Add It Up.

On the one side, former Obama enthusiasts losing their enthusiasm -- for solid reasons -- and, in many cases, switching to McCain.  (Read the comments, especially this one.)

On the other side, the kind of confidence and triumphalism shown here and here, unfazed by the frantic alarums rung here and here.

Doesn't look good for Democrats, yet again -- despite the impressive trifecta of flaws on the other side:  McCain's age, Palin's inexperience, and a financial meltdown McCain doesn't understand "any better than Barack Obama," quoth the WSJ. 

Oh, while you're at it, be sure to read this, too.

Go out in the blogosphere, lick your finger and raise it to the wind.  I didn't say which finger.

Comments

[RW Rogers]

George Will's column crystallizes my concerns about John McCain's fitness for the office he seeks. Obama, OTOH, continues to need Regis Philbin following him around asking, "Is that your final answer?"

[Elyas]

Umm... what? A shift in momentum and 3-5 point lead in every poll = "doesn't look good for Democrats"?

Your math is a little fuzzy.

[Melinda]

The Obama Bubble was going to burst sooner or later, like the Tech Bubble and the Real Estate Bubble. The Sarah Bubble will burst, too...it's a little deflated already because the novelty's worn off.

So after the hero worship is gone, everyone will vote for the usual reasons: Fear of what's going to happen if the other candidate gets in.

[Peter Hoh]

All I know is that pride goeth before a fall, and this too shall pass.

Annie, your second link goes to a comment that asserts that Obama hates America and white people. Is that supposed to be evidence of a shift of opinion? Do you really think the writer of that comment was ever considering voting for Obama?

Sure, the bloom is off the rose. Meanwhile, McCain is off his rocker.

[Danny]

I was eager to read that post by JAC on why he had lost his enthusiasm for Obama but I found his reasoning really weak. And he's still voting for Obama, which isn't clear in your post. If anything, some of his points made it sound like he was ending his previous idol-worshiping which is probably a good thing all around. The Democrats should be more worried about people like Lynette Long, part of that small subgroup of Clinton supporters who want a woman elected so badly they are voting Republican for the first time in their lives.

[Simon]

I had hoped that once the primary dust settled, George Will would learn to live with McCain as the nominee, putting aside the longstanding but comparatively minor differences that he (and many of us) have with McCain. He has evidently, and disappointingly, elected to play Fifth Columnist instead.

And a tone deaf one, at that: I think that most ordinary Americans look at this mess and think "someone should be fired for this!" McCain's reaction pretty clearly harmonizes with that sentiment, and frankly I don't know that it's the wrong one.

[amba]

Peter: that's not what I got out of that link -- it was, rather, that he's a "transnational leftist."

[amba]

At heart. And never saw anything amiss with that, since he was surrounded by same, until he started running for president and realized that isn't what a majority of Americans want for president.

Yes, JAC is still voting for Obama at this point -- mainly because he can't bring himself to vote for McCain. But I think a lot of people who feel that way will end up staying home. (At times I am very strongly tempted to be one of them.) But a lot of his commenters are switching.

I started out thinking I'd be OK with either of these guys being elected. I'm reaching the point where I'm not happy about either prospect. This is the problem when you're not partisan: you don't have an automatic reason for voting.

[Simon]

I liked JAC's post a little better than did Danny, but I share Danny's bewilderment as to exactly how Obama has "lost" John. He may be less enthusiastic about it, but he's still voting for Obama; I don't know how they do voting in New York, but I'd bet they don't let you cast a second vote for a candidate if you're really enthusiastic about them.

[amba]

Do note that quite a few of his commenters have become "lost" in the genuine sense of the term.

[Simon]

Amba said...

I started out thinking I'd be OK with either of these guys being elected. I'm reaching the point where I'm not happy about either prospect. This is the problem when you're not partisan: you don't have an automatic reason for voting.

Well, let me make a very abbreviated pitch for why moderates should back McCain. The premise is that the next president's appointments to the Supreme Court are the overriding, paramount issue. They are the adult supervision: whatever your preferred policy is, they may get to decide whether you can do that or not. Consider the bailout, for example: there are some very smart people who say yes it's a good idea, and some very smart people who say no it's a terrible idea. If you have a Supreme Court that says it's an unconstitutional delegation of power, however, it doesn't matter how good or bad an idea it is, it's just not an option. It's not really a question of whether you agree with me about what the court should do on any particular issue - just a recognition that it is at the center of the web.

So that's the premise. The pitch is this: the political reality of the next four years is that the Democrats are going to control the Senate. Consider, as I did here, what effect that has on the next President's discretion to nominate judges. That reality will encourage Obama to nominate the very sort of judges he has freely admitted to preferring: he wants to stack the bench with a new generation of Steve Reinhardts, and if elected, he will. Yet the same reality will force McCain to the center - where (I would think) you want him to be. Even if McCain wanted to nominate Bob Bork Jr. (and some, including Althouse, suggest he'd prefer moderate judges a la Roberts anyway), the composition of the Senate will prevent him from doing so.

Is the reality for a moderate not that a vote for Obama is a vote for left wing judicial activism whereas a vote for McCain is a vote for moderate judges?

[Outis]

Simon wrote: I had hoped that once the primary dust settled, George Will would learn to live with McCain as the nominee, putting aside the longstanding but comparatively minor differences that he (and many of us) have with McCain.

Simon, the differences with McCain aren't relatively minor - fundamental differences of the role of government separate McCain from small government conservatives. It's true that there is a vast yawning gap between Obama and Will. But the difference between McCain and Will is still a yawning gap, even if it isn't vast. It's the difference between being at a point in the Grand Canyon is 5 miles apart versus a place where it's one mile across. It's impossible to jump at either point.

Amba wrote: I started out thinking I'd be OK with either of these guys being elected. I'm reaching the point where I'm not happy about either prospect.

My work here is done....

[Ally]

Fifth columnist? George Will??? Please. John McCain sounds like Donald Trump on steroids at a time when level-headedness is called for, and somehow that's OK? Wow. Nothing will change people's minds at this point, will it?

And Annie, all evidence right now is pointing to an Obama resurgence, a few blog comments to the contrary. This could all do another 180 at a moment's notice. But today, things look better for Obama than McCain. And my ridiculed comment/prediction/wild-ass guess about McCain peaking last week or the week before is looking good so far.

[amba]

Will wouldn't prefer Palin, either. If only because she's still an unknown quantity on the parameters he cares about.

[Simon]

Outis, I said comparatively minor, and the comparison I had in mind was between McCain and Obama. As you point out, "there is a vast yawning gap between Obama and Will." I think that you make a mistake in conceptualizing the problem as one of width rather than of depth. Will is going to be dragged over the precipice whether he likes it or not. The only question is whether he wants to be dragged over a precipice with a short drop and a gentle slope, or whether he prefers a lengthy vertical drop onto jagged rocks. As someone who's an even smaller government conservative than George Will, I'm saying that in this election, our differences with McCain are comparatively minor compared to our differences with Obama.

[Outis]

Simon, I disagree. McCain almost ALWAYS favors more government. More importantly, he favors government intervention into political speech in a huge way.

And I think you're kidding yourself about what's over the precipice: Obama will drag us over the cliff to a long drop and a fast stop on jagged rocks; McCain will pull us over onto a gentle slope ... that extends about 30 feet before we hit another long drop onto jagged rocks. Face it, small government conservatives don't have a dog in this fight.

[Simon]

Outis, respectfully, I just couldn't disagree more. McCain isn't an ideal candidate; he wasn't my candidate in the primary. But he is a hell of a lot better for small government conservatives (and for almost anyone else) than is Obama. Look at what the other guy is saying he wants to do, and consider that he has a Congress that will give it to him. We still haven't been able to fix (i.e. get rid of) the New Deal or the Great Society after decades; what Obama has in mind is no less expansive and no less permanent. It's a delusion to think that if Obama wins, we can just run [insert preferred candidate] in 2012, win, and mop up the harm Obama will cause then. We must save what can be saved; that's a conservative's lot. Don't give up just because not all of it can be.

If the small government conservative think that she doesn't have a dog in this fight, she misses that while one of those dogs is poorly housetrained, the other one will be going for her throat should it win.

[Outis]

Simon, you just need to face it: The Republican Party is not your friend. Bush II ran the most expansive government since LBJ, and that doesn't include the ongoing financial imbroglio. Under what circumstances should I trust them now? They had my vote for years because the Democrats were worse on the exapnsive government front, but that no longer applies.

More importantly, small government conservatives need to face this fact: We lost over 75 years ago. The American voter is going to continue to vote for candidates who offer them a free lunch, and there's nothing that can reverse that trend. Seriously, if Reagan couldn't make a difference, what makes you think any other Republican politician can?

It's over, Simon. Americans are going to continue to vote for lollipop-and-rainbow-farting unicorns until the nation fails, which should be sometime in the next 10-20 years, when Medicare finally destroys our economy. It should happen faster than that, but I imagine the current group of "leaders" will manage to invent some creative accounting to hide how bad things are for a few more years.

The governments's (plural) unfunded liabilities are quickly coming due. Expect to see counties and municipalities fail first, when they can't pay their retirement benefits any longer. From there it will work up to the states. So we're going to get hammered from the bottom up, and from the top down.

The system has failed, as it inevitably must. We just happen to be the lucky saps who get to witness the end. (I think I need one of Ron's pep talks again.)

[David L.]

Those looking for evidence of "confidence and triumphalism" need look no further than the medallions being struck for Senator Obama in platinum, silver, or gold by a firm in the UK.
http://tinyurl.com/3uxq3b (Birmingham Post, UK)

The coins show Obama's face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend "President of the United States of America". The the box reads “In God We Trust – The President.”

I can only hope these coins will become iconic in the exact sense that the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline became iconic.

[Ron]

Outis: Done!

Imagine if Althouse and Andrew Sullivan represented the blogosphere on Dancing with the Stars! The whole Obama/McCain thing...it's just like that!

Oh, where are the Executive/Legislative Fred and Ginger when we need them? Instead we get a bunch o' mooks going "potatoe, pota-toe." I know Fred Astaire, and they're no Fred Astaire!

[Outis]

Thanks, Ron, I needed that.

[michael Reynolds]

I don't think any of us are 100% thrilled with either candidate.

I've thought from the start that this would come down to future vs. past. I think McCain is man of the past. I think Americans are nervous about the future, but in the end will vote for it.

McCain is seeming panicky, hotheaded and a bit ridiculous. It's very funny seeing Simon rush to defend McCain for saying he'd fire a man (SEC chairman Cox) that he'd have no power to fire. A man who was, after all, only enforcing the rulelessness Republicans prefer.

Had Obama said that Simon would of course be shrieking hysterically about Obama's ignorance.

Obama has not done well lately. He's slow, he campaigns like he's sitting on a lead, and he doesn't connect emotionally. Byt McCain is looking like everyone's crazy uncle.

[karen]

Michael, Mc is acting the ass for saying what he said- but, i believe it was to distance himself from W and be seen going off in a different direction: to show that he can(in theory). You wrote the reality.

As to this- "A man who was, after all, only enforcing the rulelessness Republicans prefer." ... it's a flying lie.

O/T question: What is it w/calling W "Mr Bush" and calling Clinton "President Clinton"? It's driving me nuts. Shouldn't he be ~former President Clinton~? Rachel Ray, The View- the freaking CBS News are all freaking 8yrs in mourning. Get real.

[RW Rogers]

Good points, Outis. Unfortunately, out next President, the candidate of the future™, is completely clueless about economics, as his earlier statements about capital gains and other tax rates, his opposition to reforming Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac when it could have mattered, his campaign for the resurrection of economic nationalism, and his complete misinterpretation of the threat posed by AIG's collapse demonstrate. The fool actually thought AIG's homeowner and auto policy owners would not get their claims paid if the company went bust. The only way that would have happened if his pal, the Governor of New York (David Patterson) had gotten away with his plan to save AIG by allowing it to raid the $20 billion in otherwise untouchable legal reserves set aside by law to protect those insureds. But then what should we expect from a man who was so impressed by the results of China's spending $41 billion for their Olympics that he held it up as a model for us to emulate? He saw the results but wasn't interested in the details, like the tens of thousands forcibly moved to make way for these infrastructure improvements, the pittances paid to property owners whose land and homes were seized without hearing or hope of appeal, or the complete lack of regulatory review. Then again, he's smart enough to NOT be talking about it today, what with a last count, 13,000 babies seriously ill or near death due to adulterated milk distributed with the tacit approval of Chinese government officials.

[Outis]

RW, I'm aware of those things too. I'm also aware of the political thuggery around the Obama campaign. Hell, I wrote a post last Thursday night and Friday (later trimmed considerably) that had me ready to run out and vote for McCain (or rather, against Obama). But I still just can't bring myself to care. I just don't think McCain is much better.

When it comes down to it, I think either man is likely to be completely swept along (and aside) by events. The next President will join Hoover and Buchanan, as Presidents completely overwhelmed by the tide of history. At BEST the next President will get to play Martin Van Buren to Bush's Andrew Jackson.

We need to quit worrying about the irrelevancies running now, and attempt to identify if we have an FDR or Lincoln waiting in the wings. Maybe Jindhal among the Republicans. I have no idea who among the Democrats.

[amba]

I hate to break it to you, Outis, but you will not like what Pat HMV, who lives in LA and has worked in state government, has to say about Jindal.

[RW Rogers]

Outis: I think you are right about the underfunded pension liabilities of municipalities and counties being the next thing to come down the line. Here in California, San Diego has been teetering on the abyss of bankruptcy for a few years now. Vallejo is already there. One of the smaller counties is expected to file for bankruptcy soon. The 2008-2009 property tax revisions only caught the beginning of the downturn in property values. Come next year, the sh*t is really going to hit the fan. For example, because of the cut-off date used for appraisals, my house remains on the rolls at about 31% above its market value today with prices continuing to fall. Thus, the property tax rolls in my county managed to eke out a 3.5% increase. This time next year, they won't be able to avoid it and the tax take could be as low as 60% of what it is this year. The state is already running a multi-billion dollar deficit with no relief in sight for it as well.

Before our friend chimes in to blame all this and more on those evil Republicans, let's note that it was a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Congress that wrote and passed the legislation that allowed private pension plan administrators to make up their own pie-in-the-sky actuarial estimates and then intentionally underfund them year after year after year. Public pension plans followed suit with predictable results. Thank you, Jimmy Carter.

[Ron]

San Diego? San Diego is Dubai compared to the Wagnerian Ring of Cash Hemorrhaging that is Detroit! Corruption? I've just been giving Amba the red meat; the whole lack-of-cash-cow needs one of the "bolt killers" like in No Country for Old Men. The state is now taking over the school districts because they're waaaay past broke. If this whole mess had a Shakespearean ending ("And flights of Escalades sing thee to thy rest!") with someone coming in to clean house, fine, but like the banking system the bandits are still guarding the treasure house!

[Outis]

Amba, I don't really have much hope for Jindal, or anyone else. I'm just casting about in desperation looking for something.

I'm sure RW knows this already, but if governments had to fund pension plans in the same manner that private firms do, we wouldn't even be talking about the current financial crisis. Every major government entitiy in the US would have already failed.

[Spud]

As to this- "A man who was, after all, only enforcing the rulelessness Republicans prefer." ... it's a flying lie.

Rulelessness, a lie? It's unfettered capitalism. It's deregulation. Are you saying that it's not a Republican mantra? Is that not part of Reagan's legacy?

What is it w/calling W "Mr Bush" and calling Clinton "President Clinton"? It's driving me nuts.

Karen, I suggest you join e-dairy. You'll be sufficiently supplied there of name calling for Democrats, such as Obummer, slick Willie, and shHillary.

[Simon]

Reynolds said...

It's very funny seeing Simon rush to defend McCain for saying he'd fire a man (SEC chairman Cox) that he'd have no power to fire.

Step away from your talking points, Michael - The President can fire the SEC Chairman.

Had Obama said that Simon would of course be shrieking hysterically about Obama's ignorance.

I'm glad that you're here to tell me how I'd react. Speaking of ignorance...

[Ally]

Yeah, Obama is doomed. Just look at these new state polls:

From the Marist Poll, among likely voters:

Iowa: Obama 51, McCain 41
Sept. 18-21; Error margin 4.5 points

New Hampshire: Obama 51, McCain 45
Sept 17-21; error margin 4 points

Michigan: Obama 52, McCain 43
Sept. 16-17; error margin 4 points

Ohio: Obama 47, McCain 45
Sept. 11-15; error margin 4.5 points

Pennsylvania: Obama 49, McCain 44

[karen]

Well, Ally, the victory party can be on you, then. PS- i don't just drink milk.

[Simon]

Karen - if Obama wins, the party's going to be on all of us.

[Ally]

Well, it doesn't have to be milk, but I'm not going to be able to afford Champagne after what's been happening the last couple of weeks.

The party's going to be on all of us no matter who wins. Or perhaps it would be better to say the bill is coming due for the party of the past many years (spanning the regimes of both parties). But better a cool and steady hand at the tiller than the hair-trigger maniac McCain is acting like these days.

[Simon]

the bill is coming due for the party of the past many years (spanning the regimes of both parties). But better a cool and steady hand at the tiller than the hair-trigger maniac McCain is acting like these days.

Sure - in such circumstances, the best thing to do is obviously to elect a President who wants to pile even more entitlement spending to the already monstrous heap that's bankrupting us. The Obama plan: "this ship is sinking under the weight of its obligations. Quick, let's add more ballast."

[Ally]

Obama said this week that some of his plans may have to change due to the economic crisis. Yes, he has overpromised. He's a politician. But wars with Iran and Russia (and whoever else pisses off Dr. Strangelove and the Bride of Frankenstein) will cost a lot more than anything Obama is proposing.

[Simon]

Ally, Obama says that some of his plans might have to change, but the ral question is why the hell he ever thought they were viable in the first place. There is simply no way - none - to fix federal spending without dramatically reducing entitlement spending. The discussion we ought to be having is how to shut it down entirely - and yet Obama wants to pile more on!

I don't think we'd be stupid enough to fight a war with Russia, but let's think about costs of war with Iran in budgetary terms, vs. costs of the welfare state. We've been in Iraq for five and a half years, and although estimates vary for how much it's cost, this website pegs it at c. $556 billion - a little over a hundred billion a year. Seems about right. Okay? Meanwhile, the 2008 federal budget called for entitlement spending of $1.4 trillion. With a T. And that's one year.

If a politician tells you they're going to fix federal spending without addressing this elephant in the room, they either don't understand the numbers or they're afraid to say what they think. Obama's persistence in wanting to add more suggests that he's in the former camp. Unfortunately, for all her many virtues, Palin seems to be in the latter camp - she dodged the question when Charlie Gibson asked her point blank if entitlement spending was on the table, although I can certainly understand why. She may simply have been being guarded to avoid giving him an opening.

At any rate, that's the discussion that should be taking place - how to cut that $1.4 trillion to 0. Not how to add even more to it.

[Ally]

She probably dodged the question because she didn't know what he meant by entitlement spending. "In what respect, Charlie?"

Seriously, find me a politician, outside someone like Ron Paul, who will level with the electorate about Social Security and Medicare, and I'll show you a politician who couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Wasilla.

Oh wait, there are no dogs in Wasilla. They shoot them from helicopters.

[Simon]

She probably dodged the question because she didn't know what he meant by entitlement spending. "In what respect, Charlie?"Oh, please. You're still banging on about that? When even the person who coined the term "Bush Doctrine" tells you that it's an ambiguous term whose meaning can describe more than one concept (none of them the one that Gibson described), it's over.

[Simon]

Sorry, that last comment got a little mangled in transit from brain to keyboard. But you get the idea.