It sometimes takes a few days for the significance of certain political events to soak in, and here lately there has been A LOT to soak in. I remember thinking, when I first heard of the Palin nomination, that it was the most "un-serious" political stunt that I had yet witnessed in modern political times. And after much consideration, that first impression holds.
     A few other impressions have now emerged. The most important is an answer to the following question: "If it were not for Gov. Palin's gender, would there REALLY be all the buzz and ado about her nomination?" After much deliberation, the answer in my mind is still an emphatic "NO". Lots of theories and reasons have been advanced for Sen. McCain's choice, but ONE FACT has largely gone overlooked: At the end of the day, after all the buzz and ado has died down, Gov. Sarah Palin is still a BUSH REPUBLICAN. In fact, during her speech last night, she out-Bushed Bush; I am sure she made Dick Cheney proud.
      I see the Obama people are already way ahead of me in realizing this (imagine that)! They realize, that even though in some ways Gov. Palin's nomination makes their strategy more difficult, it just got easier in one crucial respect: If there was any doubt about McCain being a Bush Republican, and the type of people he would appoint to serve, both in his cabinet and on the courts, those doubts are now GONE. Picking Gov. Palin should make the Obama campaign's job of tying McCain to Bush a whole lot more effective. At the end of the day, Gov Palin, and by extension, John McCain, are just Bush Republicans.
     Democrats don't have to attack Gov Palin for her lack of experience, or her scandals, or any of her family problems. Let the media do that. The main responsibility of Democrats now is to MAKE CERTAIN to remind the voting public that here is the proof that John McCain is truly running for Bush's third term; he is truly more of the same. They can do that by emphasizing over and over and over the extreme viewpoints this ticket represents, on social,economic, and other issues. I believe, at the end of the day, that is what will determine who wins and who loses in November.

Every now and then I am amazed to see reporting like the following. We all know how the press adores John McCain, and always gives him a pass on the issues, while intensely grilling the Democratic candidates. With more honest examinations like this one, and the maverick may actually have a few difficult questions to answer. Please note, the author of this piece is normally not what you would call an ...er, left-winger. In fact, he normally gushes with praise for all things Republican. Not this time, strangely enough. Enjoy this breath of fresh air!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum nists/chi-oped0306chapmanmar06,0,4554495 .column

I don't get it. Wisconsin's demographics are very similar to Missouri's and Ohio's. Why is it that we are now told that WI is MUCH more friendly to Obama than Clinton? Shouldn't it be Clinton that is the heavy favorite here? Because of demographics and January polls, shouldn't this contest be hers to lose? She recently had double-digit leads here, and her campaign-defined "favorable demographics" for her. So why is the Clinton campaign pretending to be the underdog in WI?
  Is it:

1. The expectations game--by pretending to be the underdog and then emerging with a win, this might make good spin. And, if the "expected loss" occurs, then "see, we told you so,and because we told you so, the loss is no big deal".
   
2. Internal polling shows Obama with a huge lead, and spending time here is a waste of resources.
   
3. The Clinton campaign really believes its own spin: Only large states matter, smaller states aren't important.
   
4. Gross mismanagement.

  Really, I am at a loss trying to figure out what is going on here. How can the Clinton campaign write off the Wisconsin primary? And why? Think of how a Clinton win here would boost her prospects (and numbers). The turf should be favorable for her, so why isn't it being aggressively contested?

During hizzonor's concession/withdrawl speech on Tuesday evening, we were informed that McCain will be representing the, I quote, "party of Bush" for president. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for clarifying that; honesty is a refreshing and commendable thing. Lest there be any doubt, make sure to spread the word--John McCain is to be the nominee for the party of Bush this fall. Just in case you had any doubts about this...

     Anybody watch the debate between Jennifer Granhom and Rick DeVos on Oct 2? The Michigan PBS station has it as streaming video on line. I didn't watch all of it, but I thought the governor did very well in the part I saw--I caught about half of it. The Amway rep acted, well, like an Amway rep--lots of doublespeak, not much substance, and very unconvincing, to me anyway.
   Thoughts, anyone?
   

I've been watching with great interest the last several weeks as pundits, bloggers, columnists, some pollsters, and other "experts" have made a big deal of the "Bush bounce" that they clearly see in some poll numbers,  and how this points to a big shift in momentum back towards Republican candidates for Congress this fall.  With the flood of conflicting poll numbers out there, it does get difficult at times to separate the real trends from statistical noise. So what's going on here? Is the president's popularity really coming back, and more importantly, will this help Republicans stem their losses in November? And, almost as importantly, what is causing this upswing in presidential approval?