ConfirmThem

Nice and declaratively, too.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Bring it.

To the extent that national security plays a role in this election--and unlike many observers, I am not convinced that it will not play a significant role--it should be recalled over and over and over again that when it came to discussing and analyzing the prospects of the troop surge in Iraq and the implementation of the attendant counterinsurgency strategy, one side got it right and another got it completely and entirely wrong.

Each side is represented by one major party candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I've called the attention of readers to this before, but consider once again the words of Machiavelli:

Of no little importance to a prince is his choice of ministers, who are good or bad according to the prince's intelligence. In forming an opinion about a ruler's brains, the first thing is to look at the men he has around him, for when they are adequate and loyal he can be considered prudent, because he recognizes those who are competent and keeps them loyal. When they are otherwise, the prince is always to be estimated low, because the first error he makes, he makes in choosing advisers.

If Machiavelli was right, then when one goes into the voting booth, one ought to recall both which candidate showed the most impressive amount of brainpower both when it came to predicting and gauging the surge's success and when it came to selecting friends with the best judgment possible on the surge's success. The candidate who scored the highest in this competition has a strong claim to being the one best prepared to take on the challenges and rigors of the Presidency.

And fortunately, Peter Wehner identifies who that candidate is in the link above.

That appears to be what has been established between the United States and Iraq in figuring out the future status of American forces in Iraq and when those forces may ultimately be able to come home. For more on this issue, you should make sure to check out this interivew between NBC's Andrea Mitchell and General David Petraeus:

I can see myself signing on to a plan with "aspirational goals" concerning the future of American troops in Iraq. But hard and fast timetables with dates will only serve to give remaining insurgent and terrorist forces the information they need to wait out American forces and then run rampant once the United States leaves. There must remain significant amounts of flexibility in any plan to allow for adaptations to changes in conditions, as General Petraeus points out in his interview with Andrea Mitchell. The absence of such flexibility will not only make any agreement not worth the paper that it is written on, it will actively work to undermine both American and Iraqi security interests.

Do I really care whether or not Sam Nunn referred to the Czech Republic and/or Slovakia by the outdated name of Czechoslovakia?

No. No, I do not. It was likely an honest mistake, the kind we make all the time no matter how smart we are.

But of course, the fact that John McCain used the name "Czechoslovakia" out of habit caused a brand new spate of "John McCain is senile/losing it/not smart enough to be President" stories. I await with eagerness similar stories to come out about Sam Nunn and his fitness for serving as Vice President or Secretary of State/Defense in an Obama Administration. Not to mention stories wondering why Barack Obama relies on an adviser who believes that "Czechoslovakia" is still extant as a geopolitical entity.

I mean, turnabout is still fair play, is it not?

Putting some numbers on the size of the hill we must climb

The easiest way to measure the overall partisan makeup of the country is to ask people. Many pollsters do this with regularity. Rasmussen does this on a monthly basis with a massive sample. Here are some of those numbers:

DATE YEAR: R% D% I% Diff%
Nov 2004: 37.1 38.6 24.3 -1.6
Nov 2006: 31.4 37.5 31.2 -6.1
Nov 2007: 32.5 37.4 30.2 -4.9

Jan 2008: 33.1 38.7 28.2 -5.6
Feb 2008: 31.8 41.5 26.7 -9.7
Mar 2008: 32.1 41.1 26.8 -9.1
Apr 2008: 31.4 41.4 27.2 -10.0
May 2008: 31.6 41.7 26.6 -10.1
Jun 2008: 31.5 41.0 27.5 -9.5

From 2004 to 2006, Rs disappeared by Ds stayed about the same. Since 2006, Rs have stayed about the same but Ds have gained. Overall, we have moved from close to parity to a Dem lead of 10 points. But these are national numbers, and we all know that states are what matters.

So I was happy to see someone took the time to find voter registration numbers on a state-by-state basis:

Let's start with the bad news. In the pivotal swing state that Sen. Obama is supposedly doing poor in (Pennsylvania), Democrats have moved from a 500,000 person advantage to a 1,000,000 person advantage. Kerry won by 144,000. Obama must do significantly worse among Democrats to lose the state.

This data also helps explain how Iowa went from swing to probably uncontested from 2004 to 2008. Bush won by 10,000 votes when there was a 4,000 person R advantage. Now there is a 90,000 person D advantage. Ouch.

There is some other rather harsh news in Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado.

The bright spots are where Rs have lost only minimal ground. In Florida, a loss of net 20,000 voters is insignificant and quite surprising considering the state just legalized voting for ex-felons. As the country has shifted D, FL has not followed. With its size and growth rate, that's very good news for the GOP over the next decade.

In Arizona, the changes were also small compared to the state. And with the impressive registration efforts of legal immigrants going on in Southwestern states, it's good news that the GOP is not losing party registration ground.

New Mexico posted a net gain for the GOP by an insignificant margin. The problem here remains that Democrats hold a 190,000 person edge in a state of 1,000,000 people (19% difference). That's a huge advantage to start with, but at least it did not get any worse.

And in my current home of North Carolina, there is similar news. It is the only state to see a decent increase in the number of Rs but the Ds swamped that increase and moved their margin up to an impressive 700,000 person advantage. That's big (11% difference). And it shows a stop in the slow alignment of former Southern "conservative" Democrats away from the Ds.

Overall, it is mostly bad news. This isn't surprising given the national numbers. There are spots of hope. But at some point, the GOP will have to wake up and start on the boring work of going door-to-door and winning converts. And the optimistic among us can hope this is the D's peak and that all things that go up, must come down.

"don't know much about history..."

Barack Obama has apparently given up on the idea of attempting to draw parallels between himself and John F. Kennedy by going to Berlin. (Not to say there aren't obvious parallels: unprepared and feckless to be sure but too early to have the Bay of Pigs.) He's still going to Berlin. And we're informed that he will bring his HOPECHANGE carnie act to the Siegessäule. The Victory Monument.

The next round in Germany's favorite parlor game - where will Barack Obama give his public speech during his visit here next week - is under way.

All bets are now riding on the Victory Column in the former West Berlin, with the Brandenburg Gate visible less than a kilometer and a half, or a mile, away in the distance. The Obama campaign has yet to announce a location and declined to comment on the reports.

In 1985, Ronald Reagan paid a visit to Bitburg cemeteryin the, then, Bundesrepublik Deutschland. A crap storm ensued because some of the German war dead in the cemetery were Waffen SS.

The Siegessäule, as the name implies, was built to honor "victory." Now which victory, we have a right to ask, has Germany had since Blücher, (Field Marshal not Frau) saved Wellington's bacon at Waterloo that an American politician would wish to be associated with?

In this case apparently three of them appeal to the Obama campaign. The Danish-Prussian War, when Prussia forever removed the threat of Danish hegemony from Europe and snapped up the Danish duchies of Schleswig and Holstein in the process. The Austro-Prussian War in which Prussia snapped up a handful of German principalities. And the Franco-Prussian War in which Prussia eliminated the remainder of the German statelets and took Alsace and Lorraine from France in the bargain.

And we all thought Obama was going to be a wuss on defense policy.

This would be the old one-two, you see.

One:

....aannnnnnd then Two:

http://www.redstate.com/static/redstate/doc/2008/07/18/OBAMA_TRAVEL_PACKET.doc

I don't know which is going to tick off Obama supporters more - and truth be told? I can't say that I remotely care. Hey, it's not my fault that the Democrats seem ready to nominate a candidate who, if they had cut Hillary Clinton in half, would have ended up being the third most qualified national security choice among the Democrats...

Moe Lane

*Surely you have heard of "Giving Him the Business." No?

Mind you, it's not a perfect match: after all, Obama deserves every single bit of it.

Not If, But When

Not if, but when Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites is the premise of the Op-Ed piece by Benny Morris in the New York Times:

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders.

In the end Morris suggests that the Israeli conventional strike will not be enough dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear ambitions and that Israel will find itself compelled to nuke Iran's nuclear sites.

Morris predicts Israel will strike within "the next four to seven months." That would be just before or just after our presidential election, but before the next president takes office. Just imagine the impact a pre-election strike and the aftermath might have on the U.S. election.

Read the whole thing.

And Why Redstate Is More Important Than Ever

I want to congratulate Redstate for its four year anniversary and the launch of this great new iteration of the website. Redstate has proven to be an essential way for elected leaders to communicate with their constituents and Erick Erickson and his team deserve praise for creating such a forum.

It is ironic, then, that on the fourth anniversary of Redstate’s launch, some in Congress are working to build a digital wall between Washington and the American people.

I know this has been covered here already, but for those unfamiliar, the Chairman of the Committee of House Administration (CHA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), is trying to regulate members’ use of video sharing sites like YouTube. However, there is no reason the legislative precedent could not set the stage for similar laws that would apply to non-video social media websites as well (especially considering most social websites feature all manner of media).

Congressman Capuano and Senator Diane Feinstein will reportedly introduce legislation, supported by many of their left-wing allies, which would empower CHA or another House entity to determine what websites can be used by members and which cannot. The truly Orwellian aspect of their effort is that it is under the guise of making it easier for members to post videos.

It is difficult to imagine rules so contrary to the spirit of the entire concept of social media websites than laws determining who can and cannot use them and in what manner they can be used. (The proposed rules also seem to fly in the face of the spirit of free speech in a representative democracy, but we may have crossed that bridge a long time ago when so-called campaign finance laws were first enacted.)

Aside from the affront to free speech, several of the proposed guidelines are extraordinarily impractical. One would prevent videos from being posted on sites where it may appear with “commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House’s content guidelines.” One must wonder if Congressman Capuano and Senator Feinstein are aware of the ubiquity of banner ads on the internet. Now, large, rich social networking sites like YouTube or Facebook may be able to set up special, commercial free zones for Congressmen, but what about start-ups and niche sites that need all the revenue from ads just to continue service?

But let’s be clear about what this effort is. It is not a misguided attempt at good government; it is a first step toward reasserting the fairness doctrine and continuing the strangling of free speech. It is part of a disturbing erosion of the capacity for average Americans without great wealth or status to fully participate in the political process.

The internet had emerged over the past decade as a realm refreshingly free of this sort of oppressive government tampering. As a result, online activism and political discussion have flourished. Thanks to websites like Redstate, YouTube, and a host of others, average Americans without lobbyists can gain access to their representatives that they never had before, and our elected leaders and non-incumbent candidates can reach more people, easier, and cheaper. They have allowed activists to quickly organize and petition their government.

In sum, the openness of the internet has leveled the field between those entrenched in government power and those seeking real change. It is no wonder then that those on the Left who constantly yearn to maximize the power of the state over the lives of Americans would seek to start enacting laws to protect them from the “whims” of their constituents.

I encourage the members of Redstate to fight back against this direct attack on our rights. In doing so we should work with bloggers and other online activists on the Left, who, despite our many differences, do share with us a belief that the internet should be kept a free speech zone. And who knows, a victory in stopping this government intrusion on our rights online could lead to a rollback in the many intrusions on our free speech offline.

Congratulations again on your fourth anniversary. The new website looks wonderful. And I look forward to engaging you in the future.

Promoted from RedHot to the front page because Moe kept goading me.

2002: Martyr to scurrilous Republican attacks

2004: Absolute moral authority

2008: Under the Obama bus.

This explains a lot. I thought Obama was just a flip-flop wearing effete metrosexual. No, his sister says Obama is a feminist who "lives surrounded by women."

But here is the really interesting part.

She said he taught her to ride a bicycle, made her practice harder math problems and start an exercise program, took her on college visits and even *gave her her first women's health book - "Our Bodies, Ourselves," a 1973 guide that came out of the women's movement and focused on female sexuality, health and hygiene.*

Just look at the cover to get an idea of the book. The reviews are even more eye opening. One guy blames the book for starting his wife down the path to divorce. And there's this masterful description:

Twelve women meet during a women's liberation conference in Boston. At a workshop on "women and their bodies," they talk about their own experiences with doctors and share their knowledge about their bodies. The discussions at the conference are so provocative and fulfilling that the following summer, each woman researches a health topic close to her heart. They decide to put their knowledge into an accessible form that can be shared with others and that can serve as a model for women who want to learn about themselves, communicate their findings with doctors, and challenge the medical establishment to change and improve the care that women receive.

Barry is perfectly willing to give his sister a book that is not really the type of book you'd think most brothers would give to their sisters. Good for him, I guess, but I suppose I was raised in a more traditional America where boys don't give their sisters books that discuss their private anatomy.

That Obama would be labeled a dedicated feminist by his sister and give her a book like this, is yet another layer of evidence that Obama really is at home with the far left in this country.

But don't trouble yourself Doug. Obama will whisper sweet nothings in your ear when he signs legislation expanding abortion rights.

Within margin-of-error in July

A Public Opinion Strategies poll declares the WI-08 Congressional race between John Gard and Rep. Steve Kagen a statistical dead-heat. Kagen leads Gard 46%-42% with a 4.9% margin-of-error. Pollster Gene Ulm [PDF] pointed out a few interesting tidbits from the numbers:

• Undecided voters are "pre-disposted to vote against Kagen."
• Sen. John McCain leads Sen. Barack Obama in the district 46%-41%.
• Gard has great name recognition before running ads.

This is great news for Gard on top of his second quarter fundraising advantage over Kagen. Gard will be able to raise plenty of money to be competitive, he has the name recognition, and he's running in a district sympathetic to McCain and Republicans. This is a race the GOP can and should win. Even if you're no where near Wisconsin you can help out his campaign by signing up for his e-mail list and donate to Gard's campaign. Nationalizing this race will give Gard a much better chance to retake this normally-Republican Congressional seat.

You'd think that he'd have better speechwriters by now.

Here's the quote - yes, of course it's Barack Obama and his apparent Natsec Ignorance Field. You had to ask?

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

And here's Dean Barnett's well-aimed sneer regarding it:

Aaah yes – "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor." Who can forget that? It was the big one, the one that took out all those boats. I guess Obama's political correctness prevents him from noting someone actually dropped "the bomb" and it didn't just fall.

This is a surprising error for a Hawaii native (via the great Kansas heartland) to make. Perhaps Obama was merely confused, as he and his surrogates so often accuse John McCain of being.

My turn after the fold.

First off, I think that Dean's making a slight mistake: it's unlikely that this represents direct personal ignorance on Obama's part. After all, it's not like anybody would actually let the junior Senator from Illniois write his own speeches. We've got quite the history by now of what happens when the man has to talk on his own, which is the major reason why he ran away like a scared rabbit at the very hint of actually having to participate in unscripted town hall meetings with McCain. So he probably didn't come up with this howler on his own...

...but he really should have caught it. Or somebody really should have caught it. "{T}he bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor" is at best a decidedly clumsy way of putting things: in this culture, when someone talks about a singular-bomb falling on a specific place, he's not trying to evoke the image of Coventry. He's trying to evoke the image of Hiroshima. This rather bald statement will make the Obama supporters pout, whine, and try to explain, but at the end of the day it really is at best, ah, an inartful thing to say. At worst it's merely yet another one of the results of our marvelously inept public school system, not to mention a reminder that progressives don't like to read history books. For the record, I'm guessing that it was the former; I'm a charitable sort, and I'd like to think that a sitting US Senator and his staff were merely being exceedingly sloppy, instead of pig-ignorant about elementary details of modern American history.

I suppose that what all this comes back to is what many people have noticed about the Obama campaign: they're exceptionally arrogant sorts. They surely understand that the American public does not assume that Democrats know anything about national security, thus making it necessary for them to be twice as careful than the GOP on avoiding obvious natsec and military-related gaffes. At least, again, I hope so, for essentially the same reason as above. But if they understand this, they seem to not particularly care: because this isn't the first time that they've opened themselves up to criticism like this, and it certainly won't be the last.

All of which would be unimportant, no doubt, if it was October and Obama was ahead by 12. It being July and +4.8 (translation: early, and not promising for him), well...

Moe Lane

McCain Embracing Pro-Lifers, Obama Changing The Subject

So, what position on abortion is a greater asset in a national election? Well, you could look at history - abortion wasn't really a sharp distinction in 1976, the first election after Roe, but since then the four candidates to win popular majorities all did so as pro-lifers. Assuming that the candidates' rhetoric on the trail is some indicator of where they think popular sentiment lies, let's compare and contrast their recent moves on this.

First, John McCain:

Sen. John McCain went out of his way to speak against abortion twice today at a town hall meeting before a friendly audience that vigorously applauded a range of conservative proposals. It's a subject he rarely raises on the campaign trail unless asked directly about it...

+++

The first question concerned sexually graphic material on the Internet. McCain segued from that to abortion.

"I also would like to say one other thing very quickly to you - that is I am proud of my record of protecting and advocating the rights of the unborn. I believe this is also an important issue," he said. He said the noblest words every written were the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

"Life means the rights of the born and the unborn," he said. "You can count on my active advocacy for the rights of the unborn."

He also criticized his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, for opposing a ban on a late-term procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion."

"My friends, that's a hideous procedure. It should never be allowed any place on earth," he said told several hundred supporters gathered at the historic Union Station.

Obama has said he wants an exception for the health of the mother.

Later, McCain was questioned by a woman who said she gave her son up for adoption and was trying to get him back. She asked what McCain would do to protect rights of birth parents. McCain spoke of his strong support of adoption and also volunteered that he would continue to protect the rights of "the born and the unborn."

Now, Barack Obama:

On June 23, Barack Obama kicked off a "discussion for working women" with a speech directed at working mothers that criticized John McCain for his support of conservative judges, decisions and legislation.

But he didn't once mention or even allude to abortion or Roe v. Wade. Instead, he keyed in on [Lily] Ledbetter, the woman whose suit against Goodyear for pay discrimination was thrown out by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision last year delivered by Justice Samuel Alito. The decision upheld a lower court's ruling that she only had 180 days after she was hired to discover the pay disparity and file suit.

Meanwhile, Obama has tried backpedaling so much from his prior record of extremism in defense of late-term abortions that Jan Crawford Greenburg has noted that his current position, if he actually meant it, would require him to oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act," of which he is currently a co-sponsor.

There's layers of irony to Obama's focus on equal pay and Ledbetter. One is that Obama himself has consistently paid the women on his own staff less. His followers would doubtless explain that there are perfectly logical reasons for this, but those are precisely the explanations Obama and his followers would deny to businesses. Another is the contrast between Roe, which bulldozed scores of democratically elected statutes without any textual support and created a cast-in-stone Constitutional rule that can be fixed only by overruling by the Court or by Constitutional amendment, and Ledbetter, which construed a Congressionally-enacted statute and can, if there is sufficient support, be overturned by another such statute without the need to get the Court involved. Such is frequently the distinction between Right and Left on judicial business.

But the bottom line of this contrast between the candidates remains: McCain feels the need to cater to pro-lifers. Obama feels the need to cater to pro-lifers and to moderates on life issues. Nobody feels the need to cater to NARAL in a general election.

I'm amused that you forgot that pot and kettle analogy

Apparently, our dear incompetent Nancy Pelosi believes President Bush...personally...is a complete failure:

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

Funny... the Democrat media wing (aka National Public Radio) says Congressional approval is lower than Bush's. Seems to me Nancy didn't get that memo. In fact, it seems Nancy is under the impression that the Democrats are running against GWB in 2008, given how much time and energy they spend trashing the guy leaving instead of focusing on the next one coming in. Poor, poor, pitiful Pelosi.

Her stick buddy in the Senate has similar delusions. In the same article, the Reidster is quoted thusly:

"Who would be afraid of him?" Reid, D-Nev., said as many senators looked on. "He's got a 29 percent approval rating."

If the criteria for political fear is based on approval ratings, ol' Harry and Nance must be scared to death right now...of themselves.

What they have to show for their ...ahem... "leadership in the majority" is a doubling of gas prices, a crumbling economy, a war that has succeeded IN SPITE of their sorry selves, and a bunch of renamed Post Offices.

Total failure? I think we know who that label really belongs to.

Congratulations to RedState on their 4th anniversary of providing informed, conservative commentary on all the issues that confront our country. I’m pleased to join many of my GOP colleagues to help launch RedState 3.0 and thought I’d use this opportunity today to post on the number one domestic concern of Americans across the country – high gas prices.

For decades, many Washington Democrats have embarked on an unbridled mission to limit nearly all forms of increased domestic energy supply. The Democrat presidential nominee defined their mission concisely in what he dubbed a “gradual adjustment” to high gas prices. The “gradual adjustment” approach contends that limiting supply over a period of time will cause an increase in price, which will eventually force Americans to discontinue use of traditional energy sources because they can no longer afford them.  In short, these Democrats appear to believe that when American consumers are priced out of a gallon of gas, America will cease to have an energy problem.

For these Washington Democrats, the acknowledgement of basic supply and demand is refreshing, but their shortsightedness has overlooked this inarguable truth: in 2008, Americans drive cars, and cars run on gas. American families simply cannot afford to pay these astronomical gas prices and Republicans will not sit idly while Democrats continue to treat Americans’ financial burden as the price of admission for a “new energy economy.”

Fortunately, Senate Republicans are gaining traction with the Gas Price Reduction Act. This bill is comprised of just a few ideas. But, taken together, these proposals will address the problem head on. They include deep-sea exploration, lifting a Democrat-imposed ban on development of the promising and plentiful oil shale deposits in western states, and increased incentives for the development of plug-in electric cars and trucks. The bill also includes provisions to strengthen U.S. futures markets.

Despite the Senate Democrat leadership’s latest half-day solution to our year-round problem, many rank-and-file Senate Democrats are beginning to acknowledge the need to expand domestic supply. In fact, recent polling conducted by Pew Research Center indicates that self-described liberals’ support for increased domestic exploration has jumped from 22 percent to 45 percent, more than doubling in just four months time.

Public opinion is a powerful motivator and thanks to RedState and our vibrant conservative online community, you’re helping to deliver a powerful message from Americans who are struggling to pay high prices at the gas pump.  Senate Republicans are listening and we are ready to act. It’s time to get the message out and provide the American people with a balanced energy solution that will bring down skyrocketing gas prices without raising taxes or driving American jobs overseas.

Happy Birthday and congratulations, RedState! In just four short years, Erick and the other main contributors at Red State have established a first-class reputation for creating insightful conversation about some of the most important issues facing our nation. Your message never fails to promote unlimited freedom through a limited government, traditional values, and economic opportunity – the core principles that we need to advocate if we are going to keep America free. The efforts of Red State writers, readers, and contributors play a crucial role in the great experiment known as democracy.

As America chooses a new President and decides who should control Congress this fall, your effort has never been more important. Democrats promise to retreat from the battle against radical jihad, to erase God from the public square, and to expand the heavy hand of government in your daily life – paid for by increasing taxes on every hardworking American. Meanwhile, not only do they continue to ignore the pain that Americans face each day at the pump, the refuse to join our effort to lift restrictions on exploration for energy off our shores, in the intermountain West, and in arctic Alaska. They refuse to call for a reduction in the number of boutique fuels and expansion of domestic refining capacity. And they refuse to admit that the forces of supply and demand play the largest role in determining the prices we pay to fill our gas tanks. Instead, as Americans were struggling to pay for rising health care, fuel, and groceries, Democrats were busy passing the largest tax increase in American history.

Liberal organizations like Moveon.org are actively recruiting followers and becoming larger players in elections both on the national and local level. The left has successfully incorporated a strong netroots strategy into their election playbook. Friends, I know I’m preaching to the choir, but we must do the same. The time has come for GOP grassroots activists to fight back and galvanize around the core issues that make us proud to be conservatives. If we are to ever earn back the trust of our fellow citizens, if we are to win in November, we need to ensure that we make every effort to effectively communicate our message to all Americans, and equip them with the tools to spread the message of liberty and freedom. With the launch RedState 3.0, I know that you will be at the forefront of our efforts, and I am convinced that your success will only continue to increase.

I appreciate RedState and congratulate you for continuing to be at the front of our netroots efforts. Each day, as Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, I promise to fight for our conservative principles in the House of Representatives. I know that I can count on the support of RedState and all of its readers to do the same on the thousands upon thousands of battlegrounds on the internet. Keep fighting the good fight!

The Short answer is "Whatever the Politics Demand."

Watch the following video documentary released by the McCain's presidential campaign entitled "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand." The documentary examines Obama's multitude of inconsistent statements on Iraq and presents a timeline of Obama's political positioning on Iraq, including Obama's incorrect judgment that the surge would fail.

Obama sounds as consistent as John Kerry.

I mean, really: how dare the Washington State GOP quote from Michelle Obama's political stump speech?

The absolute nerve of the Washington GOP.

Jake Tapper has more, including a fairly hysterical (in both the "funny" and "just one step below primal screaming" meanings, although not the "utterly dismissive towards women" one*) from Governor Gregoire, who used the phrase "eight years of the most divisive, fear-driven politics this country has ever seen" without visible irony. It's odd, really. My parents are Democrats, and they read history books. Many of my teachers were Democrats, and they all read history books. I was a Democrat, and I've been reading history books my whole life. But it's like I turned around and all of a sudden was in this strange universe where even quite high-placed Democrats have never heard of the election of 1824. And that's just me picking a nice example.

Still, let me anticipate the McCain campaign: Bad Washington GOP! Bad! No biscuit!

Moe Lane

*For that definition, we must look to Gov. Gregoire herself, who apparently is perfectly happy to retreat to 19th Century attitudes towards the trivialization of female speech when doing so suits her party. I suppose that we should be grateful that the Democratic Establishment simply didn't decide that Michelle Obama would be more controllable if they had her thyroid gland removed...

Richard Rahn compares the economic plans and advisers of the Presidential candidates and finds McCain to be in a stronger position--though he does state that McCain needs to specify where his spending cuts will come from. When it comes to Obama's position, Rahn is eviscerating:

Mr. Obama's fiscal plan is totally implausible. He has, according to the National Taxpayer Union (NTU), already promised to increase spending on a variety of government programs by more than $344 billion per year. He intends to pay for it by increasing taxes on the "wealthy" (the top 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 39percent of the income tax). But the revenue he seeks will not be there, because the rich are able to find many legal (and illegal) ways to avoid paying much higher tax rates. Former Federal Reserve Board member and head of the National Economic Council Lawrence Lindsey has shown how the Obama proposal "would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer."

Nobel Laureate and "father of the euro" Robert Mundell said if Mr. Obama does not renew the 2003 tax rate reductions, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."

Something to bear in mind if you plan on voting with your wallet in November.