Fox News Gets Even Lower; Mangles Clinton Quote

Fox's lead story on their website today has a subtitle:

Bill Clinton says at a rally that Barack Obama called a round of advisers during the height of the economic crisis and said, "tell me what ... to do."

With this quote Fox News managed to make Obama look lost and like he did not know what to do in the crisis and to perpetuate the myth that Bill Clinton wants to torpedo Obama. In fact they say as much in the article:

And when John McCain suspended his campaign to dive head first into the fray, Obama's campaign accused the Republican of being "unsteady."

But to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.

However that quote is so mangled, misused and taken out of context as to be a complete joke. The full quote of what Clinton thinks Obama said to his advisers is as follows (remember this quote comes from Bill Clinton, who is paraphrasing Obama in conversations with his advisers that Bill Clinton could not possibly have personally heard)

"He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"

Out of this quote Fox takes two parts of it, adds some ellipses in between and comes up with Obama asking "tell me what...to do." However Clinton claims Obama actually said, "tell me what the right thing to do is." There is a major difference. It is the difference between looking completely lost; and as was the case, asking advisers to come up with the right solution to a complex problem.

There is also no explanation for why you would shorten that quote. with the ellipses It is the difference between this:

Tell me what the right thing to do is.

and this:

Tell me what ... to do

Those ellipses are not a big space saver are they? But they sure do change the quote to make Obama look lost!

don't think this flies with the average voter and it says nothing about Obama accept that he seeks the advice of wise people in complex matters. However, it says a great deal about fox news. This is the most egregious example this election of a news organization taking a quote out of context and mangling it to suite an agenda. In this case to perpetuate the myth that there is a fued between Obama and Clinton and to make Obama look lost during the economic crisis, neither of which are true.

For a different perspective on Obama during the crisis see Joe Klein from Time magazines reporting on the matter here and here.

Polling Frenzy! Prohibit Election Eve Polling?

If you read any of the major political blogs, or follow much of Mainstream Political Media, you will have noticed the polling frenzy taking place. You will have seen so many polls and analyzes of polls that your head is probably spinning. I find them as interesting as anyone and love following the trends in the horse race, but is this a good thing for democracy? Not to mention, publishing the results of early voting, which gives later voters the advantage of knowing where the race actually stands when they vote.

I would argue that publishing the results of polls, and even worse early voting results, unduly influences public opinion, suppresses turnout, discourages substantive debate and adds to the divisiveness of our politics. First, many voters stay home because the polls show the election is already decided, thereby suppressing turnout. Second, when a voter knows who is leading in a race there can be a bandwagon effect. There may also be other effects on the strategic decision making for voters as it relates to third parties.

Third, it encourages the media to obsess over the horse race rather than analyze actual policies, which discourages substantive debate. Fourth, the worst of all, is the constant slicing and dicing of the electorate into voting groups based on race, sex, income, education, region and religious affiliation. It just adds to the perceived divisions in the country.

My friend recently reminded me of an interesting aspect of the Italian political system. According to the Italian par condicio law, it is forbidden to publish any opinion polling in the 15 days which precede the election.

I propose we do as the Italians do. Im sure there will be 1st amendment challenges and the polling and news industry would go nuts, but if it can survive those legal challenges, I think it would be a wise thing to do. Granted the Italians don't have the greatest political system in the world, but in this case I think they are right to prohibit opinion polls on the eve of elections.

UPDATE: Just by coincidence, Slate just considered this very question!

Assassination Plot or Political Distraction

Salon's Alex Koppleman has questioned the seriousness of the threat that the alleged assassination plot actually posed to Obama and I agree that it was minimal. Ofcourse all threats should be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. Obviously these guys sound like scumbags and probably should have been arrested, but according to the ATF affidavit, they also do not sound very intelligent or to have been capable of forming a serious threat to Obama. But some questions linger.

It may sound conspiratorial, but the timing of the story is dubious. Ted Stevens guilty plea, which came just minutes before the assassination plot was announced, raises the question of whether this assassination charge was delayed or inflated to draw attention away from the long serving Republican Senators' guilty verdict. The Stevens verdict came down right after lunch., sometime around 2pm. The ATF claim was released very shortly thereafter. According to the affidavit supporting the charges and complaint, the complaint was filed on October 24th, which is more than 3 days ago. The local authorities arrested the suspects last Wednesday, almost 6 days ago. Why the delay?

The AP reports the following:

Jasper Taylor, city attorney in Bells, said Cowart was arrested on Wednesday. He was held for a few days in Bells, then moved over the weekend to another facility.

"It was kept under lid until today," Taylor said.

No explanation was offered for "keeping a lid" on the story.

Remember also that the ATF is under the auspices of, the much politicized, Department of Justice. This office of the executive branch has been politicized by the Bush Administration and may have been used as a tool to distract attention from the Stevens indictment and to re-ignite the issue of race and the threat of assassination right before the election. It will be very difficult to prove such a claim, but at the very least, it exposes yet another reason that the politicization of the Department of Justice is so harmful. Questions about politicization will be injected into criminal matters such as these. Why are these charges being brought by the ATF and not the FBI or secret service?

The ATF affidavit explains that the Obama assassination attempt involved, a high powered rifle, the suspects driving their car directly at Obama while shooting, wearing white tuxedos and top hats, and perhaps dying in the act. Sounds like a cowboy fantasy. The document also explains that the pair thought about and began to undertake, but "chickened out" on actually committing, a home robbery. So all in all, the allegation includes a great deal of talk between this pair about what they were going to do, without any actual follow through. Remember that these allegations are being recounted in this affidavit by an ATF officer. Therefore the evidence, so far, provided consists of recounting of discussions between the two suspects as interpeted by the ATF officer and detailed in this affidavit. Otherwise the details and evidence are vague.

The AP reported that

The secret service said "We don't discount anything," Zahren said, adding that it's one thing for the defendants to make statements, but it's not the same as having an organized assassination plan.

I'm not saying that threats should not be taken seriously and perhaps these guys are rightfully in custody. However, one thing is clear though, this plan to kill Obama is ludicrous on its face and likely posed little threat of actually succeeding. Questions remain, however, about the timing of the release of this story and whether it may involved further politicization of the DOJ.

UPDATE:
ABC news is reporting that Obama's secret service detail was not even informed of the plot because it was not a serious threat to his safety. The plot was more aspirational than a realistic threat.

Wealth Redistribution

The McCain campaign is now arguing that Obama is a socialist and would redistribute wealth. My favorite example of this charge is Biden's interview with the local Florida TV Station in which the reporter, an obvious right winger married to a GOP strategist, asks him if Obama is a Marxist. His reactions are really funny and appropriately dismissive.

The argument is ridiculous for a lot of reasons not the least of which is that the government is, by its very nature, a wealth redistribution mechanism. You'll recall that the American Revolution came about because of "taxation without representation". Implicit in that slogan is the acceptance that taxes are a permissible role of government, so long as it is part of a representative democracy. Taxation, and thereby Government, are inherently a redistribution of wealth and for centuries have been considered good and necessary.

The debate should not be whether wealth redistribution is good. That question has been answered in the affirmative by hundreds of years of social advancement. The question is how much wealth should be redistributed and to what end should it be redirected. That is the choice in this election.

Both candidates support the concept of taxation, which is redistributive. McCain proposes to continue the current wealth redistribution system, which has concentrated wealth at the top.

Obama is also proposing to redistribute wealth, by no means much more than McCain, to a broader middle and lower class. The top tax bracket over the course of this century has ranged from a high of 95% to somewhere around 30%. Even up until the 1970s the top tax rate was 70%.

The current top rate is now 36% and Obama is proposing to raise that to 39%, affecting a small percentage of people making over 200K, and still at the low end of historical top tax brackets. Whereas McCain is proposing to keep the top tax rate somewhere in the mid 30s% as well. Regardless of who wins the top tax rate is still half of what it was historically and it will surely be redistributing wealth.

The election does not present a choice of wealth redistribution or not, it is a question of having a top tax rate of 36% or 39%.

McCain's Dismal Economic Performance

Much of the pundit class is giving John McCain a pass for his awful performance on economic matters despite that being incredibly relevant to the decision voters will make in 8 days. Assuming that the economic crisis is a natural explanation for McCain's fall and Obama's rise in the polls gives McCain a pass that he does not deserve.

I understand that the incumbent President is a drag on McCain, but the economic crisis is not the only explanation for McCain following Bush downward in the polls. In fact, the reason McCain has seen such a drop in the polls is not because there IS an economic crisis, rather it is because he has been erratic, reckless and unhelpful in the economic crisis. Lets take a look at his performance.

Even until May of 2008 McCain was proposing a gas tax holiday. He may actually still support that measure, I'm not sure. I think every major economist has come out against that proposal because lowering the price of gasoline would simply increase demand. For many reasons we do not want to be increasing demand for gasoline while losing much needed revenue for road and transportation improvements.

Then McCain's erratic flip flops began. On March 26th, 2008 McCain unequivocally rejected aide for homeowners struggling with mortgages. McCain said,

It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.

By April 11 McCain had completely shifted and said,

There is nothing more important than keeping alive the American dream to own your home, and priority No. 1 is to keep well-meaning, deserving homeowners who are facing foreclosure in their homes.

This is a total change in position and sparked the beginning of McCain's erratic handling of the economy. To add to this list, look at what McCain has said on regulation. Several years ago McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. "I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal. Now obviously McCain has seen the light on regulation.

In another bizarre McCain episode, during the height of the AIG bailout and financial turmoil McCain then called for the firing of the SEC Chairman Cox, which the conservative George Will called "decidely unPresidential". Perhaps it is unpresidentail because it is also literally outside the scope of Presidential Authority to fire the SEC chairman. Aside from the President not being able to fire the SEC chairman, during a time of crisis firing the SEC chairman would simply promote further panic. A crisis is a time to increase confidence in governmnet, not undermine it. McCain's reaction reaked of panic and fell flat.

And the king of all McCain erratic moves was the incredible campaign suspension followed by a White House meeting where McCain had absolutely nothing to say or offer in the heat of the economic crisis. That meeting likely contributed to the delay of the bailout, a week that economist now say will seriously damage the economy. McCain then is crazy enough to suggest that the bailout delay was Obama's fault! The campaign suspension has largely been seen as a political stunt, which I believe, more than any other single event (perhaps save the Palin choice), has caused McCain's drop in the polls.

The economic crisis presented an opportunity for both candidates to show their style, crisis management skills and economic understanding. McCain could have used the economic crisis to overcome his incumbent party disadvantage on the economy, but rather exacerbated that disadvantage by making ill-advised impulsive decisions that hurt his campaign and the economy.

For these reasons it is McCain who is responsible for his fall in the polls, not President Bush, not the economy or the crisis surrounding it. McCain actually made Bush look calm and Presidential during the economic crisis, which is no easy feat. More importantly Bush and McCain together made Obama look wildly Presidential in comparison.

Fox News Exec: Election will turn on deranged girl!

This blog post by the Executive Vice President of Fox News, John Moody, trying to place an inordinate amount of relevance on the face mutilation story (now revealed to be a hoax) is amazingly insane and worth reprinting in its entirety. Mr. Moody writes:

It had to happen.

Less than two weeks before we vote for a new president, a white woman says a black man attacked her, then scarred her face, and says there was a political motive for it.

Ashley Todd, a 20-year-old white volunteer for John McCain’s presidential campaign, says she was mugged at an ATM machine in Pittsburgh (my hometown) by a big black man. She further says he threw her down, then disfigured her by carving the letter “B” into her face with a sharp implement when he saw that she supported McCain, not Barack Obama.

Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination.

That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand.

Can this man be any more illogical and lacking in substance? Although the victim has now admitted her story was a hoax, this blog post should go down in history as one of the worst in blogging history and the fact that it comes from the Executive Vice President of Fox News should not be a surprise.

Mr. Moody writes,

"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee"

On what is this claim based? Does this man seriously think that voters pick their candidate based on the actions of bizarre lunatics? How would these actions, even if it were true, reflect on how well voters know Barack Obama?

This is the most simplistic idiotic political discourse I have ever seen and is typical of Fox News. The actions of a a random black man say nothing about Obama's campaign, just as the actions of a lunatic white girl have no bearing on McCain's campaing. To assert otherwise is to use the worst form of racial association. While feigning disapproval Mr. Moody advances the argument that these campaigns can be reduced to the aboslute worst actions of someone who happend to be of the same race as the candidate. It is negligently mindless coming from a news source.

So now that the story has proved to be a hoax I suppose, if we follow Mr. Moody's argument , "Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting". Does Fox news intend to blame McCain's loss, if he loses the race, on the hoax of an obviously mentally deranged woman? How does this hoax link McCain to race-baiting?

It is no wonder that Fox News promotes the absolute worst in political discourse when its Executive Vice President places such a dangerous amount of weight on the acts of deranged bizarre lunatics. Of course Fox News has mastered the art of presenting the views of deranged lunatics as, not only relevant, but central to the Nation's political discourse, but this one takes the cake!

I don't understand how this man can be taken seriously ever again, particularly in a journalistic capacity. His thinking is dangerously simplistic and his argument actually accomplishes the race-baiting that he feigns to deplore. It is insidious.

McCain's Surreal Populist Appeal

As John McCain continues his "Joe the Plumber" tour he positions himself further and further outside of the mainstream of American opinion. His anti-socialism appeal could not render him farther out of touch.

Most polls have McCain somewhere in 40-42 range right now. The real prize in this election are the undecideds. Those voters, along with a substantial portion of the McCain leaners appear to be heading towards Obama, whose numbers are firmly in the low 50s. Why is that?

A simple answer; The Country is experiencing the greatest disparity in wealth in its history and McCain is unabashedly proposing a continuation of the policies that have created that wealth disparity. The "Joe the Plumber" anti-tax argument will not work. McCain seizes on Obama's claim to want to "spread the wealth" as if it is a bad thing!

This argument is ridiculous because, first, most independents have no wealth to spread! Even Joe the Plumber, who actually makes 40K per year and merely dreams of owning a business making 250K has no wealth to spread! The wealth has been concentrated in 1-5% of the population and no one is buying the Reaganomic fear-mongering that liberals want to spread the wealth. The vast majority of the poplulation has no wealth, and in fact, has an enormous debt load.

Second, most independents need healthcare and debt releif and know that it will cost money. Wealth depserately needs to be spread in the country and everyone, besides the die hard conservative 27% Bush supporters, knows that! The wealth in a democratic society cannot be so concentrated without social and policial instability. As average Americans struggle to provide for their families, particularly with regard to healthcare, it is unacceptable for billionares to pay less percentage of their income in tax than their secretary.

Finally, most American know that the national debt is over $10 trillion and would rather not leave that legacy to their children. This will involved raising government revenue in order to pay down that debt. John McCain's argument might hold weight, and attact more libertarian voters, if it included any realistic approach to reducing government debt. But, in fact, McCain is continuation of outrageous government spending on, among other things, two wars and a $300 Billion bailout of homeowners.

Therefore I cannot imagine a politician being farther out of touch than telling a population that has seen its wealth evaporate and land in the hands of the wealthiest 2% that Obama's plan to "spread the wealth" is a bad thing! This Country is smarter than that and the poll numbers are proving it.

The Hypocrisy of John McCain and Joe the Plumber

There is a new pattern arising out of the McCain campaign. This pattern can be described as an anti-tax populism. John McCain continues to call Obama a socialist and, despite evidence of countless errors in his story, to use Joe the Plumber as his anti-tax populist propaganda tool! In fact, John McCain is now on a "Joe the Plumber" tour of Florida. So clearly McCain's strategy is to attempt to create some sort of populist movement around taxes. For the following reasons this argument is hypocrisy at its finest.

First, McCain offers no corresponding proposal to cut spending or end the incredibly expensive wars in which we are engaged. So his plan may cut taxes for everyone, including the wealthy, but it also exacerbates an already unmanageable national debt? So under capitalism, a Country can spend as much as it wants and not pay the money back? No wonder everyone wants to be capitalist! I guess socialist nations the ones who pay their debts?

I would also remind McCain that going back to 1917, before he was born believe it or not, there has been a progressive tax system in the country. In fact,in order to fund the war effort during WWII, the top tax bracket was 94 % for income over $1 million!!! Would it have been patriotic to stop funding WWII? Was the WWII generation socialistic or did they just pay their debts?

Second, Sarah Palin, in her debate with Joe "the Senator" Biden, said that where she comes from it is not patriotic to pay taxes. However, Sarah Palin comes from the most socialist State in the Country, handing out checks to every citizen of the State. The oil resources, are collectively owned and redistributed! If that is not socialism, than what is? It may be not be patriotic to pay taxes where she comes from, but it sure is patriotic to take checks from the government! I did not hear her repealing that socialist program in Alaska!

With regard to the patriotism of paying taxes, Thomas Friedman had a startlingly appropriate response for Palin reminding her "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?"

Third, for those who forget, take a look at John McCain in 2003 vehemently arguing against the Bush tax cuts in war time!:



Finally, to the extent that Joe the Plumber, who actually makes $40K, will actually be buying any business he would likely see no tax increase, and may actually get a bigger cut, under Obama's plan than John McCain's. As has been pointed out by a variety of sources, here are some interesting facts about Joe the Plumber:

1) An official at Local 50 of the plumber’s union, based in Toledo, said Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a license.
2) He also has never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union.
3) According to some tax analysts, if Mr. Wurzelbacher’s gross receipts from his business is $250,000 — and not his taxable income — then he would not have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut.
4) The truth about Joe is that he is not a licensed plumber and he's never made more than $40,000 dollars a year in that trade.

So Joe the Plumber is voting based on his dream scenario, not reality. In reality John McCain and Joe the Plumber in his fantasy world may benefit under John McCain's tax plan. However, even under Joe the Plumber's fantasy scenario, he would likely see no tax increase under Obama's plan because I think his dream plumbing business has 250K in revenue, not profit! Only profit is taxes, not Revenue, which includes owner's salary!

So lets remember that in reality, the real Joe the Plumber, making $40,000, would do a lot better under the Obama's tax plan. Oh, and I'm sure Joe the Plumber could use some healthcare relief as well and that $5,000 tax credit John McCain is offering him won't help him one bit. But I guess healthcare would be socialistic so Joe the Plumber can continue to fantasize about owning a business making 250K while he scratches and claws to pay his bills and to provide healthcare for his children. Or he could just get real and vote for Obama!

Colin Powell's Endorsement

Powell's unequivocal endorsement of Obama:

he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

Powell also reminded his party, the Republican Party that tries to insinuate that Obama is a Muslim, that:

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 something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?

More about Kareem Khan, a resident of New Jersey.

Waking the Walk

Here we see a man walking the walk:

And here we see McCain in a Golf Cart with Bush Senior wearing very expensive ferragamo shoes

Bachmannism: The New McCarthyism!

About a week ago I wrote a post comparing McCain to McCarthy. I just found a much better comparison to McCarthy. Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann!

Ms. Bachman just called for an investigation, by the media, into the anti-Americanism in the Congress. Then she continually equates liberalism with anti-Americanism. One thing is for sure, you are not going to be seeing any Bachmann sponsored legislation arising out of the next Congress!



Oh how history repeats itself! Accusations of a lack of patriotism are resurfacing in attempt to bring down political opponents, just as Senator McCarthy tried a half century ago. This is simplyMcCarthyism all over again and should be condemned. Senator McCarthy ended his career in disgrace, largely shunned by his colleagues, the media and the public. Ms. Bachmann will hopefully suffer the same fate!

If by anti-American Ms. Bachmann means wanting to change what has gone wrong in America, than liberals, and the vast majority of the Country are Anti-American. We love the country and want to change it all at the same time, its amazing!

Good luck selling character attacks, the status quo, and more of the same this election Ms. Bachmann!

ACORN Allegations Totally Unsubstantiated

Fox News, John McCain, and Sarah Palin all continue to raise Obama's connections to ACORN. The odd thing is I have yet to see any substantiated claim that they have done anything wrong. Sarah Palin said,

In this election, it's a choice between a candidate who won't disavow a group committing voter fraud, and a leader who won't tolerate voter fraud

Clearly allegations abound, but they are all from republicans, McCain, or Fox News. Can anyone point me to any independent, non-partisan, substantiated claim ACORN has done anything wrong? On what evidence does Sarah Palin base these allegations?

There is allegedly an FBI investigation into whether ACORN has committed voter fraud, however, not one shred of evidence has been offered to support that investigation. Doesn't this remind you of the reason why those pesky U.S. Attorneys were wrongfully fired a few years ago? For failing to pursue bogus voter fraud claims!!!! This is not a coincidence, it is a strategy. A strategy employed by the right wing during election season. Not to mention, even if fraudulent registrations are incorrectly processed it is nearly impossible to actually vote without presenting proper I.D. to support that registration.

These allegations have largely been debunked by the New Yorker, Salon, and the New York Times and others. Unfortunately there is a remarkable willingness, mostly among fox news viewers, to accept completely unsubstantiated allegations made by the right wing. Whether these allegations are true or not, at this point, it doesn't matter. The right wing goal has been achieved.

John McCain and the Threat to American Democracy

Only through the prism of Republican entitlement and racial divisiveness would voter registration, particularly of minority voters, be viewed as "destroying the fabric of our democracy." However, that is what John McCain said in the debate despite there being no evidence of any non-registered voters be able to or attempting to fraudulently cast a single vote.

I think it has to be said that John McCain and Fox News-watching conservatives, despite claims to a code of honor and patriotism, are exhibiting a pattern of anti-social, anti-democratic, racially divisive behavior. In an op-ed totally debunking the Acorn story, the NYT described Acorn as

a nonprofit group that advocates for low- and moderate-income people and has mounted a major voter-registration drive this year. Acorn says that it has paid more than 8,000 canvassers who have registered about 1.3 million new voters, many of them poor people and members of racial minorities.

Well done Acorn, right? Well not according to John McCain. Who else, but John McCain and Fox News would be so cynical and anti-democratic to suggest that registering minority voters is potentially one of the "greatest frauds in American voting history" as John McCain puts it.

In fact, Fox news continues to run stories positing vague connections between Obama and Acorn under the assumption that Acorn is a scandalous organization, an assumption largely debunked. In an article titled, "Obama and Acorn: Relationship May Be More Extensive than Candidate Says", Fox claims that Obama is misleading people by stating he did not take part in voter registration drives with Acorn.

In fact, Obama registered voters with a group called Project Vote around the time Acorn was doing the same work. Despite the misleading title of the article, ultimately Fox reaches that same conclusion. I wish the Obama campaign would just come out and say we were not only working alongside and with Acorn, I am also very proud of my efforts to register minority and lower income voters!! If registering voters is a crime than we are guilty. If blocking and demonizing voter registration is honorable, than John McCain is an honorable man!

As the NYT concludes "

there is virtually no evidence — anywhere in the country, going back many elections — of people showing up at the polls and voting when they are not entitled to."

Ultimately, the NYT states

"The real threats to the fabric of democracy are the unreasonable barriers that stand in the way of eligible voters casting ballots."

In fact, former federal prosecutors see right through this story as a scare tactic by conservatives to undermine voter registration efforts. Salon has shown convincingly that there is a long running effort by conservatives, going back to the federal prosecutor firings, to raise a non-existent voter fraud issue to undermine the electoral system. I would go one step further and say the real threat to the fabric of our democracy, as is being uncovered, are efforts by John McCain, Fox News and others to demonize and block voter registration efforts.

UPDATE:
This Acorn scandal is becoming more and more of a joke. The New Yorker has now found that:
1) voter registration groups are required to submit registration forms regardless of what people put on them!
2) Acorn apparently does submit them, but flags suspicious forms.
3) Even if a fraudulent registration form is submitted, I.D. is required at the polls, so actually casting a fraudulent ballot is unlikely.
4) In fact, from 2002 to 2005, only twenty people in the entire United States of America were found guilty of voting while ineligible and only five of voting more than once!

Business Tax is on Profit, Not Revenue

Obama's tax plan is coming under some scrutiny after Joe the Plumber became the centerpiece of John McCain's debate. I just want to make an important distinction that I think many people are missing.

My friend recently reminded me that the business tax about which Obama spoke with Joe the Plumber would apply only to Profits of the business, not the Revenue. Very few small business have profits of 250K per year, after paying the owner's salary.

Expense, interpreted broadly by the IRS, allows a business owner to include his or her own salary in expenses, which are not taxed. So there is almost no incentive for a business to show a profit, unless they really want to show a profit. The vast majority of business owners take whatever profit they make as salary, leaving very little profit of the business to be taxed.

UPDATE: As ABC news points out, Joe the Plumber would actually be getting a tax cut under Obama's plan!

I just want to address the idea that the NYT was quoting Obama. Clearly Obama mispoke and said revenue, when he meant profit, but that does not relieve the news media of its responsibility to point out the facts. The fact is that no tax plan taxes business revenue. Obama is a Harvard Law Graduate, I think he knows this. He mispoke, but that does not mean that the tax plan would tax revenue. It simply means Obama mispoke.

One People

This picture, along with this quote, explain in the simplest terms why I am so proud to support Barack Obama.

Barack Obama, in his keynote address at the 2004 DNC, said the following:

"It's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child."

McCain and McCarthy

There is a Senator who has gone down in history as the source of great partisan division in this Country. This Senator used accusations of a lack of patriotism as a tool to bring down his political opponents. This Senator ultimately faced the shame and disgrace of a censure by the Senate for attempting to use anti-communism to discredit his political opponents without any substantiation. As much as this sounds like John McCain, it is actually Senator McCarthy. It is worth perusing Senator Joseph McCarthy's story at this point in history. Joseph McCarthy represents a period in American history that few would like to revisit.

John McCain's recent campaigning is reminiscent of this dark negative period of American History. In the same way McCarthy used communism John McCain uses terrorism, that is, as a tool to advance his political career. Rather than a plan for the future, McCain offers unsubstantiated claims of Obama's lack of patriotism, cutting off funding for the troops, or being a terrorist sympathizer for his political advantage.

John McCain, himself, put it best when he said:

Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative
attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not
ready to articulate it.

Even worse, if those attack ads center on questioning the patriotism of your opponent they appeal to the worst in America. That is the potential, without substantiation, to tap into people's fears and generate hate and mistrust. As the Country faces its most serious crisis in decades, leadership and bipartisanship are in great need. Unfortunately McCain is doing his best McCarthy imitation and squandering the opportunity to fill that need. Senator McCain will likely find, as Senator McCarthy found, that political success built on unsubstantiated claims that your opponent is insufficiently patriotic will lead to disgrace.

Joseph McCarthy ultimately, and rightly, spent his later years in shame and was largely shunned by the media, his colleagues and the public. I can only hope that the same fate befalls the people who use the fear of terrorism in the way McCarthy used communism.

The Situation Cried out for Bipartisanship!

In last night's debate McCain made the following amazingly true and profound comment:

"The situation today cries out for bipartisanship."

The only problem is that it was immediately followed by an attack on Obama:

"I have a clear record of bipartisanship. The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Sen. Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform."

John McCain knows how desperately this Country needs to come together to handle this economic crisis. In fact, he suspended his campaign to go to Washington to bring people together to address the crisis. How can this country act in a bipartisan manner if one Presidential Candidate is accusing the other of "palling around with terrorists" and "not seeing America the way you and I do?"

These are divisive comments and they hurt the cause that this Country now finds itself in. "Country First" became meaningless so long ago due to McCain's consistent failure to honor it. John McCain has an opportunity to re-inject some meaning into that slogan by following his own call for bipartisanship and I hope he does so.

McCain "Bomb Iran" Joke: Laugh or Get a Life.

This is more evidence that John McCain's demeanor and attitude is disrespectful and a serious issue in this race. This is the guy who lectures Obama about how "he doesn't understand"? Talk about dangerously naive. McCain is just disrespectful and self centered and this video shows it quite clearly.

Could you be any less Presidential? Watch it:

"The Dirtiest Campain in American History"

Cindy McCain has recently begun attacking Senator Obama on the campaign trail. She has said, Obama " is waging the dirtiest campaign in American history", which is patently absurd. I hope that comment is not an indication of Cindy McCain's understanding of history because that would mean she is a moron.

According to a study done by the Wisconsin Advertising Project it is McCain's campaign that has gone entirely negative. The study finds that while McCain's spending was nearly 100 percent negative during the week ending October 4th, negative attack ads constituted only roughly a third of Obama's ad spending. This is classic Republican Campaign tactics...exhibit a great deal of faux outrage at your opponent for doing exactly what it is that you are doing.

Even worse, those negative campaign ads have accused Obama of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergarteners, calling Sarah Palin a pig, abandoning the troops, being anti-American and unpatriotic and now palling around with terrorists. All unfair, truly dirty accusations.

Now Mrs. McCain's newest attack is to use her son as a political prop:

The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body let me tell you...I would suggest Sen. Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying.

I'm not sure if a response is necessary, but I will provide one and it is very obvious. If Senator Obama had his way Cindy McCain's son would never have gone to Iraq. If Senator Obama had has way Cindy McCain's son would be taking part in a phased withdrawl. In fact Factcheck.org has debunked the claim that Obama voted to cut funding for the troops. They say that it is literally true that Obama has voted against troop funding:

He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

So Cindy's claim is misleading and the cold chill she felt must be coming from somewhere else. I have a few ideas where, but I will leave that out. How did Cindy feel the 10 other times Obama voted to fund the troops, all warm and fuzzy?

It makes you wonder how the Mothers of soldiers sent back for redeployment to a war of unknown duration feel towards McCain. Supporting the troops would be bringing them home.

As far as negative campaigning goes, well, as the DNC has uncovered John McCain said it best:

I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not ready to articulate it.

McCain; Too Risky on Health Care

I have been discussing McCain's erratic behaviour and risk-taking style for awhile now. Another great example of McCain's risk-taking is his health care plan. The health care system clearly needs reform, but de-regulating the health care industry would look alot like the deregulation of the banking industry, a complete debacle.

During last night's town hall debate Obama said that health care is a right of every citizen. McCain, in contrast, said that healthcare is a responsibility. The big question is whether McCain believes health care is a responsibility that falls on the government or the private citizen. If you look at his health care plan McCain puts an incredible amount of responsibility on the individual and an unreasonable about of trust in business.

Paul Krugman, in the NYT, did a fantastic job of exposing the risks of the McCain health care plan. About McCain's plan Krugman concludes:

Mr. McCain, on the other hand, wants to blow up the current system,
by eliminating the tax break for employer-provided insurance. And he doesn’t
offer a workable alternative.

McCains plan eliminates the tax break employers recieve for providing health insurance to their employees. In return, McCain offers a tax credit of $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family to buy insurance in the private market. McCain would also remove some of the barriers of interstate purchases of health insurance.

McCain's plan, at best, is a huge gamble. It would completely destablize the current system, which although it is not perfect provides some measure of stability. It also leaves so many questions unsanswered. Will $5,000 be enough for a family to buy health insurance? What if you barely make enough to pay for rising fuel and food, how is a tax credit going to help? What if the choice is between those staples and health insurance, who is going to help you? Will private insurers insure people with pre-existing conditions?

One thing that is clear about McCain's plan is that the wealthy will do well with, yet another, tax credit. However, the poor and middle class can't use and don't need a tax credit, they need healthcare.

About Obama's plan Krugamn concludes:

Barack Obama offers incremental reform: regulation of insurers to prevent
discrimination against the less healthy, subsidies to help lower-income families
buy insurance, and public insurance plans that compete with the private sector.
His plan falls short of universal coverage, but it would sharply reduce the
number of uninsured.

Obama's plan is not ideal, but it promotes stability. Those with health insurance can keep it, while those without it will receive assistance to obtain it at a lower cost.

McCain can gamble all he wants with his campaign, but don't let him gamble with our health care!

The Town Hall; A Cool Hand

Obama was steady, cool, calm and consistent. You know... everything John McCain wants in a President. A "cool hand at the tiller" if you will.

This debate captured something fundamental that has been under the surface this entire campaign and I believe it, more than the economy, is responsible for Obama's growing lead in the polls. The contrast between Obama's seriously dignified campaign and John McCain's consistent failure to live up to his own code of honor tells the story. Its sort of sad to watch McCain talk about his code of honor and then have Obama actually conduct himself according to it.

McCain's campaign has been neither honorable nor consistent. Referring to Obama as "That One." Running campaign ads that question the patriotism of his opponent. Capitalizing on the bailout crisis by suspending his campaign. Not very honorable. Can you imagine Obama referring to McCain as "that one?" I can not imagine Obama being that oratorically careless nor dishonorable. Obama is too precise and dignified.

As far as consistency, McCain is anything but. In order to to "shake things up" McCain has chosen one of the least experienced VP candidates in history, suspended his campaign, almost postponed a debate, called an emergency meeting at the White House and didn't say anything, and now is a government interventionist proposing the government buy up mortgages and renegotiate them with homeowners.

This new plan fits in a long list of erratic John McCain efforts to "shake up" the race. McCain's call for the government to purchase distressed mortgages and renegotiate mortgages with homeowners smacked of desperation and opportunism. Clearly McCain is desperate to shake things up and a new appreciation for the plight of homeowners does not fit with his long history as a free-market Republican. In contrast, I cannot think of a single Knee-jerk reaction by Obama to anything.

Along with the way he conducts his campaign McCain's positions are also inconsistent. He is a free-market Republican skeptical of the government, but he wants the government to spend $300 Billion buying up mortgages. He argues experience is the most important thing for a President, but he chooses Palin. He criticizes Washington, but has spent the last 30 years there. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were skewed to benefit the wealthy, now he support tax cuts across the board. He was against off shore drilling, but now is for it. He asked in an ad the other day, Who is the real Barack Obama? The question is who is John McCain? Obama has not changed position on a single issues since he began campaigning two years ago.

The most gaping, screaming blatant inconsistency of all. John McCain advocates "speaking softly and carrying a big stick!" Obama obliterated him on this point. Bomb bomb bomb Iran, threatening N. Korea and "Next Stop Baghdad" are not speaking softly. When McCain said Obama does not speak softly, I thought, which campaign is this guy watching? As McCain so often points out with disdain, Obama has advocated sitting down and talking to our enemies. That is speaking softly as opposed to McCains saber rattling.

As I said about the first debate "McCain is unpredictable, erratic and a risk taker. Obama is steady, thoughtful and precise." With respect to McCain we can now add to that dishonorable, disrespectful and dishonest. This town hall makes the choice for President even clearer than it already was.

UPDATE: Another glaring inconsistency. McCain has been calling for a spending freeze in his first years. McCain's website says "A one-year federal spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction."

How does McCain intend to buy the mortgages of homeowners with a spending freeze in place?

Town Hall Debate; "That One" is a new Low

My initial impression of the debate was that each time McCain described traits required in the President; a cool hand, steadiness, and good judgment, I kept thinking he was referring to Obama. It was almost like this erratic old guy was oddly endorsing his opponent. Obama made that crystal clear when he reminded McCain that "Speaking Softly and carrying a big stick" does not fit with McCain's "Bomb Bomb Iran"or his threats to North Korea. It is consistent, however, with Obama's steady demeanor and the consistent campaign Obama has run.

McCain's call for the government to purchase distressed mortgages and renegotiate mortgages with homeowners smacked of desperation and opportunism. Clearly McCain is desperate to shake things up and a new appreciation for the plight of homeowners does not fit with his long history as a free-market Republican.

Finally, the most memorable moment of the debate also happens to be the saddest moment. McCain referring to Obama as "that one" will probably go down in history as the low point of the 2008 campaign. The comment just rings of a racist disrespect. He effectively called Obama "that boy." It shows an astonishing amount of disrespect for an accomplished sitting Senator who may be on the verge of being the President of the United States. I don't know if John McCain is a racist, but that comment certainly raises the issue in my mind. I don't think McCain would refer to some of his more "established" (White) Senate colleagues in that manner. One thing that is clear is that the comment reflects poorly on McCain. "That" comment, along with the campaign's subtle attacks based on Obama's different-ness recently,(here and here and here) reveal a kind of hatred in McCain that I don't want in a President. I am no swing voter, but I suspect swing voters are not going to like "that one" at all.

I think this Debate will solidify Obama as the steady, respectful leader that this Country needs. As for McCain, he is an erratic, bitter old man.

UPDATE: I don't bring up race lightly. The Republicans may actually want to inject race into this debate and I hate to play into that. McCain's personal faults aren't as important as his atrocious policies, which I have spent a lot of time criticizing. But what is important is the baggage, prejudices, and temperament of our next President. This campaign is showing McCain to be an angry, hostile person.

This is not the first time for McCain. He has referred to Asians in ways that are questionable in the past, he is known to have a temper calling opponents assholes and shitheads. McCain just generally shows a disrespect for others and that should be identified. I don't want a President conducting diplomacy who has an erratic temperament and a disrespectful style. Racist or not the comment is part of a pattern of McCain using Obama's otherness as a source of disrespect.

McCain vs. Obama's Economic Plan; No wonder McCain Doesn't want to talk about the Economy!

McCain's campaign manager recently admitted that if the campaigns talk about the economy McCain will lose. There is a reason for that. McCain's economic plan is atrocious. I just spent a few minutes perusing John McCain's Economic Plan page on his campaign website and was left confused. He does not address the economic crisis, hurting middle class families or housing market crash. I then spent a few minutes comparing that plan to the one detailed on Barack Obama's Economic plan on his website. I strongly encourage you all to do the same.

Normally directing people to the person's website that I don't support would seem like a bad idea, but in this case John McCain's economic plan is so bad I encourage you to check it out. The economy section of his website calls for tax cuts for corporations, the wealthiest Americans and then vague claims to "creating jobs." Obama is not just making this stuff up, its all over McCain's website.

Lets take this one issue at a time:

JumpStarting the Economy:

Obama: Obama clearly proposes (1) Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families, (2) Provide $50 billion stimulus package to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs, (3) Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank

vs.

McCain: I literally do not see any economic stimulus or any suggesstions on the economy page of McCain's website to jumpstart the economy. Follow the link and see for yourself.

Taxes:

Obama: Obama is proposing (1) create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. (2) Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000, (3) Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans

Obama would cut taxes for the middle class, the poor, and senior citizens.

vs.

McCain: McCain is proposing to (1) Cut the Corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, and (2) keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax.

There could not be a clearer difference on this issue. McCain makes no bones about it, he will cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Trade:

McCain: McCain's trade section is titled "Lower Barriers to Trade." The section then discusses vague promises to "fight for education" and and "reform of unemployment insurance." So McCain really does not support protections for American Workers.

vs.

Obama: Obama's trade section which is titled, "Fight For Fair Trade."

Some of the points Obama is fighting for are; (1) Reward Companies that Support American Workers, (2) End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas, (3) Improve Transition Assistance, and (4) Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Barack has detailed explanations and plans in each of these areas. He has a more protectionist approach to trade. Go to his website and see for yourself.

Reform of the Workplace

McCain: McCain is proposing a Commission to "make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs." So in effect you have no idea what will come out of this Commission or what McCain is proposing.


vs.

Obama: Obama makes detailed proposals to (1) Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, (2) Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave, (3) Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities, (4) Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, (5) Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination, and (6) Expand Flexible Work Arrangements.

So that is a flavor of the two economic plans. I am taking this directly from the two candidates websites. It would be too complex to cover every issue, so I will just provide a flavor of what is being offered in other areas. I truly scoured the two websites for substantive plans, rather than vague platitudes. Both websites had some of those, but I also found concrete plans:

Obama:
(1) Raise the Minimum Wage
(2) Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers
(3) Create a Universal Mortgage Credit
(4) Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies
(5) Double The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth.
(6) Invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid.
(7) create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own.
(8) Reform Bankruptcy Laws


McCain:
(1) construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants
(2) commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies.
(3) system of tax credits that will remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration
(4) a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles.
(5) For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, John McCain will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car.
(6) A one-year federal spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction.
(7) reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit.

Look over these lists and tell me whose plan is more realistic! Whose plan addresses the major economic problems that people in this country face? I think the answer is clear. Their websites tell you everything you need to know. You just need to take a few minutes to look them over and see why McCain would rather talk about Obama's past, or a non existent media bias than the country's future.

Obama is Better on the Economy

Why exactly is McCain focusing so much attention on attacking Obama these days? The answer is simple; Obama is crushing him on the economy. This is, in part, due to the fact that Republican policies, specifically tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation, have been showing themselves to be economically devestating. McCain's economic platform, specifically tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, deregulation, and continued military spending abroad would only exacerbate every major economic challenge we face.

McCain is calling for making the Bush tax cuts permanent at a time when income inequality is exploding. McCain was, until very recently, one of the great proponents in the Senate calling for deregulation of business at a time when deregulation is causing an economic meltdown. McCain is calling for unlimited spending abroad on wars of choice at a time when our national deficit is reaching $10 Trillion dollars. McCain is also a major proponent of globalization at a time when Americans are losing jobs by the thousands! These policies are responsible for the meltdown of the American economy and will only exacerbate those problems.

According to economists surveyed by The Economist, both Republican and Democrat, Obama's economic plan is significantly better than McCain's economic plan. They say Obama has a better grasp of economics. In fact, 81% of economists think Obama's economic team is better. Furthermore, in public polling Obama is beating McCain on the economy by a 51 to 42 margin.

It has been shown by a Princeton economist that the "United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans." It has also been showed that income inequality grows under Republican Presidents and shrinks under Democratic Presidents.

I take this as an implicit admission amongst the economic community that lowering taxes is not necessarily better for the economy as so many Republicans continue to argue. It reminds me of the conservatives who continue to deny, almost with religious belief, that Climate Change is caused by human activity. You can keep saying it, but it defies reality.

Can we finally stop being surprised that income inequality grows when we cut taxes for the wealthy? Since that is the case, and the Country is fed up with disparity in wealth and bailing out a de-regulated Wall Street, what is McCain left with, but character attacks.

McCain's entire economic platform is at odds with every major economic challenge the country faces.

1) Income inequality - McCains extension of the Bush tax cuts would only exacerbate the problem.

2) Credit Crisis - McCain and his advisor, Phil Gramm, have built a career on de-regulation, which is largely responsible for the Wall Street meltdown.

3) Federal Deficit - McCain would be only the second President, along with George W. Bush, to finance two wars with massive tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.

If I had an economic record like that, I would be talking about Obama's past too!

John "Honor" McCain throws the Kitchen Sink at Obama

Have you noticed how the more John McCain sinks in the polls and his policies are exposed as failures, the more suspicious he becomes of Barack Obama? McCain's Kitchen Sink approach just exposes his inability to lead on any issue of substance and kills any shred of honor he had left. McCain's strategy is being reduced to simply dividing the country with hate, fear, and anger in order to get to the White House.

We are witnessing one of the worst economic meltdowns in modern times. It is one of the worst days for financial markets since 2004. The Country is still engaged in two wars. Healthcare is in crisis. The national debt is soaring. So you would the think the Presidential candidates would have plenty to talk about, right? Wrong.

John McCain wants to talk about everything except what is important to millions of Americans. Doesn't it seem utterly irrelevant whether Obama was trying to improve inner city schools with William Ayers several years ago? Are you worried about Obama's pastor? Are you woriried that Obama's middle name is Hussein? Well these important issues are the center piece of the McCain campaign.

This is all the McCain campaign has been talking about recently! It has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of millions of Americans facing job losses, loss of healthcare and the safety of soldiers fighting a war on two fronts! But that is what McCain want to talk about. I cannot imagine a better way to get voters disengaged from a campaing than to discuss these petty, stale issues during the biggest economic crisis of my lifetime. No doubt, after seeing recent polls, that is John McCain's motive.

It gets worse. Now McCain's character based campaign has focused its attention on calling Obama "dishonorable." Whatever that means! Taking Obama's comments out of context, ofcourse, the ad focuses on some Obama comments regarding our failed mission in Afghanistan. McCain knows as well as anyone that it is not "dishonorable" to question a military mission if it is misguided. What is dishonorable is basing a campaign on....well I won't go there. I'll let McCain's actions speak for themselves.

One thing is clear, based on the divisive comments McCain is making it is becoming clear that he would rather preside over a divided country from the White House than a united one from the Senate. The man's claim to honor is becoming a joke.

Palin Wants to Play the Association Game; Alaska Independence Anyone?

Sarah Palin, by raising the question of Ayers tenuous connection to Obama, has now opened herself up to the question of her own associations. She accused Obama of Palling around with terrorists. The obvious question is raised: Why is Sarah Palin palling around, and married to, secessionists?

There is a legitimate question as to what connection Sarah Palin has to the Alaska Independence Party. Those questions go right to Sarah Palin's loyalty. Does her loyalty lie with Alaska or the United States? I have written about Sarah Palin's connection to the separatist organization, the Alaska Independence Party before. The connection is clearly established.

Her husband was a member of the group and Palin has addressed the group as early as THIS year! The organization has, as one of its goals, secession from the United States.

Just as a reminder, here is Ms. Palin's speech to the AIP earlier this year:


The voters have a right to know. What are Sarah Palin's views on Alaska Secession? Why in a speech to the AIP did Sarah Palin say that that Alaska could be a "self-sufficient State"? Is the term "self-sufficient" a code word for Secession from the United States?

By the way, The NYT article this morning, which prompted this Ayers issue is fair game. They laid out the facts, as the NYT should! The problem is that they have not done ANY stories on the AIP and Palin. Where is the media on this issue?

McCain and Palin are Getting Desperate; Watch Out!

With Obama's lead in the polls increasing, the McCain campaign, with the help of Fox News and talk radio, is going to come at Obama hard! That effort has begun in earnest with Palin accusing Obama of paling around with terrorists!

Palin is referring to Bill Ayers, a former militant anti-war acitvist, with whom Obama had tenuous connections in Chicago. The NYT covered those connections today and uncovered a very tenuous connection between Obama and Ayers based more on circumstance than any philosophical agreemant. The only work that Ayers and Obama had in common was sitting on the board of an organization that led a school reform effort in Chicago! How evil!

On the huffingtonpost Trey Ellis harshly criticized the New York Times for running the article . His response struck me as panicky. My opinion of the Times article is exactly the opposite. I say read the NYT article because it explains everything you need to know! The only thing Obama has in common with Ayers is an interest in improving education and inner-city schools, which neither Palin nor McCain has addressed in any meaningful way.

Ellis is confused if he thinks that the New York Times goal is to "irresponsibly revive the irrational suspicions" regarding Ayers. In fact, the Times responsibly investigated the matter and reported on it.

Sarah Palin was the one who irresponsibly revived the story today by saying Obama was "paling around" with terrorists. The New York Times merely addressed the story in a responsible way, that is, by explaining that Obama's interactions with Ayers are in passing and insignificant. The two share no similarity in views and, in fact, Obama has harshly repudiated Ayers former beliefs and methods. That is the story, very simple.

There is nothing to be afraid of here. No need to be afraid of a New York Times article that explains the facts. Democrats cannot merely criticize the Times and think the story will go away. Obama must welcome the scrutiny and completely undermine it with the facts. Instead of criticizing the Times article, use it as a way to show voters how ridiculous and desperate McCain and Palin really are!

UPDATE:
This CNN piece completely debunks the "palling around with terrorist" charge. The article concludes that the claim is FALSE:

There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.

The World According to Sarah Palin

In the fanciful world according to Sarah Palin the U.S. is always right and not subject to normal rules, but for east coast politicians the U.S. would have enough oil to supply itself, we can build infrastructure by lowering taxes, and climate change is part of the cyclical change of our planet.

If there is one characteristic that Sarah Palin clearly portrayed in her debate performance it is confidence. Sarah Palin has a vision of the world and is incredibly confident in that vision. It would not be unreasonable for someone with as limited experience as Palin, both professionally and academically, on issues of foreign policy or science to exhibit some humility. Instead, she was confident enough to lecture Barack Obama on foreign policy repeatedly calling him naive and dangerous. She is confident enough to look at Joe Biden and tell him he was "waiving the white flag of surrender" in Iraq. She is confident enough to push for a further expansion of power in the, already powerful, Office of the Vice President. The only problem with Sarah Palin's worldview, and her complete certainty in the correctness of that worldview, is that it is disconnected from reality.

Lets take a look at her view of climate change. Palin expressed a reluctance, albeit more tempered than her past statements, to attribute climate change to the acitivities of humans. On what does she base this opinion? We can only guess because I know she does not have a background in Science. With characteristic confidence Palin contradicts the entire scientific community saying, "There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet." We know that climate change is the result of the acitivities of humans, but Palin remains reluctant. So we can assume in governing Palin is willing to confidently ignore the advice of experts without any independent analysis or expertise beyong her own limited observations.

Palin went on to express positions with boldness and without regard for the fact that they are entirely inconsistent and contradictory. With regard to growing the economy Palin said

You do that by lowering taxes on American workers and on our businesses. And you build up infrastructure, and you rein in government spending, and you make our -- our nation energy independent.

In one sentence Palin managed to call for reigning in government spending AND the buildup of infrastructure. Which is it? You can't do both, unless ofcourse, like our current Vice President, you believe that deficits don't matter.

Which leads us to energy, Sarah Palin's supposed area of expertise. On that subject her confidence was overflowing. She lectured Joe Biden repeatedly on his ignorance of energy issues and her complete command of the subject. She stated

It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us.

Now that viewpoint sounds wonderful and she sure does express the frustrations of many Americans, I just wish it were true. Again in total contradicition to expert opinions and facts Palin's argument is that politicians, namely east coast politicians, are preventing the U.S. from truly being energy independent.

The facts tell us that the U.S., so long as we continue to rely on oil for transportation, will be relying on foriegn oil producers. Regardless of offshore drilling or east coast politicians regulation of drilling, U.S. oil reserves are no where near adequate to supply the U.S. with oil. Furthermore, even if we allow drilling it will not affect the price or supply of oil for decades. With that in mind, a thinking person might be inclined to promote alternative sources, but Palin insists that if we could just drill more we will be fine. Instead of proposing solutions based on facts, Palin reinforces the problem by saying, "people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into."

Finally, we come to Palin's worldview as it relates to foreign policy, which can only be described as fanciful. She boasted

But even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal.

First, Palin was brazen enough to say that "we are unapologetic here." Unapologetic is defined as, "Unwilling to make or express an apology." Clearly Palin means to express a patriotic sentiment that the U.S. will not apologize for itself. How, as a leader of this Country, would that viewpoint be productive? At whom is that sentiment directed? Will that help U.S. standing in the world? I think that language expresses a feeling that "America is always right." However, as it relates to torture, international law and the like, the U.S. is not above reproach.

Second, Palin goes on to say that America is a nation of exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is defined as,

the perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is exceptional (ie. unusual or extraordinary) in some way, and thus does not conform to normal rules or general principles

Anyone who thinks the U.S. can conduct itself with an exceptionalist philosophy needs to watch Andrew Bacevich's interview on Bill Moyers about his Book The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.

Of course every great empire has felt itself to be exceptional and acts far outside the scope of its power, thereby contributing to its downfall. The U.S., unfortunately, is subject to all the same rules and principles to which every other nation is subject. Rules such as supply and demand, war and peace, life and death, science and fiction. As we have seen in the credit crisis, there was a belief that American power was without limit, but the bills still come due and the rules of reality still apply. As we see in Iraq, the U.S. military is subject to the rules of war and it was the the misguided belief that the U.S. was somehow exceptional that led to the mismanagement of the war.

If the credit crisis and the War in Iraq have not convinced Sarah Palin that there are limits to American power, nothing will. We cannot afford another eight years of bluster and bragging based on misguided worldviews. One thing is clear from this debate, if you liked Bush/Cheney you are going to Love McCain/Palin!