With a few sketchy reports about a very possible breach between McCain and Palin over how and how hard to attack Obama, Palin unleashed a flawlessly executed attack of a speech on abortion yesterday in Johnstown, PA. McCain seems totally incapable of putting together a functional, free market governing philosophy that differs fundamentally from Obama’s, and, given that the economy will dominate the national discourse for a long time, that renders him basically nonexistent as a candidate. He has to attack personally. Over at Hot Air, Allah Pundit referred to it as “one of the most red-meat social con speeches you’ll ever read.” While the campaign flails about (although the ACORN ad is an improvement), Palin has taken a sturdy, fundamental approach with four steps: Relate, Attack, Contextualize, Inspire (seasoned with blue-collar Dem political hat tips). Here’s the speech:

When she was chosen, a fair amount of people mentioned that Palin would be a mighty fortress for social conservatives between the narratives of Bristol and Trig. That comes to fruition in speeches like this, in a way John McCain cannot achieve on any subject, especially on the economy. Palin’s attack is effective because she:

Relates herself to the issue at hand and draws on prayer, self-doubt, and a common experience in doing so — relatable facets of life.

Attacks Obama using his own words, legislation, and (to a lesser extent) the words of his peers.

Contextualizes the issue within the critical judicial appointments structure (particularly with reports of Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer wanting to retire).

Inspires by alluding to that culture of life needing to go beyond rhetoric, as Huckabee and Brownback have done in the past, and invoking a little bit of Reagan there at the end.

Her speech looks both to history and onward in a positive light for the McCain-Palin ticket, which differs significantly from the Ayers connection, which lacks legislative or any other type of substantive, concrete damning evidence. A Fox News poll indicated only 32% of voters would be less likely to vote for Obama because of Ayers — that, as Jim Geraghty points out, doesn’t indicate how much less likely, either. The life movement means something — and even the pro-choice leaning independent has to give a little pause at Obama’s legislative record on partial birth and, particularly, the Born Alive Act.

Keeping the structure in mind, though, McCain might find a little more daylight with the Ayers situation if he were to present his own mistakes (Keating, Carol McCain, John Hagee) as such, and show contrition for that, then frame Ayers with Wright, Pfleger, and ACORN as a pattern of behavior for which Obama shows no remorse or awareness.The central thrust being: “We all make mistakes, but Obama can’t admit his — presidents like George W. Bush do that.”

Now, it’s hard to boil what Palin did into a thirty second spot (although web ads tend to be longer), but you can almost sum it up in four sentences: “John McCain and Sarah Palin value the culture of life — they’ve lived that culture. Barack Obama voted against outlawing partial birth abortion. Barack Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Act giving medical care to infants who survive abortion. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin will fight to protect life in this country — not vote it down.”

Via John McCormack, here’s the transcript:

“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”

Katherine Miller is a junior at Vanderbilt University. She blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol.