Over at Salon, James Ross thinks that those behind Bush's torture policy will be in the mix:

So don't be surprised if some time before Inauguration Day 2009, President George W. Bush issues a blanket presidential pardon to ensure that those who organized and implemented brutal interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding" (a terrifying simulated drowning) are never hauled before the courts. A pardon would prevent future administrations from ever prosecuting those responsible for torture and other mistreatment at Guantánamo Bay and secret CIA detention facilities elsewhere overseas.

The president may well want to protect loyalists who designed or oversaw his most secretive tactics in the war on terror, and behind closed doors he may be under some pressure to do so. If in the end Bush pardons the stewards of his interrogation policies it would be a final act of injustice by a president whose legacy includes running roughshod over fundamental freedoms and undermining America's ability to promote human rights abroad.

That sounds about right to me. So who else will Bush bail out in the final days of his presidency?

Steve Benen suggests that Joe Lieberman's motive for begging to keep his chairmanship could be somewhat sinister:

[T]ake a moment to consider what the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs actually does: it's the committee principally responsible for oversight of the executive branch. It's an accountability committee, charged with investigating the conduct of the White House and the president's administration.

As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.

And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn't used? I'll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.

But Ezra Klein takes a slightly different view in response:

I don't think that's quite right. Rather, Lieberman wants to keep his committee as a hedge against retribution. So long as he controls Governmental Affairs, he's not the sort of guy Democrats want on a warpath against them. Elsewhere, they can take him seriously, or screw him over, largely as they please, which most would probably find a preferable alternative.

(via Sullivan)

Over 100,000 people attended Barack Obama's speech in Denver on October 26th. It took place in Civic Center Park, between the Capitol building and the Civic Center. This video footage focuses on the crowd, while we can hear parts of Obama's speech in the background. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d2GF8LETUE

The genius of the 30 minute World Series commercial:

-The audience will be massive, and will include key demographics (white males, for one) that are essential for Obama to reach in the final stretch.

-It owns the news cycle the next day, critical in the final week before the election.

-It's not just a commercial - it's news. Key highlights will be replayed on CNN and all the other nets, and youtubes will go viral. This means that millions of people who might not particularly be fans of Obama, baseball or presidential politics in general will end up getting meaningful exposure to the commercial's pertinent messages.

-Those people live in all 50 states.  Of course, this helps in the battlegrounds, where high-priced campaign battles are already being waged (and where both teams are from). But...

-Perhaps even more importantly, this helps in states like Arizona.  That's where just yesterday a poll came out with a +/- 4 margin of error and McCain is only up 44-40, within the margin. Obama could actually be competitive there as well as some other states where he's closing the gap if more resources were channeled in.  The World Series commercial reaches those states without spending extra money in those specific localities. And also in Arizona, two House seats currently held by Republicans are in danger and the Democrats there are making serious runs for them.  Even if red states like this don't turn blue in the presidential race, an increase in Obama voters could help win congressional seats.


After hearing some people complain about Fox delaying the game 15 minutes to accomodate the commercial, I got to mulling over whether it was really a good idea.  My conclusion: Yes, it's a really good idea. Brilliant, in fact.

Now, let's just hope the Rays win at least one more game and take the series to 6 games.

I just came across this youtube video at the Veracifier channel:

The McCain Campaign may not want you to see this

Following the link there, I found the story at The UpTake:

By Sam Mayfield
If there's one thing both the McCain and Obama campaigns agree on it's that the election will be close in Florida.  The McCain campaign says it has more volunteers than the Democrats and that ultimately gives them the edge.  McCain's Central Florida Campaign Manger says ACORN and the Democrats have to rely on paid workers.

However, the McCain campaign is hiring paid workers who sometimes also call themselves volunteers.  The UpTake's Sam Mayfield talked to a few of them... and that's when one McCain campaign worker decided you shouldn't see what is going on and threatened to have her arrested.

Then a quick search turned up this article at the Washington Post:

McCain Hiring Paid Canvassers in Florida
By Alec MacGillis

Republicans worried about John McCain's prospects have wondered how his campaign has been spending its not-insignificant pile of money, given that McCain is being heavily outspent on the air in swing states and has invested far less in field offices and organizers than has Barack Obama. Well, here's one place at least some money is going: In Florida, McCain is now offering to pay people to do door-to-door canvassing for the campaign.

An e-mail went out over the weekend from the Republican Party in Hillsborough County, which encompasses the vote-rich Tampa area, inviting supporters to go door-to-door for the campaign for $12 per hour. "Work as many shifts per week as you want," it said. "No experience necessary, but a strong desire to make a difference and a strong work ethic are important. So is reliable transportation."

McCain's reliance on paid canvassers is another indication of the advantage Obama holds going into the final weeks of the campaign, thanks to his formidable ground organization.

...

Brian Lothrop, who has been hired by the Republican Party to oversee the canvassing efforts in one quadrant of Hillsborough County, said the party was seeking to hire about 30 canvassers for each of the county's four quadrants and that he'd already hired 15-20 after the e-mail went out to local Republican clubs and Young Republicans. He said it was not unusual for the party to hire canvassers in the final weeks of a campaign. The party has had volunteers doing "precinct walks" over the past few weeks to distribute campaign door hangers, he said, with nearly 20 turning out on Saturday to walk one precinct in his area.

But the campaign decided that it made more sense to pay canvassers for the task of making sure voters who want absentee ballots obtain them and send them in. That work entails four-hour shifts, instead of the two hour shifts that volunteers commit to, and closely following state rules on absentee ballots, he said. The party decided that was better entrusted to paid workers with that project.

"The compensation helps to make sure they're going to be there for a full four hour shift and able to handle the accountability measures we have, measuring the effectiveness of our effort," Lothrop said. "Those are the reasons we know that we're going to have to shift to a paid effort."

Priceless



(I'm sorry I'm not able to credit the creator of this. I got it in an e-mail).

Classic.

Recommend this if you think that Talking Points Memo should join Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens in calling upon the major news and cable news networks to stop broadcasting Palin speeches until she holds a real press conference.



Two weeks ago, Sullivan wrote:

It seems to me that in the absence of a real press conference, the networks and cable news networks should simply cease broadcasting her speeches live and demand of every Republican guest that they explain this descent into anti-democratic territory. Bush and Cheney despise the press and despise the constitutional balances that restrict their dictatorial impulses. They don't recognize the rule of law as an impediment to the exercise of their power and they don't acknowledge any democratic input, apart from a single "accountability moment" every four years. And now they want to prevent the public's ability through the press to ask the toughest questions and toughest follow-ups even during that one "accountability moment".

This is how Putin behaves. It is anti-American. It has never been tried in modern times before. It is a chilling attack on an open society and the accountability of its leaders to the people they serve. The press has a duty to stand up against it - and to care more about the process than its own precious reputation in the mouths of Hannity, Steyn, Palin and the rest of them.

Today he points to Hitchens echoing the notion:

There seems no way of putting her in a forum where these points could be raised. So, continued media coverage of her appearances is no better than lending a megaphone to a demagogue, the better to amplify her propaganda.

The MSM has completely rolled over when it comes to Palin.  She has essentially waged a war of words with them, going so far as to flat out say in the debate that she wouldn't answer their questions.  Given her complete ineptitude at handling unscripted media moments, it's almost understandable why Palin would want to stick it to the press like that.  But what's unacceptable and inexcusable is the extent to which the networks are just bending over and taking it.  Their feet should be held to the fire.  And while this sort of pressure may not ultimately result in that elusive press conference actually taking place, it could at least help to direct attention to the issue and expose Palin to the public for the fraud that she is.

From CNN:

QUESTION: So how come you've dropped the attacks on Obama and Ayers lately?

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, you said that, you know, 'Obama doesn't see America the way you and I see America.' Do you think Obama loves America as much as you do?

QUESTION: It's unusual for a Republican campaign to be campaigning in North Carolina and Indiana halfway through October in an election year, are you concerned you are spending resources in states and places you shouldn't be?

QUESTION: Governor, the Washington Post and Peggy Noonan both said independently today that you are unqualified to be commander in chief. How do you respond to that?

QUESTION: You talk a lot about voter fraud. How concerned are you guys about that and what can you do at this point when we're just 18 days out to kind of put any safeguards in place?

QUESTION: Did you ask John McCain to bring up Reverend Wright more, and if so what did he say?
FOLLOW-UP: Do you think he should?

QUESTION: How often during the day do you talk to Sen. McCain?
FOLLOW-UP: What do you talk about?

QUESTION: Are you excited for tomorrow night (SNL appearance)? Can you give us a preview?

QUESTION: Isn't Reverend Wright a lot more relevant than Bill Ayers? I mean, he sat in his pews for 20 years.

QUESTION: Last night at the fundraiser you made a comment about the area being a pro-America area of the country. I was wondering if you could explain that a little bit more, what you meant by pro-America?

QUESTION: Are you going back to Alaska to vote?

Okay, so I don't think I'll be able to use the "Follow me" function on mytpm.

I just think it's too cool seeing "ryoma doesn't follow anybody." when I click on my dashboard.  Cracks me up every time.

I only wish it could be italicized:

ryoma doesn't follow anybody.

Damn right I don't.

:p

Blueprint for Change: Economy

Blueprint for Change: Healthcare

Blueprint for Change: Social Security

Blueprint for Change: Foreign Policy

Blueprint for Change: Education

Blueprint for Change: Ethics

Did McCain forget Michelle Obama's name?

A friend pointed this out to me as we were watching the debate, and I'm pretty sure it's true, and John McCain did forget Michell's first name.  Either that, or he refused to speak it (which would be excessively odd, even for him).

If I'm not mistaken, the first time he referenced her, he called her "Mrs. Obama", and the second time was something like "your wife" or "Sen. Obama's wife".  But both times it seemed like he couldn't recall her first name.

As I was watching the new Obama commercial about his American story, which reprised some of his biographical film from the convention, my thoughts went back to his acceptance speech.

Granted, at the time it seemed like the politically smart thing for him to scale back the "soaring rhetoric" which was among the many things McCain had been steadily bashing him for throughout all of August.  For Obama to get more pragmatic and specific than inspirational was a shrewd, somewhat unexpected tack for him to take, and I still think it was the right one.  But I think some, especially the viewers who don't count themselves among his stronger supporters, were left feeling a little bit underwhelmed.  Having seen some of his previous speeches, this one didn't seem to hit those emotional high notes with as much resonance as he's really capable of.

But now, seeing this latest commercial and how it provides a refrain from the convention, it causes me to take a step back and look at the longer-term perspective of this campaign, the overarching story from start to finish.  And it seems like Barack has always been seeing the chess board a few moves further ahead than many people, certainly me.  And it makes me wonder if part of the reason he didn't feel it necessary to make his acceptance speech that superlatively uplifting, inspirational, transcendent speech some were expecting to see at the convention was because he knew that he'd be giving that speech a little bit later on...


I. Boston
II. Springfield
III. Philadelphia
IV. Berlin
V. Denver
VI. Washington, D.C.

Future box set?

Earlier today I posted a blog.  It was there when I left home this morning, and now it's lost to the void.

And the same thing happened a few days ago.

WTF?

On October 3rd, 1983, Senator Jesse Helms articulated his opposition to a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. Here is the opening statement:

Remarks of Senator Jesse Helms

Congressional Record,
October 3, 1983,
Vol. 129, No. 130, pages S 13452 through S 13461.

Mr. President, in light of the comments by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), it is important that there be such an examination of the political activities and associations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., principally from the beginning of his work in the civil rights movement in the mid 1950s until his death in 1968. Throughout this period, but especially toward the beginning and end of his career, King associated with identified members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), with persons who were former members of or close to the CPUSA, and with CPUSA front organizations. In some important respects King's civil rights activities and later his opposition to the Vietnam war were strongly influenced by and dependent on these associations.

There is no evidence that King himself was a member of the CPUSA or that he was a rigorous adherent of Marxist ideology or of the Communist Party line. Nevertheless, King was repeatedly warned about his associations with known Communists by friendly elements in the Kennedy Administration and the Department of Justice (DO J) (including strong and explicit warning from President Kennedy himself). King took perfunctory and deceptive measures to separate himself from the Communists against whom he was warned. He continued to have close and secret contacts with at least some of them after being informed and warned of their background, and he violated a commitment to sever his relationships with identified Communists.

Throughout his career King, unlike many other civil rights leaders of his time, associated with the most extreme political elements in the United States. He addressed their organizations, signed their petitions, and invited them into his own organizational activities. Extremist elements played a significant role in promoting and influencing King's opposition to the Vietnam war-an opposition that was not predicated on what King believed to be the best interests of the United States but on his sympathy for the North Vietnamese Communist regime and on an essentially Marxist and anti-American ideological view of U.S. foreign policy.

King's patterns of associations and activities described in this report show that, at the least, he had no strong objection to Communism, that he appears to have welcomed collaboration with Communists, and that he and his principal vehicle, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), were subject to influence and manipulation by Communists. The conclusion must be that Martin Luther King, Jr. was either an irresponsible individual, careless of his own reputation and that of the civil rights movement for integrity and loyalty, or that he knowingly cooperated and sympathized with subversive and totalitarian elements under the control of a hostile foreign power.