. . . how come all these Washington, D.C. Beltway insiders keep up lining up behind him.

Doesn’t seem they have much fear that he’ll shake things up in our nation’s capital.  Indeed, seems they think he’ll be sending more power their way.

Is that the change the American people are looking for?

Perhaps, the greatest failure of the Bush Administration began when George W. Bush enjoyed his greatest popularity.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the president proposed increasing defense spending to beef up our national security at home and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, he failed to hold the line on domestic spending.  At that time, given his popularity and the mood of the country, he could more easily have pushed budget cuts through Congress.  But, he acted as if there were no need to make any trade-offs, that the federal government had an unending supply of ready money to fund all federal programs.

Now, we’ve got Barack Obama making a vast array of promises for higher levels federal spending, at a time when the financial bailout increases the deficit to to unprecedented highs.  Just like Bush, he refuses to identify any trade-offs.  According to CBS News, “Very few independent economists believe [Obama] has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.“  (Read the whole thing.)

Just as Obama has failed to identify the savings he needed to pay for his plans, so too did President Bush fail to offer any savings when he stood up to the threat of terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

At last Bush’s policies had the effect of preventing a subsequent attack on the US.  Obama’s are likely to prolong the recession.

If Obama wins as the candidate of change from the “last eight years,” the media will try to portray this as a triumph of liberalism over conservtism, the final death knell to the Reagan era.

A Democratic victory this fall would be anything but.  Save on foreign policy and judicial nominations (that is most such nominations), George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative would.  The domestic policy of his Administration has been marked by well-intentioned profligacy, the establishment of new federal programs and increased financial regulation (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley).  He made no attempt to contain the size of the federal government or reduce the scope of its regulatory authority.

Conservative ideas did not fail us; the Republican President failed to govern as a conservative.

Should McCain win, it will because, in the closing days of this campaign, he more clearly articulated a conservative message on the economy.  Had he done so throughout his campaign, that victory would appear more likely.

In December 2004, Michelle Obama said it would be “way too soon” for her husband to run for president in 2008, “he hasn’t done anything yet.”

And what has he done since then besides run for president?

Heck, in that same period of time, Sarah Palin announced her campaign for Governor of Alaska, knocked off the Republican incumbent in the primary, defeated a popular Democratic former Governor in the general election, reformed the state’s ethics laws, negotiated a complex natural gas pipeline deal which eluded her predecessors, held the line on state spending and earned the affection of he fellow Alaskans and respect of her fellow governors. And she’s just running for Vice President.

Senator Obama’s wife knows him better than most others. And she believes her husband hasn’t done anything.

Let’s hope the American people take notice.

Throughout the month of September — and even into October — critics of Sarah Palin have faulted the McCain campaign for sequestering the vice presidential nominee from the meida.  They stuck to their talking point even as facts on the ground changed; the Alaska Governor has become increasingly accessible to the media, more readily taking questions and offering interviews than her opponent for the Vice Presidency.

In his Corner post this morning, Victor Davis Hanson reminds us that, in recent days, it’s not just Joe Biden who’s been sequestered:

I don’t think in my lifetime I have ever witnessed quite a campaign in which the wife of the Presidential candidate has been sequestered lest she voice yet another sweeping generalization that can be rightfully interpreted as denigrating both the American system at large or the values of other Americans; or in which the Vice Presidential candidate has been sequestered from press questioning lest he once again in an interview or an impromptu says something that either is so bizarre that it makes no sense at all or serves as a good argument not to vote for his running mate

So now that the Democrat has been sequestered, where’s the media outrage? Why aren’t those very same critics who faulted the McCain campaign for hiding the Alaska Governor decrying Obama’s campaign for hidin’ Biden?

Read the rest of Hanson’s post and consider his notion of the “faux-wizardly” of the Democrat’s campaign.

Very often on Saturday mornings — and sometimes even Sundays — I will rise from my bed grateful I have nothing planned for the day.  I delight, as I did this morning, at the quiet of my apartment.  I won’t turn on the TV or check the web.  Instead, I’ll sit quietly at my desk reading a book, scribbling some notes or just pausing, listening to the rustle of the leaves as the wind moves through the tree outside my window.

Even if a close friend or beloved relative calls, I will regret the interruption.  I’d rather have this time to myself.

I’ve often wondered if we all need such moments.   Perhaps my observation of my fellows is limited, but sometimes it seems all too many can’t bear such quiet.  They constantly seek activity or human presence.to fill the void.

Sometimes when I get angry e-mails from readers, those insulting me, calling me self-hating or a hyper-partisan or whatever slur they can come up with I wonder if this is their means of filling the void.  Why, I wonder, do they so regularly check this blog, which they claim, so offends them?

It’s almost as if they have inverted George Eliot’s maxim:  “The first condition of human goodness is something to love; the second, something to reverence.”*  They seem to have decided the way to deal with their loneliness is by finding someone to revile and someone to demonize.

Expressing these hateful emotions help connect them to a community where criticism of Republicans is the defining idea.  Fearful of feeling isolated, they need show their commitment to the cause by manifesting the depth of their malice, like the zeal of a convert.  (Yes, we see this on the right as well, particularly in the ill-will of some extreme social conservatives toward gays.  Note the frequency with which certain anti-gay zealots frequent gay sites or attend their conferences.)

(more…)