Thank you to readers who have subscribed and gotten us started on our second subscription drive.  However, we are still somewhat behind in reaching our goal.  We are 40 percent there. 

It is imperative, especially if we go into political opposition, to have a strong subscriber base.  Otherwise, we cannot maintain the service in the way that you want it.

In three weeks we will probably have a President-elect Obama and heavy Democratic majorities in Congress.   

So please subscribe today.  We want Urgent Agenda to be your online home as we fight for our principles.  Please read the following notice and do subscribe.

TO OUR READERS

Our second subscription drive is on.  Subscriptions are absolutely critical to the survival of Urgent Agenda.  If you like what you see, and our readership growth shows that you do, please subscribe in the column on the right. 

Consider:  A week of Urgent Agenda costs less than a candy bar.  That's right - a week for less than a Milky Way.  We think that's an awfully good deal.

Our main page will always be free.  Subscribers support it because they want to guarantee that it exists at all, and maintains its standards.  But now, new and current subscribers will get special benefits.  We will be offering what amounts to an extra day of Urgent Agenda, additional audio reports, and a special e-mail address for subscribers to write to us and make their feelings known.  The "extra day" will be drawn from the research done for Urgent Agenda, and will include subjects we don't cover on the main site.

If for any reason you wish to cancel your subscription, the unused portion will be returned to you, upon request. 

On election day, if present trends continue, we will become part of the loyal opposition.  If trends reverse, we will be an honest gadfly to a McCain presidency. 

A voice like Urgent Agenda is needed now, more than ever.  Only you can guarantee that this voice will continue to be heard as we enter very uncertain times. 

We must be a subscription-based service.  Please become a subscriber, and join a very special, self-selected group.

---------------------------------------------------

SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

----------------------------------------------------

TO LISTEN TO OUR AUDIO COMMENTARIES, GO HERE.

(Here is my audio report on a briefing delivered by Michael A. Sheehan, former deputy commissioner for counterterrorism at the New York Police Department.  He is the author of "Crush the Cell:  How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves.")

---------------------------------------------------

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 16,  2008

UPDATE AT 11:06 P.M. ET:  The IBD/Tipp poll results for today have finally been published.  These boys aren't publicity hounds.  They often publish at night.  Their tracker shows a three-point lead for Obama, same as yesterday.  The IBD/Tipp poll is noteworthy only because it was the most accurate poll in 2004.  However, it tracks over six days, rather than the usual three, so I don't know if it's really up to date.  It is the most optimistic poll for McCain other than Gallup's "traditional" likely voter poll, which has Obama up only two.

O CANADA

Posted at 10:34 p.m. ET

We're as guilty as anyone at Urgent Agenda in ignoring Tuesday's election in Canada.   We Americans should really pay more attention to Canadian politics and policy.

Well, the Wall Street Journal does, in reporting today on the happy results of Canada's vote:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

That is good news indeed.  When given a good conservative with an appealing program, Canadians will vote for him, even though he must put together a coalition government.

Mr. Harper's first government also cut the national sales tax, personal taxes and corporate taxes. His domestic platform in this race promised to cut corporate taxes further to attract capital and grow the economy. Mr. Dion promised to levy a new carbon tax on business. Mr. Harper was able to explain to voters that a carbon tax is a tax on them. John McCain, take note.

Yes, do note, and do speak.

October 16, 2008.      Permalink          

APPALLING

Posted at 8:13 p.m. ET

One of the great underreported stories of this campaign is the attempt by allies of Barack Obama to suppress free speech.  We know about the attempts to pressure radio station WGN of Chicago into dropping an interview with a journalist investigating Obama's association with unrepentant bomb thrower Bill Ayers.  We know about attempts to pressure Democrats into boycotting Fox News.  We know about not-very-subtle messages sent out by officials in Missouri essentially hinting at prosecution of those who wrongly criticize The One.

Now comes something else, as reported by the Washington Post, hardly an opponent of Barack Obama.  The action takes place in Prince George's County, Maryland, the nation's wealthiest mostly black community.  This is pretty chilling stuff: 

The sign went up Sunday evening, bold black letters against the stark white background of the marquee at the Colony South Hotel & Conference Center in Clinton: "Country First. McCain/Palin."

By daybreak, pandemonium had broken loose all across heavily Democratic Prince George's County. Many local supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, jolted by the message as they headed down Branch Avenue on their Monday morning commutes, grabbed cellphones and BlackBerrys to notify friends. Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events.

"Businesspeople have to be mindful of the sentiments and sensibilities of their market trading area, and Prince George's County is overwhelmingly for Obama," said community activist Arthur Turner of Kettering, who was among those advocating a boycott. "People I have talked to look at the sign as a slap in the face. They feel it was blatant disrespect. . . . I have heard people say they will no longer patronize Colony South because of that disrespect."

Remarkable.  And this is a free society?  Apparently, you can put up a political sign only if the "community" agrees with its sentiments.

The marquee supporting the GOP ticket in "an area that is strongly African American was like putting a stink bomb in the middle of the living room," said University of Maryland political science Professor Ron Walters.

Ron Walters?  I know the gent's work.  He's a defender of Louis Farrakhan and a supreme racialist.  No great wisdom there.  As a professor, he should be defending free speech.

Colony South General Manager Alan Vahabzadeh said that the hotel, one of several Washington area businesses that has dared to venture into the political thicket, got the message after about 100 phone calls and three dozen e-mails. The sign came down Wednesday afternoon.

Another triumph for political correctness.  Can you imagine if public pressure forced a business in a white area to take down a sign favoring a black candidate?  All the "major media" would be in an uproar...and I'd join the uproar.

I'm afraid this is what we can expect if The One is elected.  He won't apply the pressure himself.  It's his legions who will do it.  I can imagine what the condition of free speech will be in our universities - and in our nation's newsrooms - a year from today.

Maybe we won't be permitted to ask.

October 16, 2008.      Permalink          

NOTE AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  I cannot independently confirm the following, but it comes from an excellent source whom I trust, a man I've known for some time. "When Michelle Obama was on 'Ellen,' all staff and crew were ordered not to look her in the eyes, but had to keep their eyes down."

COMMENT:  Judge for yourself.  She will be first lady.

NOTE AT 6:57 P.M. ET:  You may recall yesterday's asinine comment by the very asinine John to the effect that people in his district in western Pennsylvania are racists.  (What devotion to his people.)  We received this e-mail today from reader Tom Bullock of West Covina, California, and I thought I'd pass it on to you:

I lived in  Western PA for many years and found it to be a very culturally diverse  area, which was great for anyone with an unbiased palate. You could  drive anywhere within a few hundred miles of Pittsburgh and have the  most wonderful ethnic meals in accommodating restaurants. Most of the  places we
sought were family run bars and grills with the wife in the  kitchen and husband behind the bar. The only bias I can remember was the  undying love for the Steelers, Pirates and Penguins. Locals also had a  kind heart for the Pitt Panthers. Although a Cleveland Browns fan could  call down a certain amount of ire, but nothing like the hate I have seen  displayed for a non Raider fan in Oakland,  Ca.

Thank you, Mr. Bullock, for introducing Congressman Murtha to his district.  We hope that, after November's election, he will be retiring there.

UPDATE AT 5:02 P.M. ET:   From The New York Times:   Oil prices plummeted on Thursday, falling below $70 a barrel for the first time in 16 months, and prompting the OPEC cartel to call for an emergency meeting next week.  The rapid decline in prices had alarmed petroleum executives and oil producers who are becoming increasingly nervous that it is undermining the stability of energy markets.

COMMENT:  Now this would be a time for Mr. Obama and his merry multiculturalists to make it plain to OPEC that any manipulation to raise prices would be considered an unfriendly act by the United States.  Will Obama do something?  Don't hold your breath.

UPDATE AT 4:09 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed up about 400 points.  I have no idea why.

UPDATE AT 3:20 P.M. ET:  The Dow has soared and is now up 280.  There is absolutely no logical reason for this.  Logic left the market about 20 years ago.  This is a casino.

UPDATE AT 2:237 P.M. ET:  The Gallup tracker, now somewhat complex, is out.  Gallup now measures two types of "likely" voter.  The first is an "expanded" sample, factoring in groups that are more likely to vote in this election despite underperformance in the past, like minorities and young people.  The second is the "traditional" sample Gallup has used in the past.  Today's result shows Obama ahead by six.  The second shows him ahead by only two.  Yesterday's numbers were eight and three.

Battleground has Obama up six.  It was eight yesterday.  Hotline's eight-point spread is unchanged from yesterday.

All tracking polls reporting today were taken before the debate.  It is impossible to say if the race is tightening slightly.  Presidential races generally do tighten toward the end.  But the impact of the financial crisis, Obama's buttery performance in the debates, the large number of newly registered Obama voters (legal or not), and McCain's unsteady campaign must be factored into any prediction.  What also must be factored in, however, are doubts about Obama and the reckless use of the race card by some of his supporters, which may produce a white backlash. 

UPDATE AT 2:21 P.M. ET:  The Dow has bounced back and is now down only 37.

UPDATE AT 10:48 A.M. ET:  The Dow is down 214.  Whoops.

UPDATE AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  The Dow is down 101.

UPDATE AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  The Dow is up 58. 

UPDATE AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen, just out, has Obama up by four, a one-point gain for McCain.  Zogby has Obama up five, and Hotline has him up eight. 

THE MYTH

Posted at 8:48 a.m. ET

A story that has gotten major play in the last few days, and has been used against John McCain and Sarah Palin has apparently turned out to be a myth.  This is from a small newspaper in Pennsylvania that bothered to check facts.  Let's see if major media pick it up:

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

So are we, Agent Slavoski.  So are we.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

It is time for Singleton's editor at the Scranton Times-Tribune to take him on a little walk around the block and get to the truth.  Faking a news story is the most serious offense in journalism.  It gets you tossed out of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia.  It cost a Washington Post reporter the Pulitzer Prize.  But what is the newspaper's response?  I doubt if this will surprise you:

When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, “We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.”

How would brother Sonderman know if the "facts" are true?  Was he there?  Did he hear the line spoken?  How does he explain the real fact that no one else heard the comment?  This is a classic example of journalistic arrogance.  It's the old "We stand by our story" gimmick.   

Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence “as far as we’re concerned it’s closed unless someone comes forward.”

Not a great moment in journalism.  There haven't been too many recently.

October 16, 2008.       Permalink          

THE DEBATE

Posted at 7:51 a.m. ET

Most legitimate surveys I've seen say that Obama "won" the debate.  I put "won" in quotes because it's so clear that style, rather than substance, was decisive.  Obama is one of the best performers I've seen in politics.  He is, in my view, stylistically superior to Reagan, who often had trouble forming his thoughts, if he didn't have a prepared speech.  That was also true, by the way, of Jack Kennedy, although most people don't remember it that way.  In fact, Kennedy could garble things with the worst of them.  He was often saved by his humor.   

John McCain, a man light years ahead of Obama in substance, simply doesn't have Obama's verbal dexterity.  True, McCain is fine, sometimes even eloquent, when he gets going and goes passionate, but those are bursts.  It is almost absurd to say it, but the shallow Obama often seems to be better informed than the experienced McCain, simply because he has the ability to organize facts in his mind and deliver them with the smoothness of the higher-cholesterol spread.   

When Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House, his advisers gently hinted that he could use some coaching in how to appear on TV.  Eisenhower, a wonderful writer but a so-so speaker, was less than adept at using what was then a new medium.  The screen actor, Robert Montgomery, was called in to help.  (He was the father of Elizabeth Montgomery, who some readers might know better.)  Eisenhower grumpily commented that, with the influence of television, America would one day elect an actor to the White House.  When Ronald Reagan was running in 1980, Ike's line was brought up.  Of course, by that time Reagan had served two successful terms as governor of our largest state, so the line didn't exactly play.  But even Reagan said that he couldn't imagine anyone but a good actor being president, the influence of television being what it was.

Is Obama's TV personality decisive?  It's impossible to say how it would have played in a year more favorable to Republicans.  But this is a Democratic year, and virtually everything has gone against John McCain, from the unpopularity of George Bush to the economic shock we're still experiencing, to scandalous press bias.  Americans want to vote the incumbent party out, but they've needed reassurance that Obama is up to the job.  Obama is providing that reassurance, not with sound policies or careful analysis, but with a reassuring style.  He has a great bedside manner, and America is a willing patient. 

Pretty sad state of affairs.  Given Obama's razor-thin record, maybe Eisenhower's prophecy is coming true.  We're electing an actor to the White House.

October 16, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:24 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:   PARIS — The rout in global stocks showed no signs of letting up Thursday, with markets in Europe and Asia plunging and crude oil prices tumbling on signs of a serious slowdown in the global economy.

COMMENT:  The Nikkei fell more than 11 percent.

UPDATE AT 7:10 A.M. ET:  Please go to this Los Angeles Times link for a remarkable interview with Sarah Palin on the campaign trail.  Very fair, very good, and very moving.  If people could see this side of Sarah, we'd be a lot happier.

WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER 15,  2008

11:23 P.M. ET:   The general sense I get from monitoring the TV news outlets and online comments is that most people feel the debate was a draw.  Effectively, that meant Obama won because McCain needed a clear victory.  Today's Wall Street decline, one of the worst in history, was mentioned by a number of commentators as adding to McCain's burden.  The party that controls the White House gets the blame. 

McCain's route to election day is extremely difficult.  He's just not getting through to people.  It's Obama's to lose. 

10:36 P.M. ET:   The debate is over.  Who won?  I really don't think anyone won, but I believe that McCain, toward the end, was stronger than he was in the other debates.  That's only my impression.  McCain stayed alive.  He didn't make any great strides.   

10:27 P.M. ET:   Closing statements.  McCain first.  One thing that frustrates me is that he doesn't prepare great lines, eloquent lines.  He's fine, but his comments sound as if they're being delivered from notes.  But there is a sincerity and quality that comes through as he closes his remarks. 

Obama is now on.  Eloquent and, as usual, pretty free of ideas. 

10:23 P.M. ET:   McCain now passionately discusses the rights of families to choose their own schools, and is arguing for reform.  Very good, very good.  Again, when he gets passionate he gets good.

10:18 P.M. ET:   Talking education.  It's a draw on this issue thus far. 

10:14 P.M. ET:   McCain attacks Obama on his extreme abortion record, and Obama is mounting a smooth but twisted defense.  The problem here is that McCain often chews up his words and sounds a bit incoherent.  Obama is a wordsmith, even though his words often are used to defend some very bad ideas.

10:06 P.M. ET:   Discussing Roe V. Wade.  A trap for McCain.  He handles it reasonably well.  Obama takes a straight pro-Roe stand. 

10:01 P.M. ET:  Health care debate.  Obama more effective.  One thing about Obama - he knows how to deliver a narrative.  He brings the idea alive.  McCain is more choppy.  He is losing this part of the debate thus far, but he now seems to be striking back effectively.  When McCain starts to "feel" an issue, and you can tell the moment, he becomes a different man.  Right now, as I'm blogging, he's speaking passionately.  Good.

9:50 P.M. ET:   Talking about energy.  Both men are good, but McCain has the facts.  Again, though, McCain looks like an angry man, with contempt for Obama.  It just doesn't play on TV.   I wish he'd smile. 

McCain has become more effective as the campaign has progressed.  I find myself listening to his points carefully, whereas Obama kind of flows with words.   I don't know, though, if this will be the audience response.  Obama is American Idol.  McCain is a president.  I don't know which one America wants. 

9:44 P.M. ET:   Discussion on the qualities of the vice-presidential nominees.  Now McCain is very good in defending Sarah Palin.  Really, he comes off better than Obama on this one.

Narrator Bob Schieffer now asks Obama if Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and asks McCain if Biden is qualified.  Again, hey, McCain comes out on top.  He's coming alive...and I loved his defense of Sarah.

9:40 P.M. ET:   Obama names Joe Biden, Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, and retired General Jim Jones as his main foreign-policy advisers.  That's enough to make any of us vote for McCain.  Two of the three are marshamallows, and General Jones is not a name on anyone's lips when foreign-policy acumen is discussed. 

9:35 P.M. ET:   McCain is doing better, in my view, but he cannot match Obama's smoothness.  Obama doesn't say much.  I mean, really, he says so little.  But, as Michael Gerson said, he's like a 1940s crooner.  Like butter.

9:30 P.M. ET:   A reasonable exchange on campaign tactics.  McCain is more fluid than he's been, and is showing some real passion.  But he has a kind of scowl that is unappealing.  Sadly, on television, that counts.  It shouldn't, but it does.  

9:17 P.M. ET:  McCain has come alive a bit, but he seems to be a man who didn't prepare that well.  Obama appears to have facts at his fingertips.  McCain tends to fall back on old talking points.

Now, at 9:20, McCain shows his first touch of passion, and he's become more fluent.  He may be showing his stuff.  We'll wait.

9:10 P.M. ET:   An exchange on economic policy.  Look, McCain is not a great speaker and Obama is, at very least, a smooth speaker.  McCain is sensible on economics, but Obama comes off as "presidential."  It's sad, because McCain is clearly the better man.  Right now, this isn't going well for McCain, but he often warms up.  Let's see. 

9:05 P.M. ET:  The debate is on.  McCain has spoken first.  He was asked to defend his economic plan, and failed miserably.  Had he asnwered the question directly he could have presented a real economic plan and argue for it.

Obama is on now.  Far more effective than McCain.  Sounds more authoritative and sure of himself.  Same old story.

8:54 P.M. ET: We're waiting for the debate, from Hofstra College on Long Island, to start.  The conventional wisdom is that it's do or die for McCain.  Look, everything is do or die for McCain.  I assume his campaign understands that.   

MEMO TO MAC

Posted at 6:28 p.m. ET

Reader Chris Corbett alerts us to an excellent piece by the reliable Tony Blankley, on what John McCain must do to win this election.  Blankley is British-born.  I don't know what it is about these British writers that makes them so sharp about American politics:

The essence of this election season couldn't be simpler. The American public is so appalled at the condition of the country (which it unfairly, but not implausibly blames on the despised President Bush) that with fate casting John McCain in the role of Bush's surrogate, a majority actually is considering voting for Sen. Obama. And when an electorate is intent on doing something, the last thing it wants to hear about are the facts. Moreover, the public's lack of interest in the facts is facilitated by the major American media's refusal to report them.

Yeah, it's that last sentence that's really driving us crazy. 

A few days ago, a senior McCain campaign aide was reported to have said that McCain would rather lose with dignity than win by questionable means. I hope that isn't Sen. McCain's view because the aide has it exactly backward. If the polls are reasonably accurate, three weeks of John McCain's campaigning is the only thing standing in the way of the American public making the most uninformed presidential decision since the invention of the telegraph.

Uninformed is exactly right.  And it isn't only about Obama.  Have you heard a single serious question asked about Joe Biden's thousands of votes in the Senate?  More:

John McCain has an unambiguous duty to the nation to force the public to at least be informed as to the nature and character of Sen. Obama. He needs to lay out all the accurate available information of Obama's prior alliances, affiliations and conduct both for the purpose of revealing Obama's character and Obama's radical policy disposition.

Correct.

The Obama campaign has raised to a high art the technique of politically intimidating people from commenting honestly about Obama. They play the race card dishonestly, and almost the entire deck from which they deal is filled with race cards and threats of litigation. Real racism is appalling, but the act of falsely charging racism undercuts the very causes of equality and tolerance.

Very well said.  And the idea that Obama is unaware of these tactics is ridiculous.

As courageous as John McCain's life has been to date, the next three weeks may be his most heroic. He must do his duty and alert the public despite the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that will be shot into his back as he does so. Once he has discharged that duty -- and arranged for sufficient lawyers to protect the ballot boxes from what is likely to be an unprecedented campaign of attempted voter fraud -- Sen. McCain may be confident that his honor will be intact. And he will be ready to serve as our 44th president.

Yippee.   A journalistic Churchill, this Blankley is.

October 15, 2008.      Permalink          

NOTE AT 6:07 P.M. ET:  A number of readers have e-mailed us about the ship hijacked off the horn of Africa.  News story have said that some Somali pirates who boarded the ship and opened the cargo later lost their hair and died.  There has been speculation that the vessel was carrying material for a "dirty" nuclear bomb.

I've checked with an excellent source, and there is simply no confirming information.  It remains an international mystery.  However, I'm following the story and will report to you if anything turns up.

UPDATE AT 4:50 P.M. ET:  The last tracking poll of the day, IBD/TIPP, is out, showing, as yesterday, Obama with only a three-point margin.  This was the most accurate poll in 2004.  However, it's taken over a six-day, rather than the traditional three-day period, so it's hard to compare it to the others.

BULLETIN AT 4:04 P.M. ET:  Preliminary market figure:  Dow closes down 741 points, mostly wiping out Monday's gains.  Obviously, this is not a sign of great confidence.

UPDATE AT 3:31 P.M. ET:  With a half hour to go to the bell, the Dow is down 445.

COMMENT:  Should the Dow close sharply negative, it could affect the tone of the presidential debate tonight.  Any bad news helps Obama, and the absence of good news makes it difficult for McCain to sound optimistic about our future.

UPDATE AT 2:04 P.M. ET:  Dow is down 508, and has now given up most of its gains in Monday's spectacular session. But there are still two hours to go before the bell.

UPDATE AT 1:29 P.M. ET:  Gallup tracker is out.  Among RVs (registered voters), Obama leads by five.  Now Gallup has two categories of LV's (likely voters).  The first boosts the turnout projection of groups that may be more likely to vote this year because of enthusiasm.  Using that model, Obama leads by eight.  When using the "traditional" model Gallup has used in past elections, Obama leads by only three.  I have no idea which one will prove more valid.

UPDATE AT 1:22 P.M. ET:  Dow is down 421.

UPDATE AT 12:55 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 325.

UPDATE AT 10:13 A.M. ET:  The Dow is down 274.

UPDATE AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  Both Hotline and Battleground polls have Obama up eight today.  Hotline had him up six yesterday, while Battleground had him up thirteen.

UPDATE AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  Two trackers are out.  Rasmussen, for the fourth day running, has Obama at 50 percent and McCain at 45.  Zogby has Obama up by four.

COMMENT:  The issue is accuracy.  If these numbers are accurate, McCain can still overcome them, although press bias is playing a terrible role.  But remember that other polls have Obama much further ahead, and no poll shows McCain leading.  We'll wait for other numbers later today.

GERSON ON McCAIN

Posted at 9:27 a.m. ET

Michael Gerson, now a Washington Post columnist, was formerly President Bush's chief speechwriter.  He knows both ends of the street.  Here, he offers a welcome defense of John McCain, and provides some perspective on why McCain is in such trouble.  After all the bashing McCain has taken, I thought it fair to run this:

A losing Republican is not merely unfortunate; he must be incompetent, politically blind, and betrayed by his bumbling underlings. If he is not a winner, he is a fool.

John McCain has reached this stage of criticism among conservatives. Some attack him for "frenetic improvisation," while others urge him to frenetically improvise. His campaign is in a "defensive crouch" while also being "obnoxious" in its "phony populism." McCain's running mate is a "fatal cancer" who should "read more books."

This kind of cheap shot is, thank goodness, the prerogative of the commentator -- an option I will doubtlessly exercise in the future. But having once been on the political side of the divide, I remember how truly obnoxious such advice can become. If only the candidate would fire his entire campaign staff and travel the country in a used Yugo, speaking in the parking lots of 7-11s, the gap would be closed. If only the candidate would buy three hours in prime time and give a bold, historic speech (which has been helpfully sent under separate cover), the entire election would be turned around. If only the candidate would finally highlight his opponent's ties to Colombian drug cartels, the illuminati and the British royal family -- or perhaps abandon all this suicidal negativity -- the election could certainly be won. And yes, above all, the candidate must be himself.

True.  It is so easy to criticize.

The diverging political fortunes of Barack Obama and McCain can be traced to a single moment. In the middle of September, the net favorable rating for each candidate was about the same. By Oct. 7, Obama was ahead on this measure by about 16 points. Did McCain suddenly become a stumbling failure? No, the world suddenly went into an economic slide. Americans blamed the party with executive power, which is also the party most closely tied in the public mind to bankers and Wall Street. None of this was fair to McCain, who has never been the Wall Street type.

Fair?  Did the man say fair?  With today's in-the-tank-for-Obama journalism, how can anything be fair?

Previous to this economic free fall -- and after his transformative vice presidential choice -- McCain was about tied in a race he should have been losing by a large margin. The public clearly had questions about Obama's leadership qualities. But the McCain campaign also proved itself capable of constructing an effective narrative: Obama as lightweight celebrity, McCain as maverick reformer. Until history intervened.

And that is probably the way history, real history, will see this race.  Obama, if he wins, didn't win it.  McCain, if he loses, lost it largely because of the economic slide.

Following the onset of the crisis, McCain was left with flawed options. He reasonably chose to work for a responsible bailout while hoping the markets would stabilize quickly. Instead, the bailout proved politically unpopular and the markets gyrated like the Pussycat Dolls...

...Obama's task has been easier. He needs only to ride a historical current instead of fighting it. And this plays to his greatest political strength: the easy, laid-back, self-assurance of a 1940s crooner.

That is wonderfully stated.  And exactly right.  A 1940s crooner.

During the financial crisis Obama has contributed nothing of note or consequence. His only recent accomplishment has been to say questionable things in the debates -- attacking Republicans and capitalism for a credit meltdown congressional Democrats helped to cause, blaming America for Iran's nuclear ambitions, talking piously about genocide prevention when his own early Iraq policies might have resulted in genocide -- all while sounding supremely reassuring and presidential.

Many voters seem to think they're electing American Idol, not a president. 

Obama's current success is not enjoyable for conservatives. But this does not make McCain an incompetent. Maybe he is a great man running at the most difficult of times.

Maybe he is.  Gerson's words, I think, are important. 

October 15, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil fell more than 3 percent on Tuesday as concerns the global economy could slip into recession and drag down demand outweighed optimism over the bank bailout plans.  U.S. crude settled down $2.56 at $78.63 a barrel after hitting $84.83 earlier. London Brent crude settled down $2.93 at $74.53 a barrel.

COMMENT:  The silver lining.

UPDATE AT 7:25 A.M. ET:    Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Stocks in Europe and Asia fell for the first time in three days and U.S. index futures tumbled after Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen said the U.S. is already in a recession.

COMMENT:  One key here is whether the U.S. market, psychologically, can regain Monday's rally spirit, or slip into the doldrums once more.  That could have a substantial impact on our presidential race, probably leading to the election of that economic wizard and management genius, Barack Obama. 

UPDATE AT 7:16 A.M. ET:  One of the political mysteries yesterday swirled around the IBD/TIPP poll, a poll significant only because it was the most accurate in 2004.  The poll's first result, published Monday, showed Obama only two points ahead, well outside the range we've been seeing in other polls.  It was immediately noticed that IBD/TIPP polls over six days, rather than the traditional three for trackers, meaning it might not be up to date.  IBD/TIPP didn't publish again until late last night, for some reason, and reported its Tuesday finding as Obama up three, still outside the normal range.  Are they way off, or have they found something important?  We await more numbers.

THE REAL WORLD

Posted at 7:08 a.m. ET

We've tried to remind readers, and ourselves, that there's a world outside our election campaign, and that it's a pretty dangerous place.  Now Britain's Telegraph has a serious terror warning, articulated more clearly than anything we're hearing on our side of the pond:

A significant terror plot is being investigated by the security services. the counter-terrorism minister has warned.

Lord West, who advises the Prime Minister on security matters, told the House of Lords: "There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this."

It's a strange thing, but I've noticed recently that some of our "soft" allies are actually getting tougher on terror than we've been.  Terror expert Michael A. Sheehan, whom I discuss in an audio clip, says that, when it comes to internal security, some of our friends, especially the French "do not play."  I wonder how much playing a President Obama would do.

"The threat is huge. It dipped slightly and is now rising again within the context of 'severe'.

"There are large complex plots. We unravelled one, which caused damage to al-Qaeda and the plots faded slightly.

"However, another great plot is building up again, which we are monitoring.

"We have done a great deal to protect ourselves and to look after our water supplies, our resilience, underground trains, our preparedness and communications.

"We have done all the things that we need to do, but the threat is building - the complex plots are building."

You'll notice that terrorism is almost entirely absent from our current political discussion.  America is daydreaming.

The Daily Telegraph reported two weeks ago that security sources believed terrorist activity was nearing "critical".

The threat level is at the "severe end of severe" according to sources who say the level of "ambient activity" among terrorist cells has increased in recent months and they are now operating at full stretch.

The source said: "We are not chasing shadows. These are potential threats to security and life. Police and the security network are operating at full capacity."

And...

Security officials are particularly worried by a growing threat from within the Algerian, Somali and Yemeni communities in Britain along with the established threat from young men returning from the al-Qaeda heartlands on the Pakistan-Afghan border.

It is not politically correct to say that.

Of course, some British officials immediately played down the threats.  As the cliché goes, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

October 15, 2008.      Permalink          

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all, and to get the additional features we now offer subscribers.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked:

What should the conservative strategy be in dealing with an Obama presidency?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

What can John McCain do to address the economic crisis in ways that will turn his campaign around?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker