McCain leads, Obama blinks and follows

John McCain has got more guts than a Polish sausage factory. Has any presidential candidate in the history of this nation ever suddenly shut down his campaign to go to Washington to deal with a national crisis that's more important than politics? None that I know of.

Newt Gingrich is a far better historian than I and he says President Dwight Eisenhower's promise in the midst of war is the closest match.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said the decision to suspend campaigning and lend a hand to the negotiations in Washington was "the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate." He said it rivaled Dwight Eisenhower's declaration during the 1952 campaign that he would go to Korea as president, if necessary, to help end the conflict there.

"This is the day the McCain-reform Republican Party began to truly emerge as a movement which puts country first, solutions first, and big change first," he said in a statement.

McCain's gutsy move caught everybody by surprise, particularly Obama, the Democrats and the media (same crowd), an even bigger shocker than his pick of Sarah Palin. Why you'd think the man had supported an unpopular war at the peril of his own political future. Oh right, he already did that.

Rick Moran at American Thinker said this at first blush yesterday:

This is an eye opener. First of all, the Dems don't dare call it a gimmick. McCain has effectively silenced the Democrats about the crisis for a few days.

Secondly, this is bold, decisive leadership - and McCain thought of it first so he gets the cookie. Obama is eating his dust right now and is no doubt kicking himself he didn't think of it first.

Third, this kind of surprise move will make the voters sit up and take notice. Some who may have been moving away from McCain will give him a second look. After all, we now have proof that in this race, there is one guy who talks about bi-partisanship and another who actually does something about it.

Moran was wrong on one count, Democrats did indeed dare to call it a gimmick. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had both called on McCain the day before to stop campaigning and come to Washington to pull reluctant Republicans on board their bailout plan. But when McCain took them up on their obviously sarcastic request, Reid was so mad he hung up on McCain when he called to tell him he was on the way. And then Reid called McCain's request to President Bush for a bipartisan economic summit at the White House a "photo op." Gimmick or guts?

The contrast could not be sharper between John McCain's quick, decisive and gutsy action in the midst of a national crisis and Obama's hesitancy and indecision. His first reaction was "Huh?" Then he said he could do two things at once, keep on campaigning and deal with the crisis in Washington by "long distance." Finally he recognized how bad his absence from an economic summit might look and caved in.

We're still waiting for Obama's rescue plan, which he hasn't had the guts to admit is nonexistent. He can't even do one thing at once. Mr. Vapid, Hesitant and Gutless is looking about as presidential as a first-term Senator who's never run nothing before but his own mouth.

Sarah Palin nailed Mr. "Vapid, Hesitant & Gutless" Obama's response to McCain's leadership in her interview with NBC Katie Couric.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in her third interview since joining the Republican presidential ticket, licked her finger and stuck it in the air, saying that Sen. Barack Obama might wait and "see what way the political wind's blowing" on the Wall Street rescue package.

Maybe Obama needs a Weatherman to know which way the wind's blowing and his buddy, ol' Bomb-Throwing Bill Ayers, wasn't available because he had all the long-distance lines tied up talking to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the mainstream media and the leftwing nutroots.

The New York Times grudgingly acknowledged that today's extraordinary meeting at the White House by Obama, McCain and Congressional leaders with President Bush was initiated by McCain, but had to note McCain read his startling statement from a teleprompter. Obama can't speak without one, but that's not news and it's news that McCain used one? They don't even try to hide their bias against McCain.

The meeting with Mr. Bush on Thursday was precipitated by a call from Mr. McCain, who cast his request as a matter of urgent national priority. “Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis,” he told a small group of reporters, while reading the brief statement from a teleprompter, in a small ballroom at the Hilton New York hotel. “We must show that kind of patriotism now.”

Dan Balz of The Washington Post "analyzed" McCain's bold move but the headline and the lede give away his pro-Obama slant. Under the headline Selfless or Reckless? McCain Gambles On Voters' Verdict, Balz gives his game away, answering the question himself: "He's Reckless!"

John McCain is a gambler by nature, and the bet he placed Wednesday may be among the biggest of his political life.

So is it reckless or selfless to gamble your political career on doing what's best for your country? I seem to recall the same thing being said about John McCain two years ago when he gambled his political career vs. winning a war for his country. Not reckless then either.

He managed once again, at least in the short term, to shake up the presidential race at a time when national and state polls show Obama opening up a clear lead. And by day's end, he had forced his rival to blink. Obama initially resisted McCain's call to join him and return to Washington. But hours later he was forced to capitulate whenPresident Bush called him and asked him to participate in a White House meeting with congressional leaders and his GOP rival.

Mr. Blinky still thinks he's in charge despite being forced to board McCain's bus at gunpoint. He's insisting the debate Friday is still on even though McCain has said he won't be there. Unless McCain blinks, it's going to be a lonely debate. Balz points out how foolish that plan is.

Obama ... may look high-handed if he insists on going ahead as negotiations in Washington reach a critical moment by this weekend.

Balz also states the obvious contrast, McCain's bold leadership vs. Obama's "long-distance encouragement" plan for dealing with a crisis.

At a minimum, voters were treated again to contrasting styles of leadership Wednesday, with McCain willing to act boldly, if impulsively, to inject himself into the middle of delicate negotiations to force a solution, and Obama adopting a cooler approach designed to show calm in the midst of crisis while preferring to give long-distance encouragement to all parties in the talks.

Finally, Obama's rescue plan is revealed. No need for an economic summit in the White House. Mr. Cool can handle it via long distance.

Oh well, on to Plan B for Obama since the long-distance deal didn't float. I fully expect him to emerge from the White House this afternoon, smile at the cameras and say with a perfectly straight face that he is delighted to be the One who will lead us to financial stability with his secret plan. He'll announce the details right after McCain works it out with the adults, if there are any others in D.C.

Speaking of juveniles, I was picking up a sub sandwich after work yesterday and the shop had MSNBC on with Chris Matthews going ballistic. He wasn't concerned at all about the financial crisis. He was flipping out because McCain said Friday's debate had to be delayed.

The thrill up his leg musta climbed up higher as his girlish voice got shriller and shriller, demanding to know why the debate couldn't be held on schedule? I wondered, what is the big deal? William Kristol must have heard the same panic I did because he answered my question.

As for the question of Friday night's debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system--if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama! Or he can take a break from the meetings, fly down at the last minute himself, and turn a boring foreign policy debate, in which he and Obama would repeat well-rehearsed arguments, into a discussion about leadership and decisiveness. And if the negotiations are clearly on a path to success, then McCain can say he can now afford to leave D.C., fly down, and the debate would become a victory lap for McCain.

So the action of these few days becomes more important than the talk of that hour and a half Friday night. One could even say the contrast between the two men in action becomes the true debate over who should be president. The media, being talkers and debaters, love debates, overestimate their importance, and are underestimating the possible effect of McCain's dramatic action. In the debate itself, McCain should mock the media's greater concern for gabbing than solving our economic problems, and should associate Obama with such a talk-heavy media-type approach to politics. If the race is between an energetic executive and an indecisive talker, the energetic executive should win.

I've been expecting McCain to eat Obama's lunch in the debates, simply because he can think on his feet and Obama can't talk coherently without a written speech flashing across a teleprompter in front of him. Hillary ate him alive in the last debate he was in, which is precisely why Obama hasn't participated in one since. And now that events have overtaken the campaign and the only issue that really matters is what to do about this economic meltdown, what can Obama answer when McCain asks him what his plan is? Call it in by long distance?

Or as Kristol and others have suggested, if McCain sends Palin to debate Obama, well. I'd drive down to Mississippi just to watch that.

And I'd take my camera so I could get a picture of Obama with that "deer in the headlights" look on his face when Sarah locks and loads.

One more item. Remember that Washington Post-ABC-BS poll yesterday that showed Obama with the big lead? The one the media chattered about constantly all day? Total BS. Today's Gallup daily tracking poll has the presidential race back to a dead heat at 46-46, with McCain gaining two points and Obama dropping a point. Why am I not surprised? The Gallup numbers show McCain gaining and Obama dropping.

This update covers interviewing conducted Monday through Wednesday, and as such includes one night after McCain's announcement that he was suspending election campaigning and flying to Washington to help seek a bipartisan solution to the financial crisis. A night by night analysis of interviewing results, however, does not suggest that McCain had a dramatically better night against Obama on Wednesday. Instead, the data show that McCain has been doing slightly better for the last three days than he had in the previous week, and with some strong Obama days falling off of the rolling average, the race has moved to its current tied position. This is the first report since Sept. 13-15, in which Obama did not have at least a one percentage point edge.

You know how to tell when one of the talking heads of the mainstream media is lying? Watch closely. They lie every time their lips move.

McCain leads: Obama leaves, politics as usual

Two years ago at our darkest hour in the war in Iraq, John McCain said he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. He doubled down, calling for a surge of troops to victory.

It was a huge gamble, but McCain, Gen. Petraeus, President Bush, our troops and our country won.

Now John McCain is taking another huge gamble, saying he'd rather lose an election than see his country's economy sink. And he's doubling down again, suspending his campaign until the crisis is solved and calling on Obama and the Democrats to join him in working out a solution.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

Obama's response? He turned down McCain's invitation this afternoon and says he will continue with his campaign, politics as usual. Whatever happened to that bold, new candidate who wanted to "change" politics as usual and lead us on to greener pastures? Captain Vapid rides on alone.

"Vapid: Insipid, tedious, dull, uninteresting." (The American College Dictionary)

"Vanity Fair: From John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, a fair which goes on perpetually in the town of Vanity. Symbolizes worldly ostentation and frivolity... given over to vain pleasure or empty show." (The American College Dictionary)

When Christopher Hitchens at Slate, a columnist for Vanity Fair and a big-time Obama supporter, asks "Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless?" to mangle a Jeff Foxworthy phrase, that just might be a sign that Obama ain't a redneck, plus a sign he ain't getting no redneck votes.

Us rednecks do not read Vanity Fair and until this redneck looked it up in the dictionary, I wasn't even sure what "vapid" meant. "Airhead" was the first thing that popped to mind. Close enough. I also didn't know just where that fancy-dancy, leftwing-liberal Noo Yawk magazine Vanity Fair got its name. But I have heard of John Bunyan's Christian classic, Pilgrim's Progress, and it's a pretty good sign that your magazine's philosophy "Symbolizes worldly ostentation and frivolity... given over to vain pleasure or empty show" when that's the name you call yourself.

But I guess I'm an even stupider redneck than I thought I was or there's not as many of us rednecks as I thought there was. Obama's doing just fine without us redneck voters. Captain Gutless Vapid don't need no stinkin' plan for the economy. He's a Democrat and that's enough.

Else why has Captain Vapid, who has yet to offer even a hint of a plan to get us out of the current economic crisis we are in, suddenly vaulted into his first clear lead in the race, 9 points overall and a 14-point lead in dealing with the economy, sez a Washington Post-ABC News poll?

And while Captain Vapid hums insipidly, the adult on the other ticket takes a risky move. John McCain has suspended his campaign to return to Washington to work in the Senate to help resolve the crisis.

Captain Vapid says "Why bother to lead when my numbers improve dramatically in the polls?"

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent...

In the new poll, voters once again gave Obama higher marks than McCain when it comes to dealing with the economy, 53 percent to 39 percent. Two weeks ago, Obama's edge on the question was a narrow five points, his lowest of the campaign. Among independents, Obama's advantage on the economy -- now 21 points -- is greater than at any point in the campaign... He also now holds a double-digit lead as the more honest and trustworthy candidate, flipping what had been a slight McCain edge two weeks ago.

That last sentence is the one that gobsmacks me. As Ace named him, "Captain Bullshit" is "the more honest and trustworthy candidate"!!!???? This man has been on the stump for more than two years, telling whoppers that would make Bill and Hillary blush, and the big majority of the voters think he's "more honest and trustworthy" than McCain, whose biggest problem is he tells the truth even when it hurts? Sanity has left the planet.

I can sorta, kinda get where voters lean to Democrats on the economy. They're wrong, but I get why. But Obama is "honest and trustworthy"?! I'm speechless. If Obama and the media have sold the voters that bag of BS, us rednecks might as well lean over the kiss our behinds goodbye.

Conventional wisdom has long said voters trust Democrats to handle the economy ever since Herbert Hoover started the Great Depression and FDR ended it, right? Wrong as hell! Herbert Hoover paddled and bailed but he couldn't save the ship. Democrats in Congress touched off the panic with some stupid banking regulations and the Roaring '20s came to a crashing end in a perfect storm of economic consequences piling up.

Conventional wisdom is the product of a liberal-dominated public school system, that been telling lies as history since the Great Depression, like Joe Biden's ridiculous rewrite of history, remembering how FDR came on the TV to reassure Americans when the stock market crashed in 1929.

And FDR didn't end the Great Depression on TV. His government programs spending money like water on make-work "jobs" actually competed with private enterprise and made the Depression worse. World War II put Americans back to work with good ol' American capitalism, making real products like guns and tanks in the shut-down factories. Thank you Hilter and Tojo, we couldn't have done it without you. May you rot in hell.

Hitler was right about one thing: If you tell the people great big whoppers often enough and long enough, they'll start believing it's the truth.

And here we are again, paying the tab for a Fannie-Mae & Freddie-Mac meltdown created by Obama, Barney Frank and the Democrats in Congress in 2005, which Senator John McCain and a few Republicans tried to head off at the pass but got cut off at the knees. So who do the voters trust to handle this mess? The same SOBs who created it!? And who gets the blame? The poor slobs who tried to stop it!? Madness.

Ain't Fox News the most popular TV news show by far? I hope lots of voters saw Jim Angle's report last night on the Democrats whodunit and the Republicans who tried to stop them. Angel answered the big question "Who's responsible for the Fannie and Freddie Mess?" Guess who.

OK, rant over. My only hope is this poll is by WaPo-ABC, so it could be BS. Maybe the pollsters asked if McCain had stopped beating his wife? Maybe they asked if Obama is honest or trustworthy, pick one? Maybe WaPo-ABC is so far in the tank for Obama they'd tell a big baldfaced lie?

You think? If not, it's looking like even if Obama dumped Michelle and eloped with Clay Aiken, they'd become the first all-male White House duo.

WaPo-ABC's numbers do seem a bit high for Obama. The latest Gallup has Obama maintaining a 3-point edge, Rasmussen has Obama up by 2.

And Kathryne Jean Lopez at The Corner on NRO reports: "The poll — shock! — skews Dem. There were 10-percent more of them polled. Fight on."

Actually the WaPo-ABC poll is based on a "16-point Democratic party ID advantage" says McCain-Palin campaign lead pollster, Bill McInturff.

So just in case there's still hope voters ain't so stupid after all, here's the straight skinny from the Ace of Spades on the Fannie-Freddie mess.

It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, ACORN, Franklin Raines, Penny Pritzker, Jim Johnson, and of course Barack Hussein Obama who actually built the bomb.

And I Repeat... Even now, the lisping marble-mouthed shufferin'-shucatash socialist moron Barney Frank is still fighting to federally guarantee the zero-money-down "seller financed" down payment mortgages that got us into this mess.

Because he's fucking stupid. As are most Democrats. They have no idea how money is made or how services and goods are exchanged. All they know is they want to distribute those services and goods more "fairly."

He doesn't agree with the basic idea that People who don't have enough money to afford a house shouldn't have one. He honestly believes that idea is "unfair."

Everyone should have a house. People who can't afford them most of all.

And if you tell him doing so will cost the government another 1-2 trillion in ten years, and will put the economy in crisis again, he'd say, "Fine." It's a fair trade as far as he's concerned.

Because who's paying that 1-2 trillion? People who have money. If provoking a crisis is the only manner to get the wealth distribution he craves, that's fine by him.

Thanks Ace. I know you're a big shot blogger up in Noo Yawk City, but I think I'm gonna induct you as an honorary Southern redneck.

Hitchens: 'Gutless' Obama 'A Dusky Dukakis'?

Christopher Hitchens at Slate, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is a big-time Obama supporter in the media, but he asks some questions about the Obamessiah that sound worse than anything said about him by either McCain or Palin.

Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless? Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis?

Hitchens tries to explain his Michael Dukakis comparison (loser to Bush the 1st) by replaying Bill Clinton's confusion shortly after his unexpected victory over Bush the 1st. Big Bill admitted he felt like the dog who was chasing the car and finally caught it. "What do I do now?" he asked.

(Obama) was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.

Look at the record, and at Obama's replies to essential and pressing questions. The surge in Iraq? I'll answer that only if you insist. The credit crunch? Please may I be photographed with Bill Clinton's economic team? Georgia? After you, please, Sen. McCain.

Like John McCain has been saying "Not ready to lead." As the old saying goes, with friends like Hitchens, Obama doesn't need any enemies.

But Hitchens makes it clear his criticism of Obama is intended to make him go on the attack because he fears McCain and Palin are winning.

(Obama) is too nice, too innocent, too honest, and too decent to get down in the arena and trade bloody thrusts with the right-wing enemy.

I have no idea what planet Hitchens lives on, but it's not Earth. Calling McCain a "stinking old, dead fish" and Palin a "pig with lipstick" is not "nice, innocent, honest and decent" on this planet. How much nastier does Hitchens want Obama to be with "the right-wing enemy"? Hitchens lives in that alternate universe where McCain's campaign is all nasty lies and the Obamessiah's words and deeds are all sweetness and light.

Hitchens is right that Obama would rather leave the really dirty work to his Astroturfing sock puppets from Kos, Moveon, Code Pink and other assorted leftwing nutroots, not to mention the mainstream media. But lately Obama's sending them signals they aren't being nasty enough.

Wesley Pruden at The Washington Times comments:

Obama told a rally in Las Vegas that his supporters have to "get in the faces of Republicans," presumably to say and do things "the transcendent One" never would.

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades answers Hitchens' questions about Obama with blunt honesty. It's so sharp, I stole Malor's entire post.

Obama acts like an aimless twit because that's what he is. There is no "deeper Barack." Sure, he does fine on the topics he's rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: "Present."

That's what happened with Georgia. He gives a statement that he probably read on a bumper sticker: "War is bad for humans and other living things." Then revises it after his advisers have a chance to write up a few position papers (cribbing from McCain) and run a few polls.

That's what happened this past weekend with the financial bailouts. First he sounded like a fourth grader aping a tour guide on Capitol Hill: "Congress has an important role to play." Then, after declaring that now is not the time for specific details to fix the problem he was mocked on Leno. And today he has his advisers have a six point plan.

If he seems gutless, it's because he's used to going whichever way the wind is blowing. As he wrote in his book, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Sometimes it takes him a few tries to figure out just what message his minders are projecting onto him. And, of course, without these people he has nothing to say at all.

He seems vapid and hesitant because he's never really sure if the answer he's giving is the right one. He's worried that his minders are going to have to turn him around so he can explain away any "inartful" statements. Think of it like this: every time Obama says "uh" on camera, what he's really doing is flinching from the possibility that his campaign manager, David Plouffe, is going to whack him on the nose with a newspaper. Again. Hence the stutter.

Hitch writes that he's getting the feeling that Obama is a little scared of winning this contest. And why wouldn't he be? After two years of dancing to his minders' tune, being reduced to a mouthpiece for smarter, more experienced and more ambitious men and women, he can look forward to at least four more! This is an understandable fear.

But Obama's also feeling what a child feels after he has climbed into Daddy's truck and turned it on, believing that he's seen Daddy do it so many times that he can do it too. The Obama campaign truly has been the campaign of hope: as in, "I hope I can do this." Things are rolling now, but it's just starting to dawn on him that maybe he doesn't know as well as he thought how to control this thing. He's more likely to come to a screeching, crunching, grinding stop than to make a graceful finish.

Abe Greenwald at Contentions also noted Hitchens' lament about Obama's "vapid and hesitant and gutless" stands on issues and ran with it.

Nice job, but it’s only a start! Let’s expand:

Does present-day Zionism have justice on its side? Let me tell you about my sixth grade camp counselor. How do you intend to apply pressure on Iran? By tightening the screws or employing a similarly useless cliché . When does life begin? Sorry, above my pay grade. NAFTA? Are you asking me or my advisor? Troop withdrawal? Immediately! Or whenever . . .

Forget the fact that Obama has no paper trail. There’s scarcely a record of his convictions–period. It could be that this, in some way, resonates with an electorate that itself has been sitting on the fence on crucial issues for years. They want to stop supporting dictators, but avoid the messy work of building democracies. They want to win in Iraq, but they want to end the war. They want smaller government, but everyone should have healthcare. They want to save Darfur, but wait for the UN. They want to drill offshore, but scold about it being a temporary fix. They want loans they can’t pay back, but want to punish the lenders. Obama lets his supporters indulge their passions without ever having to act upon them. Choose Obama and you never have to choose again. That’s a very appealing (and very dangerous) delusion.

Meanwhile, back on the "friends of Obama" side, guess who else took a turn in the fun game of "Whack Obama!"? Wait for it ... Joe Biden!

Obama's running mate shifted into reverse as he said yesterday that Obama's "McCain can't use a computer" ad was really ... "terrible!"

I think Obama needs to explain to Biden again how his VP's role as "attack dog" does not include biting the boss in the rear.