Ever since I noted how late-deciders in the Texas and Ohio Democratic primaries broke decisively for Hillary Clinton, I hypothesized that they could also decided the fall contest.  And while Obama has surged ahead in some polls this week, the Pew poll, the one which most accurately forecast the outcome of the 2004 election, has the race in a dead heat (article with poll via Instapundit).

This race seems very fluid, with a high number of undecided voters this late in the game, indeed with a good number of voters uncertain about the candidate they currently back.  I recall how a friend in 2004 went into the voting booth telling me she had intended to vote for John Kerry, but ended up voting for George W. Bush.  (I had blogged on that when we were a blogspot.  As the post was lost, but I saved the text, I repost it below.)

Jay Cost agrees with me that late-deciders will be crucial this year: “My intuition is that this group is going to sort itself out late.”

So, the real question is how will they break.  Traditional wisdom is that they break against the incumbent party, but that wasn’t the case in 1976 and 2000 when incumbent Gerald R. Ford and incumbent vice president Al Gore respectively rallied in those campaigns’ final days.

And in the Democratic primaries this year, Hillary Clinton, having served as First Lady to the most recent Democratic president, could be considered more like an incumbent than Barack Obama, yet the late-deciders broke her way.  (Or should we consider Obama the “incumbent because he was the frontrunner at the time.)

Peggy summarizes what it may come down to:

The overarching political question: In a time of heightened anxiety, will people inevitably lean toward the older congressional vet, the guy who’s been around forever? Why take a chance on the new, young man at a time of crisis? Wouldn’t that be akin to injecting an unstable element into an unstable environment? There’s a lot at stake.

Or will people have the opposite reaction? I’ve had it, the system has been allowed to corrode and collapse under seven years of Republican stewardship. Throw the bums out. We need change. Obama may not be experienced, but that may help him cut through. He’s not compromised.

The election, still close, still unknowable, may well hinge on whether people conclude A or B.

I pretty much agree.

I expect to have more to say about this topic. The optimist in me says that given John McCain’s reputation among independent voters and the wariness, even of Democrats have toward Barack Obama, we may see a pattern similar to that which emerged in the Democratic primaries this year. But, even if late-breakers pull for John McCain, it may not be enough. It wasn’t for Ford or Gore. Only time will tell.

(more…)

The other day when a representative of a conservative organization asked me to suggest other gay people to participate in an event, I immediately suggested either Patrick Sammon and Scott Tucker of Log Cabin.

Only after I had sent out the e-mail did it occur to me that a year previously, I would not even considered recommending Log Cabin for such an event.  What a change Patrick’s leadership has brought to the organization.  To be sure, we have not always agreed with some of their actions, faulting them for running ads against Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But, since John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination, they, as loyal Republicans should, reached out to the campaign and worked to support the party’s nominee, voting earlier this month to endorse him.

It’s not just this endorsement which put the organization in a better light.  It’s also Patrick Sammon’s attitude to Log Cabin’s gay conservative critics.  As I’ve said before, in contrast to his predecessors, Sammon listens to his opposing views, taking our criticism seriously.”

In his public statements, he has shown a greater readiness to defend our party than have either of his two predecessors.  (To be fair to his immediate predecessor, Patrick Guerriero, I only heard him address one public gathering (the 2005 Log Cabin Convention) and have been present to hear Sammon and the group’s first executive director on numerous occasions).

(more…)

As Barack Obama lashed out at John McCain, attacking the Republican’s plan to “deal with the growing economic crisis,” the Democrat “said he would wait to release his own detailed plan to stem the turmoil on Wall Street.“*

Once again, Obama attacks his rival, demagoguing the issue, yet failing to spell out his own plan. This has emerged as pattern for Obama. John McCain has a record of supporting policies to reform the institutions which have collapsed this week, including one crafted in 2002, with the then-House Democratic leader. Barack Obama has angry words for his adversary.

It’s not just the financial sector where Obama has been indecisive. He can’t make up his mind on gay marriage either. In his book, he says he favors “equivalent rights” for gays while he pledges “equality for all” to the gay press.

This guy promotes himself as able to unite the nation,  He heralded his victory in the race for the Democratic nomination as “the moment when we began to provide care for the sick, and good jobs for the jobless. . . when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.” Campaign posters present him in the manner of Communist strongmen.

Strong and confident he may appear in image.  Uncertain and indecisive he has become on the issues.  His campaign slogans of hope and change “have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.”  As he himself wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  Were he to spell out his own views, he might compromise the affection they bestow on him.

No wonder this Demorat has been so indecisive.  If he makes a hard call on a controversial topic, he risks losing the adulation he has so long enjoyed.

——

*Note the pro-Obama slant of this article referring to his economic advisors as an “ALL-STAR” team. Has Reuters ever referred to a Republican economic team in such a manner? Even the headline is loaded, highlighting Obama’s charge of McCain’s panic while ignoring the Democrat’s own indecisiveness.

UPDATE:  Linking an LA Times article headlined, “Obama votes ‘Present’ on new economic rescue plan for now, Glenn comments, “Decisive leadership for the 21st Century!”

“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.” - Nancy Pelosi, 11/8/06

“The American people – many Republican and independent voters among them – entrusted Democrats with their hopes and aspirations for themselves, their families, and their future. We are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor that trust, and we will not disappoint.” – Nancy Pelosi, 11/14/06

(Not My) Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) may wish to remind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about these empty promises.

Reid Keeps The Swamp Brimming – DC Examiner (h/t – Instapundit)

As the stock market plunged nearly 1,000 points in two days this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was preoccupied with protecting billions of dollars worth of earmarks contained in a separate, unpublished committee report that got a one-sentence reference in a giant $612 billion defense bill. Reid engineered the 61-to-32 vote to limit debate on the bill, thus barring consideration of an amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint. The South Carolina Republican’s amendment would have deleted the reference to the committee report so that it would have to be considered separately. By leaving the language in the bill, the lawmakers were able to carry out one of their favorite maneuvers: Incorporating committee reports into omnibus bills so they can give billions of tax dollars to their cronies without recorded votes on specific spending measures. This is the same Harry Reid who with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” of Republican corruption if voters would return the Democrats to the majority.

Maybe Sen. Reid could consult with Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) on ethics and good government?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Why am I not surprised one bit that an Unhinged Liberal-In-Training is behind the invasion of privacy of Sarah Palin and her family?

Palin Hacker Identity Is Revealed – Pajamas Media

The hacker is David Kernell, the 20-year old son of Mike Kernell, a Democrat and elected state representative in Tennessee, according to Nashville’s largest newspaper, the Tennessean.

A well-informed Tennessee radio host Steve Gill told me this about the hacker’s dad: “He is an extremely left-wing Representative from Memphis who has been in the legislature 32 years and has never had any job other than professional politician.”

Makes you wonder what the dad’s role was, if any…

Folks, it is time to PROSECUTE these Democrats for their anti-American, intimidating and illegal behavior when it comes to the political and governing process. I want to see this kid in jail, I want to see the operators of Gawker in jail, I want to see anyone involved in this disgusting incident IN JAIL.

No more Sandy Bergers, no more Bill Clintons, no more Franklin Raines, no more Michael Moores, no more Bob Torricellis, no more Charlie Rangels.  Democrats have been thumbing their nose at the rule of law in this country for decades, especially in documented election fraud around the USA. And the media and the Justice Department does NOTHING.

Sometime, somewhere, somehow the Democrats’ criminalizing of the political process must be stopped.

[RELATED STORY: Hacker Tricks Yahoo, Gets Access To Palin's Emails - The Tennessean]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Awesome.  It is about time the McCain campaign starts informing people about who Obama’s “trust circle” really is.  After all, the Liberal Media won’t do it.

I’m hoping for an Obama-Bill Ayers commercial soon, too.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Reader E.N. alerted me to this piece which made me wonder if Dan Savage has made as harsh attacks on Barack Obama since he won the Democratic nomination as he has on the Republican Party. Last week, Scott Tucker reported how, in a radio interview with Joe Solmonese lambasted the GOP and misrepresented the party’s platform and relationship with Log Cabin.

A year ago, however, Dan Savage savaged the soon-to-be Democratic nominee for campaigning with “ex-gay/anti-gay preacher,” Donnie McClurkin:

Excuse me, but what the f***? If believing in the “respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens,” including gay and lesbian citizens, doesn’t preclude touring with a hate-monger bigot like McClurkin, what the f*** good is your support? How can the gay community “stand together” with a**holes that have declared war on us? And I’m sorry, Barack, but if you choose to stand with McClurkin—if you give him a pass on his anti-gay bigotry—than your “belief” in our brotherhood isn’t worth a bucket of warm santorum.

I wonder what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this, given his conviction that Sarah Palin judges homosexuals harshly since her church has promoted a conference devoted to a notion that we can be “cured” of our same-sex attraction. Last year, his candidate, you know Obama, this “remarkable man at a vital moment,” campaigned with someone who has taken the “cure” and promotes it regularly in his ministry.

So, if a Republican belongs to a church which promotes an ex-gay conference, she harbors extreme feelings against homosexuals.  On the other hand, if a Democrat campaigns with an ex-gay activist, he earn accolades from the very gay blogger who accused her of extremism.  

Meanwhile, another gay writer who took Obama to task for campaigning with that activist in the Democratic primary contest, would rather heaps scorn on and spread lies about the Republican Party now that the Democrat he once appropriately upbraided has won his party’s presidential nomination.

Sometimes, our readers say things better than we do.

In my last post, I reported Andrew Sullivan’s contention that Sarah Palin is lying when she claims not to know whether homosexuality is genetic or learned.   Because her church has promoted a conference on “reparative therapy” (which supposedly “cures” us of the affliction of same-sex attraction), Andrew has concluded that, Palin’s own words notwithstanding, she too judges “homosexuals” in “as extreme a fashion as you can imagine.”

“By that logic,” sonicfrog wrote in the comments, “Obama DOES support everything that was said by the good reverend Wright after all.”

After catching a portion of the first half of Sean Hannity’s interview with Sarah Palin on Wednesday night, I decided to watch the rest last night.

The first night, I was impressed that she spoke openly of her disagreement with her running mate on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Sounds like John McCain is open to hearing opposing points of view, even in his own Administration.

I was not as impressed with her answers to foreign policy questions. She sounded a lot like Barack Obama, absent the mellifluous voice, repeating talking points and trotting out campaign cliches.

But, what she lacked in eloquence of expression, she almost made up with in the grace of her self-possession. On the whole, she seemed cheerful and confident, eager to answer questions.

She didn’t seem rattled by all the negative press she has garnered. When Hannity asked her about the “shots” she had taken (did Charlie Gibson ask her about that?), she said she was “fine” with the criticism. The real hits she endured were nothing compared to those that many Americans take every day. Those are the “shots that matter” and help her keep things in perspective.

Meanwhile, Obama whines not about the hits he’s taken, but about the assaults Republicans are certain to launch against him.

She called Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Abraham Lincoln her heroes. Citing Doris Kearns Goodwin’sTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, she showed an understanding of and appreciation for the Great Emancipator’s governing style.

She said she has “no desire to ban a book.”

On the whole, a good performance, but nowhere near that she delivered two weeks ago in St. Paul.

Yeah, Sean Hannity did toss a few softballs to the Republican vice presidential nominee, but he was no easier on her than Dan Rather would have been with a Democrat on the national ticket.

Yesterday in in Espanola, New Mexico, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said, “Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who’s going to fight for you.”

Um, Senator, based on your Senate record, that means you’re asking us to get rid of your approach and put John McCain in there to fight for us.

As I noted previously, John McCain in 2006, spoke out “on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005,” his plan to fix FannieMae and FreddieMac. Sounds like someone was fighting for us.

And that wasn’t his first effort at reform:

Three years earlier, McCain had introduced legislation—co-sponsored with the House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt—to create a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission. The purpose of this group was to eliminate what McCain called “corporate welfare.”
. . . .

In other words, as far back as 2002, John McCain realized that underlying what would ultimately become the Fannie and Freddie crisis was the willingness of Congress to provide financial support to private corporations. And he was willing to take on powerful interests to stop this process. If his bill had resulted in action at that time, the unprecedented steps that the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress had to take in the last two weeks would not have been necessary.

(Via Powerline.)

That’s doing nothing? Teaming up with a member of the other party, taking on powerful special interests. Kind of sounds like some new kind of politics, you know the post-partisan kind.

(more…)