Karl Rove is routinely demonized by the left as Satan, or at least one of Satan's demonic minions for beating them in elections.

Yet Rove has often recommended against the more egregious political tactics in common use, and does so again.

At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."

"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

Rove also said that Republicans should refer to Hillary Clinton as "Sen. Clinton," rather than "Hillary."

On the heels of baseless story about an alleged affair John McCain was supposed to have had with a lobbyist thirty years his junior, The Times engages in yet another bit of innuendo--John McCain may be constitutionally enjoined from becoming president.

The hitch is of course that the story quotes not a single source to suggest that this might be a problem, and a good whack that prove that it won't be (George Romney born in Mexico, Barry Goldwater born in Arizona territory, Lowell Weicker born in Paris...).

The story bears a striking resemblance to the Hillary Clinton campaign's efforts to make Senator Barry's youthful drug experimentation an issue by suggestion that "Republicans" would bring it up in the general election.

Its all supposed to start a stampede, but its doubtful many legitimate journalists will want to join them in a race to the bottom.

"I've got to do something here to open this hour of today's excursion into broadcast excellence. I need to apologize to both Sen. Obama and to Sen. McCain, " said Limbaugh. "I had never heard of Curious George. Only now have staffers sent me little pictures of Curious George," he continued.

"So I wish to apologize to both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. It was not my intent to bring dishonor and guttural utterances into this campaign. It happened. I laughed about it. It was a 12 year old kid's reaction to Obama, it was told by his mother. I was laughing because I was being polite, but I had never heard of Curious George."

Rush Limbaugh apologizing after laughing when a caller said that Obama had reminded her son of Curious George.

I do know who Curious George is, having read the story to each of my children many times. I must admit, the resemblance is striking. Its probably because Senator Barry's ears are so high up on his head and rather prominent. If the man does become president, his caricature will no doubt feature those ears, which brings me to an observation.

Do we know anyone else who is routinely compared to a lower order primate?

The collage of Bush and chimps has been around for at least a couple of years if not longer, and no one every wrote a news story about it.

Rush is just more civilized than left-wingers, but you knew that already.

Obama drops seven points against McCain since the Wright scandal came out.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters. McCain also enjoys unified support from Republican voters while Obama only attracts 65% of Democratic votes at this time.

Obama’s favorable ratings have also fallen below the 50% mark since the world learned of his former Pastor. This can be seen as part of a larger trend that began shortly after Obama’s victories in the Wisconsin Primaries. At that time, just before Hillary Clinton began raising questions about her competitor, Obama was viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide. That had slipped to 52% just before Pastor Wright’s views became big news and to 47% just before Obama’s speech. Two days after the speech, Obama’s favorables remain at 48%.

You've all seen it at some time or another--a guy running frenetically from pursuers, trying to avoid an unpleasant death or a stint at Rykers awaiting trial. He's pulling down trash cans, fruit stands, clothing racks--anything and everything to slow down and obstruct the chasers.

That's what Howard Dean's remarks about John McCain's "Service to America" tour recalled for me--a wild-eyed desperado trying hard to avoid the inevitable.

“John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

There goes the fruit stand...

Mitt Romney must be close to a shoo-in if the Evangelicals are in an uproar.

As the Arizona senator scours through a list of what he previously estimated was about 20 potential running mates, fans of former McCain rival Mike Huckabee are issuing an open letter to McCain telling him that if he chooses Mitt Romney, another former rival, he will lose the conservative vote.

“For us the bottom line is this: The unvarnished facts of Mitt Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts make him utterly unacceptable as a vice presidential choice,” reads a newspaper ad signed by 26 conservative leaders who have formed the Government is Not God political action committee. Among the ad’s sponsors are Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, Sandy Rios of Culture Campaign and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.

Condi Rice is all over the news lately, even Fitness magazine. Rice played a key role in the recent summit with Russia, despite the usual liberal spin downplaying any progress. Russia was essentially presented with a fait accompli on the NATO missile shield, after the stunning US success there. Now Oliver Stone has cast someone to play her in his latest liberal hatchet job flick, and her name is being bandied about as the Veep choice, with an endorsement by Grover Norquist. Maureen Dowd is already attacking her.

I have alway thought Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice as one of the few people who could assume the presidency without having previously served in elective office. She is an expert in foreign policy, a skilled negotiator, and an articulate and persuasive spokesman for America abroad. And it can't hurt that she's a gifted musician.

If John McCain decides he needs Sec. Rice as his VP, she would be a fine choice. But I think as Sen. McCain's strong suit is foreign policy, he would be better served by bringing on a governor to balance the ticket.

Hillary and Barack fight over the brie and chablis voters in Philadelphia's Main Line suburbs.Chicago Tribune:

Mike Lilian, an anesthesiologist from nearby Bala Cynwyd, has voted for candidates of both parties in the past but likes Clinton this time around because she seems "wily."

His wife couldn't say exactly why she leans toward Obama, except to say "he's charismatic, dynamic" in a way she thinks might improve the country.

"He seems a little naive," her husband said. "He has so much less experience in foreign policy."

"But don't you think it's about judgment too?" she replied. "He was against the war from the beginning."

What will be the dominant issue du jour now and in the fall? Still the war probably, but maybe the war will recede and security concerns will rise. Mention of health care and the environment, and for this group education is always on the menu. Maybe the coming big Dem tax bite will get their attention.

UPDATE: One note--my liberal women friends told me, before the Illinois primary, that their husbands liked Mitt, if they would ever vote for a Republican. These were businessmen, though, not anesthesiologists. And this is interesting, Chuck Todd, NBC, "McCain's Path to Victory" (needs an opponent before he can choose a veep):

So how can he beat Obama?

He will have to do well in the Rust Belt and dominate the economic issue in a way he's never done before. McCain could fix some of his problems connecting on the economy by his choice of a running mate, and there may not be a better "conventional" pick than Mitt Romney.

At a town-hall meeting Wednesday, meanwhile, Sen. Obama appealed to suburban moderates and those wary of big government. "We know that government cannot solve all of our problems, and we don't expect it to. We don't want our tax dollars wasted on programs that don't work," he said.

Obama is trotting out his poor, old grandmother now that she is useful to him in Pennsylvania, to go after Hillary's voters. And he's got Caroline Kennedy. Making inroads:

Sen. Obama can credit his gains in the suburbs to voters like Lorri Primavera, a 48-year-old jeweler from Wallingford.

"From the beginning, I felt like I was going to support Hillary, but I'm definitely leaning toward Obama now," she says. "I always felt that having a woman in office would shift the way things are being done, but I'm getting more of a feeling that it doesn't have to come from a woman."

The Obama campaign has also argued that it can win in the fall by drawing in Republicans like Jessica Etezady, 31, of Gulph Mills, who attended an Obama forum here Wednesday with her 11-month-old daughter and says she will support Sen. Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. "I just have a gut feeling that he's the most likely to actually get something done in Washington," says the two-time Bush voter.

Gender and race issues have been a major factor in the Democratic competition. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% of voters nationwide believe that African-Americans experience more discrimination than women while 27% hold the opposite view.

Its one of those little stories sitting in the background that just happens to be pregnant with implications for the general election.

Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.

The planned campaign is the product of a shakeup in the top ranks of the struggling independent Democratic groups. Brock, now best known as the ex-conservative founder of the liberal group Media Matters, last month quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA.

The thing to note here is the word preparing. McCain has been out on the hustings for a couple of months now, looking presidential, reminding people of his heroic qualities. Meanwhile, the media has been focused on the horse race between Clinton and Obama and the unfortunately series of revelations concerning their lack of character, judgment, experience, wisdom or redeeming qualities in general. Democrats are not stupid--they know this is a very bad situation for them, yet they are, at this late date preparing to deal with the problem.

In a new poll done just for the Lifetime Network, (sorry, I don't watch it, I'm a Food Network person other than the news, tho I've heard Army Wives is good.), the economy emerges as the top issue for women. LA Times:

"This poll shows how times have changed. Last year, Iraq was one of the top mentions in many polls as the issue voters wanted candidates to discuss. Now, women are very concerned about the economy. When asked what is the most important issue that will get them out to vote, jobs and the economy, packaged as one topic, was mentioned as the top issue, followed by healthcare. Fifth mention was the war in Iraq."

And Hillary loses support among women, which is the most critical group for her. But they don't want her to drop out.

Hundreds if not thousands of pages have been written by Democrat apologists trying to rehabilitate Al Gore's reputation after he blurted on Larry King that he had invented the internet. They pointed to the 1992 Gore act that funded various aspects of the expansion of the network, they accused his critics of being unfair, they deployed the oldest defensive cliche in the world

....he was quoted out of context.

None of it mattered. The claim was so outrageous on its face, so beyond the pale, that Gore literally branded himself as a fabulist. The left likes to revise history, as you know, but this wasn't just a Rush Limbaugh thing.
The Press Effect, by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman is a book that examines how the media caricatures people and events, creating a simplistic shorthand which they rarely deviate from. The media went looking for, found and publicized dozens of instances that affirmed the original impression. There are lots of reasons Al Gore lost an election he should have won in a walk--this was a big one.

Barack Obama may have invented his own internet after comments he made at an April 6th fund-raiser have become public.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Wow, Barry is liberal elitist, a progressive provincial, an arrogant city-slicker.

Presumably trying to gin up their own leftie fundraising by MoveOn, etc., the NY Times worries aloud that eeevil conservative nonprofits can't compete. And who are these Republicans leaking to the NY Times--perhaps part of the problem (or perhaps nonexistent):

“These shadowy groups out there, with Freedom’s Watch being at the top of the list,” Mr. Van Hollen said, “can literally come out of right field at the last minute with lots of resources.”

Some political strategists say the prolonged battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has afforded Freedom’s Watch time to sit back in that arena. But others say it should have jumped in by now, or at least started laying crucial groundwork.

Republican strategists said plans for other well-financed conservative groups seemed to be only in their infancy, although there have been discussions among those who took part in one of the major Republican efforts in 2004, Progress for America, to reconvene.

Freedom’s Watch recently announced it had hired Carl Forti, formerly the political director for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, as executive vice president in charge of the group’s issue advocacy. Prior to working for the Romney campaign, Mr. Forti was communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Michelle Obama

[She] lacks placidity, which is, actually, necessary. All first ladies, first spouses, should be like Denis Thatcher, slightly dazed, mildly inscrutable, utterly supportive. It is the only job in the world where "seems slightly drugged" is a positive job qualification. The key is to know you are not the drama, you do not draw the lightning, you are a background player who yet has deep, unseen power. (The "deep, unseen power" part keeps you serene and energized. The constant possibility of quiet revenge keeps one peppy.)

major in sociology and minor in African American studies at Princeton University, where she graduated cum laude with an Artium Baccalaureus in 1985. As part of her requirements for graduation, she wrote a thesis entitled, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." ...

Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin where she first met her husband. At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property. Subsequently, she held public sector positions in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor and Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies

In Phoenix, she had been her high school's rodeo queen, sporting a cowboy hat complete with a crown. After earning education degrees at the University of Southern California (which Sen. McCain has called "University of Spoiled Children"), she became a special-needs teacher.

She also got involved in the beer distributorship started by her father. Art Pearce, who worked at his own family's company, a Coors distributor in Phoenix, frequently ran into her at industry events. "You could tell by her air that she was very proud of her family's business...."

In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh. Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with a severe cleft palate; the senator's wife did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl, named her Bridget, and has seen her through some dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and resolve other medical problems.

"And let me tell you something: For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country."

"I am proud of my country."

I like sunflowers. I'm not advocating resurrecting Ike or Alf Landon, or even pushing for Jerry Brown for president. But I liked Jerry's campaign slogan, "Protect the Earth, serve the people, and explore the universe.":) So here's my modest proposal: Stop the Agitprop. Count the Cost. Build Nukes. And

How gross is this:

There have been five elections fought and lost by anti-war candidates. This year marks the sixth attempt.

James Madison was embroiled in the war of 1812 and the Federalists sought to exploit the anti-war sentiment to recapture their political power. Madison defeated New York Mayor Dewitt Clinton by a sound electoral margin--128-89.

Abraham Lincoln considered that he had no chance of winning reelection in view of the phalanx of media opinion that he was doomed. He was pleasantly surprised that he soundly thrashed arrogant military pretender and champion of the anti-war Democrats, John Kerry George McClellan 212 to 21 electoral votes.

William McKinley faced a reelection challenge from William Jennings Bryan who campaigned against American imperialism, highlighted the insurgency in the Phillipines and pointed out that in spite of good news in the Phillipines, there had been no reductions in force there. Bryan was stomped 292-155

George McGovern was the darling of the anti-war left and campaigned on ending the "unpopular" Vietnam war. Nixon flattened McGovern 520-17 (It would have been 521, but a Virginia delegate changed his pledge from Nixon to the Libertarian candidate...)

John Kerry, alleged war hero turned anti-war crusader and then idle Senator, challenged George W. Bush's reelection with strong support from anti-war crusaders. Even at this point, it is hard to say what issues Kerry was campaigning on since his positions were so nuanced they were often confused with being contradictory. Bush won 286-251

Its notable that the media sided with the loser in every case.

The year is notable in that the nation is at war, but no sitting president is seeking reelection. On the other hand, its very clear which candidates respectively support victory or surrender.

Do you still think its a Democrat year?

Edward Cropper located these salient remarks on capitalism from the master economist, Milton Friedman, who points out the term "self-interest" is a better term then "greed". After all, everyone has self-interest, but only "other" people exhibit greed. "The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interest".

This self-interest operates regardless of the capitalist, communist, or socialist society in place, however:

"In the only cases the masses have escaped from the grinding poverty you are talking about - the only cases in recorded history - are where they've had capitalism and largely free trade..."

In a capitalist society, self-interest has a way of producing fair results. My wife's American history professor demonstrated how self interest could lead to equitable results. He provided a student ten one dollar bills and told the student he could divide the money in two piles to split between another student. The second student, however, got to choose which pile to select. The first student invariably would ensure the ten dollars were split evenly.

Obama wants to raise taxes to make them "fair" (whatever that means) - even if the over all revenue to the treasury goes down. Clinton wants to tax "excess" oil company profits - does that mean she is willing to confiscate "excess" profits of other industries with higher margins? These aren't new concepts. There are plenty of examples to see how they don't work. For example unemployed luxury yacht and plane workers can tell you what happens when the self interest of boat and plane buyers kick in.

Where the economic policies of Senators Obama and Clinton depart from capitalism, society will be the worse for it.

Take a look at this graph, courtesy of The Jawa Report.

Notice anything?

Yeah--where are all the Republicans? In 2002, nearly 100,000 Republicans showed up to vote. In 2004, Democrats didn't bother to field a candidate. In 2006, the Republican again won with nearly 100,000 votes.

This year?

50,000 Republicans showed up, and 50,000 didn't... The Democrat won by a mere 8,000 votes, 8,000 more than they mustered in 2006.

Do you see the problem?

Contemplating Bush's remarks in Israel and the Democrats panicked and hasty response, we have to concede the point to the Republicans.

Its impossible to tell whether Bush had Obama in mind while making the remarks, but I'd like to think he did. Regardless, Jimmy Carter provides plenty of cover for the lame charges by the weenies that Bush launched and "unprecedented" domestic political attack on foreign soil. The guy did meet with Hamas, he is representative of the Democrat view of foreign policy, and he is not a public official or running for office--in other words--fair game.

Yet its the effect of the statement that is so brilliant.

On the anniversary of a state formed as a reaction and protection against tyranny, Bush utters what can only be called an aphorism.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Bush says it in a context that makes it legitimate and innocuous, and if the Democrats were smart--and they aren't--they would have let those words fall on the ears of Israelis and left it at that.

But no--the Obama campaign has to respond with outrage, thus insuring that Bush's remarks are widely replayed in the United States as an election issue. Bush is held harmless, but the damage is done--Obama's naivete and inexperience are highlighted for several news cycles without political risk or cost.

Sure, the Bush-haters will rage at Bush, but the would vote for Obama even if he raped their sisters. For the rest of the country though, its yet another in a series of Obama denouements.

Like Wright and bitterquiddick, the more you look at it, the worse it gets. By upping the ante with statements by the risible Joe Biden (the Democrats foreign policy "expert"), they simply invite more uncomplimentary revelations. Did Hamas endorse Obama? You bet they did. So did FARC and more hopes for Obama's election will undoubtedly be expressed by other bad actors in the coming weeks and months.

It is Obama's two political left-feet that give me confidence, that in spite of the Republican party's considerable problems, McCain will still win the presidency. Its just a gift to get a rival so unbelievably incompetent.

Its McCain's election to lose.

How weak is Obama as a candidate?

Consider that John Kerry, who was running against an unpopular president, had a five point advantage over Bush at this point in 2004--51-46%.

Rasmussen has McCain ahead by 4 points while Gallup has Obama up by three--a statistical tie. National polls are poor indicators in a national election because its electoral votes that count, but on that score, Obama does even worse.

How about lagging McCain by 10 points in the uber-key state of Florida?

Bush and Kerry were virtually tied in Florida for much of 2004, with Bush holding a statistically insignificant lead at this time in the last presidential election cycle. In the end, Bush won by four points, which means that not much changed over the course of the election campaign. There were very few undecided in 2004, and it seems unlikely that there are a great many people in Florida wondering whether to vote for a far left candidate or for a "war monger".

Democrats like to pretend that everybody has changed their minds about politics in the last few years, but the reality is that political attitudes change very slowly, if at all.

I suppose its possible to make up a 10 point gap--with alien technology. Other than that, its a hell of an argument for Hillary Clinton.

Bill Bennett:

...the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.

Comparisons to Jimmy Carter have been common lately, but Carter kept his illusion intact through November--Obama's spell has already dissipated.

New McCain ad up, Democrats vs. Obama:Disaffected Dem women moving to McCain? Marc Ambinder, who also says Rahmbo is backstage at AIPAC with Obama. Rebuttal by McCain here. Obama's shiftiness on Iran, even more liberal than Dick Durbin. McCain vs. Obama on the issues--Decision Center.

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

In case you're tempted to call the election here and now, as I heard to local talk show host trying to do yesterday, consider this from October of last year.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has jumped to an astounding 33-point lead over Barack Obama, topping her main rival among every major slice of the electorate and widening a dominating advantage she has held all summer.

Clinton got support from a full majority for the first time in any national survey about the Democratic presidential field. She is backed by 53 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Obama follows far behind, with 20 percent, and John Edwards has 13 percent.

"I think it's pretty well done, don't you? All over but the voting," said Rep. Tom Petri (D-Wis.), when asked about the poll.

The contours of the survey are striking, even considering Clinton's previous edge.

Clinton leads her rivals on every major policy issue - and gets backed by an astonishing 66 percent on health care. The New York senator just released her health plan last month.

She wins backing from voters who want "strength and experience" (62 percent) as well as those who want "new direction and new ideas" (45 percent to Obama's 31 percent). She even rates as more "inspiring" than the charismatic Obama, 41 to 37 percent.

Pretty striking contrast isn't it? From overwhelming favorite to alsoran.

So why did Obama win?