More on Guilt by Association

Another interesting item that I've come across in the last few days relates back to my post "Low Blows & Lies: What to Talk About When You're Losing on the Issues". In that post, I mentioned Sen. McCain's ties to the U.S. Council for World Freedom a right-wing extremist group. Over the last few days, we keep hearing the McCain campaign jabbering on about Sen. Obama's associations with William Ayers. Sometimes the complaint being leveled against Sen. Obama seems to be that there is relationship at all with Ayers; other times the complaint is more nuanced and seems to be limited to suggesting that Sen. Obama hasn't been truthful about the nature of that relationship. You know what's coming, don't you? You betcha! According to the article "McCain didn’t report ties to Contra group" by Kenneth P. Vogel in Politico:

As a freshman congressman in the early 1980s, John McCain did not disclose his connections to a controversial group that was implicated in a secretive plot to supply arms to Nicaraguan militia groups during the Iran-Contra affair.

McCain did not list his service on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom on mandatory congressional disclosure forms asking about positions he held outside government.

Moreover, Vogel writes in "Dems hope Singlaub is McCain’s Ayers" that Sen. McCain wrote to the U.S. Council for World Freedom in 1984 to resign from the organization, but allowed his name to remain on the letterhead in 1985 and attended the group's 1985 award ceremony.

So, if the real concern is Sen. Obama's "lack of truthfulness", then perhaps Sen. McCain is throwing stones at his own glass house (did I just mangle that cliche?). On the other hand, if the real concern is Sen. Obama's "relationship" with William Ayers, then I guess that we should be sure that nobody else -- especially nobody tied to Sen. McCain -- has an "association" with Ayers. I know that I can't surprise you anymore... (and, in light of the amount of information and the lack of time that I have right now, pardon me for simply quoting the Daily Kos diary entry "The Annenberg Foundation - Terrorist Financers " by Jimmy Crackcorn nearly in its entirety [spelling errors in original]):

In 1968 William Ayers was leader of the Weatherman, a well known domestic terrorist organisation.

In 1993 William Ayers, Anne Hallett, and Warren Chapman decided to apply for a grant from the Annenberg Foundation for $49.2 Million to improve and reform Chicago's public schools.

In 1994 Ayers, Hallett and Chapman gathered a 73-member Chicago School Reform Collaborative Working Group from organizations involved in school reform to help them draft a proposal which was submitted to Vartan Gregorian, president of Brown University, for review and approval. Adele Smith Simmons, Deborah Leff, and Patricia Albjerg Graham helped negotiate its approval by Gregorian.

In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was awarded the $49.2 millon grant by the Annenberg Foundation.

Who are these scary people that showed such poor judgement that they were willing to fund and work with a known domestic terrorist?

The following is a list of people who found William Ayers acceptable to work with. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats, some have endorsed John McCain in 2008 and some even currently work on John McCain's 2008 campaign. Most are well respected people but apparently they all loves them some terrorists.

Someone should make an ad calling the Annenberg Foundation a terrorist financer and see how many republicans freak out in response to this garbage:

[video of McCain campaign attack ad omitted]

Walter Hubert Annenberg, Terrorist Financer Provided William Ayers with a $49.2 Million grant.

During his lifetime, it is estimated that Annenberg donated over US$2 billion. "Education...", he once said, "holds civilization together"[8]. Many school buildings, libraries, theaters, hospitals, and museums across the United States now bear his name. His collection of French impressionist art was valued at approximately US$1 billion in 1991 and was donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City upon his passing in 2002. In 1990, he donated $50 million to the United Negro College Fund which was the largest amount ever contributed to the organization

Walter's widow, Leonore has endorsed John McCain in 2008

Vartan Gregorian, Terrorist Sympathizer Pro Bono education advisor to Annenberg Foundation who approved $49.2 million grant to William Ayers.

President of Brown University (1989–1987); president of the Carnegie Corporation (1997– ); former president of the New York Public Library; former professor of Southwest Asian history, dean, and provost of the University of Pennsylvania

Ted Sizer, Terrorist Sympathizer Pro Bono education advisor to Annenberg Foundation who approved $49.2 million grant to William Ayers.

Founding chairman of the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) (1984–1997); professor of education at Brown University (1983–1997); former headmaster of Phillips Andover (1972–1981); former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (1964–1972)

David Kearns, Terrorist Sympathizer Pro Bono education advisor to Annenberg Foundation who approved $49.2 million grant to William Ayers.

Chairman of the Alexandria-based New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC)—a 1991 school reform initiative of President George H. W. Bush; former Deputy Secretary of Education (1991–1993) under Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander in the George H. W. Bush administration; former president, CEO and chairman of Xerox

Kearns worked for John McCain's 2000 campaign and works current for his 2008 campaign.

Warren Chapman, Terrorist Sympathizer Worked directly with William Ayers on grant proposal.

Senior program officer for education at the Joyce Foundation; former state coordinator at the Illinois State Board of Education for the Illinois Alliance of Essential Schools—a regional center of the Coalition of Essential Schools (1986–1992)

Anne Hallett, Terrorist Sympathizer Worked directly with William Ayers on grant proposal.

Executive director and founder of the Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform; former executive director of the Wieboldt Foundation (1986–1993); former executive director of the Citizens Education Center in Seattle (1983–1986); former executive director and founder of the Chicago Panel on School Policy (1982–1983); former chair, founder, and chief lobbyist for Citizens for Fair School Funding in Seattle (1976–1982)

Adele Smith Simmons, Terrorist Sympathizer Negotiated on behalf of William Ayers for grant proposal.

President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (1989–1999); vice chair and senior executive of Chicago Metropolis 2020—a project of the Commercial Club of Chicago (1999– ); senior associate at the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago (1999–2005); former president of Hampshire College (1977–1989); former assistant professor of East African history at Princeton University (1972–1977) and Tufts University (1969–1972); former dean of students at Princeton University (1972–1977); former dean of Jackson College for Women of Tufts University (1970–1972); Ph.D. 1969, University of Oxford; B.A. 1963, Radcliffe College

Deborah Leff, Terrorist Sympathizer Negotiated on behalf of William Ayers for grant proposal.

President of the Joyce Foundation (1992–1999); president and CEO of America's Second Harvest (1999–2001); director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library (2001–2006); president of Public Welfare Foundation (2006– ); former senior producer at ABC News (1983–1989); former producer at WLS-TV ABC 7 News in Chicago (1981–1983); former director of public affairs at the Federal Trade Commission (1980–1981); former civil rights attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice (1977–1979); J.D. 1977, University of Chicago Law School; A.B. 1973, Princeton University

Patricia Albjerg Graham, Terrorist Sympathizer Negotiated on behalf of William Ayers for grant proposal.

President of the Spencer Foundation (1991–2000); professor of the history of education (1977–2006) and former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (1982–1991); former dean of the Radcliffe Institute (1974–1977) and vice president of Radcliffe College (1976–1977); former assistant professor (1965–1968), associate professor (1968–1972), professor (1972–1974) of the history of education at Barnard College and Teachers College, Columbia University; former assistant professor of the history of education at Indiana University (1964–1966); former high school teacher, Norfolk, Viriginia (1955–1956, 1957–1958), New York City (1958–1960); Ph.D. 1964, Columbia University; B.S. 1955, M.S. 1957, Purdue University

Arnold R. Weber, Terrorist Pal Served on founding Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

President of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago (1995–1999); member of the board of directors of the Arie and Ida Crown Memorial and the Tribune Company; former president of Northwestern University (1985-1994) and the University of Colorado (1980–1985); professor of labor economics and friend and colleague of George P. Shultz at MIT, the University of Chicago, and in the Nixon administration

Weber has donated money to John McCain's 2008 Campaign.

To repeat, one of the people "associated" with Ayers contributed to Sen. McCain's campaign, the estate of another has endorsed Sen. McCain, and a third works for Sen. McCain's campaign. And, while it is impossible to tell whether the others are Republicans or Democrats, it certainly cannot be denied that the group has, overall, a very impressive resume.

I'll be waiting for Sen. McCain to (a) attack all of these people (and the Annenberg Foundation) for their associations with Ayers, (b) give back the money that he received from Arnold Weber, (c) reject the endorsement from Leonore Annenberg, and (d) fire David Kearns. After all, they each had an "association" with Ayers that, it could be argued, was much more involved that Sen. Obama's association.

And, as long as I'm on the subject of associations, we may as well take one more look at the Alaska Independence Party that Gov. Palin's husband Todd was a member of for seven years and which Gov. Palin spoke highly of when she addressed their recent convention ("Keep up the the good work," she told the AIP). I know that I've written about this subject somewhat extensively, but I came across an interesting article in Salon ("The Palins’ un-American activities") with yet more information on the AIP and its founder.

Before getting to the amazing bit of new information, it is worth taking a moment to consider a few things that the founder of the AIP, Joe Vogler, has been quoted as saying. For example, we have this gem: "My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand." And this:

When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don’t have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die.

But the item in the Salon article that caught my attention was this:

Vogler's greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States "tyranny" before the entire world and to demand Alaska’s freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue.

That's right … Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran.

AIP leaders allege that Vogler, who was murdered that year by a fellow secessionist, was taken out by powerful forces in the U.S. before he could reach his U.N. platform. "The United States government would have been deeply embarrassed," by Vogler’s U.N. speech, darkly suggests [Lynette] Clark [AIP chairwoman]. "And we can’t have that, can we?"

So back to the comparisons: A Vietnam-era domestic terrorist who has since become a major figure in charitable organizations seeking to advance educational opportunities for low-income children and who has worked with well-known and influential people of all political persuasions vs. a candidate who attended conventions of and praised (and whose husband was a member of) a right-wing secessionist political party whose leader advocated violence against the United States and who sought to use Iran as a proxy to denounce the United States before the United Nations. I don't know about you, but it's an easy call for me.

As I asked before: Does Sen. McCain really want to play the game of guilt by association?

Election Miscellany (October 10, 2008)

So much has been happening in this campaign over the last few days, that I've been having a hard time keeping up with my own reading, let alone writing. Add to that such other little things as family, work, and the holidays, and I'm lucky to be keeping my head above water. With that in mind, I wanted to try to reference a few of the more interesting bits and pieces that I've come across in the last few days. With any luck, this weekend, I'll be able to spend a bit more time writing about the frightening turn that the campaign has taken in the last week or so.

First, I wanted to talk briefly about one discussion in Tuesday's Presidential Debate that, to me, demonstrates how Sen. McCain is willing to simply look America in the eye ... and lie (or at least make it up...):

OBAMA: But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

...

McCAIN: Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable. You know, if you are a country and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

...

OBAMA: I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this. What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

(Emphasis added.) What I found remarkable about this exchange is that Sen. McCain was willing to misquote Sen. Obama to his face. It is one thing to take your opponent's statements out of context in a stump speech or for an advertisement. But to simply make up a statement out of whole cloth with your opponent standing right next to you? That's just stupid. Worse yet, Sen. McCain tried to lie about Sen. Obama's position mere moments after Sen. Obama stated the position quite clearly. And, it is worth noting that when Sen. Obama reiterated his position, he did, indeed, echo the position as he originally stated it. Perhaps Sen. McCain does not understand the nuances of Sen. Obama's position (not that I find it to be a very nuanced position; if Pakistan won't kill Bin Ladin, we will...); or, perhaps, Sen. McCain just doesn't care about the truth and facts are anymore. Sen. McCain has to make Sen. Obama look dangerous, risky, and unpresidential, and if the only way to do that is to try to create a sound bite that completely misrepresents what his opponents said or stands for, then the truth be damned. The Republican base may like it, but I think other voters can easily see through this kind of cheap shenanigan for what it is and recognize the desperation (not to mention dishonor) in Sen. McCain's conduct.

Next, there is the article "Fatal Cancer" in The Atlantic (available by subscription, but relevant parts quoted at The Huffington Post in the article David Brooks: Sarah Palin "Represents A Fatal Cancer To The Republican Party") in which conservative commentator David Brooks is quoted as saying:

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

This echoes some of the concerns that I wrote about a few weeks ago in my essay "Elitism in Politics". It's nice to see that some on the right are growing concerned with the rights's disdain for intellectualism.

Next, I found this video to be rather interesting. It intersperses parts of a speech that Sen. Obama gave back in July 2008 with current statements and advertisements from the McCain campaign. It looks like Sen. Obama had a pretty good sense of the strategy that the McCain campaign intended.



Maybe the McCain campaign is using Sen. Obama's speech as their strategy guide? And on a similar note, I also liked this video that shows Sen. McCain repeating, in numerous settings, how he planned to run a respectful issue-based campaign, seemingly recognizing that the American public wasn't interested in the type of negative, attack-based ads that we've seen in the past. Of course, to contrast these statements, the video shows some of the vitriol that has become the sum and substance of the McCain campaign recently:

Finally, I wanted to add a few pictures from Sen. Obama's rally in Indianapolis on Wednesday. Unfortunately, my pictures weren't very good (the iPhone just isn't designed to take photos of politicians on a platform a hundred or so yards away) and my wife's pictures were a bit blurry. Luckily, my brother-in-law was down close to the stage (in the mud) and got some pretty good photos:

(Note Evan Bayh in the background.)

Attending a campaign rally is cool; attending a campaign rally for a Presidential candidate in the general election is really coo. Attending a campaign rally for a Presidential candidate in the general election the day after a debate in a state that could flip from red to blue for the first time in my lifetime. Priceless!

Why McCain Doesn't Want to Talk to Our Enemies

I think that I've finally figured out why Sen. McCain is so adamant that we shouldn't include negotiation in the toolkit of resources that we use to deal with our enemies like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Spain (well, I only include Spain because Sen. McCain doesn't think we should talk to Spain; given that they're a NATO ally, I'm not sure why he puts them on the "no talk list"...). I reached my conclusion earlier today after thinking a bit about this week's debate and the first debate. Why doesn't Sen. McCain want to talk to our enemies? Because he doesn't know how to talk to "the enemy".

I know that's a bold statement, but I think that I can back it up. You see, Sen. McCain has recently provided the evidence to prove the point. Think back to the first debate. Sen. McCain never once looked at Sen. Obama. Not once. And, if I recall correctly, Sen. McCain would only refer to Sen. Obama as "Senator Obama" -- never simply "Barack" (and remember, that they are colleagues in the Senate). Then, jump forward to this week's debate. Again, the references were always to "Senator Obama" or "That One" (and by "That One" did Sen. McCain mean simply, "that guy over there" or was he talking to the racists in the country who are afraid to vote for a black man?). Finally, the point that confirmed my suspicion: At the end of the debate, when Sen. Obama reached out to shake Sen. McCain's hand, guess what? Cindy McCain was willing to shake Sen. Obama's hand, but Sen. McCain refused. Don't believe me? Watch:



Sen. McCain pats Sen. Obama on the shoulder, but then when Sen. Obama put out his hand to shake, Sen. McCain simply pointed to his wife, as if to say, "No, I'm not going to shake your hand; shake her hand instead." Weird, but no weirder than refusing to look at Sen. Obama in the first debate.

So, I look at it this way. If Sen. McCain can't bring himself to call his political opponent by his first name, can't bring himself to look at him during a debate, can't bring himself to shake the man's hand, what does that say about Sen. McCain's character? To me, it suggests that he simply doesn't know how to communicate with those that he views as his enemies. Given the torrent of lies and personal attacks coming from the McCain campaign (especially in the last few days), it would certainly appear that Sen. Obama is no longer a mere political opponent, but rather "the enemy". And, if a political rival is relegated to that sort of treatment, I can't imagine how Sen. McCain could possibly handle something as delicate as negotiating with an enemy. I don't think that Vladimir Putin or the Ayatollahs in Iran would take kindly to not being looked at or being ignored for a simple handshake (and I really doubt they'd take kindly to being called "That One"). Perhaps, then, we can understand why Sen. McCain doesn't want to talk to our enemies; he doesn't know how. He can't talk to a fellow Senator for whom he has obvious disdain (if not outright hostility), so how could he possibly talk to the real enemy?

And, as long as I'm on the subject of talking to our enemies, I want to make two more quick points. First, think back over the last 60 years or so. We talked to the Soviet Union; it is gone (and we never fought WWIII). We refuse to talk to Cuba and it remains a communist regime. We talked to China; it is still not a free democracy, but it is opening up to the outside world and becoming more of a free market economy. We didn't talk to Libya for years and they kept building weapons of mass destruction; finally, we talked to Libya and they agreed to suspend their weapons program. We haven't talked to Iran for years; in the meantime, their nuclear weapons program has advanced. We only want to talk to North Korea under certain (non-bilateral) circumstances; they've started rebuilding their nuclear reactor.

Negotiating doesn't mean capitulating; it doesn't even mean agreeing. It simply means talking. Sen. McCain likes to talk about how he works "across the aisle" in Congress; in other words, he brags about talking to his political opponents. But, during this campaign it appears that he is no longer able to do so or at least is unable to do so to a political opponent who has the upper hand or who is being treated as "enemy" rather than opponent (and the fact that the McCain campaign won't take a stand against their own supporters who shout out calls for political violence against Sen. Obama should be ample evidence that the McCain campaign views Sen. Obama as more [or would that be less?] than a mere political opponent). More importantly, it also appears that Sen. McCain doesn't understand that talking to your opponent is an important tool in a nation's arsenal. Sen. McCain would, apparently, strip from our arsenal a tool that we've used with success and which, when not used, has led to results that we haven't really liked. We don't take the military option off of the table; why should we talk diplomacy off of the table? Perhaps, Sen. Obama has the right idea...?

How many times in this campaign cycle have we heard Sen. McCain talk about his own American hero, Gen. David Patraeus. From the way that Sen. McCain keeps mentioning the General, you would almost think that Sen. McCain holds the Gen. Patraeus in a place of awe. In the two debates, Sen. McCain has mentioned Gen. Patraeus twelve times. In fact, just last night, in an interview, Sen. McCain was asked who he'd most like to have dinner with and he named Gen. Patraeus. Wouldn't it be interesting to know whether General Patraeus thinks we should talk to our enemies? Yes, you know what's coming... At around the same time that Sen. McCain was saying that he'd like to have dinner with Gen. Patraeus, the General was answering questions at the Heritage Foundation:



Yep, Sen. McCain's hero says "I do think you have to talk to enemies." So, unless I've got it wrong, the only one who doesn't want to talk to our enemies is Sen. McCain. Could it be that he is simply wrong?

That One '08

One more quick post about last night's debate. Reading Daily Kos while waiting for Sen. Obama to speak, I saw the following and couldn't resist including it here:

As another blogger noted, soon Sen. McCain will have to refer to President That One.

Obama Can Take 4 Weeks of Attacks But America Can't Take 4 Years of McCain Policies

I attended Sen. Obama's rally in Indianapolis this afternoon. It was an exciting event (much more so than Sen. Clinton's event last spring, but that is to be expected given that it is the general election). Sen. Bayh (who introduced Sen. Obama) reminded the crowd that Indiana hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since 1964 -- the year before I was born. Considering how miserable the weather was (on and off drizzle and cold wind), the fact that the grandstands at the State Fairgrounds were absolutely full was truly amazing to see. And I finally got a bumper sticker and a t-shirt!

Anyway, I'm low on time today, so I can't write about the debate or a number of other issues, but I did want to mention Sen. Obama's speech and my favorite sound byte:

Senator McCain's campaign announced last week that they plan to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy and spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. His campaign actually said, and I quote, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."Well I've got news for John McCain. This isn't about losing a campaign - this is about Americans who are losing their jobs, and their homes, and their life savings. I can take four more weeks of John McCain's attacks, but America can't take four more years of John McCain's George Bush policies.

(Emphasis added.)

The best part of that statement is that he manages to say it without seeming angry; in fact, his tone makes you think that Sen. Obama finds the McCain strategy almost humorous. So while Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin stand by and listen to their supporters call Sen. Obama a "terrorist" or a "traitor" or shout out "kill him", Sen. Obama just smiles and tells voters how he plans to make America a better country. The next 27 days should be very interesting.

McCain's Lobbyist Connections

I've written before about Sen. McCain's connections to lobbyists, in particular Rick Davis, his campaign manager. Well, I just came across McCain's Lobbyists, an interesting website that has a graphical display of the lobbyists linked to Sen. McCain including the amount of money that they've been paid and the amount of money that they're clients have funneled to Sen. McCain. Take a look:

Is this what a McCain White House would look like?

Celebrities Explain Why You Shouldn't Vote

Here's a great voter education video:

Sarah Palin Thinks Katie Couric Was Unfair

Apparently in an interview on Friday with Fox (I don't know if it was a real interview or another Hannity-style infomercial; I've just read about it on CNN), Gov. Palin expressed frustration with Katie Couric's choice of topics:

"I did feel there were a lot of things she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket," Palin said. "I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that’s also an indication about being outside that Washington elite, outside that media elite also, and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."

Let's see. Couric asked her about Supreme Court decisions that she disagreed with, her thoughts on the economic bailout, her foreign policy experience, Sen. McCain's legislative record on regulatory issues, her thoughts on abortion and birth control, and what periodicals she read to help form her worldview.

According to Gov. Palin:

"Man, no matter what you say you are gonna get clobbered," Palin told Fox about her heavily-scrutinized performance. "You choose to answer you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to pivot and try to go onto another subject that you believe Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that too."

She just doesn't get it, does she? She didn't get clobbered because of her answer; she got clobbered because she couldn't answer. She didn't get clobbered for trying to "pivot" and go to another subject; she got clobbered because she couldn't string together an intelligible sentence about much of anything. I've come to the conclusion that Gov. Palin simply doesn't understand how unqualified she really is; in fact, I suspect that she actually thinks that she is qualified.

More on McCain's Friends; Does He Really Want to Play Guilt By Association?

Yesterday, I wrote about the McCain campaign's decision to stop talking about issues and start trying to smear Sen. Obama by attacking Sen. Obama with guilt through association. Apparently, I'm not the only blogger out there who has recognized that this is not a fight Sen. McCain really wants to get into given his own associations. And, as I've been reading other blogs and articles today, I realized that I omitted several key "associates" of Sen. McCain who should have been included. So, picking up where I left off yesterday:

Sen. McCain has some really lovely people who have endorsed him. For example, Rev. John Hagee whose support Sen. McCain was "proud of" at least until it started to generate criticism. And why did Rev. Hagee's support cause criticism? Well, let's see. How 'bout Rev. Hagee's assertion that the Catholic Church is a "great whore" or that Nazis were acting as agents of God to drive Jews out of Europe to Palestine or that Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans because of the amount of sin in that city. Take a look at the this timeline of Sen. McCain's courtship of and relationship with Rev. Hagee.

Sen. McCain also actively sought the support of Rev. Ron Parsley. According to ABC News (relying in part of an article from Mother Jones), during a campaign event earlier this year, Sen. McCain introduced Rev. Parsley as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide." What does that moral compass have to say? Let's take a look:

• "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world"
• "America was founded with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed"
• Muhammad "received revelations from demons and not from the true God" and "Allah was a demon spirit"
• He has has compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis
• He has called for prosecution of people who commit adultery (oops, that would include Sen. McCain, wouldn't it...)

Of course, Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley will be immediately compared to Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright. The difference is that Sen. Obama quickly came out and repudiated Rev. Wright's statements and, in an emotional speech, talked about his relationship with Rev. Wright while forcefully denouncing Rev. Wright's opinions.

Sen. McCain did not speak out against Rev. Parsley or seek to distance himself from Rev. Parlsey or his views for several months after accepting Rev. Parsley's endorsement. Only when ABC broadcast some of Rev. Parsley's sermons on Good Morning America did Sen. McCain finally back away. Similarly, Sen. McCain sought out Rev. Hagee's endorsement and didn't end the relationship until media scrutiny and pressure became intense.

So, Sen. Obama may have his Rev. Wright, but Sen. McCain has both Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley. Either one may cancel out Rev. Wright, but that still leaves Sen. McCain in the "plus column". Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, we're not done.

How about this headline from The Huffington Post: "McCain Backer's Firm Pleaded Guilty To Funding Terrorist Group In Colombia". Yep, you read that right.

The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company's board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University's National Security Archive as an "illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country's most notorious civilian massacres."

Following a Justice Department indictment last year, Chiquita admitted to illegally funding the paramilitaries and agreed to pay a $25 million fine. Chiquita's payments to the AUC began in 1997 and lasted seven years; roughly half of the funds came after the group was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department in 2001.

According to the Justice Department, the payments "were reviewed and approved by senior executives" of Chiquita, who knew by no later than September 2000 "that the AUC was a violent, paramilitary organization."

Late last week, Lindner co-hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for McCain and the Republican Party in the wealthy Indian Hills neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio. The event raised about $2 million; Lindner also serves on McCain's Ohio Victory Team.

Let's go back to the comparison method used yesterday: Vietnam-era domestic terrorist who planted small bombs in a few buildings and who now works for charitable foundations and who had a "meet and greet" for Sen. Obama in 1995 vs. the former CEO of a major transnational corporation that gave $1.7 million to a group identified as a terrorist group and who hosted a $2 million dollar fundraiser for Sen. McCain and serves on a McCain campaign committee.

Finally, in yesterday's post, I did mention Charles Keating and the Keating 5. Well, the Obama campaign has released a video documentary to remind people of what the entire scandal was about and Sen. McCain's role (interesting that the 13 minute documentary was released just one day after the McCain campaign attacked Sen. Obama with guilt by association; you don't suppose the Obama campaign had that documentary "in the can" and ready for release at the right moment do you?). Take a few minutes to watch "Keating Economics":

Sen. McCain has taken exception to this documentary and following its release has today started (for the first time) to claim that the ethics investigation into his involvement with Charles Keating and Lincoln Savings and Loan was political smear job. Never mind that in his autobiography, Sen. McCain stated that:

I made the worst mistake of my life by attending two meetings, the first with the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the government agency charged with regulating the practices of the nation’s savings and loans, and a week later with four bank examiners based in San Francisco who were at that time investigating the investment and lending practices of Lincoln Savings and Loan of Irvine, California, owned by my good friend and generous supporter Charles Keating.

And ignore Sen. McCain's statement from last year:

I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment.

Interesting. He recognized it as the "worst mistake of his life" and agreed with the assessment that he used "poor judgment" but only until someone used that mistake and his judgment against him in a political campaign (and isn't this campaign supposed to be about judgment?). Then, and only then, it became a "smear job". I just love straight talk from Sen. McCain. And I really love the company that he keeps.

I'll repeat the question I asked yesterday: Does the McCain campaign really want to play the game of "guilt by association"?

Palin Overstates Her Support for Darfur Divestment

In last week's Vice Presidential debate, one of the things that Gov. Palin spoke about that really caught my attention was her support for divestment from companies doing business in Sudan as a means of putting pressure on the Sudanese to stop the genocide in Darfur:

What I've done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that's pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn't passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.

Darfur is an issue that resonates with me. As I mentioned in a post back in February 2008, I've lobbied the Indiana General Assembly in favor of a bill that, when enacted into law, required Indiana's pension funds to divest from most companies doing business with Sudan (in particular, companies that do business with Sudanese oil interests). Thus, I was gratified to hear Gov. Palin speak so forcefully on this issue. It was one of the few points where I found myself to be in agreement with her during this election cycle.

Unfortunately, it turns out that her support for the divestiture movement was not so strong as she would like us to believe. According to Michael Dobbs, columnist for The Washington Post, in his column "The Fact Checker", Gov. Palin first opposed the divestment plan before deciding, after it had died in a legislative committee, to support the plan:

The Save Darfur Coaltion [sic] has been urging states to divest from companies that do business with Sudan for the last two years, arguing that the investments "help fund genocide." An Alaska saving fund, The Alaska Permanent Fund, has around $22 million invested in international trading companies such as China Petroleum and Alstom of France, that do business with Sudanese oil interests.

Alaska Permanent Fund officials made clear from the outset that they were opposed to any divestment effort. Executive director Mike Burns told a local Anchorage TV station, KTUU, on December 11 that they were looking for the "best return" on the investments, and never took into account "socially responsible investments ... whether it's tobacco or alcohol or hospitals that perform abortions or hospitals that don't perform abortions."

In January 2008, a bill known as HB 287 was introduced into the Alaska House of Representatives restricting investments in companies that do business with Sudan. During a committee hearing in February, a Palin administration representative, deputy revenue commissioner Brian Andrews, testified against the legislation on the grounds that it would do nothing to help "the afflicted in Sudan," and would add to the fund's administrative costs.

While acknowledging that the legislation was "well-intended" and "the desire to make a difference is noble," Andrews warned that "mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination."

A co-sponsor of the legislation, Anchorage Democrat Les Gara, said that Governor Palin apparently had a change of heart on the divestment issue in March. During a brief hallway conversation, she expressed sympathy for his bill. By that time, however, the bill had effectively died in committee.

The change in the Palin administration's position became official in early April when Revenue commissioner Pat Galvin announced that the administration supported a Senate bill on divestment, SB 227, as "a proactive action against genocide in Darfur ... The situation is an ongoing human tragedy and Alaska has an opportunity to take a stand against those activities." The Senate bill, like the House Bill, went nowhere as there was no time to take action on it before the legislature wrapped up its business in early April.

...

Sarah Palin is exaggerating her role in leading the Sudan divestment effort in Alaska. The legislative record shows that her administration was late in embracing the campaign to sell stock in companies that do business with Sudan, and initially opposed the divestment effort. The Alaska Permanent Fund still invests in companies blacklisted by the Save Darfur Coalition.

Thus, while applaud Gov. Palin's current support for divestiture from companies doing business with Sudan, I must take exception to her efforts to make voters think that she has been out in front of this issue pushing for its adoption. She could have told the truth; she could have said that at first she opposed the bill, but upon learning more about the situation, decided to support it. I would have been gratified with that kind of answer; in fact, I would have commended her for recognizing the importance of the issue and putting politics and finances aside. But, instead, she tried to take credit for something without even acknowledging that she had initially been opposed. I think that politicians don't give voters enough credit when it comes to changes in positions. Tell us that you changed your mind and explain why.

I know that there have been lots of instances very much like this throughout the campaign. I raise this issue, not specifically to criticize Gov. Palin; I wish all candidates would avoid these sorts of half-truths or claims of support that don't tell the full story. No, I raise this particular issue precisely because of the issue itself. Genocide is too important for mere politics. I don't really care who stops the genocide or which party they are affiliated with. I just want genocide stopped, wherever it is found and whomever it may be against.

Sarah Palin's Debate Flowchart and Bafflegab

I found this terrific flow chart depicting Gov. Palin's debate response methodology:

And, just in case that weren't enough fun, I was also directed to a word that describes, quite well, her method of answering questions: Bafflegab. What is bafflegab, you ask? Well, I could describe it as the type of answers that we heard Gov. Palin give Katie Couric. Or I could give the true definition of the word:

Multiloquence characterized by consummate interfusion of circumlocution or periphrasis, inscrutability, and other familiar manifestations of abstruse expatiation commonly utilized for promulgations implementing Procrustean determinations by governmental bodies.

Next time you get confused listening to Gov. Palin, just think to yourself that you, unlike many others, can put a word to her speech patterns. How lucky.

Now We Know Why Palin Doesn't Think Paying Taxes Is Patriotic

In last week's Vice Presidential debate, Gov. Palin criticized Sen. Biden for the suggestion that paying taxes was patriotic:

Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic.

Unfortunately, America didn't quite know what Gov. Palin really meant by that statement. Well, now we've learned:

Sarah Palin makes $125,000 a year as Alaska governor. Plus, since she took the job in December 2006, she hasn't paid taxes on the more than $17,000 she received in controversial per diem payments for working out of the family's lakeside home in Wasilla -- some 575 miles from the capital of Juneau.

...

An Associated Press analysis of the returns released by the McCain campaign also reveals that the Palins underpaid their estimated taxes with an April extension and likely owe interest.

Not only does Gov. Palin not view paying taxes as being patriotic; she backs up her belief by not paying all of her taxes! And which taxes doesn't she pay? The taxes on controversial per diem payments that she receives from Alaska's taxpayers!

Low Blows & Lies: What to Talk About When You're Losing on the Issues

Yesterday, Gov. Palin launched a series of attacks against Sen. Obama this weekend. The attacks are flawed, unfair, and tinged with more than a hint of racism. I guess that when you've lost an election on the issues, you may as well change the subject and talk about something else entirely; after all, that's all that Gov. Palin could do in Thursday's debate...

So what is she saying now and what are the implications of the guilt by association game that the McCain campaign has decided to play? Gov. Palin has raised Sen. Obama's past "association" (more on that in a minute) with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization. According to the Associated Press, at several rallies this weekend, Gov. Palin said:

Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country

...

This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.

First, anyone who has ever bothered to listen to Sen. Obama knows the sheer absurdity of Gov. Palin's charge that Sen. Obama is not a patriot. But let's take a brief moment (well, OK, not so brief) to consider the charge of guilt by association ("palling around with terrorists") being leveled at Sen. Obama. Second, it is critical to remember that Ayers' terrorist activities occurred during the Vietnam War, when Sen. Obama was still a child (the acts amounted to a series of bombings that did relatively minor damage to buildings and two other members of the Weather Underground died building a pipe bomb). Though none of that does excuses Ayers, it is important to remember when we decide whether to hold it against Sen. Obama.

So what is the association between Sen. Obama and Ayers? Ayers (now an education Professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago) and his wife (also a former member of the Weather Underground) hosted a meet and greet with voters for Sen. Obama in 1995, both Ayers and Obama both served on the board (along with numerous other board members) of the Woods Fund, a non-profit, anti-poverty organization, they both live in Hyde Park (along with tens of thousands of other people), and they both worked on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which worked to raise matching funds for charitable grants for schools (it is worth noting that Ayers was involved in starting the Challenge). As CNN found when it examined the relationship:

Obama's Chicago home is in the same neighborhood where Ayers and Dohrn live. Beginning in 1995, Ayers and Obama worked with the non-profit Chicago Annenberg Challenge on a huge school improvement project. The Annenberg Challenge was for cities to compete for $50 million grants to improve public education. Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, and Obama was recruited onto the board. Also from 1999 through 2001 both were board members on the Woods Fund, a charitable foundation that gave money to various causes, including the Trinity United Church that Obama attended and Northwestern University Law Schools' Children and Family Justice Center, where Dohrn worked.

CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved.

Other publications have also examined the relationship between Sen. Obama and Ayers. According to The New York Times:

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people
who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with
Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr.
Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers,
whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I
was 8.”

And, as CNN reported:

Other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have said that their reporting doesn't support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.

And who are the plural "terrorists" that Gov. Palin is referring to? Perhaps, she's referring to Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who is now Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center. Yes, Ayers and Dohrn advocated and did bad things while Sen. Obama was still in elementary school, but should their service on non-profit anti-poverty and education charities be a stain against Sen. Obama?

And, before you answer that question, query whether you know the background, warts and all, of every single person that you have ever served with on an non-profit or charitable organization (or in your business or social life, for that matter). I like to think that I'm pretty knowledgeable on politics and American history, but I'd never heard of Ayers until this "controversy" first came to light during the primary season. When you meet someone new, do you conduct a background search on them? Do you know if your neighbor or business associate was a member of the Weather Underground or the SLA or a right-wing militia 40 years ago? Do you even ask? And, if that person is now a well-respected member of the community who spends time and effort trying to help improve education and raise money for charitable organizations, how much do you really care what that person did when you were a child? How many years of good deeds does it take to repent for bad acts? Remember: Sen. Obama is not accused of endorsing Ayers' views (either his views today, whatever they may be, or those he espoused during the Vietnam era); instead, Sen. Obama is accused of being unpatriotic because he "pals around with terrorists."

One more note, before I move on. Do you suppose that the reason that this charge keeps being raised against Sen. Obama (and the reason that Gov. Palin uses the generic term "terrorists") is because it is really designed to raise questions as to whether Sen. Obama is American enough? Is the charge designed to make people wonder if this black man with the weird name might really be a Muslim or be an enemy of America who has stealthily worked his way into a position of power? Those sorts of racist charges and undertones have been lurking around as long as Sen. Obama has been running for office. It is just sad to see the McCain campaign resorting to running a racist, xenophobic, smear campaign instead of an honest campaign focusing on a discussion of issues without resorting to lies. But then what else should we expect after what we've seen from Sen. McCain over the last month or so?

So, Gov. Palin (and Sen. McCain -- after all, he has to approve the message) want to play the game of guilt by association. Well, let's play that game for a moment.

We'll start with Gov. Palin. As has been widely reported and discussed (for example, see my September 3, 2008, post "Who Is Sarah Palin?"), Gov. Palin's husband, Todd, was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for years. That party includes in its platform the possibility of Alaska seceding from the United States and was founded by a man who refused to be buried in the United States because he hated our government so much. And, while Gov. Palin has tried to distance herself from the Alaska Independence Party, she has had to admit that she did attend at least one party convention and spoke at another one while a sitting governor for another party. As I asked in early September:

And why, as Governor of Alaska, did Gov. Palin feel it was necessary or even appropriate to send a welcome message to the AIP for their state convention? I'm not exactly convinced that this is just a matter of procedure. After all, I can't see Gov. Daniels sending a welcome message to Indiana's Libertarian Party convention (let alone the Democratic Party convention). I don't recall seeing President Bush welcoming the Democrats to their National Convention. I'd be curious to know if Gov. Palin sent a similar message to Alaska's Democratic Party when they held their state convention. Was her welcome message just a simple ministerial function of her office or did it indicate some degree of support for the views and goals of the AIP?

Let's compare: Serving on non-profit boards with a Vietnam-era terrorist turned professor of education involved in charitable fundraising vs. a husband who is a member of a secessionist anti-American party that the candidate has offered encouraging words to?

While we're talking about Gov. Palin, let's not forget some of her friends, like the witchhunter who claims that wicked "Israelites" store money for good Christian businessmen in the same blessing that he uses to help Gov. Palin escape from demons and evil spirits (and who may have been responsible for the deaths of "witches" in Africa), the executive director of Jews for Jesus who claims that the death of Israelis from terrorist bombs is God's "judgment of unbelief" while Gov. Palin politely listens, and the pastor who claims that Alaska will be a refuge in the coming "end of days" as Gov. Palin nods in enthusiastic agreement. Oh, don't forget now-indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (presently on trial for accepting bribes). Then-Mayor Palin was a director of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc., a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. And Stevens was a major supporter of Gov. Palin during her gubernatorial bid.

Let's compare: Vietnam era terrorist vs. Anti-Semitic witchhunter, the executive director of a group known for its acts of fraud in trying to convert Jews who espouses support for terrorists killing Israelis, the pastor who looks forward to the coming end of days, and the bribe-taking Senator who helped get Gov. Palin elected and with whom she worked on a not-for-profit political action committee seeking to raise political (not charitable) contributions.

Now, let's move on to the main show: Sen. McCain. How guilty is he from his associations?

Let's start with G. Gordon Liddy. Remember him from Watergate? He was convicted of planning the break in and served time in jail. He has also claimed to have planned the assassinations of Howard Hunt and journalist Jack Anderson. And, on his radio show, he told listeners how to kill agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Charming. And, if you read about Liddy, you'll find that these are only some lovely examples of his actions; there is more... Well, guess what. Apparently, Sen. McCain thinks quite highly of Liddy. According to Media Matters:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain.

Sen. Obama makes clear that he does not endorse Ayers past actions or views; Sen. McCain recognizes Liddy as someone who adheres to the "principles and philosophies that keep our nation great". Gee, I didn't know that political crime, assassination, and planning to kill government agents were the principles and philosophies that kept America great. I must have become confused somewhere along the line thinking that those were bad things. How silly of me.

Sen. McCain also has problems with his own board memberships. According to Paul Bergala (as seen in this video):

John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League -- the parent organization -- which ADL said “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.”

And, of course, we can't forget Sen. McCain's early political mentor and sponsor of his early political career: Charles Keating. Remember him and the Keating Five which included Sen. McCain? Keating served 5 years in jail for his role in the failure of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association through which he bilked investors of an estimated $1.1 billion and which cost the American taxpayer approximately $2 billion. And Sen. McCain? He got a slap on the wrist from the Senate for trying to help his friend in what Sen. McCain has acknowledged as the greatest mistake of his political life. Don't forget that the savings and loan crisis cost taxpayers upwards of $120 billion in the 1980's; I'm not sure how that compares to $700 billion in 2008 dollars...

So let's compare again: Vietnam-era terrorist vs. Watergate mastermind who brags about planning political assassinations, ultra-right-wing group with Anti-Semitic and racist viewpoints, and one of the biggest players in the last major banking crisis to face America (and in which Sen. McCain was intimately involved).

Does the McCain campaign really want to play the game of "guilt by association"?

Is This What Biden's Debate Prep Looked Like?

I just came across a hilarious slideshow speculating on what Sen. Biden's preparations for tonight's debate with Gov. Palin might have looked like. Take time for a few chuckles before tonight's spectacle.

Helping Jewish Voters Feel More Comfortable With Obama

For reasons that I feel are mostly irrational (and which I have previously discussed at length), some Jewish voters -- particularly older Jewish voters -- are still having difficulty accepting Barack Obama. A few days ago I posted about Sarah Silverman and The Great Schlep. Here is another video that, I hope, will help Jews -- especially older Jews -- feel more comfortable with Sen. Obama:



Take a few minutes and play this video for your Bubbie or Zadie (or mom or dad or cousin or whomever...). Then show them the page on Sen. Obama's website aimed at Jewish voters, download the talking points from The Great Schlep and talk to them about the issues, then have them registser at JewsVote so that they can send emails to their friends.

This election is absolutely critical to our generation; it is even more critical for our children. Be sure that previous generations understand the importance of this election to us and ask them to do their part to help their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and our nation and planet.

We Jews believe in tikun olam (healing the world); this is our time to put this grand belief into action.

Do You Think Sarah Palin Still Likes Katie Couric?

Another day and another set of clips from Katie Couric's seemingly endless interview with Gov. Palin raises yet more questions about Gov. Palin's qualifications ... no, strike that ... Gov. Palin's ability to serve as Vice President or President. I suspect that after tonight's debate, we may never hear Gov. Palin open her mouth again. And just for the record, I don't expect Gov. Palin to fall on her face or utter her usual mumbo jumbo gobbledygook answers tonight; after all, the formal format of the debate should work to her advantage, allowing her to memorize stock 90-second responses to questions that should not have any real follow-up. But it should still be interesting.

Anyway, on to the newest videos:



In advance of tonight's debate, it is worth comparing and contrasting both the content of what Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin have to say, but also their respective demeanor in response to the questions. To me, one candidate seemed very much at ease with the answers, very knowledgeable about the subject, and with firm basis for those views. The other candidate? Well, not so much.

I want to highlight part of what Gov. Palin says in this portion of the interview:

COURIC: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

COURIC: The cornerstone of Roe v Wade.

PALIN: I do. And I believe that --individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

Now, I recognize that Gov. Palin is neither an attorney nor an expert on Constitutional law. However, it seems that most people who are passionately interested in the issue of abortion -- as Gov. Palin clearly is (remember, she has protested in front of clinics before) -- recognize that the principal underpinning of Roe v. Wade was a constitutional right to privacy (Griswald v. Connecticutt). So, in essence, Gov. Palin is acknowledging and agreeing that the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade is correct! I don't think that she will find much support for her position among her supporters or among the anti-abortion crowd who argue that the Supreme Court was off base in finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.

The part of this that really makes no sense, however, is her belief that this should simply be left up to the individual states. She recognizes a Constitutional right ... but thinks that the different states should be able to interpret that right differently? Blogger Paul Campos noted:

If the basis for opposing Roe is because you believe, as she says she does, that abortion involves the killing of an innocent human life, then its nonsensical to turn into a states' rights issue as she does. That's equivalent to saying you think slavery is a gross violation of human rights, but whether its legal ought to be left up to individual states. In effect she's saying "I think whether murder ought to be legal or not should be decided at the local level."

Of course, the real point is simply that Gov. Palin reverts back to her talking points and the closest talking points on this issue are "pro-life" and states' rights.

After this part of the discussion, Couric asks Gov. Palin to name a Supreme Court decision, other than Roe v. Wade with which she disagrees. Gov. Palin is unable (or unwilling) to do so. Now certainly, we shouldn't have expected her to be able to come up with any cases by name. But I would have thought that she'd be able to identify broad issues that the Court has addressed, whether in the area of death penalty, eminent domain, criminalization of homosexuality, prayer in schools, rights of defendants, or the right of prisoners at Guantanamo to apply for habeus corpus. These are all controversial issues that the Court has ruled on in recent years that you would think that someone with aspirations to national office would at least be vaguely familiar with. But no. All Gov. Palin can do is offer more of her patented broad gobbledygook answers (or, as Kagro X on DailyKos calls it "Word spray. Squid ink. Gibberish.") that don't really tell us anything about what she believes (other than states' rights):

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"

COURIC: Can you think of any?

PALIN: Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

It is also worth noting the very last bit of this answer, Gov. Palin notes that as Vice President she would not be in a position to change the rulings with which she disagreed but, rather, would be in a role "supporting the law of the land as it reads today." That is actually a critical statement, I believe, because, by that standard, she is telling us that she would not be advocating for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion or to change state laws on the definition of marriage or to mandate (or even allow) prayer in schools. Why is it that I don't believe that is what Gov. Palin really means?

The other new interview clip that caught my attention comes from an even more recent interview in which Katie Couric interviewed Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain together:



This interview is striking for numerous reasons. First, I was stunned to see how angry Sen. McCain got about the "gotcha journalism" (his words) that led to the ironic situation of Gov. Palin agreeing with Sen. Obama's policy on Pakistan the night after the debate when Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama sparred over that very policy. The problem with Sen. McCain's anger is that it is: (a) totally misplaced and (b) a case of the wrongdoer complaining about the result of his own conduct. Let me elaborate.

The question that Gov. Palin answered came, not from the press, but from a voter who happened to be in the restaurant when Gov. Palin showed up for her photo op. This wasn't a journalist throwing a tough question at Gov. Palin; rather, it was a voter who wanted to know her stand on an issue. Um, pardon me, but isn't that what a political campaign is all about? Sen. McCain gets angry about the "gotcha journalism" because that goes back to the campaign's talking points about blaming the "liberal media" for alleged bias, for allegedly asking "unfair" questions of Gov. Palin, for demanding access to the candidates, and for virtually all other ills in modern society (I'm sure that if we wait long enough, we'll hear the McCain campaign blame the "liberal media" for the current financial crisis, too). Had the question come from a journalist, Sen. McCain's criticism might have had some legitimacy, but the question came from a voter, not a member of the press. (I don't know, is Temple University a "liberal" school? Maybe that was the problem...) And, when asked what lessons she learned from the experience, Gov. Palin responds: "That this is all about gotcha journalism, a lot of it is."

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sen. McCain's anger is wrong because of the way his campaign has sought to shield Gov. Palin from the press. Why is that people are starved to hear what Gov. Palin has to say on real issues? Could it possibly be, oh, I don't know, just maybe, because in the month or so since being nominated she's given three interviews (well, I guess this new one makes it four)? Could it be because her answers in those interviews have been largely nonsensical? Could it be because she hasn't held any town hall meetings or stopped to actually talk to voters and answer their questions? Following the McCain-Obama debate, Sen. Biden made appearances on numerous news programs to talk about the debate and the issues. Gov. Palin went out for a cheesesteak. The McCain campaign has hidden Gov. Palin away, most likely because they recognize that her answers are "word spray" and/or that she is a loose cannon having little or no real and deep understanding of the issues. Thus, Sen. McCain is, if you think about it, expressing anger at the electorate for wanting to know what his running mate thinks and stands for. That's not "gotcha journalism"; no, that's democracy.

And what is with Sen. McCain's almost disdainful query to Gov. Palin (at about 0:50 in the video): "Was that a pizza place?" Look at the scowl on his face; almost saying how dare people who eat at a pizza place be actively involved or desirous of hearing a candidate's position. Talk about "elitism".

Sen. McCain also tries to excuse Gov. Palin's answer on the basis of her having not heard the question right or not having heard the "context" of the question. Sorry. The video is available; anybody watching can hear the question and one would assume that Gov. Palin who was, after all, much closer to the voter, could hear the question more clearly. Moreover, if she didn't hear the question, didn't understand the question, or didn't understand the "context" of the question she could have asked for it to be repeated. Or, she could have done as she's done throughout the campaign so far and simply smiled and not answered. But Gov. Palin elected to answer; indeed, she held what sounds like a running dialogue with the voter answering several questions on the subject of Pakistan.

It is also interesting to hear Sen. McClain compare questions over Gov. Palin's experience to questions raised about the experience of Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Yes, questions were raised about those candidates. Without focusing too much on that issue, let's keep things in perspective (and I've omitted general business experience from this list):

• Jimmy Carter: Attended Georgia Tech, Georgia Southwestern, and the US Naval Academy (the same as Sen. McCain...) where he graduated 59th out of 800+ (Sen. McCain graduated near the bottom...); served aboard submarines and took courses in nuclear engineering; served two terms in the Georgia Senate; elected Governor in 1970 and served the maximum allowed 1 term.
• Ronald Reagan: Besides his movie career, he served as an officer in the US Army during World War II (attaining the rank of Captain); served as President of the Screen Actors Guild for 8 years (during the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings); served as Governor of California from 1967-1975; challenged Republican incumbent President Gerald Ford in 1976 primaries.
• Bill Clinton: Attended Georgetown University, Oxford University (as a Rhodes Scholar), and Yale law school; professor at University of Arkansas; elected as Attorney General of Arkansas in 1976 and Governor in 1978 (population 2,000,000+), lost re-election in 1980, and was re-elected in 1982 (and held the office for 10 more years).
• Sarah Palin: Attended a whole bunch of schools that you haven't heard of (except for the University of Idaho), worked briefly as a television sportscaster, served on a city council and as mayor of a city with 7,000 (give or take) people, and has served 20 months as governor of a state with fewer people than the largest city in both California (Reagan) and Georgia (Carter) and almost the same number of people as in the metropolitan area of the largest city in Arkansas (Clinton).

Does Sen. McCain really want us to make this comparison?

Whew. Deep breath. OK. So, I said more than I planned...

McCain's Views on Palin

This morning, NPR host Steve Inskeep interviewed Sen. McCain. Much of the interview focused on the current economic crisis and proposed bailout. But after that discussion, Inskeep asked Sen. McCain about Gov. Palin:

INSKEEP: Senator, as you know, the vice presidential debate comes on Thursday — your running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, against Joe Biden. Gov. Palin has been asked about her foreign policy qualifications and cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as one reason she's qualified. I'd like to ask you, senator, what specifically do you believe that Alaska's proximity to Russia adds to Palin's foreign policy qualifications?

McCAIN: Well, I think the fact that they have had certain relationships, but that's not the major she has stated, and you know that. The major reason she has stated is because she has the knowledge and background on a broad variety of issues, including probably the major challenge of America, and that's energy independence. And she has been responsible, taken on the oil companies, and we now are going to have a $40 billion natural gas pipeline. She has oversighted the natural gas and oil and natural resources of the state of Alaska and, by the way, quit when she saw corruption there. She has the world view that I have. She is very highly qualified and very knowledgeable.

First, note that Sen. McCain never really says what he thinks about Gov. Palin's foreign policy credentials; he completely ducks that question and focuses, instead on her "knowledge and background on a broad variety of issues" and then says that she is "highly qualified and very knowledgeable." Given what we've seen and heard from Gov. Palin recently, does Sen. McCain really believe this? If so, I think that he's simply demonstrating that his judgment is now completely unreliable. Or, perhaps he is simply saying what he must to "stay on message" in which case it is a clear example that the "Straight Talk Express" has completely run off the rails.

After this exchange, Inskeep asks a series of follow-up questions:

INSKEEP: Given what you've said, senator, is there an occasion where you could imagine turning to Gov. Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?

McCAIN: I've turned to her advice many times in the past. I can't imagine turning to Sen. Obama or Sen. Biden, because they've been wrong. They were wrong about Iraq, they were wrong about Russia. Sen. Biden wanted to divide Iraq into three different countries. He voted against the first Gulf War. Sen. Obama has no experience whatsoever and has been wrong in the issues that he's been involved in.

INSKEEP: But would you turn to Gov. Palin?

McCAIN: I certainly wouldn't turn to them, and I already have turned to Gov. Palin, particularly on energy issues, and I've appreciated her background and knowledge on that and many other issues.

INSKEEP: Does her energy qualification extend to the international energy market?

McCAIN: Of course, that's what it's all about. It extends to a broad variety of issues, from her world view of the threats that we face of radical Islamic extremism, to specific areas of the world. I'm very proud of her, and proud of the knowledge and background that she has. She's also been a governor of a state, and she has been involved in running a bureaucracy, she has been in charge of running a state, and it's not an accident that she's the most popular governor in America. I remember, in all due respect, that some people, when Ronald Reagan came out of California, said he was totally unqualified. I remember an obscure governor of the state of Arkansas that people said he was totally unqualified. This kind of thing goes on, usually in Georgetown cocktail parties.

Let's parse this exchange for just a moment. First, Sen. McCain says that he's "turned to [Gov. Palin for] advice many times in the past". Really? When? Remember, before nominating her, he'd only met her once or twice. And since nominating her, I'm curious to know which issues he's asked her advice about other than "energy issues". Then, Sen. McCain turns the question to simply repeat his talking points that Sen. Obama (and Sen. Biden) have been wrong on Iraq and other foreign policy issues. Of course, he fails to mention that the very night of the first Presidential debate, Gov. Palin, when asked by a real live voter for her opinion on attacking Pakistan, responded with an answer that sounded very much like the answer Sen. Obama gave during the debate (and with which Sen. McCain disagreed). Then, when asked if Gov. Palin's energy qualifications extended to the international market, Sen. McCain somehow segued into Islamic extremism. Huh? When asked about her foreign policy credentials he talks about energy and when asked about energy he talks about Islamic extremism. Did he not understand the issues? His responses are starting to sound like Gov. Palin's... Maybe he is taking her advice.

Finally, Inskeep moved the interview to a discussion about honor and how the campaign was being conducted:

INSKEEP: Is it a struggle, though, sometimes? It's been a pretty brutal campaign.

McCAIN: No, it's not a struggle. I know what's right. I've been around for a long time. I know what's the right thing to do.

INSKEEP: Have you come back to your advisers at any point and said — for example, the ad that ran with your name on it saying that Barack Obama supported comprehensive sex education for primary school students, something that factcheck.org said was wrong. Have you ever gone to your staff and said, "Take that ad off. It's not right"?

McCAIN: It's factually correct. It's absolutely factually correct, and you can go on my Web site and you can see the exact language of the bill that Senator Obama sponsored. But the point is that if he had agreed to the town hall meetings that I asked him to do all around the country, like Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had once agreed to do, the tenor of this campaign would be dramatically different. If we'd have gone around the country, and stood side-by-side before the American people and listened to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, the whole tenor of this campaign would be dramatically different. I'm proud of the campaign we are running, the ads are factually correct. And if someone named factcheck.org or anybody else doesn't agree with it, I respectfully disagree with their conclusions.

Let me recap that last paragraph (by leaving out the middle discussion about Kennedy and Goldwater and town hall meetings):

It's factually correct. It's absolutely factually correct, and you can go on my
Web site and you can see the exact language of the bill that Senator Obama
sponsored. ... I'm proud of the campaign we are running, the ads are factually
correct. And if someone named factcheck.org or anybody else doesn't agree with
it, I respectfully disagree with their conclusions.

In this few sentences, Sen. McCain manages to sum up his entire approach to this campaign: If Sen. McCain says something is a fact, it is; he is right and anyone else who disagrees, no matter what evidence they may have, is wrong. Funny, that sounds an awful lot like the Bush administration.

Inskeep challenges Sen. McCain on the claim that Sen. Obama supports "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners and gives Sen. McCain a chance to back off of the claim, but Sen. McCain doesn't; instead he challenges FactCheck.org's analysis, which includes the following:

The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question....

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape....

(For the record, the real dispute between the candidates is whether sex education should be medically accurate and age appropriate [as Sen. Obama prefers] or abstinence only [as Sen. McCain prefers]). Please, don't take my word for it: Go read the entire FactCheck.org article on this issue (and take note of Sen. Obama's discussion of what age appropriate really means in this context) and then decide whether the Straight Talk Express is being truthful; and remember, according to Sen. McCain, his ad is "absolutely factually correct" (emphasis added) and he is "proud" of a campaign that makes the sort of statement that Inskeep challenged.

That Sen. McCain is either unable or unwilling to recognize the lie (he could have said, "Gee, that ad might have exaggerated the claim a wee bit..." and all would have likely been forgotten) is further evidence that Sen. McCain has lost the ability to tell right from wrong in his zeal to capture the White House. But Sen. McCain doesn't appear troubled by any of this: "No, it's not a struggle. I know what's right. ... I know what's the right thing to do."

Sarah Palin Must Spend a Lot of Time Reading...

Another clip from Katie Couric's interview with Gov. Palin has appeared. In this portion of the interview, Couric asks Gov. Palin about the newspapers and magazines that helped shape Gov. Palin's worldview (transcript follows):

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news. Alaska isn't a foreign country where it's kind of suggested it seems like wow how could you keep in touch with the rest of what Washington D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska. Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

I want to be sure that I got that (and I'm really glad that Couric decided to let Gov. Palin keep talking with that final bit of her answer instead of just repeating the initial question). Gov. Palin developed her world view by reading "most of them again ... all of them, any of them that have been in front of me" but couldn't actually name a single magazine or newspaper? And I'm not quite sure how reading Time or Newsweek or The Atlantic or The Economist or The Wall Street Journal or the Anchorage Daily News has anything to do with what "Washington D.C. may be thinking". Nobody has suggested that Gov. Palin isn't in touch with the rest of the U.S. because she lives in Alaska; no people have suggested that she's out of touch because of a lack of intellectual curiosity and because she simply hasn't paid any attention to what is going on outside of Alaska.

The scariest part of Gov. Palin's response is that the question was neither a difficult question nor a trick question nor a "gotcha" question. Couric simply wanted to know what newspapers or magazines Gov. Palin read so that voters could help understand Gov. Palin a little more and learn a bit more about how she came to form her worldview and understanding of certain issues. I think that we all recognize that someone who reads The Washington Post will have a different worldview than one who reads The Washington Times just as someone who reads The Economist will likely have a different worldview than one who reads Newsweek. We don't know if she reads The Wall Street Journal or Time or even Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, or People. Heck, we don't even know if she reads the Anchorage Daily News or Cosmopolitan.

But, we do know that in 1995, while a member of the Wasilla City Council, she read American Opinion, the magazine published by the John Birch Society:

(The article open in front of then-Council member Palin is "Con-Con Call" from the March 1995 issue of American Opinion.) If this is the type of magazine from which her worldview was derived, perhaps she was intentionally trying to duck Couric's question. Of course, knowing that one of the mottoes of the Alaska Independence Party is that the John Birch Society was too liberal, it might not be too surprising to see that magazine on her desk.

And, as long as I'm poking more fun (actually, that's wrong; none of this is funny...) at Gov. Palin, I couldn't help but give people their own chance to see how Gov. Palin might answer other questions. Take a look at InterviewPalin; you never know, you might get the answer to a debate question before she even steps on stage.

Finally, as long as I'm having a bit of unfun fun, I thought I'd post a video from "fair and balanced" Fox News in which a reporter in a Pennsylvania diner asks for a show of hands from the patrons. As you will see, he first asks who will be voting for Sen. McCain. One man holds a hand up before a woman (presumably his wife) pushes his hand down. Next the reporter asks who will be voting for Sen. Obama and every hand goes up (including the man who initially "voted" for Sen. McCain). In response, the "fair and balanced" reporter notes that the room was "split". Then, if you listen carefully, you can hear the patrons of the diner laughing at the reporter's characterization of the straw poll. I just love good objective journalism on display:

Fair and balanced. Right.