A rather silly National Post column this weekend sorry to say, but something more serious on "Marketplace":

The story goes that somebody once asked Ronald Reagan how an actor could be president. Reagan supposedly answered: "I don't know how anybody could be president, if they had not been an actor." Successful politicians tend to be theatrical. But in turbulent economic times, this political instinct can be dangerous to everyone else's financial well-being.

An ominous precedent was set by another great dramatizing president, Franklin Roosevelt. FDR was elected in November 1932 but not inaugurated until March 1933, under the rules of the day. And for five months, some of the most desperate months in American financial history, Roosevelt absolutely refused to cooperate in any way with the outgoing Hoover administration -- refused even to offer any hint or clue as to the economic measures he would favor once in office.

Roosevelt had many motives. In part, he wanted to avoid political contamination by the toxic outgoing president. But many suspected that Roosevelt understood that the worse things were on the day before he took office, the better he would look on his first day in.

Deliberately or not, Roosevelt maximized political and economic uncertainty for almost half a year at unknowable cost to the American people, but to his own ultimate political benefit.

Might such a temptation be repeated?

Wow -that is some savage cutting & gutting that Nicole Wallace has just performed upon Sarah Palin. Nicole & I crossed swords once, during the Harriet Miers nomination battle. Watching what Nicole can do when she is seriously annoyed, I am grateful that I got away from that fight with nothing worse than a few bumps and bruises ....

That said: Some of these stories do not ring quite true to me, especially the story about Palin allegedly not realizing that Africa was a continent rather than a country. Apparently she did not grasp that "South Africa" was not the same thing as "southern Africa." But there a lot of possible innocent explanations for a mistake like that.

Larger point: Would it not better serve the cause of understanding for Nicole Wallace to give an on-camera interview to Carl Cameron and state these points in her own voice - and allow viewers to asses their credibility? Wallace's fingerprints are all over these leaks anyway, so it's not as if she has any anonymity to lose.

Update: I just heard Chris Wallace on the Mike Gallagher show insisting that Nicole Wallace (no relation) is innocent and that my speculations above are completely wrong. I have a lot of trust in Chris. But if (as he implies) he does affirmatively know who is doing this leaking - should he not tell his viewers? What kind of game are we playing whereby people with potentially self-serving motives can place such lethal (but not 100% credible) stories on the public record - unproven, unchallenged, and unsourced, while the people who broadcast the allegations connive in concealing the information that would allow listeners to decide for themselves how credible the allegations are?

The appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff was the first clue as to the character of the new administration. Here is the second: Change.gov, the website of the Obama transition team.

On the home page, about 3/4 of an inch away from the "jobs" tab, is this big bold box:

An American Moment

The story of this campaign is your story. It is about the great things we can do when we come together for a comon purpose. We want to hear your inspiring stories from the campaign and election day.

Those who click the tab are led to another page where they can fill in their personal statement. One interesting detail: the address page offers respondents a choice of country. This is apparently not going to be an administration that takes a narrow view of its constituency! It represents the whole world!

Question - seriously - isn't this a dramatically partisan message to appear on a .gov website - especially one connected to hiring and staffing? Has anybody with a background in government service ever seen anything remotely like this?

Updates:

Well some do see a parallel - those road construction signs that mention the name of the local governor or mayor, so that voters will know whom to thank. It's also true, nb, that there are partisan .gov domains - including gop.gov, the House Republican conference. And a (conservative) general counsel for a federal agency writes to say:

I can see an argument that a post-campaign retrospective may not be the same type of thing as direct electioneering activity. Talking about a campaign that has ended is not the same as trying to influence outcomes before the vote occurs. 

Harris County - Harris County! - goes Dem:

With Barack Obama leading the way at the top of the local ballot, the most populous county in Texas elected a new sheriff, Democratic City Councilman Adrian Garcia. The election also wiped about 20 Republican state district judges out of the civil and criminal court houses. ...

Obama's slim advantage in Harris County — the first time in 44 years that the Democrat at the top of the ticket got a majority here — appeared to carry part of his party's slate with him.

Toward their goal of grabbing a majority in the state House, Democrats boosted challenger Kristi Thibaut to victory over Republican state Rep. Jim Murphy in a southwest Houston district. It appeared, though, the GOP would keep a bare majority in the Texas House, 76-74.

What the Democrats needed was not a filibuster-proof Senate. It was a Mark Warner-proof Senate.

There is no way that a beaten, disheartened, and disorganized congressional GOP would filibuster anything in the first 6 month of an Obama administration. But the theoretical possibility that the GOP could filibuster allows moderate and conservative Democrats like Mark Warner to quietly dispose of antibusiness measures like say pro-union card check laws. Now he can say: "Gee guys, of course I totally agree - 100% - but we have so many important things to accomplish in these first 100 days, why start with something that might trigger a Republican filibuster. Let's save it for later and get cracking on that fiscal stimulus instead." With 60 Democrats in the Senate, the Mark Warners would have no excuse. They would have actually to vote for the things they pretend to believe in.

My first take on the election results can be read in today's National Post.

In order to keep competitive, the GOP has had to win more and more of the Joe [the Plumber] vote. Ruy Texeira, perhaps America’s leading expert on the voting behavior of the white working class, observes that George W. Bush won in 2004 by only 3 points – but won the white working class by 23 points.

This year, an economically squeezed Joe did not come through for the GOP. But once the dust settles, many Republican leaders will urge the party to return to the tried and true. They’ll say: 2008 was an unusual year! Iraq, Bush, Katrina, the financial meltdown, and a too-moderate candidate at the head of the ticket: No wonder we lost! But the messages that won for Reagan in 1980 and Newt Gingrich in 1994 and George Bush in 2002 will win for us again. Taxes – guns – right to life – patriotism – the formula is all there. Stick to it.

If 60% of the Joe vote is no longer enough, nominate Palin – and win 65%. Or 70%. Whatever it takes.

The rest is here.

The Greek (center-right) newspaper Avriani features today a big photograph of Obama and the headline: "The End of Jewish Domination in the United States." I only have a PDF of the page (h/t Andrew Apostolou) and cannot figure out how to post it here, but here's a link to a daily news roundup from the Athens News Agency that cites the headline.

Update and correction. Reader Dan Truitt writes:

I've lived in Greece for 20 years. Avriani is a far-left organ, not a center-right one. It has a history of smears and lies, and is not regarded well even by many of the left-wing socialist party PASOK founded by Andreas Papandreou.

The liberal Manhattan congressman tells congregants at a Florida synagogue that Obama lacks "political courage." A very arresting videotape! Click here to view. (H/T Republican Jewish Coalition.)

A long view. It looks like we are headed to a big Democratic victory tomorrow. If so, the following may give a little cynical perspective - it is Hillaire Belloc's assessment of the epic Liberal victory in the British elections of 1906:

The accursed power which stands on Privilege

(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge)

Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign:

(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne).

My column in this weekend's National Post:

The president of the country was massively unpopular. His party was hammered by scandals. The economy was bad, unemployment was rising and polls showed worrying levels of public pessimism.

The nation’s left-wing opposition party had united behind a charismatic and appealing challenger: the first major party nominee to be something other than the usual white male.

Really, the whole thing seemed hopeless.

America 2008? No — France 2007.

10) No elected official in American life has contributed more to the security of the nation than John McCain. Latterly, McCain was the most senior and most forceful advocate of the strategy that has saved the day in Iraq. For that reason alone, he deserves your vote.

9) Over a quarter-century in public life, John McCain has defended the interests of the taxpayer, not only speaking for lower taxes (that’s easy) but fighting for the essential precondition of lower taxes, less government spending.

8) McCain’s healthcare plan is the first and essential step toward a market-based approach. If competition is to work, individuals must buy their own care. Barack Obama praises the employer-based system. But Obama knows full well that the employer-based system is dying – he’s just propping up its carcass until the time is ripe to insert full government control in its place.

7) As a man, McCain is more pragmatic and more open to compromise in substance (and not just in verbal formulas) than Barack Obama. It’s a bad reflection on the McCain campaign that it has allowed the less ideological candidate to be depicted as the hot-head – and the more ideological Obama to position himself as the moderate. But the failures of the campaign are reasons to punish the campaign managers, not the country.

6) The combination of a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and federal control of the nation’s financial system is dangerous to prosperity and freedom. Even if I weren’t a conservative, I’d believe that this government bailout makes balanced government indispensable.

5) To borrow an argument from Mona Charen: The best thing about a president with a military background is that he has learned not to show too much deference to generals. Let’s not forget: The brass hats were against the surge!

4) This country hungers for moderate answers on social questions from abortion to stem cells to same-sex marriage. McCain’s split-the-difference instincts offer the hope of social peace. Obama’s 100% down-the-line social liberalism will provoke reactions that will aggravate and sustain these social controveries, when we need to find compromises that can allay them.

3) McCain’s victory would be the most surprising come-from-behind victory in American political history. It would prove that money and endorsements are not everything. That is healthy for American democracy.

2) McCain has never compromised on free trade. Never. Not to win a primary, not to win a vote. Never.

1) John McCain is white, the son and grandson of admirals, married to a wealthy heiress – and yet he has experienced degrees of suffering, despair, and defeat that not one in a million of us can imagine. Barack Obama wears a black skin and carries an exotic name. In the United States, people of darker color have faced oppression and discrimination for centuries. But in Barack Obama's own life, he has known nothing but an easy and welcoming path to success since he was 18 years old. Privileged John McCain has known more absolute degradation than any man ever to contest the presidency. Obama was born in adversity, but he has smoothly risen to a place where he is most comfortable with those for whom things are most easy.

I do not fear Barack Obama. I even rather like him. I certainly feel I have much more in common with him than I do with John McCain. To lead this country, though, I prefer the man who has seen more and suffered more and felt more. For all his faults, it is John McCain who is the more universal man.

I vote for John McCain.

One final comment. As readers of this space know, I have been very critical of the selection of Sarah Palin. Yet I do not regard her as a reason to cast aside the principles of my life on voting day. She may not bring much knowledge to this ticket. Yet she is obviously no fool. Indeed, using the favored metric of Joe Biden ("I think I have a higher IQ than you"), my guess is that she would probably outscore the Democratic vice presidential candidate on a standardized aptitude test. To his credit, Biden has conscientiously worked to familiarize himself with the great questions of national policy. To her discredit, Palin has not. But on Tuesday, I will trust that she can learn. She has governed a state - and she did risk her career by defying the corrupt leaders of the Alaska Republican party.

Beyond that, it says something important that so many millions of people respond to her as somebody who incarnates their beliefs and values. At a time when the great American middle often seems to be falling further and further behind, there may be a special need for a national leader who represents and symbolizes that middle. And if worse did come to worst, who doubts that the whole country - including Colin Powell and Larry Eagleburger - would rally to the aid and support of the first woman president, thrust into office by some unexpected tragedy?

This is a great and greatly enduring country. It flourishes because of the genius of its institutions and the decent and moderate instincts of its people. I look to the American future with confidence always - under a President McCain preferably, under a President Obama if it must be.

A self-described "independent conservative" writes:

I've long maintained that the single largest catalyst that's driven the evolution of both parties in the last 15 years is the loss of California by the GOP back in 1992. ... For the Dems, winning and securing Cali and it's motherload of 54 (now 55, which is 20% of the necessary total) electoral votes was crucial. Without them, they had almost no way to win the WH short of a miracle. ...
 
As for the GOP, the loss of those e-votes and seeming total inability to even muster a mildly competetive threat out there has forced them to attempt to keep a lock on the South and cater more and more to the needs and desires of that constitiuency. They can't afford to lose a handful of states down there than the Dems can afford to lose Cali. So, basically, the GOP is the party of the South and battles tooth and nail every 4 years in Ohio to crawl across  the finish line with 271 electoral votes.
 
Texas ... will probably end up going the way of the quartet of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and to a degree, Arizona eventually. It seems to me that 2 or 3 of those are now at best tossup states and perhaps leaning blue. And in AZ, things are close. If they flip does that mean Texas is a couple to several cycles away frofollowing ? ... Can the GOP survive if Texas becomes a tossup state ?

A reader from Minnesota offers a powerful analysis:

I do not believe that the criticism of Anne Applebaum's support of Obama necessarily means The House of Conservatism is shrinking or has somehow closed its doors to those who do not support McCain. I think it is reflective of the frustration some of us have with people we respect who have relied on weak arguments for such support of Obama.

First of all, I am a fan of Ms. Applebaum's work.  Her writing is insightful, precise and often passionate. She is a staple for me.  And, that is why, I can understand the criticism of Mssrs. Willamson and Ponnuru. Perhaps their tone (Williamson's more so than Ponnuru's) was too "snarky", but they raise an important point.  This intelligent and elite (not in the pejorative sense) writer, who acknowledges McCain's foreign policy expertise, gave a tremendously weak argument as to why she is supporting Obama. An argument very similar to ones other "Obmacons" have given, relying heavily on what has become a caricature of grass-root supporters of McCain or the tone of the campaign. "Mobs who cry terrorists." "He has let his campaign appeal to the extremes." Really? We can all concede that there are fringe elements who support both candidates or that McCain's campaign message has been at times disjointed. But, why is it that conservatives seem so willing to paint McCain's supporters so broadly as being frothing at the mouth lunatics? Or that the McCain campaign has exclusively played gutterball? 

I can attest to having numerous debates with Obama supporting colleagues (very intelligent, elite, if you will) who honestly believe the "Bush Lied/People Died" meme, who do not bat an eye at the repulsive (not merely critical) statements made about Gov. Palin. Is there anger present in the electorate today? Absolutely, but I do not believe it is any more so at McCain rallies or by McCain supporters than at Obama rallies or by Obama supporters. However, it is this primary reliance on a premise that is factually weak at best, which makes it disappointing coming from thoughtful writers who many conservatives respect. I also understand why, fair or not, some go on to question the actual reason for these conservatives' support of Obama, especially when these conservatives fail to point out those policy positions of Obama's with which they agree (see Ms. Applebaum) or rely on hope that he will some how change in office (see. Mr. Buckley, Jr.). I believe you have given a more persuasive argument as to why one might not support the McCain ticket as evidenced by the usually thoughtful debate you have had with some readers concerning the Palin experience issue. But, even then, you acknowledge the serious policy distinctions between McCain and Obama and why you are supporting McCain, in part, as evidenced by your statement yesterday on who can be trusted to unwind the government ownership of certain banks and financial institutions. I am not asking those, such as Ms. Applebaum, to come around with their support for McCain. If we as conservatives believe that there are serious distinctions between the two candidates, I am asking them to explain how Obama advances those policies with which conservatives generally agree.

However, we have gotten to a point in the campaign where the path of least resistance for most Obamacons has been to point to McCain's supporters and his campaign as a reason not to support him, in spite of serious policy differences with Obama. Do they have such contempt for what should be close to half of the electorate who will vote for McCain? And, for some critics, the path has become a roll of the eyes, a sharp tongue and a "don't let the door hit you on the way out." Certainly, I dislike the tone that some critics of the Obamcons have taken. But, I understand the frustration.

In spite of the current squabbling, I do believe there remain core principles that all conservatives (those elitist, those grass-roots, and those elitist/grass-roots - if these have become the new categories of conservatism) still value. I do not believe the choice post-election for the House of Conservatism is one between a Georgetown brownstone or a log cabin in the wildernes

Reader Thomas Groome writes:

I respect Ms. Applebaum and her writing on the Gulag has been truly magisterial.  But this Obama business is just nonsense.  Do you really think WFB would have drunk that Koolaid? But what the hell do I know?  I still can’t figure out why Art Laffer voted for Bill Clinton … twice!

My broadcast yesterday on American Public Media's "Marketplace" extended a point I had previously made in this space:

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program. That's an old saying and a true one.

When the United States entered the First World War in 1917, Congress granted the president broad emergency powers over international trade. Those powers were not rescinded until 1975!

Who knows when we'll see the end of the government's new emergency role in banks, insurance and possibly automobiles and pension funds, as well.

We may think we are fighting fires., but we are also unintentionally building institutions that could endure for some considerable time -- institutions that nobody much wants, but that we have no clear plans for liquidating. Decisions made in haste and without much thought in 2008 may end up profoundly shaping the economy of 2018 or 2028 or 2038.

The government may soon feel compelled to order banks to lend. But once government gets accustomed to this power, it will not be so readily surrendered. We need exit strategies.

It's urgent that every emergency action be matched with a plan to undo that action -- sunset clauses in the law, countervailing powers within the executive. How about empaneling an independent board to monitor and report on progress toward the early termination of the government role in finance? Or creating in the Treasury Department an Assistant Secretary for Privatization and Liquidation to counterbalance the Assistant Secretary, who already exists, who now runs the troubled asset program.

The humble title of assistant secretary conceals enormous power, and we will need an equally aggressive official to offset that power. As James Madison warned two centuries ago: Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.

Above all, we will desperately need from the press, the Congress and the people constant questioning, scrutiny and pressure against this unwanted, undesirable, and unsustainable new federal role in banking and finance.

Reader Jacob Kaufman sends this interesting alert that some on the left-hand side of the political spectrum are beginning to speculate along exactly the lines I fear. Here's from Matt Yglesias' ThinkProgress blog:

But if the government directly controls major financial institutions, that would give the new administration extraordinary leverage over the national economy. Suppose the new CEO of AIG decided he didn't want to insure assets of companies whose executives make unseemly multiples of
the national median income? There are all kinds of crazy things you could do. And of course not all of them would be good ideas. But some of them would! And the smart folks on our side need to be figuring out which ones they are."

My latest column in The Week:

The Reagan Revolution bookended the New Deal. It did not repeal it. Not all of Reagan’s heirs were so modest, and they usually paid a political price for it. It took him some time, but Bill Clinton made his peace with the legacy of Reagan. He signed welfare reform, accepted balanced budgets, acceded to a cut in the capital gains tax. Just as President Eisenhower accommodated himself to his gigantic liberal predecessor, FDR, so Clinton accommodated himself to Reagan.
 
Now it is Obama’s turn. He can try (as Shrum recommends) to overthrow the Reagan legacy, to establish himself as a new historical bookend, hurling himself into the kind of great campaign for economic redistribution hinted at by his own early rhetoric. If he does, his career will likely be tumultuous and ultimately doomed. This remains a basically conservative country.

Or Obama can fit himself into the American story, seeking continuity with all that came before, accepting institutional limits on his actions, innovating by inches. That may disappoint his most ardent followers, who long for a second coming of FDR. But it will emulate his wisest predecessors.

A friend with a position in the French government writes:

I might have told you already, but I met Joe Biden twice (in 2004) and he didn't strike me as a particularly serious leader. For instance, during the same meeting (April 2004), he told participants that the US troops would surely withdraw from Irak within six months ("Mark my words"!) and then asked them to consider allowing a NATO mission in Irak . At one point, while he was trying to make some kind of point, he pointed his finger as yours truly and said something like "bureaucrats are sad - look at this man"). Well, I was actually just bored to death, but that was no reason to wake me up. Overall, he seemed to me utterly unable to make a clear, assertive point. So if Obama wins, Biden looks like a pretty good reason not to try and impeach him. Otherwise, we'll be heading for a very bizarre period in world history.

I've been getting a lot of email this morning about my post on Anne Applebaum, below, most of it saying in effect, "good riddance." Here for example is reader Kim Hunt:

The House of Conservatism is not small enough. Apologists for supporters of socialists and those who are too cultured and refined to support a woman of accomplishment like Gov. Palin, are welcome to the leave the house.

Now here's another voice. It's the voice of William F. Buckley from his Playboy interview in 1970, collected in my favorite of his anthologies, Inveighing We Will Go, published in 1972.

Q: Even if you don't intend to run for office again [after losing the New York mayoral election in 1965], do you plan to keep writing?

A: Yes. We've kept an alternative landing field in operation, you see. When the liberals fly in, thirsty, out of gas, they'll find it in full working order - radar OK, bar open, Coca-Cola and coffee on the house. We know it's necessary the assimilate the experience of the modern age. Cardinal Newman said in a related contest - between the logical positivists and the conservatives - that one of our great challenges is constantly to incorporate new experience, so as not to leave ourselves with a piece of brittle lace, the touching of which would cause it to crumble.

That's the sound of a movement on the ascendant. We need to rediscover that tone of voice.

Anne Applebuam, columnist for the Washington Post, published a piece yesterday endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain.

The piece has triggered some criticism, including this from yesterday's Media Blog at NRO, by deputy managing editor Kevin Williamson:

There are all sorts of good reasons to not vote for McCain — e.g., if you prefer Obama's policies — but this bit from Applebaum is shabby nonsense. And I find it difficult to believe for a moment that this was some sort of wrenching, soul-searching exercise for the one DC-born/Sidwell Friends-and-Yale-alumnus/Europe-dwelling member of the Washington Post editorial board who was seriously thinking about going Republican this year. Spare us the opera; you're an Obama voter. Big deal.

Williamson omitted one item from Anne's appallingly elitist biography. As well as graduating from Yale, as well as living in Europe, and as well as writing for the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum is the author of the definitive history of the Soviet Gulag. Anne's history won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004, and has been acclaimed by (among others), Richard Pipes (ex of Ronald Reagan's National Security Council) and Robert Conquest (who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush in 2005). Anne's politics are more centrist than center-right, but she was a vocal and important supporter of Margaret Thatcher during her years living in the United Kingdom. In the 1980s, she lived in Poland and reported sympathetically and at some personal risk on the Solidarity anticommunist resistance movement. I've known Anne for almost a quarter-century, and if Anne did not cast her first presidential ballot for Ronald Reagan, I would be very greatly surprised

Nor was Williamson alone. Here is what NR Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru had to say in the Corner:

Max Boot writes, “There have been a number of absurd reasons given recently by self-described conservatives who are endorsing the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate in his bid for the presidency, but none are quite as unconvincing as Anne Applebaum’s.” Her effort did seem oddly perfunctory—Mickey Kaus makes sound criticisms of it—but I think Boot is overstating the case. I can think of a few Obamacons who edge out Applebaum in the most-unconvincing category. My sense is that Francis Fukuyama has been the most honorable and serious of the Obamacons (although it would probably be more precise to call him an Obama-neocon).

Ramesh refrained from Williamson's overt abusiveness, but he did leave behind the insinuating implication that Anne had somehow behaved less than honorably and less than seriously in writing as she did.

Notice something about the two NR writers, as compared for example to the cited Max Boot. Max Boot's post in Commentary's blog made very clear that it was Anne Applebaum's argument he found wanting. And Max found room to mention and salute Anne's great work. NR's two contributors by contrast criticized Anne's personal honor, integrity, and sincerity. (Kevin's piece was headlined, "It's Hard to Believe Anne Applebaum.")

Anne is my friend, and of course it angers me when my friends are criticized. But this is not personal. How small has the house of conservatism shrunk when it can find no room for Anne Applebaum? What has happened at NR when this generation's greatest living expert on the crimes of communism can be dismissed as an unserious and dishonorable person?

From a regular correspondent, a young Indian national doing graduate studies in the United Kingdom:

An Obama presidency will embolden terrorists. I admit that this administration made too many inexcusable errors, but Obama will only offer palliative prescriptions, not permanent cure to the problem. If his presidency is a peaceful one, it will be so not because he has gone after the terrorists, but because he has conceded. That's really not leadership.

Recently, an Indian newspaper asked Obama what he knew about India. His ignorance was startling. Other than Gandhi, he couldn't mention a single name. I can almost imagine the day when Pakistan strikes India, and Obama asks Indians to follow the example of Gandhi and sit still. McCain at least recognises the importance of democracy.

And  you can read it on Pajamas Media, here.

This is super-inside baseball, but for those following the story of the deteriorating relationship between Sarah Palin and McCain communication aide Nicole Wallace, this Jake Tapper piece will be must reading ...

Update: The American Spectator reports (who knows how reliably?) that the "McCain aides" who have described Palin as a "diva" were former Romney staffers.

It so often happens that the most important question for the next president rates barely a mention during the preceding election. How much discussion did we give in 2000 to the issue of the threat of terrorism? In 1992, Bill Clinton's personal behavior was brushed aside as tabloid trash - yet it soon came to dominate and consume his presidency. And so on.

By definition, I suppose, we can only guess at what the big question for the next president will be. But here's my nomination:

How will you use and how quickly will you unwind the huge ownership position the US government has taken in the nation's banks and financial institutions?

Paul Krugman recently advanced the idea that the government may be obliged to order banks to lend money. (This was his answer to the old "pushing on a string" problem - the government can insert capital into banks, but what if the banks are too frightened to use this capital?)

I don't myself think we are anywhere close to this being necessary - but what if it should happen? You do not have to be very anxious to imagine great possibilities for abuse. Will this lending have to be regionally "balanced"? Should unionized firms be favored? Or firms that locate manufacturing plants in America? How about special consideration for minority owned firms? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Right now, everybody agrees that government ownership is undesireable. But people will get used to anything. Four years from now, some in Washington may well who want to retain a small ownership stake as a way to enhance government monitoring and regulation. And even if today's mood persists, the terms and conditions of reprivatization will surely prove bitterly controversial, with Democrats pushing for the toughest possible terms (even at the risk of prolonging government ownership) and Republicans pushing for the speediest possible liquidation (even at the risk of receiving a lower price than might be available later).

It's this consideration, even more than foreign policy, that motivates me to vote for John McCain. I know I can count on him to dislike government ownership - to shun any political use of financial power - and to liquidate as rapidly as possible.

Barack Obama? I worry that he'll succumb to the temptation to abuse this power for utopian ends. Whether he is (or was) a socialist in any dictionary definition way I do not know. I doubt it. But there's no question that he's a redistributionist and a utopian. I heard yesterday a clip of him speaking at a rally a few days ago. He urged supporters to keep working till the very end because, "Power does not surrender." It's a phrase of pure Alinskyism, a reminder that with all that Obama has left behind in his upward quest, the habits of mind he learned in his 20s remain in place underneath.

Whatever exactly Obama may have meant by his words, they count as a warning: He sees wealth as power - and power as something to be taken and used. I prefer leaders who think in terms of markets - and see markets as spheres for choice and freedom.

I haven't much liked McCain's campaign in 2008. But our job as voters is not to act as campaign reviewers, handing out three stars for a good performance and booing a bad one. Our job is to act as citizens and to discern as best we can the quality of the candidates and their philosophies of government. A bad performance by a candidate makes the citizens' job more difficult - but no less imperative.

A very sophisticated analysis from Collin White, self-identified as a conservative, an evangelical, and a college senior:

The base identifies with Sarah Palin as one of their own. The connection between them is one of shared cultural and religious values. This sense of common identity transcends politics in a way difficult for some elites to grasp. Many within the evangelical and conservative communities believe that she doesn’t need a massive amount of book knowledge because she shares their worldview and seems to be smart enough that if presented with a problem, she’ll figure it out and do just fine. The rather violent response of some voters to the concerns you and others have voiced calls to mind a politically incorrect truth ... people sometimes cast votes for reasons that might not strike more politically sophisticated people as rational.

Regardless of the fact that your opinions and those of George Will, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan and others are based on your honest appraisal of Palin’s demonstrated aptitude for high office, the base interprets a rejection of Gov. Palin as a candidate as a rejection of the values she represents and of the identity they share. This perception, however inaccurate, is positively poisonous at a time when the conservative movement has lost its ability to communicate its message persuasively and when the evangelical movement is being seduced by a more left-leaning worldview than the one it inherited from its past leaders.

The conservative movement’s future may depend on its elites’ ability to affirm the values and principles of the base while insisting that our leaders have the knowledge and experience necessary to apply those beliefs to complex political problems.

A handy guide, from Mark Pravit. And don't forget New Jersey!

I'll add Dick Zimmer's name here because I'm a dreamer.  Two polls have now shown this to be less than a ten-point race, and Zimmer seems to be closing the gap with incumbent Dem. Sen. Lautenberg.  Plus, there are two close House races in NJ (03 and 07); more Republican enthusiasm could help those candidates, too.  Lautenberg's outspent Zimmer by at least 9:1, and Zimmer doesn't have that much cash on hand.  If the race really is that close without much spending by Zimmer, even a small infusion of cash could translate into a big difference in popular support.

Mrs. Frum on elitism in politics:

I HATE TO pull rank here. But it seems I am almost the only Republican still standing who can criticize Sarah Palin without being accused by my fellow conservatives of suffering from an "elite education." ...

[N]ot only did I NOT go to Harvard, I have no education to speak of. Not beyond high school anyway (and it was one of those large, urban high schools from which many of the most successful graduates went on to become garage mechanics). To paraphrase Melville, a tabloid newspaper was my Yale and my Harvard (and yes, it is possible to have read Melville without attending Yale and Harvard. It's Sarah Palin's kind of story, too: lots of huntin' and guttin' ).

My lack of post-secondary education isn't something I'm proud of. Certainly I've never been moved to boast about it in public. Honestly, if I'd had more sense at eighteen, I would have gone to college--preferably, an elite one. But I grew up in a newspaper family and was eager to join the business. So instead of spending my early twenties engaged in discussions of Keynes and Friedman, I found myself knocking on the metal doors of public housing developments, asking residents for recent photos of their murdered children. I never said "Get me rewrite" because, more often than not, I WAS rewrite.

The Philadelphia Inquirer endorses Republican Dick Zimmer over Democrat Frank Lautenberg.

Last week, Tony Blankley published and Rush Limbaugh publicized what may prove one of the most important articles of 2008. I don't mean that the article was good - very much the contrary. But bad work can be even more important than good, if enough people can be got to believe it.

Here's Tony:

I suspect that the conservative movement we start rebuilding on the ashes of Nov. 4 (even if McCain wins) will have little use for overwritten, over-delicate commentary. The new movement will be plain-spoken and socially networked up from the Interneted streets, suburbs and small towns of America.

Here's Rush:

Since there is not a strong elected conservative anywhere, then conservatism right now is sort of like wandering in the distance with every conservative thinking that they're the smartest person in the room trying to show the way to the light. The way to the light is plainly visible. But everybody wants to be considered the smartest people in the room, so they come up with all these new things like "the era of Reagan is over."

And more Rush:

[T]here's a blueprint for winning it, 1980, there's a blueprint. McCain is not the blueprint for how Republicans win landslides. Going after moderates, independents, and all these yokels is not the blueprint. The blueprint's there, 1994, taking back the House, the blueprint's there. Why are these people ignoring it?

If I understand it correctly, the Blankley/Rush argument goes like this:

1) Reagan-style conservatism remains wildly popular with the American people. It was the "blueprint" for winning landslides between 1980 and 1994, and it remains the blueprint today.

2) Yet for some unaccountable mysterious reason, politicians are ignoring this blueprint! There is not a strong elected conservative voice in the country today.

3) So obviously what we need to do is return to the politics of the 1980s - and sit back and collect the rewards.

This argument raises one big question:

Could it be possible that the reason that we lack Reagan-style conservatives in elected office today is that they are having trouble getting elected?

Still more Rush, referring by name to people like Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and me:

These are the people who are embarrassed by Sarah Palin 'cause she's not an intellectual and she didn't go to Harvard or have a college degree from approved universities and she drops her g's from words like morning and says mornin'. She's embarrassing, and I think something else really bothering these people is that they believe that she may become one of the key leaders of the conservative movement beyond 2008 if she and McCain lose this.

OK, let's develop this a little.

1) Sarah Palin has the potential to become a key leader of the conservative movement beyond 2008.

2) If that happens, she will follow "the blueprint" and achieve another conservative landslide - and another successful presidency!

3) But snobs like Peggy, David, Christopher, Kathleen and me are embarrassed that she drops her Gs. Our motto: "Unless we can nominate a Harvard graduate, we'd rather lose."

I have to wonder:

Can even Rush himself believe this junk?

I think Rush is a great entertainer and has often been a force for good in the conservative movement. But right now, he is feeding his audience pleasing illusions that can only lead conservatives to even greater troubles in the days ahead.

Take a look at this poll from Stanley Greenberg. (Yes Greenberg's a Democrat - but he's long proven himself a realistic analyst of American politics. Greenberg is the guy who identified Macomb County, Michigan, as the heartland of the "Reagan Democrats" - and warned Democrats that they were losing both Macomb and the nation.)

While a sizeable majority of voters say Republicans have lost in 2006 and 2008 because they have been “too conservative,” a sizeable plurality of Republicans say, it is because they have “not been conservative enough.”

Over three-quarters of Republicans say Palin was good choice, while a majority of the electorate says the opposite.

Two-thirds of Republicans say McCain has not been aggressive enough, but a majority of voters think they have been too aggressive.

Looking to the future, a large majority of Republicans say the party needs to “move more to the right and back to conservative principles,” while an even larger majority of all voters say, it should move to the “center to win over moderate and independent voters.”

When Rush and Blankley tell us the blueprint is there, if only we would follow it, they are telling us something that is not true. They are offering flattering illusions when we need truth. They are leading us to disaster - and beyond disaster, to irrelevance.

I have been warning about is here, reports the FT.

Public pension funds in US states are facing their worst year of losses in history, exacerbating existing funding shortfalls and putting pressure on state governments to shore them up.

In the nine months to the end of September, the average state pension fund lost 14.8 per cent, according to Northern Trust, a fund company. The loss has grown since, as financial markets slumped further in October. The previous highest loss for state funds was 7.9 per cent for the full year in 2002. ...

About 40 per cent  [of these state funds] are underfunded, meaning that they would not be able to pay the future pensions that employees have been promised. State governments have lifted pension benefits – a move that is politically popular – but have often failed to put in more money to pay for them.