Troopergate report: partisan?

The McCain campaign issued a statement that said the Troopergate report "illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters."

The Facts:
1. The Alaska Legislature created the investigative commission.
2. The Legislature initiated it before Palin was chosen to run for VP.
3. The Legislature is made up of 41 Republicans and 19 Democrats.
4. The Commission was made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
5. They voted 12 to 0 to release the report (2 members were absent).

Partisan? Nah, they'll just say anything that's convenient.

Oh, wait !!! I just figured it out. The "Obama supporters" must be Republicans !!!

Ralph

Troopergate report worse than it sounds

The McCain campaign would like to dismiss the damaging report on Gov. Palin's long-running battle to get her former brother-in-law fired as exonerating her from wrong-doing.

Not so fast.

It is true that Palin had the authority to fire Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan for any reason; and it is true that she stated other reasons for firing him -- some minor thing about the budget. It just happened that he had also stood up to pressure and refused to fire her former brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten. Complaints against Wooten had already been investigated and appropriate action taken before Palin even became governor. She wanted to re-open the case and was determined to have him fired.

The bipartisan report, which was released with unanimous consent of the committee, is damaging for other reasons. According to Time Magazine, the report states that:

"Not only did people at almost every level of the Palin administration engage in repeated inappropriate contact with Walt Monegan and other high-ranking officials at the Department of Public Safety, but 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.

Both the Palin appointed state head of personnel and her attorney general called to pressure Monegan and had to be reminded by him that it was inappropriate to discuss personnel matters with them and that the call could put both of them in legal jeopardy if Wooten sued.

According to Time, it is this shockingly amateurish behavior and transparent ham-handedness in exerting pressure to fire a relative of the governor that is likely to end in embarrassment for her.

And Time concludes: "But even though she won't likely face any legal repercussions, the amateurism and cronyism of her brief administration hardly leaves Palin sitting pretty. Troopergate's final verdict may be even more damaging than a rebuke: her administration was, at least in this regard, just as self-motivated as the Washington fat cats and lobbyists she hopes to unseat."

I have to admit, however, that compared to the embarrassment of their current campaign antics, this now sounds like small potatos; and it will probably soon be forgotten in the tidal wave of sinking polls and outraged denunciations of their hate-mongering rallies by Republicans and by conservative pundits.

Never mind. In 25 more days, she will be back in Alaska, and we can all forget about it.

Ralph

McCain down in flames

John McCain seems determined not only to lose but to go down in flames.

In the face of moral outrage and criticism even from his own former supporters and conservative pundits, the McPalin guilt-by-association smear tactic just got worse -- or, rather, more ludicrous.

Since it was not working to tear down Barak by association with Bill Ayers, they're now targeting Michelle. Bernadette Dohrn, Bill's wife and herself also an anti-VietNam war radical in the 1960s, later became a lawyer and went to work in 1984 for the Chicago branch of a major national law firm.

Three years later, Michelle Robinson was hired by the same firm.

That's it. They don't even bother to offer any evidence that they even knew each other (there are more than 500 lawyers in the Chicago office alone). They just say they could have known each other. Maybe they did, but so what?

There is no way that John McCain can survive this disaster with any shred of integrity or respect. This is not simply a defeat. It's another plane crash.

Ralph

It's true; the smear is not working

What I wrote earlier today has become robustly true this afternoon. McPalin's smear attacks and crowd hate-mongering are not working beyond their base.

Obama is at his all-time highs in four of the six national tracking polls (Research 2000, Battleground, Hotline and Zogby) and is just one point off his high in Gallup.

Research 2000 poll has him at +14%, Newsweek at +11%, and Gallup Tracking at +10%. A double digit lead is big news, folks.

Obama has emerged with clear leads in both Florida and Ohio, where there are several polls out today. He is blowing McCain out in most polls of Pennsylvania and Michigan, and is making states like West Virgina and Georgia competitive.

Ralph

McCain panders while Wall Street collapses

Obama has criticized McCain's hastily thrown together plan to buy distressed home mortgages, but now even many of his own team of economists are saying it's a gimmick:

"Many of the professional economists who formally endorsed John McCain's economic plan are expressing bewilderment with his most recent proposal to rectify the home mortgage crisis.

"In interviews with the Huffington Post, roughly a dozen of McCain's economist supporters said they disagreed with the Senator's recent proposal . . . Several viewed it as a gimmick, driven mostly by political circumstance.

"'This is just political gamesmanship,' said Robert H. Heidt, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law. 'The bill is wildly over-ambitious in trying to rescue home buyers from the downturn in real estate appreciation. It's costs would never end. I will end up voting for McCain but this is ridiculous.'"

More of the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/economists-for-mccain-tra_n_133718.html

Ralph

Fear and loathing

John McCain and Sarah Palin are engaging in the politics of fear and loathing. Completely bankrupt of ideas or leadership, they have nothing else to try except stirring up hatred and bigotry in their crowds.

It is despicable. It is immoral. Moderate Republicans (a few are left) should hang their heads in shame and denounce these tactics. It has gone beyond hard-hitting negativity. McCain has supposedly ruled out using Jeremiah Wright for fear they would be blamed as racists. But what they are doing is just as much racial bigotry as was the appeal to "states rights" back in the 1960s when George Wallace and Richard Nixon did it.

Although I am worried that it might work, I am also fairly sure that this time it will not work.

They've been at it long enough to show up in the daily tracking polls. And so far any effect seems negligible. Comparing Rasmussen tracking polls of favorable/unfavorable ratings on 10/3 and 10/8, Obama's unfavorables rose by 1.3%, while McCain's unfavorables rose by 2.0%. Not statistically significant, but at least it suggests that it isn't working.

In contrast, last March when the Jeremiah Wright story broke, Obama's unfavorables increased by 5% in that week.

Other polls look great. Look at Michigan. As recently as a month ago, Michigan was considered perhaps the most important swing state. A week ago, McCain gave up and completely pulled his campaign out, cancelling any further TV ads. Today, Obama leads by 16% in Michigan. Independents there have gone from favoring McCain by 12 points on Sept. 21 to favoring Obama by 11 points today -- a 23 point flip.

And in the past couple of days, even West Virginia has become a tossup state. One poll released today even had Obama leading by 8% in WV. A month ago, it was a solid red state.

And 5 national tracking polls over the last 3 days range from +5 to +11 for Obama.

It could all change quickly. But it doesn't look like fear-mongering with Ayers will do it. McCain may yet be "forced" to use the Jeremiah Wright tapes, which would indeed make the racist appeal explicit. Message to Johnny B: that won't work either. You've lost, "my friend."

Ralph

John McCain - Coward

For a man who likes to throw around the idea that he's a brave, courageous war hero, John McCain has recently shown himself to be nothing but a coward. He hides behind the skirts of Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain while they take cheap shot after cheap shot at Obama. If McCain truly believes Obama is treasonous, or a terrorist, or doesn't care about the soldiers in Iraq, why doesn't John have the courage to come forward and say so himself?

Isn't that what a traditional man does, John? Stand up and speak for himself? Be willing to make the accusations and take the heat if people feel his comments are out of line?

Pretty safe and cozy behind those skirts and heels, isn't it? You don't have to stand up and respond to anything. And you're counting on Obama being too gracious to attack the women who spout lies while you hide behind them.

The Brownshirts are coming! The Brownshirts are coming!

I agree with Ralph that things are getting dangerous, and I can only echo his sentiments. When you have Sarah, John, and Cindy McCain - every Nazi's dream of the perfect Aryan woman - screaming that Barack Hussein is a terrorist, Barrack Hussein is not one of us, Barrack Hussein is sending our children off to die...and inciting crowds to scream 'kill him' 'off with his head' 'treason' ...well, that seems to be setting the stage for an American 'Kristal Nacht'.

But although I think these attacks will have an effect, their real danger, in terms of influencing the election, is in softening up support for Obama, weakening him. That allows voters to reconsider issues and positions, so when McCain comes in and offers a proposal to have the government buy up mortgages - a proposal Rush Limbaugh rails against as 'Communistic', and originating with Hillary Clinton - people will stop and listen to the proposal. And when Obama responds with dismissive platitudes, rather than a specific proposal of his own, it gives voters a reason to switch their vote to McCain.

The danger for Obama is in thinking he can cruise the next few weeks on good will and campaign slogans. The way for him to keep attention on the real issues(it's the economy stupid) is to highlight specific proposals of his own, and counter McCain's proposals with specific reasons.

If he doesn't do that, he can lose this election.

Ugly is ok; dangerous is not

A plea to the Secret Service: Please keep your security very tight around Obama and watch those crowds. It's gone beyond ugly and is now dangerous. And John McCain and Sarah Palin are directly responsible.

100% of the McCain ads now running are negative attacks on Obama. That's to be expected when they are losing as obviously as they are and have nothing that the voters are buying.

But McCain and Palin are shamelessly and dangerously whipping up their crowds' racial hatred. It is bordering on criminal when they encourage shouts like "treason" and "off with his head" by talking about Obama as "not like us," and "palling around with terrorists," and using his full name with contemptuous emphasis on "Hussein."

They know what they're doing -- and then are cynical enough to turn around and have their campaign issue a statement condemning violence. Then they go right back to the rallies and whip up some more hatred.

Most voters see it as a cynical ploy and condemn it. But there's going to be a real crackpot in one of those crowds who might decide to become a "hero" and carry out what he thinks the crowd wants. This is a chilling thought and I hesitate to even put it in writing. But it is a real and present danger.

And John McCain and Sarah Palin are directly responsible for encouraging it.

Ralph

Back to the numbers

The numbers continue to be encouraging and, if they hold up on election day, would make for an Obama landslide. Race may still be a factor, but some are suggesting that the "Bradley effect," where people tell a pollster they will vote for the black candidate but then don't, is perhaps overblown. When Harold Ford lost his TN senate race in 2006, it was by a smaller percent than pre-election polls had shown. And it didn't seem to be a factor in Obama's primary races.

Latest polls: Gallup tracking 9/5-9/7, Obama leads by 11%. Rasmussen 9/5-9/7, Obama leads by 6%. These don't reflect the Tuesday debate. Reuters/C-span/Zogby, 9/6-9/8, Obama by 4%; this poll always has Obama lower than other polls.

As to electoral vote polls: FiveThirtyEight.com gives it to Obama 346.8 to 191.2, with Obama taking the battleground states: OH, FL, CO, NV, NH, VA; slight lead in NC and a toss up in IN and MO. PA, MI, WI, and MN, once considered in play, have all moved into the safe column.

As to where investors are actually putting their money, the InTrade.com statewide poll gives it to Obama 353 to 185, with NC going to Obama.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com also has an interesting take on "undecided" voters. The Pew Research" group did a poll which was slightly different from just asking who you would vote for, and then counting as undecided any who do not pick one or the other. Pew asked "who have you decided against?" This gets at voters who might be "persuadable" to change their vote.

Here 42% said they had decided against McCain and 37% had decided against Obama.

Every one of the numbers continue to favor Obama. And even the conservative pundits are writing negative things about McCain and Palin.

Now if we can just keep them from intimidating voters to suppress the vote or tampering with the machines.

Ralph

David Brooks on Obama -- Wow !!!

David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times and TV commentator, had this to say today about our current candidates in an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. I'm going to quote a few excerpts and encourage you to read the whole interview at www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html

Brooks called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party," and he decried her anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard. Contrasting the respect for intellect and ideas that was true of Ronald Reagen and other conservatives of that era, he says "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." He concluded that "she is 'absolutely not' ready to be president or vice president."

Brooks had this to say (and more) about Obama's intellect:

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.

He goes on to praise not just his intellect but his "powers of social perception" and his ability to surround himself with superb staff people and advisers.

Ralph

"McCain did well, but not well enough."

"McCain did well, but not well enough." That was the considered judgment of the debate by none other than arch Republican Bill Bennett, commenting as one of the CNN debate analysts.

Not a single one of the many CNN panelists made a case for McCain tonight. James Carville said, in his typical backwoods vernacular: "It's over. Time to bring in the dogs and water the fire."

That's my take on it too. This was McCain's last chance to turn it around, and he didn't do it.

The CNN polls exceeded even my expectations: They gave the win to Obama by 54% to 30%, and scored him higher on every measure (economy, Iraq, leadership, likeability) except handling terrorism, where McCain still had a slight edge.

Only David Gergen sounded a note of caution, saying that we still don't know how much effect racial prejudice will have, as in the Bradley effect where people tell poll takers they will vote for a black candidate and then don't. Some say that could cost Obama as much as 6%.

But one of the other panelists pointed out that did not happen in the primaries, that the polls were very accurate in predicting and did not show any Bradley effect.

My prediction of a landslide stands.

Ralph

Lynch mob vs the polls

Having nothing else to campaign on, the politically bankrupt McCain and Palin have resorted to character smears and, worse, whipping their rally crowds up into a frenzy of hate. At a recent rally, after Palin had questioned Obama's patriotism by distorting his remark about Afghanistan, a man in the crowd yelled out "treason."

It's not much of a stretch to hear echoes of "lynch him" echoing in the background of our minds. It not only tries to smear him as un-American and dangerous, but it also injects racial hatred into a fiery mix of crowd mentality.

That is a very dangerous place to be going, and the McPalin campaign should be strongly condemned for doing it.

Fortunately, it isn't working. Obama's polls continue to climb. According to FiveThirtyEight.com he is now leading in EVERY battleground state, with 345.4 to 192.6 !!! MO, IN, and NC are tilting; FL, OH, and NV are leaningl and all the rest look pretty strong if not yet quite in the safe column.

So what will McCain do tonight? It reminds me of a boxing match, where fighting words are tossed out to the press ahead of time, each trying to rev up the expectations for a good match. I'm not so sure that's what will happen. McCain likes to surprise, to keep people off balance. If he goes on a savage attack, as some are predicting ("take the gloves off tonight"), that may backfire and he'll be seen as angry and unsteady. He may pivot, once again, and try to woo the people with his wonderfulness, instead of tearing down Obama.

The stakes are much higher for McCain than for Obama. This is his last chance to turn it around. As long as Obama doesn't make some major gaffe, he won't be hurt, even if McCain helps himself a bit. But I don't see how he can do that unless he climbs back up out of the gutter.

I'm confident in Obama's ability to handle whatever comes. My prediction is that he'll be forceful, try to keep it on the issues, but call McCain's hand on smear tactics and distortions.

We'll know soon.

Ralph

More Palin Tax Problems

The TaxProf blog has done an excellent job of highlighting the continuing problems with Palin's tax returns. My question is - why is the media silent on this?

Rather than summarize, I'm just going to show you what they said.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 OK. 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.”
4. 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.
5. 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.

And

Following up on this morning's post, Tax Profs Agree: Gov. Palin's Tax Returns Are Wrong: Jack Bogdanski (Lewis & Clark) notes that the State of Alaska did not follow its own per diem policies in Governor Palin's case, as set forth in this two-page memo, Income Tax Implications of Long-Term Per Diem. Jack notes:

This document is a potential blockbuster. It establishes two important facts:

1. The state has long acknowledged that it had a duty to determine whether Palin's "tax home" was really Anchorage and Wasilla, a conclusion which would have required that her per diems be reported as taxable income.
2. The state knew that when an employee is planning to spend a majority of her time on state business in the Anchorage area for a four-year period, Anchorage is the employee's "tax home," and per diems for time spent in the "tax home" are taxable income.

So why didn't Alaska officials follow the state's official policies and report Palin's per diems as taxable income on her W-2? Only they can answer that.

And how can the tax lawyer whose opinion was released by the McCain campaign on Friday say that "no special consideration was ever given to Governor Palin, notwithstanding that she was the governor of Alaska"?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

All they've got left

The McPalin campaign is bankrupt and desperate. All they have left is character smear. They're banking on riling up Joe 6Pack, but they've got his vote anyway (maybe not even as many as they think, given that Obama is leading in MI, OH, PA, and pulling even in IN and NC, with a chance in GA, MO and even gaining in WV).

But guilt-by-association isn't going to work this time. First, there is a 10 ton truck bearing down, and they're hoping people won't notice they're about to get flattened, while they distract them with old news -- old in the sense that it happened many years ago, and old in the sense that it's already been hung out in the primaries and didn't do the job then.

There's even a quote out today from McCain's chief strategist saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we'll lose." Yes, indeed !!

Second, Obama's team is a lot smarter than any run before. They had an immediate response yesterday in an ad pointing out exactly what McCain was doing, trying to distract attention from the economic crisis by smear attacks on his character.

Then today, they release a pretty damaging online video documentary about McCain's role in the Keating scandal. But here's the beauty of the tactic: it isn't just an attack on McCain's character; it actually ties in the character issue with the economic crisis and casts blame on him for the deregulation craze that, at least in part, caused the meltdown. And that's what the Keating scandal was about, trying to get favorable treatment for cronies by getting around regulations in the Savings and Loan industry. The result? Thousands of people lost their life savings.

So Obama hits back hard but does it in a way that ties it to the overwhelming campaign issue, the economy, and at the same time casts doubt on McCain's character.

In contrast, McPalin have not offered even a tiny shred of evidence that Ayers' radical past has in any way influenced Obama in any of his policies or his behavior. Same for Jeremiah Wright. He didn't become a militant anti-government radical nor a government-hating black man. Quite the opposite. It's all just Joe McCarthy type guilt by association. And the American people were disgusted by that 50 years ago.

I think we're going to see a newly combative Obama in tomorrow night's debate -- hard hitting but backed up with facts and linked to issues.

Landslide in the making.

Ralph

Palin and McCain - McCarthyites and Terrorists

It's appalling to see how casually the Palin/McCain campaign embraces the tactics of Joseph McCarthy in their attempts to salvage their disreputable campaign. I expect Palin to stand up at any moment and scream at Obama, "Have you ever been on the same planet as William Ayers? Answer me! Yes or No! There you have it - he's Unamerican."

The hypocrisy of a candidate who repeatedly said no one should pay any attention to her past associations - with the vile separatist party in Alaska(which Todd belonged to for 5 years, until Sarah ran for Governor) - with the church where members speak in tongues and are waiting to become one of the sanctuary places during the Last Days - this candidate who chastised Biden several times during her debate with him for 'looking backwards', into the Past(We're going forward) and then tries to tar and feather Obama because an acquaintance of his committed a crime 39 years ago, when Barrack was 8 - that's beyond shameless.

The thing with Palin is that she really thinks people are stupid, and that she can say anything and get away with it. Think of this time line.

When Couric asked her about visitng foreign countries, Palin answered that she didn't have to go to other countries because she read about them in newspapers, books, magazines.

When later asked to name something she read, Palin could not come up with a single publication.

After that, the McCain campaign offered a press release claiming that she read, among other things, The New YorkTimes, Wall Street Journal, and the Economist.

Yet yesterday she said, "I was surprised to read in the NY Times...' about William Ayers.

Well, if she actually had read, not just these publications, but anything, or had ever watched news programs on TV during this primary season, she would not have been "surprised" to learn about William Ayers, since that story has been covered extensively. (Psst Sarah, if you read through to the end of the NY Times article, you would've learned that Obama didn't 'pal around' with a terrorist. But I guess sounding out words and understanding a story are two different skills).

Look, I know Palin is a quick study - although, you've got to admit it's not that difficult teaching a human being how to hold a newspaper open so they can pretend they are reading it.

But words matter. Her smear attack on Obama over Ayers should be offensive to anyone seriously concerned with electing a president who can lead this country. The fact that she would, once again, stoop to wilfully lying in an attempt to get elected says everything you need to know about just how dangerous this candidate might be to our country. She is engaging in a type of Political Terrorism, where nothing matters but advancing their cause. For Palin and McCain, the end justifies the means. Wouldn't Karl Marx be proud of them?

Palin - A Jungian Analysis?

A friend sent this along, from a man she identifies as a Jungian analyst. An interesting interpretation

The debate between Biden and Palin was one of the most interesting -
and scaring - things I have seen in the last years. With her general
statements she came out unscratched. She doesn't live in space or
time (even Bush's presidency doesn't concern her, it's over, and the
future of the planet is extraneous to her). She isn't interested in
history or geography. But she lives in the media world, of unreal
sentimentalism. She sells our future as a toothpaste. (Todays article
of David Brooks, p. 5 Intern. Herald Tribune, in the US probably on
the NY Times, captures part of it).

No matter what the polls will say, or even how the presidential
election goes, she is the winner.
Our children will live in the century of Sarah Palin.

I wonder if, as the Germans have been somehow considered collectively
responsible for Hitler's criminality, we
aren't collectively responsible for Palin's superficiality.

A good chuckle

A lighter moment in the midst of an increasingly tense and soon-to-be very ugly campaign.

Barak Obama has begun injecting a sort of running joke in his campaign speeches, mentioning Alaska and saying that he's been campaigning in 49 states but not Alaska.

Today in Asheville, NC. "I have to say if there’s a prettier state than North Carolina, I have not seen it yet,” he said at a Democratic dinner on Saturday night in Asheville. “I confess that I haven’t been to Alaska.”

The assembled Democrats lapped it, cheering wildly as a man in the back of the room shouted, “You can see it from Russia.”

Ralph

Palin in Violation of IRS

According to the Alaska Daily News, it seems Palin is clealry in violation of IRS laws in not listing her $60,000 she received in per diems in 2007 as income.

The address listed on the 1040’s is Palin's family home in Wasilla, which would seem to suggest Palin considers that, not the governor’s mansion in Juneau, her "tax home." However the McCain-Palin campaign maintains that her “tax home” is technically the governor's mansion in Juneau.

The point is potentially significant because any per diems and travel reimbursements received in connection with someone’s “tax home” would likely be taxable as income. According to IRS regulations: "If you (and your family) do not live at your tax home (defined earlier), you cannot deduct the cost of traveling between your tax home and your family home. You also cannot deduct the cost of meals and lodging while at your tax home."

Also, Palin and her husband listed assets worth from $960,000 to $2.3 million. Because the values of assets are reported in broad ranges, it's not possible to calculate an exact value for their holdings.

So this Joe sixpack family are technically millionaires? And tax dodgers?

Bad news helps Obama

Even Republican strategists agree that the economic crisis has hurt McCain's political standing and helped Obama's. Economicsts by a large margin prefer Obama.

And there is more bad news coming. As Georgia Will pointed out on This Week, over the next few days, millions and millions of Americans will be getting their third quarter 401k statements and will see just had bad their losses are in this crisis.

In addition, the monthly job statistics were released on Friday, October 3rd -- 159,000 jobs lost in September. If that timing of the report is the usual, then the figures for October will be released the day before the election -- and with the market and credit losses, it's likely to be even worse.

This bad economic news is bad political news for John McCain. He is in dire, desperate straits, and he cannot afford any more bad news.

His campaign seems to think their only chance is character assasination. I agree with George Will who says that will not work this time, that McCain's only chance at this point is to remind people that they prefer divided government, where a president of one party rides herd on a congress of the other party. Therefore they must elect him to offset the expected increase in the Democratic majority in Congress. That's a pretty weak reason to vote for somebody who has lost your vote on every other criterion.

Add these thoughts to my previous post about the electoral vote mountain McCain would have to climb, and it's looking more and more like a sure thing that Barak Obama will be sworn in on January 20th as president of the United States.

Ralph

Voted for Bush Twice - You Owe Us. Sit This One Out.

Brief, and to the point.

I think anyone who voted for Bush twice has a moral obligation to sit this election out. Clearly, their judgment is deeply suspect. Let someone else make the decision this time. In baseball, if someone goes into a deep slump, they are removed from the lineup and sat on the bench, replaced by someone who might actually help the team.

So I call on all two time Bush voters to put Country First. On election day, stay home.