The quote is from Jim Dow of Texas 20/20 PAC. He issued a statement today claiming victory in Garcia’s race against Todd Hunter. One would think that this is something Hunter could use against Garcia — seems to me that it would make a pretty good TV spot. I would be scared to death to say that my side had won 25 days out from an election. Here’s the full release:

The Austin echo chamber is a funny thing. Six months ago, to hear the Austin chattering classes tell it Juan Garcia was a dead man walking. [Yes, I am a member in good standing of the Austin chattering classes.]

At that same time, Texas 20/20 even caught some flack for supporting a sophomore candidate that was then perceived to be a “financial burden” and a “losing cause” to our organization. Our standard response at that time was that we don’t select our membership based on probabilities of electoral outcomes. Instead, we support leaders that have demonstrated a commitment to re-building a working process in the Texas Capitol and who put their district’s interests ahead of partisan loyalties.

Juan Garcia matched both of those criteria, and for that reason, we were proud to add him as a member of our group.

And, as luck would have it, yesterday’s conventional wisdom turned out to be blindingly wrong. Today, Juan Garcia is not just winning his race — he’s running away with it.

Juan deserves most of the credit for this. He’s been a disciplined candidate, a tireless fundraiser, and he has the kind of political profile that voters go ga ga over. And the mechanics of his campaign have been flawless. The Garcia field campaign started at the beginning of August. They’ve knocked on 68,973 doors since. If you drive through the district, you’ll probably see one of the 3,563 signs that sit in front of Juan’s supporters’ homes and businesses. And in a race where money was supposed to be the biggest hurdle of all, Garcia has raised $827,474.42 to date.

For safe measure, the Garcia campaign’s torrid fundraising is looking to hold its pace in the final month of the campaign. Next Wednesday night, Texas business and civic icons Charles Butt, Red McCombs, Bartell Zachry, Henry Cisneros, Frank Burney, and Roland Pablos are joining forces to host a fundraiser for the Garcia campaign in San Antonio…. [This is the victory lap.]

And if numbers matter to you, Garcia has been at least ten points up in the two most recent polls of his district.

As much as I’d like to give all of the credit to Team Garcia for the “surprising” state of this race, we’d be remiss not to mention that his opponent has done more than his fair share to guarantee Juan’s victory in 25 days. The list of gaffes, tactical blunders, and outright screw-ups is almost too long to wade into, but if you’d like to get a small sense, this is a good primer. If you’re still in the mood for more, you can link here.

The real bottom line, though, is that the conventional wisdom in Austin, not for the first time, has been 180-degrees opposite the facts on the ground in House District 32. Today, I’m happy to report that I can say with almost perfect confidence that Juan Garcia will win re-election this November 4th.

Texas 20/20 has been proud to help in Juan Garcia’s re-election campaign. In January, we look forward to working with him to make positive change in the Texas House.

Note to Jim: There is plenty of time to make folks like me eat crow after the votes have been counted.

The incumbent in the District 11 Senate race addresses Jaworski’s claim that the state windstorm pool did not have enough money to pay claims. I posted Jaworski’s press release yesterday. See “Senate District 11: Jaworski slams Jackson for missing key meeting.”

What concerned me yesterday in Jaworski’s release, and what Jackson did not address in today’s statement, was his failure to show up at a meeting in Galveston about the future of the University of Texas Medical Branch, the Island’s largest employer, which the UT regents have targeted for downsizing. As I wrote yesterday, I cannot understand why a senator would not come to the aid of his constituents in such circumstances. I was writing as a Galveston native. Jackson knew how important this meeting was. His absence was inexcusable.

Jackson’s release follows:

Jackson sets record straight
Accuses Jaworksi of trying to scare voters
Windstorm insurance claims will be paid

La Porte – State Senator Mike Jackson set the record straight one day after challenger Joe Jaworski desperately attempted to win votes by scaring residents of Senate District 11 by releasing a statement claiming that property owners covered under the Texas Windstorm Insurance Fund “likely will not be able to cover claims from Hurricane Ike.”

Senator Jackson chastised Jaworski saying, “Trying to scare folks who have already lost so much to Hurricane Ike is the worst kind of campaigning. The good people of this district deserve better.”

This statement was made despite the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association’s (TWIA) official action to make certain TWIA can cover all property owners’ claims since Hurricane Ike hit. “Either he is lying to the voters or he just doesn’t know what he is talking about,” said Senator Mike Jackson Campaign Manager Jason Smith. “The voters should expect more from Mr. Jaworski.”

On Wednesday October 8th, Jim Oliver, the Executive Manager of TWIA, at the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association Board Meeting said that rumors of TWIA being unable to cover the claims of its policy holders were completely untrue. “After 20 years of serving as an elected official, I know how important it is to provide accurate information to my constituents,” said Senator Jackson. “I will continue to work closely with TWIA to make sure my constituents are served, as I have done since first being elected to office.”

Mr. Jaworski’s allegations that Senator Jackson has not represented his constituents on this issue could not be further from the truth. Senator Jackson has worked to ensure that Texans have access to the best possible windstorm coverage. In fact, Senator Jackson led the fight in 2007 against a bill requiring all windstorm insurance policies to stipulate that a policy holder “may be paid less than the full amount of damages that you suffer.” Senator Jackson understands how important it is for Texas families to receive the full amount for damages so they may rebuild their life as quickly as possible, and he has supported nothing less for his constituents.

Mr. Jaworski’s statement called the windstorm insurance bill a “reform” bill and claimed that Senator Jackson “stood up for the wrong side.” “Giving insurance companies the right to refuse full payment to its customers for a legitimate claim is not the type of reforms my constituents need. If that is wrong, I don’t want to be right,” said Senator Jackson.

“As long as I’m representing this District in the Texas Senate, you can rest assured that insurance companies will pay their claims. The Texas Windstorm Insurance Association will pay all legitimate claims made by their policy holders”, Jackson concluded.

This is going to surprise you. It surprises me. In the most hotly contested races in the state, many Democratic candidates hold substantial leads over their Republican opponents in fundraising. Of course, Craddick has $3 million ($2,998,784.92, to be exact) to distribute, and his modus operandi has been to spend it late, when it is hard for the other side to respond. He can give 30 members $100,000 each. All figures represent cash on hand with thirty days to go.

Let’s start with what I regard as the fifteen most competitive races in the state. The candidate with the fundraising edge appears first.

Barrett (D) $113,548.59 vs. Shelton (R) $86,669.28 (Fort Worth). Barrett, who won Anna Mowery’s former seat, a Republican district, in a special election, is regarded as the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent.

Maldonado (D) $278,368.50 vs. Daniel (R) $19,142.36 (Round Rock). Maldonado’s lead in fundraising in the battle for Mike Krusee’s old seat is stunning. It’s going to cost Craddick a wad of money to get Daniel competitive in the money game.

Turner (D) $186,464.02 vs. Zedler (R) $134,160.57 (Arlington). Zedler is the D’s top target.

Garcia (D) $289,943.99 vs. Hunter (R) $188,537.15 (Corpus Christi). Garcia is the second most vulnerable Democrat.

Goolsby (R) $281,079.82 vs. Kent (D) $177,691.79 (Dallas). The surprise here is how well Kent is doing.

Margo (R) $195,189.20 vs. Moody (D) $103,111.84 (El Paso). Pat Haggerty’s soon-to-be former district is a “must-hold” for Republicans. Moody has not performed up to expectations.

Vaught (D) $102,342.35 vs. Keffer (R) $77,477.78 (Dallas). A must-hold for Democrats after Vaught’s upset victory in 06.

Dippel (D) $79,253.96 vs. Kleinschmidt (R) $28,988.73 (La Grange). Republicans regard Robbie Cook’s seat as a likely pickup.

Redmond (D) $90,445.56 vs. Legler (R) $14,276.07 (Pasadena). This is the seat Robert Talton gave up to run for Congress.

Vo (D) $54,233.08 vs. Meyers (R) $37,069.55 (Houston). This would be an easy D hold, except that Vo has gotten awful publicity as a slumlord.

Hopson (D) $169,434,62 vs. Walker (R) $74,687.74 (Jacksonville). In East Texas, Hopson’s real opponent is Barack Obama.

Homer (D) $257,405.07 vs. Hollingsworth (R) $104,496.12 (Paris). This is the 3rd time Hollingsworth has challenged Homer. Obama will be a factor here too.

Murphy (R) $169,293.56 vs. Thibaut (D) $102,982.02 Houston). This is one of several Harris County seats D’s hope will fall into their laps if Obama has coattails.

Herrero (D) $95,081.05 vs. Scott (R) $61,422.60 (Corpus Christi). R’s think Scott, a tort reform advocate, has a shot at an upset here, backed by anti-trial lawyer money.

Matula (D) $136,934.03 vs. Davis (R) $62,046.25 (Houston). D’s hope a combination of Davis’s ethics problems and Obama’s coattails will produce an upset.

The bottom line: In twelve of the fifteen most competitive races, Democrats hold the lead in fundraising.

This raises interesting questions for Craddick. How does he allocate his money when his candidates are lagging behind in fundraising. Take the Daniel-Maldonado race. Does he pour resources into Daniel’s race, or does he throw Daniel under the bus and focus on races where Republicans are more competitive? Does he write off Donna Keel, his parliamentarian’s sister-in-law, and try to bail out Zedler, who isn’t worth saving? Craddick’s $3 million will go a long way, but a lot of his horses have a long way to go.

The graph of Bush’s approval rating in the Gallup poll, that is. Now at 25%, jut three points above the all-time low for any president, it looked just like CNN’s graph of the stock market over the last year that Anderson Cooper displayed last night: after the spike of 9/11, down, down, down. You can view it here. Nixon’s nadir was 23%, Truman’s 24%. For more on presidential rankings and approval ratings, click here.

Mike Jackson is the Republican incumbent in the district that was ravaged by Hurricane Ike. Not the most dynamic of senators, Jackson was AWOL at an important meeting in Galveston at which University of Texas officials revealed plans that would effectively decimate the storm-damaged University of Texas Medical Branch and hospital complex, Galveston’s biggest employer. Jackson is positioned to win this race. It’s a Republican district; he enters the last thirty days with $1.2 million in his campaign war chest to Jaworski’s $101,000; and many of the voters in the district, which includes most of Galveston County, a portion of Brazoria, and the Ship Channel towns in Harris County, are unable to return to their homes. Being from Galveston, and having spent time on the Island after the hurricane working on a story for the December issue of Texas Monthly — you can’t imagine how bad things are there — I can’t understand why the district’s senator wouldn’t show up. I once worked for the senator who represented this district (Babe Schwartz). You couldn’t have kept him away.

Here’s Jaworski’s press release:

Yesterday [Wednesday, October 8] we took our campaign for independent leadership and a new direction to a network televised debate, but Mike “Missing in Action” Jackson didn’t bother to show up — again. On Tuesday, Jackson skipped a crucial town-hall meeting with UTMB [University of Texas Medical Branch] officials and over two thousand anxious UTMB employees concerning mass layoffs at the Galveston campus medical branch. As many as 4,000 people may lose their jobs, and Mike Jackson didn’t even show up to represent his constituents, just like he didn’t show up to debate me yesterday.

But it’s even worse when he does show up. Last year, Jackson singlehandedly filibustered windstorm insurance reform that would have added money to the Texas Windstorm Insurance Fund. The fund is now so low on money that it likely will not be able to cover claims from Hurricane Ike. It’s very rare we can point to one man who’s responsible for killing a reform bill, but in this case Mike Jackson stood up for the wrong side and he gambled with our welfare and our property. Now that Ike has devastated our region, we are all the losers thanks to Mike Jackson’ poor judgment. The insurance adjusters are finding a thousand ways to say “no” as a result.

For years Mike Jackson showed up for the lobbyists, but he hasn’t shown up for us. Everywhere I go, people tell me they haven’t met him, seen him or heard from him. He may think he can avoid the voters’ swift judgment by not showing up, but the bells of accountability are tolling as November 4 approaches. Now more than ever, we need leaders who will stand up, take the gloves off and fight for our community.

Speculation is rampant that the Dew has set his sights on the U.S. Senate rather than run for reelection. Since Kay Bailey Hutchison’s seat will not be vacant until she resigns, probably in June, Dewhurst must hope that Perry appoints him to fill the vacancy. As everybody knows, they haven’t exactly been bosom buddies. But there are sound reasons why Perry might favor Dewhurst against other hopefuls (former secretary of state Roger Williams, railroad commissioners Elizabeth Ames Jones and Michael Williams, state senator Florence Shapiro). First, Republican donors have been hurt by the financial crisis and political money isn’t as easy to come by. Dewhurst can self-fund. So can Roger Williams, but Dewhurst is better known and would have a better chance to keep the seat in the Republican column in the special election that would follow the appointment. Second, by creating a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor, Perry could play kingmaker in the scramble to succeed Dewhurst as the presiding officer of the Senate. In the case of a vacancy, the Senate chooses its successor from its own members. That’s the kind of political gamesmanship Perry loves. Jane Nelson, Troy Fraser, and Tommy Williams would be in the first tier of possible successors. This scenario is not a good one for attorney general Abbott, who had planned to run for the office in 2010. He might find himself facing a strong incumbent backed by Perry. Or, a new candidate could emerge with Perry’s blessing–most likely, agriculture commissioner Todd Staples.

An Obama commercial. I couldn’t believe it. In Texas. The subject was health care. This has to be the first TV spot for a Democratic presidential candidate to air in Texas since 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen was on the ticket. Hedge: It’s possible that Clinton did some TV here in ‘92. I know the race between Clinton and Bush 41 was close that year, with Perot on the ticket.

ARG, not the most reliable of polls, has McCain up here by 57-38. Democratic strategists told me early in the campaign that they needed Obama to get at least 42-43% for downballot Democrats to do well. Maybe Obama is trying get his numbers up to help the ticket. The spot ran in Austin. Now that’s throwing good money after bad. Obama is going to sweep Austin. Where it needs to run is Houston and Dallas. If anybody in those metro areas saw the spot, please let me know by posting a comment.

I didn’t see it that way, but that is certainly what the networks are saying. CNN’s poll of debate viewers called it 54-30 for Obama. I thought the debate was pretty even and generally devoid of fireworks. The only way I can account for such a margin is it reflects the attitude the public held before the debate began. They think the race is over. Since the “Bradley effect” could still impact the race, I’m not going to say that Obama is a shoo-in. But he’s getting close.

The question before the debate was whether McCain could make some sort of breakthrough that could change the trajectory of the presidential race. The town hall format was supposed to give him an edge, but he has been so mishandled by his campaign staff that he has lost a lot of his spontaneity. The debate became a regurgitation of talking points, on both sides. The pseudo-town hall format did not help. The rules barred any possibility of an exchange between a candidate and a member of the public, or between the candidates themselves.

The only surprise in the debate was that McCain did not try to develop the character issue. His strongest point during the whole campaign has been that the voters know who he is — although the way his campaign has positioned him has not been the McCain we thought we knew — and we don’t know who Obama is. In a debate with media types asking the questions, there would have been questions directed at Obama about William Ayers. There would have been questions directed at McCain about Sarah Palin’s tactics. (I think all three of the moderators so far, Lehrer, Ifill, Brokaw, have done lousy jobs. Let me in, coach.)

I thought McCain missed a great opportunity in the beginning of the debate. Obama had answered the first question, about the economic crisis, with his standard response that it was the result of the failed policies of George W. Bush and the Republican approach to allowing Wall Street to operate without regulations. Here’s what McCain said (from the transcript):

Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t want us very — like us very much. We have to keep Americans’ taxes low. All Americans’ taxes low. Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today.

We obviously have to stop this spending spree that’s going on in Washington. Do you know that we’ve laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?

We’ve got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we’re going to have to do something about home values.

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes — at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those — be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America.

McCain actually had a bold new idea: buying up the bad home loan mortgages and renegotiating the value of the securities at the diminished value of the homes. But he completely blew the presentation. He recycled all his old mantras first: energy independence, low taxes, stop the spending spree. By the time he got to his bold idea, people had already stopped listening. Doesn’t anybody on his campaign team know how to present an argument? McCain should have come out with guns blazing. “I have a plan to allow Americans to remain in their homes and pay off their mortgages. The government is going to buy these mortgages and renegotiate them to reflect the diminished value of these homes. Then homeowners will be able to afford the payments. As the values rise, the taxpayers will get their money back.”

As we say in the writing business, he buried his lead.

The scoreboard:

I think the debate was a draw. And a draw for McCain is a big loss.

Fellow Republicans and patriots,

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Democrats under Wendy Davis–I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade by their lawyers for 24 weeks and have not won a case–The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion; otherwise, my political career is to be put to the sword, if the seat is taken. I have answered the demand with a press release & our campaign signs still stand proudly on our campaign headquarters’ walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of partisanship, of ambition, of incumbency, of everything dear to the Fort Worth character, to come to our aid. Victory or death!

* * * *

Having lost his battle to have Wendy Davis declared ineligible to run for or serve in the state Senate, at every level in the Texas judicial system–the trial court, two appellate courts, and the Texas Supreme Court, Brimer now is declaring his intention to continue the battle in three different forums. From his press release:

With the court ruling today, we will focus on winning this election and defeating our ineligible opponent at the ballot box leaving the question of eligibility to be determined by action taken after the election.

The eligibility of our opponent is still a question mark? In the Court’s own words, it states “Even if Davis is ineligible to hold office- an issue we do not reach in this appeal…” Therefore, as a result of the Court of Appeals decision today, an ineligible candidate who is on the ballot after early voting begins can only be removed by one of the following three options:

A) By an administrative action taken by the State of Texas (after the polls close but before the vote is canvassed –Texas Election Code 145.003(d);

B) By a vote of the members of the Texas State Senate to refuse to seat an ineligible candidate (Texas Constitution Art III, Section 8);

C) By a judicial Quo Warranto action taken by the Texas Attorney General or other appropriate State Official.

The first question that comes to mind is: Why is Brimer revealing his intention BEFORE the election? I can’t see how this is to his advantage. Wouldn’t he be better off saying that he has every intention of winning this race on November 4?

If he’s going to carry the fight to the bitter end, do it, but don’t announce to the world that you’re a sore loser before you’ve lost. Nothing Brimer has done in this race makes sense to me.

Now, let’s talk about the options:

A.. An administrative action under 145.003 of the election code. Here is some pertinent language:

(d) The presiding officer of the final canvassing authority
for the office sought by a candidate may declare the candidate
ineligible after the polls close on election day and … before a certificate of election is
issued.
(e) Not pertinent
(f) A candidate may be declared ineligible only if:
(1) the information on the candidate’s application for
a place on the ballot indicates that the candidate is ineligible for
the office; or
(2) facts indicating that the candidate is ineligible
are conclusively established by another public record.
(g) When presented with an application for a place on the
ballot or another public record containing information pertinent to
a candidate’s eligibility, the appropriate authority shall
promptly review the record. If the authority determines that the
record establishes ineligibility as provided by Subsection (f), the
authority shall declare the candidate ineligible.

I don’t think Wendy Davis is out of the woods yet. I assume that the final canvassing authority is the Texas Secretary of State, whose office, of course,l is completely stocked with Rick Perry allies. Secretary of State Hope Andrade could make such a ruling.

B. A vote of the Texas Senate, which, of course, has a 20-11 Republican majority. If Brimer is counting on Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst to save him, he can forget it. Dewhurst is not going to put the fix in to save Brimer, with potentially grave consequences to his own political career and to the ability of the Senate to function in the 81st Legislature.

C. A quo warranto proceeding by the Attorney General. Greg Abbott showed himself during the redistricting fight of 2003 to be an unrestrained partisan. Some of his AG’s opinions have done the same (like the one for Craddick). It’s pretty easy for lawyers to hide behind pious-sounding words in a legal opinion. Davis ought to worry about this one.

This is from my favorite web site, politicalwire.com. It represents outtakes from a longer piece by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago-Sun Times about the negotiations between the two camps for the debate. I recommend Sweet’s article. Readers will find it informative. Sweet points out that the agreement allows candidates to take notes, but they may not bring prepared notes into the debate. Sarah Palin appeared to violate that rule in the vice-presidential debate.

Here is Political Wire’s summary:

* The questions will “be culled from a group of 100 to 150 uncommitted likely voters in the audience and another one-third to come via the Internet.”

* Gallup “has the job of making sure the questioners reflect the demographic makeup of the nation.”

* “An audience member will not be allowed to switch questions.

* The moderator may not ask followups or make comments.

* The person who asks the question will not be allowed a follow-up, and his or her microphone will be turned off after the question is read.

* A camera shot will only be shown of the person asking — not reacting.

* While there will be director’s chairs (with backs and foot rests), McCain and Obama will be allowed to stand — but they can’t roam past their ‘designated area’ to be marked on the stage.

* McCain and Obama are not supposed to ask each other direct questions.

President Bush chose to depart from his daily routine of generally being AWOL to speak out on an issue of importance. The economy, which is tanking? No. The war in Afghanistan, which the senior British commander says cannot be won? No. Bush called upon the Senate to confirm the nominations of conservative judges to the appellate bench. What was the point? He knows the nominations are dead. Everybody knows the nominations are dead.

This is a serious situation. Bush has no following in either party. His ability to lead, and for that matter, his will to lead, is undetectable. This reminds me of the end of Jimmy Carter’s term in 1980, when the whole country was just waiting for the day when he finally turned the presidency over to his successor.

It’s a mistake. He shouldn’t do it. Dredging up the Keating Five scandal all these many years later, with the purpose of tying McCain to the GOP philosophy of deregulation, to an audience that has never heard of Keating, is foolish–and extremely risky. It is an indication that Obama has let his personal feelings get in the way of his judgment. He has built his success on being the candidate of hope and change and a new kind of politics. Why change the parameters of a race that he is winning?

Yes, McCain is going to go negative. He has no choice. He’s losing. He has been attacking Obama all along. He’s still losing.

There’s a saying that doing the same thing over and over, and expecting it to turn out differently is the definition of insanity. It is no less crazy to stop doing things that have been successful. The McCain camp is baiting Obama into abandoning the persona that has gotten him where he is. It looks like Obama is going to take the bait. Big mistake.

The vote was 263-171. Here is how the 32-member Texas delegation voted. Note that Lampson, McCaul, and Rodriguez, all of whom have tough races, voted against it.

Democrats FOR (9)
Edwards
Cuellar
Gonzalez
Green
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (E.B.)
Ortiz
Reyes

Republicans FOR (6)
Brady
Conaway
Granger
Sessions
Smith
Thornberry

Democrats AGAINST (4)
Doggett
Green
Lampson
Rodriguez

Republicans AGAINST (13)
Barton
Burgess
Carter
Culberson
Gohmert
Hall
Hensarling
Johnson (Sam)
Marchant
McCaul
Neugebauer
Paul
Poe

I was looking at fivethirtyeight.com, which has polling data for every state, and I noticed the last two polls for Texas:

ARG 9/15
McCain 57 Obama 36

Rasmussen 9/29
McCain 52 Obama 43

That is a net swing of 12 point to Obama in two weeks in the reddest of states. Now, I should add that ARG and Rasmussen are not considered gold-standard polls. (There was an interesting flap at RealClearPolitics earlier this week–RCP was accused of dropping ARG, which, according to DailyKos, has been the best poll out there for McCain. I tried to link to RCP’s response but couldn’t find it. For DailyKos’s version of the flap, link here.)

Texas is not immune from national events and trends. A twelve point swing five weeks before an election is a dangerous sign, and would be even more dangerous if verified by a big national poll. I think McCain will end up somewhere around 54-46 (not counting Barr and Nader), but if it gets any tighter, there are going to be some downballot surprises on election day.

Joe Biden won the debate. Sarah Palin won her battle for political survival by exceeding the lowest expectations ever for a national debate. She didn’t commit any gaffes, and she didn’t wander into any traps, the way Dan Quayle did in his debate against Lloyd Bentsen, when he attempted to rebut the charge that he was inexperienced by comparing his service in the Senate to that of John F. Kennedy. Bentsen famously replied, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Compared to Palin, Quayle is Jack Kennedy. She has no intellectual heft. The only weapons in her arsenal are folksiness, dogged determination, and a lot of–how to say it?–feminine pizzazz.

Biden is a pro. He knows the issues, he knows the facts, he’s articulate. He’s a Democratic Bob Dole, and I say that with respect for both men. He’s spent a lifetime in the Senate, but, like Dole, he has paid a price for that. He has adapted to that environment too well. He connects best with his fellow senators, not ordinary people. He doesn’t have a personality that reaches through the TV set and into living rooms across America. He has probably forgotten how to arrange his lips to utter Palinesque words like “betcha” and “wanna.” He’s all highbrow. Palin is all lowbrow. She can’t frame an argument to save her life. But she connects. Is that enough? This raises an intriguing question about modern politics. Do we want to be led by politicians who are just like us? Or do we want to be led by politicians who are far above average, who separate themselves from the crowd? The answer may not be obvious. The late conservative icon William F. Buckley once said, “I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand people on the faculty of Harvard University.” Buckley had a point: Intelligence isn’t of much use unless it is accompanied by wisdom. But folksiness is not wisdom.

Most of the people who adore Sarah Palin would never entrust their personal lives to someone like her. They would look for excellence in their doctors, their lawyers, their financial advisers, their children’s colleges. Personality would be a factor but reputation and stature would be priorities. So why do they embrace Palin? I think the answer is that most Republicans don’t like government and don’t care whether it is excellent. They do care whether they feel a connection with their leaders. They see Palin as Reagan in a skirt. But Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

At times last night I thought I was watching Sarah Palin playing Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin. In one exchange, Biden criticized Bush’s economic policies: “[T]he middle class has gotten the short end. The wealthy have done very well. Corporate America has been rewarded. It’s time we change it. Barack Obama will change it.” And Palin/Fey fired back, “Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.” A Saturday Night Live script writer couldn’t have done better.

Since this debate was all about Sarah Palin, let’s look at her low and high points of the debate. The low point was her answer to a question about Iraq:

IFILL (moderator): “You both have sons who are in Iraq or on their way to Iraq. You, Gov. Palin, have said that you would like to see a real clear plan for an exit strategy. What should that be, Governor?”

PALIN: “I am very thankful that we do have a good plan and the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that has proven to work, I am thankful that that is part of the plan implemented under a great American hero, Gen. Petraeus, and pushed hard by another great American, Sen. John McCain.”

No attempt to answer the question. It is too much to expect the Republican nominee for vice-president to be able to know something, anything, about her ticket’s plan for Iraq? Her response was just cheerleading: 100% chippiness, 0% gravitas. This style is not going to wear well.

The high point was the first exchange of the debate, about the blame for the subprime crisis. Palin slammed “predatory lenders” and then went on to say:

“Let’s commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let’s do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don’t live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we’re taking personal responsibility through all of this. It’s not the American people’s fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of.”

Here’s what makes this a great populist rant:
1. “Never again” is strong stuff
2. No resort to talking points like “Wall Street greed”
3. Switch to mom mode with “do what our parents told us”
4. Reference to personal responsibility, a Republican manta
5. Tone of sincerity rather than that awful contrived folksiness

But these moments were few and far between. (Another was her tolerance on the issue of gay partners.) Palin spent so much time looking down at her podium I started to wonder whether she was reading from cheat sheets.

The bottom line: Palin helped herself, but she didn’t do anything to change the trajectory of the campaign. Given the course of events, I don’t think that she could have. Biden was solid. He probably reinforced the Democrats’ advantage on economic issues.