Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (above left) must have missed Barack Obama’s call to put partisanship aside.
According to The Associated Press, Reid wants to strip Joe Lieberman (above right) of his committee chairmanship for having spoken at the Republican National Convention.
Nice going, Harry. THAT’s the way to unite the country: Punish a guy who votes with your party just about all the time for having supported the other party’s guy for president.
If Reid follows through, we’ll have the Republicans, aka the GOP, and the Democrats, aka the POOP (Party of Oppressive Pettiness).

I must admit I hope Sarah Palin is waving goodbye to national politics.
I like a lot of things about her: Her good humor, her apparent awe at the process during the presidential campaign (watching her look up at the ballons at the Republican National Convention was a refreshing departure from the cynicism watching the usual big-time players tends to stir up in my gut), her unapologetic conservatism and her willingness to live her political creed (witnessed by bearing a son with Down syndrome).
But let’s face it, through some fault of her own, Palin soon became a laughingstock.
Her repeated use of the word “maverick” during the vice presidential deabte, for example, made me cringe. It sounded like a filler slogan. I have nothing else to say, so I’ll throw in a little “John McCain is a real maverick, and I’ll be his partner in that in the White House” right about here.
Not everyone agrees, obviously.
“Conservatives are still looking for Mr. Right. And maybe Mr. Right turns out to be Ms. Right,” Bill Whalen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, told The Associated Press.
Also from the AP

Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin “one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012,” along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“She’s in the top tier, but she’s not next in line.” Norquist said. Running as vice president “puts you in contention.”

I say we raise the qualifications a bit for that top tier.

OK, so now that all the votes are in, California’s ban on gay marriage is probably official.
I say probably because I would not put it past the California high court to strike down a constitutional amendment. They seem just arrogant enough to do it.
I must admit to not knowing what should be done about gay marriages already granted.
Can a marriage license really be deemed null and void by the government? It’s a tough one.
Blame the courts for that. If the Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds, this would not be an issue.

Barack Obama has won fair and square but gosh some people are getting carried away.
Calling his victory, with 52 percent of the vote, a mandate (as the Los Angeles Times and CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs do today) seems a bit of a stretch.
It’s a mandate only in comparison to the victories won by recent Democratic presidents: Jimmy Carter’s 50% in 1976 and Bill Clinton’s 43% and 49% showings in 1992 and 1996, respectively.
Senate Republicans should not be cowed. If the Democrats seek to capitalize too strongly on Obama’s win and their strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans should not be shy to use the filibuster. McCain’s 46 percent of the vote is nothing to sneeze at, especially given that Obama beat him by only 6 percentage points (compared to Reagan’s 10-point win over Carter in 1980).
Still, Obama did win. Congrats to him on a campaign well run and best of luck to him in being president for all of us, as he graciously promised Tuesday night.

I always enjoy reading Gil Smart’s Sunday column.
As long as I disagree with just about everything he’s saying, I know I’m feeling alright.
And I was feeling great this Sunday.
In “Why I’ll vote for Obama,” Gil says that “Obama is the thinking person’s choice.”
I naturally have all kinds of objections to this but I’ll lead with Ronald Reagan’s observation in 1964: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Obama knows, for example, that he can make a windfall profits tax on oil companies bring in all kinds of cash when the last one we tried, a la Jimmy Carter, brought in less than a quarter of its predicted revenue.
Obama also knows that he can raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more and give to the other 95 percent of us — ignoring the fact that these folks usually do a pretty good job of hiding their income when taxes rise (that’s what they pay their accountants to do). Anyone who thinks about it knows what’s really going to happen: Obama’s tax cuts won’t bring in nearly the revenue he expects and he’ll be forced to define wealthy down to the middle class to pay for his big government dreams.
Obama also knows that he can renogotiate NAFTA without destroying international trade and launching a new worldwide economic crisis — something no mere mortal could do, since it’s impossible.
And, finally (not because I’m out of ridiculous Obama proposals but because I don’t want readers’ eyes to glaze), Gil’s “thinking person’s choice” seems more the panderer than the serious policy pro when he rules out raising the retirement age to fix Social Security. Really now. Given that most people died at or near 65 when Social Security began and we’re now living well into our 70s (U.S. life expectancy hit 78.1 years in June), wouldn’t the thinking man’s candidate see a boost in the retirement age as a reasonable first step in avoiding financial calamity for Social Security? (John McCain, to his credit, has said all options are on the table to reform Social Security; that’s because, you see, a huge issue like this requires bipartisanship, which means giving something to everybody — including Mr. Commonsense — not just “thinking” your approach is so right you can start drawing lines in the sand.

As will be reported by the Lancaster New Era this afternoon, Lancaster County students participating in a mock election sponsored by Newspapers in Education backed Barack Obama 49 percent to 36 percent for John McCain. (Other votes went to third-party nominees, some of whom did not qualify for the ballot here in Pennsylvania.)
It’s great, as teachers and sponsors note, that the kids are interested in this year’s presidential race.
But should we worry that they’re leaning toward the candidate whose plans threaten to make their country less free by, among other things: encouraging the growth of government-provided and government-controlled health coverage; bringing back the anti-First Amendment “Fairness Doctrine,” which aims to put liberal talking heads on par with their conservative counterparts by forcing the latter off the air; and raising taxes on job-creators, again in the name of “fairness”?
Nah.
They’ll learn, whether it’s thanks to the taxes taken out of their first paycheck or some other government assault.
The important question comes down to this: Will we, the adults of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and/or the nation vote like children, choosing the candidate who promises to take care of us, rather than freeing us to take care of ourselves?
I’m confident Lancaster County will not follow this path.
I fear Pennsylvania and the rest of America might.
That would be too bad.

John McCain’s behind in the polls.
I grant you that’s upsetting.
A Vietnam war hero with a distinguished record in the U.S. Senate is losing to a guy whose best resume item to date is running one heck of an effective presidential campaign.
That is depressing.
But it should not lead to madness.
I have fielded calls to the newsroom from people who allege that:
(A) A lawsuit filed by Lafayette Hill, Pa., attorney Philip Berg could be right, perhaps Sen. Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States. Berg’s claim: Obama cannot prove he was born in the United States.
(B) Obama’s past associations suggest he is a closet PLO supporter and a closet Marxist; it’s all right there in his books, one caller told me.
And, most absurd of all:
(C) Obama’s the anti-Christ.
Taking these bits of insanity in order, I say:
(A) If it’s true that Obama was not born in the United States and thus would not be qualified to take the helm as commander in chief, don’t you think Hillary Clinton’s campaign might have noticed this little problem?
And, why the heck would Obama spend so much time and so much money on a pursuit that could be denied him with a simple records check?
(B) OK, for a moment, let’s pretend Obama’s a Marxist. Just how far do you think he’ll get with that? Obama’s record in public office suggests he’ll do what it takes to get re-elected. So, unless you think the public’s ready to support Marxism, don’t worry. Will Obama try to increase the size of government? Probably but his success will depend on the public and Congress’ embrace of big government. I’m betting any such agenda doesn’t last long.
(Bill Clinton’s experience is a good case study on this. More on this point below.)
(C) Come on, now. Obama has been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Can’t one believe, as I do, that his policy stands, on abortion, among others, are not in line with Christ’s teachings without calling him the anti-Christ? This one’s just plain crazy.
Bottom line: While I find the particular charges and worries above absurd, I understand from whence they spring. People are frustrated. How can this guy be ahead? In the land I love, how can a guy like this be beating a war hero, a proven policy-maker, a guy who stands with our troops for victory instead of looking for a quick exit from Iraq?
Thing is, I recall thinking along similar lines in 1992: A draft-dodging womanizer was beating a World War II hero that time. And the former, Bill Clinton, won.
I recall worrying for our future.
And then — he pushed Hillary’s big-government takeover of health care, Republicans took majorities in the House and Senate and Clinton declared the “era of Big Government is over.”
And life went on. The nation survived.
So, to all you conservative worriers, I say: Fight right up through Election Day for your candidate, and then relax.
Even if Obama wins, the nation will survive.

OK, three quick points on the $150,000 in clothes and beauty treatments for Sarah Palin.
Point No. 1 — Who, besides GOP donors, really cares?
Point No. 2 — I have to disagree with Palin’s “double-standard” analysis. I recall similar coverage of Bill Clinton and John Edwards’ expensive haircuts.
But, gosh, Point No. 3, just because the media pounce on a politician’s vanity every time they get wind of an example doesn’t mean we have to care about it, too, right?
People who run for high-profile offices tend to be vain. That’s big news?

On National Review Online today, Victor Davis Hanson compares Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and makes a pretty strong case that Palin is being held to a higher standard.
A sample of his good points appears below:

While Gov. Palin’s frequent college transfers and Idaho degree are an item of snickering among pundits, none of them can claim to care much about Barack Obama’s own undergraduate career. To suggest that he release his undergraduate transcript is near blasphemy; to scribble that Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child was not her own is journalism as we now know it. To care that Joe Biden is vain, with bleached teeth, the apparent recipient of some sort of strange facial tightening tonic, and hair plugs is deservedly mean and petty; to sneer that the Alaskan mom of five bought a new wardrobe to run for Vice President is, of course, vital proof for the American voter of her vanity and shallowness. …
The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist.

I criticized our congressman, Rep. Joe Pitts, awhile ago for his response to the financial crisis. That was because I read a newspaper article that said his response to the crisis would be to eliminate capital gains taxes for a couple of years and make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
My feeling at the time was that he was selling snake oil — tax cuts as a cure-all.
I seem to owe the congressman an apology.
He visited with editors and a reporter at the New Era today and, given the length and complexity of just about all of his answers, I find his explanation of what happened more than credible.
Asked what he would have done to address the financial crisis, Pitts referred to a 5-page plan he released the day of the vote on the second bailout plan. (The plan can be seen by clicking here.)
It’s a multifaceted, mostly free-market plan but it would create an insurance program for mortgage-backed securities, grant the Fed authority to secure banks with loans and various reforms, including tax cuts, that Pitts believes would keep the problem from happening again and spur the economy.
So, I asked him which ones he would have picked had he been asked by a space-conscious reporter for the most important one or two.

He said: “Probably a combination of the insurance and the loan program because you needed to free the credit, solve the credit freeze. That was the real problem there and that would have helped make loans available for small business but I would have done all of these things that I list here. … I did say we should suspend the capital gains tax for a couple of years, and we should make the tax levels permanent and I explained the other things but they didn’t make it in there. … People are mad at me for that answer but that’s not all I said. In the answer, I said this is the way to invigoraate the economy.”

Well, I feel better.