25 p.m. ET

The financial bailout package got a cold reception on Capitol Hill today.  There is gut anger at what has happened.   A loyal reader alerts us to an article by the mysterious Spengler, a pen name for a widely quoted writer who publishes in the Asia Times.  Agree with him or not, he expresses the anger and frustration that so many feel about the financial mess on Wall Street:

Why should American taxpayers give US Treasury Secretary "Hank" Paulson a blank check to bail out the shareholders of busted banks? Why should the Treasury turn itself into a toxic waste dump for their bad loans? Why not let other banks join the unlamented Brothers Lehman in bankruptcy court, and start a new bank with taxpayers' money?

Those are the questions people are asking.

Why are the voices raised in protest so shrill and few? Why will Americans fall on their fountain-pens for their bankers? If America is to adopt socialism, why not have socialism for the poor, rather than for the rich? Why should American households that earn $50,000 a year subsidize Goldman Sachs partners who earn $5 million a year?

You can call that demagoguery.  But, those, too, are the questions people are asking. 

Paulson's dreadful scheme will become law, because Americans love their bankers. The bankers enable their collective gambling habit. Think of America as a town with one casino, in which the only economic activity is gambling. Most people lose, but the casino keeps lending them more money to play. Eventually, of course, the casino must go bankrupt. At this point, the townspeople people vote to tax themselves in order to bail out the casino. Collectively, the gamblers cannot help but lose; individually they nonetheless hope to win their way out of the hole.

Sorry to say it, but there's a lot of truth to that.  Frugality and savings, once American staples, seem to have been forgotten. 

As it is, many of the baby boomers now on the verge of retirement will spend their declining years working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds rather than cruising the Caribbean. Some of them still have time to tighten their belts and save 10% of their income (by consuming 10% less), plus a good deal more to compensate for the missing savings of the 1990s.

And...

The homeowners of America hope against hope that somehow, sometime, the price of their one only asset will bounce back...

...Sadly, there is no reason to expect the bailout of bank shareholders to have any effect at all on American home prices, which will continue to sink into the sand.

One of the biggest economic mistakes we made was to sell people on the notion that a house was a guaranteed investment, rather than a place to live.  It let people live the illusion that they were wealthy. 

Why the taxpayers of America would allow their pockets to be picked in this fashion requires a different sort of explanation than one finds in economics textbooks. My analogy of gamblers taxing themselves to bail out the casino is inspired, in part, by a remarkable new book by the Canadian economists Reuven and Gabrielle Brenner (with Aaron Brown), A World of Chance. In effect, the Brenners re-interpret economic theory in terms of gambling, showing how profoundly gambling figures into human behavior, especially in such matters as so-called life-cycle investing.

Felix Rohatyn, the highly respected investment banker, once said that the stock market had become a casino.  Ditto, today, for other markets.

Alas for the gamblers of America: they will tax themselves to keep the casino in operation, but it will not profit them. Where, oh where, is America's Vladimir Putin, who will drive out the oligarchs who have stolen the country's treasure and debased its currency?

Now there's a frightening thought, isn't it?  Do we really need a Putin?  The sad fact is, if things get bad, some Americans will accept greater and greater central control.

We were taught in history classes that Franklin D. Roosevelt saved capitalism, and prevented America from going too far to the left.  We may not be so lucky next time, especially if real leftists are already in place in Washington.

A time to be cautious, wise, and not to panic.

September 23, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 6:30 P.M. ET:   NEW YORK (AP) -- Sarah Palin met her first world leaders Tuesday. It was a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy for the Republican vice presidential candidate, the mayor-turned-governor who has been outside North America just once.  Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.

COMMENT:  Notice the nastiness, the patronizing tone.  What governor is referred to as "the mayor-turned-governor"?  Does anyone ask Barack Obama what real experience he has in foreign policy?  He headed a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee and never held one meeting.  And this past summer's magical mystery tour of Europe and the Mideast?  Wasn't that an attempt to polish his credentials?  The press is playing with fire in its coverage of Sarah Palin, and will get burned.

UPDATE AT 5:30 P.M. ET: Also from Rasmussen:  Three out of four U.S. voters (74%) say they are Very Likely to watch the upcoming presidential debates, but over half (56%) think debate moderators are biased in their questioning, according to new Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys taken Friday and Saturday nights.
In the first debate this Friday evening, 22% believe the moderator, veteran PBS newsman Jim Lehrer, will try to help Barack Obama. Forty-three percent (43%) say Lehrer will play a neutral role to help voters make an informed choice. Only six percent (6%) think he will try to help John McCain (see crosstabs).

COMMENT:  Lehrer is a liberal, no doubt about it.  I worry more about the second debate, week from Thursday, between Biden and Palin.  The moderator is Gwen Ifill, who never misses a chance to advance her leftist side.  We can pray that she behaves.

UPDATE AT 2:32 P.M. ET:   From Rasmussen:  Republican incumbent Norm Coleman has inched ahead of Al Franken in Minnesota's hotly contested U.S. Senate race, with the introduction of a third-party candidate having virtually no impact on the contest so far.  Coleman, who is seeking a second term in the Senate, is ahead of Franken, a TV comedy writer and longtime Democratic activist, by a statistically insignificant one percentage point, 48% to 47%, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.

COMMENT:  The idea that a nut job like Al Franken can even be close to a thoughtful, serious senator like Norm Coleman shows what "progressive" politics has become in the state of Minnesota.

Further update, at 5:19 p.m. ET:  A new Quinnipiac poll has Coleman up seven.

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:20 p.m. ET

All four trackers are now out for today.  As reported earlier, Battleground has McCain up two.  It was plus one for Mac yesterday.  Rasmussen shows a dead heat.  It was plus one for Obama yesterday.

Now Gallup has Obama up three.  It was plus four for Obama yesterday.

And Hotline has Obama up four.   It was plus five yesterday.

In other words, every poll shows a one-point gain for McCain today.

What does this mean?  Well, it may mean nothing.  Just a statistical fluke.  On the other hand, trackers are normally done over a three-day period, and it's possible that McCain had a good polling day yesterday.

We'll need more polling to come to any conclusion.  The debate is Friday.  I'd love this race to be all tied up again, or with McCain slightly ahead, as the candidates meet.

September 23, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  The Rasmussen tracker is now out, showing a dead heat, 48-48.  Rasmussen had Obama up by one yesterday.  Two more trackers, Hotline and Gallup, are due out later today.  Hotline had Obama up five yesterday, and Gallup had him up four.  Battleground, released earlier this morning, has McCain up two, the only national poll in which McCain leads.

UPDATE AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  The first polls are out for today.  View them with caution.

The Battleground tracker has McCain up two.  They had him up one yesterday.  But please note that Battleground is the only poll showing McCain ahead.  It is the outlier.

Quinnipiac is out with state polls that are discouraging for McCain.  Obama is up four in Michigan.  Added to yesterday's Rasmussen result, Michigan must be considered as slipping into the Obama column. 

Quinnipiac has Obama up two in Minnesota, close for a Democratic state.  But Minnesota generally produces a Democratic vote on election day.

Quinnipiac has Obama up seven in Wisconsin.  Again, Wisconsin is drifting toward its usual Democratic position.

The real discouragement is Colorado, almost a must-win for McCain.  Quinnipiac has Obama up four.

Now, this is one polling company.  But I can't say that I'm starting the day with a smile. 

HANSON

Posted at 7:43 a.m. ET

As usual, Victor Davis Hanson has some of the smartest things to say about this election campaign, basing his views on an actual knowledge of history, a knowledge not shared by many members of the chattering classes.

Hanson discusses the unprecedented assault against Sarah Palin.  He concludes, reflecting on whether she's tough enough for high office:

And? She is still smiling and apparently unmoved. Had they done this to Biden, he would have gone berserk. Wait--they didn't do this to Biden, and he seems near berserk in his daily gaffes.

And...

The point is this: I think it is much harder for a mother of three or four in an out-of-the-way Alaskan town to get elected to city council and the mayorship, then take on the entire Republican establishment and get elected governor than it is for a Barack Obama to emerge from Chicago politics into the Illinois state house and later Senate. The qualities that allowed a Palin to succeed without the power spouse, the identity politics, the Ivy-League cachet, the fawning New York editors and DC insider-press will ensure she does not implode on the campaign trail--and won't in office either.

Barack Obama, in contrast, on numerous occasions has complained how tiring, how hard, how unfair, how racist the campaign has turned out to be; Palin never.

Isn't it nice to know that someone has noticed.

Again my point? That the much deprecated "life experience" is every bit as important to leadership as is abstract learning. Both complement each other, but so far I think Palin understands the symbiotic world of word and the world of deed far more so than does Obama. And again, we are not talking about McCain, where the contrast only widens-and is far more important.

Tell that to the faculty at Harvard.

While civilization advances on the shoulders of the educated, it is carried along by the legs of the muscular classes. And the latter are not there by some magical IQ test or a natural filtering process that separates the wheat from the chaff, but rather by either birth, or, as often, by their preference for action and the physical world.

Second, I have seen no difference in intelligence levels between those who inhabit the world of the physical and those who cultivate the life of the mind. That is, the most brilliant Greek philologists seemed no more impressive in their aptitude than the fellow who could take apart the transmission of an old Italian Oliver tractor, fix it, and put it back together--without a manual. And I knew three or four who could. The inept mechanic seemed no more dull than the showy graduate student who could not distinguish an articular infinitive from an accusative of respect.

Well said.

For most of you readers, all this is trite and self-evident. But apparently not for hundreds in politics, the media, the universities, Hollywood, and the foundations who seem to think that a fumbling nervous Obama in interviews, who grasps for a word and utters vacuous platitudes is "really" contemplative, like his Harvard Law professors; but when a Sarah Palin seems nervous under scrutiny from a pseudo-professorial, glasses-on-the-lower-nose Charlie Gibson, she is clearly an empty head with an Idaho BA.

Even better said.

A Ronald Reagan knew more about human nature, and thus what drives the Soviet Union than did all the Ivy-League Soviet specialists that surrounded Jimmy Carter-much less the Sally Quinns and Maureen Dowds of that age. We in America, unlike the Europeans, know this intuitively, grasp that a Harry Truman figured out the Russian communists far better than did the Harvard-educated aristocrat FDR.

A knowledge of history - demonstrated.

What is wisdom?

Not necessarily degrees, glibness, poise, or factual recall, but the ability to understand human nature. And that requires two simple things: an inductive method of reasoning to look at the world empirically, and a body of knowledge and experience to draw on for guidance.

Palin in empirical fashion bucked the Republican establishment and the old-boy network when she thought it was unreasonable; Obama never figured out or at least never questioned Tony Rezko or the Chicago machine, Trinity Church or the Pelosi-Kennedy liberal mantra--unless it proved advantageous.

I wish there were more writers like Hanson.  I wish I could point to one prominent newspaper editor in the United States and say he's the equal of Hanson.  But we live in an age where wisdom is defined by the diploma on the wall and the quickness of the insult.  If you don't believe that, look at American history, and contemplate the names of those who'd be laughed out of the room by today's elites.  Start with Andrew Jackson, then list Lincoln, then continue with both Roosevelts, and include Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

That tells the story.

September 23, 2008.      Permalink          

 FRAUD!

Posted at 6:56 a.m. ET

We've discussed this periodically at Urgent Agenda as one of the factors that can influence a close election in November - voter fraud.

Now the McCain campaign has gone public with its concerns.  Former Senators Warren Rudman and John Danforth, men of fine reputation, are running the campaign's Open and Honest Elections Committee, and, in a conference call with reporters yesterday, expressed worry that "honest" and "open" might not always apply on this election day:

Both Rudman and Danforth voiced concern that there is or may be a pattern of registering people who are not entitled to vote, noting that of particular concern is an organization called The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

“We are concerned that ACORN has been connected with Senator [Barack] Obama and that he has ties to it,” said Danforth. “He directed something called Project Vote; he taught classes for future leaders that are identified by ACORN; and he has represented ACORN in court in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois. ACORN’s political action committee has endorsed Senator Obama.”

Danforth expressed alarm that ACORN has been bringing in large numbers of names, many who are not qualified to vote, and the practice may be “gumming” up the system. He added that after the enactment of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, there has been a requirement for statewide computerization of registered voters and that the local overseers may become overwhelmed by the sheer numbers being put forth by ACORN.

ACORN has had a number of brushes with the law.  The strength of that statement by John Danforth, a man known for his mildness, should worry us all.  But it goes on:

Between Danforth and Rudman, they ticked off an inventory of what they perceived as likely trouble spots:

In Ohio in the last election, there were four counties where voter registration exceeded the number of voting-age people in the counties.

In Colorado, ACORN registered some individuals 40 separate times. Danforth noted that the ACORN director in Ohio played this down, saying in effect just because you register somebody 35 times doesn’t mean that they get to vote 35 times. “So, a fairly cavalier attitude,” he concluded.

In Nevada, nearly 1,000 felons were illegally registered to vote in 2004.

In Washington state, felony charges were brought against ACORN workers and some went to jail.

On Sept. 18th in The Washington Post, an article pointed out the danger that Election Day could become a real mess because of the applications turned in for registration of people who are not entitled to vote.

In Michigan, ACORN enrolled 200,000 voters and a spokesman for the secretary of state of Michigan has said that there appears to be a sizable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications.

The Clark County, Nev., registrar claims that there has been rampant fraud, and counts roughly 40 percent of registration applications submitted by ACORN from January through July had been rejected or questioned.

And that list goes on.  You might wish to read the whole bill of particulars.

“Our concern is that if this is a close election ... and if one side believes it has been cheated ... it is going to be harder to heal the wounds that are created at election time,” said Danforth.

But here is the tragedy:  If voter fraud is widespread, you may never know about it.  The very journalists who are putting Barack Obama in the White House will be the ones charged with bringing fraud to light.  How enthusiastic do you think they'll be?

And fraud will most likely center around minority voters.  Just the image of widespread probes of minority voting patterns right after America elects its first black president will be too much for the liberal press to bear.  The cry of "racism" will immediately be heard.  Even a defeated John McCain might, despite all evidence, choose not to pursue the matter, for fear of being labeled a "killer of the dream."

That is the way the game is played. 

Obama's support is centered in large cities with a history of voting "irregularities."  He is a product of the Chicago machine, where the dearly departed express their preferences on each election day, proving the Truth of life after death. 

Danforth and Rudman are not men who make wild charges.  This could be a scandalous election, but you may never know it.

September 23, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER 22,  2008

SARAH

Posted at 7:56 p.m. ET

I have not done this before - printed a full text of a speech, the way The New York Times did when it was still a great newspaper.  But a disgraceful event in New York this past week has suppressed this speech, and I will not have it. 

As many of you know, Sarah Palin was invited to address an anti-Ahmadinejad rally outside the UN, and accepted.  Hillary Clinton had also accepted, but, as soon as she learned Sarah was to appear, she pulled out, which says a great deal about her priorities.  Intense pressure was then placed on the inviting organizations - including, apparently, a threat to review their tax status - unless they disinvited Sarah Palin.  Eventually, they caved.  Sarah did not appear.  Had she done so, her speech would have gotten worldwide publicity.  But petty politics, and the obvious fact that many Democrats really don't care about the Iranian threat, intervened.

Here is the speech Sarah Palin would have delivered had her invitation not been withdrawn.  It is reprinted from the New York Sun.  I cannot guarantee that she wrote it herself.  That's unimportant.  She would have given it, and it would have been a great occasion for the forces of light.  Please read:

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

And thank you, Governor Palin.  You would have been applauded by some members of the other party - Roosevelt, Truman, Jack Kennedy, Henry Jackson, Pat Moynihan.  But they are no longer with us.

September 22, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:07 P.M. ET:   The WMUR/Granite State Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center shows that 47 percent of likely voters plan to vote for McCain, with 45 percent saying they plan to vote for Obama. The poll of 523 likely voters was conducted From Sept. 14 to Sept. 21 and has a margin of sampling error of 4.3 percent. 

COMMENT:  Could be important for McCain, if it holds, and if it's accurate.  The key to all these state polls is the consistent closeness of the race in most battleground states.  New Hampshire is a battleground state.

UPDATE AT 6:37 P.M. ET:  New state polls are out, following a reasonably familiar pattern.  Rasmussen has McCain up four in Ohio, five in Florida and two in Virginia.  He has Obama up three in Pennsylvania and seven in Michigan.  The surprise here is Michigan, which has been much closer in other polls.  If McCain can take either Pennsylvania or Michigan, he'd turn this around.  But "if" is the biggest word in Politics, and so far Obama has stubbornly held onto leads. 

NOTE AT 5:07 P.M. ET:  I find it remarkable that there are so few questions about the timing of the financial meltdown last week - right in the middle of a presidential campaign.  I make no accusations.  I have no inside information.  Maybe it's entirely coincidental.  At the same time, markets can be manipulated, and some of that manipultion can be done from abroad.  It seems to me that any journalistic or legal investigation of the meltdown must "follow the money," and determine whether "financial terrorism" was in any way involved.  That's the only way to avoid unwarranted conspiracy theories. 

UPDATE AT 4:58 P.M. ET:  A new CNN/Opinion Research poll just published has Obama up four.  It does appear, based on the consenses of polls, that Obama now has a small but solid lead in the race, possibly 3-5 points.  While reversible, the history of this campaign shows that only an "event" can dislodge voters.  The selection of Sarah Palin is an example.  The next event will be Friday's presidential debate, followed six days later by the vice presidential debate.  Then the election will be a month away.  If Obama's lead survives the debates, I suspect Senator McCain will have a very difficult time.  But underestimating McCain hasn't been too healthy a practice for some pundits, so be optimistic. 

OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION FROM BILL CLINTON, AT 4:06 P.M. ET:  Despite saying she would accept the offer to be vice president, Hillary Clinton never really wanted to be Barack Obama's running mate, her husband former President Bill Clinton told ABC's The View.

Oh.

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:52 p.m. ET

(Please note that an earlier error in "Trackers" has been corrected.  Battleground has McCain up one, not Obama, as earlier reported.  UA regrets the error.)

Three of the four available trackers for the day have been published, essentially showing no change.  Rasmussen has Obama up one, and Gallup has him up four.  Battleground has McCain up one.  In a way, the national polling news over the last few days has been reasonable for McCain.  The slippage he suffered last week appears to have stopped, but more days of polling will be needed to demonstrate that. 

Only the Hotline poll for today is yet to be published.

There are some new state polls, though, and unfortunately they're not encouraging.  Obama is up six in Virginia - one poll only - and eight in Minnesota.  Recent polls have had McCain up inVirginia, and have shown Minnesota to be competitive.  A North Carolina poll has McCain up three, but he should be further ahead there.  A poll in Pennsylvania has Obama up two.  There may be hope there.

This remains a tight race.   Whoever wins the electoral college may do it by piling up two- and three-point margins in a number of states.  The bottom line is that we've returned to a pattern we saw before the convention - McCain is close, but Obama is ahead, and close doesn't count in politics. 

UPDATE AT 2:10 p.m. ET:  Hotline is now out, showing Obama up five.  He was up one in this poll yesterday.  This jump is unexplainable, and is not matched by the other trackers.  We'll have to follow Hotline over four days or so.

Only one national poll, Battleground, has McCain leading.

September 22, 2008.       Permalink          
 

BULLETIN AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  First tracker of the day is out.  Rasmussen shows results identical with those of the last few days - Obama up one.  This is four days before the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday night in Mississippi.

Three other trackers for the day have yet to be released.

UPDATE AT 9:43 A.M.:  Battleground tracker just released has McCain up one.

MAGNIFICENT

Posted at 7:41 a.m. ET

It was actually published a few days ago, but I have held this piece by Bill Whittle until Monday morning, when it could get maximum exposure at Urgent Agenda.  It is a superb rendering of the stakes in this election, and I urge you to read it:

On February 9th, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.

It's known as the Oxford Students' Oath, and it was noticed in Berlin. 

I live a few miles from Santa Monica High School, in California. There, young men and women are taught that America is “a terrorist nation,” “one of the worst regimes in history,” that it’s twice-elected leader is “the son of the devil,” and dictator of this “fascist” country. Further, “patriotism” is taught by dragging an American flag across the classroom floor, because the nation’s truest patriots, as we should know by now, are those who are most able to despise it.

And some of the most enthusiastic students drive to school in BMWs.

Two generations, now, are being raised on this poison, and the reason for that is this: the enemies of this city cannot come out and simply say, “Do not defend the city.” Even the smartest among us can see that is simple treason. But they can say, “The City is not worth defending.” So they say that, and they say that all the time and in as many different ways as they are able.

And...

The pattern is always the same: at the height of a civilization’s powers something catastrophic seems to occur — a loss of will, a failure of nerve, and above all an unwillingness to identify with the values and customs that have produced such wonders.

And there are the usual suspects.

I sit with others in darkened rooms, watching films like Redacted, Stop-Loss, and In the Valley of Elah, and see our brave young soldiers depicted as murderers, rapists, broken psychotics or ignorant dupes –visions foisted upon me by bitter and isolated millionaires such as Brian de Palma and Paul Haggis and all the rest.

I’ve been told this story in some form or another, every day of every week of the past 30 years of my life. It wasn’t always so.

But who can stop it, this rush into decline?

And standing against all this hypnotic power — the power of the mythmakers in Hollywood, the power of the information peddlers in the media, the corrosive power of America-hating professors on every campus in America… against all that we find an old warrior — a paladin if ever there was one — an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time. And beside him: a wonder. A common person… just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.

What becomes of those two?

No wonder they must be destroyed. Because — Sarah Palin especially — presents a mortal threat to these people who have determined over cocktails who the next President should be and who now clearly mean to grind into metal shards the transaxle of their credibility in order to get the result they must have. Truly, they are before our eyes destroying the machine they have built in order to get their victory. What the hell is so threatening to be worth that?

Only this: the living proof that they are not needed...

...Not needed. We can do it — and do it better — without all of them.

Are you cheering?  If not, you're not breathing.

Civilizations fall only because each citizen of the city comes to accept that nothing can be done to rally and rebuild broken walls; that ground lost may never be recovered; and that greatness lived in our grandparents but not our grandchildren. Yes, our betters tell us these things daily. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe it.

A great conclusion:

It is the small-town virtues of self-reliance, hard work, personal responsibility, and common-sense ingenuity — and not those of the preening cosmopolitans that gape at them in mixed contempt and bafflement — that have made us the inheritors of the most magnificent, noble, decent and free society ever to appear on this earth. This Western Civilization… this American City… has earned the right to greet each sunrise with a blast of silver trumpets that can bring down mountains.

And what, really, is a Legion of Narcissists and a Confederacy of Despair against that?

Nothing more need be said.  Save this one.  Great writing by someone who understands what this year is about.

September 22, 2008.      Permalink          

WOMEN

Posted at 6:28 a.m. ET

We can now say with a high degree of certainty that it is possible to speak to American women without the permission of Gloria Steinem.  This will come as a shock to Ms. Steinem and her humorless brigades, but it is true.

The Politico reports on a survey that shows Sarah power is having its impact.  We smile, we rejoice:

Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, he has erased Barack Obama’s once-commanding lead as the candidate seen by women as having a “better understanding of women and what is important” to them, a new poll of likely female voters shows.

Sen. McCain now has a two point advantage – 44 to 42 percent – over his Democratic rival on that score, according to the poll conducted by pollsters Kellyanne Conway and Celinda Lake for Lifetime Television. In a July poll by Lifetime, Sen. Obama was seen as more empathetic to women’s concerns, by 52 to 18 percent over McCain.

If McCain/Palin can pull this election off, Sarah becomes the most powerful woman in America, and she didn't have to marry the governor of Arkansas to get there.

In this latest poll, conducted Sept. 11-15, age remained a key determinant in response to the question about women’s concerns. Young women, ages 18-34, chose the Obama/Biden ticket as more empathetic to their needs, while women aged 35-64 went for McCain/Palin. Unlike black and Hispanic women, white women saw McCain and Palin as most understanding of their concerns.

In addition, about one in four women who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries said McCain and Palin have a better grasp of women’s needs than Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.

Okay, those are attitudes.  The bottom line is votes.  How did that come out?

The survey comes as women overall favor the Democratic ticket, 48 to 44 percent, according to the weekly summaries of Gallup polling. That marks a wider margin than Democrats enjoyed in 2004 on Election Day, but less than in 2000.

And the Dems lost both times. 

The Sarah phenomenon was temporarily derailed last week by the financial crisis, and yet she drew some of the largest crowds of the campaign.  One rally in Florida had some 60,000 cheering Sarah fans, according to one knowledgeable source.

The next ten days, building to the vice-presidential debate on Thursday, October 2nd, will be crucial.  The Republicans must put their new star front and center, and let her do her thing.  She must also get through the debate and hold her own.  I have a gut feeling she may do much more.

September 22, 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 should John McCain's strategy be until election day?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

How would you explain to an angry, disillusioned foreigner why Barack Obama lost the election?

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

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