Not so popular anymore, is she?

We keep hearing the wingnuts spouting off about Sarah Palin being the most popular Governor in America. Well, after the people of Alaska, along with the rest of the country, have watched her in recent months more and more people don't like what they see.

Sarah, meet Janet!

Janet Napolitano is Arizona's governor, currently serving her second term. Her favorability rating of 67-29 is higher than Palin's, which is 65-35 ... Napolitano's job approval rating of 69-21 similarly beats Palin's 61-37. Palin may be giving the Rick Lowrys of the world starbursts, but Napolitano is wowing them with competent governance, and it looks like Arizonans wouldn't mind sending her to Washington instead of McCain.

Go, Janet, go!
I think Obama will not pick Napolitano for a cabinet post, because we don't want to turn the Arizona Governorship over to a Republican. But she would make a great Senator!
.

Sleaziest presidential campaign ever?

This is the ugliest presidential campaign in my lifetime. What do you think?
Here is Josh Marshall:

Flashback: McCain's Sleaze-o-rama

As John McCain just gets sleazier and sleazier, let's review the hypocritical record one more time ...

Have you noticed how the McCain/Palin camps have morphed the Republican Party into the White Nationalists Party? Check out the crowds at all their events. And their new attacks on a respected Palestinian-American historian, Rashid Khalidi, are despicable. Hell, all Sarah Palin had to do Wednesday was mention the guy's name and people who knew absolutely nothing about him started booing ... they booed his name. See, he's different, he's middle-eastern, he's probably a terrorist!

All McCain and Palin have on their side is fear and ignorance.

I choose HOPE.


UPDATE: Oh my ... If you were leading a White Supremacist organization where would you go to recruit new members?
.

Funny, Funny Stuff

This is a brilliant video from Ron Howard and friends:

UPDATE: I removed the embedded video because it wasn't working. So go to Funny or Die and watch this and go back to the future!
.

Funny Stuff

This is so funny and ... true.

Remember the Budweiser WASSUP ads from 1999? They've been updated to reflect the current political situation in America. I found these at AmericaBlog.

First the original:



And this is the 2008 version:


.

Trippin'

I've been out of town and away from blogging while I attended a conference in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Here is a pic of the beach and lake. Beautiful place.

The war on taxes

A guest post tonight from a guest blogger we will call "Phil" who says he is "fed up with these two asses running for president and the blatant stupidity of people in this country":

Perhaps I’m the only one who feels this way. My perspective is often limited to what surrounds my tiny little world. But, if there’s anyone out there who feels like I do, then maybe there is hope for this country.

There is a vast conspiracy in this country to wage war against an intangible foe, and it is tearing this country apart. It’s not against terrorism. It’s not against drugs. It’s not against poverty, the achievement gap, or domestic abuse. It’s against taxes.

Could this possibly be the stupidest country on the f-ing planet? In what has been tabbed the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression (thank heavens for hyperbole), government officials, politicians, pundits, people in the know, and even “Joe Sixpack” are bemoaning the mistakes made by too many people on both sides of the desk at the loan office.

Why, oh why, were people so short-sighted? So greedy? This crisis will really teach us a lesson, right? Never again, right? Wrong.

Just listen to the two numbskulls vying to replace the last numbskull, and the morons flapping their hands together as they are pandered and lied to. $700 billion dollar bailout, the $200 billion dollar bailout, the billions being sent to bail out states (who, by the way, would still like to retain their independence in governing social issues like gay marriage), diplomatic wars in the Middle East that are draining more and more money everyday. And at the same time these two highfalutin morons (Obama and McCain) have the gall to say that the answer to this country’s problems in health care and education and military defense is to spend more money.

Granted, John McCain has suggested an overall spending freeze, which frankly, isn’t a bad idea. But he is as guilty as anyone else, perhaps more so, in the warmongering
of the people against taxes and the great stupidity that continues to permeate this country. Americans don’t like taxes, McCain says.

My friends, Americans are retarded.

Does any of this not ring a bell? Huge loans being taken out willy-nilly without the funds to pay it back? Borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend, but still manage to cut taxes? I suppose that since math isn’t in the bible, it just doesn’t exist. Is anyone f-ing home? Apparently not.

Because Joe the Plumber wants his taxes lowered. And corporate CEOs want their taxes lowered. And businesses and states and everyone wants their taxes lowered. Even the two jackasses running for president out and out said they don’t want to pay taxes. What sort of example does that set for the American people?

So we are winning the war – the war on taxes, that is. We had to do it, because we’re losing the war against terrorism. They won. Look at what they’ve done to this country – our social, governmental, and economic fundamentals have proceeded to
come crashing down after those towers did. And now we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, chasing taxes (along with liberty, civil rights, and the rest of the constitution) into the corner.

Where might we plan on keeping the POWs that result from this financial war? Just make the rich people pay, right? They’re rich.

.

More on the Powell endorsement

From Jed:

Powell didn't just endorse Barack Obama -- he also systematically dismantled the entire rationale for John McCain's presidential campaign.

Whatever you think of Colin Powell, in the context of our national discourse, the endorsement of a Republican military figure like Powell is a severe blow to McCain's smear campaign.

Among the key points Powell made against McCain's campaign:

•On the Ayers smears: He thoroughly repudiated McCain's "Obama associates with terrorists" smear job.

•On the religion smears: He not only affirmed the fact that Barack Obama is Christian, but he also rejected the idea that it would be a problem if he weren't, defending religious freedom in passionate terms.

•On the "anti-American" smears: He even targeted Michele Bachmann's divisive rant claiming that there are "anti-American" Members of Congress

•On McCain's judgment and readiness: He destroyed the notion that McCain has either the judgment or policy acumen to serve as president, citing McCain's selection of Sarah Palin and his unsteady response to the economic crisis

•On Republican extremism: He slammed the GOP's rightward tilt, specifically noting that it would be unacceptable to nominate two more hard-right justices to the Supreme Court.

Powell didn't just decimate the McCain campaign rationale, however. Powell also offered up an endorsement of Barack Obama in the strongest possible terms, saying that Obama would be an "exceptional president" and that he had the capacity to be "transformational."

The amazing part of all this is that Powell still considers himself a Republican. While there will never be an excuse for his role in supporting the Iraq war, one thing does seem clear: Powell's endorsement today will be a boost for Barack Obama's campaign, and therefore a good thing for this country.

Powell endorses Obama

Are newspaper endorsements important? Who knows.

Is Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama important?

It will probably have more impact on the campaign and media narrative over the next few days than anything else.

It isn't just that Powell endorsed, it's how strongly he articulated his support for and trust in Obama, and how disappointed he is in and concerned about the negative tone and dishonesty of the Republican campaign at this important time in our history.

Q: Sir, what role did McCain's negativity play in your decision?

POWELL: It troubled me. You know, we have two wars. We have economic problems. We have health problems. We have education problems. We have infrastructure problems. We have problems around the world with our allies. And so those are the problems the American people wanted to hear about, not about Mr. Ayers, not about who is a Muslim and who's not a Muslim. Those kinds of images going out on al Jazeera are killing us around the world. And we have got to say to the world it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are. If you're an American you're an American. And this business of, for example, a congressman from Minnesota who's going around saying let's examine all congressmen to see who is pro-America or not pro-America.

We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and in our diversity.

And so that really was driving me. And to focus on people like Mr. Ayers, these trivial issues for the purpose of suggesting that somehow Mr. Obama would have some kind of terrorists' inclinations, I thought that was over the top. It was beyond just good political fighting back and forth. I think it went beyond. And then to sort of throw in this subtle Muslim connection. You know, he's a Muslim and a terrorist. And it was taking root. And we can't judge our people and we can't hold our elections on that kind of basis.

And so yes, that kind of negativity troubles me and the constant shifting of the argument. I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis the campaign said we're going to go negative and they announced it. We're going to go negative and attack his character through Bill Ayers. And now I guess the message this week is we're going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama is now a socialist because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money.

Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay it in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that makes you a socialist I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate. And 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 heading toward a trillion. So how do we deal with all of this?

Here are a couple of statements by Colin Powell:

.

.

It's good that their racism is out in the open

I continue to be amazed at how many people are willing to express their outright racism in public during this presidential campaign. For awhile there, people kept most of their bigotry and hatred hidden from public view. Now, they are wearing it proudly, like a badge of honor. And we're not talking about actions or statements with fuzzy or debatable interpretations, we are talking about outright racism and racial bigotry. The examples are everwhere to see -- in churches, among co-workers, within families, and in front yards.

I am actually thrilled as much as I am disgusted, because to eradicate racism you have to expose it. And when people write, say or do things that are bigoted and racist it is best if they do it out in the open. Now we know who they truly are.

Here is a perfect example. Watch this! This man hang an Obama ghost figure by a noose in effigy (and places a Star of David on its head?) and stated that it is because Obama is black?


.

Obama's lead widents to 94-28

Senator Barack Obama is crushing McCain in newspaper endorsements with 94 recommending voters elect Obama and 28 choosing McCain. Do newspaper endorsements matter? I'm not sure how they sway voters, but when many of these papers usually back the Republican candidate and this time they are backing the Democrat, that is at the very least, interesting.

Here is one from a solid RED state, the full Salt Lake Tribune editorial endorsing Barack Obama for President.

A simple choice: The nation needs Barack Obama in the White House

The next U.S. president will lead a nation that remains embroiled in two wars and is beset by an economic meltdown more severe than any since the Great Depression.

By necessity, the country's next commander in chief must also be its mender in chief, capable of inspiring his angry and divided constituents to join together in a recovery project to restore the peace, prosperity, and self-confidence we once knew.

We fear that a lesser effort may be insufficient to reverse America's slide toward economic, political and societal chaos. The times require dramatic and comprehensive change.

The presidential candidates know it, and have made it their mantra.

Most Americans know it, and, in growing numbers, are demanding it.

The countries that have long depended upon the United States for enlightened global leadership long for it.

For the sake of all, and for those who follow us, we must have it.

The editorial board of The Salt Lake Tribune believes that Barack Obama can deliver it.

Over the 22 months since announcing his improbable candidacy, Obama has transcended his image as a mere political and racial phenomenon. Though blessed with uncommon skills as a writer and orator, he was mistakenly thought to possess too little political experience, too little backbone, and too little evidence of the tangible, and intangible, qualities we ascribe to the best of our leaders. Democrats and Republicans alike thought Hillary Clinton would make short work of him.

Admittedly, we thought so too, and endorsed Clinton, not Obama, for the party's nomination.

Yet, Obama mounted an extraordinary grass-roots campaign, raised gobs of cash, and showed great fortitude and equanimity in the face of the Clinton juggernaut. He endured, and once the nomination was his, he set about uniting his divided party with an impressive display of magnanimity and diplomacy.

John McCain, meanwhile, crushed Mitt Romney to gain his party's nomination, but then blundered badly by not bringing the business-savvy Romney onto the ticket.
Romney would have shored up McCain's poor grasp of economic policy.

Then, out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.

Still, we have compelling reasons for endorsing Obama on his merits alone. Under the most intense scrutiny and attacks from both parties, Obama has shown the temperament, judgment, intellect and political acumen that are essential in a president that would lead the United States out of the crises created by President Bush, a complicit Congress and our own apathy.

The candidates' positions on issues are, in most cases, distinctly different, and no more so than in health care reform. McCain would make a bad system worse by deregulating an insurance industry that is the root of the problem. He would give every family a $5,000 refundable tax credit for purchasing the insurance of their choice, but would tax employer-provided health benefits. Obama's plan would require large employers to offer insurance, or contribute a percentage of payroll to offset the cost of taxpayer subsidies. People could buy into a private or a government-run plan, and the premiums would be subsidized by tax credits based on income.

On tax policy, Obama would sensibly increase taxes for individuals making more than $250,000 a year, while cutting taxes for everyone else. He also would send money to the states for public works improvements that would generate jobs. His intent to increase the capital gains tax, however, is foolhardy while businesses struggle to weather the economic meltdown. McCain would cut taxes for people in all income brackets, as well as mandate big reductions in corporate income taxes. It is a trickle-down plan that would do little to reduce the deficit.

McCain's foreign policy objectives virtually replicate Bush's disastrous course. His disdain for diplomacy is troubling, and his faith in eventual U.S. "victory" in Iraq is ill-defined. We simply cannot afford perpetual war. Obama knows this. And his nuanced approach would help America recover it's global prestige. Indeed, we see too many of Bush's failed policies in McCain's recipe for recovery.

The country desperately needs a new and well-defined road map for the 21st century and leadership that can unite the country behind it.

We believe that Barack Obama can give us both.

If you wonder how this is going over with their readers, check out the comments.

The People's Campaign

Incredible financial numbers being reported by the Barack Obama campaign for the month of September. A record 3.1 million individuals have donated during the entire campaign. The average donation has been $86. The top categories for these donations have been retirees and students, with many, many other categories along the way (see this video). And in September, a record 632,000+ new donors contributing a total in excess of ...
$150,000,000!!!!!
Awesome. The people want change. The people want an end to the last eight years of Republican malphesance and John McCain represents more of the same.
We're almost there. Keep fighting the fear and the smears and get out and show your support for Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates. And more donations will definitely be put to good use.
.

Nope. No racism here.

Fucking Ignorant Rednecks


.

Fact Check on McCain Attack

From TalkingPointsMemo:

Desperation: McCain Claims That Obama Voted To Let Babies Die
By Greg Sargent

Sheer desperation: John McCain hits Barack Obama for allegedly voting to let babies die.

The reference, of course, is to Obama's opposition to a measure in Illinois that would purportedly have provided care for babies born amid abortions -- something that was already legally required, anyway. The bill was widely viewed by critics as a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade.

To our ears, this is a more despicable smear than just about anything we've seen, worse than Ayers or anything else. It wreaks so overwhelmingly of desperation and dishonesty that it's incredible that McCain actually agreed to it when Steve Schmidt or whoever told him it would work and he really, really would score big points if he lobbed this attack tonight.

Chapter and verse on this ridiculous attack here and here.

.

3 - 0 ... a clean sweep

The final debate.
Tone: McCain once again angry, edgy and negative; Obama once again calm, cool, detailed and personable.
Obama = Presidential; McCain = Frantic & Erratic
John McCain's answers usually rambled and he veered from one talking point to the next in a spastic manner, the "kitchen sink" strategy that will leave most viewers saying ... "Huh?"
Barack Obama focused on the issues and his plans, speaking directly to the audience, steady and reassuring ... most people will likely say ... "What is there to fear?"
What continues to amaze me is how the talking heads and pundits continue to get the post debate analysis absurdly wrong. You expect the campaign surrogates and ideologues to stick with their man, but when the reporters and news people try to make their analysis fit the pre-debate projections it is sad and pathetic. These people saw all three of these debates through an old, dirty, scratched lens that said ... "The candidate who is aggressive and on the attack wins points" and "The candidate who is more cerebral is seen as soft and ineffective." But that was then and this is now.
Two wars that have us on our heels, an economy that has dropped us to our knees, eight years of lies and deceit from the Bush/Cheney administration, Katrina, Valerie Plame, US Attorney scandal, Guantanamo and torture, etc., etc., etc. The loud, aggressive, bellicose and supremely confident approach by Rove Republicans leaves a bitter taste in voters mouths. People want to hear about the issues, they want character, they want capable leadership, they want change.
So, while the pundits talked about McCain's aggressiveness putting Obama on the defensive, they weren't listening to the word the candidates were speaking. I think the public saw through the tactics and focused on the answers. And once again, the snap polls are hitting the pundits right between the eyes.
Obama overwhelmingly won the debate, the people are saying. Obama's favor ability numbers are rising and McCain's are falling.
And what do you know, suddenly the pundits change their language. John the Fighter becomes Angry John. John the Aggressor becomes Cranky Negative John. And they seem surprised that the public saw things so differently.
So, what now?
The trickle of Republican politicians running away from McCain to save their own skill will become a flood. The money the RNC has left will go to Senate and House races, not the presidential campaign. And Sarah Palin's people will start talking behind McCain's back about how she should have been at the top of the ticket instead of the old guy.
The next three weeks may still get pretty ugly with negative campaigning, but it won't change the election. This is Obama's time.


UPDATE
I love Duncan Black:

Pundits all agree: despite the fact that McCain looked like a demented lunatic, he won!

.

Hatred ... pure evil ... dangerous ...

Not so funny ...

Time for an intervention

Funny stuff!

Palin Posse couldn't shoot straight

Despite Sarah Palin's attempts to say she did nothing wrong, the bipartisan investigation determined that Palin broke state ethics laws:

From Kevin Drum:

TROOPERGATE FINALE.... I read most of the Branchflower report on Troopergate last night, but the MSM seemed to be doing a fine job of reporting the results all
its own so I never got around to posting about it.

The basic story, of course, revolves around Todd and Sarah Palin's crusade to get their ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, fired from his job as a state trooper, and their efforts to get Alaska's Commissioner of Public Safety, Walt Monegan, to do the firing. Most of this story is pretty well known already. However, Time's Nathan Thornburgh points out the aspect of the report that struck me as the most remarkable:

The result is not a mortal wound to Palin.... But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly
so.

The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor.

.... Monegan and his peers constantly warned these Palin disciples that the contact was inappropriate and probably unlawful. Still, the emails and calls continued — in at least one instance on recorded state trooper phone lines.

The state's head of personnel, Annette Kreitzer, called Monegan and had to be warned that personnel issues were confidential. The state's attorney general, Talis Colberg, called Monegan and had to be reminded that the call was putting both men in legal jeopardy, should Wooten decide to sue. The governor's chief of staff met with Monegan and had to be reminded by Monegan that, "This conversation is discoverable ... You don't want Wooten to own your house, do you?"

Monegan pointed out to a steady stream of people that (a) Wooten was protected by civil service and there was nothing more that could be done since he'd already gone through a formal disciplinary procedure, and (b) any conversation about Wooten was discoverable in court if Wooten ever got tired of being hounded and decided to file a civil suit. And yet the contacts kept coming and coming and coming — and coming and coming. And Branchflower documents them in painful detail. It's all quite
remarkable.

In fact, here's the part that really puzzles me: what exactly did Todd and Sarah Palin hope to accomplish? Surely they knew perfectly well that Monegan was right: he couldn't have fired Wooten even if he wanted to. And they must also have known that even if Monegan were replaced, any replacement would quickly check into the situation and report back the same thing. Wooten had already been disciplined, and unless something new cropped up there was simply nothing that anyone could do to force him out of his job. In fact, the Palins' efforts probably made it nearly impossible even to reassign Wooten since it would so obviously have been politically motivated. It was a completely futile crusade they were on.

So what were they thinking? Or were they?

They did it because they thought no one would dare to challenge them. They were used to strong-arming or sliming the opposition and winning, they thought this would be the same at the state level.

Here is a much more detailed analysis from Hilzoy.
.

More Obama newspaper endorsements

From Editor & Publisher:

From the Wisonsin State Journal:

America is at a pivotal point in its history — a difficult time that demands talented leadership to renew our nation's spirit and pull us together to meet the incredible challenges ahead.

The right leader for the time is Barack Obama.

The Wisconsin State Journal endorses the dynamic and youthful senator from Illinois for president.

Far more than his opponent, Obama represents a new direction. He has shown he can inspire and lead people to action. And his relatively short time in corrupt, self-absorbed, terribly-failed Washington, D.C., may actually be a key strength. Obama is not stuck in the status quo of the Capitol crowd or its long-failed Congress.

Obama doesn't just give pretty speeches. He speaks to people's best instincts, encouraging them to shine.

Obama is best-equipped this election to make America feel good about itself again. That's a powerful feeling — one that could go a long way toward invigorating our economy and national sense of purpose.

Obama is convincing in his call for a new kind of politics in Washington. His life story and history-making bid for the White House also have forced the rest of the world to view America in a new and more positive way.

An Obama presidency will immediately give America more clout and credibility around the globe. It will immediately win over and win back allies and friends.As much as other nations may fear American power and influence, they fear our potential decline even more.

America must not decline. America must remain a beacon of freedom, democracy, innovation and prosperity.

And that's why voting for the first-term senator is worth the risk.

Here is more from the Toledo Blade editorial referrenced in the post below:

The man who has emerged is young (47) but well-educated and accomplished, both as a state legislator and a member of the United States Senate. He is somewhat professorial but not stodgy, and in our direct contact with him he proved to be one of few politicians at his level with the capacity to actually listen to others and appreciate what they have to say.

During the campaign, Senator Obama also has shown himself to possess steely self-control, a single-minded focus, and endearing good humor in the face of specious attacks on everything from his biracial origin to his boyhood upbringing to his acquaintances during his political career in rough-and-tumble Chicago.

His calm and deliberate demeanor is particularly important because steadiness at the helm of government will be necessary to extricate the United States from its current crisis of confidence, both in politics and economics...

America needs a new direction, not just because the current administration's economic policies - not to mention its war-bound foreign policies - have contributed to our current problems, but because we have lost our way in terms of the proper relationship between government and the people and, more importantly, the responsibility we owe each other. Americans who view the future with optimism do not - even in the face of terrorism - give up the basic freedoms our revolutionary forefathers died to secure.

Sen. John McCain, by nature, has shown himself to be incapable of providing the American people with an optimistic vision of the future. Firmly rooted in the failed politics and policies of the past, he cannot guide us on a path he does not see.

Senator Obama already has demonstrated that he is a man of the future in the way he has inspired a new generation of voters to become involved in the political process and to actively strive for a better tomorrow.

As a president from another era suggested, Americans should ask themselves: Am I better off than I was eight years ago? Four years ago? The answer is obvious and, therefore, the option on Nov. 4 is clear.

Historically, Ohio has had a critical role in presidential elections and appears poised once again to be a key in deciding who sits in the Oval Office for the next four years. This is an awesome responsibility, and one that cannot be taken lightly. For the future of Ohio and America, there is only one reasonable choice for president: Barack Obama.
.

Obama newspaper endorsements

From The Hotline blog:

St. Louis PD, Toledo Blade, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette For Obama

Three battleground newspaper endorsements for Barack Obama this a.m. Each is located deep in the heart of the white working class constituencies Obama needs to win in November.

From the Toledo Blade:

For guidance in arriving at this momentous decision, the election of the next president of the United States, we can look to the sober lessons of history. Without exaggeration, the country faces a transformational election on Nov. 4, not unlike that of 1932, which prefaced Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and a long slog out of the Great Depression.

Like the choice 76 years ago, next month's election is one in which voters have the power to cast aside the failed, greed-driven principles of governance and economics that have led to the current downturn and return to an equilibrium in which hard work is again rewarded by a decent standard of living for the average American.

To be sure, the path to recovery won't be easy for the next president. There are ominous signs that the economy will continue to falter before confidence can be restored in the financial system. The leadership required to contain and reorder the economic mess created by eight years of heedless deregulation will have to be both inspired and inspiring.

We believe the person best equipped by temperament and intellect to firmly grasp the reins of government and guide it safely forward in these uncertain times is Barack Obama.

Like another member of Congress from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, Senator Obama initially rose to prominence on the strength of soaring oratory. Over the past 18 months of the grueling campaign, his background has been thoroughly inspected and dissected by the press and a political opposition dedicated to keeping him from the White House.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Mr. McCain is not the steady hand he purports to be, and nothing proves it more than his reckless selection of Sarah Palin, whose lack of knowledge to take over as president has becoming increasingly obvious and embarrassing. If Mr. McCain had chosen one of the many accomplished women in the Republican Party, his candidacy would have the stamp of seriousness. Instead, it bears the superficial imprint of pandering populism.

But this election is not just about the shortcomings of Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin and the failed legacy of a philosophy that they seek to perpetuate under the hastily erected banner of maverick.

It is about the strengths of Barack Obama, whose rise to prominence is not a fluke or national infatuation but the consequence of his remarkable skills -- a keen intellect, noble intentions and the wit and grace to express them in ways that have inspired millions across the country. He has a rare gift exactly suited to the fearful times -- he knows the language of reassurance and hope.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Over the past nine months, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions.

In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man. He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear.

He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, “Country First,” by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.

.

Voter Suppression is the Real Goal

I have to post a short blurb from Atrios followed by a full post from Joshua Marshall that is well worth the read.

This is the crux of the ACORN scandal that the Right is trying to hype. This is not voter fraud ... that happens at the polls and is extremely rare. This is fraud against ACORN by the people they hire to register voters. ACORN staff are not in a position to throw out voter registration forms, they submit them and the states must verify the voter registration forms, then the people at the polling places verify registered voters on election day. There are many checks and balances to the system. Are there a lot of bogus forms showing up in Secretary of State offices around an election? Probably? But their job is to verify them. Was it ACORN's intent to defraud? Doubtful. Anyone - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Communist -- can fill out a bogus registration form. In most cases, ACORN was flagging questionable forms before submitting them to draw the attention of the verifiers that they needed careful scrutiny. This is another political witchhunt by the politicized Justice Department and their cronies designed to discredit and disenfranchise low income and minority voters.

Here is Atrios:

Voter registration fraud is not voter fraud. In many states people who do voter registration are obligated to turn in forms even they're filled out by "Mickey Mouse." They're a conduit for the forms and don't have the right to determine which ones they turn in.

Here is Josh:

The Gist of the ACORN Story

The Republican party is grasping on to the ACORN story as a way to delegitimize what now looks like the probable outcome of the November election. It is also a way
to stoke the paranoia of their base, lays the groundwork for legal challenges of close outcomes in various states and new legal restrictions on voting by lower income voters and minorities. The big picture is that these claims of 'voter fraud' are themselves a fraud, a tool to aid in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. But I want give readers a bit more detail to understand what is going because the right-wing freak out about ACORN happens pretty much on schedule every two years. The whole scam is premised on having enough people who don't remember when they tried it before who they can confuse and lie to. And this is clearly important because I'm hearing from a lot of people whose heart is in the right place thinking some real voter fraud conspiracy has been uncovered and that Obama has to distance himself from it post-haste.

ACORN registers lots of lower income and/or minority voters. They operate all across the country and do a lot of things beside voter registration. What's key to understand is their method. By and large they do not rely on volunteers. They hire people -- often people with low incomes or even the unemployed. This has the dual effect of not only registering people but also providing some work and income for people who are out of work. But because a lot of these people are doing it for the money, inevitably, a few of them cut corners or even cheat. So, inevitably someone will end up filling out cards for nonexistent names and some of those slip through ACORN's own efforts to catch errors. It's important to note that in many of the recent ACORN cases that have gotten the most attention it's ACORN itself that has turned the people in who did the fake registrations.

These reports start buzzing through the right-wing media every two years and every time the anecdotal reports of 'thousands' of fraudulent registrations turns out, on closer inspection, to be either totally bogus themselves or wildly exaggerated. So thousands of phoney registrations ends up being, like, twelve. I've always had questions about whether this is a good way to do voter registration. And Democratic campaigns usually keep their distance. But here's the key.

This is fraud against ACORN. They end up paying people for more registering people then they eventually signed up. If you register me three times to vote, the registrar will see two new registrations of an already registered person and the ones won't count. If I successfully register Mickey Mouse to vote, on election day, Mickey Mouse will still be a cartoon character who cannot go to the local voting station and vote. Logically speaking there's very little way a few phony names on the voting rolls could be used to commit vote fraud. And much more importantly, numerous studies and investigations have shown no evidence of anything more than a handful of isolated casing of actual instances of vote fraud.

To expand on this point let me quote from Richard Hasen, one of the most experienced and concise commentators on this question, from a June 2007 column in the Dallas Morning News ...

"At least in hindsight, the center's line of argument is easily deconstructed. First, arguing by anecdote is dangerous business. A new report by Lorraine Minnite of Barnard College looks at these anecdotes and shows them to be, for the most part, wholly spurious. Sure, one can find a rare case of someone voting in two jurisdictions, but nothing extensive or systematic has been unearthed or documented.

"But perhaps most importantly, the idea of massive polling-place fraud (through the use of inflated voter rolls) is inherently incredible. Suppose I want to swing the
Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead or missing people on the registration rolls are, then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be that person, without any return guarantee - thanks to the secret ballot - that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate.

"Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected and charged with a felony. And for what - $10? Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.

"The Justice Department devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out fraud over five years and appears to have found not a single prosecutable case across the country. Of the many experts consulted, the only dissenter from that position was a representative of the now-evaporated American Center for Voting Rights."

Again, there have been numerous investigations of this. Often by people with at least a mild political interest in finding wrongdoing. But they never find it. It always ends up being right-wing hype and lies.

Remember, most of those now-famous fired US Attorneys from 2007 were Republican appointees who were canned after they got tasked with investigating allegations of widespread vote fraud, did everything they could to find it, but came up with nothing. That was the wrong answer so Karl Rove and his crew at the Justice Department fired them.

Vote registration fraud is a limited and relatively minor problem in the US today. But it is principally an administrative and efficiency issue. It is has little or nothing to do with people casting illegitimate votes to affect an actual election. That's the key. What you're hearing right now from Fox News, the New York Post, John Fund and the rest of the right-wing bamboozlement chorus is a just another effort to exploit, confuse and lie in an effort to put more severe restrictions on legitimate voting and lay the groundwork to steal elections.

It's that simple.

.

Where'd everyone go?

After several weeks of a steady stream of commenters on this blog, my comment sections have been empty for the past several days. Hmmm. Was it something I said?

Perhaps the Right Winged ones have stepped away from their keyboards to go buy their pitchforks and tar and feather for Barack Obama? Or maybe they have become disillusioned with their candidate, who says he will run an clean and honorable campaign but in the face of plummeting poll numbers has embraced one of the ugliest, hate-filled campaigns ever? Or maybe they are resigned to their losses come November 4? Or maybe they all decided to go on vacation at the same time ... maybe even together?

Whatever the reason, I sure do hope they come back soon to share their talking points, smears and lies. But please, do me a favor. Let's spice this blog up a little.

Many, not all but many of my commenters are "anonymous" and that is soooo vanilla. I know there are reasons that some people want to avoid using their real names. That's cool. But "anonymous"? How boring! Come on, people! You can do better than that? Find a nickname or just string a few vowels and consonants together and go with that. Anything is better than "anonymous," right?

Do you need some ID suggestions? Here's a few: Shasta, Nicky, Buffalo Gal, Lobo, Sebastian, Elvira, Bunny, Camaro Chick, Blondie, Self-Made Gal, Archie Bunker, David Duke, Big Mama, etc., etc., etc.

See? I came up with those in just a few minutes. You all can do better than anonymousis.
.

More ignorance and vile hatred

A disturbing video from bloggerinterrupted:

It’s no wonder that the slightest incitement from Sarah Palin or John McCain will turn one of their rallies into a lynch mob. Just talk to the folks who attend. My camera was rolling for literally seconds before people happily said to me, on camera, that Barack Obama is a terrorist.
...
Bonus footage of people claiming they know Sarah Palin better than they know Barack, and in fact, never heard of Barack.

I’ve been doing blog video for a while, and presidential rallies a lot longer. And this is the most strange, ignorant, uninformed, angry, up-to-no-good, and gullible group of people I’ve ever seen at a political rally.

.

WTF?

Hat tip to Kos

Drunk Ignorant Rednecks

Brace yourselves before you watch this.

As Andrew Sullivan writes: Sit down, take a deep breath and get a better idea of why the people introducing Palin and McCain keep referring to Barack Hussein Obama:
.


.

Palin: a "fatal cancer" to her party who "celebrates ignorance"

I'm not a fan of New York Times columnist David Brooks for a number of reasons, one of which I often don't think he really believes what he is writing, he is just writing what he thinks he needs to to support the Republican Party. On Monday he spoke from the heart in an interview and, what do you know, he said some things he hasn't said in print. Maybe he should write a column based on these comments from an article by Danny Shae:

David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg at New York's Le Cirque restaurant to unveil that magazine's redesign, Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard:

"[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."

Brooks praised Palin's natural political talent, but said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president. He explained,

"The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

The New York Times columnist also said that the "great virtue" of Palin's counterpart, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, is that he is anything but a "yes man."

"[Biden] can't not say what he thinks," Brooks remarked. "There's no internal monitor, and for Barack Obama, that's tremendously important to have a vice president who will be that way. Our current president doesn't have anybody like that."

Brooks also spent time praising Obama's intellect and skills in social perception, telling two stories of his interactions with Obama that left him "dazzled":

"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

"And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception."

Brooks predicted an Obama victory by nine points, and said that although he found Obama to be "a very mediocre senator," he is surrounded by what Brooks called "by far the most impressive people in the Democratic party."

"He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes. So again, I have doubts about him just because he was such a mediocre senator, but his capacity to pick staff is impressive."

I think Sarah Palin scares the old guard in the Republican Party. She is dangerous. And if her political career (or FOX TV career) takes off after the McCain/Palin defeat in November she may one day be a presidential nominee, but I predict it won't be for the Republican Party. If she has a future, it is in a third party movement.

Here is more from "a prominent Republican Party professional" writing to Jay Carney at Swampland:

"Fascinating.

She really is what Bush pretends to be -- she 's a true anti-intellectual. She's has this very Pentecostal view of the world. We don't need to study the Bible, we don't need ministers, we can just feel the spirit and let the spirit speak through us. It's this classically Alaskan value system that places experience over all other values. I know what mothers need because I am a mother.

We don't need to read or even learn because that just fills our heads with confusing ideas and facts and figures. We feel.

Bush plays at this anti-elite stuff but he's Harvard/Yale/Andover, all of that. She is really a celebration of a glorious know-nothingness that is truly dangerous....

She's terrifying and represents a streak of the Republican party that is a permanent minority. She will not play well with suburban women in Montgomery County [OH]. They want their kids to go to good schools and college. Palin basically says that isn't necessary. You can just speak plainly from the heart and that's good enough. But that's how you end up a fish picker from Alaska.

It's not that she is an idiot that bothers me. It's that she celebrates non-learning and anti-knowledge. She celebrates ignorance.

Terrifying."

No shit!

.

One of the most appalling campaigns we can remember

New York Times Editorial Board:

Politics of Attack

It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

...

Ninety minutes of forced cordiality did not erase the dismal ugliness of his campaign in recent weeks, nor did it leave us with much hope that he would not just return to the same dismal ugliness on Wednesday.

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult.

...

Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.

Mr. McCain’s aides haven’t even tried to hide their cynical tactics, saying they were “going negative” in hopes of shifting attention away from the financial crisis — and by implication Mr. McCain’s stumbling response.

We certainly expected better from Mr. McCain, who once showed withering contempt for win-at-any-cost politics. He was driven out of the 2000 Republican primaries by this sort of smear, orchestrated by some of the same people who are now running his campaign.

And the tactic of guilt by association is perplexing, since Mr. McCain has his own list of political associates he would rather forget.

In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.

But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.

.

A two-fer from the Post

Two tidbits from Kathleen Parker:

FIRST

"Who won? Overall, I’d say that it was a fairly even split, with Obama oozing good guyness and connecting with everyday Americans over the economy and McCain inspiring confidence that he’s the man when it comes to national security and foreign policy. No surprises there.

Obama also inspires confidence, but in a completely different way than McCain. He’s a cat. He’s doesn’t sweat... anything. He is the envy of cucumbers. When everything is collapsing around him -- the economy, the Dow, the job market -- Obama is perched on the stool like Frank Sinatra between sets. Got a light? That’s not insignificant, I think. At the same time, when he talks, he sounds perfectly reasonable -- not at all the pal of radicals who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
...
Obama has a knack for connecting without condescending, which engenders trust. He seems to say, look, I get it. We’ll work it out together. He’s Bill Clinton without the lip biting.
...
But McCain tripped on his own lines by emphasizing the need for experience, saying this isn’t a time for on-the-job training. We couldn’t agree more, so tell us again why you picked Sarah Palin as your Heartbeat Away?

McCain was weird when he mentioned hair transplants and rude when he said “that one,” pointing to Obama, the U.S. senator from Illinois. (See You Tube.) He was smart and clever when responding to whether Russia is an evil empire.

"Maybe,” he said. “If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.”

Obama answered the same question as a psychologically aware parent, who says of his child: “You’re not bad, but you’re acting badly.” Russia is guilty of evil behavior and nationalist impulses that are bad, Obama said. The message to naughty children and nations is that though you misbehave, we still love you and want to help you be better.

Ultimately, Obama probably came out on top, if only because he’s in the winner’s seat and only had to not fall off ..."

SECOND

When John McCain pointed to Barack Obama and said "That one" during the debate - pointing to his opponent as one who had voted for an energy bill loaded with goodies for the oil companies - I emailed a friend and said, "Tell me he didn't say, 'That one'."

The exact quote: "You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me."

McCain supporters have tried to explain what he meant, but there's a reason it was so stunning in the moment. I'm don't think it was racist, as some have argued. But it was objectifying. "That one" isn't the same as "that man." One is an object; the other is a person. A human being. 'That one' has a dehumanizing effect and one is right to recoil.

Giving McCain the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he was merely expressing contempt for Obama's position and the implicit hypocrisy. Even so, McCain would do well to recognize why people are upset about it. Given the heat of recent rhetoric aimed at painting Obama as The Other, the McCain campaign must work harder to find the high road he used to travel and from which he has strayed.

.

With friends like these ...

They try to tie Barack Obama to William Ayers, but the tiny thread is elusive.

But Todd Palin was a member of a political party that wanted secession from the U.S. How patriotic!

The Palins' un-American activities
Imagine if the Obamas had hooked up with a violently anti-American group in league with the government of Iran.
By David Talbot

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")

AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of gal. "She's Alaskan to the bone ... she sounds just like Joe Vogler."

So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin' around with?

Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America. Vogler, who always carried a Magnum with him, was fond of saying, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don't have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die."
...
The Republican ticket is working hard this week to make Barack Obama's tenuous connection to graying, '60s revolutionary Bill Ayers a major campaign issue. But the Palins' connection to anti-American extremism is much more central to their political biographies."

He was a member.

Someone needs to ask him why and what he found so attractive about the party.

UPDATE: Here is a great video from Jed.

.

How low can he go?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/


.

“I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

A must-read by Thomas Friedman at the New York Times. He takes a look at Sara Palin's response to Joe Biden's statement that it is "patriotic" to pay your fair share of taxes.

"...There was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.”

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

I only wish she had been asked: “Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

...

How in the world can conservative commentators write with a straight face that this woman should be vice president of the United States? Do these people understand what serious trouble our country is in right now?

...

Whether or not I agree with John McCain, he is of presidential timber. But putting the country in the position where a total novice like Sarah Palin could be asked to steer us through possibly the most serious economic crisis of our lives is flat out reckless. It is the opposite of conservative. "

.

Presidential in every way

Another solid, respectful and presidential debate performance by Senator Barack Obama. He continues to win over Independents with his calm, cool demeanor and more detailed policy answers. People see a man who is smart, articulate, introspective, compassionate, and inspirational. On the other hand, you have Senator John McCain staying in the past, throwing up hail-mary policy suggestions, and demonstrating a crankiness that is unbecoming. Without a knockout punch McCain can't win, and tonight he hardly touched Obama. The snap polls show that Obama won, and the pundits seem to agree this time. Tomorrow and in the coming days you will see the polls stay where they are or continue to slide Obama's way.

The best polling site on the Web is http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/.
Check it out!
.

Whose associations are more dangerous?

From Harold Myerson in the Washington Post:

But if the McCain people want to rummage through presidential candidates' associations, real or imagined, to turn up figures who threaten to pull down this proud republic, they should begin in-house. Chief among those to whom responsibility attaches for the financial crisis that is plunging the nation into recession is former Texas senator Phil Gramm, McCain's own economic guru.

Gramm was always Wall Street's man in the Senate. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee during the Clinton administration, he consistently underfunded the Securities and Exchange Commission and kept it from stopping accounting firms from auditing corporations with which they had conflicts of interest. Gramm's piece de resistance came on Dec. 15, 2000, when he slipped into an omnibus spending bill a provision called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), which prohibited any governmental regulation of credit default swaps, those insurance policies covering losses on securities in the event they went belly up. As the housing bubble ballooned, the face value of those swaps rose to a tidy $62 trillion. And as the housing bubble burst, those swaps became a massive pile of worthless paper, because no government agency had required the banks to set aside money to back them up.

The CFMA also prohibited government regulation of the energy-trading market, which enabled Enron to nearly bankrupt the state of California before bankrupting itself.

The problem with this exercise, of course, is that Gramm's relationship to McCain is not comparable to the relationships that Ayers or Wright have with Obama. The idea that either Ayers or Wright would have any impact on the workings of an Obama administration is nonsensical. But Gramm and McCain do have an enduring political and economic alliance. McCain chaired Gramm's short-lived presidential campaign in 1996; Gramm is co-chair of McCain's current effort. McCain has not repudiated reports that Gramm is on the shortlist to become Treasury secretary if McCain is elected, even after Gramm labeled America "a nation of whiners."

If we are to believe his managers, McCain will charge into tomorrow night's debate seeking to "change the subject" from the economy to Obama's dangerous liaisons. It's not, however, likely to be a winning tactic. Obama will argue that in a time of deepening economic crisis, the public deserves a debate in which the candidates focus on their ideas for recovery rather than tendentious attacks on their rival's presumed associates. If pressed, though, he can mention that it is McCain's senior economic adviser who has diminished American solvency and power beyond the wildest dreams of anti-American terrorists.

Whether it is McCain or Obama, take a good look at who will follow them into Washington.
.

Pay up, Sarah!

The Palin's may have received bad advice from their tax preparer, but it was bad advice, and they should pay their fair share. It's the patriotic thing to do!

Tax Profs Agree: Gov. Palin's Tax Returns Are Wrong

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.

Jack Bogdanski, There's No
Debate: Palins Owe Thousands in Back Taxes:
There is no serious debate (at least, none that has been brought to our attention) about the fact that at least the amounts paid for the children's travel -- $24,728.83 in 2007, according to the Washington Post -- are taxable. The campaign's tax lawyer has got at least that much of the law, and perhaps more, wrong. ... The Palins, who had their tax returns done by HR Block, simply got it wrong. And the fact that the state payroll office got it wrong, too, doesn't erase the Palins' unpaid tax liability.

Bryan Camp, A Brief Analysis of Governor Palin's Tax Returns for 2006 and 2007:
The release of an opinion letter by attorney Roger M. Olsen dated September 30, 2008, has stirred up the pot once again about the accuracy of Sarah and Todd Palin’s 2006 and 2007 tax returns. Not only that, but Mr. Olsen’s letter raises a couple
of new issues.

This paper focuses on five problems: three raised in the tax returns and two new ones raised by Mr. Olsen’s letter. Here’s a summary of the five problems and my conclusions, for those who want to cut to the chase. My analysis will follow.

The Palins did not report as income some $17,000 that Governor Palin’s employer (the State of Alaska) paid her as an “allowance” for her travel. Can they do that? Yes, most likely.

The Palins did not report as income some $43,000 that the State of Alaska paid the Governor as an “allowance” for her husband and children’s travel. Can they do that? No, most likely not.

The Palins deducted $9,000 on their 2007 return, claiming it was a loss from Mr. Palin’s snow machine racing activity. Can they do that? Most likely not, but more info could make the deduction o.k. If any of the above issues goes against the Palins they then risk getting hit with the section 6662 penalty for “negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.”

Can the Palins avoid the section 6662 negligence penalty by claiming that they reasonably relied either (a) on the W-2’s sent to them by their employer, which did not reflect either the $17,000 or the $43,000, or (b) on their tax return preparer H&R Block, or (c) on Mr. Olsen’s opinion letter dated September 30, 2008? The three reliance defenses are unlikely to succeed, but more info may make the (b) defense a good one.

Does Mr. Olsen have any exposure to sanctions by the IRS because of his letter? I believe Mr. Olsen’s letter probably violates 31 C.F.R. section 10.35.
If so, he would be exposed to possible sanctions from the IRS Office of
Professional Responsibility.

.

Sarah 'Embarracuda' Palin

A great post (with an awesome title) here by Joe Klein at Swampland:

Embarracuda

I'm of two minds about how to deal with the McCain campaign's further descent into ugliness. Their strategy is simple: you throw crap against a wall and then giggle as the media try to analyze the putresence in a way that conveys a sense of balance: "Well, it is bull-pucky, but the splatter pattern is interesting..." which, of course, only serves to get your perverse message out.

I really don't want to be a part of that. But...every so often, we journalists have a duty to remind readers just how dingy the McCain campaign, and its right-wing acolytes in the media (I'm looking at you, Sean Hannity) have become -- especially in their efforts to divert public attention from the economic crisis we're facing. And so inept at it: other campaigns have decided that their only shot is going negative, but usually they don't announce it, as several McCain aides have in recent days--there's no way we can win on the economy, so we're going to go sludge-diving.

...

It is appropriate that the prime vessel for this assault is Sarah Palin, whose very presence on a national ticket is an insult to your intelligence. She now has "credibility," we are told, because she managed to read talking points off notecards in the debate last week with unwitting enthusiasm.

Over the weekend, she picked up on an article in The New York Times, which essentially says that Barack Obama and the former terrorist Bill Ayers have crossed paths in Chicago, served on a couple of charitable boards together, but aren't particularly close. To Palin--or her scriptwriters--this means that Obama has been "palling around" with terrorists.

...

This is rather rich coming from Palin, who is married to a man who belonged to a political party--the Alaskan Independence Party--that wanted to secede from the union.

...

Then we have the ever-reliable Bill Kristol, in today's New York Times, advising Palin to bring up the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Palin, of course, believes that's a darn good idea:

...

So then, I'd guess, it would be appropriate to bring up some of the nuttiness that passes for godliness in Palin's religious life. Leave aside the fact that The Embarracuda allowed herself to participate in a cermony that protected her from witchcraft, how about her presence--she didn't "get up and leave"-- at a sermon by the founder of Jews for Jesus, who argued that the Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel were God's "judgment" on the Jews because they hadn't accepted Jesus.

As I said, I'm of two minds about this. I don't want to give currency to this sewage, ... And I'll try to devote the lion's share of my time to the issues -- the war, the economic crisis, the fraying health insurance system, the environment -- that should define this campaign.

But what a desperate empty embarrassment the McCain campaign has become.

McCain/Palin have nothing, nothing to offer the American people right now. Their campaign is doomed unless they can slather on the political slime and filth to Barack Obama. I think the American people are fed up with this type of politics right now and not only want change, they want solutions. McCain/Palin offer neither.
.

Redefining Feminism

Another reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog compares Sarah Palin's cutesy debate act to other women in powerful positions:

From Thatcher To Palin

A reader chimes in:

"I just want to ask: can anyone, anyone, imagine Condoleeza Rice or Margaret Thatcher or even Hillary Clinton for God's sake, winking at the nation and/or being coquettish in any national format? Yeah. Just checking."

The damage John McCain's baldfaced sexism and Sarah Palin's cocktail waitress act have done to American feminism has yet to be fully assessed. Palin has actually forced me to realize that, however much I despise Hillary Clinton, I have never doubted her professionalism and capacity to fight and win on her own terms in a male-dominated world by meeting and exceeding the standards of any male counterpart. (It was not her fault she ran against the political genius of his generation.) I cannot even imagine her winking and flirting on stage, although the New Hampshire tears were a bit of a stunt.

Thatcher remains the standard. She was not above using feminine wiles in charming individuals; but in public, in debate, in the Commons, she beat men at their own game, using nothing but knowledge, forensics, expertise, argument and courage.

From Thatcher to Palin is not a slide downwards for conservative women. It's a free-fall. And McCain did it.

.

Remember, 9-11 was an economic attack

A reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog notes some comments on last night's Bill Maher show:

Is Bin Laden's Strategy Working?
A reader writes:

"Last night on Bill Maher, the comedian Gary Shandling, of all people, synthesized the connection between our current economic crisis and 9/11 and the Iraq War in a way I have not heard:

On 9/11, Al Qaeda had no expectation of a traditional military victory against the United States. The point of the attack was economic -- to draw the U.S. into expensive and protracted foreign wars that would deplete our resources and destabilize our government. By invading Iraq, George Bush became the happy idiot to assist Al Qaeda in this goal. Now, Sarah Palin and John McCain take the leaders of Al Qaeda at their word when they say Iraq is the major front in the war on terror.

Neither consider the possibility that Al Qaeda wants Iraq to be the major front because it furthers their goal of weakening the U.S. while inflicting minimal damage on their operations.

Seven years after 9/11, we are seeing Al Qaeda's long-term goal being realized: the destabilization and economic collapse of the United States. Even as it's happening, the people who supported it all along want to continue facilitating our own long-term disintegration by clinging to simplistic concepts of traditional military victory and defeat. In this sense, they are possibly the most myopic, least strategic thinkers in the history of this nation.

As Gary Shandling said, with this approach, our only hope of killing Osama Bin Laden is that he'll laugh himself to death."

My fear is that the real goal is not just to entrap the West in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of our lives but to trigger an even greater conflagration by being baited into a first strike on Iran. Yes: I know Shiite Iran and Sunni al Qaeda have little in common. But both must be loving the West's self-inflicted wounds of the past seven years and greatly anticipating the hotheaded McCain taking even more bait even further. Palin? Never in their wildest dreams ...

.

Barbaric Cruelty, Not Sport

Watch this powerful video and note the pic of Sarah Palin near the end. From Andrew Sullivan:

Sarah Palin is an enthusiastic supporter of killing defenseless animals from the air, and offered helicopter and airplane shooters of wolves $150 each for a severed front leg of a wild wolf. But most are shot defenselessly from the air, often not killed outright and left to die on the ground. Palin enthusiastically defends this cruelty. You can find out more here. It is no accident that the Humane Society Legislative Fund has decided to endorse Obama for president this year. They have never endorsed a president before.

McCain is right!

Choo choo!

(Courtesy of Kdoug)

Associating with the wrong people?

The New York Times ran a big story today on the scope of any relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. From CNN:

"... an article in Saturday's New York Times about Obama's relationship with Ayers, now 63. But that article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the
idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.

Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago."

Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama and said he associated with terrorists. This Times' article shows that this is a big stretch and that it is a fairly weak attack from Republicans. But it does open up some renewed scrutiny on the Palin's relationship with a radical political party in Alaska that advocated for seceeding from the United States of America. Here is Josh Marshall:

Palin Around with Traitors
By Josh Marshall

Sarah Palin is accusing Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." But isn't her husband a former member of a political party which has treason against the United States as its central tenet?

Answer: yes.

UPDATE:

When You're Losing
by BarbinMD

John McCain is afraid to run on the war, he's afraid to run on health care, and he's terrified to run on the economy, so he's going to go for fear and smear. It's all John McCain has left. And as McCain campaign manager Rick Davis once said:

"The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don't agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter's basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate's natural supporters. [...]

I's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness."

Davis wrote that in 2000, decrying George Bush's smear campaign against John McCain during the South Carolina primary, saying that:

"Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues."

And of course today, the last thing John McCain wants to do is to talk about the issues.

.