To my great surprise, CNN does a short segment on Senator Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, exposing the lie that Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood.”

(HT: Ed Morrissey)
Related: Thomas Sowell on The Real Obama

Peter Wehner gives a spot-on assessment of what Senator McCain needs to do in the remaining weeks before election day:

This past weekend has made it clear that Obama’s unremittingly liberal voting record, as well as some of his past associations (weirdly excluding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which is the association that deeply troubled a lot of us), will be an issue during what I have called Act III of the McCain campaign.
What remains to be seen is whether this line of criticism will succeed given the current environment. If so, the case McCain makes needs to be powerful and precise, accurate and believable. He must convince a large segment of the public that his argument is not backward-looking but is instead intensely practical. To be more specific, McCain need to demonstrate to voters why Obama’s past record and associations will shape, in important and harmful ways, how Obama would govern as president. To invoke a line used by Senator Biden during last Thursday’s debate, McCain needs to explain why “past is prologue.”

Read the whole thing.

Michael Cannon provides a helpful corrective on the caricature conveyed by Senator Biden at the VP debate last week. Excerpt:

He [Biden] suggested the $5,000 family tax credit is paltry compared to the $12,000 average premium for a family plan, as if the two numbers were comparable, and complained that the $5,000 “will go straight to the insurance company,” calling that “the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.”
Yes, the tax credit would go to the insurance company of your choice, where it would reduce the cost of your coverage by $5,000 – which, we apparently must repeat, is larger than the tax break most people get today. The Post awarded Biden another two “Pinocchios” for Thursday night’s misrepresentations.
But the most important part of McCain’s tax credit is something that Biden still doesn’t get: McCain would replace the current tax break with not one tax cut, but two.
The average “employer contribution” to that $12,000 family plan is about $9,000. In a recent survey, 91% of health economists agreed employers take their “contribution” out of your wages. If employers weren’t providing health benefits, the labor market would force them to add that money to your cash compensation. In other words, the current tax break for job-based coverage lets employers control several thousand dollars of your earning.

Read the whole thing.

Mike Huckabee writes:

“I wanted to write you to convey my disgust with the passing of this 451 page bailout bill. Wall Street has gone trick-or-treating in Washington a little bit early this October. Wall Street is getting the treats and America is getting tricked. The “Axis of Arrogance” has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Main Streeters and in doing so hid a sty full of pork in a bill whose constitutionality is questionable at best. Friends, the folks in Washington continue to treat your wallet as their tip jar and this has to stop.”

Huckabee goes on to list some of the earmarks, and then notes that “within minutes of the bill passing the state of California was already in line asking to be the next recipient of a Government hand out.” Sounds like Governor Huckabee is beefing up his conservative credentials (to his credit).

I question the wisdom of the recently passed “bailout” legislation. I find it strange that while Americans from all political parties overwhelmingly expressed concern over Congress’s $700 billion bill (see full text), our national leaders rushed to pass it (except, of course, those leaders most vulnerable in the upcoming election). Tammy Bruce (with help from Ed Morrisey) provide a list of new earmarks that helped sweeten the deal, successfully enticing legislators to sign the bill:
Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Meanwhile, these other earmarks were “extended” by the “bailout” bill:
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Why didn’t John McCain clearly explain to the American people the cause of the recent problems? At the very least, was it not unwise for McCain to rush to pass the bill when Americans overwhelmingly opposed it? Instead, he first says he will not attend the debate until the crisis is fixed, then he looks weak backing down and attending anyway. He has been running seven points back ever since. If McCain loses, I think this may be the defining issue that helps spawn a new generation of conservative leaders.

This is probably old news by now, but I find it interesting that although there has been widespread criticism of the House Republicans, it seems that vulnerable members of both parties in the House voted against the “bailout bill” earlier this week. Josh Kraushaar of Politico reports:

The vast majority of politically vulnerable members from both parties voted against the $700 billion package, fearing serious flak from their constituents back home. Of the 205 members who supported the bill, only seven — four Democrats and three Republicans — are facing highly competitive races.
The vote breakdown is in sync with skeptical public sentiment toward the plan. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll, for instance, showed 56 percent of those surveyed favoring something different than the proposed bailout package. Only 22 percent supported it.
Indeed, it was almost impossible to find a politically vulnerable Republican who supported the deal. The only three Republicans in tough races who supported it were Reps. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Jon C. Porter of Nevada.
Most of the politically vulnerable Democrats bucked their party’s leaders and voted against the package as well. While 15 of the 33 Democrats on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s incumbent-retention Frontline program supported the bailout, the majority aren’t at serious risk of losing their seats.
Indeed, only four Democrats facing highly competitive reelection bids — Reps. Jerry McNerney of California, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania and Jim Marshall of Georgia — voted for the bailout

Read the whole thing.