Sarah Palin: Constitutional Scholar

Who knew? Sarah Palin has some pretty fantastic views re: her First Amendment Rights.

Quoted from Glenn Greenwald, Sarah says of the MSM:

I don't think they're doing their job when they suggest that calling a candidate out on their record, their plans for this country, and their associations is mean-spirited or negative campaigning. If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

This... well this isn't even really worth commenting on, but if you haven't heard it already... you need to...

If I weren't very confident about this election I'd be terrified of it.

Raid Syria and Pakistan? "No Comment."

You know what terrifies me more than pontificating the potential of President Palin? The executive branch of my government delivering “no comment” responses like Enron executives on the way out of a brothel.

What’s worse, this isn’t a personal or corporate scandal, these baffled reporters are talking about recent reports of US military strikes on Syria and Pakistan.

This is not small time, kids.

Watch:



There’s a not-so-small part of me that’s bracing for post-election W to go batshit insane.

Happy Halloween

Next year I'm carving my pumpkin with a laser.

Charles Meets Obama.

This was just a nice reminder of what a lot of this is about to so many people. I can sit here and dissect strategy and policy until I'm blue in the face, but for a lot of people - myself included - this election, and Barack Obama, goes beyond just that.

Rachel Maddow Airs Obviously Edited Interview with Howard Dean

Okay Rachel Maddow. Time for YOU to talk ME down.

Tonight, Maddow welcomed DNC Chairman Howard Dean to her program to "talk her down," which is a segment of the same name that airs nightly. Maddow takes on a guest related to an issue that has been particularly bothering her - and on this night, Maddow spoke with Dean about a potential gap between enthusiasm and turnout that may be facing Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency. Watch the video here:



But the video is clearly edited. Dean's portion of the above video begins at 3:21, in a segment that is obviously taped.

How do we know?

Clue number one: the red "LIVE" tag disappears from above the MSNBC logo. Watch the rest of the broadcast, and it is there every time Maddow is live in the studio. It is gone during the Dean piece.

Clue two: you can note that the audio is different. There is a little less ambient noise in Maddow's microphone - she sounds more present in the audio feed than she does before they break to the segment.

And what follows is an interview - if you can call it that - which is edited together, giving no real indicator as to what is preserved and what is cut.

But not only does this segment alter the live interview with Dean, it is TERRIBLE at disguising the editing. Take, for example, at 4:24, where Maddow abruptly interrupts Dean mid-breath. The video technique changes, switching between a split screen and a focus on each individual, which is certainly to hide the fact that their split screen doesn't work when you cut sections of time out from the video.

It happens again at 5:38, at 6:23, and at 7:09 - Maddow's entrances to the conversation don't match how an interview would actually flow. It is clearly off from the original, live discussion. And Maddow may even have edited out a portion of her own question! View at 6:56. While perhaps this is more conjecture, it simply doesn't sound as though Maddow has finished her natural train of thought. Her vocal inflection would seem to show that there was more to the question. This seems the least egregious of the errors - but to my ear, it still serves as a sign that cuts were made.

Howard Dean is an important guy. Certainly he doesn't have the clout that he once had, nor the presence on the talk show circuit that some of Obama's chief surrogates do - but he's still the chairman of the party. And Maddow advertises her show as a live program. It is obvious that Dean (and possibly Maddow herself) had more to say than what was aired on this program. Well, what did they say? Isn't it reasonable for critics of MSNBC to say that Maddow could have edited out some gaffe or misstatement that could embarrassed Dean, MSNBC, or have done damage to the Obama campaign?

Look, I'm aware that news programs often air edited interviews. However, the fact that Dean seems interrupted mid-statement - rather than say, only airing a few of his answers in full - is problematic for me. Maybe this is more of a common practice than I realize, but the fact that he is so clearly cut off before finishing his thoughts just leaves too many questions about what he was going to say. Additionally, there is no disclaimer that they are airing a taped interview. Couldn't Maddow simply have said, "earlier today we spoke with Howard Dean," prior to entering the "Talk Me Down" segment?

Look, I like Rachel Maddow and her show a lot. But this is lousy, irresponsible journalism - of the same type that Fox News is often guilty. If Maddow wanted more time to get questions in to Dean, then they should have bumped some other segments to make room for the complete interview, or saved the extra material to be aired online or at another time.

If this aired on Fox News, with Bill O'Reilly airing such a clearly edited piece with say, Mike Duncan, I guarantee that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow would all be taking shots at it. The blogosphere - myself included - would be up in arms, and would want to see the unedited interview.

Come on Rachel. Talk me down.

McCain's Campaign Literally Calls "Bullshit."

I’m not usually one to kick a war hero when he’s down, but things over at the McCain campaign have not-so-spontaneously combusted. From The Atlantic, we get word that they’ve officially gone off the deep end and hit their heads at the bottom of the pool.

Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, e-mails:

“Just read your post. This is on the record. This is cleared by HQ. It is a fact that Barack Obama was palling around with terrorists. It was a fact before Governor Palin said it in a fully vetted speech and it is fact today. It is bullshit to claim or write anything else.”

Can this be real? You’re swearing on the record in an email to an online journal? Guys.

Guys.

This is America. Unless there’s sports involved you don’t call ‘bullshit’ on the record. At least not in those precise words. These people are starting to believe their own fear-mongering.

What troubles me most is the McCain campaign’s complete and utter dedication to this talking point. They’re clinging to the rhetoric so much they have run the risk of people actually researching the situation and discovering its… shall we say… nuance, and turning around and calling "bullshit" even louder back at them. With ballots. But there's no control here, just a full on dedication to angrily, profanely spewing negativity at an opponent.

I’m going to quote my good friend and (non) editor Chris on this one:

“We've watched a complete meltdown of a presidential campaign.”

I know I’m not the first to ask how in the name of all things holy McCain came to this, but I can't help it. I continue to be astounded by the events of this election. I’m riveted. You know what it’s like? It’s like those level-ending bosses in Revenge of Shinobi where this tiny ninja slowly annihilates the massive monolithic monstrosity with patience, precision and guile. We’re at the really shaky, fiery stage just before the game’s over.

Apple takes a public stand against California's Proposition 8

If you visited the Apple start page today, you saw this message from the company (hyperlink is mine):

No on Prop 8

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

I just wanted to say thanks to Apple for publicly opposing Proposition 8 - the gay marriage ban up for a vote in California this fall. It was originally titled the California Marriage Protection Act. It would change the state constitution to specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In California, TV ads have been run supporting Prop 8 by attacking policies in schools:



But the California Superintendent of Public Schools has called the ads completely untrue, stating "our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful." View the counter ad here:



I fall firmly on the side of the "Vote No on 8" crowd here.

So often we hear negative things about corporations, and to me, Apple's choice is an extremely positive move that deserves credit. So hats off to Steve Jobs and the Apple crew.

Thanks Charlie.

Just a quick welcome and word of thanks to any readers directed here from Undiplomatic. Charlie and I have been trading emails for the past couple of weeks, and he's been nothing but kind and helpful as we've been getting things off the ground here. He's a stand up guy, and provides some great insights to me and many others. Thanks to him for the kind plug today, and for the work that he's been doing at Undiplomatic and the Huffington Post.

Oh, and if you've got any rare Clash songs or They Might Be Giants bootlegs, you should probably send them his way.

A video you won't see about me on November 5.

Oh MoveOn.org...I don't always love your methods. But this is a clever way of reminding your friends to get out and vote on November 4. Create you own video here.

Scientists Erase Specific Memories in Mice: Mice Succumb to Fascism

To be filed under “seriously creepy.”

Scientists have figured out a way to Eternally Sunshine lab mice, effectively erasing specific memories.

I’m going to reword that statement and write it for you again because I’m not sure you got it.

People who play around with lab animals for a living have figured out how to make their subjects forget portions of their lives. Completely.

What if this stuff works on humans? The initial concept is that it could be used for "therapeutic reasons" which is a terrifyingly vague goal. Imagine, if you will, a culture where painful memories hold no real consequence, where forgetting is equivalent to healing. Welcome to the world of fast-food mental health, would you like fries with that? (Sidebar: If someone is struggling with post-traumatic stress, does erasing the stressful memory eliminate the symptoms?)

Or, if we want to get really Orwellian: Is it entirely outside of the realm of imagination that Military and Police forces might use it to erase memories of corruption or excessive force, effectively crippling oversight? (Am I insane, or is this a serious question?)

I'm all for scientific advancement and intellectual curiosity, but this makes me long for an abacus.

Ticketmaster buys out Irving Azoff's Front Line Management

Via Bloomberg:

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Ticketmaster agreed to buy a controlling stake in Front Line Management Group Inc., challenging Live Nation Inc. and adding musicians including Jimmy Buffett and the Eagles.

Ticketmaster, the largest U.S. ticket broker, will purchase the stake from Warner Music Group Inc. for $123 million in cash. Front Line co-founder Irving Azoff, who has managed the Eagles since 1974, will become chief executive officer of the renamed Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc., the West Hollywood, California- based company said today in a statement.

This is a really interesting move for Ticketmaster - and honestly, I'm not entirely sure what they're trying to achieve with it. Clearly, it gives them a steady source of income from something other than tickets - they now have a vested interested in artists themselves and their revenue streams.

This is definitely in response to Live Nation expanding into 360 degree music deals, and Live Nation's impending split from Ticketmaster to create their own ticketing system. But those deals are predicated on a lot of different revenue streams - live performance, album sales, licensing, merchandising, and quite a bit more. Ticketmaster is now taking in profits from any of the artists that were Front Line artists - which includes enormous names like Jimmy Buffett, Eagles, Guns n Roses, and others.

But what confuses me is what Ticketmaster is going to do with this responsibility - and what infrastructure they have in place to help Azoff. What can Ticketmaster get for Azoff's artists that he couldn't already get them? Is it simply because he'll have more financing in his pocket through Ticketmaster's coffers to sign more artists? Doesn't it seem a bit precarious to put somebody who has made his name in artist management in charge of the world's biggest ticketing company - a field where he has zero experience? And what can Azoff do for Ticketmaster, apart from sprucing up profits with takes from his artists? What real benefits does being in artist management offer for the ticketing company?

My guess is that Ticketmaster feels they're going to be able to exert a lot more control over what rooms Azoff artists play while touring - thus limiting them to rooms that use Ticketmaster, in a direct form of competition with the new Live Nation ticketing system. But this seems like a sort of backwards, difficult way of accomplishing that goal. It will also make it more difficult for Live Nation to sign artists that Azoff represents, if indeed they were interested in any of them for future 360 degree deals.

I'm very surprised by this news, and I'll be really curious to see what happens going forward as more details become apparent. Perhaps Ticketmaster has more plans that are not yet clear...

Cognitive Dissonance and American Political Thought (or: Why Your Uncle Will Never Vote for Obama)

Do me a quick favor and take half a second to recall the most frustrating political argument you’ve ever had. You know, the one where you listed myriad facts to support your argument and your temperature rose and you left in absolute disbelief that people could be so blind and ignorant. (Remember that argument? Odds are it involved that friend-of-a-friend you hate who wears topsiders. God, that guy sucks.) Did you ever wonder why that debate was so maddeningly stagnant? It’s not just because your counterpart was a prick (even though he definitely was).

Recent studies of the human cognitive process have revealed some very interesting and entirely depressing things about the way our supposedly rational minds work.

We all know that someone’s opinion is formed and reinforced in great part by the information to which they choose to expose themselves. If you’re getting all your news from Daily Kos, you’re probably fairly certain that Bush is building a mutant army to enslave us all and McCain is some sort of Tyrannosaur. But what if someone were to correct you, citing facts and historical information, wouldn’t that change your mind?

Turns out, probably not. From ArsTechnica (bold is mine):

“[A] study by John Bullock of Yale showed volunteers a political ad created by NARAL that linked Justice John Roberts to a violent anti-abortion group, followed by news that the ad had been withdrawn. Interestingly, Democratic participants had a worse opinion of Roberts after being shown the ad, even after they were told it was false.

Over half (56 percent) of Democratic subjects disapproved of Roberts before the misinformation. That rose to 80 percent afterward, but even after correcting the misinformation, 72 percent of Democratic subjects still had a negative opinion.”

So. Um. Darn? If this study is correct, truth and facts are pretty much useless once you’ve formed an opinion. Just a matter of who gets to your brain first. That’s… well, that’s just plain disheartening, if you ask me.

How do we combat this dissonance, you may ask. Well, I’m not a head doctor, but I’d say that maybe we should all take just a little more care in forming opinions in the first place. Then maybe you wouldn't be so wrong all the time, like I've been saying for years.

Polls are Inherently Flawed.

First, just want to thank Chris for having me. Quite honored.

I was going to lament the fact that I missed the bus on the whole Obama/McCain "presidential election" thing, seeing as this thing is pretty much over according to 538, Zogby and - you guessed it - FOX.

But then I saw the most recent poll results regarding the outcome of the World Series, which starts tonight between the Tampa Bay Worship the Devil Rays and The Philadelphia Phillies. The results are outrageous, and patently incorrect.

What does this tell us? Two things, if you ask me (and you have asked me. You clicked and you're reading. Those are the rules of the Internet. You can Google it).

First: Polling is total crap. Obama is losing and Democrats need to fight harder. Don't ease up, unless you want a planet that's 47% on fire (this means you too, Indian Ocean) in 72 months.

Second: Pennsylvania voters will single-handedly decide the outcome of this election.

(Then again, this thing is totally in God's hands, according to Palin. And "she's the most qualified of anyone recently who has run for vice president to tell you the truth..." That's right. Qualified. Joe Biden doesn't have Sarah Palin's Honesty qualifications. He lacks the training.)

John McCain interviewed on Don Imus.

Courtesy of Mark Halperin at the Page.

Audio link is here.

I have a hard time listening to this and even imagining what a John McCain presidency would look like. He sounds like he is angry, frustrated and in denial. I also want to give some props to Don Imus - I don't agree with the guy, but he's not afraid to ask McCain some really tough questions in this interview.

I wonder if one of Andrew Sullivan's readers hit the nail completely on the head:

As it turns out, even those flashes of biographical fact included in most of this reportage do not in themselves tell a true story, or at least not the whole story; the John McCain we have seen in this campaign is, alas, probably the man he has always been.

Welcome to Kyle Ferguson.

Please welcome Kyle Ferguson, who will be chiming in on film, politics, music, sports and some green tech issues, as well as whatever else he'd like.

A quick note as well: we now have contributors based in New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC.

Welcome to Dan Malessa.

Welcome to Dan Malessa, who I mentioned in my previous blog in regard to the Phillies. Dan will likely be chiming in with thoughts on sports, politics and geography, or whatever else he'd like to write about.

Why Barack Obama is secretly glad the White Sox aren't playing the Cubs in this year's World Series.

Barack Obama is widely known around Chicago for being a White Sox fan. He said he'd be rooting for the Sox over the Cubs if the two teams were to meet this year in the World Series.

But let's get real. Barack Obama is secretly thrilled that the White Sox aren't playing the Cubs in the World Series.

Why?

Because he was just gifted with a once in a lifetime chance to reach voters in battleground states during primetime television. Florida's Tampa Bay Rays and Pennsylvania's Philadelphia Phillies - two teams that make the rest of the country tune out completely, but the only two teams in this year's MLB playoffs that hail from states at the heart of this year's presidential race. UPDATE: my roommate Dan, an ardent Phillies fan, takes issue with me saying that the rest of the country will tune out the World Series this year. "People are sick of the Sox and Yankees," Dan writes, "I bet many are saying 'who are these new, young, exciting players?'" Well, I can't say that I agree with him...but I'll give props to his argument and his team.

For the presidential campaigns - and due to his enormous cash advantage, Obama moreso than McCain - this is an ideal venue to place ads going into the home stretch of the presidential race. I expect Obama will buy every available spot he can get for each and every game of the series - and that's on top of the fact that he'll have 30 minutes of uninterrupted airtime on Fox directly before a possible game six.

So my guess? Obama and his campaign are thrilled with how the playoffs panned out this year - and will be rooting for whichever team lengthens the series to the maximum seven games.

Colin Powell provides Obama with dual opportunities against McCain

The way in which Colin Powell endorsed Obama yesterday morning has given the Democratic campaign a window of opportunity to take it to John McCain. In case you missed Powell's statement, you can view the interview here - his thoughts on the candidates begin at approximately 6:30 into this video:



Powell gives two openings - to respond to the ways in which McCain has tried to drive a wedge over faith, and to preemptively attack the new McCain shift toward calling Obama's economic policies socialist. From the Meet the Press interview:



I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

The story about Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan will resonate with countless people around this country, and Powell invokes it clearly and effectively. It is a brutal strike at the heart of the nastiness of the McCain tactics. Andrew Sullivan provides links to much of today's resulting coverage here - with the notable image that Powell mentions here.

Powell's eloquence gives weight to the charge that McCain has been divisive in and about his rallies, and will likely yield lead to stronger objections to the strategy. Even Chris Wallace raises the issue with John McCain on Fox News, asking the Senator directly about his use of Bill Ayers in robocalls to voters in swing states:



We are only going to see more of this type of rhetoric going forward, and the Obama campaign knows it. They should take the opportunity that Powell's endorsement presents - to fight back hard on McCain's ethics in this campaign. And it appears that they will do just that.

Joe Biden gave a rousing speech yesterday afternoon in Tacoma, Washington and offered his reactions to Powell's endorsement:



From CNN's coverage:

“From the very beginning, this Republican party has tried to suggest that Barack Obama, Senator Barack Obama, wasn’t ready to be commander-in-chief,” said the Delaware senator to more than 11,000 supporters in a minor league ballpark, his biggest crowd to date when campaigning without Obama.

“With all the three and four star generals, with the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former National Security Adviser, the former Secretary of State, one of the most respected men who have ever worn the uniform, endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain today, no more questions! Barack Obama will be a commander-in-chief we can all respect!”

CNN also offers the later rhetoric in Biden's speech. Notably:

"So don’t anyone even indirectly imply to me that there’s one more patriotic part of the country than another part of the country!” Biden thundered to loud applause from the crowd. It doesn’t matter where you live, it doesn’t matter your color, it doesn’t matter your religion, we are all Americans! We’re all Americans! Governor Palin may have stepped back from some of the divisive rhetoric she’s been using, but the Republican Party has stepped up their attacks that are just as divisive.”

Biden has hit on what seems to be his new role as the campaign's attack dog. I am willing to bet Biden will hammer this point home in every stump speech he gives from now until November 4. It is a unification message, an inclusive message and a positive one in the face of very divisive, frightening attacks that appeal to a very emotional base - "we are all Americans" is powerful rhetoric. It is precisely the message that Powell's invocation of Khan solidifies as a new message to the Obama campaign.

Khan, in many ways, could become the Democrats' version of Joe the Plumber - a normal individual, an American hero, representative of a broad cross-section of this country. It is a reminder of the religious and cultural freedoms that make this country great - a reminder that we've found long and hard to prevent exactly the type of divisions that McCain/Palin's rhetoric is enabling. A reminder of ALL of the people that put Country First. The door has been opened to have this narrative take hold.

As much as some partisan Democrats and Republicans loathe to admit it, Colin Powell is one of the most respected figures in American politics. Sure - some liberal Democrats criticize him for his role in the Bush administration and the Iraq war, and loyal Republicans haven't forgiven him for his vocal opposition of the party - and his endorsement will only fuel GOP critiques. But people trust Colin Powell, they believe him, and they like him. By and large, Americans view Powell as a man who has dedicated himself to service of this country in an honorable and honest fashion, without appearing to act out of self-interest or hubris. This perception, combined with his obvious experience and qualifications, makes his judgment unimpeachable in the minds of much of the American public. His pointed critiques of McCain are devastating.

But he did more for Obama this morning that allow him to address the past few weeks' strategies. In answering questions from reporters after his appearance on Meet the Press, Powell spoke specifically to foreign affairs, emphasizing the ways McCain's divisive strategies damage our standing in the world. View his comments after appearing on Meet this Press this morning here:



I mean, think about that - how do Europeans, Asians, Africans view the ways in which Americans spew hatred at McCain/Palin's rallies, a couple of which I've posted here? What does this say about us? How does it impact our standing, our credibility, and the respect the world has for our country? And isn't that important?

They are powerful questions. I'm afraid I know the answers - and I wonder what that would mean if McCain/Palin were to win on the back of these arguments.

Finally, Powell opens up an opportunity for Obama and Biden to strike back against the charges of socialism that have become the new focal point of the McCain strategy. Powell's remarks after Meet the Press echo many moderate conservatives - those who don't like to pay taxes, but see the new economic news as an unfortunate reality that may demand they concede the issue:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them - in roads and airports, hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more and who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.

I don't want my taxes raised, I don't want anybody else's taxes raised. But I also want to see our infrastructure fixed, I don't want to have a $12 trillion national debt, and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over $500 billion and heading toward $1 trillion. So how do we deal with all of this?

Many, many people identify with these words. Republicans don't want to be taxed more than they are, but they also recognize the serious mess that we're currently in - and the fact remains that McCain's economic policies would more closely mirror those of a Bush administration that failed to act to prevent this crisis. Obama's plan is simply not socialism - it is just another way of looking at taxation. Thoughtful Americans can all agree on that point.

And that's opportunity two - Powell has opened the battle against McCain's socialism charge. Again, Powell's gravity as a figure both honorable and bipartisan strengthens his statements - and he articulates them with poise and clarity. To older generations of Americans, socialism is a scary word - on par with terrorism in today's climate. If they can defuse the issue before it takes greater hold, it removes one more weapon in McCain's arsenal of dirty tricks as we get closer to election day. Obama and Biden should seize upon his message as a rational, reasonable explanation for Obama's tax policies, and continue to question the McCain's campaign ethics in distorting the facts to prey upon peoples' fears.

UPDATE: Obama begins to integrate this response into his stump speech. View him here in North Carolina:



Will McCain ultimately end up shifting to the center if these tactics fail in the closing days of the campaign? Perhaps it depends on how swift and effective Obama's reaction to this latest attack is.

You want a cookie?

I was sort of flabbergasted at this quote from a conservative historian that met Palin last summer. It comes from a great New Yorker piece on how the Palin buzz grew this summer in the conservative elite media.

Here's the quote: "Hanson, a farm owner, found it appealing that she was married to an oil worker, rather than to an executive."

Now maybe the reporter took Hanson's words out of context, but it reflects a larger reality in conservative circles. For all the talk about Joe Sixpack, they don't have that many leaders who are not wealthy in some sense. So it's funny that they see someone who has a spouse with a real job as something so amazing.

Just another reason the public views conservatives as so disconnected when the economy hit crisis mode.

Baghdad John

So I think things are reaching the point where John McCain and the Republicans have reached the wall for how dirty, nasty, etc. they can be (or rather, diminishing returns - I still fully expect them to sink lower). The next step is complete denial of reality.

Now there has always been a strong streak in conservatism to dismiss the "reality-based community," so to speak. But the current dissonance must be creating really psychic damage among the conservative right.

You could see this pretty clearly in John McCain's interview on Fox News this morning. He sees no commonality with the Robocalls he's running and the ones run against him in 2000. Just like in the debate, he viciously attacks Obama on the Ayers association, and then in very next sentence talks about how his campaign is all about the economy. He bashed Obama on the "spread the wealth" comment, linking him to socialist thinking, and then immediately defended the decision to inject capital directly into banks, something that is literally a socialist action, by saying that it was necessary.

These are just a few examples with "straight talk" John McCain. It's much the same with the rest of the conservative commentariat and his campaign surrogates. In the last few days alone, they've gone on crazy rants, implied that those who vote for Obama are not "real Americans", and have come up with crackpot theories about election fraud.

And they're also in deep denial about the polls, getting their online hatchet-man Drudge to cherry-pick results (the real winner of this election has to be fivethirtyeight.com).

Marc Ambinder has a great take on this general phenomenon.

*********

So I think we're heading towards Baghdad Bob territory here. Everything is fine, they say, no need to believe your lying eyes as the tanks near the city. Now, of course, none of this is new. We've seen this type of denial of reality from the beginning of the Bush administration (and before). But I really think the only proper analogy that can be made is with propaganda coming from a dictatorship.

And I don't mean this in a "oh, they're evil dictators" sort of way. I mean this in a "they're so ridiculous" sort of way. It must be pretty embarrassing to have such bad spin on your side. Putin's people could have done a lot better.

Bush and McCain may have overthrown Saddam and Baghdad Bob, but it has now led to Baghdad John as the Republican presidential nominee. And I'm pretty sure their regime is going to be overrun pretty soon as well.

Supreme Court Overrules Ohio Appeals Court on Voter Registration Questions

Breaking news:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Fantastic news, given the countless ways this would have been awful. Kudos to the United States Supreme Court.

The McCain Shift

I will have more thoughts on this later, and will point to some other examples - but you're starting to notice a new McCain shift in tactics, and it might be the best closing move he can make. Watch this video from Letterman last night:



At about 3:40 or so, McCain openly praises Obama without being prompted. You saw it in the closing of the Al Smith speech as well, posted below. I think now that he has aired all of the Ayers laundry (no pun intended) and been able to cement his base by coming off as tough in the debate, McCain is going to make a hard, strong shift to the center to close out the campaign. He'll be the moderate McCain that has been missing for most of the campaign. He will come off as magnanimous and reasonable and likable. He'll hammer Obama almost exclusively on the "share the wealth" line from the Joe the Plumber saga. And I bet you start to see praise for Obama creep into McCain's stump speech with regularity in the closing days of the campaign.

It would be an interesting strategy shift. And it could work.

But as McCain gets more appealing personally, remember how he has campaigned. Remember the the vile venom Sarah Palin still spews from podiums around the country while having yet to face a press conference, the robocalls McCain's campaign is making about Ayers while stating in the debate it isn't an issue that matters to him, the complicity in allowing the Virginia GOP to use mailers like this one and encourage GOP operatives to draw connections between Obama and Osama bin Laden.

Even if John McCain suddenly becomes the man we had all hoped he would be throughout this campaign, remember the man he has been from the beginning of it.

John McCain and Barack Obama are apparently hilarious.

At the 63rd Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner last night in New York, Barack Obama and John McCain proved one thing: they're both much, much funnier than any of us realized them to be. Both of these videos are hilarious - and so refreshing to see the candidates from another angle. Watch John McCain and Barack Obama roast one another below.

McCain:



McCain's closing statements:



Obama:



Obama's closing statements:



Two things surprise me about these speeches.

First: John McCain is a far, far superior speaker in this capacity than he is on the stump. It is videos like this that must make Republicans cringe in wondering what could have been. If McCain could communicate this effectively while on the campaign trail, this might be a completely different race. It is a striking reminder to me of why so many people liked John McCain in the first place. Makes you wonder why we haven't seen more of this side of the man.

Second: Barack Obama has great writing in this speech. This sounds like something that could easily have come off of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, and he delivers the lines every bit as well as he does any other speech he gives. I also thought it was interesting to see him work off of notecards every bit as effectively as he uses a teleprompter. He also uses a vernacular that is notably younger and more vibrant than McCain (ie: Facebook, the Superman references, use of "I am a little too awesome").

My thoughts? McCain is naturally funnier. He seems more comfortable doing this, and looks to genuinely enjoy it. But Obama more than holds his own, and is funny in a completely different way. It is amazing that the very real differences in these two candidates even translates to their humor.

Generally, though, the most remarkable part of these speeches are how well they meld policy and jokes. I used to do speeches like this in high school - Special Occasion Speaking in the IHSA's Speech Individual Events program is almost exactly like this in structure - and it is so, so hard to balance the two as effectively as McCain and Obama did in these speeches. They managed to make some real policy points in the course of their humor - McCain hitting Obama on ACORN and Joe the Plumber, and Obama parrying with jabs on the financial meltdown.

This was a complete breath of fresh air. Enjoy.

The 56 Trillion Dollar Deficit

Bill Maher interviews former Comptroller General David Walker on Real Time:



Thanks to Anna for the link. And here is the I.O.U.S.A. trailer. Have any readers seen the movie?

ACORN Update: FBI Investigation Underway

I was glad to read about this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.

This should answer some of the questions I raised in my article the other day, and I feel the investigation is completely warranted. Kudos to the FBI for taking it up.

Voter Registration Ridiculousness: How Ohio is About To Disenfranchise Thousands on Technicalities

I'm having flashbacks to my time working with juries as I'm reading this report out of Ohio, now highlighted in red on the Drudge Report. From the article:

CINCINNATI (AP) - Close to one in every three newly registered Ohio voters will end up on court-ordered lists being sent to county election boards because they have some discrepancy in their records, an elections spokesman said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimated that an initial review found that about 200,000 newly registered voters reported information that did not match motor-vehicle or Social Security records, Brunner spokesman Kevin Kidder said. Some discrepancies could be as simple as a misspelling, while others could be more significant.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party on Tuesday and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides those names to county elections boards. The GOP contends the information will help prevent fraud.

On the surface, this sounds very sinister. 200,000 irregularities in voter registration information? In a year where Democrats are engaging in enormous voter registration efforts? Is something amiss?

The answer is probably not. Any time that you're creating a vast new list of people based on information that they fill out quickly with the help of other people, you create innumerable ways in which this information will not match up against past records. I saw this a lot when working with jury administrators and clerks across the country as they worked to update their jury lists - which actually use voter registration lists very, very frequently all across the country.

What kind of irregularities? Let us pick out one big one - which is actually one of the biggest problems jury administrators face in summonsing people to serve.

Anybody who drives knows what a joy it is to go to the DMV. Long lines, rude clerks, inexplicable delays, confusing requirements...in general, it is not a pleasant experience. As a result, a lot of people avoid it at all costs.

So, a quick poll - how many of you have your current address listed on your driver's licence?

If you don't, and you're a new Ohio voter registered at your new Ohio address - congratulations. You almost definitely qualify as one of the 200,000 irregularities the article mentions.

Across the country, it has been widely reported that youth voter registrations are through the roof. Rock the Vote, for example, has registered over two million young people in the 2008 election cycle, in what they call the largest youth registration drive in history. In Virgina, 40 percent of new registrants are under the age of 25, and using the numbers Virginia has released, that amounts to approximately 174,400 new, youthful voters. I don't have specific statistics for Ohio, but I expect that they would mirror these national trend.

What's the point? Well, young people move. A lot. They go to college, they change apartments, they move out of their parents' homes, they get new roommates. They move a lot more than older people. According to the Census, 25% of people aged 18-29 changed residences from 2006 to 2007, compared to 10% of those aged 30-69, and 13% when you look at all residents. And consequently, it is FAR more likely that their voter registration information will not match their driver's licenses on record with the DMV.

So let's use similar statistics for Ohio that we have for Virginia, for sake of argument. If even 30% of the newly registered voters in Ohio were young people, that would mean 198,000 of the 666,000 Ohioans who have registered to vote since January are under the age of 25. So using the national averages, 25% of those voters moved in the last year, or 49,500 people. This number is actually probably larger, as it would compound over the multiple years between elections - but I'm just using simple math for this argument. If half of that number didn't update their driver's license before registering to vote, you've just found about 25,000 people of Ohio's 200,000 with irregularities

This is, of course, rough math and approximation. But it is meant to illustrate that these types of irregularities can result from completely innocuous, innocent activity that is NOT indicative of some kind of sinister intention.

These are the irregularities that are now forcing the Ohio Secretary of State to create some kind of database that will provide these names to elections officials by this FRIDAY, so they can begin to verify this information independently. So elections officials - in addition to everything else that they have to do - will have to somehow manage to contact 200,000 new voters to verify their information. Another quote from the article cited at the top of this page:

County election officials were trying to determine Wednesday how they will respond once they get the information.

"I'm very concerned with these new requirements as we get closer to Election Day," said Steve Harsman, director of the Montgomery County Board of Elections in Dayton. He said his staff already is working 16 hours a day, seven days a week.

"It's clearly going to have an impact in regard to resources we have to expend to resolve discrepancies," said Jeff Hastings, chairman of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Cleveland.

If they fail to resolve these discrepancies before election day, voters will probably have to cast a provisional ballot - which may or may not be counted. From the article, by an Ohio State professor:

Even worse, in some states the provisional voting process operates very differently in different localities within the state. In Ohio in 2006, percentages of provisional ballots that were both cast and counted varied wildly regardless of demographics, a strong indication that different county boards were applying their own rules in the face of insufficiently specific directives from the state. States must have basic, uniform rules in place on these matters to prevent different counties within the states from applying their own rules and thereby opening the state up to voting rights lawsuits based on equal protection.

Is it possible that within those 200,000 registrants that there are some serious offenders? Yes. But given how easily these kind of discrepancies can arise, is it worth a potential problem for the entire electorate? You tell me.

The District loses a great company and great people in XM Radio's purge

From the Washington Post:

Nobody has announced anything yet, but about 80 Washington-based XM employees, including many of the on-air voices and program directors of the service's most popular music channels, have learned this week that today is their last day of employment. They found out in the worst possible way: One worker routinely signed on to the company's payroll system and saw that his final day of employment was listed as October 15. Word spread like a virus through the building and by the time everyone had checked the system, it was clear that Sirius boss Mel Karmazin was ready with his bloodletting.

There's no word yet on the future of XM's headquarters building at New York and Florida avenues NE in NoMa, but it's hard to imagine that Sirius will hold on to an emptied-out building for long. Karmazin's plan, according to several radio industry news outlets, is to merge XM and Sirius programming into one stream on or around Nov. 5--directly in opposition to Karmazin's repeated and vehement promises to keep the two voices separate and distinct for some time to come.

This sucks. Big time. It goes without saying that notifying your people this way is awful, but beyond that, this is just a poor call. I know a lot of people at XM Radio, and they were great for music, great for Washington DC, and above all else, great people. The XM building is truly incredible - one of the most beautiful music buildings I've ever been in.

Tobi and Billy Zero at XMU were early supporters of Soft Complex, and were wonderful to put our EP into rotation on Channel 43. Gavin at In-DEED played some of our remixes. I know from conversations with other artists and friends that XM helped many, many musicians reach audiences and parts of the country that they would never have been able to reach before. The staff was always supportive of local music and local musicians. My personal thanks and thoughts go out to everyone impacted, and more specifically to Tobi, Gavin and Billy to being such steadfast supporters of the scene here in DC.

This is a great loss for our music community and the DC community as a whole. Ugh.

John Cleese on Sarah Palin.

Thanks to Matt for the link.

And for good measure, Monty Python on parrots.

Examining ACORN: Why the Justice Department should investigate more fully.

I have to admit that I'm late to following the ACORN story with a lot of detail - but as more stories emerge about their fraudulent voter practices, I'm bothered by it. To me, voter fraud and disenfranchisement are some of the most onerous affronts to democracy - it doesn't matter which side a group is on.

So a quick background. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was founded in 1970, and has been headed by Maude Hurd since 1990. It claims to be non-partisan - but the issues it advocates for (including improved housing and wages for the lower class, community development, and better education) generally fall on the Democratic side of the political spectrum. Voter registration is always a large part of these efforts around election time, as they view community involvement in the electoral process as one of the central ways to make progress on their relevant issues. Their opening mission statement is as follows:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority constituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.

ACORN also offers this video as an introduction to the organization. View it below.


The current controversy over ACORN relates to their extensive voter registration efforts, which has been a central part of the group's activities since 1970. In the current election, a rising number of voter registration fraud cases are emerging linked to ACORN organizers. Today's headline story on the Drudge Report details how the group registered Mickey Mouse in Florida, while other stories detail rampant fraud in Ohio. Other voter registration issues have cropped up Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri and Connecticut. UPDATE: a kind reader pointed out this article that ran in the Michigan Messenger regarding ACORN. From the article:

Gerald Hebert, a retired U.S. Department of Justice voting rights expert who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, says the kind of fraud that the GOP is charging ACORN with — deliberately registering fictitious people or registering the same person in two different precincts — is extremely rare. Hebert is now executive director of the Campaign Legal Center in Washington. The nonprofit organization was founded by Trevor Potter, who represents the McCain campaign in lawsuits over voter suppression.

The Michigan Messenger piece offers some great point counterpoint as related to ACORN, and illustrates how some of these voter fraud charges may be over exaggerated and picked piecemeal over years of registration efforts. Again, of note:

The charge that ACORN engages in “outright voter fraud” and “illegal voting” activity seems to be based on a handful of cases over many years. For example, three ACORN canvassers pleaded guilty to voter fraud in Seattle in 2007, and eight pleaded guilty to fraud in Missouri in 2004. By comparison, ACORN had thousands of canvassers across the country and more than 100 canvassers working in Michigan alone in these instances.

This answers some of the overall GOP accusations that ACORN is a radical group that is systematically trying to defraud the electorate. However, it doesn't speak to the current allegations in some of the battleground states.

The GOP has raised this as an issue against Barack Obama, putting together an admittedly creative website called Barack Obama's ACORN Tree. The Obama camp has responded in kind by adding the ACORN issue to their Fight The Smears website. Frankly, I avoid getting information from either of these sources as much as possible, as they tend to only give partial truths. So looking to other sources...

A Google search on Obama and ACORN reveals the first three links to be to prominent National Review columnists Stanley Kurtz and Michelle Malkin - which to me, is an immediate red flag that this is likely more of a partisan story than a real one.

To me, there is little doubt that ACORN is far more aligned with the Obama campaign than with the McCain camp. However, that in and of itself doesn't mean anything. In fact, non-partisan fact check group Politifact.com emphasizes that many conservatives emphasize ACORN's involvement with liberal groups while ignoring others. From the article:

And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

In any case, the Wall Street Journal ran an article this morning detailing some of the connections between Obama and ACORN. Two paragraphs are noteworthy:

Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

Now, Obama's camp claims that ACORN was not involved in Project Vote - though the current incarnation is tied to ACORN directly, this was not the case in 1992 when Obama was director of Project Vote. The Huffington Post reports on these connections, stating that the official association of the two groups happened in 1994, and that at the time, the only official involvement in Project Vote was a member of the 40-person advisory board. One of the direct connections that the Obama campaign admits is that Obama served as an attorney representing ACORN in lawsuit, alongside the Illinois Department of Justice, related to voter access.

As for the Obama donations to an ACORN affliate, the Washington Times has the story. During the primary campaign, the Obama campaign did donate $832,598 to Citizens Services Inc, a fact verified by Federal Elections Commission reports. The Times details the connection between ACORN and Citizens Services:

Citizen Services is inextricably tied to ACORN. Along with nonprofit sister organization Project Vote, Citizens Services and ACORN share the same New Orleans address and the same executive staff while money flows freely between the three entities. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services.

The article goes on to examine the actual work that Citizens Services did - with a mixed verdict that probably isn't easily resolved:

Brian Mellor, legal counsel for ACORN and Project Vote, said the Citizens Services was not involved in the voter-registration drive. He said Project Vote provided the funding and ACORN provided the local ground operation and ran day-to-day activities.

But James Terry, the chief political advocate for the nonpartisan Consumer Rights League who tracks ACORN issues, said Citizen Services and ACORN are one in the same.

"There is no way it is not coordinated," he said. "It is a multimillion-dollar coordinated effort."

I think the truth is probably that the Obama campaign funded ACORN as a part of their voter registration drive in their attempts to best Hillary Clinton in the primary. The reality is that they're a big organization with offices in many of the areas filled with potential Obama voters, and I imagine the campaign's decision to work with them was based upon a cost-benefit analysis that indicated they'd be best able to register the votes they needed to win.

Does this make Obama complicit in voter fraud? No, not by itself. Until there is some evidence that the Obama campaign knew that ACORN was engaging in fraudulent activity, I consider them independent from ACORN's fradulent actions. Not even the Kurtz piece goes so far as to claim that Obama was complicit in voter fraud or knew of fradulent activities at any point in his activity with ACORN. But was it a mistake to have funded ACORN now that these fraud issues are coming out? Absolutely - ESPECIALLY given the amazing work that so many Obama volunteers are doing to register voters legitimately all over the country. Obama should take responsibility for that mistake and condemn ACORN's fraudulent registration practices publicly and forcefully.

UPDATE: In rereading, I'd like to clarify - I don't mean that Obama should condemn ACORN unilaterally - there would be no need for that unless it was found that there was systemic, planned fraud originating from the top down within the organization. But Obama should absolutely speak out against any illegal activity occuring within ACORN's ranks - it is possible to do that without speaking out against the organization as a whole. ACORN does work apart from voter registration that is important and relevant to countless people across the country, and it is important to remember that in this discussion.

I haven't been able to find any articles from organizations that don't have some kind of partisan reputation. The Times is known as a conservative paper, as is the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. Dear readers - anybody know of a rundown that originates from a centrist or fact-checking source?

UPDATE: This article from Pajamas Media has more details on the history of ACORN and its voter registration efforts; it is clearly written from a right-wing perspective, but it cites many cases and provides sourced materials.

UPDATE II: Talking Points Memo makes an outstanding point on this discussion - and points out a problem in referring to this as "voter fraud." From the article:

Let's be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they're not entitled to cast. It doesn't and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely.

The article is correct - false registrations really don't mean anything unless those false registrants try and vote. In all likelihood, many of these fake registrations are not being submitted to try and influence the election, but rather, to make individual volunteers look better to the organization. Get more voters registered, advance farther through ACORN, appear to be a better organizer, etc. etc.

But this is splitting hairs to a degree - the problem of fake registrations is that it makes creating accurate lists much more difficult, and could provide a screen for actual voter fraud to occur. If elections officials are too busy weeding out fake registrations, then they're distracted from the job they should actually be doing. It also forces purges of the voter registration lists, as these lists are used for more than just voting. For example, jury duty. Voter registration lists are used almost universally (along with DMV records) to summons people for jury service. If there are thousands of false registrants on the books, it yields enormous waste and problems with having inadequate numbers of jurors at the courthouse. I did a lot of work with list management when I was doing my jury administration work; creating accurate lists is horribly difficult.

Regardless, I agree with the closing paragraph of the Wall Street Journal's editorial:

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime.

Members of Congress have urged the same kind of investigation. Whether or not you trust the Justice Department (which is absolutely worth debating), this is an answer we all deserve. If it is found that ACORN is systematically and deliberately violating election law to register voters fraudulently, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Barack Obama proves he is a real feminist.

I've long made the contention that true feminism cuts both ways - if one argues for gender equality, then you have to take the good with the bad. And thus, Barack Obama today helped prove to me that he is a true feminist, by stating that women should have to register for the Selective Service, and considering opening combat positions to women as well as men. From the article:

"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Mr. Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal.

"And I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."

Is this a more difficult issue than the surface would suggest? Sure - there are compelling, practical arguments against these policy suggestions. But that doesn't mean that we can't work within or around whatever constrictions might exist.

I am no fan of the draft. I don't want there to be a draft. I also recognize its necessity at times, though I doubt it will be used again any time soon. But if men have to register, then women should as well. It is an issue of respect - all of us should trust that women are equally capable of serving this country's military as men are. Those who demand that there is no difference or preferential treatment based upon gender should agree - and take issue with the fact that John McCain does not.

Who is Barack Obama?

Here is the Obama campaign's response - behind the scenes footage.

To answer some questions I've been getting...

Yes, I know Google is displaying John McCain ads on my blog.

No, I'm not thrilled about it.

But yes, you should probably click through on the ads on my page to help support the blog anyway.

John McCain, please put country first and calm your supporters.

I'm starting to become more and more fearful of what could happen between now and election day. The videos that are coming out from the campaign trail are terrifying - some are posted below. McCain and Palin are stoking a fire that they don't identify with and don't believe in - I don't think that either of them to be racist or believe Obama to be some kind of Manchurian candidate.

But some of their supporters believe all of these things and more. You see the real fervor of "true believers" in some of these folks - people who actually believe that Obama is a terrorist with some kind of hidden agenda to destroy the country. These are exactly the kinds of people that have the potential to do something crazy and violent - true believers who see themselves as patriots acting in defense of the country.

Jonathan Martin reports on the atmosphere on the most recent campaign rallies, since McCain has fully devoted himself to the William Ayers non-story. Some key quotes:

"...voters this week have shouted out insults at the mention of Obama, pleaded with McCain to get more aggressive with the Democrat and generally demonstrated the sort of visceral anger and unease that reflects a party on the precipice of panic...

**

With McCain passing up the opportunity to level any tough personal shots in his first two debates and the very real prospect of an Obama presidency setting in, the sort of hard-core partisan activists who turn out for campaign events are venting in unusually personal terms.

"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”

"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."

Was it reasonable to bring up Ayers as a connection that needed to be explained? Perhaps - I can grant that to people who want to fully vet Obama's connections to people in his past. But this has been asked and answered. McCain knows this - it is why he didn't bring up any of these issues to Obama's face during the last debate.

McCain also knows this doesn't play to the middle. McCain has made an overt shift to play to prejudice and ignorance.

Ta-nehisi Coates at the Atlantic connects the McCain campaign's shift to Jerry Falwell invoking fears about Communists in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an excellent post - he correctly notes that using Obama's middle name is "nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then - a cover for racists."

Andrew Sullivan draws a comparison to Israel in 1995, noting that the atmosphere McCain is helping to create in the course of his campaign is similar to the emotions raised before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. His role in the creation of the Oslo Accords incensed radical elements within the Israeli Jewish community, those who believed any deal with the Palestinians was simply unacceptable. From Wiki:

On 4 November 1995 Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a radical right-wing Orthodox Jew who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords and believed he was saving the country from a dire fate. The shooting took place in the evening as Rabin was leaving a mass rally in Tel Aviv in support of the Oslo process. Rabin was rushed to the nearby Ichilov Hospital, where he died on the operating table of blood loss and a punctured lung.

Daniel Lubetzky at the Huffington Post examines the same corrollary, directly looking at the similarities in the run up to Rabin's assassination and the current climate that John McCain is helping to further:

This eerily reminds me of the atmosphere before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in Israel. Far-right Israelis had been engaging in a campaign of vilification against Rabin for months. Right-wing politicians had done nothing to discourage extreme incitement or death threats against Rabin. Posters filled the walls across Israel with horrifying statements and dehumanizing captions against Rabin. Extremist Rabbis said Rabin was betraying Jews and was cursed to death.

Then came Yigal Amir, the assassin who shot Yitzhak Rabin at point blank. When asked, he said he was inspired to kill Rabin to avenge the Jewish people and prevent him undermining Israel.

Suddenly after Rabin's chilling assassination, everyone was against dehumanization and incitement. Everyone had condemned such vitriol all along. Everyone loved Rabin, the martyr and hero. It was unclear how all those posters got posted on the walls, or who had made all those calls into radio stations with threats against Rabin.

What exactly were people saying about Rabin? Take this article from the New York Times, published November 6, 1995, in which some of these attacks on Rabin are described:

There was a sense that the killing of the Prime Minister by a right-wing militant had exposed the real, terrible scope of the division among Jews, in Israel and abroad, over the peace he had tried to achieve.

Though the level of invective had been rising steadily since the peace agreement was reached, and Mr. Rabin was frequently denounced by ardent foes as a "traitor," or pictured with an Arab head scarf or a Nazi swastika, most Israelis seemed to assume that the passions would never reach to murder.

"People who didn't agree with him said all sorts of things, but nobody ever believed that this could happen, that a Jew would kill another Jew," said Toby Wolf, a graphic artist, standing with hundreds of Israelis who gathered to light candles and chant psalms outside the Prime Minister's official residence here.

This is exactly the same type of rhetoric occurring at McCain/Palin rallies today. Calling someone a terrorist today in the United States is no different than calling someone a Nazi in Israel in 1995.

We cannot allow it to stand.

This is an exceedingly dangerous part of this campaign. John McCain owes it to all of us to step up to the plate and speak out against irrationality, against those who indict Obama the man, against those that would use race and xenophobia to fan the anger and fear of the worst parts of our society.

The fact that McCain hasn't stepped up to say or do anything to temper these types of feelings - to emphasize that this is a campaign about ideas and not identity - is just flat out wrong. If you're a McCain supporter and can't see or admit that, then you're worse than any Obama supporter that you've ever called a Kool-Aid drinker. If you stand by and tacitly endorse this type of campaign, then you've sacrificed your integrity along with John McCain.

The McCain-Palin Mob

Amazing stuff from Blogger Interrupted.

Shout out to my brother

My brother was a big part of a long Huffington Post article that came out today about Obama's Ohio field operation. He's doing some great work down there and has finally found a job where people pay him to talk all day. Its a win-win situation.

Foo Fighters fed up.

This just in from the Foo Fighters' publicist:

FOO FIGHTERS DENOUNCE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEIR MUSIC BY MCCAIN CAMPAIGN

Having received confirmed press reports that John McCain has been using Foo Fighters' "My Hero" as the latest in a number of unauthorized theme songs at his campaign rallies without seeking permission from the band, its management, record label or publisher, Foo Fighters have issued the following statement: 

"This isn't the first time the McCain campaign has used a song without making any attempt to get approval or permission from the artist. It's frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property. The saddest thing about this is that "My Hero" was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential. To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song. We hope that the McCain campaign will do the right thing and stop using our song--and start asking artists' permission in general!"

Don't wear your Obama shirts to the polls on November 4

Props to DCist, who reports on this from the DC Board of Elections and Ethics:

D.C. Municipal Regulations sections 708.4, 708.5 and 708.8 cover restrictions on “political activity” within 50 feet of the entrance of a building used for voting. Section 708.8 clearly states that “the term ‘political activity’ shall include without limitation, any activity intended to persuade a person to vote for or against any candidate or measure...”

This means that if a voter is showing an outward sign of support for a candidate (i.e. wearing hats, buttons, t-shirts, etc.) the voter will be asked to remove or cover the article before entering the polling place.

This is likely true in MANY STATES. So please - tell your friends, family, friends of friends. Don't wear your Obama gear to the polls. Save it for the parties on election night.

UPDATE: Snopes has some information on passive electioneering (wearing shirts, buttons, etc.) on their website. They also note that sometimes it can extend further than candidate approved materials - they cite an instance where wearing Cowboys jerseys or apparel could have been construed as supporting a referendum in Texas. Best bet: IF IN DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING OR ACCESSORY WOULD QUALIFY AS PASSIVE ELECTIONEERING, LEAVE IT AT HOME.

Sarah Palin owes tens of thousands in back taxes.

It just gets better and better. Should John McCain have looked a bit further into Sarah Palin's background? You betcha!

Via the TaxProf Blog:

Jack Bogdanski (Lewis & Clark) & Bryan Camp (Texas Tech) have independently reviewed the tax issues raised by the release of Gov. Palin's 2006 and 2007 tax returns and financial disclosure form, as well as the remarkable opinion letter issued from Washington D.C. tax lawyer Roger M. Olsen. Jack and Bryan conclude that there are serious errors in Gov. Palin's returns as filed and that she and her husband owe tens of thousands of dollars in additional taxes.

No wonder McCain/Palin are for additional tax cuts. Clearly Joe Biden had it wrong - it is FAILING to pay your taxes that is patriotic! After all, country first!

UPDATE: Some additional thoughts. I agree that the tax code is very confusing. And it seems as though the clauses that the tax professors above are pointing out are complicated. But when you're the governor of a state, shouldn't you be able to hire an accountant that can handle your taxes accurately? If Sarah Palin can't handle that, are we comfortable with her being involved in decisions to appoint people to work in the United States Treasury? Or, even better, the IRS?