Medary.com

Captain Steve Schmidt of the S.S. 2008 McCain Campaign thinks a Palin 2012 Presidential run might not be such a good idea:

"In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base. ... Th[e] independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012. That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don't see that if you look at the things she has done over the year ... that she is going to expand that base in the middle."

On the other hand, Schmidt is something of an expert on running disastrously incompetent Presidential campaigns, so I guess he does know what he's talking about there. And we're all quite well aware Schmidt a deep, abiding hatred of Palin, after his campaign's woefully inept and ham-fisted handling of her during the election run.

On the other, other hand, the 2012 election is three years and one month away, Steve old boy. Let's talk after Palin's book has been out a while. At this time in 2005, "Barack Obama" was just a punch line of obscure inside-the-Beltway political jokes.

If you say it often enough, it will become true.

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

National jobless rate inches up to 9.8 percent.

Jobs data send oil prices tumbling

Stocks fall as September jobs report disappoints

Factory orders fall unexpectedly in August

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

But there is no joy in Onionville--mighty Barry has struck out.

Megan McArdle on 'Cash for Clunkers':

in the aftermath, sales are plummeting:  47% at GM, 44% at Chrysler, 8.9% at Ford, 16% at Toyota, 23% at Honda, 11% at Nissan.  I hope those car companies used the cash infusion now, because they'll be on lean rations for months, even years.

There were economists who tried to tell Congress and the President that 'Cash for Clunkers' was a bad idea. They were ignored.

Now, and in the months and years ahead, we'll see exactly how much it really cost us.

This is what they call a "successful government program."

If this is success, do any of us really want to see what failure looks like?

From the book Power in the People by Felix Morley, as linked by Gary Galles at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

State power, no matter how well disguised by seductive words, is in the last analysis always coercive physical power…As we come to recognize that the State is the repository of coercive power, and by its nature works ceaselessly to enlarge that power, much that seems shameful and senseless in the world today becomes intelligible…

Politico--John McCain's mission: A GOP makeover:

Fresh from a humbling loss in last year’s presidential election, Sen. John McCain is working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image.

McCain is recruiting candidates, raising money for them and hitting the campaign trail on their behalf. He’s taken sides in competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial primaries and introduced his preferred candidates to his top donors.

I held my nose and voted for you last November, for all the good it did, John. You have not convinced me you actually understand the fundamental concepts of liberty and republican government, and I will never again compromise that fundamental requirement for a Presidential candidate. You have proved yourself to be far too willing to compromise my liberty for your own ends. I still remember McCain-Feingold, John. I voted for you despite that. That was a mistake.

The only good thing you did in the entire campaign was bring up Sarah Palin to be your running mate. I think that, unlike you, John, Palin understands liberty and republican government. You, John, gave us the current cult of personality that's systematically taking this country apart and re-assembling it in the image of the worst of the European democratic-socialist model.

I am sure that wasn't your intent, John, but unlike a Democrat, I judge people on results, not on intent.

Observant readers will notice that on the scale I went backwards over the past week--to the tune of 0.7 pounds from last week's report. BUT, but, but--for last week's clinic visit, I was fasting for some lab work (no oatmeal or pancakes for breakfast), and I was weighed without shoes last week, while this week I had breakfast, and had shoes on, so there you go. Hey, come on, it makes a difference.

The labs?

YES!

Blood serum glucose is down to 80 mg/dL. That's really, really, really good! When I started, that number was consistently just over 100--which is the cutoff number between "normal" and "pre-diabetic." I didn't like being pre-diabetic, and my family doctor didn't like it either. That's why she put me on metformin. I go talk with her next week, to update her on what's happening and (maybe?) get off a prescription drug or two. A guy can hope. My blood pressure today was 112/70, so maybe eventually I'll get off the blood pressure meds, too.

Things are good.

I'd have liked to have seen more weight loss this week, but after the torrid pace of the first five weeks, maybe a bit of a slowdown in the rate of loss was about due. I'm still shooting for 230 or less by Halloween, and that's less than 16 pounds and 30 days away. A half-pound a day? No problem!

MIchael Yon, writing in the Washington Times:

We are losing popular support. Confidence in the Afghan and coalition governments is plummeting. Loss of human terrain is evident. Conditions are building for an avalanche. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the military commander in Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are aware of the rumbling, and so today we are bound by rules of engagement that appear insensible.

We must curb civilian losses at expense to ourselves. I believe the reasoning is sound and will share those increased dangers. Erosion of popular support seems reversible. There still is considerable good will from the Afghan population, but bomb by bomb we can blow it. We have breathing room if we work with wise alacrity. I sense a favorable shift in our operations occurring under Gen. McChrystal.

Enemies are strengthening. Attacks are dramatically increasing in frequency and efficacy. We are being out-governed by tribes and historical social structures. These structures are - and will be for the foreseeable future - the most powerful influence upon and within the political terrain. "Democracy" does not grow on land where most people don't vote. The most remarkable item I saw during the Aug. 20 elections was the machine-gun ambush we walked into.

The coalition is weakening. While the U.S. has gotten serious, the organism called NATO is a jellyfish for which the United States is both sea and prevailing wind. The disappointing effort from many partners is best exemplified by the partners who are pushing hardest: The British are fine examples.

There's more. Go and read it. Then go check out Yon's web site.

That's what two Harvard economists, Robert J. Barro and Charles J. Redlick report in the Wall Street Journal.

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

In other words, in the real world, tax cuts are the correct policy response to an economic slowdown. Non-defense "stimulus" spending doesn't work. Defense-related stimulus spending works, but only when the unemployment rate is "very high."

Obama and the Democrats have wasted our time and money. Bigtime.

John Stossel piles on:

In January, the administration's economic models warned that unemployment would hit 9 percent next year if its $787 billion "stimulus" wasn't passed. Passing it would keep the jobless rate under 8 percent before it begins to fall.

Well, the packaged passed-and unemployment in August rose to 9.7 percent.

Oops.

OK, economic forecasters make mistakes. Fair enough. But neither the administration experts nor President Obama will acknowledge that their models and strategy are flawed. Instead, they spin the numbers and proclaim success, insisting that the plan is working even though unemployment is higher than they said it would be.

The Democrats: Dead wrong on the economy. What else are they dead wrong about?