The truth is reasonable people can disagree about these and what the best position is can often only be determined in retrospect, so authoritative judgment is more appealing to base biases than fundamental truth. Point scoring is good for debating contests but have little to do with being president.

Blaming McCain's trouble on the economy is somewhat disingenuous. Reagan was elected on a bad economy. If McCain had distanced himself from existing policy and put up a credible program he might have had a chance, but then he would have had difficulty winning the primaries and holding on to that base that still approves of Bush. He often used Democratic talk, but his policies were all Republican, a captive of his own beliefs.

This is all wrong. The reason why McCain has received better grades from the pundits is a function of how out of touch they are with the American public. What Republicans and Democrats cannot seem to grasp is that this election has nothing to do with issues, it has nothing to do with what one believes...It is (to Senator Obama's credit) all about change. The American people, beginning in 2006, were finally ready for a change thanks to a confluence of events, not the least of which was the failings in Iraq. Factor in the economy and one can see why Senator McCain is about to receive the worst whopping since 1984.

The danger for Republicans (of which I am one) is that the perception of the party has gone from "these guys want to lower my taxes and know how to protect the nation" to, "these guys are no different than the other guys." Because of this shift in voter attitudes, it is branding that has become the definitive factor--of which Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, have effectively destroyed for the time-being.

The reason why no one has noticed (or that they deny what is occurring) is because they live in a delusional world that is purely the product of their emotional attachments. Iraq is working because it was the right thing to do. Iran can be stopped because it also happens to be the right thing to do. The economy will be fine without intervention because its the right thing to do. All of these are emotional responses to pressing problems. All, predictably, have ended in disaster. Similar to a dying patient, Republicans are going through the first four stages of denial, anger, bargaining and depression. Whether they reach acceptance is the question that we're left with today.

In order for Republicanism to return, we're going to need to exorcise those parts of the party that are more interested in satisfying their hearts, rather than their heads. Neoconservatives are the first group that needs to be pushed to the side, followed by the "religious right." Empiricism must become the center-piece of policies, rather than political maneuvering.

I think this has been a reoccurring problem with McCain in the debates - he scores points that only a pundit or Senate staffer would care about.

So from a pure matter of public policy, I agree with Yglesias that McCain is right about the Columbia Free Trade deal. But by bringing this up, he ends up sounding like some doctrinaire free trader who is shipping jobs overseas.

McCain was also right that Obama has given tortured answers on the question of litmus tests for judges. But by trumpeting his own impartiality, McCain sends a strange signal to his own base that he just might appoint a pro-choice supreme to the bench.

And going back to previous debates, McCain is probably right that we don't want to sit down with adversaries without preconditions, launch unauthorized air strikes at Pakistan, or waste money on the overpriced Littoral Combat Ship. But I think that to most people outside the beltway, it ends up sounding like McCain hates diplomacy, won't go after Osama bin Laden, and might cut some kick ass sounding ship from the defense budget.

Its hard to accuse your opponent of "not understanding" when you are incomprehensible or when you keep bringing up issues most people don't care about.

[...] Most accurate debate postmortem of the dayI’m actually just testing if this will work with some software I wrote for my blog. [...]

Empiricism must become the center-piece of policies, rather than political maneuvering.

Umm, but the point of the original post is that, empirically, Sen. McCain is absolutely right on ethanol and Sen. Obama absolutely wrong.

The point has been made before, but Yglesias is absolutely right. Politicians and people who follow politics find it annoying that you have to repeat the same speech every time. But unless you say exactly the same thing so many times that you and everyone who pays attention is absolutely sick of it, you're not going to ensure that enough voters have actually heard your position and understand it.

Far be it for me to defend ethanol subsidies, but if the real price of oil truly is $140 a barrel and returns to that level when the economy returns, we will have ethanol, subsidies or not, and subsidies will look not like pandering but prescient. Sure Columbia tried to help out Bush after he was so generous to them, but most of the tariffs are on their side anyway and I expect they will probably get something from the next administration whoever is elected, it just won't happen in a political season.

McCain's crippling weakness in this campaign isn't McCain. It's George Bush.

No modern incumbent President anywhere near being as unpopular as Bush has been now for a good two years has ever been succeeded by a candidate from his own party. No such candidate has ever come close to getting 50% of the vote, and every one of them -- Stevenson in 1952, Humphrey in 1968, and Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush when they ran for reelection -- ran under more favorable conditions than McCain is now. Sen. Obama hasn't even done a terribly good job of defining himself in reference to President Bush, or of tying McCain to Bush, and the public's desperate yearning for something different than Bush in the White House is still crushing McCain.

I didn't foresee the timing, extent or political impact of this fall's crisis in the financial markets, but as I mentioned Bush has been very unpopular for a long time. I briefly entertained the hope around the middle of last year -- not the expectation, and not seriously -- that McCain would at some point recognize that he had no chance to win the Presidency this year as the candidate of the Bush Republican "base," and would run to restore the GOP as something other than George Bush's party. McCain's views on Iraq, by themselves, ruled out that possibility, and McCain has continually found himself reaching out to the Republicans who still admire Bush, over and over, most egregiously by his choice of running mate. Having no chance to win, McCain feels himself forced to appeal to the very people who most strongly support the man who gave him no chance to win.

When this election is over, the Republicans will still be George Bush's party. Analysis of John McCain's strengths or weaknesses in televised debates will fade instantly into permanent irrelevance within weeks. It isn't all that relevant even now.

Far be it for me to defend ethanol subsidies, but if the real price of oil truly is $140 a barrel and returns to that level when the economy returns, we will have ethanol, subsidies or not, and subsidies will look not like pandering but prescient.

We will have something. It may not be corn ethanol, though; there are a host of possible alternatives. Why put all your money into backing one particular technology? It makes a lot more sense to drop the tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol (which would also encourage flex-fuel vehicles here), impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, and let the market and innovation decide which technology will win, rather than placing a huge bet on corn ethanol.