"On the site of what had once been Project X, nothing remained alive among the ruins--except, for some endless minutes longer, a huddle of torn flesh and screaming pain that had once been a great mind."

It seems every time I read Andrew Sullivan -- which is far too often I'm afraid -- I'm reminded of these lines from Atlas Shrugged regarding the death of one of the main villains: the brilliant Dr. Robert Stadler.   The tragedy of Dr. Stadler is that he knew better.  Unlike many of the other villains in the novel who seem to be intrinsically evil, Dr. Stadler was once a "good guy" but, blinded by the opportunity for fame and social approval, loses his bearings.

[Promoted - Jon Henke]

Fiscal conservatives have reason to be alarmed leading up to November. The current political climate is such that populist Democrats are poised to make significant gains on Capitol Hill, while Republicans are frantically moving to the center in order to stay in office. This likely means an increase in your tax burden, and a perpetually expanding federal budget (which has nearly doubled since 1980).

It goes without saying that those in favor of pro-growth public policy, with low taxes and sensible government spending, will be furious if a merry band of tax hikers is sworn in to Congress and state legislatures nationwide next year. What is less certain is whether these candidates are aware of America’s preference for policymakers keen on allowing citizens to spend their own money, rather than insisting the government spend it for them.

To that end, the National Taxpayers Union has launched its “I Don’t Vote for Tax Hikers” campaign to mobilize the grassroots movement and present a formal rejection of the tax-and-spend policies that threaten to further inundate government at all levels. The logic behind it is quite simple: Politicians respond to the demands of voters. This campaign is an incredibly important way to remind elected officials that there is a coordinated taxpayer lobby – and we vote, too.

A Saturday Sarah Palin roundup

• Daily Kos wants to hang Sarah Palin's church around her neck.  I'm not sure they've thought that through very well.
• Does Open Left really want to compare Obama to Jesus?
• Media Matters attacks "McCain's false claim that Obama was community organizer when Palin was in office".   But then they acknowledge that "Palin joined the Wasilla city council ... in 1992, the year Obama served as director of Chicago's Project Vote! -- the local chapter of a national voter registration organization."  Which would seem to make McCain's claim quite accurate. 
• LA Progressive is implausibly accusing Gov. Palin of uttering a number of very racist comments.  Their "source", of course, is uncheckably anonymous.  I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the only person in this story that made these racist comments is author Charley James, who is perfectly willing to use racism to advance his political goals.
• This appears to be a pattern.  The Leftosphere has also decided that, while there's absolutely no confirmation beyond a partisan blogger who just remembered it in time to write a book this year, Cliff Schecter's allegation of McCain calling his wife a [word I won't use] is good enough for them.
• Amusingly/depressingly, Charley James also accuses Gov. Palin of being vocally racist against Eskimos.  Um...Sarah Palin's husband, Todd Palin, is "of Eskimo ancestry."
• Charles Martin has a full list of Sarah Palin rumors, along with the facts, rebuttals and relevant information.

Good News: Sarah Palin makes the Left crazy.

Bad News: We're not finding the answers to much more important questions about Sarah Palin.

UPDATE

Chris has also posted a tremendous roundup of accusations and facts here at The Next Right.

Chris Bowers complains about "the corporate welfare style typical of American government--privatize the profits, socialize the risk".  This is not a left-wing criticism - it's a genuine problem, both for the country (as illustrated by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae going "under government control") and for the Right (which sets itself up to lose a fight about the size of government with every intervention in industry).

This is how government grows...

1. Socialize Risk: Government intervenes in an industry to "solve" some apparent and visible problem.  This is done "for the people."
2. Unintended Consequences: This intervention merely shifts the costs to new areas and sweeps problems under the carpet, where they accumulate.
3. Blame The Market: Government intervention is not blamed, because the people who support it assume their good intentions could not be responsible for bad things.
4. Socialize Profit: The Left demands Something Be Done by people with Good Intentions. Politicians comply.  This is done "for the people."

Unfortunately, our political structure comes at this from four different places.

• Democratic politicians, organizations and activists are happy to go along with Steps 1-4, because, hey, #4 was their goal in the first place.
• Republican politicians and organizations go along with Steps 1-3, only objecting at Step #4.  By which time it is too late.
• Business goes along with Step #1, and attempts to use Step #2 to get more of Step #1.
• Libertarians believe the problem occurs at Step #1.  Once Step #1 is conceded, we've already lost on steps 2-4.  But libertarians and limited government conservatives have relatively little power.

Now, we are at Step #4 - essentially nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  As Chris Bowers writes, "nationalizing industries ... is the literal definition of socialism and big government".  Of course, he thinks that is a good thing, also writing that "nationaliz[ing] the mortgage industry ... actually seems like a good idea to me."

Almost two weeks after election day in Alaska, incumbent Congressman Don Young's lead over Lt. Governor Sean Parnell narrowed to 129 votes for the Republican nomination to the state's lone seat in the House. Here's the latest count as of 9:15 PM EST on Friday after most of the 25,000 absentee and question ballots were counted today:

• LEDOUX, Gabrielle: 9575 votes - 9.32%
• PARNELL, Sean: 46514 votes - 45.28%
• YOUNG, Don: 46643 votes - 45.40%

Alaska has 40 state house districts, and the director of the Division of Elections says that about a dozen house districts' absentee and question ballots are yet to be counted. Additionally, absentee ballots sent from overseas will be accepted until next Wednesday, when they will be counted. It's looking more and more likely that a recount will happen ... which means another two week wait.

[By the way, if there's a tie, the election is decided by coin flip. Yes, a coin flip. It happened two years ago in the Democrat primary in Alaska State House District 39, where both candidates were tied with 767 votes, and the incumbent Democrat was knocked off by a challenger when he called tails. Ridiculous ... right?]

I originally predicted a 35 to 40% turnout in the Alaska primary back in March. With these votes in, the turnout is now 39.3%. Looks like my expectations will be exceeded ... this, along with Palin at the top of the ticket, should make every Democrat candidate, statewide to legislative, afraid for massive Republican and conservative-independent turnout in November.

The Left is outraged that Sarah Palin was critical - even (gasp!) negative.  It's quite insincere, of course, but that's what they're trying to sell.  Naturally, the media is playing along. 

Shove this back in their face.

Obama’s speech includes more negative attacks than Palin’s. [...] If one compares Palin’s speech to Obama’s, it appears to me that they used similar amounts of sarcasm (not much), but Obama made considerably more extensive negative comments about McCain and Republican administrations than Palin did about Obama and Democrats.

How have the conventions changed the Presidential race?  While Obama focused on reinforcing the campaign’s current dynamics, McCain made two strong plays to change the equation.  While he could have done a lot more with the opportunity, McCain was still marginally more successful than Obama.

Obama’s Democratic convention stuck to the playbook the campaign has been using all year.  Same speeches, same Obama, same shtick – larger TV audience.  Obama’s speech could have been given any time since his nomination and most of the surrogates stuck to the “McSame” attack they’ve been pushing since Hillary dropped out. 

This is the slow and steady approach and it makes sense for a candidate who would win if the race were held today.  Team Obama chose their plays months ago and they’re not pivoting now.  Their major failure was their inability to correct any of the mistakes in their playbook, specifically voters’ inability to relate to Obama’s life story, and ultimately their convention didn’t change the dynamics of the race.

The Republican convention on the other hand was a little more lively.  As the underdog, McCain can’t afford to play it safe and his team came in looking to shake up the race’s fundamentals rather than reinforce them. 

Less than a week ago Sarah Palin was introduced to America and many conservatives for the first time. In the intervening week, the GOP vice presidential nominee has endured a liberal smear campaign, ruthless media criticism and the biggest speech of her life. She emerged unscathed and more respected. In the process she united the right.

What now for Sarah Palin? As Jon Henke wrote yesterday, there is a fundamental misunderstanding by liberals and journalists why people on the right are excited about her. But what is it that gives conservatives so much hope?

From a purely partisan perspective, Henke argues she will reform the "directionless, corrupt and ineffectual" party and change the identity of the GOP in the process.

The question, then, is what Sarah Palin will do with the Republican Party if she has the opportunity to remake it. Change is necessary, but where does the Republican Party go next? That is a question that needs to be addressed.

Henke's point is a good one -- and very likely the reason many Republicans are motivated. But the reason *conservatives* are excited about Palin extends beyond the party (yes, there is a difference). Like Ronald Reagan before her, Palin has a special talent for talking to grassroots conservatives in a way they can relate. Her can-do attitude and optimistic outlook are truly inspirational. After eight years and many disappointments, it feels like morning again in America.

There's an important distinction between her and Reagan, however. It took Reagan 16 years from his "Time for Choosing" speech in 1964 before winning his party's nomination. By the time he came to Washington, Reagan had a committed conservative movement with him and a portfolio of policy goals to choose from.

Sarah Palin is a blank slate. Aside from what we've learned in the past week, we know very little about the woman who could transform conservatism for the next generation. For that reason, we should be skeptical. Certainly not in a bad way, but with the recognition that she's on a ticket with maverick who has made a career of being unpredictable.

Will Palin follow in McCain's footsteps? Or will she charter her own course that remakes the right? She seems like a great leader. So where does she want to lead? Putting aside the talking points, what is her actual, governing philosophy? What are *her* priorities? Will she be a manager or transformative?

The next few weeks will be tremendously important for Palin. As we get to know her, she'll get to know us. What she says and what she does will be magnified because she is an unknown. The excitement she brings to the GOP ticket could be seen all week at the convention. No other Republican has been able to inspire that kind of enthusiasm in a long, long time. With so much at stake, she can't afford to let us down.

Have at it.

Free video streaming by Ustream

I just had the chance to catch up with GOP chief deputy whip and recent Veepstakes contender Eric Cantor here on the Press level of the Xcel Center. Win or lose, I get the sense that one trend that will continue is a younger, more reformist cohort of House Republicans. Cantor projected a large GOP freshman class in 2009 -- after what Kevin McCarthy reminded us yesterday was the smallest freshman class since 1914 to come in this Congress.

Our top opportunities to knock off Dem incumbents? TX-22 with Pete Olson, WI-8 with John Gard (Steve Kagen is certifiable), PA-10 with Chris Hackett (full disclosure: I consult for Hackett), and CA-11 with Dean Andal.

I asked him about blue state pickup opportunities. One of the big frustrations currently is that when a blue seat comes open, it's automatically assumed that it will stay blue, while a conservative district becomes a tossup and the Democrat is allowed to redefine themselves as in step with the district. This is a problem. Cantor is hopeful that Carol Shea-Porter can be knocked off in NH-1.

He's not willing to take Virginia out the swing state column, but thinks that John McCain wins a competitive race in a state with a large military presence.

For more: GOPYoungGuns.com.