Blue Collar Muse

UPDATED!!

I posted on the David Kernell as hacker story the day the news broke. I was clear we were dealing with allegations and not confirmations and, thus, have stayed out of ongoing coverage of the story to see how it developed.

Many stories dealt with the possible involvement of Kernell’s father, Tennessee Democratic House member, Mike Kernell. As Stacey Campfield, also a Tennessee House member, notes, Kernell is not responsible for his son’s actions. Thus, until the father gets tied to this in a meaningful way, he’s off limits.

Now that Gateway Pundit has reported the FBI is moving specifically to address the chance that David Kernell is the hacker, we can move on to discuss the story. It isn’t speculation or allegation any longer. And while there’s not much more to report on the story of the son’s involvement, the news cycle may have turned up something tying the father to the story in a meaningful way.

Sharon Cobb, a Leftosphere blogger I personally highly respect came to Mike Kernell’s defense. She wrote,

On a personal note, I need to say something about Mike Kernell. Rep. Kernell has more integrity than almost anyone I know. He doesn’t lie, cheat or steal, and helps people whenever he can.

If David does turn out to be involved in hacking, Mike Kernell had nothing to do with it. Anyone who knows Kernell, knows he doesn’t even email because he hates computers and is computer illiterate. That’s the irony. Everyone who knows Mike is chuckling because he hates computers.

There are very few people I would vouch for, but Mike Kernell is one of them, and if it turns out his son did something wrong, Mike had nothing to do with it. (Emphasis added)

However, today I backtracked a story at the Tennessee ConserVOLiance from Toni at Bear Creek Ledger which referenced Mike Kernell. Unrelated to allegations of hacking, ‘Rep Mike Kernell More Worried About Voting Machines than Dead People Voting’ disputed Sharon’s description of Mike Kernell.

Writing in the Technology section of the NYT in May of 2003, Sam Lubell covered Diebold’s voting machine woes in Memphis and Mike Kernell’s interest in them. Lubell describes Rep. Kernell differently.

Mike Kernell, a longtime Tennessee state assemblyman from Memphis and a technology enthusiast, is concerned about future elections because the new machines are harder to get a look at. (Emphasis added)

The NYT describes Rep. Kernell as a “technology enthusiast”. That would seem to make Mike Kernell a player technologically. Last week, a Tennessee blogger says everyone knows Kernell “hates computers and is computer illiterate.” That would seem to be a problem.

In the best case scenario, Democrats in Tennessee must repudiate one of the two sources of insight into Mike Kernell’s personality and maybe his character. The NYT and the folks Sharon Cobb says know Mike Kernell cannot both be right. Which brings up the worst case scenario. Given the urgency and import of Democrats maintaining a majority in the Tennessee House, how far would they go to prevent one of their own from being outed as involved in a crime for the next 45 days? They have no guarantee they will retain the House which means they can’t afford to let any race be uncontested for any reason.

That sounds like Means, Motive and Opportunity to cover up involvement Kernell the Elder may have in the allegations swirling around his son. It’s time to look at Mike Kernell. Not as a witch-hunt but as a legitimate investigation. I hope Sharon’s friend wasn’t misleading her. I believe she believes her friend is uninvolved. I hope her faith is vindicated. But in the age of Ted Haggards and Bill Clintons, Kernell wouldn’t be the first to deceive those around him. Time to see if there’s any fire to go with that smoke.

UPDATE:

Stacey Campfield responded to me via email with the following. His comment is used with permission.  Stacey’s thoughts are particularly valuable as he serves in the Tennessee House with Mike Kernell and is a Republican.

That would be a goose chase. Mike is not a computer guy. I doubt he could do more then answer his e mail, if that. I like medical and energy tech but I would not say I am ready for surgery or to run a nuke factory. I also like computers (at least blogging) but I wouldn’t have the first clue about hacking or have any desire to do it. I would bet a stack of bananas Mike had nothing to do with it either. It is not in him. Some others I could say yes, but not Mike. I say this not because he is a friend but because I know how he is. He is just not political like that even if he did have the skills. He is liberal but not political. I don’t think he has a malicious political bone in his body. It would be like thinking Santa was a political hacker. He may know who is naughty and who is nice but he wouldn’t do it to be mean or for political gain.

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

Representative Mike Kernell is His Own Man, and Not His Son, David by Sharon Cobb @ Sharon Cobb.

David Kernell Hires High-Powered Attorney by Terry Frank @ Frankly Speaking.

Kernells of Truth by Kay Brooks @ Kay Brooks.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Jenn Sierra at Fort Hard Knox is reporting that a Wired.com article says the father of the person who hacked Sarah Palin’s email account may be a “Democratic State Representative” in Tennessee while the hacker himself may be a college student in Tennessee. This is the first I’ve heard of this. Anyone else here in Tennessee know anything about this?

If so, blog and link here so I catch your posts or email me with a link. I’m a bit indisposed at the moment and cannot investigate as much as I would like.

UPDATE: 2AM 9-19 Rusty at Rustmeister’s Alehouse and Mushy at The Silverbacks report that the hacker is likely David Kernell, son of Memphis Democratic Representative Mike Kernell.  So far all Kernell has done is confirm that his son is the subject of speculation and allegation.  There has been no formal admission or charge as of now.  The FBI and the Secret Service have both started investigations into the matter but there is no confirmation that Kernell is the focus of their efforts.  Terry Frank has some more in depth analysis and some great comments at her place.

SEE ALSO:

So Close to Being Smart by SadCox at Hear It From Us

Blue

Popularity: 34% [?]

I’ve been engaging in a debate in the comments section of a piece I cross-posted at Media Lizzy’s blog. Over there, I’ve had a great, respectful give and take with a reader named Eric. It’s the sort of exchange we all enjoy - no profanity, not snarkiness - just the excellent literary stick-and-jab that makes political blogging interesting and fun. Would that all commenters were like Eric.

I wanted to respond here to something Eric said as this likely will be longer than your usual comment. Eric, as have so many others in the last few days, has made the mistake of viewing Sarah Palin’s comments on the Bush Doctrine question from Charlie Gibson through the “Best response for the Left” lens and not the more proper “Response most grounded in Reality” lens. When I read Eric’s statement in comment #14,

However, this issue is dead now that Sarah “In what respect, Charlie?” Palin has shown how vapid her knowledge on wordly issues really is. I think independents will view this performance, and ask themselves, “Do I REALLY want this woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?”

my response was

I haven’t seen the entire interview yet as I’m in Phoenix for a conference. I’ll be interested to see the quote you reference. As I mentioned, the Left will be going over her remarks with a fine tooth comb hoping to find some payback.

Vapid is not likely a word I would use for Palin. It’s unlikely that anyone accomplished enough to be considered for a VP slot would be vapid.

Sure enough, it turns out the “Sarahnator” was right and Eric was wrong. Not that he’s alone in that. Charlie Gibson was wrong, too. Turns out, even Barack Obama got it wrong! From their place on the floor, laid out from where the “Sarahnator” coldcocked them, one can almost imagine Palin extending a hand to them and saying, “Come with me if you want to live!” They see her as the enemy but she may yet save them all.

On what am I basing my opinion that Palin isn’t a vapid housewife, unfit to lead should she be called on to assume the Presidency? Here are just 3 authoritative comments on Sarah’s response to Charlie Gibson’s “gotcha” on the Bush Doctrine:

First up, a humorous and snarky response to the media from Catron at Health Care BS. In ‘Dear Mediatards, Thank You!’ Catron writes

Dear MSM,

Thank you for your mean-spirited and mendacious coverage of Sarah Palin. You have accomplished what no Republican strategist, talk radio host, or blogger could have managed—-you have energized conservatives and convinced many independents that they should vote for McCain-Palin. …

Also, I will be eternally grateful to ABC for using its exclusive Palin interview to take her quotes out of context, distort facts, and do a general hatchet job on her.

And I can’t forget to thank AP for insinuating that Palin is unqualified to be VP because she was allegedly “unable to describe President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations.”

On a more serious note, one of my favorite intellectual types, Joshua Trevino writes in ‘Defining the “Bush Doctrine”‘

The consequence of this exchange has been the predictable and familiar litany of hand-wringing over Palin’s purported ignorance of basic foreign policy principles, and her concurrent fitness (or lack thereof) to lead the country. See Andrew Sullivan for a succinct demonstration of the shrieking; the rest may be found via the usual suspects.

Sullivan writes: “[A]ny serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is.” Charlie Gibson apparently agrees. They’re both wrong. The fact is that the “Bush Doctrine” is a term which has had an evolving definition over this decade. Though it’s obvious Palin was momentarily baffled by the query, she was far closer to the truth when she interpreted the phrase as signifying the President’s “world view.” What we know as the “Bush Doctrine” has many meanings.

Josh follows this up with a lengthy list of the various ways the term has been used, complete with links so you can see for yourself.

Finally, in the WaPo online edition, Charles Krauthammer’s article Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe also shreds Eric’s contention that Palin was confused and ignorant and thus, unqualified. Krauthammer notes that he knows something about the term “Bush Doctrine” as he was the first to use it. His analysis?

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

Sarah Palin will weather this weak and baseless criticism. The Sarahnator is stronger than ever. I can hear it now in that confident Alaska cadence that’s more T888 than pitbull, “I’ll be back!”

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

The Klein Doctrine by Pete Wehner at Contentions Blog.

Popularity: 23% [?]

It would seem to be so obvious as to not need saying that the best advocate for the Barack Obama campaign is Barack Obama.  Ditto for John McCain.  That being the case, it seems a no brainer that there would be controversy surrounding things a candidate says.  That particular sword, however, cuts both ways.  If the candidate is saying good things, newsworthy things, appropriate things - the candidate gets good press.  On the other hand, if the candidate says ignorant things, stupid things, ill advised things - the candidate is going to get lots of press, likely of an undesireable variety.

Which brings us to the case of recent comments by Barack Obama.  A few days ago, speaking to George Stephonopolous on matters of faith, Obama referred to his own faith as “my Muslim faith”.  Yesterday, Obama made a reference to the old saw about “lipstick on a pig”.  Both comments drew immediate fire from the Right and the national debate was joined.

Let me say at the outset that there is politics happening on both sides of the comment controversies.  Discussion on the Right is that Obama has finally admitted that he is a Muslim and not a Christian and that he also has insulted Sarah Palin by calling her a pig.  The Left has countered that the comments were taken out of context and that the other side is making mountains out of molehills.

For the record, I think the Left has a strong case when they argue the comments are being taken out of context.  When the entire section of video is viewed for both comments as opposed to just the 5 second soundbites, it is clear that the Muslim remark was a mere slip of the tongue of the variety we’ve all made.  The terms “Muslim” and “Christian” were both in the discussion and the wrong one came out connected to his faith.  The lipstick comment was a wrap up of a discussion of Obama’s spin on McCain’s views and seems to be an appropriate use of the phrase.  In this context, the Obama campaign should get a pass on the Muslim comment at least.  The lipstick comment is more problematic.

Because the real problem for Obama isn’t what he said, it’s that he said it at all!  The biggest complaint coming out of the Obama campaign over the last couple of days apart from the comment dustup is that Sarah Palin has not been interviewed by the media or let loose to speak freely.  What Obama understands is that speaking publicly like that can be a very treacherous undertaking.  They want Palin out and on tape so they can do to her what the Right is doing to Obama.  Be it on policy or a verbal misstep, the Obama campaign wants the same exposure for Palin that Obama has been subject to.  The problem, of course, is there is no guarantee Palin will be accomodating and provide the desired ammunition for her own political assassination at the hands of a cruel and amoral Left.

During the time frame in which Obama made the remarks for which he is being pilloried, Biden, McCain and Palin have all been on the stump.  Owing to his proven history over decades, smart money was on Biden as the guy most likely to say stupid things in front of a camera.  So far he has not although there’s a storm gathering around his comments on stem cell research and special needs children.  Nor have McCain or Palin provided any verbal gaffes.  But Obama has and that’s a problem.  There maybe an explanation for what he actually meant.  But there is no denying that he said what he said.  It’s a problem for him now and these two comments may follow him for a long while.  If he continues to add to them it is not going to get any better, regardless of the spin and explanation that come out of Obama’s campaign.   One need only look at the consequences of one word, “Macaca”, to understand the import of Obama’s mistakes.

Obama is squandering his reputation as a good speaker while tightly scripted and living down to his reputation as a poor spontaneous speaker.  The occasional slip of the tongue as evidenced by the “my Muslim faith” comment will tend to be less damaging.  Everyone has done that and we understand.  However, while Obama can legitimately claim his remarks about pigs and lipstick concerned John McCain, if he expects that anyone with a scintilla of intelligence will not make the connection between his comments and Palin’s comments then he’s not as sharp a knife as he would have us believe.

For whatever reason, Obama chose that phrase as opposed to any one of several others that would have illustrated the same point.  Thus he can try and explain his meaning but he cannot realistically say he didn’t understand his comments would be taken as a swipe at Palin.  Not personal - he wasn’t calling her a pig.  But it strains credulity to the breaking point to ask me to believe he wasn’t trying to connect the popularity of Palin and her lipstick comment and take away some of the power and popularity of Palin’s words.

I don’t fault him for doing that.  It’s smart politics.  But such efforts don’t always work.  This one didn’t.  Obama and his campaign need to look for better attacks or just give up the practice if they cannot stop doing it so badly.  Obama has enough negative baggage on his record and the issues without adding to the ammunition his opponents will use against him by handing them bullets and helping them load the gun.  Obama can try to explain away his missteps but it’s clearly a losing fight.  As Obama has famously said, you can put lipstick on a pig - but it’s still a pig!

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 29% [?]

Hat tip to Moe Lane at Redstate for pointing me to Michelle Cottle’s convoluted reasoning at The New Republic concerning Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

Titled ‘Shattered’, it starts out asking the big question for everyone on the Left, “Can someone please tell me what the hell happened?” Obama supporters want the answer to offer substance to go with the stuff they’ve been shoveling. They know they won but haven’t yet figured out how. An answer would point them in the right direction as the diss Hillary strategy is no longer available. Cottle and the rest of Hillary’s supporters want answers to ward off the next pretender to Hillary’s throne.

I like Cottle’s assessment of the Hillary campaign.

… This presidential election was supposed to be a high-water mark for feminism. Hillary Clinton … wasn’t running as a Woman [or] to prove herself tough enough to hang with the Big Boys: [Her] strategy was to prove that she was tougher than the Big Boys. … Hillary’s candidacy was expected to showcase what it means to be a broad-shouldered, ass-kicking modern woman.

Iowa was where Hillary’s inevitability narrative unraveled, but New Hampshire was where she got the idea that redemption lay in the legions of gals who rallied ’round when the (mostly male) political establishment and punditocracy began salivating at the thought of her imminent demise. … Hillary’s now famous moment of teary-eyed vulnerability fueled their fury. …

And, just like that, the strong, proud, fearless, gender-transcendent Hillary morphed into a disrespected, mistreated victim. Grievance feminism came roaring back with a vengeance. …

… the Democratic National Committee was compelled to insert into its platform this statement: “We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.”

Not even the primary’s resolution could end the drama. … the true dead-enders–an overwhelmingly female cohort–grew ever more marginalized and belligerent.  … they were increasingly derided as overly emotional and downright nutty. … the extremism of Hillary dead-enders has played into all those tired stereotypes about women being fuzzy-headed and irrational.

The short version is Hillary talked tough but folded under pressure playing the gender card. Her supposed legendary leadership skills fizzled revealing a woman who couldn’t run a campaign, let alone a nation. The “If you don’t choose Hillary, you’re sexist!” group did garner her a loyal core group but it was unable to deliver the nomination. Democratic “girlie-fication” was so complete, PUMAs forced anti-sexist language into the formal platform. That was the extent of real Democratic support for women.  Hillary was the feminist heroine struck down while on her holy quest.

Enter Sarah Palin. Determined to stick to her non-sexist guns, Cottle goes after Palin, not on the issue of gender, but on the issue of issues.  Well, maybe not so much.

The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor’s policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care. …

… Palin is abjectly unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is less than two years into her first term as governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to that of Baltimore or Fort Worth. Her minimal experience with national domestic issues is overshadowed only by her total lack of experience, or even apparent interest, in foreign affairs. This … makes the cynical tokenism of Palin’s selection all the more vivid.

Having analyzed Hillary well, Cottle fails to bring the same objectivity to Palin’s evaluation. She seems unable to conceive that choosing a woman of “intelligence, politcal savvy, [and] judgement”; a “smart, ambitious” woman; a “ballsy” woman who also happens to be a “staunchly conservative” woman could be anything other than “cynical tokenism”. Yes, she really did say all those nice things about Sarah Palin before dismissing her just because she’s a woman.

Strong, accomplished women are acceptable only if they’re Democrats.  Drooling GOP neandrathals wouldn’t nominate one until the Left showed them the political value in it.  Palin isn’t the nominee because she’s all the good things Cottle says about her. She’s the nominee because her vagina might attract votes. Palin is just a political whore being pimped by McCain.

At some point, Cottle and the Left must give up the unqualified token woman meme. It’s a non-starter and a bad-ender, too. Go back to championing the right to kill unborn babies, to tax the country into economic oblivion, to enshrine destructive energy policies into environmental utopian fantasies, to cling to 20th century solutions for 21st century problems and the rest of the bunk passing for serious issue debate on the Left. They’ll fare better with traditional losing arguments than with talking down the gender they’d love to praise but can’t just because of ideology.

But, perhaps Cottle is a faux feminist willing to put Party before private parts. Or maybe, deep down, she’s not a real feminist at all. Seeing Hillary implode at the first sign of trouble, perhaps she’s convinced if Hillary couldn’t weather the storm, no woman can. If the Left brings their own storm - going after Sarah with smears, lies and distortions starting with her family and moving to her person, her positions and Party, then doing it all again; belittle her, shame her, wound her enough and she’ll fold. If Hillary couldn’t take it, who is this upstart from the outside to think she can? At the end of the day, she’s just a woman, after all.

Who knows? Cottle may even be right. I don’t believe it, but she sure seems to. What to do, and what to say, however, if she turns out to be wrong? So who is the one advancing the feminist cause? And who is fighting a principled fight for the rights and opportunities of women? It would appear to be John McCain. It sure isn’t Barack Obama. And it’s not Michelle Cottle, either.

Thinking Cottle gets the nod for President of Hillary dead-enders - but what do I know - I only have a penis …

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 34% [?]

When unexpected good things happen, we call it Serendipity. Not so with unexpected bad things. The Law of Unintended Consequences, abbreviated LUC and pronounced “luck” as in “If it weren’t for bad LUCk I’d have no LUCk at all!”, is perhaps the most famous non-scientific Law. No need to be a rocket scientist to recognize no matter how hard you try to avoid it, bad things will happen which you did not foresee and did not intend.

BCM’s corollary to LUCk postulates the larger the pool of original actions from which to derive consequences of any sort, the greater the odds of realizing a Spontaneous Unintended Consequence, abbreviated SUC and pronounced “suck” as in, well, you’re likely way ahead of me here! All of which puts Democrats, with their emphasis on more regulation, bigger Government and expanding bureaucracy at huge risk for SUCking on a regular basis.

News reports this week show Dems SUCking in 2 ways which don’t bode well for Americans. As always, in November, remember who got you into this mess.

Both instances of Democratic SUCking stem from their Energy policy which refuses to acknowledge both the value of drilling for American oil and of increasing our ability to refine oil we are able to acquire from any source. While Democrats publicly pretend to hate high prices for items impacted by oil costs, privately they are jubilant.  High fuel prices are  particularly joyous as they force Americans to drive less thereby ushering in the long awaited dream of planetary salvation. But just here, things start to SUCk for the country.

World Net Daily reports BusinessWeek is running a story on a new Ford, the Fiesta ECOnetic. It gets a stunning 65 mpg, but the carmaker can’t sell it in the US. Only Europeans will be able to buy the ECOnetic.

“We know it’s an awesome vehicle,” says Ford America President Mark Fields. “But there are business reasons why we can’t sell it in the U.S.” The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called “clean diesel” would overcome many Americans’ antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. “Americans see hybrids as the darling,” says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, “and diesel as old-tech.”

Higher taxes, higher production costs and decades of irresponsible environmentalism - all thanks to Democrats - leave Americans out of fuel, walking on the roadside. Meanwhile, world citizens in Europe reap benefits from American technology, manufacturing jobs and the economic benefit of both.

The second instance of Democrats as LUCky charms also comes via World Net Daily, this time pointing to an ABC News story that the Highway Trust Fund, in which monies are held to be disbursed to the several states for infrastructure upkeep and repair, will run out of money at the end of this month.

… the Transportation Department said that this month it is expecting to bring in $2.7 billion in gas tax revenues but anticipates needing $4.4 billion to reimburse states for their highway and road projects. The department said it will start the upcoming fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 with no money in the trust funds if patterns continue as is.

Why? The story reports that Americans are driving less due to the high cost of fuel. A lot less. Try 10 billion miles less in May of ‘08 than in May of ‘07. Music to Democratic ears. But wait. The Highway Trust Fund is kept chuck-full-o-bucks by fuel taxes. Less driving means less fuel purchases. Less fuel purchases means less revenue to the Fund. And less Fund revenue means that “…starting next week [The Transportation Department] will begin delaying payments to states …” for the projects they are working on. Oooops, the favorite Democratic tactic of raising taxes to generate income doesn’t work yet again!

The solution? Democrats want yet another $8 billion in tax money for the Fund. Is there no end to the SUCkiness? The Bush administration recently opposed that plan. Democrats merely criticize the President, pointing to projects that will suffer if the Fund stops paying. Leaving alone, for this post anyway, the waste inherent in sending money from the states to the Feds to be sent back to the states, another factor is at work here. Railing at the GOP, Democrats conveniently forget another truth.

In this highly charged political season, Transportation Secretary [Mary] Peters blamed the financial crisis on earmarks included in the last transportation bill, which she said amounted to $24 billion in pet projects.

The last transportation bill, the one passed by a Democratic Congress, the Congress with a 9% approval rating, contained enough Pork to fund the Highway Trust Fund for almost 6 months! But it’s the GOP who is wrong for not simply ponying up another $8 billion. Democrats in control of purse strings don’t have to exercise fiscal constraint or oversight. If Bush and Co. won’t go along, open fire on the GOP. If the Right continues to balk and Dems need another few billion dollars for something, they’ll just raise another tax.

But which candidate is campaigning on reforming the earmark tradition so taxpayers get the most for the money taken from them in taxes? And which Party wants to reduce the size of Government so it doesn’t continue to cost Americans 54% of every dollar they make just to fund some level of Government? Which leads inexorably to the crucial question, “Who offers realistic hope to Americans that their SUCky LUCk can change?” How you answer that question on November 4th will have a profound impact you both of our lives. Choose well.

Wondering if that’s enough talk about the Economy for Senators Obama and Biden …

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 49% [?]

Like most bloggers, I enjoy the sound of my own voice and enjoy reading my own opinions. If I didn’t, I suppose I wouldn’t have any business blogging. I believe I have something relevant to say and that I say it well. That so many of you come by to read each day tends to reinforce that belief.

It further keeps me honest. I try not to post things simply to be posting things. If I put something up here, it’s because I believe it is insightful or important, even if it’s quick and silly as well. It’s also why I don’t do much “Cut and Paste” posting. While I often link to others for the information and observations they have, I seldom simply point to another person’s work and say, “What he said!”

Today, I’m doing that. Today I’m linking to a post from Joshua Trevino who is in Minneapolis bringing first person reports and pictures from the RNC. His post last night on the acceptance speech of the GOP VP nominee is phenomenal. While The Much Younger Trophy Wife and I watched with two of our girls from the couch, Joshua was there and his observations and insight deserve your consideration more than what I might write. He captures the spirit of what my family, and tens of thousands of other families, witnessed from Minneapolis. He adds to that the framework into which that speech must be set. He notes that, while yesterday we were dispirited and fractured; FisCons, SoCons and NeoCons; Conservatives and Republicans; RINOs and Right Wingnuts; today, we are all simply ‘Sarah’s People’!

There is the Sarah Palin you saw on television, and there is the Sarah Palin I saw in the XCel Center here in St Paul, Minnesota. I don’t know how it played on TV. I don’t know what the news media said. I don’t know how the pundits assessed the speech. I don’t know what narratives the blogs are spinning. I only know what I saw. I only know what I felt. I only know what effect Sarah Palin had on the thousands of men, women and children assembled to hear her accept the Republican nomination for Vice President of the United States. I only know what word describes all that best.

The word is electric.

It is difficult to express how dispiriting this Republican convention has been. Compared with the victory-fest in NYC in 2004, the RNC here at St Paul has been a muted affair. Enthusiasm was dampened for myriad reasons: John McCain is everyone’s second choice; Hurricane Gustav threatened the whole celebration; the party is at a historical nadir; and most of all, the George W. Bush Administration has indulged in compromise of principle after principle. Earlier today I went on Cenk Uygur’s radio show as the conservative punching bag, and got hammered on a series of points that I had to concede — civil liberties, wartime management, fiscal responsibility, and more. It’s a tough spot to be in, when your partisan standard-bearer has forced you into making excuses. I’m not the only one in that position and its accompanying state of mind; and I was not the only one to feel that this convention was more funeral than sendoff — more a goodbye than a beginning — and more pro forma than joyous.

Then came Sarah Palin.

Please visit Joshua’s site to read the rest of this excellent article!

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 41% [?]

I dislike the parts of the news cycle which exploit the personal failings of others. There are times when, reluctantly, I concede they may be relevant. I intentionally stayed away from the John Edwards adultery story, for example. But I admit his behavior, had it been known, would likely have derailed his candidacy. Which would likely have changed the Democratic primary. Which may well change the history of both our nation and our world should Barack Obama be elected President of the United States.

Seen in that light, discussion of Edwards’ adultery as it applies to the political consequences of his candidacy is legitimate. It matters what we do. It is through this lens that, as a father of 5 and as a man who has answered for his share of unwise decisions over the years, I view the past week’s politics. It matters what we do.

John McCain faced the most important decision for his campaign to date. Who to choose for VP? Be the maverick, choose Lieberman and the base be damned? Play both ends against the middle?  Choose Romney or Huckabee and both appeal to and repel a portion of the base?  Or make a bold play to the base, the country and the world and go with Sarah Palin? Tough choices. Important choices. It matters what we do.

Millions of dollars in donations over a few days, an almost unanimously energized base, the best possible poll results and frantic, desperate, Democratic spin and attacks later - it would seem he chose well. After all, if the response of most reporters and news rooms to Obama’s candidacy is cheering and open campaigning on his behalf, it then speaks volumes to me that those same newsies respond to the Palin pick with laughter. They’ve fashioned for themselves, by their own actions, a reputation in the public eye that ranks right down there with our Democratic Congress. If they’re against it, it must be the best thing going! It matters what we do.

Which brings me to Bristol Palin. Who would have thought a 16 year old from one of our least populous states would, by actions undertaken in private and never intended to be made public, have the ability to reach out and touch a family, a country and maybe a world? I cannot imagine what it is like to be Bristol Palin tonight. A lot rides on this election. It is impossible to calculate how her behavior will impact that election and thus, the world. It is an academic exercise in the theory of “What if?”. But it’s real. It matters what we do.

Given the predictable, inevitable response from the Left once her story became known, her family’s choice was bold and courageous. They would support Bristol and her decision to both have the baby and marry the father. Grace under fire. The courage and strength that come from actually having convictions even if you don’t always live up to them. It matters what we do.

We have come to the last weeks of the election. I didn’t watch much of the DNC’s antics. I won’t watch much of the RNC’s either. I will tune in for Sarah Palin’s speech. It’s time to stop watching and start working. Working to stay true to what I believe. Giving to those men and women that I believe in. And voting on November 4th for the people and the party I believe are best for the country and the world.

Because I’m reminded this week, by a 16 year old Alaskan mother and wife to be and a 72 year old Presidential wannabe, what I’ve always known, what it is vital I continue to teach my children, and what I must continue to live by myself.  Behave as if the world depended upon your actions.  It just might.  It matters what we do.

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

The Battle of Bristol: John McCain has the Upperhand by ACK at Post Politics.

What Bristol Palin’s Pregnancy Really Reveals by Cyndy Shearer at Contending With the Culture.

Dave Screwtape’s Complete Guide to Discrediting Sarah Palin by Adam Graham at Adam’s Blog

Wasilla by Bad Idea Guy at Target Rich Environment.

Popularity: 37% [?]

I got what I would normally consider a routine email yesterday.  It was the RNC schedule and roster of speakers for the upcoming soiree in Minneapolis next week.

It was about as interesting as watching paint dry until I realized something.

On Monday night, the following speakers are listed:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.)
U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.)
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.)

On Tuesday night these folks are slated to speak:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani
Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.)
Former Gov. Tom Ridge (Pa.)
Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.)

Wednesday night’s roster sports the following:

Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.)
Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)
U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.)

And closing night has the final slate including:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.)
Former U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (Tenn.)

None of this would be anything earthshattering except that also slated to speak on Wednesday is the following person:

Republican Party’s Vice Presidential Nominee

If we assume the RNC is not being clever, there are a lot of names on the list that are NOT going to be the GOP’s VP nominee.  Now the suspense is killing me …

Blue

Popularity: 36% [?]