Odds and ends

1. In a chilling reminder of Joe McCarthy's worst guilt-by-association tactics, a wild-eyed Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann on Hardball TV with Chris Mathews claimed that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle hold anti-American views and can't be trusted in the White House. She even called for the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." And she implied that holding liberal views is anti-American.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html

2. You've heard about the massive robocall campaign across the country put out by the McCain campaign to smear Obama. Apparently it hasn't hurt him in Missouri, one of the most important tossup states. Today 100,000 people came out to hear him speak at a rally in St. Louis.

3. I just saw the new Oliver Stone film, "W." Pretty devastating just by presenting a more or less straight-forward portrayal of what we already know. Still, it has the effect of an "inside" view as it's all happening. It's not a hatchet job, nor a whitewash. I came away feeling slightly less contemptuous of Dubya, because it does try to provide some psychological context for his strivings (to gain Poppy's respect and love, as well as to succeed where his father failed).

But it does nothing to mitigate the effect of Dubya's failure on our country and the world; and, if the therapist in me felt a twinge of compassion for George the crippled man, the rest of me still feels appalled and enraged that this limited man was given such power to do harm. It was utterly predictable that he would.

Extraordinary portrayal of Cheney by Richard Dreyfus. Worth the ticket price for that alone.

Ralph

Who is the real Bill Ayers?

Let's cut the McCain BS and see what someone who knows Bill Ayers has to say about him.

Friends--

I know Bill Ayers. He lives about the same distance from me as he does from Barack Obama. He was my son's Little League coach; he was on the Local School Council of one of our schools; he and his wife Bernadine have parties at each of my college reunions (Bernadine was in my class) and everyone comes to them from community organizers to neocons. They make it comfortable for us all.

I know Bill and Bernadine's lovely children. One played ball with my son. Another is a foster child who came to them with many problems but who grew up to become a Rhodes Scholar. It took a lot of good parenting to go from there to here.

I know Bill as a serious educational leader. He is a professor of education at the University of Illinois and he writes almost as much (and as fast) as I read. It's no secret that he wants change in our schools; who doesn't. When I was a school principal, I went to him for advice many times and got a lot from his suggestions. If you want to know where Bill stands on education, read Teaching Toward Freedom, A Kind and Just Parent or To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher.

Hundreds of people in my neighborhood know Bill the way I do. We have talked with him on the street, in the gym, at PTA meetings, on committees, at parties and in the grocery store. We know what he was 35 years ago -- more than half a life ago. Today he is a good neighbor, a good parent and a friend.

John McCain makes Bill Ayers out to be a demon and those who associate with him hardly any better. I'll tell you that in our neighborhood -- my neighborhood, Barack's neighborhood and Bill Ayer's neighborhood -- that would demonize an awful lot of people. Many are very fine people and at least one would make a great president!

Best wishes,

Jay Mulberry

P.S.: I urge you to pass this to others to help clarify the matter.

The message is entirely my doing. Neither Bill Ayers nor the Obama campaign had anything to do with it.

Please Fill This Out

Please go to the previous link about the survey and take 10 minutes to fill it out. It is a non-partisan survey put out by NYU.

Robocalls from "McNasty"

McCain's campaign has now become as mean, nasty, and sleazy as Karl Rove ever conducted against him in 2000. There are no excuses. Don't try to defend Hero John by saying it's his Rovian campaign managers, not really him. He chose them, he is responsible, he could tell them to stop.

In May 2006, John McCain was asked whether he was bending his principles for the sake of winning, when he courted Jerry Falwell in an effort to get the conservative base. He replied:

"I don't want it that badly. . . . I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."

As Richard Nixon's spokesman used to say, when confronted with his contradictions: "That statement is no longer operable."

If it ever was. Or maybe in 2006 McCain was just saying what he knew would sound good. As Peggy Noonan recently said about Sarah Pallin: "She doesn't even think out loud. She just says things."

It's time for other Republican senators and party leaders to step in and denounce these latest McCain tactics. It will only damange them. It won't win the election. And it is not right, John, and you know it.

Ralph

P.S. "McNasty" was McCain's nickname at the Naval Academy.

Conservatives for Obama

The Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that has not endorsed a Democrat for president since it was founded in 1847, today endorsed Barak Obama. This venerable newspaper pointed out their previous endorsement of an Illinois son, Abraham Lincoln.

Conservative talk radio host Michael Smerconish, who is apparently very big in the Philadelphia area, said: "For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president."

And New York Times conservative columnist, David Brooks, did not endorse him but praised his qualities and said "It is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president" -- echoing what the Washington Post said about him yesterday.

Yes, We Can

Ralph

Joe The Liar, McCain the Liar, and the Pro-America America

So Joe the plumber is NOT a plumber.
He does NOT own a business.
He does NOT make $250,000 a year.

Hmmm. That makes him a, what is that called? Oh yeah, a LIAR!

McCain mentions 'Joe the Plumber 21 times during the debate, implicitly fomenting lies about Joe's status.
McCain accuses Obama of smearing 'Joe the Plumber'(who is not a plumber, so McCain repeats that falsehood again), even though Obama never smeared Joe
McCain implies that Biden referencing the truth that McCain's Joe didn't have a license was a smear.

Let me see if I have this right - claiming, repeatedly, that someone is something they are not, accusing someone(Obama) for 'smearing' someone by a) not saying anything, and accusing another person(Biden) of 'smearing' Joe for b) pointing out the truth, that Joe isn't a plumber...


Hmmm. That makes McCain a, what is that called? Oh yeah, a LIAR!

But what do you call someone, like Palin, who dismisses millions of Americans as not being 'Pro-America' merely because they don't agree with her narrow, narrow, narrow, and uninformed view of the world?

Demagogue? Fascist? Idiot? I don't know, you tell me.

All Readers - Please Take this Survey, but Don't Post

"A research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. This stage of the study focuses on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election. They seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world) to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which will be completely anonymous..."

Here is the link to the survey: http://www.psychsurveys.org/brietruesdell/2008elections

We were chosen as one of the national blogs to participate in this survey, so even if you haven't posted, please take the survey.

But don't post a response to it. Thanks.

Obama -- Ayers

It appears that Obama has tried to minimize his connection with Bill Ayers, not because there was anything wrong with their collaborative efforts to improve public education in Chicago, but because the McCain camp could (and has) so easily distorted it into a "palling around with terrorists" meme.

Walter Annenberg, Richard Nixon's Ambassador to the UK, funded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge in 1995. Obama was the Chairman. Other members of the Board included business, education, and civic leaders. The CAC partnered with the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, headed by Bill Ayers on a major, 5 year project of urban school reform which they hoped would bring about "an educational renaissance in the classroom.” In 1997 Bill Ayers was named Chicago's Citizen of the Year for his work in school reform.

A feature of the plan was to create Local School Councils to locate the center of control in local communities, with increased parental involvement, teacher improvement, and leadership training. This was controversial: it was promoted as democracy in action; opponents saw echoes of socialistic "reforms" which disguised authoritative control, and the legislature passed a law that returned full control of public schools to the mayor's office. This was more a political power ploy by the mayor than it was an ideological disagreement.

Nevertheless, The CAC put up $50 million dollars, which was matched 2:1 with other fund raising, for a total of $160 million. Some of the major donors were: Bank of America, Wallace-Readers Digest Fund, IBM, MacArthur Foundation. Not exactly a radical bunch.

In the end, the 5 year effort was not a major success. Children's academic performance did improve in the "Annenberg Schools," but not significantly more than in the school system in general.

Undoubtedly, Obama and Ayers worked more closely on this than he wants to imply. So what? It was an attempt to improve education, not to spread terrorism or socialism. It's sad when the simple truth cannot be told in order to avoid being fodder for smear campaigns.

Shame on John McCain and Sarah Pallin.

For more: http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/behind-annenberg-gate-inside-chicago.html

Ralph

Palin Rally Incites Violence in North Carolina

This report from a blog at the Greensboro News-Record details a disturbing act of violence, and apparent censorship, that occured at the Palin rally at Elon college.

Apparently, some Obama supporters were chanting during the Palin rally, a legal but obnoxious activity. They were escorted out by the police. Reporters who were watching the protestors were yelled at by Palin supporters to stop watching the protestors and pay attention to Palin.

I guess it's no longer, accordign to Palin supporters, to look around the world at whatever you feel like watching?

Anyways, after the rally a reporter went to find the protesters who were evicted. According to Mark Binker's blog, this is what Joe Killian reported happened to him.

I sidled up to one of the Obama supporters and asked why they were there, what they were trying to accomplish.

As he was telling me a large, bearded man in full McCain-Palin campaign regalia got in his face to yell at him.

"Hey, hey, " I said. "I'm trying to interview him. Just a minute, okay? "

The man began to say something about how of course I was interviewing the Obama people when suddenly, from behind us, the sound of a pro-Obama rap song came blaring out of the windows of a dorm building. We all turned our heads to see Obama signs in the windows.

This was met with curses, screams and chants of "U.S.A" by McCain-Palin folks who crowded under the windows trying to drown it out and yell at the person playing the stereo.

It was a moment of levity in an otherwise very tense situation and so I let out a gentle chuckle and shook my head.

"Oh, you think that 's funny?! " the large bearded man said. His face was turning red. "Yeah, that 's real funny…" he said.

And then he kicked the back of leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.

Earlier, when she was asked about her supporters shouting "Kill him" at a rally, Palin denied it happened and said of course she would have condemened it. I'll be wtaching to see if she condemns this act of violence. But I won't be holding my breath.

Of course, Palin might not hear about this , either. Apparently her handlers are not allowing her to watch the news because it might make her depressed. Depressed at press coverage of a campaign? This is the person the right wing is trying to pretend is capable of handling the pressure of being President? Someone who is too fragile to even watch TV news?

Give me a break.

Obama's potential

Barak Obama has been collecting a slew of newspaper endorsements, the latest being the Washington Post yesterday. Their editorial said:

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

Not only are we at a perilous moment -- our freefall economy, our dimished standing in the world, our debacle of two wars, the politicization of our justice system, our regulatory agencies dominated by the industries they are supposed to police, the cynicism of our people -- but new problems must be addressed as well: global warming, renewable energy sources, health care, global economy, world hunger.

Not since the Great Depression and World War II produced FDR has our need for great leadership been so imperative. The Washington Post concludes: "Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president."

Millions and millions of us agree. But we have to get him elected before he can become our next great president. McCain has lost on the issues; he has lost the advantage of "experience, leadership, and confidence." His only hope now is destroying people's trust of Obama, fanning the flames of racism, suppressing the vote, initimidating voters, and manipulating the actual vote counting.

But Republicans are formidable at just those dirty tactics. We have to get out the vote in such overwhelming numbers that they won't matter.

And Yes, We Can !

Ralph

Last ditch strategy

Looks like the Republicans' last ditch strategy is nothing new. Today, they began a multi-state blitz of robo calls from "John McCain and the RNC" pushing an insinuation about Obama and Bill Ayers and ACORN.

If that's all they have in reserve for the end-game, then I don't think we have to worry much. Sure, both issues rev up the base. And FOX News will go 24/7 pushing these issues. But that's already old news that didn't really make much of a dent. The base gets excited, but their votes are already for McCain. And this kind of thing turns off the ones he really needs, the undecideds.

So, it raises my hackles a bit, the thought of a 2 week blitz of smear tactics. Still, if it's just old news, then it probably wont' work.

Nevertheless, we cannot let up. With all their attempts to suppress the votes with faux claims of "voter fraud" tactics to tie up the voting and intimidate voters, we're not home free. Fortunately, the Obama campaign knows this. Their message, coming on the news and on multiple emails today, is that we cannot be over-confident.

We should be home free, but the reality on the ground is that Republicans will do everything they can get away with, and then some, to take this election. They know they can't win. They can only take it. But they've done it before. Remember 2000.

Ralph

Morning after

Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.com says what I've been saying for weeks. It's over.

Here's how he put it: "That dynamic is this: People have decided that Obama is the guy who's offering real solutions for the economy; and they've rejected McCain's basic argument that Obama is unprepared for the gig of President. That has put McCain in an ever shrinking box: Anything he says that doesn't try to explain, in the most direct and substantive of terms, why his plans for the economy are better than Obama's come across as noise at best and stunts at worst. . . . [and tries] to avoid the subject that, judging by every poll, is foremost on the minds of voters right now."

Joe, the plumber, won't save him any more than Joe Sixpack. That was a carefully chosen talking point, hoping to trip Obama up in one spot of vulnerability in his economic plan. But it doesn't change the overall vast differences in McCain looking out for the big guys and Obama looking out for the little guys.

McCain's other big moment was to declare "I'm not George Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have run four years ago." It was well-rehearsed and pithy, but so what? Can you imagine anyone thinking, "Oh, thank god, that obliterates all my worries about a third Bush term." It's sort of in the same category as his mantra "I know how to do it." "I know how to fix the economy." "I know how to catch Osama bin Laden." Trust me, I know how. Fine, John, why haven't you shared that knowledge before now?

My favorite line from the night's comments was from Alan Schroeder, professor of journalism at Northeastern University, who said:

"However much McCain gnawed at his heels, Obama blithely shook him off, reinforcing an already established aura of unflappability."

Ralph

Obama 3 for 3

To me, the debate was painful to watch. McCain was such a loose cannon, firing shot after scatter shot at Obama, so that initially Obama was a bit off balance trying to respond to it all -- and frustrated to be on the defensive. It showed. But then he got his balance back, pivoted and was very effective in countering McCain's exasperating, picky approach.

McCain's base thought he was good, simply because he was aggressive. That soon wore very thin, especially with undecided voters. I thought he was obnoxious, and I wasn't even watching on a channel with split screen images to show his reactions while Obama was talking. Apparently that made it even worse.

Marty Kaplan wrote: "Ninety minutes of John McCain making faces was more than enough for a lifetime. He smirked. He grimaced. He sneered. He fake-smiled. It's hard to imagine anyone willingly inviting that antic lemon-sucking grinfest into their homes for the next four years."

And then the instant polls came in and exceeded my wildest hopes: CBS instant polls of a group of uncommitted voters on who won: Obama 53%, McCain 22%. Similar results at CNN, 58-31.

And the internal questions were ever worse for McCain:

Who expressed his views more clearly? Obama 66%, McCain 25%
Who seemed to be the stronger leader? Obama 56%, McCain 39%
Who was more likeable? Obama 70%, McCain 22%
Who spent time attacking opponent? Obama 7%, McCain 80%

In another focus group of undecided voters in Colorado conducted by Stan Greenberg, changes in favorable/unfavorable ratings were dramatic:

McCain, before debate: 54 favorable / 34 unfavorable
McCain, after debate: 50 favorable / 48 unfavorable

Obama, before debate: 42 favorable / 42 unfavorable
Obama, after debate: 72 favorable / 22 unfavorable

In previous debates, similar instant polls have been more or less matched by later polls.

Obama's team can start measuring the drapes now.

Ralph

And now the last debate

My phone service and internet have been down most of the day, so I'm just now trying to catch up on the day's news, blogs, stock market, and polls.

Electoral tracking polls still give it to Obama 361.4 to McCain 176.6. Obama is leading in all the battleground states, and West Virginia is essentially tied.

Polling in half a dozen states with heavy early voting shows this being dominated by Obama voters. That doesn't translate into final totals, but it suggests the Obama ground game, getting out the vote, will be a formidable force.

My thoughts about the debate tonight: What can McCain do to turn it around? Probably nothing. If McCain attacks, it backfires.

Both have unveiled economic plans that are predictable: McCain wants to invest at the top (tax cuts for the wealthy, for big business, lower estate tax); Obama wants to help middle and lower income people (with mortgages, jobs; help small business owners, eliminate Bush tax cuts for wealthy, stimulate jobs and economy by investing in infrastructure.)

I suspect it will come down, as before, not so much to issues as to the two men, themselves.

Simply by appearing on the same stage with Obama, McCain loses. He looks old, cranky, unfocused, mean, petty. Obama looks cool, collected, focused, on issue and on message.

He will win.

Ralph

Working Class Shows Support for Obama

I live in a neighborhood of ranch houses built sometime prior to World War II. In fact, I have an apple tree in my back yard that was planted during WWII as part of the government's war effort - apple orchards were planted in all the yards here. The neighborhood is relatively stable, but diverse. A lot of conservative, retired Southerners alongside families of African-American, Latino, and Korean descent. And, like me, the occasional white trash thrown in for seasoning.

While walking my dog on Monday I saw something that I had not witnessed before - 7 Obama signs. I only saw 1 sign for McCain, in the yard of the neighborhood Grinch.

Last election, I was the only one in my neighborhood who planted a Kerry sign. There were about a dozen Bush signs.

So the 7-1 Obama edge in signs is significant. It is only one neighborhood, but this is precisely the type of neighborhood Obama needs to win if he is to prevail in North Carolina - and other parts of the country.

More importantly, unlike in 2004, when my elderly neighbors were politely icy towards me after I posted my Kerry sign, everyone has been warm and friendly, and my Obama sign has been up since the primaries.

A good 'sign' I think.

McCain's defamed legacy

McCain has sneered at Obama's surge toward assured victory with the tired cliche "he's measuring the drapes for the Oval Office." [Note to McCain's staff: that's not a good line for him to use. It was Poppy Bush's line, and remember, you're running away from the Bush name; and Poppy said it about Bill Clinton. Who won, by the way, and did change the drapes in the Oval Office.]

The counterpart to that line might be that John McCain should be measuring his post-defeat legacy. What's it going to be like, going back to the Senate? Even pal HolyJoe Liebermann hasn't been too much in evidence lately. Post-defeat McCain legacy is not going to be pretty. He led his party to defeat in a way that further damaged its moral and idealogical bankruptcy.

By the negative campaign he has run, he has destroyed his once vaunted reputation as a decent man of integrity, who promised to run a civil campaign. Trying to put the blame for the negative campaign on Obama's refusing to meet him in weekly town hall events is simply a silly excuse. Adult people know that.

By the confused, incoherent campaign he has run, with constant lurches and reversals and lack of a persistent theme, he has destroyed any reputation for clear thinking and leadership. If you can't choose your staff and then supervise them to do a better job than this, what kind of administration would you run? Are you listening, Hillary?

By fanning the flames of partisanship, and even going over the line to demonize his opponent and, yes, to stir up violent crowd emotions, he has destroyed any reputation he had for bipartisanship. Just saying that all's fair in the heat of a political campaign, won't do, Senator. You went too far.

By making repeated gaffes and revealing a poor understanding of the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, he lost the reputation he once had as strong on national defense and the credentials to be commander in chief.

And now today, Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for George Bush's reelection campaign, has eviscerated him for choosing Sarah Palin. Speaking at a Time-Warner Summit panel, Dowd said "[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that."

So, there goes his mantra of "putting country first."

Maybe after the furor of this campaign has died down, I might feel a little sorry for John McCain, as I often do when a man's long career ends ignominously and thus obliterates a better legacy. But I'm not sure I will get to that point. One of the things that we've learned in this campaign is that the "old John McCain" that everyone keeps wishing would come back, wasn't the man that we thought he was anyway.

Ralph

George Bush - Socialist; Sarah Palin - Lady MacBeth

Well, who would thunk it? Arch Conservative George Bush is the first president to (partially at least) nationalize US banks. That little mouse you see occasionally scampering out of the white house to squeak in front of a mic, then scurrying back inside, has decided Socialism may be a better solution to our current economic crisis than Capitalism.

I want to applaud him for having enough wisdom to recognize the way business is done in the US needs to change, but the thought of Bush embracing Socialist principles is too mind boggling.

Meanwhile, you have Lady McPalin, who has publicly criticized John McCain for - hint, hint - not being 'man' enough to attack Obama, hoping this will spur him on to verbal violence, has quickly decided this election is not about McCain winning the White House, but about positioning herself for the 2012 race.

Palin, who obviously revelled in the bloodlust of acolytes screaming 'terrorist' and 'kill him' at her rallies, resents McCain's desire that there be some modicum of decency to this campaign and, according to the London times, is concerned that McCain is "throwing away her chance of becoming vice-president".

I'm sorry Sarah, I forgot it was all about you.

The Times quotes Mark Salter, McCain’s long-serving chief of staff, as having told campaign insiders that he would prefer his boss, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, to suffer an “honourable defeat” rather than conduct a campaign that would be out of character."

Honourable. That's a word you won't find in Palin's vocabulary. Slash, and burn, and lie, and kill - now that's more her style.

The Big Picture

For a moment, I will put aside poll numbers and try to look at the big picture. There is no way, short of some major national security disaster, that Obama can lose -- and perhaps not even then.

He has crossed the crucial threshold of being seen as presidential and trustworthy with that awesome responsibility. Voters now see him as the stronger leader and better at handling the economic crisis. Voters overwhelmingly think he is more in tune with their beliefs. Though it's close, they now would choose him as the one they trust in the event of an unexpected major crisis (aka terrorist attack).

Doubts about all of those issues were what kept the race close up until recent weeks. Obama's steady, calm, assured responses in the two debates and in the economic crisis have turned this around. McCain's own poor performance in all those has only helped Obama; but Obama won it for himself.

McCain had few choices, and he blew those. He tried, but couldn't really run away from his support of most of Bush's policies. So he had to run with the baggage of the worst president in history, an unpopular war, and now an economic tsunami. All factors that promise a landslide defeat.

Unless he could discredit Obama personally and exploit people's fears and prejudices, he could not hope to win. So he tried that, and it backfired.

Don't look for him to give up yet. He will try one more dramatic stunt, one more Hail Mary pass. It could be the only thing he hasn't tried: ressurecting the old John McCain that people used to like and respect.

But it is too late. He's stuck with his choice of Sarah Palin, and he's stuck with the campaign he's created, and he's stuck with an economy he has no fix for. And, in the end, he's stuck with himself, who as we've learned isn't really that "old John McCain" we thought we knew either.

Ralph

Obama-Ayers smear

Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed a reader's letter, which parrots the McCain campaign's vicious smear and lies about Obama's association with Bill Ayers' "multi-million dollar projects to teach radicalism and anti-Americanism in Chicago public schools."

I wrote a letter in response; but, since they probably won't print it, I'll post it here:

"A writer claims that Obama and Ayers colluded "to teach radicalism and anti-Americanism in Chicago public schools" ("Obama-Ayers link," Oct 13). This was thoroughly researched and debunked by the non-partisan PoliticFact.com.

"The Chicago Annenburg Challenge Foundation worked to improve education in Chicago's schools. Obama was a Board member, Ayers an Advisory Committee member. He neither determined its content nor controlled the program.

"The foundation was funded by Walter Annenburg, Nixon's Ambassador to Britain and a Republican business leader whose widow has endorsed John McCain. Board members were mainstream business, education, and civic leaders.

"The McCain smear campaign cited as “evidence” a letter inviting applications from "schools that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn." Please! This refers to education methods, not political radicalism.

"They also cited programs on a United Nations peace effort and African-American studies. That's as "radical" as it gets, folks."

[I was limited to 150 words, so this is the briefest possible summary. For the full PolitiFact article, go to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/]

Ralph

Voter Fraud - Who Has the Most to Gain?

With all the allegations swirling around fraudulent voter registrations, and a lack of clarity as to who is responsible, a simple question that might cut to the core of this problem is missed - who gained from these events? Answer that question, and you have the most likely answer to who is behind them.

In the thousands of ballots mailed with Obama misnamed as Osama, the answer is clear. McCain. It should be a simple matter to figure out 1) who was responsible for writing up and proofing the ballots prior to printing, and 2) who printed the ballots up. Look into those two areas, and you should find out who is responsible for that fraud.

The Acorn question is equally simple to answer, although several plausible answers present themselves.

Workers who canvas for ACORN get paid by the number of ballots they turn in. ACORN does not pay well for this job. A simple way to boost one's paycheck would be to sit in a coffee shop for an hour and write up a full shift's worth of 'registrations'. Worker fraud is pretty common these days, esp. among young people unused to actually working 8 hours a day. The people who gained were workers who got paid without having to work.

ACORN must have access to information on who turned in which ballots, who worked in the specific areas where they were generated. It is a simple matter to find those workers. Why has this not been done?

Obama? This might seem to be the case on the surface, but common sense will tell you it's impossible for thousands of non-existent people to show up at the polls, with fake IDs, and vote. So fake registratiosn of this scope do not translate to fake votes.

And since the fake registrations were so obviously false - there was no attempt to hide or disguise that they were written in the same handwriting, and some of the names and addresses were so obviously fake(they barely stopped short of signing up Daffy Duck at Disneyland) it appeared whoever filled out the forms wanted to be caught.

Why? Well, if it was caught out, the immediate spin would be that this was somehow a plot to help Obama. So he didn't have anything to gain under this scenario either.

Which brings us to another likely scenario

McCain has the most to gain by this story about voter fraud. Given that Palin/McCain have run a campaign based on lies and attacks, it's entirely plausible some of their supporters, with or without the campaign's knowledge, signed up to canvas for ACORN, then deliberately falsified registrations in a manner designed to insure they would be caught, hoping this would create negative press for Obama.

And of course there's ACORN. The more registrations they turn in, the more effective their organisation looks, the more money they can raise for themselves. ACORN has had past problems with one of their officers embezzling funds, so their hiring at the executive level is suspect. And in 2005 four ACORN employees falsified 3,000 ballots. So there is a past history of organisational malfeasance.

The problem with this now is similar to the point I made above - the registrations were so obviously fake, it seems whoever filled them out knew they'd be caught. It's ahrd to concieve ACORN, knowing they'd been scrutinized in the past, would falsify registrations and make no attempt to hide the fact they were falsified.

So again we're back to, Who had the most to gain by this? I only see two plausible answers. Underpaid and/or lazy workers. The McCain campaign. And ACORN coming in a distant third.

Election thoughts

John McCain's negative advertising has backfired. Internal tracking polls show that his, not Obama's, unfavorable ratings have gone up and now exceed 50%.

Further, the few remaining undecideds are not the kind of voters who tend to be swayed by negative ads. In fact, they react negatively to negativity. And yet, McCain and Palin continue on that same track. Let's hope they don't catch on.

McCain announced today that "I'm going to whip his you-know-what Wednesday night." Yea, that's about the right tone, Johnny Mc. Schoolyard bully taunts. I prefer my presidents with a little dignity and intelligence, especially in such a grave crisis as we face.

He's also trumpeting that he will release, maybe at the debate, his new plan to save the economy. So far, all his plans have fallen like duds, and have generally been poorly received even by his own party.

RealClearPolitics breaks down the electoral vote (as of today's standing): Obama 277, McCain 158, Toss-up 103. Even if McCain wins every one of those toss-up states (FL, OH, NC, MO, IN, CO, WV, NV) he still doesn't get the magic number of 270. And of those Obama has a good lead in FL, OH, NC, CO, and NV; IN and MO are tied; and McCain has a lead only in WV.

Nate Silver, the genius with the statistics at FiveThirtyEight.com, calculates the electoral vote, if held today, at 350.5 to 187.5 (he allocates the toss-ups).

Nate has made a statistical prediction, based on the historical accuracy of the Gallup poll at this point in the campaign. Obama has held at least a 7 point Gallup lead consistently for 2 weeks. Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Somehow he calculates this into the prediction that Obama has a 94.1% chance of winning the electoral votes and becoming the next President of the United States.

Even with all this good news, it feels very risky to actually begin to expect that we will win. My head says we will, maybe even a landslide. But my gut clutches up: remember hanging chads, butterfly ballots, voter suppression, voter intimidation, last minute SwiftBoat vicious lies.

Ralph

Milestone

100 days and counting.

99 . . . 98 . . . 97 . . . 96 . . .

Ralph

Racism, Hatred in Georgia and South Carolina - no surprise

This past weekend I traveled to Atlanta for the Writing and Wellness Conference. On the drive both ways I was treated to that radio 'dead space' that occurs just South of Charlotte and continues until you begin to approach Atlanta.

The only available radio stations featured preachers, Mexican music, and extreme right wing talk shows. Now, I do try to keep up with what Limbaugh and his ilk say, but I was still shocked at what I heard coming form the mouths of conservative female hosts. The attacks on Obama almost - almost - made Palin sound reasonable. Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan, Sharpton were trotted out consistently. Audio clips were played not just out of context, but deliberately misinterpreted. Obama's middle name was repeatedly used in a derogatory fashion, as was the word Communist. No evidence was ever offered, of course, for the claim he was a Communist or Islamic terrorist. Which, of course, he isn't. Michelle Obama was accused of secretly being a co-conspirator with Bernadine Dorhn. What evidence was provided? Three years before Michelle was hired by a Chicago law firm, Bernadine was hired by that firm.

That was it. All the evidence. This was before Michelle and Barack were even married.

The manner of expression was so vitriolic I expected to see spit flying out of the radio speakers.

McCain is at the top of the ticket, and he certainly deserves a share of the blame for this. His name is on the ads after all; his approval. But much of the blame for the incendiary, racist agitation being shown by followers of the Republican ticket has to be placed on Palin. She was the one who began the name-caling, pointedly began to stir up crowds to frothing anger by her smears that Obama was a terrorist, and 'not one of us'. She is the one who is deliberately catering to the basest attitudes of the base. She is the one who, even today, told McCain he needed to be even more aggressive in his attacks on Obama.

Palin has created a brush fire of hatred that is threatening to get out of control - as witnessed by the way McCain was booed when he tried to quiet some of his most ignorant supporters. By the way he is publicly challenged to be more negative by hotheads at his rallies, by offensive and exclusionary 'prayers' offered at his rallies by preachers who are totally out of touch with any God who is compassionate and all-loving.

Economic crisis

Most everyone is now agreeing that part of the rescue package must include the government stepping in to rescue banks by buying equity in them, thus becoming part owners and giving taxpayers the potential for recouping the investment when the economy improves.

George Stephanopolis asked Jim Baker why he supports that move, given that it is diametrically opposite to Ronald Reagen's economic policy when he was Reagen's Secretary of Treasury. Baker said, "yes, but it's necessary now because of the circumstances. This crisis is simply too big for the private sector to be able to manage without government help."

Hello??!! Doesn't this sort of prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that an unregulated and unfettered private sector is not the answer they declared it was? That without deregulation this might have been prevented instead of frantically bailed out at the cost of trillions? It seems to me that Obama is right, that this economic crisis is the final proof that the Republican economic policy doesn't work.

The economy has to be stabelized quickly -- but then the system has to be fixed. We should not let this lesson get lost: the Reagen revolution didn't work and it is over.

As they're now saying in Britain, "We're all Socialists now." I doubt many here will go that far, but in fact what they're talking about is partial nationalization of the banks.

There is a difference, however. The equity shares that the government will buy are to be non-voting shares. The government itself may re-impose regulations on the industry and the system, but the ownership of non-voting bank equity shares will not give the government voting power as a stockholder in those individual banks.

Ralph