Via Powerline, this is Sarah Palin as Miss Wasilla in 1984. Lots more good photos at Powerline, with comments too, of course. The unhinged Lefties seem truly freaked by Palin's selection. A quote via Classical Values:
Mitt Romney would've been the safe choice--he would've delivered Michigan, along with a 51% victory. With this choice, McCain has stated his intention to "shoot the moon". He's solidified his existing alliances and has now reached out to many disenchanted Democrats, but without alienating his base of support.
He's going to try for a blowout...
Bill Kristol says:
There will be rocky moments. But they will fade if the McCain campaign lets Palin's journey take its natural course over the next two months. Millions of Americans--mostly but not only women, mostly but not only Republicans and conservatives--seemed to get a sense of energy and enjoyment and pride, not just from her nomination, but especially from her smashing opening performance. Palin will be a compelling and mold-breaking example for lots of Americans who are told every day that to be even a bit conservative or Christian or old-fashioned is bad form. In this respect, Palin can become an inspirational figure and powerful symbol. The left senses this, which is why they want to discredit her quickly.
Big Labor's stake in Obama. PJ. Related, What's in those Annenberg files?
Have you noticed this too? Mental skills fade earlier than thought.
As the earth cools, warming hype gets more hysterical
Via Driscoll: The End of the New Democrats
Dem platform is for whiners. Robert Robb at RCP. It begins:
The Democrats have titled their party platform, "Renewing America's Promise."
A more honest and accurate title would be, "We'll Give You More."
The soul of the Democratic philosophy is summed up in this passage from the platform: "For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure."
Note the disdain for the ethos of self-responsibility. Democrats do not merely regard it as insufficient. Instead they regard the idea that people should provide for themselves as divisive.
Even more significantly, Democrats regard self-responsibility as a "recipe for failure." In other words, Democrats don't think the American people are capable of making it on their own.
And so, Democrats have a government program for, well, everything.
Democrats want government to help you raise your kids, send them to college, train and retrain for a job, buy a home and save for retirement.
Megan says this. Some truth to it, but it misses the main point, I think, which is that govt isn't about caring - it's about protecting our freedom. Govt does not and cannot "care":
Democrats show little expressed sympathy for those who work to make the money the government taxes to help the beset-upon mother and the soldier and the kids. They express little sympathy for the middle-aged woman who owns a small dry cleaner and employs six people and is, actually, day to day, stressed and depressed from the burden of state, local and federal taxes, and regulations, and lawsuits, and meetings with the accountant, and complaints as to insufficient or incorrect efforts to meet guidelines regarding various employee/employer rules and regulations. At Republican conventions they express sympathy for this woman, as they do for those who are entrepreneurial, who start businesses and create jobs and build things. Republicans have, that is, sympathy for taxpayers. But they don't dwell all that much, or show much expressed sympathy for, the sick mother with the uninsured kids, and the soldier with the shot nerves.
Neither party ever gets it quite right, the balance between the taxed and the needy, the suffering of one sort and the suffering of another. You might say that in this both parties are equally cold and equally warm, only to two different classes of citizens.
