Republican Congresswoman Follows Palin's Lead and Calls for Investigation Into Anti-Americans in Congress

The tenor of this election is getting scary. As I mentioned earlier today, Gov. Palin, campaigning in North Carolina yesterday, referred to the "pro-America" areas of the country which can only mean, by implication, that there must be "anti-America" areas of the country. Now Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota) has latched onto the notion that parts of America are "anti-America" but she even goes a few steps further. For example, she thinks that the "people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large" and she is concerned that Sen. Obama "may have anti-American views." I'm waiting to hear Sen. McCain's repudiation of those statements. But Rep. Bachmann goes even further: She says that liberals may be anti-America. I think that is the first time that I've ever been accused of being unpatriotic. Finally, and most unbelievably, she thinks that some members of Congress are anti-America and thinks the "news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would, I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they are pro-America or anti-America." In other words, in Rep. Bachmann's world, you either agree with her or you are anti-America. And I thought McCarthy-ism ended back in the '50s.

Here is a highlight reel of her comments:



and here is the entire seven minute interview (which includes Rep. Bachmann spewing idiotic vitriol and rhetoric on a number of other issues, too):



One funny thing to note: In the hours after this story was first reported, ActBlue has raised over $11,700 for Bachmann's opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg. How's that for the power of the Internet?

Incidentally, earlier today, Sen. Biden took aim at Gov. Palin's notion that there are "pro-America" areas and, by implication (as aptly demonstrated by Rep. Bachmann), anti-America areas:



If Rep. Bachmann represents the views of where this country could go, I for one am scared. And if Rep. Bachmann views are, in any way, encouraged or fostered by the rhetoric that Sen. McCain falsely claims to be repudiating, then we will have our evidence that his campaign has done true damage to the American democratic system. We don't need to agree with our neighbors on everything, but we shouldn't hate them just because of our disagreements. That way, lies danger. McCarthy-ism was wrong in the '50s and it's still wrong today. The only "anti-American" that I see right now is Rep. Bachmann who is so clearly ignorant of how a free and open democracy is actually supposed to work and who would sacrifice much of what make our country great in the quest to turn America into some kind of right-wing paradise.

Another Great Pro-Choice Campaign Ad

Take a moment and watch this subversive little pro-choice campaign ad:

Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama

This afternoon, The Chicago Tribune endorsed Sen. Obama. So what, you might say. Shouldn't Sen. Obama expect an endorsement from his hometown newspaper? Well, no, actually. As the editors note in their endorsement:

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the
first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for
president.

The first time! In over 160 years! The endorsement is worth reading, but I wanted to highlight a few of the more interesting statements:

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass
and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

...

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country [emphasis added].

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

...

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

The editors of The Chicago Tribune have clearly thought deeply about the election; let's just hope that others follow that lead and make their decisions on the basis of careful thought and not just fear.

"Make-Believe Maverick": Rolling Stone's Expose

I keep forgetting to post a link to the article "Make-Believe Maverick" by Tom Dickinson in the October 16, 2008, issue of Rolling Stone. It is a long article (and I'll admit, I haven't quite finished it yet), but from the portions that I've read it is worth reading. Here's a taste:

This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

This week's issue of Rolling Stone includes the article "Obama's Moment" by Eric Bates. I hope to read it over the weekend.

McCain Flip Flops on Whether We're Better Off

Yesterday, Sen. McCain started running advertisements where he very candidly notes that the "last eight years haven't worked very well" (this is part of his new "I'm not George Bush strategy). But, just a few months ago, Sen. McCain had a very different view of the last eight years:


(Thanks to Jed L over at Daily Kos for this video.)

Good to See That McCain and Obama Can Keep a Sense of Humor

Last night in New York City, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain upheld a quadrennial tradition (marred in 2004 by the Catholic Church's concerns about Sen. Kerry's support for abortion rights) and spoke at the Al Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama were very funny and were good sports as they joked with and about one another. Sen. Clinton may have had the best laughs of the evening. And, while I think that Sen. Obama won all three debates, I think that I just might have to give Sen. McCain a slight edge when it comes to stand-up comedy. Here are videos of their speeches:

McCain Appears on Letterman

Last night, Sen. McCain (finally) appeared on Dave Letterman's show and the two engaged in a friendly, funny, but spirited conversation (video can be found on CBS' website and a transcript is available from Time). I, being a customer of Brighthouse Cable, was not able to watch the show. Anyway, among the exchanges, I found a few particularly interesting (I'll include the transcripts below as it may be easier to read it than to wait through the whole video).

The first part of the discussion that really intrigued me was a discussion of the tone of the campaign:

LETTERMAN: He [the moderator] talked about campaigns – some questionable tactics on your part, some questionable tactics by Barack Obama. And for your part, when they go down the list, when they chronicle some of these things that are being hollered out from the crowd, regarding Barack Obama – “traitor, treason, terrorist” – and so on and so forth – and worse, as a matter of fact, that Barack Obama alluded to himself last night.

McCAIN: Do you know what's being shouted out at his rallies? There's always a few fringe people who will abuse their Constitutional rights. Who will show up at these kinds of things and you'll get that fringe element. But I'd love for you to come to one of my rallies. They'd love to see you. A lot of fans of yours come to our rallies. But look, I have groups – rally I was at the other day, Military Wives for McCain. Veterans, wearing their hats from all the wars we were in. There are a few fringe people. There are a few fringe people that attend Senator Obama's rallies. But these are people who are involved and engaged in the political process and I'm very glad that they are. I'm' very glad they are. And I confront them, Dave. You saw that. I confront them when they say anything that is out of bounds, ok? I do.

LETTERMAN: Does your running mate also do that? Does she sit on them pretty good when this stuff comes up?

McCAIN: She does. She doesn't countenance that kind of thing. I mean, nobody does. Senator Obama doesn't. Joe Biden doesn't.

LETTERMAN: But Senator, you yourself in previous campaigns have been the victim of some pretty nasty campaign abuse. So do you feel because of that or just because of your humanity you have a responsibility to lift your purpose here?

McCAIN: I feel I have a responsibility that if someone says anything improper and I am within earshot…Look, people who are quote, GOPers, whom I've never known or heard of, made remarks about Senator Obama questioning his patriotism, etc. I have always repudiated those remarks, Dave. Every time there has been one. And yet he won't repudiate the remarks made by a man I admire and I've written a chapter in my book about, John Lewis. He linked Sarah Palin and me to segregation, George Wallace, and even the bombing of a church in Birmingham that killed four innocent young children. There's no room for that in American politics. And I was sorry that last night Senator Obama did not repudiate John Lewis who is a respected American hero, who…I can't tell you how saddened I was at those remarks.

LETTERMAN: But I thought it was addressed by Barack last night.

McCAIN: He didn't repudiate them. Those remarks should be repudiated, made by anybody. So, look, these are tough times in America. You know that. This is what most people view as the most important race. And of course there is a negativism that's associated with it. But I'd also like to say again. I asked Senator Obama to do town hall meetings. I would love to have Senator Obama come on this show. And I'll sit there and he'll sit here and we'll debate the issues. But he would not do that. That changes the tenor of the campaign when you're on Dave Letterman and trying to defend yourself. So let me just say this. 19 more days. We had a good debate. We had three good debates. Now it's going to be a tough slog. And let's all keep it in bounds and be respectful. But there are differences. That's why we're different party and different philosophy.

They also discussed the selection of Gov. Palin:

LETTERMAN: [I]f she had been a man, would you also have selected him as a man?

McCAIN: Yes, because I believe that Sarah Palin is a reformer. She's the most popular governor in the United States of America. She gave her taxpayers back money. She negotiated a $40 billion natural gas pipeline deal and confronted the big oil companies when she did it. She's been a member of the PTA, the city council, the mayor and a governor. And I am very honored to know her and her family. She has – by the way, her husband, Todd, is a four-time champion of a race of 2000 miles across Alaska in the dead of winter. Amazing person. His grandmother is a native Alaskan. In one of his races, he broke his arm and continued the race for 250 more miles. It's just a wonderful family. And they have a very special child and I'm very proud of them. So I'm very proud to have Sarah with me and I think she has energized our ticket and energized a lot of Americans.

LETTERMAN: No question about that. But I'll tell you… I mean, was she your first choice?

McCAIN: Absolutely.

...

LETTERMAN: Had you spent time with her?

McCAIN: A couple of times, I'd met with her. I didn't know her real well but I knew her reputation and I didn't know her well at all. I didn't know her well at all. I knew her reputation as a reformer. Running against a governor of her own party, an incumbent governor. She took the guy on after she believed that bad things were going on in Alaska. And she was right.

LETTERMAN: Now here's my point of view on this. And again, I really don't know anything. And I'm an independent. I have no party affiliation. When this happened, I thought to myself, wow, you know in my daily life – and anybody who's got kids, yourself, anybody – you try to take the best care of your children that you can for their future. Present and future. And I kind of felt like that's the responsibility to a huge extent of our administration. So the person, man or woman, who is in charge of that, has got to do the same. And I was just wondering if the thoughtfulness of that process included your selection of Vice President.

McCAIN: Oh sure.

LETTERMAN: I mean, if you are unable to fulfill your office, we get a 9/11 attack, Sarah Palin is the president who leads us through that.

McCAIN: Sure. She's been the governor of a state with 24,000 employees. She's…I mean, maybe you don't like Alaska. But the point is, it's the biggest state we have. And I'm sure they'd welcome you there.

LETTERMAN: I'm a big fan of Alaska.

McCAIN: Look, in all due respect, one of the people I admire most was an obscure governor of a southern state called Arkansas. And he turned out to be a fairly successful president. I mean, Ronald Reagan was a cowboy – no experience in international affairs. Look, I think she has shown leadership. I think she's shown executive ability. And I think she has shown a degree of reform that we need – does anyone think we don't need to clean up the mess in Washington?

LETTERMAN: Let me just get back to my question. Well, I mean, either you're right or you're wrong. You know what you're talking about or you don't know what you're talking about. But I'm just telling you from my perspective that I thought, Oh, oh my God. I'm sure she's a lovely woman. I'm sure she's done a great job in Alaska. But in terms – this country. I'm 61. I've never seen it in this big a mess. I've seen economic problems. I've seen war. I've never seen a combination of things quite like this. I've never seen the free fall diminishment of the impression of the United States around the country. I've never seen anything like this. I have a four-year-old son. I wonder what the hell, is it going to be 160 twenty years from now on his birthday? So I'm thinking, alright, this is a pretty important job.

McCAIN: But with all due respect, she's had the leadership experience that's necessary to run bureaucracies, to reform…And because she was not known inside the Georgetown cocktail circuit, doesn't matter to me.

LETTERMAN: Let me ask you a question. In your guts, in your stomach – you're a smart, tough, savvy guy –

McCAIN: Thank you. That'll be a commercial, coming to you soon.

LETTERMAN: If I were to run upstairs, wake you up in the middle of the night, and say, “John, is Sarah Palin really the woman to lead us through the next four, eight years? Through the next 9/11 attack?”

McCAIN: Absolutely. She has inspired Americans. That's the thing we need. We need inspiration now. We need courage. We need to know that we're the greatest nation in the world. And we can come through this. I agree with your assessment of the way the world and this country is. And they need somebody they say – this, this is a person who is an inspiration to us. This is a person who has done so many things that are very unusual. So all I can tell you is that if you are looking for somebody, someone who is in the old boy network of Washington, many of whom have gotten us into this ditch to start with, then that's fine. But I think America is crying out for change. And she represents the kind of change that we need.

And finally, the conversation got around to Bill Ayers. As you'll see, Letterman becomes (so far as I'm aware) the first member of the "media" to ask Sen. McCain about McCain's "association" with G. Gordon Liddy. Unfortunately, Letterman let Sen. McCain off easy and didn't keep pushing.

LETTERMAN: Now she's [Gov. Palin] also, she's the one, I think who says that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. Has she in fact said that at rallies?

McCAIN: I don't…yes. And he did. And refused to acknowledge the fact.

LETTERMAN: Who did he pal around with?

McCAIN: William Ayers who said on 9/11 that he wished that he'd bombed more. OK? His wife was on the Top 10 of FBI's Most Wanted.

LETTERMAN: But this all took place…when he was active, Barack Obama was eight years old.

McCAIN: Eight years old. And Mr. Ayers in 2001, September 11, 2001, said, “I wished I had bombed more.” It's an unrep—

LETTERMAN: But what is that relationship?

McCAIN: It's all we need to know. Senator Clinton said, “We need to know about the relationship.” First he said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. And so it's a matter of trusting the word of someone.

LETTERMAN: I know. I know.

McCAIN: That's all.

LETTERMAN: But you will also admit that we cannot really control who we interact with in our lives 100%.

McCAIN: How long we interact with them and how we interact with them…But the point in this campaign is the economy, the economy and the economy.

LETTERMAN: But did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?

McCAIN: I met him, you know, I mean…

LETTERMAN: Didn't you attend a fund raiser at his house?

McCAIN: Gordon Liddy's?

*** commercial break ***

LETTERMAN: How about that Tina Fey?

McCAIN: I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy. And his son, who is also a good friend and supporter of mine.

LETTERMAN: But you understand that the same case could be made of your relationship with him as being made with William Ayers.

McCAIN: Everything about any relationship that I've had I will make completely open and give a complete accounting of. Senator Obama said that he was a guy who lived in the neighborhood. OK, it was more than that.

LETTERMAN: They served on a committee at one point.

McCAIN: Yes, that gave $230,000 to ACORN which is now involved in what may be one of the great voter frauds in history. It could be. We need to know.

LETTERMAN: Are they double dating? Are they going to dinner? What are they doing? Are they driving cross country?

McCAIN: Maybe going to Denny's. Who knows? The Grand Slam…

LETTERMAN: Now she said “pals around with terrorists.” OK, so alright. Let's say we give her William Ayers. He was eight and William Ayers was 29. But they palled around.

McCAIN: There's millions of word said in the campaign. Come on!

LETTERMAN: But that's where we live. In politics, isn't it?

McCAIN: Millions of words. Yes indeed.

A few points that I take away from this entire interview (and wouldn't it be refreshing if more of the media would actually ask follow up questions the way Letterman did?):

First, even on Letterman's show, the Straight Talk Express still can't tell the truth. Example #1: McCain claims that Gov. Palin was his first choice, yet there were plenty of reports prior to his naming Gov. Palin that indicated that Sen. McCain wanted to name either Sen. Lieberman or Gov. Ridge, but that he was receiving opposition from some in his campaign who thought those selections would alienate the right wing of the party. Example #2: Speaking of phrases like "kill him" and "off with his head" and "terrorist" being shouted at McCain-Palin rallies, Sen. McCain claims that "I have always repudiated those remarks, Dave. Every time there has been one" and says that Gov. Palin "doesn't countenance that kind of thing". Yet there is not a single example to be found (other than Sen. McCain telling people not to fear Sen. Obama and reassuring a crowd that Sen. Obama is not an Arab) of either Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin telling their supporters to stop the violent rhetoric that has become commonplace at Republican rallies. Example #3: Sen. McCain continues to suggest that similar things are being yelled at Obama-Biden rallies. Yet once again, no evidence of any such violent rhetoric being shouted at an Obama-Biden rally has been found.

Second, Sen. McCain continues to focus on the Bill Ayers issue even though Sen. Obama gave a full explanation of the "association" during the debate. It almost appears as if Sen. McCain wants Sen. Obama to simply make something up, just to have more to talk about.

Third, Sen. McCain acknowledges that Liddy is "paid his debt" and that Sen. McCain is "not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy". Liddy paid his debt for the Watergate break in, but not for plotting to kill journalists or for telling listeners how to kill federal agents. Oh, and don't forget that Liddy has also spoken positively about Hitler, too. If Sen. McCain is "not in any way embarrassed to know" a man who uses the public airwaves to tell people how to kill federal agents and to brag about his own past plans to assassinate journalists, then Sen. McCain really needs to do some soul-searching.

Finally, despite Sen. Obama's clear repudiation during the debate of the worst reading of Rep. John Lewis' letter vilifying Sen. McCain and his campaign for the divisive rhetoric prevalent in the campaign, Sen. McCain still wants more. Again, though, it is interesting to hear Sen. McCain continue to push on this issue (and falsely, too, I believe, as I discussed yesterday) while completely ignoring and failing to repudiate such comments as those from the chair of the Virginia GOP telling supporters to compare Sen. Obama to Osama Bin Ladin. Sometimes, I wonder if Sen. McCain even recognizes or understands what he says anymore.

Keith Olbermann Fact Checks (and Body Slams) McCain

Last night on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann fact checked Sen. McCain's statements from third Presidential debate. Ouch:



And remember what Sen. McCain said of his campaign during the debate: "we will run a truthful campaign". Um, no so much.

Palin Visiting Indiana Today

Late this afternoon, Gov. Palin will be holding a rally in the Indianapolis metropolitan area (Noblesville, to be precise). I want to comment on several aspects of this visit.

First, the fact that the McCain campaign is paying any attention whatsoever to Indiana is practically beyond belief. Not only has Indiana not voted for a Democrat for President since 1964 (before I was born), but come election night, the TV networks are usually able to project that the Republican candidate has won Indiana about 12 seconds after Indiana's polls close. I'm not sure that the big maps that the networks use even have blue pixels for Indiana. But this year, the McCain campaign has had to abandon true "battleground" states (like Michigan and Wisconsin) just to try to hold states that are usually solid red. Hence, Gov. Palin's visit to Indiana.

But that isn't the end of the unbelievable part of the story. We also have to look at where in Indiana Gov. Palin will be speaking. Noblesville is one of the suburbs on the far northside of Indianapolis (separated from Indianapolis by Carmel and Fishers). Noblesville is also in the middle of Indiana's 5th Congressional District. The 5th District, which is represented by Dan Burton, is one of the most conservative Congressional districts in the entire country. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, only 8 Congressional districts are more solidly Republican than Indiana's 5th District (and it is worth noting that of those 8, 2 are in Utah, 2 are in Texas, and 2 more are in the South; Indiana is the most solidly Republican district north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi). Dan Burton is safe on November 4 (as much as I'd love to see him go, I don't think that Mary Etta Ruley has a chance). Yet other Indiana Republicans are in trouble. Incumbent Rep. Mark Souder (3rd District) and Rep. Steve Buyer (4th District) are both facing tough challenges (from Mike Montagano and Nels Ackerson, respectively) and former Rep. Mike Sodrel's efforts to reclaim his seat in the 9th District from Rep. Baron Hill appears to be in trouble. Yet Gov. Palin isn't visiting any of those districts.

So why in the world would the McCain campaign spend resources or time sending Gov. Palin to give a rally in Indiana's 5th District? I wonder if it has anything do with the reason that people in the 5th District feel the need to steal Obama campaign signs or with the fact that Sen. Obama has numerous offices in the 5th District (he just opened a new office in Carmel this week to go with his office in Fishers). Could it be that the McCain campaign is truly worried about carrying Indiana and needs to rally its base in the reddest districts that it can find? If that's the situation, then Democrats should be additionally motivated to show up and vote on November 4.

There are some other aspects about Gov. Palin's visit that are worth mentioning. This year, Indiana is also holding a gubernatorial election. Incumbent Gov. Mitch Daniels is working to hold off an underfunded challenge by former Rep. Jill Long Thompson. Most of the polls show Gov. Daniels with a sizable lead. But guess who won't be appearing at Gov. Palin's rally? That's right, Gov. Daniels will be attending some kind of ribbon cutting event instead. Thompson was front and center at Sen. Obama's rally last week; could it be that Gov. Daniels wants to separate himself from the McCain-Palin campaign? If the number of houses with Daniels and Obama yard signs that I've seen is any indication, then that could be exactly what Gov. Daniels is trying to do.

Also, whoever scheduled the time and venue for the Gov. Palin's event is either (a) an idiot or (b) doesn't want a large crowd. The rally will be held at the Verizon Music Center (formerly [and forever in my mind] Deer Creek), a terrific outdoor concert facility. The problem is that getting to Verizon can be very difficult with large traffic jams common (you should see how the far northeast side of the city and suburbs jam up when Jimmy Buffet comes to town). Combine that with the fact that the rally is scheduled for a Friday afternoon and gridlock could be an understatement. But, hey, it's not my problem.

And why, exactly, does a prospective voter need a ticket to attend a Republican rally? Sen. Obama's rally was open to anyone who showed up. Sure we had to fill out a "ticket" at the event (which was never collected), but if I'd wanted to give false information I could have. But to gain admission to see Gov. Palin, you have to get a ticket from a Republican party headquarters office. Is the goal to be sure that only the party faithful show up?

Finally, I would be curious to know how Gov. Palin categorizes central Indiana. Does she think that we're one of the "pro-America" parts of the country or are we in the, apparently unpatriotic part? Don't know what I'm talking about? According to The Washington Post, yesterday, in North Carolina, Gov. Palin told the crowd that she loved to visit the "pro-America" areas of the country which, by implication, suggests that she views other areas of the country as "anti-America". I'd be curious to get a list of precisely which areas are anti-America. Maybe it's just areas where Democrats live. Or maybe it's Alaska where Todd Palin and his pals want independence from America. If Gov. Palin talked to the "liberal media" (instead of just doing infomercials with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh), we might be able to ask her these questions, but as it stands right now, Joe the Plumber has given more press conferences than Gov. Palin.

And no, I won't be going to hear Gov. Palin speak.

Another Yard Sign Stolen

Back in April, in the week leading up to Indiana's primary, I reported about my yard sign being stolen. Well, it happened again. When I went out to get the paper this morning, I discovered that our Obama - Biden sign was missing. More troubling was my discovery, as I drove through the neighborhood on my way to work, that virtually all of the Obama yard signs in our neighborhood were missing (and, as of just a few days ago, there were quite a few Obama signs in our neighborhood). Not surprisingly, none of the McCain signs appeared to have been stolen.

I went ahead and made a police report. I did so just to make my point, not because I think that the police will thoroughly investigate the theft or find the culprit. But when the officer spoke to my wife, he did tell her that lots and lots of Obama signs are being stolen throughout Carmel.

So my question is this: What does the City of Carmel intend to do to protect the political and free speech rights of those espousing a minority viewpoint? And what do those of us with that minority political viewpoint intend to do? For one thing, I plan to get another Obama sign and put it right back where the old one was. Every sign that I'm forced to "buy" will just put a few more dollars in Sen. Obama's campaign bank account...

What Did John Lewis Say and How the Candidates Responded

In Wednesday's debate, Sen. McCain said that he took great offense to the statement by Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia). In the debate, Sen. McCain said that Lewis:

made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful. And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate. So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign.

So, let's take a look at who really said what. First, here is Rep. Lewis' actual statement:

As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.

A few hours later, Sen. McCain issued a response:

Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America.

And shortly after that, Sen. Obama's campaign issued a statement:

Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies.

But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States ‘pals around with terrorists.’ As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together. That is the kind of campaign Sen. Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead.

And the next day, Rep. Lewis issued a further clarifying statement:

A careful review of my earlier statement would reveal that I did not compare Sen. John McCain or Gov. Sarah Palin to George Wallace. It was not my intention or desire to do so. My statement was a reminder to all Americans that toxic language can lead to destructive behavior. I am glad that Sen. McCain has taken some steps to correct divisive speech at his rallies. I believe we need to return to civil discourse in this election about the pressing economic issues that are affecting our nation.

I will admit that when I first read Rep. Lewis' original statement, I was initially shocked as I too thought that Rep. Lewis was comparing Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin to George Wallace. But then I, apparently unlike Sen. McCain or his campaign, took the time to go back and read Rep. Lewis' statement again, this time more carefully. Did Rep. Lewis really compare Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin to George Wallack or compare their actions to "segregation, deaths of children in church bombings" as Sen. McCain claimed in the debate? No, he did not. What Rep. Lewis actually did was to compare the results of hate speech and divisive rhetoric in political campaigns.

Remember that over the last week or two, McCain-Palin rallies have been punctuated with cries of "terrorist", "kill him", and "traitor" to name a few. And the hate speech has spilled over. At a Georgia debate, someone yelled out "Bomb Obama". During a canvassing training session in Virginia, the chair of Virginia's Republican party told volunteers to emphasize the comparison of Sen. Obama and Osama Bin Ladin, saying: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon". Those are the words that Rev. Lewis is talking about. When politicians use hate and division as tools, some supporters will take their speech at face value. And when politicians don't listen to what their supporters are saying, they can't help either control those supporters or try to keep a lid on the actions those supporters may take. And should Sen. Obama win the election, then one can only wonder what disaffected McCain supporters will do, especially those supporters who have felt emboldened to shout "kill him" or "Bomb Obama". It is precisely that worry that Rep. Lewis was discussing.

Also during the debate, Sen. McCain said: "Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks". But isn't that precisely what Sen. Obama's statement did? "Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies." In other words, once again, Sen. McCain simply lied. Fortunately, Sen. Obama was on the stage with Sen. McCain and was able to correct Sen. McCain's lie:

[I]f we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign's awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line." And I think Congressman Lewis' point was that we have to be careful about how we deal with our supporters.

...

I do think that he inappropriately drew a comparison between what was happening there and what had happened during the civil rights movement, and we immediately put out a statement saying that we don't think that comparison is appropriate. And, in fact, afterwards, Congressman Lewis put out a similar statement, saying that he had probably gone over the line.

To repeat: Sen. McCain claimed that Sen. Obama didn't repudiate the statement and Sen. Obama pointed out, correctly, that he had done precisely that.

And just in case one lie wasn't enough, Sen. McCain followed it quickly with two more lies:

Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them.... we will run a truthful campaign.

I have not yet heard Sen. McCain repudiate the remarks of supporters yelling "kill him" or "Bomb Obama" or "terrorist". I have not heard Sen. McCain repudiate the remarks of the Virginia GOP chair comparing Sen. Obama to Osama Bin Ladin. It wouldn't be hard for Sen. McCain and Gov. The closest that Sen. McCain has come is to tell a voter that Sen. Obama is not an Arab and to tell voters that he wants to run a respectful campaign. By contrast, when Sen. Obama's supporters simply boo Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama tells them not to boo, just to vote.

The other lie? Yesterday, the McCain campaign started using a robocall (automated phone calls) that claims that Sen. Obama "has worked closely with [a] domestic terrorist...". Another new McCain campaign robocall says that Sen. Obama "Barack opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions". Of course, that robocall completely ignores the fact that Sen. Obama, in Wednesday's debate, demonstrated, clearly and simply, that the claim is completely false. And PolitiFact examined this claim back in September and also found it to be completely false. Remember Sen. McCain's claim that he would be running a "truthful campaign"? Yet the day after making this statement, his campaign is sending automated lies to voters in numerous states.

The Straight Talk Express went off the rails weeks ago. Lately, it has had to resort to incitement ("pals around with terrorists") and divisive speech while ignoring the violent rhetoric of its own supporters. And when that seemed to just drive more independent voters away, the Straight Talk Express went right back to what it does best: Lies.

Rep. Lewis was worried about the results of the way that Sen. McCain has conducted his campaign. Given the fact that a report appeared this afternoon that two Obama supporters were beaten up at a Palin rally, it appears that, perhaps, just perhaps, Rep. Lewis' concerns are justified.

News Roundup (October 16, 2008)

As we get closer and closer to the election, there is just too much going on to try to say something -- especially something particularly witty or eloquent -- about each issue, each new speech or sound bite, or each new controversy. So, once again, I'll have to make do with a brief roundup of news and videos.

First is a terrific commentary from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. I had intended to include this video yesterday, but ran out of time. Please take a moment and watch and listen to Olbermann (and remember that this commentary aired the night before the debate):

Now think about what Sen. McCain said (or didn't say last night). For the record (and I still want to write in more detail on this issue later), I have yet to see video or hear audio of any supporter of Sen. Obama threatening violence against Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin. Sure people may make crude jokes or offer insults; that's politics. But when the rhetoric becomes violent ("terrorist", "kill him", "bomb Obama"), then we've left the realm of politics and entered the realm of government by fear that isn't much different from the third world countries where political violence is the norm rather than the rare exception. Moreover, despite Sen. McCain's claims last night, I have yet to hear either Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin say or do anything to directly dissuade their supporters from using violent rhetoric.

Next comes what could be one of the most effective political ads that I've ever seen. Apparently it has only run in a limited number of places a limited number of times. I suspect that if the race were closer, we might have see more of this ad:



Next, please take a moment and go see what a Palin presidency might look like. Click everywhere. How many surprises can you find?

Here's an interesting little story. Remember Sen. McCain the reformer who stays away from lobbyists? According to The Washington Post, both AT&T and Verizon have furnished mobile cell towers to the McCain ranch in Arizona free of charge. Why is this a problem (other than the fact that Sen. McCain gets a free mobile cell tower and you don't?). Maybe it could have something to do with the fact that Sen. McCain is a "senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services." Or maybe it could be this:

Five campaign officials, including manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staff member Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan G. Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain's presidential effort, and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain's political career, giving his campaigns more than $155,000.

 

McCain's Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr. and several other campaign staff members have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to the Republican's campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Hmm.

Next, I came across this in the article "Undecideds Laughing At, Not With, McCain" from Time:

In politics it is generally not considered a good sign when voters are laughing at you, not with you. And by the end of the third and last presidential debate, the undecided voters who had gathered in Denver for Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s focus group were “audibly snickering” at John McCain’s grimaces, eye-bulging, and repeated references to “Joe the Plumber.”

The group of 50 uncommitted voters should have at least been receptive to McCain—Republicans and Independents outnumbered Democrats in the group by almost 4 to 1, and they started the evening with much warmer responses to McCain than to his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama. But by the time it was all over, so few of them had declared their support for McCain that there weren’t enough for Greenberg to separate them into a post-debate focus group. Meanwhile, the Obama supporters had to assemble in two different rooms to keep their discussion groups manageable.

One thing that had me worried for a little while was an article that I saw posted on a right-leaning blog about an interview that Michelle Obama gave to "Africa Press International". According to the article, some of the things that Michelle Obama is claimed to have said could have been damaging to Sen. Obama. But hold on; the alleged interview never happened and the article was a fake. Even the National Review Online took the time to post a notice that the article was a fake (probably so that the right wing blogs wouldn't degenerate into an uncontrollable frothing mob at the prospect of derailing Sen. Obama's candidacy).

Finally, I want to take a look at a few moments from last night's final debate and associated coverage. First, is one of the best moments of the debate, but only if you were watching the split screen. Don't watch Sen. Obama; instead, just watch Sen. McCain. Seven seconds into the video, watch Sen. McCain's face as he realizes that he has just lost the election.



I think the message even got through to Fox News. You know those little focus groups of undecided voters that each of the networks gather to watch the debates? Well, watch the recap of what Fox's focus group thought about the debate:



"This is a good night for Barack Obama" is not exactly the message that Fox or its viewers were hoping for.

Three of the most important parts of the debate involved abortion rights, voter fraud, and the McCain's campaign ignoring the violent rhetoric coming from McCain-Palin supporters and at McCain-Palin rallies. Each of these are very important issues that I'm hoping to devote more time to soon. But, for anyone who didn't watch the debate, I think that it is worth listening and watching as Sen. McCain ridicules the notion that abortion laws should consider the health of the mother:

Yup, He actually puts "health" in cute little finger quotes.

 

Attention women who supported Hillary Clinton: Forget Gov. Palin for a moment and just listen to and watch Sen. McCain. Are you still thinking about voting for the Republican ticket? Remember that the next President will likely have the opportunity to appoint at least two, if not more, justices to the Supreme Court.

 

One of the apparent strategies of the McCain campaign has been to make voters afraid of Sen. Obama; however, based on recent comments it doesn't look like Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are on the same page as to whether this is the campaign's actual strategy and viewpoint. For example, in an interview with Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday, Gov. Palin said (according to a report in The New York Times [I don't listen to Limbaugh...]) that voters do need to fear an Obama presidency:

“You seem to understand the stark choice we have and the real danger the country faces in the future if the Obama-Biden ticket is elected. And I’d just like to know, do you see it that way?”

“I do,” she responded.

But just last Friday, the man at the top of the ticket told voters:

He is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States.

So which is it? Do we believe Gov. Palin that we face "real danger" if Sen. Obama is elected or do we believe Sen. McCain's statement that we "do not have not have to be scared of"?

 

One item that many people may have missed was the recent endorsement of Barack Obama by conservative columnist and writer Christopher Buckley (son of William F. Buckley). A few portions of Buckley's column are worth repeating:

John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

And:

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

Buckley published his column at The Daily Beast because he didn't want the kind of mail that Kathleen Parker received when she criticized Sen. McCain. Unfortunately, for Buckley, things didn't work out too well:

Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler.

...

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

And just to finish on a lighter note, Daily Kos is running a caption contest for each of the following moments from last night's debate:

and

 
Well, I'm sure that I've forgotten some things that I wanted to include, but I guess that this post is long enough already...

Joe the Plumber

As anyone who watched last night's final Presidential debate knows (or, even if you only read about it, I'm sure you've heard by now) that the real star of the evening was "Joe the Plumber" a/k/a Joe Wurzelbacher from Ohio. Now, I have no fight to pick with Joe, but given that his was the back upon which so much of Sen. McCain's last ditch effort rested, I felt that it was at least worth noting a few interesting things about Joe. Fifteen minutes of fame isn't all it's cracked up to be.

First, take this from ABC News:

Wurzelbacher conceded today that he is not in danger of being hit with the higher tax rate. He acknowledged that he wants to buy a plumbing company for $250,000 to $280,000. That wouldn't be how much profit he would make from the firm.

He would make much less, he said.

That would seem to indicate that Wurzelbacher would not be subject to Obama's proposed tax increase from 36 percent to 39 percent for those making more than $250,000 per family. Instead, he would be eligible for a tax cut that Obama is proposing.

In an telephone interview with Katie Couric this morning (Joe is far more articulate that Gov. Palin...), Joe said that he "wasn't swayed" by the debate, but that he did have an idea who he was going to vote for. So was he an undecided voter or not?

It turns out that it may not matter whether Joe decides who he wants to vote for because his voter registration may be one of hundreds of thousands that Ohio Republicans want to purge. According to Toledo Blade Joe may be registered to vote (as a Republican), but his voter registration has his name spelled as "Worzelbacher" (replacing the "u" with an "o"). Right now, the United States Supreme Court is considering an emergency appeal of a voting rights/voter registration case from Ohio (decided by an appellate court yesterday) that could involve purging the voter registrations of people when there are discrepancies between voter registrations and other state information. I wonder if Joe is the kind of voter that Republicans were hoping to disenfranchise?

It appears that Joe's tax concerns are more general than specific to Sen. Obama's tax plans. Also from that ABC News story:

"Not that I don't want to be taxed," Wurzelbacher told "GMA." "You have to be taxed. Just because you work a little harder to have a little bit more money taken from you, I mean, that's scary. I worked hard for it. Why should I be taxed more than other people?"

Apparently, Joe is a fan of flat taxes. According to Toledo Blade: Mr. Wurzelbacher said he disagrees with the idea of people being taxed at a higher rate because they earn more. Furthermore, it appears that Joe takes his anti-tax views pretty seriously. How seriously? He doesn't always pay his taxes and presently has a nearly $1,200 tax lien from the State of Ohio.

But it isn't just income taxes that Joe has a problem with. He doesn't like Social Security either and think that it is a "joke":



And, we might also want to stop calling Joe "the Plumber". Why? Because he isn't licensed to be a plumber. Again, according to Toledo Blade:

A check of state and local licensing agencies in Ohio and Michigan shows no plumbing licenses under Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher’s name, or even misspellings of his name.

...

He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. My guess is that Joe is probably ready for his fifteen minutes to be over.

Video Roundup (October 15, 2008)

I'm still low on time, so once again, I'm going to offer a few interesting videos that I've come across. First, there is this chilling video from Gov. Palin's rally in Ohio yesterday that aired on Al-Jazeera (yes, that Al-Jazeera):



Is that really the country that we live in? That's the impression that the Arab and Muslim world have of us (and probably much of the broader Third World, as well).

On a much, much lighter note, I submit the following:





Finally, there is a very interesting essay in The New York Times. In "Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants", Tommy McCall examines how the market has performed under Democrat and Republican presidents. His analysis is summed up in a series of graphs:

Interesting, no?

Are We Still Playing Guilt By Association?

Given that Sen. McCain has all but said that he intends to raise the issue of Bill Ayers during tonight's final Presidential debate, it seems appropriate to take one more brief look at Sen. McCain's associations.

First, it is worth noting that both CNN and MSNBC have finally began to look into the Alaska Independence Party and Gov. Palin's relationship (hint, hint: she shares a bed with a former member) to that secessionist organization (and why do I doubt that FOX will have much to say...?). I'm short on time again today (I get to go see Beverly Hills Chihuahua with my kids this afternoon to celebrate their 9th birthday; I'm so excited, I can barely stand it [dripping sarcasm for those unsure]) so I'll just post the videos:





(The CNN clip ends before the segment ends; below is another version of the same segment that includes the ending:)



More information about some of the people and the story and be found in the article "Meet Sarah Palin's radical right-wing pals" on Salon. The strange (frightening?) thing about the CNN video is that it appears that neither the video nor the story is still available on CNN. If you watch the video, you will hear the CNN anchor talk about efforts to have the McCain campaign appear on the program to discuss the issue, but no McCain representative ever appears. Instead, the campaign simply issues a statement attacking the media for investigating the AIP.

Next, please read the article "McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort". Go ahead. I'll wait.... Back? OK. Yes, that's right, the lobbyist that Sen. McCain has chosen to lead his transition team (should he be elected) has ties to lobbying efforts for Saddam Hussein. I guess that I'm more troubled by the links to Saddam than I am to the fact that the head of the transition team is also a lobbyist, but in any event, if Sen. McCain really wants to play guilt by association, his side of the ledger keeps getting longer and longer and longer. But then I guess that the liberal media and left wing bloggers (like me?) forced him to create those associations and trash his own honor, right?

Oh, one more thing, but I'll make this a bit of a game. You've undoubtedly heard a lot of talk about voter fraud and ACORN lately (and, if I have time, I have a lot to say on that issue; here's a hint: ACORN is the victim of the fraud and it won't impact the election nearly to the extent that Republican voter suppression efforts might). Well, if you search around online you just might find that Sen. McCain hasn't always said such bad things about ACORN...

Obama is to X as McCain is to Y

Yesterday, I suggested that it might be fun to have a contest to design graphics comparing Sen. Obama (and Sen. Biden) to Sen. McCain (and Gov. Palin). I decided to take up my own challenge:

Let me know what you think. Better yet, send me your version!

Video Roundup (October 14, 2008)

I just want to point readers to a few interesting videos that I've come across in the last day or three.

First, we have CNN's Campbell Brown asking pondering when "Arab and Muslim bec[a]me dirty words; the equivalent of dishonorable or radical?":

 

Next, we have a video from BraveNewFilms recounting some of the hate mongering that has become endemic with Sen. McCain's supporters:

 

And this one doesn't really need a description. Just watch Sen. McCain's facial expressions and gestures as you listen to his words. Kinda makes you wonder if this is what Disney does with broken animatronic figures that were supposed to go into the Hall of Presidents.

 

Here's another fun video taking a shot at Sen. McCain. I think the suggestion is that Sen. McCain and his 7 houses (or however many he has) is a bit out of touch with the middle class (note strong language at the end of the video):

 

I'm not generally a big fan of Latin music, but this song from musican Jose Conde has a great vibe and an even better message:

 

Next, we have a very interesting photo. Well, not a photo actually. It's a screenshot from the computer game Burnout Paradise. Apparently, a number of new Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games allow for advertising to be inserted into the virtual game worlds and these ads are updated live rather than being static product placements included when the game is written. Take a look at what has been popping up on the streets of the virtual world in Burnout Paradise:

I believe that the McCain campaign is looking for ways to insert a McCain campaign ad into Pong. I think the following images help capture some of the idea (I know that you've probably seen them before, but they're funny enough to post again):

or if you prefer:

It might be fun to have a contest to design more of these comparison graphics.

Updated September 8, 2015 to fix broken video links. 

McCain to End Sarah Palin's Abuses of Power? Don't Get Your Hopes Up

A story on Talking Points Memo's Election Central caught my eye and made me chuckle (even if the subject matter is so serious that we shouldn't be laughing at it). Apparently in a speech at a political rally today, Gov. Palin said:

See, as a senator, John has confronted the corrupt ways of Washington and the wasteful spending and the abuses of power. As president, he's gonna end those once and for all.

That's a terrific sentiment and, if he should somehow be elected, I would love to see Sen. McCain end abuses of power. Of course, it is a bit odd for Gov. Palin to be talking about abuses of power. Here is the first paragraph of the Findings portion of the Branchflower report on Troopergate issued on Friday:

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Does Gov. Palin really want to be talking about abuses of power? Talk about living in a glass house...

Analysis of a Malicious Lie

Over the last week or two, Sen. McCain's campaign has been continuing the attacks against Sen. Obama based on an alleged "association" with Vietnam-era radical Bill Ayers. In this blog, I've endeavored to help set the record straight and to suggest that Sen. McCain needs to take a long, hard look at his own "associations" before he plays the game of "guilt by association". As the Ayers allegations are aired more and more by the McCain campaign, more and more mainstream media outlets are both covering the allegations and, more importantly, examining their veracity. (Unfortunately, not much attention is being paid to the associations of Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin...)

Now, PolitiFact.com, a joint project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly, has conducted an analysis of Sen. McCain's allegations concerning Bill Ayers (in particular one of Sen. McCain's web ads). The conclusion of the analysis: "This attack is false, but it's more than that – it's malicious". The entire article:

"(Bill) Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together."

John McCain on Thursday, October 9th, 2008 in a Web ad

Not a radical group, and Ayers didn't run it

For most of the election, Sen. John McCain's campaign has been somewhat subtle about trying to tie Sen. Barack Obama to the former '60s radical William Ayers.

No longer. A 90-second Web ad [URL deleted] released Oct. 8, 2008, features sinister music, side-by-side photographs of Obama and Ayers, and a series of dubious allegations about their past connections, including this one:

"Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation
together."

Ayers was a founding member of the militant Vietnam-era anti-war group the Weathermen. He was investigated for his role in a series of domestic bombings, but the charges were dropped in 1974 due to prosecutorial misconduct. He is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and actively engaged in the city's civic life.

The McCain campaign said the "radical education foundation" to which they were referring is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity endowed by publishing magnate Walter Annenberg that funded public-school programs in Chicago from 1995 to 2001.

We'll look at whether the foundation was radical. But first we have to grapple with whether Obama and Ayers ran it.

Obama served on the foundation's volunteer board from its inception in 1995 through its dissolution in 2001, and was chair for the first four years. So an argument can be made that he ran it, though an executive director handled day-to-day operations.

Ayers, who received his doctorate in education from Columbia University in 1987 and is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was active in getting the foundation up and running. He and two other activists led the effort to secure the grant from Annenberg, and he worked without pay in the early months of 1995, prior to the board's hiring of an executive director, to help the foundation get incorporated and formulate its bylaws, said Ken Rolling, who was the foundation's only executive director. Ayers went on to become a member of the "collaborative," an advisory group that advised the board of directors and the staff.

However, Ayers "was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge," and he "never made a decision programmatically or had a vote," Rolling said.

"He (Ayers) was at board meetings — which, by the way, were open — as a guest," Rolling said. "That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge."

Now, was the foundation radical?

The McCain campaign cited several pieces of evidence for that allegation, including a 1995 invitation from the foundation for applications from schools "that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn." The campaign appears to have confused two different definitions of the word "radical." Clearly the invitation referred to "a considerable departure from the usual or traditional," rather than "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs."

The campaign also cited two projects the foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies.

"That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans," said Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for McCain. "It is a subjective thing, and there are going to be people in Berkeley and Chicago who think that is totally legitimate."

Teaching about the United Nations and African-American studies may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's hardly "radical" in the same way Ayers' Vietnam-era activities were. Moreover, most of the projects the foundation funded (more on that below) were not remotely controversial.

The McCain campaign also cited an opinion piece by conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz in the Sept. 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal as evidence of the foundation's radicalism. Kurtz wrote that Ayers was the "guiding spirit" of the foundation, and it "translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice."

But Ayers' views on education, though certainly reform-oriented and left-of-center, are not considered anywhere near as radical as his Vietnam-era views on war. And even if they were, there was a long list of individuals involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge whose positions provided them far more authority over its direction than Ayers' advisory role gave him.

Let's look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of "translating Annenberg's conservatism into practice."

Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, and a host of other mainstream folks.

"The whole idea of it being radical when it was this tie of blue-chip, white-collar, CEOs and civic leaders is just ridiculous," said the foundation's former development director, Marianne Philbin.

The foundation gave money to groups of public schools – usually three to 10 – who partnered with some sort of outside organization to improve their students' achievement.

In his opinion piece, Kurtz puts a sinister spin on this: "Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with 'external partners,' which actually got the money...CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN)."

Rollings said the foundation tried to fund the schools directly, but doing so proved to be a "bureaucratic nightmare." But any external group that received money had to have created a program in partnership with a network of public schools.

And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

Had Kurtz chosen to accuse Obama of carrying water for the conservative Annenberg, he might have written: "CAC disbursed money to various business-friendly entities, such as the Museum of Science and Industry and the Commercial Club of Chicago."

See how easy it is?

The programs the foundation funded were designed to allow individuals from the "external partners" – whether the musicians in the symphony or the business leaders in the commercial club – to help improve student achievement. They were along the lines of mentoring by artists, literacy instruction, professional development for teachers and administrators, and training for parents in everything from computer skills to helping their children with homework to advocating for their children at school.

This last activity – something suburban parents practice with zeal – is also suspect in Kurtz's view: "CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents 'organized' by community groups might be viewed by school principals 'as a political threat.'" That is typical of Kurtz's essay – relatively innocuous facts cast in the worst possible light. That's appropriate for an opinion piece, perhaps, but hardly grounds for a purportedly factual political ad accusing the group of radicalism.

We could go on and on with evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a rather vanilla charitable group. For example, under the deal with Annenberg every dollar from him had to be matched by two from elsewhere. The co-funders were a host of respected, mainstream institutions, such as the National Science Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Chicago Public Schools.

In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers' involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.

This attack is false, but it's more than that – it's malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there's ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That's Pants on Fire wrong.

There is another brief point that is worth noting. The PolitiFact analysis, like most other examinations of Bill Ayers' past, notes that the charges against him were dropped due to "prosecutorial misconduct". Yet, in a letter to the editor of The New York Times published on October 9, 2008, William C. Ibershof, who was the lead prosecutor of the Weatherman in the 1970s stated:

I do take issue with the statement in your news article that the Weathermen indictment was dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.

Moreover and more importantly, Mr. Ibershof also takes issue with the attempts to link Sen. Obama to Ayers:

I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.

Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.

Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.

"Amazed and outraged"! Can we please put the issue of guilt by association to rest and get back to, oh, I don't know, maybe, the issues? Oh, wait. I forgot. Sen. Obama has been discussing the issues. It is just Sen. McCain who realizes that he's lost if we talk about the issues (remember, his campaign said as much) that has gone the route of personal attacks.

This Year's Election Captured in a Moment

Late this afternoon, I ran out to the neighborhood grocery to buy some burgers and hot dogs. I wore my brand new Obama Biden 2008 t-shirt (purchased at this week's rally). Now, for those who don't know me, what you need to understand is that I live in one of the most conservative districts in the country. If Indiana is red, Carmel is deepest, darkest red, maybe even blood red. While I walked through the grocery, a number of people gave me what I can only describe as "interesting" glances. But one moment captured the entire character of this election.

A woman and a girl were walking by me in the frozen foods section. I would guess that the woman was in her late 40s or early 50s. She was well dressed, especially for a Saturday afternoon. The girl was, I would guess, somewhere between 16 and 20 (I've given up trying to guess too closely). She was wearing a Carmel High School t-shirt. Anyway, as they walked by me the woman (who, I presume, was the mother of the girl), very clearly looked at my shirt and then shot me a "glare of death" (sorry, it didn't work). I just smiled. But then, as the woman walked by, the girl turned around and, using her body to shield her action from her mother, she shot me a big grin and a thumbs up.

The dichotomy between the mother's scorn and the daughter's smile seems to be a near perfect illustration of one of the key characteristics of this election cycle.