You ask a good question. Do we need big government at this moment, or just let the private sector do it.

Three quick thoughts.

First, I have never believed the president 'manages the economy.' We have this conceit that he is like the Wizard of Oz standing behind a curtain - zigging here, zagging there, puffing up smoke when necessary. I just don't believe it, and I don't give presidents of either party much credit or blame for economic performance. There are much bigger factors re: productivity and technological innovation at work.

Second, I would stipulate that we need a big government to protect the environment. And, I would stipulate that Palin does not seem very enviornmentally friendly. I also think she's very savvy politically and would change her positions as needed (on issues that are not central to her thinking) to accommodate national interests.

Third, back to the economy. The whole bailout scheme is an election eve vote-buying ploy. It's the same thing with unemployment benefit extensions, designed to get past election day. We're not socializing the economy, and we're not protecting anything other than incumbents.

We could have allowed all these institutions to fail, and had a very short and very painful downturn, probably corrected in a few months (after Nov. 4). That would have been very rough on incumbents of both parties. So instead, we went into a juggling act with a blur of borrowing, buying, and promising to impress the markets -- for once, we did act a bit like the Wizard of Oz, but only for show. If this "crisis" had emerged one month after the election, none of this bailout crap would be happening. We would just let it ride.

And so from that, I do not deduce that this is any great moment for our economy or our history, or that we need to make any momentous decisions on the need for *big government.* Obama seems to understand that less well than McCain, which is why I oppose his candidacy.

To be clear, I wasn't saying it is dangerous to have a progressive tax system. I think it is dangerous to say to 40% of the population that does not pay any federal income tax, how would you like $1,000 of your rich neighbor's money as a rebate, a credit, whatever you want to call it? Why not $2,000? That's where we're going. We've never been there before.

In addition to learning today that Joe is a fraud, we got the following revelations:

1. Obama has run a pretty protective campaign. The one day he chances a talk with real voters on the street, and he ends up here? This is not a good omen, for those who see Obama as the next great philosopher king.

2. Speaking of dupes and bear traps, how did the media allow this to happen? They started off their day with a cup of coffee and the latest scandal sheet on Sarah Palin, and ended up giving prime time press coverage to a regular fella calling out Obama as a socialist and un-American.

3. Speaking further of bear traps, we now have the media fact checkers body slamming Joe for not being a *licensed* plumber. They really can't help themselves, can they? I realize this might be *necessary* to keep Joe from becoming a genuine phenom, but such sneering can't possibly help Obama in the short run.

4. McCain picked up points today in Gallup Likely (now +2) and Rasmussen (+4, after weeks of travail). It looks increasingly close.

I can't possibly respond to all of your points.

I did have a chuckle, however, when Chris Matthews dedicated a segment on his show earlier this year to whether Obama would be our next great "philosopher president." Matthews surmised that Kennedy was the last one, then, after further consideration, offered that Jefferson was a stand-alone candidate. Not surprisingly, his guests all agreed that if Jefferson was the first, Obama would be the second.

Look, I don't dislike the guy. I know a lot of mediocre forty something lawyers just like him. Another recent poster said that he admires Obama more than anyone else he knows. My advice: get out there and meet more people!

Look, I can't respond to your "arguments" because I was making a joke.

As far as Obama, there is a difference between a mediocre intellect and a mediocre lawyer. I don't know about the former, but he appears to be the latter. Obama flailed around for two or three years as a lawyer in Chicago before he began his career as a perpetually campaigning politician. I haven't seen anything in his career that would distinguish him from hundreds of other people his age working in the Loop in Chicago. In fact, many of them are much more accomplished.