I have been very critical of John McCain - both stylistically and substantively. I think he is a man essentially devoid of an ideological foundation, a man for whom principle is secondary to instinct. He is not conservative, he is not liberal, he is just unpredictable. He proudly declares himself a maverick, but he is a maverick with no particular purpose. He probably has hurt the Republican Party far more than Barack Obama could ever have. Yet, despite my displeasure with his candidacy, I believe he will win tomorrow.

I believe that the race is far closer than the polls indicate. In fact, I have a hunch that he is actually winning in all of the battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. What explains the difference in the polls and what I believe is reality? Is it the Bradley Effect? If the Bradley Effect means that there are large packs of secret racists who are trying to fool pollsters, then no, I do not believe in the Bradley Effect. If the Bradley Effect means that there are large segments of the population who are unsure of Obama because of his race, his educational background, his past associations, his name, etc., then I do believe in the Bradley Effect. These people are not going to vote against Obama because he is black, they are going to vote against him because he is different. That is not racist, despite what anyone may say.

Is a McCain victory better for the U.S. than an Obama victory? I doubt it. If it is better, it is only marginally better at best. In the end, I think McCain will run a very ineffective administration and will finish the dismantling of the Republican Party that he started in this campaign, and that's OK with me. I believe that the Republican Party needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt. I will be working with the Paulians for dominance, and we have our best chance at winning ever - thanks to John McCain.

I really hate to say it, but not only is McCain possibly the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime, he is trying his damndest to actually destroy the Republican Party. His campaign is so bad that a virtual all star team of Republicans and conservatives are abandoning him. Peggy Noon, Mike Murphy, Christopher Buckley, the Goldwater family, Arne Carlson, Bill Kristol, Colin Powell, etc. All have either criticized the McCain campaign or have come out and said that they will not be voting for him. It's actually kind of sad.

The real question is why this is happening. There are multiple answers. First, McCain forgot that Republicans win elections by running a platform of ideas. Republicans are supposed to believe in limited government, less regulation, lower taxes, free markets, personal liberty, etc. McCain has, at one time or another, actually run against all of these things. He has cast himself as the new Regulator in Chief who, along with Madame Defarge, will clean up Wall Street and put the good old boys in Washington in their place. That is NOT what Republican voters want to hear. That is what Democrats believe, and guess what, Democrats have a candidate for whom to vote.

The second reason that the campaign is rotting before our eyes is that the campaign has absolutely failed to understand the mood of the country. For years people have said that they don't like negative campaigns, and for years, they voted for negative campaigns. Well, guess what, this year the polls have shown that voters are less inclined to vote for the more negative candidate. Not only that, but they have signaled this since the primaries. Instead of heeding the warning, the McCain campaign made the fatal mistake of thinking that the only way to break through the pro-Obama new coverage was to go negative. When they finally did break through, McCain's image of the good-natured patriot was gone. Instead we have seen an old, angry man just cranky about everything. This is not the McCain that appealed to voters in 2000.

To be sure there are reasons beyond McCain's control for the precipitous slide. He could not control the amount of money that Obama has raised. He could not control the financial mess we have. He could not control the abysmal poll numbers that Bush and the Republican Party have. He could not control the historical implications of an Obama victory. He could not control any of these things directly, but he could have done a hell of a lot better job of controlling their impact on the election. The overly negative tone he has employed has given Obama additional fund raising opportunities. He responded so badly to the crisis that Obama looked genius without doing anything. He has criticized his own party so much that the loyal Republicans are only lukewarm on him. He tried to counter a possible Obama victory with picking Madame Defarge as VP, a woman who is so far out of her depth that it is not even funny (except when Tina Fey makes it funny).

All of the gimickry was used in an attempt to get a quick bump in the numbers in the hopes that it would create momentum. The campaign could have made much more sound (but less glamorous) decisions such as sticking with fiscally conservative principles in the face of the economic news, bringing a positive message of what fiscal conservatism can do, picking a strong runninng mate like Romney,  and investing in a get-out-the vote campaign. Had they done so, I believe this race would be much better off. It's kind of the like difference betwen a teaspoonful of sugar and a sweet potato - one will give you a quick rush and one will sustain you, and McCain picked the wrong one. The big difference is that picking sugar over the more nutritious sweet potato will not set the Republican Party back for a generation.

There is a lot of hand wringing going on right now about General Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. My response to the endorsement is farewell General Powell. If he has left the Republican Party he will not be missed, and if he still considers himself a Republican, his influence has all but evaporated.  Either way, the Republican Party is better off without him.

General Powell's greatest sin is that he participated in the Bush deceit on the country that dragged us into the unconstitutional war in Iraq. Now, I am not one to ascribe motives to people, so I will look at the possible scenarios here. Perhaps General Powell did know that the intelligence that he trotted before the world was fradulent. If so, his participation in the run up to the way makes him no better than George Bush, and he is as morally culpable as anyone in the administration for the unecessary death and destruction. However, General Powell may not have known that he was peddling lies to get us into that mess. If that is true, he is truly an uninformed, incurious rube who should not be let anywhere near the defense aparatus in this country.

By accepting Powell's nomination (indeed actively courting it), Obama's dedication to a peace agenda comes seriously into question. This is clear example of how pragmatism trumps principle all too often for Obama. This endorsement may pry a few indpendent voters away from McCain, but it may also lead to the disillusionment of some of the anti-war voters. In the end, the endorsement could end up being a net loss for Obama. I would encourage the anti-war right to check out the Baldwin/Castle ticket - I think they may like what they read.

I have heard from many that they intend to vote for McCain not because he has good ideas or because they see him as ideologically compatible, but, instead, they intend to vote for him because he "is the lesser of two evils." Some basic logic here would tell you that the lesser of two evils is still evil, so if you wish to vote for evil, have at it. For my part, I would never vote for evil.

Actually I disagree with the above construct in one fundamental way; I do not see either man as evil. Rather, I see both men as terribly wrong on the basic relationship between the government and its citizens. The difference is one of degree rather than one of kind. Both men see government as the solution to the problems that face America. Both are just plain wrong, and that fact that John McCain does not recognize his error is exactly the reason I could not vote for him. In other words, John McCain is not evil, he is ignorant.

I believe that Barack Obama does believe that government has a moral duty to care the least fortunate amongst us. I believe this because he has been very upfront and consistent about this belief. I believe that he is wrong. Government is the problem with what troubles this country. This is my belief. I believe his plan to raise taxes on the most productive of us is wrong, not because it will stall growth, but because no man is entitled to the benefit of my labor. Only I should recognize gain from the exertion. Should I wish to give to others less fortunate than myself, that is my business, but forcibly taking my money for the same reason is morally wrong.

Obviously, I disagree with Barack Obama about the very nature of the government's relationship with its citizenry. I have the exact same disagreement with John McCain. He also wishes to take money that I have earned through my own labor and give it to others. For him it is in the form of renegotiated mortgages or tax credits to purchase health insurance. Either way, he is no more entitled to my money than is Barack Obama. However, unlike Obama, who has been upfront about his redistributionist plans, McCain has tried to fool me (us) into believing that he is completely different from Obama. He is wrong, and his administration will use the same draconian collection techniques that Obama's will if you fail to pay into his redistributionist scheme. It matters not to me whether of them uses the techniques, the results are the same for me.

I do not believe that a 3% difference in the highest marginal rate is enough evil to allow me to vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils. As stated, evil is evil, and I choose not to vote for either. So, should I not vote or should I "throw my vote away" on another candidate. When one earnestly votes for another who may not have a realistic chance of winning, it is not thrown away, for elections are not bets placed in Las Vegas in the hopes of "winning." Rather, a vote is the expression of one's philosophy, ones most dearly held beliefs. Therefore, a vote is never thrown away so long as one votes one's heart. My heart says Chuck Baldwin is the man, and that is who I will vote for. Those who vote for either Obama or McCain as the lesser of two evils rather than as an expression of your core philosophy are the ones throwing your votes away. I am sorry for you.

I agree with a lot of her policy position, but Representative Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment. Her appearance on Hardball yesterday should appall anyone with a sense of history. Here is what she said: "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." We have not heard that kind of rhetoric since the McCarthy days; such language is not only inappropriate is just plain ugly and possibly dangerous.

There is a concerted effort amongst most Republican officeholders to run away from George Bush. After all, he is extremely unpopular. Although they be running away from his record, it would appear that some Republicans such as Bachmann and the McCain Palin ticket have run toward the basic Bush campaign philosophy - vilify those who disagree with you and smear, smear, smear until the election. Here's the bizarre logic that underpins the startegy: You're with them or against them; you're a patriot if you are with them, and you are un-American if you are against them; you are a qualified candidate if your are patriotic, but you are not fit for office if you are un-American. Fool enough "low information" voters and you have won.

Winning for the sake of winning is not the style of Ronald Reagan. Reagan believed deeply in the value of ideas. He believed that communism was dangerous and told everyone why, but he did not vilify Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale as un-American communists. He believed that government was the problem, but he did not tag Carter or Mondale as un-Americans because they (especially Mondale) saw government as the solution. It was the strength of his ideas that inspired people - not the toxicity of his rhetoric. People believed his words, and more importantly, believed that he believed his words, and they followed. The result, an effective presidency - the last popular President to call himself a Republican - the last Republican President who even came close to advancing liberty and shrinking government. The last great Republican President?

The Bushies, Rovians, McCainites, and Bachmannites all claim the legacy of Ronald Reagan as theirs. However, in both style and substance they all fail miserably. They grow the size of government, fight back the cause of liberty, and spew venom unbecoming of any civilized person, not to mention public figures. The day of the happy warrior who stood for something bigger than himself is gone. Instead, we are stuck with a bunch of immitators, who, increasingly, appear less and less believable. This crew of incompetent hacks have killed the spirit of the Reagan Revolution more surely than the Democrats ever could. They should be embarrassed of themselves; I know I am for them.

One of the reasons that McCain is down in the polls is that he has the worst cast of surrogates ever, and the worst of the worst is, by far, Tucker Bounds. He consistently refuses or is unable to stray far enough away from his talking points to be the least bit persuasive. Rather than turning the discussion back to policy (especially tax policy) he merely identifies the question being asked and spouts off the talking point that closely matches. He keeps coming back to Bill Ayers when it has become obvious that Bill Ayers is a loser issue.

McCain's best moments have been those when he is able to make a coherent argument about Obama's taxing and spending. Unfortunately, he is too often unable to make a coherent statement. What he needs to do is continue to pound the fact that Obama is going to raise taxes. People are not that afraid of Obama as a person, but history shows that people are afraid of increased taxing and spending. The only focus between now and election day should be taxes and spending. If he can convince people that they will be hurt (directly or indirectly) by taxes, he can pry votes away from Obama. If he continues to talk about "who the real Obama" is, he will lose.

I do not know whether McCain will win the election (I think he will, but who really knows?), but what I really don't know (and would like to know) is what will become of the Republican Party in a post-McCain campaign era. I have no doubt that the party will continue to exist and be a force in national politics; however, I wonder upon what intellectual foundation it will sit. The scenarios are interesting:

I fear that if McCain wins, that will mean the end of influence that conservatives have in this party. After all, McCain not only repudiated some of his prior positions, his reaction to the financial "crisis" has been one of repudiating the basic economic beliefs that he has said he holds. He has railed against the greed in Wall Street (read the private sector) and called for new, tougher regulation of the financial industry. How this squares with his Reaganist rhetoric in this past is beyond me.

The crisis provided an opportunity for McCain to not only talk the talk of the Reagan legacy but to walk the walk, and he failed miserably. The correct response to the "crisis" by a free marketer would have been to call oppose the bailout and call for less regulation (e.g., getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) not more. The vote for the bailout and the call for more regulation was an admission on his part that free market economics (his core belief we were told) does not work and that government intervention in basic economic transactions is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. Instead of telling those individuals and businesses who made bad deals and saw their bets go bad that they would have to suffer the consequences of their risky behavior, instead, McCain advocated not only "rescuing" banks by infusing them with capital (stuffing them with increasingly worthless printed money), but also buying under-performing mortgages and renegotiating the deals - at tax payers' expense. These proposals were nothing short of disastrous for fiscal conservative thought in the party.

If McCain loses, this will obviously create a void to be filled within the next election cycle. Because McCain has alienated the fiscal conservatives in this party, you can bet on a very fractured party. In one corner will be the socially conservative/fiscally moderate voices lead by the likes of Palin and Huckabee. In the other corner will be the fiscally conservative (or what passes as such in the Republican Party these days)/socially moderate voices lead by the likes of Romney and Giuliani. The findamental question is whether these camps can come together to form something of a cohesive unit. It is my fear that Palin, especially, has so stoked anti-free market ferver in this cycle that the divide will not be healed. If the free marketers find their candidate, the social conservatives will sit out and vice versa.

It is tempting to imagine that the two camps will set aside their differences and join forces to restore a Republican to the White House; however, I fear that that just isn't likely to happen. The free marketers and extreme social conservatives are not really of the same party. A great many social conservatives espouse the small government line and decry runaway spending and fret about the size of government, but the truth is that a great many of these people are the beneficiaries of the largess they profess to hate. Fiscal conservatives know this and distrust them, and the social conservatives know at some level that they will not get as many government goodies if the fiscal conservatives regain power. This mutual disrespect and distrust have been exposed and picked at like annoying scabs by John McCain and Sarah Palin. One can only hope the scab eventually grows over and heals and does not become a major infection.