What was so wrong with Reaganism that has caused us to turn so violently away from it? Where to, my country?

Anyway, she’s cramming for her exam on Thuraday. I hope she does better. Somehow, I’m not putting any cash on it.

Just back out now. Mitt can pinch it in a microsecond, without the trip to sedona.

Now use it in a sentence: The McCain/Palin ticket enervates me.

Look it up, it doesn’t mean what you might first assume.

Deja Vu all over again

A weak prepared performance in which she spouts out memorized lines will be an affront to all the devoted followers of hers and confirmation by the speculators that she is not ready.

I, myself am getting tired of hearing the excuses to her poor performance. The blame is being placed soley on the feet of the McCain campaign. They say, “It is the campaigns’ fault that she was thrown to the wolves without any preparation.”

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but how can you be VP or POTUS if you can’t be ready to answer the tough questions at a moments notice? Not just answer them, but provide clear concise credible answers.

The pundits and the conservative leaders are so entranced by her conservative bonifides that it has brought about willful blindness to any and all of her inequities.

Now, it is very likely Sarah could do well in the debate. However, it would be the result of hours upon hours of preparation.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/

SNL still having a good time with Palin:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palin_obama_mccain_saturday_ni.html

I read this article on WSJ this morning from Fred Barnes. He specifically points out why McCain is probably going to lose the election.

It seems as though the whispers of defeat are growing louder and louder everyday. The last few weeks have been very bad for McCain and has left him 8 points behind in the polls. He is losing in VA, CO, IA, NV, and NM by large margins in many cases. These are all states that Bush carried in ‘04.

Here’s the article:

The Takeaway From the First Debate

The exchange revealed some strengths, and some surprising vulnerabilities.
 
By FRED BARNES 

In 1984, I was one of the questioners at the first debate between President Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. Reagan had a comfortable lead at the time. But he had a terrible night, often groping for details. He seemed hesitant and unsure, and gave a barely credible answer to my question about why he didn’t go to church (he cited security concerns). Afterwards, when we shook hands, Reagan looked stricken.

Mr. Mondale gave a dazzling performance, and the expectation in the media was that the presidential race had suddenly become competitive. It hadn’t. Reagan steadied himself in the second debate and won re-election in a 49-state landslide.

I drew a simple lesson from this episode: As important as they are, debates can’t change the fundamentals of a presidential campaign. Reagan was popular, his foreign policy was strong, and the economy was booming. A bad debate didn’t negate any of these fundamentals.
This lesson now applies to John McCain. He performed ably last Friday in the first debate with Mr. Obama. But he shouldn’t expect to gain much ground from that or from the next two presidential debates, even if he outscores Mr. Obama again. And the vice presidential debate on Thursday between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden is a sideshow.
The fundamentals of the race remain. And while they aren’t nearly as daunting as those facing Mr. Mondale in 1984, they certainly favor Mr. Obama. The economy is weak. The president is unpopular. It’s a change, not a status quo, election. The surge has worked, but the war in Iraq is hardly a campaign plus. The political cycle points to a Democratic takeover. Democratic voter registration is up. Republican registration is down. Republicans trail Democrats in party identification.

All of these factors put a drag on Mr. McCain’s bid to win the White House. But the largest drag is the crisis in financial markets that erupted six weeks before Election Day. As the crisis has lingered, Mr. Obama’s lead over Mr. McCain has grown almost daily in polls. Mr. McCain’s decision to briefly suspend his campaign last week and play a role in Washington’s rescue effort didn’t appear to help his cause significantly.
But debates aren’t likely to, either. In 1960, the decisive factor in John Kennedy’s election was a surge in the Catholic vote, not his debate with Richard Nixon. In 1976, Gerald Ford muffed a debate question on Poland, but he probably would have lost to Jimmy Carter anyway. Mike Dukakis in 1988 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 had poor debates, but that wasn’t why they lost. Al Gore’s sighs and clumsy attempts at intimidation in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush may have cost the Democrat the election, but that’s arguable at best. That election was extraordinarily close. Any number of factors, particularly voting irregularities in Florida, might have changed the outcome.

We know from 20-odd Democratic primary debates and last week’s general election debate that Mr. Obama isn’t anything like Mr. Gore. He’s calm and disciplined. Amazingly for a first-time presidential candidate, Mr. Obama has made no big mistakes, only a few small ones that turned out to be inconsequential.
Mr. Obama committed a few errors — he misquoted Henry Kissinger on Iran, for one. And he couldn’t match Mr. McCain’s firm grasp of national security issues. But if Mr. Obama caused many voters to conclude he’s utterly unqualified to be commander in chief, I’d be surprised.

The next two debates, one a town hall, the other on domestic issues, may be easier for Mr. Obama and tougher for Mr. McCain. When the overarching issue is who’d be the best commander in chief, as it was in the first debate, Mr. McCain prevails. This issue always matters in presidential contests, but the 2008 race isn’t primarily a commander in chief election. It’s a domestic policy election.
As luck would have it, Mr. McCain had plenty of opportunities to show his dexterity on economic issues in the first debate, since nearly half of it was devoted to the financial breakdown. He missed most of these opportunities. I was waiting for him to explain his role in assuring House Republicans a voice in the bailout negotiations, and why that was critically important. He never did.
Mr. Obama also gave Mr. McCain several openings. He cited Mr. McCain’s recent comment that the country’s economic fundamentals are strong. Instead of pointing out that the fundamentals — unemployment, interest rates, inflation — are indeed reasonably strong, just in jeopardy because of the financial crisis, Mr. McCain ignored the opportunity.

Mr. McCain cleverly steered the debate to spending cuts, his favorite domestic issue. He deplored the $18 billion appropriated by Congress for earmarks and suggested an across-the-board freeze on federal spending. That was fine, until Mr. Obama topped it by claiming earmarks paled in comparison with the $300 billion in tax cuts proposed by Mr. McCain. Later, Mr. McCain noted Mr. Obama “has $800 billion in new spending programs.”
Mr. McCain might have said (but didn’t) that the only way Mr. Obama could pay for his new spending would be to raise taxes on the middle class. Taxing the well-to-do won’t suffice. This would have been a neat jab and instantly put Mr. Obama on the defensive. But even if it had occurred to Mr. McCain, it wouldn’t have been a “game changer.” Of course, a breakthrough for Mr. McCain may yet occur before Nov. 4. Mr. McCain isn’t as far behind as Mr. Mondale was in 1984. But if there’s a shake-up in the race, don’t expect it to happen in a debate.

Still, there are things Messrs. McCain and Obama should have learned in the first debate that might help in the next two. Mr. Obama, it turns out, is more vulnerable on spending and taxes than Mr. McCain might have expected, and his economic recovery plan, to the extent he has one, is full of holes. Mr. McCain, on fiscal and economic issues, is comfortable chiefly when talking about curbs on spending; on domestic programs or taxes he’s less confident.
We’ll find out if either man is resourceful enough to exploit these weaknesses, or wise enough to learn from their mistakes, as Reagan did. If not, that will be revealing all by itself.

Mr. Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and a Fox News Channel commentator.

ELKO, Nev.—Campaign officials say former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is expected to campaign for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Elko, Nev., on Thursday.
Romney and McCain were once rivals as the two campaigned for the GOP nomination.

The appearance at an amphitheater at Great Basin College is being billed as a “pre-debate victory rally,” ahead of the lone debate between the vice-presidential candidates, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

Organizers say those attending the rally will be invited to watch the debate afterward on a large screen.

BaltimoreSun.com
By Dan Rodrick September, 28, 2008

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/rodricks/blog/2008/09/gop_could_use_romney_right_now.html

Nobody asked me but . . .
Mitt Romney would have made a better candidate than John McCain. . . . Sure, he’s Mr. Waffle, but he’s not the first candidate who earned that title. Romney is an effective speaker and telegenic. He comes across as vigorous, informed and confident. In recent televised interviews, he proved again and again why he would have made a stronger candidate for president than John McCain — and at least should have been McCain’s choice for running mate over Sarah Palin.

Nobody aske me but . . .
The McCain must be sweating the prospect of the Palin-Biden debate. Do you think McCain might ask that it be postponed so that Gov. Palin can return to Alaska to help with the annual marmot count? A friend writes: “Friday’s debate sets up as: Miss Alaska Runnerup v. Mr. Malaprop. Should be a great show. I generally don’t watch political debates, speeches, etc., inasmuch as what they say is not what you get, but this one may be too funny to miss.”

Nobody asked me but . . .
The Democrats should court Romney to conversion. Romney could be comfortable among Democrats for a number of ideological reasons, not to mention the blue party’s complete separation from the fundamentalist right-wing and the various windbags who continue to harp on Romney’s Mormonism. The latest to claim Romney is not a Christian, but a member of a cult, is a Texas pastor named Robert Jeffress. “Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god,” this cowboy told religion writers last weekend. “The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God.”

Our country is in for a rough ride.