The McCain-Palin campaign needs to move into a higher gear, get on message, and highlight Palin's strengths in light of current Washington events. My wife had a good suggestion: Offer the hypothetical: If Sarah Palin, not Nancy Pelosi, were Speaker of the House, what do you think might happen to Charlie Rangel? Jump on the financial mess, tie it (as is accurate) to the lack of oversight by Chris Dodd and ask "would Palin sit idly by as this happened?" The names Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson should be in the voters' minds the way the Dems planted Mark Foley (remember him - wow, that was important!) and toe-tapping Larry Craig were in 2006. Reference her tenure on the Commission in Alaska from which she resigned and why she did, and make the point that as VP, she wouldn't have to resign to make her point, she would use the bully pulpit to clean up the mess.
One instinct McCain has that irritates me is the moralistic strain: finger the bad guy, and since it's easier to be praised if that guy is a Republican, go after him. Hence, a good guy such as Chris Cox, who may legitimately deserve a share of the blame in this fiasco, is put front and center. Why not Dodd? Why not Obama? Why not the Senate Committee members who took money rather than fulfilled their oversight duties?
So I am calling for a two-fer: tell McCain to back off the fingering of individuals (and Republicans more specifically) as the explanation for this mess, and highlight Palin's reformist record. Get back on offense, guys!