It didn't take long for the mean to come out. No sooner did the Republican National Convention end, then did the broad brush lies about how Obama would raise taxes on "you" came out. Never mind that only one percent of the people would feel the pinch, McCain had buttons to push. At the time, he was twenty points ahead of Obama. There was no earth - shattering economic crisis then. McCain's insecurity was showing. And of course, that meant that the showmanship had to start. It started with the stunt casting of Sarah Palin as his running mate. My what a feminist our Johnny is! Of course, it pleased McCain's adopted by necessity base that she was against taxes, pro-drilling and pro-life! Well, I'm sure the base enjoys Sarah's endless verbatim repetition of the same stale talking points.

Out came Sarah Palin with all the beauty and superficiality of a Miss Alaska runner-up. As she cheerleaders her way around the lower 48, with her Stupid Smile and her script of tired catchphrases, has stoked up the base, some of whom wish that she'd run for the top of the ticket, instead of that tired old man hiding behind her! That brings me to the worm in this apple. The real inner insecurity of John McCain. McCain is competing against a younger, more energetic opponent called Barack Obama, not old Kankles Clinton. He is afraid that when people compare him to Obama, they will see a decrepit old man, devoid of possibities, trying to beat a younger man - who is out to change the world. This makes him desperate. And in an election that's favoring the Democrats, a desperate Republican feels rotten and mean.

I'd like to call your attention to Frank Rich's op ed column in yesterday's NYT.  It is a must read.  The title is "The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama" and it is a critique of the turn to the ugly in McCain and especially Palin's stump speeches and rallies.  Rich gets to the heart of the matter and the raw and frightening malice that their campaign is releasing.  Here is an excerpt:

........what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Rich's eloquent description of precisely what sentiments Palin and McCain are fostering and encouraging should be heard by as wide an audience as possible.

Does anyone else see an eerie parallel between John McCain’s campaign and Frank Capra’s movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"?

In the movie, Senator Joseph Paine is forced to choose between power and integrity, truth and lies. Rather than lose the support of the corrupt political machine that keeps him in the Senate, Paine chooses power and lies, participating in a smear campaign against Jefferson Smith, the son of his oldest friend.

That decision forces Paine to behave in a way that’s agonizingly discordant with who he truly is. He doesn’t have what it takes to be ruthless; he isn’t a cruel man by nature, he’s just spent so many years settling for Washington’s reasonable compromises that he no longer sees a difference between right and wrong.

But even when he can no longer see what’s right, he can still feel it. His smear campaign fills Paine with such self-loathing that he tries to commit suicide, fails, and then confesses his guilt on the floor of the Senate.

In the same way, I think John McCain isn’t cruel by nature --  he’s just been horse-trading so long in Washington that he’s lost his own internal compass. That’s why he veers wildly from one position to another, and why former supporters say they don’t know him anymore.

I also think that McCain loathes himself for choosing power and lies over integrity and truth.  Like Senator Paine, he's accepted the help of a corrupt political machine -- the very same advisors who smeared him in the last presidential campaign.  McCain allowed them to talk him into a totally unqualified vice-presidential candidate; he let them talk him into a smear campaign against Obama; and he knows full well those actions were dishonorable.  That's why he's sabotaging himself now, making what he unconsciously knows are huge blunders. 

I predict more self-destructive behavior to come...but I also think we’ll see a day when John McCain, like Senator Paine, returns to his principles.  The damage will have been done by then; his career, reputation, and self-respect will be in tatters -- but before the end credits roll, I think John McCain will retrieve his honor.

-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

After reading a not particularly interesting New York Times article about the Bradley Effect I decided to take another look at an older FiveThirtyEight article covering the same subject and using democratic primary data to come to the conclusion that the Bradley Effect may now actually be the Yeldarb Effect. The FiveThirtyEight article uses data from “31 states in which at least three separate polls were released within 14 days of that state's primary or caucus” comparing the final Pollster.com trend line to the actual voting data. They conclude (well, the numbers conclude) that Obama outperformed the trend line by an average of 3.3 points.

Since it's a beautiful windy day outside I decided to sit at my computer and further manipulate the data and I found a couple things that probably don't mean much, but I think are interesting nonetheless. PPB = percent of state's population (or average of percentages for that a specific category) that is black from 2006 Census. All variance numbers are the number by which Obama outperformed the Pollster.com trend line.

PPB         Variance

19.9 +              11.2

10 - 19.8           1.19

0 - 9.9                 0.5

Now the confounding issue with the above little table is that out of the 7 states with a PPB of 19.9% or more, 4 have open primaries (i.e., any party affiliation can vote at any primary). And if we look at this little table:

Primary Type     Variance     PPB

open                         8.27             17.8

closed                       2.01             10.6

closed/semi              0.68             10.6

We see that the open primaries (10 states) in general had a much higher favorable Obama variance than the closed (10 states) or closed/semi (semi-open/semi-closed – 30 states) primaries. But at the same time, we have the confounding issue of the states with open primaries, on average, having a much larger PPB.

I like just looking at the number best: numbers are nice and clean and simple. But if you want to try and actually interpret the numbers things can get a bit hairy:

Why is the +Obama variance so high in states with high PPB?

    Pollsters are not reaching enough black voters...

    The open primary effect is skewing the results...

    Black-voters are turning out in unexpectedly high numbers...

    Black voters in these states lie to pollsters about voting for the black candidate...

    White voters in these states lie to pollsters about voting for the white candidate...

Why is the +Obama variance so high in states with open primaries?

    Same reasons as above...

    Republican meddling...

    Unsure republicans having a preference for Obama...

    Unsure republicans having a dislike for Clinton...

What effect did having a female running mate have on the Bradley/Yeldarb Effect?

And finally, what does any of this mean for 11/4? Will we actually see a Bradley Effect in the general once more republicans are thrown into the fray? Or will we simply see a continuation of the democratic primary patterns? What effect will voter intimidation/suppression/confusion have on the effects that may already be effecting things? So many questions. So many permutations. And really, who the hell knows.

Misc notes: I used 19.9 to start the highest PPB category because Virginia was at the cusp with 19.9 as of 2006 and I decided to drawing the line at 19.9 is about as meaningful as drawing it at 20. I did not use Iowa in any “Primary Type” data because I'm not really sure were it belongs. I did use the other 30 states that FiveThirtyEight had data for.

"America will rise from the ashes of the Bushes."
Hilary today in Scranton.

Amazing. I've never liked her as much as I have since the DNC. She is so much better than Bill right now, her tone is dead on, she has completely come into her own and I am so glad that she is my Senator. That always felt weird before, sort of out of place, but not anymore.

Further, I now believe she will truly come into her own as a Senate leader during an Obama Biden Administration. She will be able to be a most effective leader in her own right for the first time. She has proven her integrity, and interestingly, has finally left her husband in the shadows behind HER.

Words I thought I'd never say, but now I feel with my whole heart:
God Bless Hilary Clinton.
Thank you, Hilary.
Thank you.

McClatchy has an excellent article about Fannie, Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act (“

Jack Kelly of the Post-gazette has just published this article regarding the relationship between Ayers and Obama. 
I believe it's misleading, void of facts, full of omissions.  But maybe I'm missing something.   If anyone has been following this issue, could you help set the record straight?
I'd like to email Jack the facts.  Here's his published email address if you'd like to email him.    
jkelly@post-gazette.com

Yes, John Lewis is black, George Wallace was a racist, and Obama is half Kenyan.  But I think there's a serious misreading of Lewis's point.  Lewis isn't playing any "race card" at all, despite how we tend to see Lewis and Wallace.  He's simply responding, at a gut level, as one who's been there while the flames have been fanned high and terrible violence and assassinations have taken place.  There's a lot of hate, anger, and basic misinformation that's permeating the Palin/McCain rallies right now (it was certainly present at the GOP convention, in my opinion as well), and Lewis is making pretty much the same observation that David Gergen (another Southerner) and others have been making:  anger is being stoked and something terrible might come of it.

While race plays some part in some people's fear, their sense that Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, or, as that one very angry man said the other day at the rally, a "socialist." (God Forbid).  These guys have all sorts of wierd reasons why they're bent out of shape. 

So, I don't think anyone's playing the race card; compared to previous elections (1968, 1988) I think that race is pretty muted, and that's why McCain is laying off (to some extent) of the Wright controversy.   Lewis is flagging the vitriolic mood of the events as dangerous, and something that McCain/Palin should take some responsibility for.  Period.

Forget the predatory lenders, Wall Street sharks and their government enablers: It all started with George Bailey. Yes, that George Bailey -- the hero of Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life," (...) George Bailey was actually a pretty savvy businessman. And it's even easier to forget the precise nature of his business: putting the downscale families of Bedford Falls into homes they couldn't quite afford to buy. This is the substance of the great war between Bailey and Lionel Barrymore's Mr. Potter, the richest, meanest man in Bedford Falls.(...) "They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? . . . Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars?" (...)"It's a Wonderful Life" debuted in 1946, more than a decade after Franklin D. Roosevelt's National Housing Act kicked off a half-century of federal policymaking aimed at making it dramatically easier for working-class Americans to buy and keep their homes.(...) It offered the average American something no country on Earth had ever offered its citizens before -- the promise of an equality rooted in ownership, a citizenship rooted in self-sufficiency and an entrepreneurial spirit rooted in security. Ross Douthat - Washington Post
Most important, in Roubini’s opinion, is to realize that the problem is deeper than the housing crisis. “Reckless people have deluded themselves that this was a subprime crisis,” he told me. “But we have problems with credit-card debt, student-loan debt, auto loans, commercial real estate loans, home-equity loans, corporate debt and loans that financed leveraged buyouts.” All of these forms of debt, he argues, suffer from some or all of the same traits that first surfaced in the housing market: shoddy underwriting, securitization, negligence on the part of the credit-rating agencies and lax government oversight. “We have a subprime financial system,” he said, “not a subprime mortgage market.” Nouriel Roubini - NYT
The nuclear physicist Leo Szilard once remarked that the fall of the Soviet system would eventually lead to the fall of the American system. He said that in a two-element structure the interrelationship and interdependence are such that the one cannot survive without the other.(...) Without the enemy, the machinery of power begins to race, with nothing to resist it; megalomania sets in. William Pfaff
Sen. Barack Obama has taken a commanding lead in the race for president not because of any dramatic gesture, but because of a signature political trait: his caution. The nation's economic crisis triggered Obama's sharp rise in what had been a tight race. But Obama hasn't tried to seize the kind of central, national leadership position for which Sen. John McCain grasped, and fell short. Nor has he been touting — Bill Clinton-style — a highly detailed plan for what he'll do the moment he takes office. The result is that while virtually all observers agree that he has benefited from the crisis, his allies and critics alike remain a bit hazy on what exactly he would do if he takes office Jan. 20, 2009. Ben Smith - Politico

The idea or thread that holds the above quotes together is that the legendary prosperity of the American middle class, their massive home ownership and dizzying consumption have long been based on easy credit, that with the end of the cold war, America's credit binge went out of control, that the days of easy credit have just ended with an enormous bang or thud and that if Barack Obama, probably the next president of USA, has any specific ideas about what to do about the whole thing, he is playing his cards very close to his chest, indeed.

The reference to the cold war is very relevant, in my opinion.

If a worldwide banking meltdown, such as we are experiencing right now, had occurred in the 1960s or 70s, the large soviet backed, communist parties of France and Italy, and their trade unions, would have been out in the streets in force rapidly destabilizing those countries: the reaction in Asia, Africa and Latin America might have been even more explosive. Certainly the risk of strengthening such political movements would have been a conscious restraining factor for regulators all over the capitalist world. Those parties and those unions no longer exist. At the end of the cold war, as William Pfaff writes, "without the enemy, the machinery of power begins to race, with nothing to resist it; megalomania sets in."

With this crisis the era of easy private credit is surely drawing to a close and we will see a revival of traditional, conservative, lending practices. This means, for those too young to remember, that to get money you will have to already have money. Nouriel Roubini gives a short list of things that you will find yourself paying up front for besides a house: anything you usually pay for with a credit-card, or a college education, or an automobile, etc.

As you look at the list of things that you will have to save up to buy, James Stewart's, Charles Bailey voice may echo in your ear, "Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars?" In 1946 you could buy a house with five thousand dollars, nowadays you can't buy very much with that sum, but it is still hard for anyone on minimum wage, or not so minimum wage, to save five thousand dollars.

A great many people are going to discover for the first time in their lives that they are poor and they are going to resent it.

Many more people than today are going to feel bitter and in Barack Obama's prescient phrase, "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”. As another major new voice in American politics might add, "you betcha".

With nothing to threaten it, the system has set out to destroy itself. Now the danger to our system is right wing populism not socialism. Socialism or at least some version of a Scandinavian social democracy is the only way to stabilize this situation and stability is the most truly conservative of values.

This ultra-right, Le Pen-like populist anger is going to sweep America and make an already horrible situation much worse, unless very proactive, openly social democratic, anti-poverty programs are put quickly into place: universal, free health care, grants, not loans, for higher education, government sponsored, high quality subsidized rental housing with option to buy, etc. And make no mistake, this means cutting back defense spending, closing tax havens and raising taxes on the very rich and moving the money into education, health and infrastructure... right away.

Nothing original here, the plans are already drawn up, all you have to do is translate them from Swedish.

The wing nuts are accusing Barack Obama of being a "socialist radical", oh, but were it true.

I think he should quickly announce his future cabinet choices and give a detailed outline of the legislation he aims to pass in his first hundred days.

If Obama doesn't move strongly with vigorous social democratic measures to stabilize the situation of America's seething masses of nouveaux pauvres, he will simply be fattening frogs for snakes... keeping the Oval Office chair warm for Sarah Palin or even worse in 2012.

http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

The Obama campaign made a serious error with their negative campaign ads. There has been extensive blogging about the MSM creating a false sense of  "balance" by equating Obama's ad and video about the Keating 5 with McCain's ads about the "Ayers connection". This is because the blogs have been focusing on the content of the ads. The MSM, on the other hand, have been putting the focus on the style of the ads. Look at any report on CNN. Both ads are shown side by side or one after the other. But the commentator is usually talking over the ads, making the presentation of the ads purely visual. No content, no substance. So what we as viewers are left with is two ads, both dark, somber, and meant to be scary. Imagine now if the Obama ad was done by Jon Stewart's writers, or the guys at JibJab. Imagine putting an ad made of cut-out animation, singing and dancing about the Keating 5, next to one of McCain's "Oooooh, scaaaarrryy" ads. Now imagine trying to say that they were the same. Think anyone would buy it? Same content. Different package. We know that the electorate has a large percentage of "low information voters". People who gravitate to anything that makes them go "ooooh, shiiinnnyy". Let's start attracting those voters, instead of putting them off with gloom and doom.

A hard look at reality, and what you should do
October 10th, 2008, 10:43pm by Sam Wang

I’ve noticed a lot of continued speculation about the Presidential race. You ask about the Bradley effect, voter purges, and other detailed topics. It’s all over the comments section, both here and on other sites.

As immersed as I am in the analysis, I am only now noticing that many of you are taking a little time to adapt to current conditions. This post is directed at those of you who are rooting for one side - Democrats and Republicans alike. It is time for you to take a good, hard look at what is going on. Whatever your personal preference may be, a Democratic sweep is coming. The storm is about to make landfall, and we know where. The question is what you should do about it.

Two things the MSM noted about the last presidential debate (apart from the lack of follow-up questions, Tom Brokaw's inability to keep the candidates focussed and how bored the audience at Hofstra University all looked) were John McCain's annoyingly frequent use of "My friends" when addressing people he doesn't know and probably would never choose to hang with, and his and Obama's constant bandying of the term "fundamental differences" without explaining what "fundamental differences" they have on the economy.

Although Americans care more about what the next President of the United States is going to do, than what past administrations have done, I heard little but- what's the line in the movie - "You talk a lot, but you don't tell me nothin'"?   John McCain said not so long ago "the fundamentals" of our economy are strong".  I believe this is supposed to be something politicians say to calm the markets, even though it flies in the face of everything those of us who don't have seven or eight houses see.  Surprise, surprise - that hasn't worked, so maybe it's time our leaders say something that makes sense, not beggars belief.

The "fundamentals" of our economy were abandoned a long time ago.  Over the decades, our political masters, in cahoots with corporations, have gradually chipped away at legislation and left us in a muddle which confounds even freshmen business administration students.  Not just individuals, but government bodies up and down the food chain, have been living on borrowed money and borrowed time, with a succession of quacks (politely referred to as "Treasury Secretaries" and "Economic Policy Advisers") treating downturns with placebos of consumer debt and defence spending.  The other day I checked out a pie chart of the government debt the Bush administration has run up.  Talk about scary, I had to take a Xanax just to finish reading the footnotes.  The same day I read that the famous "debt clock" has run out of numbers.  I went to bed that night and dreamt that I lost my job and had to move in with my parents, sleep in my old (bunk) bed and resume my most hated chore - mowing the steep terraced lawn with the aid of a rope.  It could have been worse.  I might have dreamt that I WAS my parents in the 1930s.  Their reality was more frightening than my worst nightmare - even the one where I was hiding from Godzilla in my old high school locker and was set upon by hundreds of poisonous spiders.

We don't like to talk about Depression because it's depressing.  It takes courage to talk about it.  It takes even more courage to do something about it.  Are you still with me?

Remember after 9/11, when President Bush exhorted us to "go shopping"?  Do you think shopping to stave off economic recession is a good idea?  Isn't that a little self-defeating, like eating chocolate cake on a diet?  Tastes good now, but you pay later.  Yes, yes, I know consumer spending is the so-called "engine of the American economy", but does it have to be?  Did you know that since Bush took office, 70% (gulp!) of our entire economy is consumer spending?  Does anybody else see anything wrong with that?  More to the point, did anybody stop spending beyond their means?  This is a complete no-brainer, but I'm as guilty as you are.  But just because we made mistakes doesn't mean we can't change.  Why aren't manufacturing and exporting the engine?  Why is our economy so one-way, gobbling imports and choking on the dust of our bloated trade deficit, like a faulty vacuum?  We are fully capable of designing and manufacturing desirable, marketable, reliable consumer goods and selling them overseas.  We are probably more capable of exporting green technology than any other country on Earth, but we shun it out of ignorant principle.  When the naysayers poo-poo the idea of "American-made" because of labor costs, I wonder how companies like Renault and Peugeot can continue manufacturing cars in (expensive, unionized) France.  Well, it's simple.  Those companies constantly innovate.  There is demand for their cars all over Europe and elsewhere.  From electric mini-cars to fuel-efficient clean diesel SUVs, these companies produce practical cars for practical buyers - you know - practical people who know that cars are not a fashion statement, they're a means of transportation.  So why can't we resolve that we will demand economical, reliable cars and drive them for five or six years or more before we upgrade?  Would you pay a little more for an American-made car which didn't start having problems after three years on the road and which maybe saved you $20 or $30 a week in gas bills?  I would, if given the choice.

What happened to our train networks?  There surely is demand outside of the New York/Washington corridor.  I remember my first train trip, to visit my grandmother.  We ate ice cream sundaes in the fancy dining car.  It was 1,000 times more enjoyable than crossing my legs in anguish in the car, eventually relieving myself by the side of the highway, because my Dad was in such a hurry to get to our destination, or taking the Greyhound to see Aunt Rose in Phoenix when I had to stuff my money in my underwear and sit next to a smelly letcher for two days and nights.  I know America is vast, but when Air France (I'm not French, by the way, just a coincidence that the French make some of the most technically advanced cars and trains) has announced they are going to introduce 375mph passenger trains all across Europe within 2 years, I wonder why we can't upgrade the tracks which cross-cross our country and do the same?  Especially when commercial jets use so much more energy per passenger, are so much more expensive to maintain and are so unreliable of late?  For Chrissakes, we put the first man on the moon - I don't think I'm the only American who thinks we can also manage to build a decent high-speed rail network.

Here's where I favor Obama's policies - although he hasn't gone into any real detail about his plans for investing in our country's infrastructure, at least "rebuilding our infrastructure" is part of his mantra.  Because when America builds things, we seem to do pretty well.  When the basis of our economy resembles some weird pyramid scheme, we don't.

I was never impressed with Keynes's theories because I know some really rich people, and apart from occasional charitable donations and fundraisers (mostly to impress their really rich friends and have somewhere to wear their new designer duds), they have a tendency to hang on to what they've got.  Of course there are exceptions, but think about it.  What is the former CEO of Lehman Brothers going to do with $350 million?  Give it back to the Treasury to compensate in a minor way for the mess he helped make?  I don't think so...

Americans don't want much.  They don't ask for much.  They need, want and ask for the jobs and security that results from "fundamentally sound" economic government policies, and tangible evidence that "The Greatest Country in the World" is not just a campaign slogan.

At this point in the election, it seems surreal to me that there could be anyone still undecided. This may be because my own knowledge of these candidates is formed from reading about their policies, their histories, reading their own writings, examing their records, and listening to their words. While occasionally listening to the various talking heads, I weight their bloviating somewhere at the bottom of the information scale. Consistency of word and action is the best indicator of integrity and truthfulness, the foundation of character. As we've seen in the past month, events sometimes move too quickly to govern strictly by a long term policy, so the judgement and, yes, character are extremely important in the chief executive of this nation. Again, judging by those standards, it seems obvious who the best, indeed, only responsible choice is: Barack Obama. Reading "The Audacity of Hope", examing his record in the Illinois state senate, and the U.S. Senate, and reading his policy proposals, one is hard pressed to find any inconsistancy. McCain, on the other hand, has a record of hardly anything BUT inconsistancy. To take one example, his refusal to call for the removal of the Confederate flag in South Carolina in the 2000 primaries, was obvious pandering to the base. His apology afterward, which some people point to as proof of his integrity, was a political shift back toward the center, and an attempt to maintain his "maverick" (god, I've come to hate that word) image. If he truly had any integrity in this case, he would have called for that racist symbol to be removed DURING the primary, or reversed his position while it still meant something.
So why does over 40% of the country still cling to the image of McCain as a straight shooter? Why do people still say they don't know Obama well enough? Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?

“I’ve always admired your tart honesty and ability to be personally offended by broad social trends.”
--Principal Seymour Skinner

There are a few conventions in politics I don’t particularly care for. This goes beyond complaints about the inanity of the electoral college. No, these are things that we seem to take for granted, and digest with the glee of baby birds being fed regurgitated worms.

What follows is a brief and spirited Andy Rooney-like rant of three or four loosely related ideas, and I try to pull a rabbit out of my cornhole in the final paragraphs to make the sucker congeal…so with that caveat, I’m gonna get my rant on:

1.  “Left” for Democrats and “Right” for Republicans.
Now I realize some French history majors out there will point out that the “liberal left” origin was from capitalists sitting on the left and nobles sitting on the right of the king, and the “right” sought to maintain social order, while the “left” became associated with change. (In all fairness, though, if you defend this “left” v. “right” order, you’re siding with the French — which makes me want to choke on my Freedom Fries).

The Tartan, an online site I’d never heard of until three minutes ago, makes the argument that “In virtually every human language, the terms for left-handedness and the direction left have negative connotations.” It goes on to say our English “left” is derived from “lyft,” meaning “weak” or “broken.” In Latin, it’s close to “sinister;” German, “awkward,” and “clumsy” fit the bill.

“Right,” of course, is a synonym for “correct,” and right-handed people comprise about 90% of the population — it’s mainstream, accepted.

To be honest, I didn’t think about this until CNN emblazoned those distracting pundit meters that flanked the presidential candidates, force-feeding the public what Alex Castellanos and Gloria Borger thought were good arguments: these red/blue pie charts had the Dems on the right in blue, and the GOP on the left.

It’s a subtle, almost subconscious, built-in advantage that serves no purpose beyond journalistic shorthand…and burnishing the Frenchies.


2.  “Swift Boating”
Somehow this phrase seems destined to describe absolutely anything and everything resembling an attack ad, the same way “-Gate” is the suffix for nearly every political scandal in the last thirty years.

When did we decide this?

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were a pack of degenerate liars. Is that really too hard to say? They converted a decorated war veteran to a more “fabulous” pansy than Richard Simmons. None of it was true, of course, but for some reason we’ve adopted the phrase “Swift Boat” for any character-based attack, regardless of its veracity.
 “Swift Boat” is a convenient euphemism implying partisanship; if it’s a lie, call it that.



3. “Liberal media bias”
Stephen Colbert nailed my central premise here:  “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

From local politics up to the national level, the GOP tries to intimidate media outlets through bullish charges of partisanship and bias. They do it often enough that it’s become an accepted part of the narrative.

Never mind Fox News, which actually got caught — though not surprisingly — using
talking points sent directly from the White House. Fox doesn’t count.

No, it’s a conspiracy of those left-lusting media anchors and writers who are to blame for McBush’s mumbled message. It may not be possible to prove a negative — that aliens don’t exist, or that Obama doesn’t pal around with terrorists — but that doesn’t prevent people from claiming the media is “covering up” connections (like any reporter or anchor wouldn’t LOVE to break that story), or they aren’t digging hard enough.

In debate, one of the first things you learn is an argument is a claim, followed by a
warrant.

It’s absurd to continue to take claims of bias at face value when they aren’t backed by any specific reasoning: that’s a toddler-ish rant, not a cogent argument.


4.  Huh?
By now you may be saying, “what the hell was the point of this scattershot writing?”

Well-played.

I guess I needed something to complain about because it didn’t snow last night, as was expected. Everyone said it was going to happen, and the timing seemed about right.

That’s kind of the same thing that struck the McCain campaign. He’s a perfect fit for our traditional idea of who should inhabit the Oval Office, and the timing seemed about right. It was expected and projected, but not delivered.

When disappointment reigns, you want to complain about something, even if it doesn’t quite fit.

No snow? Hell, I’ll complain about politics!

No presidency? Hell, I’ll cry about media coverage!

The answer for both McCain and I, of course, is to get to work before the big deadline, and do something a little more productive and focused with our time. Nobody wants to listen to a confused messenger…but don’t worry, Mr. Rooney, I’ll still tune in to 60 Minutes tonight.



 

McCain announces that he is about to change economic direction again:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14493.html

Some of the talk shows were discussing credit cards and American's getting themselves too much in debt because of them; that perhaps somebody should come forward and tell voters to stop it.  That it is their getting in debt that is hurting the economy.  They also said however, that it would be political suicide if a candidate did that.

It made me think of an idea however.  What if someone (Obama) were to suggest that his administration would stop credit card companies from allowing a customer to get in debt -- beyond their means that is.

Imagine getting a credit card worth $500.  The customer ends up spending $475 of that.  The customer pays his monthly premium on time every month.

The card company likes those actions so they give the customer extended balance available (even though the customer never asked for it).  Now that customer has $1000 total limit.  The customer of course ends up taking advantage of that money, saving his cash for other things.  Always paying his monthly premium due.

Soon however, that card company offers the customer a 10,000 balance available.  The customer, not paying much attention to his debt, just his monthly premium says, "Wow, I can buy that new boat now".

The monthly premium jumps up so high the customer can't make the payment.  He begins paying his bill late each month or not at all.  The card company decides to punish the customer by raising the interest rate on the customer's account.  Instead of paying that original 8% APR, the customer is now paying a whopping 21%.

To top this off, the card company decides to continue increasing the credit limit for that same customer.  It's like offering fudge to a person that loves fudge.

The customer is left with a debt for life, that he/she may or may not be able to keep up with over the years.  And if they can't meet those bills, they end up filing bankruptcy.

Yes, the customer is as mush at fault for his problems as the card company; but was there something the company could have done to stop the over spending and abuse?  Could they have avoided that customer from claiming bankrupt and therefore losing most of the money the customer owed them?  Yes.

As soon as that customer had missed two payments, they could have put a hold on that account.  They could have stopped the customer from using their card until they've once again proven they can meet their obligations toward it.

Instead, they packed on -- even more debt to the customer by charging more interest rates and therefore, more money due.  They even turn around and charge a huge late fee each time the miss paying.

Now think about it folks.  If the customer can't meet (and did previously) the payments now, how is adding more money due each month and in the long run helping?

Sure, the company (if the customer is finally able to pay his monthly premiums) ends up making more money -- but what if he doesn't and files bankrupt?

Both the customer and company lose.

Perhaps Barack Obama should say he plans on making new regulations to help stop that 'throwing money' at customers, and stop credit cards from charging outrageous fees and interest rates for being late.  Perhaps he should say he will require companies to put a hold on accounts for a period of time while the customer catches up.

Oh sure, there are specifics to look into, like the cost of extra paper work and labor for keeping tabs -- but this feeding the bears will only continue to make things worse.

What's your opinion?  Can something be done to not only help the customer from him/her self; but to help the company to get back what is owed with a little profit?

Originally Posted at 411Politics

Generally, I try to hold my tongue when it comes to bashing John McCain.  I respect that he spent over five years in a Vietnamese prison camp.  It's more than most men could tolerate.  It's certainly more than I could tolerate.  Hell, I get impatient waiting five minutes in line at the grocery store.

So, although I have disagreements with McCain over policy issues, both economic and social, I always try to pay him a certain amount of deference. However, in light of the events of the past week, I have to speak out on this.

John McCain no longer lives with honor.  That's hard for me to write because, believe it or not, he was a hero to me in many ways.  Sure, there was his sacrifice in Vietnam, but he was also pretty damned cool.  He dated models and strippers.  He wasn't an excellent student or even a great pilot.  I admired him because, like any good maverick, he didn't follow the rules.

Today, that seems to extend to the rules of common human decency.

At issue are recent speeches, interviews and ads by John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican National Committee.  Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists."  You'll note that she originally didn't specify what kind of terrorists, domestic or foreign.  Why?  Well, because we don't have much of a problem with domestic terrorism anymore.  Post-McVeigh, that kind of radicalism has died down.  Today, terrorism is synonymous with Islamic Fundamentalism – the kind of men who committed the atrocious acts of 9/11 and later attacked our allies… and Obama is "palling around" with them.

"When did he know Bill Ayres was a terrorist?"  "Did he approve of the terrorist acts?"  "Does he know any other terrorists?"  "Has he been completely honest about it?"

Honestly, those kinds of questions would be acceptable to ask if McCain, Palin and their supporters didn't already know the truth, or if they were honestly looking for answers.  They do, and they're not.  This is just a nakedly cynical ploy to stir up fear and anger among an electorate already on the brink of its collective sanity.

And therein lies the indecency.  The strategy by the McCain campaign is less Rovian and more reminiscent of another "J.M." – Joseph McCarthy.  It was McCarthy, after all, who pioneered the techniques of false outrage (he accused his first political opponent of profiteering during WWII even though he profited in equal amounts).  It was McCarthy who stood at women's forum in Wheeling, West Virginia and claimed to have the names of 250+ State Department officials who were secretly communists – at best, an exaggeration, and at worst an outright lie.

McCarthy wasn't very successful at prosecuting communists, but he was exceedingly good at pointing fingers and stirring doubt about our fellow citizens.  The lingering scourge of McCarthyism is that some of us are all too quick to turn on fellow Americans, especially those who don't look or sound like quite right.

None of this would be a problem if it were just a cynical campaign strategy that gave conservative voters a knowing wink.  It might be unseemly, or undesirable, but it would be part of the game, and you can't hate the player.

What's not part of the game, and what makes McCain's actions so insidious is the fact that he's stoking the fires of radicalism.  Regardless of McCain's intentions, it has become clear that this tack has moved the fearful to anger, the angry to hatred, and the hateful to violence.

Just this week, we've been treated to jeers of "terrorist," "treason" and, most notably, "kill him!"  That's just at McCain's rallies.  A Youtube.com video featuring a bunch of drunken rednecks threatening to cut off Obama's head has been making the rounds recently.  Obviously, I don't believe McCain condones any of this, nor does he want violence directed at Obama – but you sure couldn't tell that from his tepid response to the situation this week.

You can't just light a fuse, walk away, and then claim that you didn't burn down the house, the fire did.  John McCain, of all people, knows the history of radical assassins in this country.  It only takes one Sirhan Sirhan.  It only takes one Mark David Chapman, one John Hinckley, and (sorry conspiracy theorists) one Lee Harvey Oswald.

What else can you possibly expect when you imply that a terrorist is going to take over the nation someone holds dear?  Do you think he's going to canvas with a pamphlet and a clipboard?  Do you think he's going to restrict himself to fundraisers?  Do you really expect him just to vote?  And what if he sees the polling data that says his single vote will likely do little good against a groundswell of Obama support?  Could he be so frustrated that he'd resort to violence in order to "save" his country?  Can you expect anything else, given the stakes?

We need only ask a 17-year-old boy named Juan Romero, the busboy who held Robert Kennedy's bloody head in his hands as Kennedy's life slowly slipped away.  We need only ask Nancy Reagan, who's husband was nearly killed by a crazed assassin.  And if John McCain needs any more proof of what one radical individual can do, he need only turn to the left of the Senate chamber and ask Edward Kennedy about the price of radicalism.

The days ahead may be our most trying days.   The times require us to be more united than ever.  Instead, McCain and Palin offer to divide us, to make us afraid, to make us angry.  Some among us have been only too quick to oblige.

It is incumbent upon John McCain to speak out immediately and condemn the violent rhetoric and the hatred.  It is a matter of honor.  Maybe he feels it goes without saying.  It doesn't.  Maybe he feels it's his shot, his one shot, at winning this election.  That may be.  But John McCain still has to wake up on November 5 and look himself in the mirror.

The problem seems to be that McCain equates winning with honor.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Honor is its own reward.  No one doubts that John McCain served with honor during the Vietnam War, and yet, he returned on the losing side.

So please, John McCain, you still have the chance to do the right thing, to condemn the most radically violent elements of your party, publicly and without reserve.  Do at a rally.  Do it at the final debate.  Do it in prime time for the world to see.  Stand up, be a leader, and say, "This will not stand because this is un-American!"

Please, John McCain, do not sacrifice honor for victory.

Adam Nagourney reports on the front page of today's Times that down-ticket Republicans are getting an eensy-bit nervous about the coming election:

After a turbulent week that included disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin and signs that Senator John McCain was struggling to strike the right tone for his campaign, Republican leaders said Saturday that they were worried Mr. McCain was heading for defeat unless he brought stability to his presidential candidacy and settled on a clear message to counter Senator Barack Obama.

McCain hasn't settled on a clear message? Now I'm not privy to the inner workings of the campaign, but that doesn't mean McCain's message isn't coming through loud and clear. As we enter the homestretch, I'd say it's something like this:
"Barack Obama is a dangerous friend of terrorists (who may or may not be Muslim, at least judging by his middle name, which is Hussein in case you hadn't heard) and an honorable family man though certainly not an Arab and while we don't know who the real Barack Obama is he certainly wants to raise your taxes and surrender in Iraq and put his campaign before his country because he's dangerously inexperienced and superliberal but we shouldn't be afraid of having him as our President even though he would meet with dictators and chase Osama Bin Laden across the border into Pakistan which shows his dangerous naivete, and of course John McCain would be a much better choice for President, because he puts country first and would be a steady hand at the tiller during this worst financial crisis since the Great Depression in which the fundamentals of our economy our strong (that's you, Joe Sixpack-- you're a fundamental!), so strong that I'll suspend my campaign and threaten to skip the first debate unless we get a deal and rush back to Washington and go to a meeting where I won't say much and then go to the debate even though the deal isn't done because I'm the only candidate in this race with the experience as a real maverick to bring the change that Washington needs like offering a capital gains tax-cut to help out the middle class. Oh, and did I mention I'm a POW?" Of course, that's the message right now. It could change tomorrow. But that's okay, because John McCain knows the difference between strategy and tactics. I mean, just look at the campaign he's been running.

I posted something similar to this in the past but because of the media still pushing the 'economy' as the reason McCain is losing, I feel the need to argue against that again.

It’s really irritating to keep hearing so-called expert political strategists (Democratic and Republican) talk about how the economy tanking has caused John McCain to probably lose this election.

"Democrats always benefit when the economy is bad", they say.  When the issue is war and terrorism, Senator John McCain was in the lead.

One month ago Democratic strategist Paul Maslin, who closely tracks the electoral map, thought that perhaps Democrats would win by a couple of percentage points.

At best, he thought Obama might earn a slight majority as Democrats earned in 1976, the last time the party’s presidential nominee cracked
the 50 percent barrier.

"Now it’s a whole different world," Maslin said. "The economy is way beyond 1992. In 1980, it was the Iran hostage crisis and the economy. I’ve never seen an issue take this kind of prominence."

Gallup finds that 69 percent of Americans believe the economy is the most important issue facing the nation. The second most cited issue, the war in Iraq, is named by only 11 percent of voters.
Bill Clinton’s former pollster Doug Schoen calls this the "economic tsunami."

And it’s this tsunami that has altered the electoral map in a way that Obama himself could not.
"The Obama campaign did a lot of important foundation work to expand the Democratic map. And I give them credit for that," Maslin said. "But the real expansion of the map is coming from an outside event, namely the economy, and not the tactics of the Obama campaign.

"Obama has not changed the map," Schoen said. The map has changed because, in light of the economic turmoil, "McCain has become an almost unacceptable alternative" to President Bush.

First off, before this request came down from the Bush administration to vote on a bailout bill – Senator Barack Obama was in the lead nationally and in the States he needed to be leading in.

Senator John McCain has led nationally, as far as my research shows me, only two times since the Republican convention.  Obama was leading the day the bailout was announced.

Secondly, yes the economy is bad and people think about their wallets in times like this (which usually has voters asking for tax breaks).  Both Obama and McCain are offering tax cuts for almost everyone.  And yes, they tend to blame the Party in power for the current problems of the nation.  However, keep in mind that Democrats are in charge of Congress.  Bush is in charge of the White House.  Both Parties could be blamed for some of this economic turn.

So, exactly what is causing Senator John McCain’s poll numbers to plummet?  Why is Senator Barack Obama’s campaign leaning toward a landslide?  I have three simple reasons for you; the debates, Governor Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain’s own actions for the past two months.

Voters remember hearing earlier this year, John McCain say that government should not be helping people that are losing their homes because of bad judgments.  They remember hearing and seeing McCain say, not once but several times, "The fundamentals of the economy are fine."
 
Voters saw how Senator McCain reacted to the bailout story.  They saw that it was Senator Obama that approached Senator McCain first, to ask about getting together and agreeing on a few criteria for a possible bailout.  They saw how Obama tried to work behind the media’s eye.  They also saw how McCain waited almost six hours that same day before responding to Obama’s phone call, only to go before the press (trying to gain political points) to claim he was suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to help solve the bailout issue.

Voters also saw and heard Senator McCain say that he wanted to delay the first debate before the American people (to possibly help explain the bailout bill to voters), claiming he wanted to give his undivided attention to the bailout bill.  

Voters saw and heard Senator Barack Obama point out the fact, that a President should be able to multitask (handle more than one problem at a time), saying the debate will go on even if it ends up being a town hall meeting with just himself answering questions.

Voters then saw McCain reverse course and show up at the debate. – following Obama’s lead.

Voters saw news stories of John McCain making fun of Obama using the phone to talk to other congressional members in hopes of helping to get votes for the bailout issue – only to see proof that McCain himself spent most of his time in his Washington office – on the phone.  They heard how he had little input at the White House during that meeting.

Voters have heard John McCain repeat over several years that if he were president he’d veto any bill with pork in them – only to watch him flip flop and vote for the bailout that ended up being the final bill -- that had pork in it.  McCain then flip flopped on his own vote and said he hope the president would veto that same bill.

Voters were impressed with Governor Sarah Palin’s VP debating skills, but the next day she came out swinging and making personal attacks against Senator Barack Obama.  She insinuated that Obama was a terrorist ("pallin’ around with a domestic terrorist") because he worked on the same board as a reformed terrorist.  Palin knew Ayers did his crimes when Obama was eight years old.  She stood on the stage allowing members in the audience to call Obama a "terrorist" and for someone to yell "kill him".  She and McCain allowed supporters to use Obama's middle name to scare voters into not voting for him.
 
She and John both ignored the problems of the economy, their campaign deciding they would lose if the subject was the economy.

Voters have now seen that perhaps Governor Sarah Palin hasn't exactly been truthful about her roll in Troopergate.  They see how she abused her powers as Governor.

During the past two debates, voters saw that Barack Obama, could indeed, be a Commander-n-Chief.  They saw him take on a Senator of 26 years and a nationally known war hero and former POW – with calm, and with facts.  They saw Obama’s vision, his calm way of approaching problems and his demeanor toward Senator McCain

Before the General campaign, they also saw how Obama came from being virtually a no body, to beating the current Democratic Party leader, Senator Hillary (and Bill) Clinton during the primaries.

John McCain on the other hand showed confusing behavior by saying one moment that we shouldn’t have government involvement and on the other hand saying let government buy up bad housing debt.  Voters saw McCain being a rude man by refusing to even acknowledge that a fellow U.S. Senator was standing on the stage with him by his refusing to even look him in the eye during the first debate, and in the last debate, by calling Senator Obama "that one".  They saw a man on the attack instead of a man with ideas and a vision.

If John McCain hadn’t done the things I mentioned previously, John McCain would still be neck-n-neck with Barack Obama for President.  Barack Obama had too many things going up against him when he got into this campaign; his name, his race, doubts about his faith, his lack of years in Washington and his youth.  John McCain could have beaten him.

The reason Senator John McCain appears to be losing this election, is because of John McCain’s own actions and his choice for VP – not 'just because' there is a bad economy.

They also have seen a man that has a vision and is ready to lead - Barack Obama.

John McCain is not the man he once was, nor is he the ‘one’ for today’s problems.

 

I read Josh's Darker and Darker piece and the fact that the woman was apparently surprised by learning directly from John McCain that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a terrorist tells us a lot. Mostly though it tells us a lot of people are stuck in a place from where they will never escape.

The Hill:

A senior adviser to Barack Obama said Sunday that the Illinois Democrat does not agree with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who drew parallels between John McCain and former segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace. 

In the past week, stepped up rhetoric by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and, to a lesser degree, from Sen. McCain (Ariz.) has overlapped with seemingly more aggressive crowds at their rallies.

I don't believe that most of the people spreading these vicious rumors about Obama actually believe them.  The higher-ups at the McCain campaign are reasonably smart (if sinister) people—they see these smears only through the lens of how it will boost poll numbers.  So implying that Obama is a terrorist, printing his name on ballots as Osama, calling him constantly by his full name, is just a ploy to increase votes, and they know it.  They don't actually believe any of it.

The problem is, many of their followers and Republican supporters take these smears at face value and begin to believe them.  An entire part of the electorate actively believes now, as a result of the McCain campaign, that Obama is a terrorist and a muslim.  This is not a healthy way to begin a presidency.  It has potentially dangerous and sinister consequences if Obama is elected.  A swath of the electorate would honestly that their president is treasonous.

If John McCain had any courage, he would deliver a speech directly to the American people explaining that Obama is a dedicated patriot and family man.  Further, he would explain why these slurs are false and disingenuous—in clear language, so the most stubbornly revanchist members of the "base" would understand.  He would say that he refuses to be associated with anyone promoting these lying, corrosive smears.

Unfortunately, as we've seen in this campaign, John McCain lacks courage. He only cares about his own victory—even if it is a Pyrrhic victory, leaving his own reputation and name in tatters. He is now a creature of Karl Rove, a puppet whose strings are being pulled by Steve Schmidt.

Luckily, these strategies seem to be working against him.  Unluckily, they are making a small segment of the population rabidly, violently anti-Obama.