Before I start, let me say that I knew very little about Governor Palin before she was selected, and I still only know what has been mentioned in the press or by those who post on Townhall. It is not that the information isn't out there, it is simply that I think the vice president really isn't all that important. Admittedly, he or she can become president, but in the normal course of things, he is basically consigned to the same duties as the first lady. If it weren't for sitting in the senate and, once in a blue moon deciding ties, he could be called the White House major domo, or maybe the presidential greeter. So I just don't think any ticket will be made or broken by the choice of running mate, at least not for me.

However, I have to say Palin was a wise choice for McCain. Oh, not for the overstated reason that she is a woman, I think too much is being made of that. Nor because she is appealing to the conservative base, as I think the conservatives who were going to be reconciled with McCain already were, and the rest aren't coming back no matter who he puts on his ticket. No, it was a perfect choice because she is effectively Obama's tar baby.

It probably wasn't intentional on the part of McCain, but I doubt he could have done better had he tried. He picked a relatively young running mate who has experience, but not a lot. She was mayor, she has been governor, but she really hasn't had the sort of lengthy experience McCain and Biden have. However, she does have about the same amount of experience of one other name on a presidential ticket, and that individual was foolish enough to make note of her inexperience.

It was just about the worst thing Obama could do, either personally, or through media and internet proxies, mentioning the fact that Palin is "inexperienced". And yet his followers did it, and did it loudly. Not once thinking that if she is far too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, then what should we think of someone just as inexperienced running for the presidency itself?

It worked out beautifully, even if it was never planned. Without saying a single critical word, McCain made Obama's inexperience an issue again. Not only did he say nothing, neither did Palin, neither did anyone even remotely connected to McCain or the party. Obama himself managed to remind everyone that he is really far too inexperienced for the job he is seeking, simply by bringing up the fact that a woman no less experienced than he is, is not experienced enough for a lesser post.

I would love to think that it was intentional, that McCain really had that sort of strategic genius in him, but I just don't see it. He is clever, he is a good campaigner, but he has passed up too many similar opportunities in the past. Sadly, I have to say the most brilliant move in the entire campaign was probably a happy accident.

I found an interesting site that breaks down the conventions by the terms used by the top four speakers. Admittedly, the list is a select set of words, and picking a different set could show different results, but what interested me was not so much that Obama and Biden both harped on change, that was expected, but how often Obama mentioned McCain and how little McCain mentioned Obama. Also, how often Obama mentioned Bush and Cheney.

It seems the Democrats are following two strategies, rather than the one I proposed previously. They are clearly running on the "McCain is Bush" strategy I mentioned previously, but they also seem to want to make it a personality contest. If you note, the substantive topics were hit by Demcorats, but by the earlier speakers. Obama was focused entirely on persoanlities.

Then again, this still fits with my theory that they are assiduously avoiding substantive debate, at least for Obama. He is pushing the "four more years" line, and making it a battle of personalities entirely because he knows when caught in a debate on the issues he will end up alienating some or all of his base, as well as driving off the independents.

The words chosen show a campaign in trouble. And there are still two months to go.

As I watch weathermen on local news obsess over the remnants of Hannah coming up the coast, I just realized that it looks like claims that we are suffering an abnormal number or strength of hurricanes are returning. Which means global warming claims aren't far behind. No matter that studies show we are not suffering an abnormally high number of hurricanes, nor is there any evidence that they are stronger than normal. Just as any warm summer brings claims that the earth is warming, regardless of a chain of cool summers preceding it, this spate of storms will doubtless bring such claims.

What is interesting is that what we consider "bad hurricane seasons" may be the norm, and we are simply leaving an exceptionally calm period. Just as exceptionally high housing prices made us think a return to normal was a crash, a series of very quiet years has led us to think of normal hurricane activity as extremely active.

But this points out a problem with demagoguery, human memory and popular impression are unreliable guides. One year of bad storms can turn into a "trend" very easily, as the recent conditions blind us to the past. We tend to take the present and telescope it back into the past. Scientific studies tend to remedy this, when performed honestly, but often demagogues intent on pushing their agenda can use "what everyone knows" to make them ignore the facts. When coupled with a handful of dishonest scientists, they can even develop the appearance of objectivity.

But the truth remains, we are not seeing an unusual number of hurricanes, nor are they unusually destructive. We are seeing more damage, both in  terms of people and money, but that is because more of us are living in areas hit by hurricanes and our properties are worth more. Blame affluence, increased populations and federal flood insurance, not global warming.

Not that I believe anyone will be dissuaded from using the current wave of storms to "prove" global warming. The facts have never stopped them before.

It appears that even those on the left are starting to admit, if only tacitly, that Obama could lose this election he was once guaranteed to win. And, as is their wont, the left is already starting to look for excuses. Apparently realizing they have done the "stolen election" story to death, they seem to have settled on "racism" as the presumptive excuse, describing everything from criticisms about his lack of experience to claims he is too liberal as evidence of covert racism. The right, meanwhile, seems absolutely puzzled by this change of fortunes. Some have come up with explanations, McCain's maverick reputation, his choice of Palin, Obama's politics, all have been trotted out, but not very forcefully. The right seems just as puzzled as the left by this outcome.

Of course, the problem is that the right and left both live in the same media bubble. They believe what the media says, they see through the eyes of the media. You could see it back in March and April when a few of us were already predicting defeat for Obama. Predictably the left would hear nothing of it, but much more puzzling, neither would the right. But it is all explained if you simply look at right wing pundits, not as right wingers, but as pundits, media creations who live in the media world. They may peddle a right wing line, but they live in the same media environment as the left wingers, and they too are surrounded by stories of Obama's charisma, his success with liberal audiences and his virtual coronation by the Democrats.

That is the problem. The entire Obama story was written while the primaries were still in full swing. Obama's description was drawn up by watching him preach to the choir. And that is where he excels, winning races in liberal environments against other liberals. He won in Chicago, he won in Illinois by winning Chicago, and he won the primary by preaching to liberals. When he can read stump speeches to adoring liberal audiences, when he can avoid any tough questions because of ideological lock step inherent in such venues, he is a champion. And so, the media decided he was the ultimate campaigner, the golden boy who could not lose. And, now that he is losing, they can't figure out why.

The answer is simple. All the other explanations, McCain's fortunate position as a maverick which helps pick up crossover votes, his pick of Palin, Obama's mediocre pick of Biden, and many other factors play into it, but the real reason Obama is losing is Obama. His decisions, while ideally suited for winning in a left-wing echo chamber, won't work in an ideologically diverse national campaign.

Obama's forte, as we saw in the early primaries, is in saying nothing specific. He tosses out positive platitudes of the left and allows his audience to read into them what they will. It works very well for left wing audiences. For the moderates he is a moderate, for the far left he is a true believer, they read into the liberal boilerplate their own dream candidate. It explains why he developed such an enthusiastic following, they each saw exactly what they wanted, he was their dream candidate, precisely because they had created him in their own minds.

But it doesn't work once you leave the echo chamber. The liberal boilerplate sounds vaguely left to many in the middle. It makes them uneasy, but is also so vague they need clarification, and that is where Obama stumbles. Having allowed others to decide what he believes, he has implicitly promised the moon to his voters. Some think him center, some left, but once he takes a stand he cannot be all of those things. So, if he needs to clarify to win the center, he inevitably drives away some of those on the left. And worse still, as they had developed such a strong emotional attachment to him, they do not see this disagreement as a slight difference of opinion, but as total betrayal, he does not slightly anger voters he might win back, he drives them away for good. (And, as many are young voters or others who were fired up only for Obama, not for any down ticket candidates, it is unlikely they will be going to the polls at all, meaning he not only loses his vote, but loses those votes for the entire party, risking the anticipated congressional sweep.)

It is funny that no one in the press, on either side of the aisle, anticipated this, especially as so many of us out in the hinterland did. But then again, we are not caught up in the media story of Obama. We are not lost in the somewhat illusory world that surrounds most pundits. However, after this election, and the poor job pundits on the right and left did predicting the outcome, I do have to ask if the pundits will hold such influence for much longer. The left, with its fawning adoration has clearly lost any ability to claim impartiality, but even the right, and "experts" of all political stripes, have continually predicted an Obama sweep which all available evidence said was not coming, yet they continued to insist, and some still do, that Obama's victory was a sure thing.

 If they cannot see through their own delusions, why should anyone listen to them?

UPDATE

First, I have to correct myself. James. Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has been at least open to the possibility of an Obama loss, and has been more even handed than most in evaluating the election. There are probably a handful of others, but, for the most part, the pundits on the right have almost to a man bought into the conventional wisdom that hatred for Bush and Obama's "charisma" would guarantee a win. Only recently have I even begun to see a few break with that belief.

Second, one interesting confirmation of this fact is seen from the Obama campaign themselves. While they ran the primaries by "taking the high road", throwing out vague promises of "hope" and "change" rather than attacking their opponents, they have changed since just before the convention. Knowing his strategy will not appeal to the center, and knowing triangulation will cause his left wing base to erode, his newest strategy is to convince voters that McCain is a clone of Bush. It makes sense, as it is the only tactic available which does not mean clarifying what he means by his platitudes and thus alienating all those who interpreted them differently.

I have to ask, are Democrats crazy? For days now I have been hearing Democrat after Democrat ranting about how horrible it would be to have such an inexperienced person only a heartbeat away from the presidency. Don't they realize that that draws attention to the fact that they want to put someone just as inexperienced zero heartbeats away from the presidency?

Anyway, I thought "experience didn't matter", when it was Obama who was being criticized. Why does it matter so much now? I also hear how she was "just a mayor and governor". Well, Obama was just a state senator and then a freshman US senator, what makes that experience greater? And what precisely is Obama's foreign policy experience that outweighs hers? All the foreign affairs briefings he missed while running for president? All the foreign relation bills for which he voted present when he wasn't too busy campaigning?

Palin managed a state, she managed a state with a massive oil trust, with indigenous natives many of whom are treated as sovereign nations, a state which borders on Canada, which is a foreign nation, last time I checked. Unless Obama signed some armistice with Indiana or arm arms limitation treaty with Minnesota, I think her foreign policy experience outweighs his.

This is just hilarious. Obama is campaigning on Biden's foreign policy credentials, yet won't count McCain's. So basically, the Democrat position is that it is horrible to have an inexperienced Vice President, but a neophyte in the top spot is fine. I think they may have just a little trouble selling that to the public.

For those who did not like my earlier theory on who Obama most closely resembles, I offer an alternate theory. Again, I won't mention Carter, Clinton, Howard Dean, or McGovern, not even Captain Kirk or the Segway, as I have argued for all of those before. Instead, I am going to revive yet another old idea, though one I did not develop at the time.

Obama is young, charismatic, has had a fine education and received early entrance into the upper echelons of his profession. Several senior practitioners helped him along, making it easier for him to break into his profession. Some claim that he succeeded entirely because of his race, while others disagree, but it is clear to everyone, though no one mentions it, that his race makes it easier for him, both drawing notice because someone of his race is succeeding so early in life, and also encouraging others to cover up his errors.

On top of that he is charismatic, and often allows that charisma to take the place of real ideas. He sometimes makes statements that are completely untrue, but others do not point it out. In short, his success is more the result of a glib tongue rather than any innate ability, and his race, along with a few powerful mentors early in his career, have helped him succeed despite some major mistakes that would have crushed anyone else, even outright lies are often blithely ignored by the media due to a fondness for him.

All of which makes Obama, not Carter or Clinton, but the Jayson Blair of politics.

Many pundits, myself included, have tried to come up with an analogy for Obama. We have tried Carter, due to his belief in talking his enemies to death and his "roll over and play dead" foreign policy. We have tried Clinton due to his efforts to campaign without saying what he actually believes. I even tried Wendell Wilkie to emphasize that we have only had one contender with less political experience than Obama. Others have suggested still other analogies, such as Huey Long, but none, so far as I know, have come up with the analogy I am now going to propose.

Obama is Dan Quayle.

Oh, not the real Dan Quayle who is, by all reports, a nice, smart guy who has a deep love of country and a sharp mind. But the Democrat caricature of Dan Quayle, the idiot who really thinks Murphy Brown is a newscaster and doesn't know how to spell potato. It is that media caricature of Quayle which best fits Obama.

How so?

First, let us look at his many, many gaffes. Quayle was famed for saying the wrong thing, though most of thsoe attributed to him turn out, on farther investigation, to be false (eg. the Latin America quote). On the other hand, Obama really has said some truly bizarre things. "Dropped the bomb on Pearl Harbor", his grandfather's liberation of Auschwitz, the 57 states with one to go, sending Arabic speakers to Afghanistan, and all the rest. Obama has made so many verbal misstatements that, were he a Republican, he would have been labeled a moron by the press long ago.

Nor is that all. Like the childish naif the press created from Quayle, Obama is also prone to take people at face value, rather than truly understanding a situation. It is the only possible explanation for his belief in the power of talking. He thinks we can talk to Iran because they say we can, he appears to have never considered that they might use talks to buy time while they finish their bombs. And, perhaps, his naive faith in others even explains his many positions on Israel. He could just be lying to please his audience, but it is also possible that, in any given situation, he takes statements at face value, so to Israel boosters he thinks talking won't work, while pro-Palestinians convince him talk is a great idea.

I admit it isn't a perfect match. Obama isn't quite as innocent and guileless as the fictional Quayle was. He thinks he can put one over on people, though it often fails. But in terms of flubs and naivete, or at least the appearance of both, he really does quite a good job of mimicking the image of Quayle the press created in the 80's.

My previous post about "Zionist Conspiracies" may seem a bit silly, but there was a point. The point being that I have seen hundreds, thousands of articles decrying the "thing we can't mention" and then tearing into Jews. We even have nominally respected journalists talking about how the "Israel Lobby" silences criticism of Zionism, or how they have managed to confuse in the public mind opposition to Israel with antisemitism.

The funny thing is, I have seen thousands of sites that start off "we can't mention it but..." and then launch into the same anti-Israel, anti-Jew rant they have made dozens of times before. Or else they start ranting about how anti-Zionism and antisemtism aren't identical, only to end it with some comment about how the Christ killers run world banking. If anyone has conflated antisemitism and anti-Zionism, it is the supposed anti-Zionists themselves. And they seem to be the only ones who are saying you can't mention Jews, as I seem to only see this admonition on antisemitic sites.

Nor is this just on the fringe. Mainstream sites on the left, even here on Townhall, you will find "anti-Zionists" explaining how they can't tell you about Jews, then proceeding to publish hundreds of pages on how the evil Jews are ruining the world.

The only thing I can say is, if there really is a Zionist conspiracy, and we really do secretly run the world, either we are remarkably inefficient, or more open to criticism than most dictators, because we sure let a lot of that "secret" information slip through the cracks.

I was reading a user forum on Pravda and I discovered that somehow I am being excluded from great wealth by my own people. Now, I expect that total strangers wouldn't be inclined to help me out, and wouldn't just let me in on good ideas, but it seems that the entire Jewish people is involved in some evil scheme to rule the world, steal all gentile wealth, and otherwise enrich themselves and gather power, and yet they somehow excluded me.

Now, I am a good Jew. I make it to synagogue on most of the holidays, I keep kosher, I have a mazuzeh, I gave to ZOA, I admit I shaved off my beard, but most orthodox rabbis admit electric razors are permissible as a kind of scissors, so I should be OK there. So, why is the rest of the knesset Yisroel keeping this secret from me?

It seems rather cruel of them to leave me the one Jew who isn't in on all the zionist schemes. If every Jew on earth is in on these plans to steal gentile wealth, where is my share?

Or could it be that anti-semitism is just coming out of the closet on the internet? That anonymity lets those who always had a quiet hatre dof Jews give it a voice they wouldn't dare to give it in public? Maybe those who are simply failures need someone to blame and seeing some successful Jews figure the success of Jews is the reason for their failure, since it is easier to blame someone else than admit to one's own failings? Maybe the left's embrace of the Palestinian cause has allowed "hymie" and "kike" to gain an acceptance that is not given to "n*gger", a term which even anonymity does not allow one to use? Perhaps the strong support for Israel on the right, especially among evangelical Christians has made Jews suspect by those who despise conservatives and Christians? Maybe the subtle "genteel" antisemitism of many Europeans has also lent it a certain cachet among the Europhilic left? Does any of that seem possible?

No, couldn't be. I suppose the rest of the Jews just don't like me and are snubbing me by excluding me from the great zionist conspiracy.

POSTSCRIPT

I do have to say, the claim in that forum that Jews rose to power in Nazi Germany does puzzle me a bit. I suppose Trotsky (aka Lev Davidovitch Bronstein) is the supposedly powerful Jew from the USSR, though the whole "ice pick in the head" thing argues against him being that powerful, but exactly what Jew was prominent in the NSDAP?

Back in the 1980's, television was flooded with advertisements telling us that every hours 1000 square miles of rain forest was lost, or some equally absurd number. Once, having too much free time and being rather annoyed at such hyperbolic claims, I sat down with an atlas and took the numbers from a few of those commercials and figured out that, if they were correct, all of Brazil would be a desert by 1989, with the entire world being denuded well before 2000. Another time, watching a similar commercial about losing so many species a day, I figured that man alone (and maybe gold fish) would be all that was left on Earth within three years.

And that is the problem with such hyperbolic claims, they take the worst absolute number possible, perhaps one that is based on very flimsy evidence, and treat it as if it were the average rather than the highest possible outlier.

We have seen something similar whenever Republicans are in office, or even back when they controlled the congress. Suddenly, every day the economy becomes the "worst in thirty years", unemployment numbers increase 10% a day, the homeless gain a million members a week, and all other manner of exaggerations. It is the rain forest or species loss all over again.

The problem is, we can't take such numbers seriously. If the economy were declining as fast as the media claims, we would all be penniless and surviving on nothing but dirt and cardboard by now. If the homeless were growing as fast a some claim, not one of us would have a roof over our head, and unemployment must have been quite a large negative number in 2000 to allow any of us to retain a  job considering the growth in unemployment some have mentioned.

Not that the right has not been guilty of the same. Teen pregnancies, unwed mothers and jail populations are often subjected to the same exaggeration. But there is one big difference.When a conservative group publishes such numbers, the press treats it as suspect, sometimes even pointing out that the most extreme possible numbers were used. On the other hand, the exaggerations from the left often come from the media itself. And whether from the press or from politicians on the left, are treated as truth by the media.

That makes quite a difference in how they are viewed by the public.

There is one thing the media says that is true. The current economy is hurting the middle class. The only problem is they are blaming the wrong people, rather than "the Bush-Cheney Reign of Terror", the middle class is being hurt by the media itself.

I know some will scoff, but look at the numbers, better yet, look at my numbers. During every Republican administration, my 401k or 403b does fine, even though the media tells me the economy is tanking. But come the election year, the media ratchets into high gear, the same economy which was chugging along more or less efficiently suddenly becomes the "worst in eight thousand years", the easily scared take their money out of the market to hide under their mattress, and my investments tank.

Now, I will grant that thanks to the '94 revolution, my stocks did fine under Clinton (well, in spite of Clinton), but no better than in this "most awful economy since people started bartering shale for gourds". Clinton's triumph of getting 5% unemployment, of course, is much better than Bush's defeat of having unemployment rise to 5%, but other than that, I can't see much to distinguish Clinton's economic miracle from the "worst economy since fish crawled onto land and started swapping ferns".

So, please, media, can we just not mention the economy during election years? I know you want your guy to win (yes, you have a guy, admit it), but can't you just tell us how Cheney has a 666 birthmark behind his ear, Bush runs a secret trade in slave boys from Iraq, McCain was created in a secret Nazi genetics lab in Crawford, and be done with it? Must you ruin my retirement funds while you're at it?

I know I will make few friends among those who blog, as most think of themselves as journalists or journalists-to-be, but recent events have led me to ask why we treat journalists so deferentially? I know the constitution guarantees a free press, but it seems to me all that requires is that we not prevent anyone from printing anything, it does not demand that we grant special rights to the press.

Special rights? Yes, we treat the press as if they were immune from the normal responsibilities of citizens. Look at the recent arrest of journalist Amy Goodman for participating in a riot at the convention. What happened? She claimed she was a journalist and, because journalists are obviously above such things as rioting, she was released, unlike everyone else arrested at the same riot. Why? Obviously at the time of arrest she was engaged in an act the police thought sufficient to imprison her, why does her status as a journalist overcome the evidence offered by the arresting officer? Can a journalist hit police? Engage in public disorder? And then face no consequences simply because they have press credentials?

Nor is that the only special right of journalists. Think of press shield laws that exist in some states. Unlike any other citizen*, someone claiming to be a journalist is not required to divulge relevant information in court, provided they can claim it is somehow essential to their duties.

Or, perhaps we should look at the campaign finance laws. Unlike other citizens, who cannot publicly make pronouncements about political figures for a set prior to elections, the press can make any statements they wish. The press has yet more rights denied to the average citizen.

And it isn't as if the press is even easy to identify. We pretend they are, but are they? Yes, a columnist for the New York Times is a journalist, but what about a freelance writer? What if he hasn't sold an article in ten years? What if he never has, but hopes to? How about a columnist for the local grocery newsletter? A high school paper? The newsletter of the American Nazi Party? A mimeographed single page paper no one has ever bought? Is anyone who ever wrote or ever hopes to write a column a journalist? Does this blog make me a journalist? You can see how easy it would be for every person living today to claim to be a journalist.

So, instead we create a privileged caste of recognized journalists. Those the courts recognize as journalists and grant special rights not held by mere citizens. The argument is, without this special caste, democracy would fail and we would be tossed into tyranny, but I somehow doubt it. Even without special rights, journalism continued unabated for centuries, even in nations where journalists are despised by the government, people continue to put out underground papers. If journalism continues under real tyranny, I doubt the elimination of press shield laws, campaign finance exceptions, and the assumption that journalists are simple observers when arrested in public disorders, will destroy our free press.

In fact, it may even benefit. For a long time the press has enjoyed special treatment and reveled in their role as "protectors of democracy", it may do them some good to experience a little of that democracy and have to deal with the government as we mere mortals do. Stripped of the right to leak classified information without consequence, to be able to participate in crimes without being arrested, and unable to withhold information without consequence, they may actually have to think a bit about the impact of  what they do on others, and on the nation itself. It may be a good lesson for some of our journalists.

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

* The only other groups so blessed are doctors and spiritual figures, and I am not so sure about those exceptions either. The rationale for both is that people would not avail themselves of those services were there not such a shield, but I argue the opposite, most people would tell a doctor the truth regardless of the law, the same for a priest. As you may notice, I am not a believer in shield laws, but that is the topic for another essay.For now, let us limit the argument to the press.

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


POSTSCRIPT

This actually fits well with an essay I plan for the future. The essence of a free government is one which makes no distinctions. It does not have gun laws, as it thinks of guns as just any other good (gasoline, knives, automobiles and clubs can also kill, yet aren't controlled). It has no press shield laws as it thinks of all citizens the same, rather than creating special castes. It does not have special product liability laws, as contracts are inviolate, even when assigning liability for goods purchased.

Once we treat all goods as goods, all contracts as contracts, all people as people, we will have a much more free government. It is the creation of exceptions to the rules that allows in totalitarianism. Just think of the most oppressive laws and you will see the truth of this. Once we start to say "the rules don't apply to this one special category" we set up the conditions for unlimited government.

I seem unable to leave the topic of hypocrisy lately, but it really is appropriate when discussing the comments being made by liberal commentators about Palin.

It is interesting that they keep making comments they would consider intolerably sexist if made about anyone else. Criticizing her daughter's exercise of her "reproductive freedom", questioning whether she can be a mother and vice president, aren't those things the left has told us we aren't supposed to ask? Aren't we supposed to accept without question that a woman can be a mother and a worker? That it is horrible for us to even suggest that working takes time away from her children? Isn't it supposedly an archaic paternalistic attitude that motherhood is more important than a career? And wrong to even ask if careers interfere with motherhood?

Worse still, no one on the left has thought to point this out. The same way the women's movement changed their beliefs for Clinton. ("No one would lie about rape" was suddenly forgotten in the case of Clinton's "bimbo eruptions"), they are also forgetting all the tenets of femiism in their rush to criticize someone who threatens the messiah from Chicago.

Or, perhaps this is yet another of those bizarre exceptions, like "oreos" and "bananas" and "apples", all those terms for minorities who are "white on the inside", maybe conservatives with two X chromosomes aren't "really" women, and so don't deserve to be protected by feminists. That would be consistent with the leftist view which places race/class/sex solidarity above all else EXCEPT when a minority or woman or disabled person or gay has the audacity to think for themselves politically, in which case all that solidarity vanishes and they can be subjected to the most hateful slanders. (Think of how sensitive the left was when George Michaels was caught in a men's room versus how gleefully malicious they were about Larry Craig. All of that sensitivity about sexual identity goes out the window when they get the chance to draw Republican blood.)

So, I suppose it does make sense. My mistake was believing they were the party of "caring". The Democrats and the left in general are not the party of compassion, they are the party of compassion for anyone who shares the right political views, and the most vicious, insulting, demeaning stereotypes for those who don't.

I don't normally do this, but if you want a glimpse of how absolutely disgusting the angry left is, check out the comments on this page.

Warning, the language is a bit harsher than most are used to. Unless you spend a lot of time around former stable boys who then became merchant seamen, all the time suffering from a severe case of Tourette's syndrome. Then again, the language is actually the least offensive thing about the comments.

Well, as the title says, no comments here, just wanted to point out a particularly illustrative example of the thought processes of the angry left.(Best of the Web points to the same page, noting the irony that the angry left is furious about being called angry.)

Truly the most absurd claim coming out of the selection of Governor Pain as McCain's running mate, and that has inspired many absurd claims, is that somehow her daughter's pregnancy proves that abstinence only education is a failure. I just cannot see the logic.

Actually, I can see it, as it is simply the extension of the arguments made against abstinence only education for years. Basically the claim is this: Since abstinence only education fails to prevent all sex, prevent all pregnancy and prevent all diseases, it is no better than education which hands out condoms, talks of bestiality and says "go to town, but safely".

Of course, abstinence only education is itself only a stopgap. It is essentially saying "if you insist on taking sex education out of the hands of the parents, please don't turn it into promiscuity education", most conservatives would be happier were education about sex returned to the parents rather than the schools. But as long as educators insist that they must educate about sex as they know best, then we are stuck with the argument about whether abstinence only education is less effective than what has been mainstream sex education.

And in that case, the argument has been rather surreal. Whenever abstinence education is shown to be less than perfect, it is shown as a failure, but the fact that during the rule of modern sex education teen sex, teen STDs rates and teen pregnancies have gone through the roof is quietly ignored. We are told abstinence only education fails because not every child remains abstinent, but no one asks how well the competing theories have succeeded. In fact, quite the opposite. When teen pregnancy rates rise, we are told we need more of the same, that we need to invest more money in the same education which produced the teen pregnancies, but when abstinence education does not succeed it must be abandoned.

And that argument has now been adapted to somehow use Governor Palin's family as proof that abstinence education failed. Were a proponent of traditional sex education to have a pregnant teenage daughter, would anyone say that proved traditional sex education did not work? Does John Edwards' mistress' pregnancy prove traditional sex education does not work?

Then why does Palin's daughter's pregnancy prove anything other than that her daughter made a bad decision?

POSTSCRIPT

I am not here arguing whether traditional sex education or abstinence only education is better at preventing pregnancies, I not only lack the evidence in either direction, but I don't care. I don't think it is the purpose of public education to prevent pregnancies. So I am not here arguing the merits of either approach, simply pointing out that the debate is being handled in a rather uneven way, and, more to the point, that the use of Governor Palin's daughter in the argument is just absurd.