Can McCain Pull This Off?

Yes.

If he can reach the voters directly ... Here are his challenges.

First, the polls are unreliable. When you look at a poll, you have to ask one question: what is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans? By upping the number of Dems or lowering the number of Repubs, a pollster can manipulate the results to favor Obama. I won't name names but this has happened more than once over the last few weeks.

Second, the MSM will run with these bad polls because they desperately want Obama to win. How else to explain the lack of coverage for Biden's outrageous gaffes about clean coal, who was president during the Great Depression, and his egregious debate whoppers? (I'm sure a few experts on the Middle East are scratching their heads about the "Biden-Obama Hezbollah-Lebanon" policy.) By pushing the idea that Obama's win is inevitable, they hope to sway undecideds and dispirit McCain-Palin backers.

Third, McCain has to step up to the plate. He has to make it clear to the American people that the Democrats blocked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform, enabling the housing bubble. He has to link Obama to the freshman senator's crazy cohorts, because, trite though it sounds, you really can judge a man by the company he keeps. And, most important, he has to give voters a reason to vote for him. What is he going to do to fix the economy? Tax cuts won't cut it.

Fourth, Americans need to realize they are being played - by the media, by the Democrats, by the Obama campaign, by George Soros, by moveon.org, by labor unions, and by Hollywood loons who make millions reading lines other people write for them. All of these groups have vested interests in presenting a candidate with no real job experience as a viable president. If McCain's campaign can't drive home the prospect of a Pelosi-Reid-Obama government, he deserves to lose.

I believe this election is closer than the polls say. Neither candidate has made the sale to voters. I'm not confident one will before November 4th, which actually favors McCain as the known commodity.

Can McCain pull this off? If he wants to.

Stuck in the Seventies: How the Left Is Out of Step on Abortion

The valiant fight for abortion rights was won in the most unlikeliest of places: The Buckle of the Bible Belt.

Sarah Weddington sued infamous, long-serving Dallas County DA Henry Wade on behalf of serial baby factory, Norma McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe. Weddingon went on to the history books, Wade continued his reign on minority defendant rights (currently being undone by Democrat Craig Watkins) and abortion became legal in the US. (Ms. McCorvey had her baby, since her case was heard by The Supremes years too late, and gave the child up for adoption.) It was 1973.

To hear the Democrats, it still is.

But, now, the fight for abortion rights might be undone by another Sarah.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is the living, breathing repudiation of every old abortion canard trotted out by the Left. And, she is two months away from being elected as the first woman Vice President of the United States, giving her the perfect platform to show the country just how out of step the Democrats and their liberal benefactors have become on this emotional issue. Ironically, they have themselves to blame. Had they nominated popular-vote winner Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Dems would not have Gov. Palin as Exhibit A in the Case Against the Left's Abortion Arguments. (An eloquent post by riverdaughter at The Confluence gives reasons for voting against the 2008 Democratic ticket.)

So, let's see how Gov. Palin proves the Dems wrong:

1. The Costs of Having a Disabled Baby are Too High

Gov. Palin gave birth this April to a "beautiful baby boy" she declared "perfect." He has Downs Syndrome, a diagnosis the governor and her husband learned after prenatal testing. They declined to abort even though about 90% of parents faced with this decision end their pregnancies. (sources: wiki, NYT)

2. We Shouldn't Burden Women With Babies They Can't Care For

Gov. Palin is a mother of 5, including newborn son Trig. She started her political career as a mother of three, had a daughter while mayor, and a son while governor. If Governor Palin and her husband can juggle 5 children and her duties as Vice President of the United States (she's currently a sitting governor), then few women can claim a baby will push them over the edge.

Now, there are some left-wing heavy hitters defending this fragile argument. Barabra Ehrenreich famously pontificated about her two abortions of convenience in the New York Times. She hypocritically claimed, "And when it comes to my children - the actual extrauterine ones, that is - I was, and remain, a lioness." But, clearly not for the two most defenseless cubs who had poorly timed their conceptions.

3. Women Deserve the Right To Choose Their Reproductive Destiny

Yes, they do. That is why we have condoms, The Pill, the IUD, the female condom, various hormone patches, the sponge, the cervical cap, tubal ligation and vasectomies (willing partners, only, please) and a clever invention called the calendar. None but the last were widely available to women who came of reproductive age during the Sixties and Seventies. But, they are now. (One fact conveniently left out of the Dems narrative on "choice" and "destiny" is the right to keep the baby, also a choice, as the staunchly anti-abortion Gov. Palin believes and exercised.)

There is a glaring reason young women aren't fired up about abortion rights. Few need them. These women grew up with the benefits of Roe and its associated battles - sex ed, condoms in high school bathrooms, and open lectures about STDs. They know how and why they can get pregnant and they realize that there are few excuses for it accidentally happening. All US women have access to contraception, even teens who can demand their boyfriends spend a few bucks at CVS. (Hey, Playa, it's half yours, remember.)

While women forty years ago had to use abortion as birth control, had the real fear of losing their jobs/diplomas/degrees if they got pregnant, or faced the prospect of a loveless shotgun marriage, today's women don't. Girls and women who find themselves with an oops have options their mothers couldn't have dreamed of. Pregnant teens can attend special high schools with daycare and career counsellors and there are colleges with on site childcare. All pregnant women have job protections, not just the married ones. And, in 2008, we have a legal system happy to slap delinquent dads with child support.

Simply put, we aren't living in the Sixties. We aren't Norma McCorvey. Today's accidentally pregnant face not the shame of illicit sex but the stain of ignorance. In short, we are expected to own our own destinies.

For the record, I am pro-choice and do not want to see Roe reversed. It is the lesser of two evils. No, birth control isn't infallible and mistakes do happen, sometimes in the heat of passion. But, as a mother, I can't sign up for abortion on demand, anytime, anywhere. Nope. While I certainly agree that a mother has more rights than a potential being, I believe a fetus past 22 weeks is its own separate being. There, I said it. Late-term abortions should only be done because of the health of the mother or in compassionate cases like anencephalic babies. Period.

But, what about rape and incest? If you waited later than 22 weeks, you can wait a few weeks more. Sorry. See the above paragraph.

The Democrats have arguments they lack the courage to make. It should be mandatory for hospitals to offer rape victims the morning after pill. It should be mandatory for pharmacies to honor prescriptions as written, not push their religious beliefs on their customers and undercut a doctor's treatment. And, we need to get rid of parental notification laws. These are fights worth having.

Alas, the Democrats are still mired in a pre-1973 world. They want to fight for rights women already have and for choices we can already make. Who, I wonder, can't surrender control of women's bodies?

Why don't PUMAs have the courage of their convictions?

What's up with PUMAs?

Lo 2o something days ago when the PUMA movement launched, I had Hope. Yes, Hope, and Hope for Change in the Democratic Party's nominee. But something happened on the road to Denver: success.

Blogs that were once edgy and rebellious are now backing away from their original goals. Now that their daily hits are soaring and ad revenue is multiplying at dizzying rates, they've just sorta kinda, well, ya know, SOLD OUT. Sure, they'll still criticize the self-appointed nominee. They might even post a few outrageous allegations. But, gone is that fire in the belly.

Could it be true? Could they end up "coming home" to the party that threw them across the asphalt?

Isn't that what always happens to the Party of Appeasement? Contest Florida? Nah, that'll upset the voters. (Which ones? The majority that voted for Gore?) Impeach Bush? What? When his approval ratings are in the high 20s? Look what happened to the Republicans in the '90s when they tried that! (Yeah, 'cause a private lapse with a consenting adult, immoral as it may have been, is so comparable to invading a sovereign nation on made up intelligence and costing thousands of lies.) Filibuster the FISA bill when it gives Bush EVERYTHING he wants? (And admit that we're just as guilty in that whole debacle?)

Uh-uh. No way. They earned that moniker The Defeatocrats and by god they're going to live up to it! So, other than a few hardy stalwarts like The Denver Group and PUMApac, we're left with happy hours and rants. Besides, Hillary doesn't even want the nomination, right? (And, Obama's a new kind of politician.)

Well, I'm not giving up. Not me. I ain't gonna. I don't wanna. And, you can't make me!