You mentioned Obama's alleged *socialism* and asked me why I think Congress would go along with it.

First of all, I have not called him a socialist. I have compared him to a late Roman emperor with a proscription list, confiscating wealthy citizens' property without due process. It's an extreme example, but it makes a point.

As I said last night, there was a time where we had no redistribution. Then came the Depression, along with self-help and self-insurance. Then came our various *goodies* for citizens, including farm subsidies and home mortgage deductions. Along with public housing, food stamps, and AFDIC for the poor. Earmarks to the states. All were premised on general social needs. None were based on the routine *flow* of income from one group to another, as I fear (but cannot prove, without delving into the plan's specifics) would be the case with the Obama-grants directed to those who pay no federal income tax. We're talking slippery slopes here. The Obama plan strikes me as a further slip.

And what is the bottom of the hill? Not communist Russia, but perhaps Mexico or Argentina. Or the south side of Chicago. :) Those countries have big government, state industries, graft, recipients of patronage who support the state because they have no good alternative.

That's why I compare it to Rome. Rome had severe land problems even during the republic, which got worse during the empire. They never turned socialist, but they did decline. And despite what you say about workers owning the fruits of their labor, the simple fact is that strictly enforced property rights is the surest way to increase general prosperity. Watering down those rights, as I fear the Obama-grants would do, is a step in the wrong direction. Once the majority decides to take $1,000 a piece from the rich, why not up the ante? Can we expect the *majority* to be duly concerned about the larger implications?

And as for Congress, the Democrats support the Obama-grants wholeheartedly, from what I can read. They aren't socialists, either. But they might be familiar with Pemex.

The 40% figure has been written about extensively in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. That, I believe, is the number of people who would receive an Obama-grant (i.e, a "cut" to their federal income tax), in the form of a rebate check, even though they pay no federal income tax. It is essentially a hand-out, from what I can see. But not to address poverty; just to keep it fair. I addressed other thoughts on it in another recent post.

The Gorbachev story relates back to the early 1980's, when of course there were Russian farmers but nothing like western private agriculture.

RPC has the electoral race at 353-185.

Let's assume Mason Dixon's numbers are right and McCain is now ahead in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. That would move the RPC numbers to 291 to 247.

Look next at Virgina. 44-47 in favor of Obama, according to Mason Dixon. If the undecideds break for McCain as expected, and spot him a point for the Bradley Effect, he could win Virginia. That makes the race 278-260.

At this point, McCain could win it all with Pennsylvania. But boy, that's a tough hope for Republicans. It is usually one of the *first* contested states to slip away from them on election night.

This year could be different. We had the bitter clinger comment, and a primary loss. More importantly, there are Catholic voters no doubt hearing all the details on Obama's taxpayer funded abortions and repeal of state laws protecting third term viable fetuses. Where I live (not in Pennsylvania), anti-abortionist Catholics were out in force today for the first time all year, and were met by young black Obama girls shouting profanities and gesticulating at them. Undecided white Catholics who see such things will likely favor the folks with the Virgin Mary ensignias, in that type of confrontation.

Other than that, you've got Colorado at 9 to tie, plus maybe Nevada or the one vote up for grabs in Maine to win. But I agree, it appears to all come down to Pennsylvania. Maybe that's fitting. Let the Catholic Democrats choose between progressive politics and opposition to abortion. The rest of us will go along for the ride.

Finally, there is the weather. It favors the Republicans. By that, I mean it is forecast to be fair. The last time the media got excited about fair weather, and record turnout, was the 2000 South Carolina primary between McCain and Bush. (Of course, fair weather was supposed to turn out the D/Independent vote for McCain). Sunny skies led to smashing turnout, and a smashing defeat for McCain. Be careful what you wish for.

You make some valid points, but I see something different going on with Letterman and SNL. Let's face it, Tina Fey / Sarah Palin is the breakaway star of this campaign. Everyone wants to see her on television -- either one of them! Since summer, Letterman has feasted on McCain humor; nothing for Obama (the soft bigotry of low expectations, if we can tolerate being honest).

Now, on one hand, all of this seems to *signal* a giant Obama win. I admit it could happen. On the other hand, let's say you're a Joe Sixpack out there and you watch McCain on SNL. You say to yourself, seems like a good guy. Or you watch Letterman skewering McCain and you say to yourself, that's the kind of treatment we usually give our politicians. It all feels very familiar.

What, by contrast, is one supposed to feel about Obama? Seriously. Chris Matthews' tingly leg? Oprah Winfrey's messianic longings? A world in which we are so hyped up for a politician that no one dare make fun of him? There's no point in Salon posters arguing about it, and I don't know myself what *Joe* out there is going to think. I am simply saying: he might go for what he knows. That would be McCain.