But that being said, I'm really becoming much fonder of Obama than I was back during the primary season. Maybe I'm just a sucker, but I think he's earned it. I mean, we all knew he'd run back to the center once he clinched the nomination, but his definition of "center" seems to be far more encouraging than I would have ever thought.

I always expected some Sister Souljah moment in which he'd toss said Sister under the proverbial bus. I didn't expect that he'd populate and entire city block full of Sister Souljahs, climb behind the wheel of the bus himself, and then proceed to mow them all down like tenpins, systematically backing the bus up to make sure he'd been thorough enough.

And yet that's what we have. Just during the past couple of weeks we've seen him triangulate on NAFTA, FISA, public campaign financing, the Second Amendment, the death penalty, MoveOn.org, faith-based programs, and I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff. It's no wonder that the Wall Street Journal suggests that it's he, rather than McCain, who's running for "Bush's Third Term."

Needless to say, this all makes me very happy. It's not that I really want a third Bush term (God forbid) but I do welcome the flurry of unmistakable signals that Obama will not be beholden to the nutroots left. I actually disagree with Obama on several of these reversals, but nonetheless view them as welcome developments to the extent they shatter the image of Obama as rigid ideologue.

Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt for a minute that's he's far more liberal than I am by instinct and by nature, but he's also proven to be politically savvy enough to understand why Bill Clinton has been the only Democratic president since FDR to be elected twice. When progressive ideology and cynical political calculus cross paths in an Obama administration, can there be any serious doubt as to which will win?

Obama knows that the left may whine and bitch when he disappoints him, but that they will continue to stand by him regardless, just as they stood by Bill Clinton when he was dismantling welfare, signing NAFTA, and cutting the capital gains tax. For this reason, he knows he has more to fear from the right and center than from the left. Hell, maybe only Nixon could go to China. And maybe an Obama presidency could work out okay after all.

The truth is, the big thing that really bothered me about an Obama presidency was his economic policy. If we take him at his word, he wants to increase (drastically in some cases) pretty much every federal tax that exists. But at this point, one has to wonder how committed he is to any of his campaign pledges. Perhaps those tax plans were only tossed in there to make his (equally unlikely) proposed spending programs sound somewhat less budgetarily farfetched. How long before he jettisons all of them? His economics team, after all, seems remarkably pragmatic and centrist.

I don't pretend to know the real answers here. But I did have a dream last night, in which my subconscious told me its own predictions. I dreamed I met Obama at some big public function or another. I grabbed him by the shoulder and pulled him aside and asked him which of his myriad tax hike proposals he actually planned on implementing. He was more forthcoming than I expected, and whispered to me that he would only raise the capital gains tax (including dividends), and only on those earning a very high income.

I asked him if he could at least consider cutting the corporate tax rate in return, as even Charles Rangel wants to do, but I woke up before I could get an answer.

The biggie for me of course was Thursday's decision in the Heller case striking down D.C.'s gun ban. Believe it or not, this case represented the first time in the republic's history that the Supreme Court has unambiguously weighed in on the question of whether the right protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. I suspect one of the reasons this has only been addressed in the 21st century is that earlier in our history, folks would have thought the question ludicrous. An individual right to bear arms was taken for granted by our founders, as well as by generations to follow.

I've always found this "collective" right theory to run afoul not only of the framers' intent, but also of plain common sense, and it seems that in recent years, the consensus of legal thought has turned against it as well. Needless to say, I'm glad to see this bogosity finally put to rest. The Heller decision didn't go as far as I might like in my wildest fantasies, but it's certainly more than I realistically expected.

One thing I have to wonder is whether this ruling will have any impact on the ACLU's ridiculous and senseless official position (if indeed such it can be called) on the Second Amendment. I like the ACLU on balance, and am a dues-paying member. But I'm also a member of the NRA, because I think the ACLU dropped the ball on this very important right, and their statement on the matter to be asinine and downright embarrassing.

Their whole raison d’être (a little Mexican lingo there for diversity's sake) is to zealously safeguard the Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Oddly, however, one of the ten gets handled a whole lot less expansively than the others, to say the least.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

I truly don't understand how an intellectually honest reading of the Second Amendment, taken together with the writings of the founding fathers, including the Federalist Papers and the other contemporary influential works on democratic theory, can support such a view. Anyway, I guess it's a moot point from now on. The supreme judicial body in the land has ruled that an individual right to bear arms does exist, so will the ACLU amend its position? Is it really in their nature to take a narrower and more constricted view of civil liberties than the Supreme Court? And if so, who needs 'em?

Even more ludicrous is the following argument:

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

Christ, aren't they embarrassed to write this kind of crap? I know full well they have some pretty heavyweight legal minds within their ranks. Is this the best they can come up with? Or is their position so inherently weak and hard to justify that anyone attempting to do so would sound foolish?

The problem with the above argument should be obvious. Allow me to illustrate:

Most proponents of free speech concede that libel, slander and perjury should not be allowed, so the question becomes not whether to regulate speech, but rather how much. Therefore, the ACLU is staying out of it, and will allow Congress to decide the proper amount of regulation, even if it means that residents of D.C. live under an effective total ban against criticizing the government.

Different amendment, same argument. Pathetic. One can hope that today's ruling might prompt the ACLU to genuinely rethink their stand on gun control, and hopefully come up with a position that's less, well... retarded. Probably too much to ask for, though. My prediction? Their already dismally weak argument will simply become weaker still, now that the thin, fictitious fig leaf of "collective rights" has been taken from them.

As for other implications, hopefully we'll start to see some lawsuits challenging prohibitive gun regulations in the handful of states (including my own) that still lack liberalized firearm laws.

And what about the upcoming election? Well, a Republican friend of mine had a surprising opinion. He was hoping for the D.C. ban to be upheld today. Why? His reasoning was that a repudiation of an individual interpretation to Amendment II would energize a powerful yet complacent gun lobby to turn out in force and sweep the GOP back into power.

I have to say, I'm glad he was disappointed. I wouldn't give 20 bucks to see the Republicans back in Congress, much less a constitutional right. But he does have a point, though. I think the gun lobby played a huge role in the GOP tsunami of 1994, but that they've been fairly complacent ever since. I wonder whether the fact that this ruling was so close (5-4) will help motivate the NRA crowd to turn out for McCain? We'll see, I guess.

Meanwhile? Drinks are one me.

UPDATE: Looks like the dissent comprised some awfully shoddy legal work. Really, it's astonishing this case was as close as it was, if this is the best they can do.

MORE UPDATE: I love this post. Maybe the 5-4 split will resonate after all.

How could four of our top justices feel obligated to gut not the Third or the Twentieth but the Second Amendment of our Constitution? How could they believe it wise to insert the State into every home, every dark alley, every dangerous situation by removing the basic human right of protection from us? We’re Americans; we don’t lose rights we gain them and extend them to others. Heck. the same SCOTUS in its wisdom decided to give our rights to al-Qaeda this term. The least it could have done is allowed Americans to have the rights embedded in their own Constitution.

At least 6-3 could have been written off by saying that 3 of the old coots had forgotten what it’s like not to be protected day and night by Secret Service details - luxuries that most of us don’t have. But there is no excuse for 4.

EVEN MORE UPDATE: Good point from Patterico:

If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.

"The Jews at Goldman are responsible for high oil prices," one user on a Yahoo message board for Goldman Sachs wrote recently. "Yeah, not one word from the media about how the greedy Jews have brought this whole financial mess on the world. Wonder why that is?" said another poster on a message board for Lehman Brothers Holdings.

These comments and others like them have drawn the attention of the Anti-Defamation League and public relations officers from firms named on the message boards, who are approaching Yahoo about cleaning up the sites.

I guess I called it. Not that it was any great feat of prognostication. In fact, it's sadly predictable. When times get tough, trot out the usual scapegoats. And although it should go without saying, I want to make clear that I'm not implying that all critics of rampant oil speculation is anti-Semitic in nature, by any means. Still, I've thought I detected an ugly undercurrent to some of it for a while now, and it looks like I was right.

But enough about that. I'm going to go celebrate today's Supreme Court ruling! I'm sure I'll write more about it soon, but for now? It's time to have a few drinks to the Second Amenment! Cheers.

(HT: Glenn)

Is there anyone out there who can explain it to me? Because honestly, the whole thing is starting to sound reminiscent of the Protocols of Zion -- of generations of malcontents scapegoating their misfortunes on "gold traders from Eastern Europe."

I kinda hope not. I'd rather believe it's a gathering of friends and supporters who were instrumental in helping McCain clinch the nomination with no overarching agenda. The most widely rumored veep candidates in attendance range from the merely uninspiring (Crist) to the crushingly disappointing (Romney) all the way to the disastrous (Huckabee.)

Fortunately, if you read past the first few grafs you learn that the guest list also includes Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. Granted, they're probably only there because they're joined at the hip to McCain these days, but it still makes me feel better. As unlikely as I think they are to be veep candidates, I'd love to see either one of them on the ticket -- I like Graham (my former congresscritter) for all the same reasons I like John McCain, and I'd really like the star power that Lieberman would bring to the ticket. Then there's also Bobby Jindal, who'd make an interesting choice, and is certainly someone I could live with.

I just really hope McCain doesn't screw this up. Despite all the media attention it gets, I really don't think the VP nominee usually does much to boost a ticket. A bad pick, however, can certainly drag a ticket down -- especially for a candidate who's 71 years old.

UPDATE: Hmm. After re-reading my link, I realized I don't see Mike Huckabee's name anywhere in there. Hopefully I just imagined it.

...Mr. Obama has lined up surrogates like State Representative Dan Gelber, the House minority leader, and Mr. Wexler, both of whom are Jewish. Mr. Wexler said he would try to convert voters one mah-jongg table at a time, with town-hall meetings in the card rooms of high-rise condominiums and articles in community newspapers.

“Many of the political leaders in Palm Beach and Broward County were at my son’s bris,” he said.

That's great, but here's the thing. When you have to work to try to convince Jewish people to vote for a Democrat, that's a pretty good sign that you've got a problem on your hands. Time will tell how successful these efforts will bet, but so far?

Still, Mr. Wexler admits, he has not yet been able to persuade his in-laws to vote for Mr. Obama.

Not looking so good.

West Virginia and Kentucky are exactly the kinds of states the next president will need to win, but Obama's weakness in such states is crippling. Not only was he trounced by more than two to one, but a mere one-third of Hillary voters in Kentucky said they would support Obama in the general election. Those are pretty grim statistics for the Obama campaign. Whatever the polls say now, one is hard-pressed to look at the electoral map and explain how Obama can come up with 270 votes in November.

So how did the Dems end up in this situation? I think the answer is that the Democrats' nomination process is fatally flawed. Its problems extend beyond the superdelegate nonsense, and even beyond the proportional representation scheme, which not only guarantees a long, hard internecine slog, but is also a poor proving ground for the winner-take-all race in the general election.

More importantly, votes from districts that went Republican in 2004 were given less weight than blue districts. That's why we have the bizarre spectacle of Obama racking up huge wins in places he doesn't stand a prayer of winning in November, while Hillary has largely been kicking his ass in the swing states that will actually decide the next election. Once again, they've managed to nominate a candidate with no real strength outside the liberal archipelago.

I think what we are witnessing is an ugly, bitter divorce between the Democratic Party and the Clintons. It's a pity, because the Clintons are the only Democrats in my lifetime who know how to win a national election.

"Barack HUSSEIN Obama," [Wright] said, emphasizing the Illinois senator's middle name dramatically, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. There are Arabic-speaking Christians, there Arabic-speaking Jews, Arabic-speaking Muslims and Arabic-speaking atheists. Arabic is a language, it is not a religion. Stop trying to scare folks by giving them this Arabic name like it's some disease."

McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost

my eyes glazed over before I even got to the first paragraph. Nonetheless, I forced myself to wade through the article, because as a dedicated political blogger I post here once a month, whether I need to or not. At the end of it all, I found it a rather sad, pathetic effort on the part of the Grey Lady.

Look, I realize that the Times is going to pull out all the stops to see that the Obamessiah is elected president this year. McCain may be their favorite Republican, but at the end of the day, he's still, well, a Republican. But if this is the horse shit is the best they can up with, I can't help but feel pretty damn good about the McCain campaign.

Deep into the story, the Times grudgingly admits that McCain broke no laws, yet somehow they think it unseemly that his campaign paid so little for leasing the plane in question. But it doesn't take much imagination to envision what the NYT headline would have been if he'd done exactly what they wanted:

Candidate Pays More than Required for Wive's Plane! Inappropriate Transfer of Funds from Campaign to Wife?

Oh well. The good news is that the New York Times is even worse financial shape than McCain's campaign. Gee, I wonder why?

This is beginning to be a pattern. Obama has never appealed to me as a candidate, but I was at least hopeful that he'd represent a break from the sleazy, dirty soundbite politics we've seen too much of lately, in which one side seizes on a phrase or sentence, lifts it completely out of context and deliberately mischaracterizes it.

I guess I was naive. Perhaps Obama fears he can't win an honest campaign against John McCain. He may be right.

(via Glenn)

Anyways, I actually watched the debate last night. I hadn't planned to, but I happened to be visiting some pro-Obama friends' house, and they had it on, and, well, I got sucked in. I thought Obama did better than most of the Monday morning quarterbacks seem to be giving him credit for. I was a bit surprised this morning to find the punditocracy nearly unanimous in viewing Obama's performance as dreadful, but oh well. I often disagree with those folks.

And even though I thought he performed as well as could be expected, he also finally and definitively destroyed any chance that I could be sanguine about an Obama presidency. Hillary I can live with. Obama I can't. He lost me in this exchange with gang-rapist Charlie Gibson. In it, Gibson points out that cuts in the capital gains rate often results in more revenue, while increasing rates results in less. In response, Obama seems to be saying that raising revenue is less important than taking money away from rich people. That's a bit too socialist for my tastes.

Look, I'm not totally unsympathetic to the whole "tax fairness" thing, but why does tax fairness always seem to mean raising taxes? Why couldn't fairness be achieved by cutting rates on earned income to bring them in line with long term capital gains? Or be revenue neutral about it and split the difference. Set them both at (say) 25%.

But no, that doesn't seem to be the direction Obama wants to move in. He seems more inclined to raise every tax he can find -- income to 39.5%, capital gains to 28%, dividends to 39.5%, and the estate tax all the way back up to 55%. To top it all off, his elimination of the FICA cap would add an additional 12.4% at the margin for self-employed entrepreneurs. (For salaried folk, you'd have a 6.2% increase, along with a de facto increase in our corporate tax, already among the very highest in this tax-competitive, global economy, a fact which even Charlie Rangel seems to appreciate.)

Oh well. I'm sure none of this stuff will prevent him from winning the Democratic nomination. Come November, however, I think it'll be a different story.

The Democratic success in 2006 was due in large part to making the party more salable to heartland America. Well, so much for that. This kind of elitist paternalism, so carefully avoided in the mid-term campaign, won't help him make inroads into red America.

I guess I can go ahead and start planning the menu for my John McCain inauguration party. I'm thinking maybe something with a Southwestern motif.