For the past several days, various folks in the media have cited a Gallup poll that found 49% of respondents disapprove of President Obama's "handling" of health care policy. I've seen Bill O'Reilly note the numbers, I've seen them used on CNN and this morning, the poll was referenced on Meet the Press.

I'm a liberal Democrat and I have found no problems with anything headed toward the final bill, but if Gallup were to have called me and if I had answered correctly instead of dumbing-down my reply, I unfortunately probably would've fallen into the disapproved camp.

Again, my response would not have been a reflection of the legislative content, but instead, it might have reflected that I wasn't sure such an important bill should've been written by Congress or by a subcommittee comprised of an equal number, Democrats to Republicans.

I remember back to the primaries, when Hillary hit Obama with the idea that pretty speeches don't make policy and Obama replied that the bully pulpit could effectively be used to push public opinon and the Congress into the right direction. But, it wasn't until this past week that President Obama took to the stage and eloquently argued for reform.

IOW: While I agree with the President's goals and have no real problems with anything I've heard, if Gallup had called me and if I had answered their simplistic question honestly: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling healthcare policy?" those who oppose reform and the idiots in the media would've counted me as being against the President.

And, though there may not be a tremendous number of people who would've taken the question so literally, when you have a division of just 6% and an error margin of four, then it seems that every vote should accurately count. Not to mention that by having a question open to such a broad interpretation, the exercise seems meaningless and the results could easily be dismissed.

No disrespect, but I found the following funny, yet somewhat true.

I generally try not to complain, but this time it sort of peripherally effects me, so I'm going to take a moment to toss out a post.

Yesterday, I linked to an AP story about a woman who was reportedly visited by a PI in the employ of the NM Republican Party. I clicked the little box for my post to appear in the Muckraker sidebar, where it went after the first recommendation and then I left it alone.

Apparently this morning, the main Muckraker column posted more information about the situation, including a lot more quotes than the AP initially reported and that's all well and good, there's nothing wrong with shining a brighter light on the subject because that's the reason, I originally submitted my post.

What "bothers" me is that the main Muckraker story cites reports of "minority voters in New Mexico" to TPMMuckraker as the impetus for their investigation and they credit a local freepaper for first reporting the story, while I cited a short wire service article which appeared several hours before the timestamp on the freepaper and my post had been in the Muckraker sidebar, since it went online.

Again, all well and good, a brighter light is definitely needed and my insinuation about "Swift Boat" funding was only based on a circumstantial tie, but this isn't the first time that I've seen something posted to the Cafe and then reported by one of the main TPM columns, hours or days later, without any attribution or acknowledgement going to the original poster. This time the main article includes a lot more information, but that's not always the case, especially when it's something as simple as a Cafe member linking to a straight-up video, then Josh or somebody linking to the same thing two or three days later because someone had reportedly tipped them via email.

I realize that there's a lot of "talking to ourslves" going on in the Cafe, plus quite a bit of repetition and some posters lack historiical context, but you'd think that the paid staffers could at least pretend to read our posts, especially when something appears in the "Most Recommended" list. Sure, they have a lot of irons in the fire and all that, so I can understand that not everyone can read every post, but I don't really think that it's good customer relations, when apparently everything we write is being ignored or when an unaltered video is posted to the main site, days after it first appeared in the Cafe

And, maybe my deal about the potential for voter suppression in New Mexico isn't the best example because the Muckraker column does include direct quotes and it puts it into context with the ACORN story, but something similar seems to happen several times a week and though there's better example from myself and others, I thought it was time to throw something into the air.

(End Rant)

The newest Rolling Stone has an article about voter suppression which focuses a lot on the situation in New Mexico and today, the AP is reporting that a 67 year old, Albuquerque woman (who is quite likely Hispanic) was (allegedly) visited by a private investigator claiming ties to the state Republican Party, who questioned her about her immigration status and whether she was a "legitimate voter".

I don't know if these two stories have anything to do with the recent reports that the NM Republican Party has raised twice as much money as their Democratic counterparts over the past three months, or that their largest donor ($115,000) has been a Texas woman with ties to the "Swift Boat" ads from 2004, but I thought I'd throw everything out there for all to see.

---

BTW: Last week, I was going to make a joke about the woman accused of voting while drunk, but I couldn't find the perfect wording and the video wouldn't embed, so I'm just now tacking it onto this semi-related post about what appears to be a potentially threatening situation. After all, Al Gore carried NM by only 366 votes and George Bush beat John Kerry with the slightly wider margin of 5988.

ETA: Joe's video interview with the Toledo CBS affiliate sheds no new light, except that he has his talking points and Katie got the "better" quotes. Though, the text story from the local NBC affilate does go a little bit further on the whole "income redistribution" meme, so it could be worth a read.

Earlier this week, Time-Warner, through their CNN and Time Magazine subsidiaries hosted a symposium about the 2008 election cycle.

Embedded below is the hour and eleven minute session titled "Puppet Masters and Political Maestros", which is sort of a post-mortem on the various campaigns and archived copies of several other, very enlightening sessions are available, here.

Saturday, I was listening to the radio during my daughter's soccer game, when a McCain ad concerning stem cell research played. After the game, when I got back to the computer, I found that most people who had posted about the ad seemed surprised by McCain's pledge to move stem cell legislation through Congress. Personally, I wasn't surprised by the content bcause though he had failed to answer the science questions submitted by Nature, unlike Barack Obama, they had inserted previous language from McCain and I had just read his position, hours earlier.

No, what struck me about the stem cell ad was that though it mentioned Palin and ended on their logo, the phrase "John McCain and his Congressional allies" was repeated so much, it was like he had a new running mate. Which, if you think about it, running with his "Congressional allies" is almost the direct opposite of some advice offered by George Will on a recent edition of This Week and in one of his newspaper columns. If I might paraphrase, essentially Mr. Will says that since there's no doubt the Democrats will increase their majority, perhaps McCain should run on the concept of divided government.

Admittedly, I had intended to post about McCain's new running mate, but time started slipping and I became more focused on other matters. By itself, I probably would've let that one completely slide, but then earlier this evening, as I was sitting down in my swing state to laugh at David Caruso, a totally incongruent ad ran on the television.

YouTube says that this new ad was uploaded six days ago, so it was obviously part of a larger strategy and because it made no sense in light of the headlines from the day, the ad time must've been bought well in advance and it unquestionably shows that not only has Sen. McCain been playing the current economic "crisis" for political gain, but he's so far out of touch that no one thought to pull it.

Perhaps, I'm misreading the ad, though I've now played it several times. I really can't see any other purpose or intent, except for Sen. McCain and his "Congressional allies" to try and take credit for the bailout package passing through Congress. Though as we all know, it did not and it failed due to a lack of Republican votes.

IOW: If Sen McCain wanted to claim leadership, then something would've had to have happened and instead, the protections about which brags did not become law.

A couple of quick, light links to pass the time of day;
---

The Boston Phoenix has a short interview with some indy rockers from Wasilla;

Ryan "The Alaskan" Brown, a Wasilla native, former member of Portugal. The Man, and now a bassist in the Boston band Ho-Ag, was equally flabbergasted: "This sucks. I first became conscious of politics when she became mayor, so I’ve been fairly vocal about her since I was 16. She's like Ann Coulter without the balls. . . .

The Broward-Palm Beach New Times talks to a young Wasilla transplant;

Up there, we have a saying: "You never really lose your woman; you just lose your turn."

Which reminded me of an old news report parody, highlighting the shortage of women in the state.

For some reason, we have to take roundabout methods to reply to the mainpage posts.

Earlier today, they did some kind of half-hearted backtrack for an unfair attack on scientific research and though the original mainpage post wasn't linked, a lot of people including myself scrolled down and followed the first post over to Muckraker, where the comments are still pouring in at this hour.

Now, they've posted one of those videos to the mainpage on the same subject, but this time the meaning of "fib" is stretched so thin, it has no meaning.

The video starts with a clip of McCain saying that if he's elected, the government will no longer pay $3m to research DNA in grizzly bears; Then Josh appears and says that an earmark is headed to Alaska to study the DNA of seals, followed by a replay of the McCain clip and the sound of laughter.

As I posted back during the primaries and have said since this whole earmark nonsense started; McCain has vowed to veto every bill containing an earmark that crosses his desk. Obama has said that he'll roll earmarks back to the 2001 level. Earmarks have been the signature issue of John McCain's career and attacks on the subject plays to one of his strengths.

Clearly, McCain hasn't said that he'll retroactively veto earmarks from previous Congresses, so his statement isn't a fib by any definition. If he's true to his word, then if he's elected, there will be no more earmarks. It's not a lie.

Now, I don't write all of this to bolster McCain, but because of this irrational fear of campaigning against Palin, we're playing to McCain's strength and leaving Obama in a bad position. After all, if earmarks are bad, then what's so special about 2001? And, what does that say about all those Democratic Congresspeople (Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, etc) who have hundreds of millions in earmarks under their belt?

Not to mention, why are liberals opposing wildlife research?

1) Palin is supposedly going off the trail today. She's heading back to Alaska to see her son off and for Charlie Gibson's interview.

Reportedly, when she returns, her and McCain may start campaigning separately and though I think McCain's attendance might remain relatively high for the next couple of days, once she gets onto her own schedule, I suspect her rallies will dwarf his and that'll be worth mentioning.


2) Obama has said  publicly that he picked Biden because he wouldn't pull any punches and would give his honest opinion. While, as I touched-upon in a previous <A HREF="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/instaticket-add-water-stir.php">post</A>: Lindsey Graham has <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090203337.html">said</A> that if something unforeseen were to happen to McCain, Palin would be alright because she'd still have his staff.

Others have said similar things over the past week, so I think there's a way to make the distinction between someone that wants a partner who'll think for himself and one just looking for a "Yes Man", without getting into dangerous water.

For some unknown reason, McCain's choice for Vice-President seems to have struck fear into the hearts of some Obama supporters and we've been inundated with scurrilous attacks upon his choice and as I've said in other posts or comments, I've seen a lot of very unhelpful propaganda. In the past few days, as part of the effort to combat an unreasonable fear of an opposing candidate, I've seen attacks on the media; rural people; forty-four year-olds without passports; those who attended multiple colleges and state schools; people who shop at Walmart, hunters and westerners just to name a few.

Therefore as part of my continuing effort to help tamp-down some of the things which may be harmful to the Democratic effort and quite frankly, the American system, I'd  like to play a little game.

Bonds: As I've said before and will keep repeating until I'm blue in the face, bonds are how every state, county, school system and municipality funds their improvements. Technically they are debt, but they're the only option that a public entity can use and it's how we pay for our schools, libraries, roads, utilities, parks, civic and performing arts centers. If it weren't for bonds, no modern government would be able to build anything and our old folks would have fewer choices for "safe" investments.

Would you rather not have any schools, roads or any of the other things built in your community? The next time your local government wants to issue a few, are you going to vote against them because it's a "crushing debt"?

The people of Wasilla voted by a slim margin, but still a majority to issue bonds to build their sports arena. These bonds are partially funded by user fees and the rest of the payments come from an increased sales tax, which not only is paid by local residents, but their box stores draw from a much larger area. According to media reports, there was a $180k shortfall last year for the arena after factoring-in the user fees, but sales tax revenue exceeded expectations by $300k and reportedly, the town is not hurting for cash.

Earmarks (Wasilla): Again, I don't live there, but from the outset, we've known that $15m of Wasilla's $27m in earmarks were for a commuter rail line improvement. As this article points out, Wasilla doesn't own or run a railroad and the improvements were part of a much larger package which totaled $300m in federal outlays over five years.

The $15m was to improve the line between Wasilla and Girdwood, where reportedly both Alaska Senators have a vacation home and it is his Girdwood home that's at the center of Ted Srevens' VECO troubles. Heck, according to Google Maps, the rail line runs past Anchorage from a northern suburb to one in the south, but for some reason Sarah Palin is the catching the political brunt of this earmark.

Would you rather that the Anchorage metropolitan area have unsafe commuter rail or none at all? Are you willing to forego any federal subsidies for any future mass transit projects in your town because suddenly, Democrats oppose such things? And, if you are going to hold it against them, why is Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski getting away scot-free?

Earmarks (Alaska): According to data archived by the Natural Resources Council of Maine, 89.22% of Alaska is owned by the state or federal government. It's for this reason that some in the AIP have called for the federal government to give back their land; The feds control more than 60%.

If you look at a map from the Public Lands Information Center, once you enlarge it, you can see that the areas in white are privately owned and I just happen to know that because this is an online map, you can't see some of the smaller areas, but the 89% figure is not in question.

Also, if you look at the map, you'll probably notice that there's no roads to the left of Anchorage. That's not an oversight; There aren't any roads and the only way in and out of those villages is by air, which is why the post office subsidizes flights to keep the costs down. There just aren't any roads in that part of the state and we the taxpayers, also underwrite all of their airports through a federal program.

Would you rather that more Alaskan wilderness be turned over to private interests, so that we won't be paying for roads over federal land and where they can better fund their own infrastructure? Should those in the furthest reaches have a substandard airport and non-subsidized flights? Zoom-in on Google Maps and you'll see that the vast majority of these villages are thirty houses built near a landing strip; Should we just kick those folks (including the Native Americans) out and make them all live in town?

She's a Monster: Recent polls showed Ms. Palin with a better than 80% approval rate among her constituents and a poll done after she was named to the Republican ticket, Obama had gone from a seven point lead to a fifteen point deficit. Clearly, Alaskans like their Governor and she hasn't struck very many of those who know her best as a monster.


Don't get me wrong and as I've said before, there's a multitude of political beliefs, ethics questions and things she says now, which differ from what she has said in the past that can be used against her. Personally, I like the way the Obama campaign has been treating her and what causes me concern is the over-reaction in the blogosphere.

Why exactly are so many people afraid of Sarah Palin? I don't mean, why do you oppose her, but why have so many people started mimicking Chicken Little? Is it because she's a woman or a religious person? I just don't understand it and more importantly, if you react this way to a neophyte Governor and a social conservative, how would you have reacted to one of the other possible choices?

Would you rather McCain had named Tom Ridge, a moderate who'd bring more electoral votes?

Detroit's Fox affiliate is streaming an Obama appearance in Flint, right now.

Several folks have suggested commercial ideas on this blogsite and though I probably have the technology to YouTube this up, I'd have to look for the bits of video and it's much easier to just throw it out, here. Of course because I'm a creative-minded political animal, it's really just one of several ideas, but I think it's probably the best one from my cache for this moment in time.

(Apologies if this doesn't format right, but obviously we can't preview)
---

OPEN: <I>(clip from the announcement speech in Springfield with the date super-imposed on the bottom of the screen) </I>

OBAMA: I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.

MONTAGE: <I>(A single shot of every primary candidate from both parties leading up to McCain's acceptance in St. Paul, all of them tightly clipped to the single word "change")</I>

VOICEOVER: In November... Only one candidate has set the agenda for this election...

OBAMA: (speaking into the camera) I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message.