October 31, 2008

10/31: McCain The Mudslinger?

John McCain is under heavy fire from liberal bloggers today for his campaign's recent tactics. Lefty bloggers are blasting McCain for his "character assassination of Rashid Khalidi" -- especially his comparison of Khalidi to a "neo-Nazi." These bloggers contend that Khalidi -- a professor at Columbia Univ. -- is a "respected academic" and that "the only objectionable thing about him from a rightwing point of view is that he is a Palestinian". They're convinced that the McCain camp is making a big deal about Barack Obama's ties to Khalidi in order to exploit Americans' fears about Arabs. Josh Marshall complains: "Khalidi is in this new McCain set piece for one reason -- as a generic Arab, to spur the idea that Obama is foreign, friendly with terrorists and possibly Muslim."

In related news, lefty bloggers are furiously denouncing the McCain camp's recent ads. Several liberal bloggers believe that McCain's "Preconditions" ad, which plays Middle Eastern music while alternating images of Obama with images of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is intended to depict Obama as a Muslim. Other liberal bloggers believe that McCain's "Joe the Plumber" ad, which accuses Obama of wanting "to give welfare to those who pay [no taxes]," is intended to frighten working-class whites into thinking that Obama will take their money and give it to poor blacks.

While liberal bloggers protest McCain's tactics, conservative bloggers see positive signs for the GOP nominee. Hugh Hewitt thinks Dems "should be worried" about McCain's ability to win most of the remaining undecideds, "especially in Pennsylvania." Jim Geraghty crunches the numbers and concludes that McCain is "dramatically overperforming among early voters" in Nevada. Meanwhile, nearly 80% of Hot Air readers believe that McCain will win the election.

MCCAIN: Smearing Khalidi

Liberal bloggers are denouncing the McCain camp for attacking Obama over his ties to Khalidi, which they believe is a deliberate effort to exploit anti-Arab bigotry:

• TPM's Marshall: "The McCain campaign has been throwing around so much mud and smears in recent weeks that it's easy to miss just how ugly and shameful their character assassination of Rashid Khalidi is. This is an entirely respectable, highly respected scholar. To go further into making a case for him would only be to enable and indulge McCain's sordid appeal to racism. For McCain, personally, to compare Khalidi to a neo-nazi, it's just an offense McCain should never be forgiven for. It's right down in the gutter with Joe McCarthy and the worst of the worst. Khalidi is in this new McCain set piece for one reason -- as a generic Arab, to spur the idea that Obama is foreign, friendly with terrorists and possibly Muslim."
• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "[This is] an attempt to, ultimately, diminish Obama's standing because he knows a Palestinian-American who participated (constructively!) in the Mideast Peace Process. It's vile, it's racist and, sadly, it's par for the course for the McCain campaign and far too many of its supporters."
• Juan Cole: "McCain's and Palin's attacks on Khalidi are frankly racist. He is a distinguished scholar, and the only objectionable thing about him from a rightwing point of view is that he is a Palestinian. [...] McCain even compared the gathering for Khalidi that Obama attended to a 'neo-Nazi' meeting! I mean, really. This is the lowest McCain has sunk yet. McCain is bringing up Khalidi in order to scare Jewish voters about Obama's associations, and it is an execrable piece of McCarthyism and in fact much worse than McCarthyism since it is not about ideology but rather has racial overtones. Not allowed to pal around with Arab-Americans, I guess. What other ethnic groups should we not pal around with, from McCain's point of view? Is there a list? Are some worse than others?"
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Khalidi is a Palestinian academic who has been critical of Israel and has done work trying to promote democracy in the West Bank, and was trustworthy enough for McCain to have given Khalidi's group nearly a half a million dollars in grants while McCain chaired the International Republican Institute. [...] But with the Republican Party releasing web ads and sending out mailers with Obama's face superimposed over maps of the Middle East, I suppose that getting the media to repeat Obama's name alongside Khalidi's every five minutes reflects a perverse kind of message discipline. It was less than two weeks ago that Colin Powell was asking 'is there something wrong with being a Muslim in America?' Clearly, the McCain campaign hopes you think so."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I think this is completely dishonorable. Comparing Rashid Khalidi to a neo-Nazi is just beyond vile. But even without that, it just plays on anti-Arab sentiment. Does anyone think that McCain's audiences know much about Rashid Khalidi, other than his suspiciously Arab name? [...] Khalidi is just a red flag to wave in front of McCain's audiences. Mentioning his name produces the effect it does because that name is Arab. McCain surely knows this. Colin Powell was big enough to denounce this kind of appeal to bigotry. Years ago, I would have imagined that McCain would do likewise, or at least that he would not engage in it himself. I wish I had been right. And I imagine that in a few weeks, when he contemplates the shredded remains of his honor, he will too."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Dear John McCain, Joe McCarthy called and wants his act back."

MCCAIN II: McCarthyism Lives

Liberal bloggers (along with Andrew Sullivan) are slamming McCain campaign blogger (and ex-Weekly Standard blogger) Michael Goldfarb after he asserted that Obama has "a long track record of being around anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-American rhetoric" but refused to give an example other than Khalidi (video here):

GOLDFARB: Look, you're missing the point again, Rick. The point is that Barack Obama has along track record of being around anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-American rhetoric.
CNN'S RICK SANCHEZ: Can you name one other person that he hangs around with who's anti-Semitic?...We got Khalidi on the table, give me number two. Who's the other anti-Semitic person that he hangs around with?
GOLDFARB: Rick, we both know who number two is.

• Sullivan: "Michael Goldfarb, McCain spokesman, accuses Barack Obama of hanging around with anti-Semites -- plural -- on CNN. Asked to name one other anti-Semite other than his allegation about Rashid Khalidi, he can't. He won't. But he leaves it hanging, refusing to disown or retract the charge. This is pure McCarthyism. And it is the rotten core of McCain."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "The town deserves a better class of McCarthyite. I mean, seriously. If he meant [Jeremiah] Wright, why not say it?"
• Marshall: "Shorter McCain Spokesman Michael Goldfarb: Palestinian = 'Unsavory'."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "John McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb is one of the creepiest of the creepy gang of attack dogs that inhabit McCain's dysfunctional communications shop. The guy seems to have about the maturity level of a sixth grader and the social skills of your average Unix programmer. Every time McCain lands in hot water over something or another, Goldfarb is always there to vomit up a statement even nastier and more boorish than whatever he said on his last outing. He's a real piece of work. Which means, long story short, that I was happy to see this bit of comeuppance. What a jackass."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "I've honestly never seen someone (at that level) act like such a complete d*** on TV before. He's attained some Platonic ideal of d***ness. I'm no PR coach, but I suspect the goal is to make something less than 100% of your audience detest you."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I know this is getting old, hearing me say it over and over again, but when I said that the McCain campaign was being run by wingnut bloggers, I was not engaging in hyperbole. I was simply describing who is running the McCain campaign -- wingnut bloggers. The GOP just needs to be destroyed."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Dan Riehl was disgusted by the exchange: "Watching Goldfarb twist in the wind the other night because he dare not mention Jeremiah Wright was pathetic and emblematic of McCain's approach to the attack component of the campaign. We want to hit him hard, oh but not that hard. What a freaking joke. So once again McCain takes the high road and has the carpet pulled out from under him. If that's good judgment, then there's actually a conservative on the ballot this year. Fact is, there ain't -- not in the top slot, anyway."

MCCAIN III: I Don't Accept Your Premise

Liberal bloggers are also disputing Goldfarb's claim that Khalidi is an anti-Semite:

• Time's Joe Klein: "Here we have the McCain campaign's execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism -- a favorite pastime, as we've seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I'd say that if we have a bigot here, it's Mr. Goldfarb who, if he's intent on calling people antisemitic -- or any other epithet -- should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I'd also like to know on what basis CNN's Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[This] couldn't have happened to a more loathesome operative. At the same time, I have no idea why we're conceding the premise that Rashid Khalidi is motivated by anti-Jewish racism. I suppose their might be some evidence for that, but one would think that being a Palestinian would be a perfectly sufficient reason for being a Palestinian nationalist."
• Atrios: "Sanchez shouldn't have internalized the premise of Khalidi being anti-Semitic. Just because the McCain campaign says something doesn't make it so."

MCCAIN IV: And We've Reached A New Low

Liberal bloggers (along with Sullivan) are blasting McCain's new ad, "Preconditions", which plays Middle Eastern music while alternating images of Obama with images of Ahmadinejad:

• Sullivan: "McCain's latest [ad is] disgusting, stupid, inflammatory and, in its use of Arabic-sounding music, bigoted."
• Klein: "There is so much desperate, crapulous spew from the McCain campaign right now that it's hard to keep track of it all -- but this ad, via Andrew Sullivan, marks some sort of low. Yet again -- in a last, desperate attempt to scare the elderly Jews of Florida -- McCain posits Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the 'leader' of Iran, even though he has no control over Iranian foreign or military policy. [...] This ad -- with its Middle Eastern music -- is all about implying that Obama isn't one of us, that he's one of them. It is shameful, in the extreme. It's also really bad policy."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "There's going to come a point, probably in a couple of weeks, at which John McCain is going to express some kind of 'regret' for just how disgusting his campaign became. [...] But an ad as offensive as this new one shouldn't be forgotten, or forgiven. McCain, under pressure, is putting his character on the line for all to see, and post hoc remorse should be irrelevant. McCain had a choice -- lose his honor or lose the election. Whether he ends up losing both remains to be seen, but either way, McCain did not choose wisely."

MCCAIN V: Exploiting Racial Fears?

Several liberal bloggers believe that McCain is exploiting racial fears in his "Joe the Plumber" ad, which accuses Obama of wanting "to give welfare to those who pay [no taxes]":

• Benen: "[The New Republic's] John Judis made the case that the McCain campaign's argument about 'spreading the wealth,' 'socialism,' and 'redistribution' is ultimately about race. The argument, Judis said, 'is aimed ultimately at white working class undecided voters who would construe "spreading the wealth" as giving their money to blacks. It's the latest version of [Ronald] Reagan's "welfare queen" argument from 1980.' [...] I perceive the rhetoric the same way. [...] Why would McCain tell white working class undecided voters that Obama's tax policies constitute 'welfare' and 'take your money and give it to someone else'? Here's a wild guess -- it has something to do with exploiting racial fears."
• Marshall: "Race-Baiter McCain. New McCain Line: Obama's taking your money to give to his welfare-lovin' peeps. Judis could see it yesterday before McCain uncorked this latest belch of his filth."

Other liberal bloggers are buzzing about a screen grab from another recent McCain ad, "Special", which they believe is intended to make viewers see the word "Blacks":

• Firedoglake's Ari: "They're not even trying to be subtle. Even George Bush left the dirtiest campaign ads and tactics to outside groups."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "John McCain has just thrown out any honor he had left. It's amazing how Karl Rove's people have destroyed McCain and his brand. Utterly."

Conservative blogger Ross Douthat defends McCain against the race-baiting charge: "Consider, for a moment, that here we are, five days away from the election, and a Republican nominee for President has run a campaign against an African-American opponent that has barely touched any of the traditional racially-charged domestic-policy issues. Affirmative action has been off the table, of course. Obama's liberal record on crime has been raised, I believe, in a couple of Rudy Giuliani robocalls and that's about it. The 'welfare' ad I just linked to is pretty much the first time the McCain campaign has mentioned the word all year: Obama opposed the mid-1990s welfare reform (albeit in a characteristically bets-hedging way), but you'd never know it from listening to his opponent's campaign. Nor have they touched immigration, where the Obama camp takes the prize for the most demagogic, racially-charged attack ad. And of course Obama's most politically-poisonous personal association has been more or less off the table throughout."

OBAMA: Crushing Dissent?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Matt Drudge's report that the Obama camp told reporters from the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the Dallas Morning News (all of which endorsed McCain) to leave the Obama plane in order to "make room for network bigwigs":

• Glenn Reynolds: "They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, journalists would be punished for straying from the party line. And they were right!"
• Michelle Malkin: "Tired of throwing all his nutball friends off the bus, Barack Obama has taken to throwing disfavored reporters off his plane. He needs to make room for bigwig media sycophants and documentarians."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "Is throwing off his plane journalists that disagree with him an example of Barack 'reaching across the aisle'? Is this his idea of a 'new' politics, one of 'bipartisan' principles? Dissent from his positions and be banished???"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Remember the outrage when John McCain's campaign kicked Maureen Dowd off of his airplane in Pennsylvania? I wonder whether the same defenders of Truth and Journalism will bother to squeak up now that Barack Obama has cleared his own plane of dissenters. [...This] just looks like vindictiveness, and perhaps even worse. Obama and his supporters have gotten vicious with reporters who ask questions and do research that put Obama in a bad light, and this adds to the general pattern we've seen since the primaries."
• Gateway Pundit: "Do you suppose the LA Times will be moved to business class for their loyalty? At least we know what to expect from the Marxisant radical if he makes it to the White House."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Today In Alternate History

Yglesias muses:

"[Imagine that] John McCain accepted John Kerry's offer of the VP slot, and the two of them ran and won a bipartisan ticket committed to ending the incompetence of the Bush administration and prosecuting the war in Iraq the right way. That world would likely have involved a 'troop surge' and reliance on the sort of counterinsurgency theories associated with David Petraeus (who, at the time, was a favorite of Bush-critical journalists)."

Douthat responds:

"The obvious Kerry foreign-policy counterfactual, to my mind, involves some half-hearted attempts at counterinsurgency followed by a Baker-Hamilton style exit strategy for Iraq starting in mid-2006 or so. But of course it's easy to forget about the bizarre but real possibility of a Kerry Administration with John McCain as its foreign-policy czar, which might well have produced a turn to a surge-style strategy much, much sooner than the surge we actually got. With Bush out of the picture, the GOP would have held on to Congress in 2006, and thanks to security gains in Iraq, Kerry would have been cruising to re-election in his all-Massachusetts matchup against Mitt Romney this year -- until the economic crash (what, you think a President Kerry would have prevented it?) suddenly produced a massive tightening in the polls, as the Democratic ticket's foreign policy edge (a vote for Kerry-McCain is a vote for victory!) was undercut by Romney's sudden lead on economic issues, built on extremely effective ads tying Kerry to Barney Frank's Fanny Mae shenanigans. And down the stretch they come!"

LEST WE FORGET: As Election Draws Near, Area Man Moves To All-Obama T-Shirt Rotation

From The Onion:

"BURBANK, CA -- After hearing the Democratic nominee call on his supporters not to let up in light of recent polls, Burbank resident Noah Sheets, 25, committed himself to wearing a pro-Obama T-shirt everyday until the election. 'With the way these things have gone in the past, you can never be too sure until it's all over,' said Sheets, wearing a 'Baracktourage' T-shirt that portrayed the presidential candidate and members of his staff as characters from the HBO series Entourage. 'It's up to me to be an agent of change, and besides, I've been looking for an excuse to get that one Obama shirt with "Yes, We Can" in seven different languages.' To ensure an Obama victory, Sheets is also considering changing his Facebook status to 'Go Barack,' pinning an extra Obama button on his backpack, and high-fiving that guy he sometimes sees wearing an Obama cap while jogging."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:41 PM

October 30, 2008

10/30: Sex, Lies, and Videotape

As one might expect, liberal bloggers were impressed by Barack Obama's 30-minute TV ad, whereas conservative bloggers (that is, the few who watched it) hated it. Lefty bloggers are describing the ad as "pitch-perfect" and "flawless". One liberal blogger thought that the ad "accomplished exactly what it needed to do: soothing skittish white undecided voters without alienating current supporters". Righty bloggers, on the other hand, found the ad "overtly manipulative" and "a bit nauseating". Several of them are predicting that it will backfire.

In other campaign news, conservative bloggers continue to criticize the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a video of Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. Erick Erickson claims that the video features "Obama condemning Israel" and urges his readers to call the Times and tell them to release the tape. Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are pointing out that John McCain chaired an organization that "funded the organization Khalidi founded and served on to the tune of $448,873 in 1998". They're accusing McCain of demonstrating "breathtaking" hypocrisy by attacking Obama over his ties to Khalidi, since "McCain's connections to Khalidi are much closer than Obama's".

OBAMA INFOMERCIAL: A Home Run

Most liberal bloggers thought Obama's 30-minute TV ad was very effective:

• The Huffington Post's Leah McElrath Renna: "Although only time will tell, it appears that the Obama infomercial accomplished exactly what it needed to do: soothing skittish white undecided voters without alienating current supporters."
• Nate Silver: "This really is basically the Democratic convention compressed into 30 minutes. I think people forget that Denver was really quite a strong convention, even if it got overshadowed in the media narrative a bit by St. Paul."
• Mark Kleiman: "Home run. He should smile more, but other than that I wouldn't change much."
• BooMan: "I thought it was pretty good. I certainly don't think it will hurt."

Other liberal bloggers were really impressed by the ad:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Wow, well I watched that half hour Obama spot last night, and it blew me away."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This thing was, in my mind, flawless. To bring the climax of one of his live rally speeches into everyone's living room -- this was a homerun."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "I really want that man to be my president. No surprise, I'm committed and have been for a long time, but this still blew me away. And, my mother just called to tell me that she was got teary-eyed."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Remind me to stop doubting the Obama campaign. [...] Today's worry was that the ad was overkill, that it was unnecessary, etc. It literally bothered me all day long. But then I watched it -- and I honestly thought it was great, and even sincerely moving at times (I'm basically a sucker for stories about his mother). Like everything else they do, it was pitch perfect. It wasn't focusing on Obama (as I feared it would), but upon the struggles of working families and how an Obama administration would address them. I didn't hear the word McCain once. So I'm done doubting. I'm done saying [Obama strategist David] Axelrod needs to do this or that. My measly pundit powers pale in comparison. I'm like a rope on the Goodyear Blimp."

digby is feeling good: "If you had a chance to see the infomercial and then the Midnight Rally with Obama and Bill Clinton, then you saw what Democrats look like when they're winning. It's been a while since anyone but conservatives have been in this position and it's nice to see. They are firing on all cylinders right now, making the case with style, looking very confident. I'm always hesitant to allow myself to get too excited, but tonight I felt that glow of anticipation when you start to believe the bad guys might really be vanquished and better days might be ahead. It's heady stuff."

OBAMA INFOMERCIAL II: Terrible. Just Terrible.

Most conservative bloggers didn't watch Obama's 30-minute TV ad, but those who did were not impressed:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I thought the ad stunk. It looked too staged. It felt and sounded too staged. It sounded like a cheap salesman hawking vegomatics on the Shopping Network. Promises upon promises, tear-jerking stories upon tear-jerking stories: It felt so overtly manipulative that I think it may have backfired with a lot of people. Even if it was a small net plus for Obama -- and I doubt even that -- I think the McCain campaign was probably expecting something a lot more effective than that. One other thing wrong with it was that it played into the whole Obama 'cult of personality' thing that was hurting THE ONE in mid-to-late August. Look for the race to continue to tighten."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "The show itself was slick only in a drearily generic way. The waving wheat and music made it seem like a standard campaign commercial, only longer -- 'It's Morning, Noon And Night In America,' which is a big enough problem thanks to the media's Obama cultists without the candidate himself piling on. As for the King Barack Meets [Insert Name Of Downtrodden Subject Here] stuff, aside from the fact that I don't recognize the hellhole this country apparently is, there's something faintly ridiculous in doing it in the middle of the Phillies winning the World Series. Maybe on Super Bowl Sunday, instead of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunctioning, Obama could come out and interview people about how our entire rotten society is malfunctioning."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "As for the format of the special itself, aesthetically it was a bit nauseating with all the soft focus and generically uplifing music constantly swelling in and out. As for the content: I'm sorry...it's not that I don't care about those experiencing hardship -- quite the contrary -- but the last thing that should be driving America's voting habits is a half-hour of Manipulative Portraits of Downtrodden Victims of Shadowy Governmental Forces. Whatever our problems are right now, America is not one big breadline. To be fair, all politicians exploit these anecdotal cases but I think Obama's special really pushed the boundaries of my bile duct here."
• Michelle Malkin: "Gag: A slideshow of glowy, Messianic photos flashes by. Obama hugs. Obama empathizes. Obama heeeaaaaals. All hail the Lightworker. Fixer of Souls. Spreader of Wealth."

Power Line's John Hinderaker explains why he "boycotted" the ad: "No, I didn't live-blog it, I boycotted it. After all, it was paid for with money that was obtained, at least in part, through the Obama campaign's participation in criminal fraud. The least I could do was not watch it. Plus, I was pretty sure it would be excruciatingly boring when it was not infuriating."

OBAMA: Release The Tape, LA Times!

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a video of Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet (a Times spokesperson says they will not release the video "because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it"):

• RedState's Erickson: "What if the Los Angeles Times had video of John McCain toasting a known Islamic terrorist? What would the reaction be if the Los Angeles Times told everyone it had the tape, but refused the release the tape? And what if credible people who had seen the tape reported that other terrorists were in the room? This is not a hypothetical. This is actually happening. Only it involves Barack Obama. And the Los Angeles Times has admitted it has the tape."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Times' owner Sam Zell and every single editor and reporter at the paper are thus now complicit in a decision to manage the news so that voters are not informed of all that might influence their choice of president. The videotape might be as bland as skim milk, or as incendiary as even the most inflammatory Jeremiah Wright sermon, but the content doesn't matter. The paper is suppressing the news and using Orwellian language to claim otherwise. The silence from other MSMers tells us all we need to know about their commitment to the mission of getting important facts before the public."
• Hinderaker: "The Times' claim that it can't release the video because of a promise made to its source raises a number of questions. First, is there any support for the claim that such a promise was given? Is it documented in any way? Or is it something that a Times reporter made up just this week to protect Obama? Second, why would the paper's source have extracted such a commitment? The source evidently thought the event was newsworthy and wanted it reported upon. He or she gave the video to the Times. What sense would it make to give the paper the video so as to enable a news story to be written, but demand that the video itself remain secret? [...] Third, has the Times tried to persuade its source to allow the video to be made public, even in edited form as suggested above?"
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Much like the Obama campaign could have nipped the lunatic fringe's obsession with his birth in the bud by simply releasing his birth certificate -- something it continues to inexplicably refuse to do -- the LAT would be best served, if this tape really is as innocuous as the public is expected to believe, by simply getting this over with and letting it be seen. Likewise, the Obama campaign would seem to benefit more from leaning on the Times to go ahead and release the tape already, so as to end the mounting speculation about its contents and prevent more fallout from the perceived coverup of this event -- if, that is, the video's contents are as innocuous as we have been led to believe. After all, they might not be, and until the LA Times and the Obama campaign deign to release the video for all to see, we will have nothing to do but continue speculating about just what it may contain that so many are so desperate that none ever see."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I was skeptical at first that anything useful would come from it even if it was released, but now that Maverick's made an issue of it to build suspense, a clip showing The One demonstrating that first-class temperament of his by sitting there placidly while some tool recites a poem 'accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians' would be fun viewing during the run-up to Tuesday. Think of it as a proxy for the Wright attack McCain refuses to make: Same basic parameters -- Obama cuddling up to a radical whose criticism of America and its allies is a bit more fragrant than voters are accustomed to -- but safely stripped of black/white racial politics and ensconced within a defense of Israel. If the tape surfaces, you won't need to play connect the dots by bringing up Wright and [William] Ayers. Voters will do it themselves."

MCCAIN: Two Can Play The "Guilt By Association" Game

The Huffington Post's Seth Colter Walls reports that McCain also has ties to Khalidi:

"In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well. During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars. A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, 'West Bank: CPRS' on page 14 of this PDF.) [...]

Of course, there's seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain's organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi's ties to Obama."

Liberal bloggers believe that McCain is demonstrating enormous hypocrisy by attacking Obama over his ties to Khalidi:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Now, just to be clear, what's wrong with McCain having directed thousands of dollars in grants to Khalidi's research center? Not a thing. As far as I can tell, no one has questioned Khalidi's scholarship or the work of the Center for Palestine Research and Studies. McCain and his cohorts, however, believe there's a lingering scandal about Obama having gone to Khalidi's going-away party some years back. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, even for them."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "All indications are that McCain's connections to Khalidi are much closer than Obama's. But if Obama's relationship to Khalidi is somehow disqualifying or dangerous, then McCain's is even more so, and reporters should ask him about it when he chooses to bring up Khalidi's name."
• Ezra Klein: "This, of course, just goes to show how absurd it is to suggest that Khalidi is some sort of radical polemicist. The guy is such a credentialed and respected scholar that even right-leaning organizations have funded his work, simply because it's good work. They may not agree with his personal conclusions, but Khalidi's scholarship gets taken seriously."

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing McCain for comparing Khalidi to a "neo-Nazi":

• Atrios: "If I were [Khalidi] I'd be calling my lawyer and filing a defamation suit against McCain."
• Benen: "For McCain to compare a going-away party for a college professor as analogous to associating with 'a neo-Nazi outfit' suggests McCain's moral compass is so irreparably broken, he probably shouldn't seek national office."
• Serwer: "Scott Horton describes [Khalidi's] work as promoting 'civic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank,' which sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Unfortunately, to McCain, it sounds like Nazism, which begs the question of why exactly he gave the group so much money, and whether McCain himself has been replaced by some kind of robot controlled by a right wing blogger in a secret compound somewhere.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What It Will Take to Build a Rightroots Movement

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"If you're a conservative blogger, the question you need to ask yourself is this. Is the main purpose of your blog to express your personal opinion? Or is its primary purpose to build political power for a cause? If you cannot answer yes to the latter, you're probably not going to be comfortable with making the changes necessary to make online conservatism a political force to be reckoned with.

This is not a criticism, but an observation. Most conservative blogs are still stuck in 2003 -- both in terms of the overwhelming focus on media criticism and punditry, and the tendency to outsource electoral politics to the Republican Party. This was in some ways legitimate response to what was happening in 2003-4, when media surrender-monkeys were undermining the War on Terror, Republicans had a kick-butt political operation, and Kos was going 0 for 16. [...]

Building critical mass behind an independent online movement on the right will probably require new people. The old blogs that have been with us since 2003 will not go away. But they'll need to be joined by people who care more about Indiana's 8th district than Islamofascism, and MN-SEN more than the MSM."

LEST WE FORGET: Poor Mets Fans

From Overheard in New York:

Pilot: We are now arriving at JFK airport in New York City, home of the Yankees.
Met fan: That's not right...(yelling) What about the Mets?
Pilot: No one cares.
Rest of passengers: (cheering)

-- Jet Blue Flight

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:38 PM

October 29, 2008

10/29: Fighting To The Finish

With six days to go before the election, liberal and conservative bloggers are doing whatever they can to help their preferred candidate win each news cycle. Lefty bloggers are currently slamming John McCain's health care plan (again) after his adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin made some arguably ill-advised comments about McCain's plan. While denying that McCain's $5,000 tax credit would encourage younger workers to abandon their company-sponsored health plans, Holtz-Eakin conceded that "what they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit". Liberal bloggers believe that Holtz-Eakin's admission undermines the entire rationale of the McCain health plan. Atrios quips: "So, the plan is to increase taxes on people with decent health care plans and provide a tax credit for people to buy shitty ones. That's some wealth spreading we can believe in, my friends!"

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile are criticizing the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a video of Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. Although the Times claims that "its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video," righty bloggers believe that the newspaper is simply trying to protect Obama from a potentially damaging revelation. One conservative blogger is even offering a $25,000 reward to anyone who gives him a copy of the video.

MCCAIN: Our Health Care Plan Sucks!

Liberal bloggers are once again criticizing McCain's health care plan after Holtz-Eakin made the following remarks:

"On CNN today, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said workers who already receive health insurance from their employers would not take advantage of McCain's offer of a $5,000 tax credit to buy their own coverage.

'Why would they leave?' Holtz-Eakin asked. 'What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit.'"

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "In other words, John McCain is promising to make your health care worse! Ooops!"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "McCain Adviser: Our Health Proposal Sucks."
• Atrios: "So, the plan is to increase taxes on people with decent health care plans and provide a tax credit for people to buy shitty ones. That's some wealth spreading we can believe in, my friends!"
• dday: "Ay caramba. Holtz-Eakin is basically saying that the individual health insurance market is crap and the employer market is more preferable because it provides more. That's elementary, since it pools resources to get a better deal. But of course the entire McCain health care plan seeks to get people AWAY from the employer system and into the individual market."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "How bad is the McCain healthcare plan? So bad that the McCain campaign is now undermining its own proposal. [...] 'What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit,' Holtz-Eakin argues. Well, sure. The next question, though, is why Holtz-Eakin's boss believes the smart thing to do is to push Americans away from their 'way better' healthcare, taking inadequate credits that the McCain campaign now concedes are worse than the status quo."
• Ezra Klein: "Oops. This is what we call a Kinsleyan gaffe: He shouldn't have said it because it's oh-so-true. Young workers are cheap. They don't need much health insurance. The theory of the McCain plan is that because of this, they will take their tax credit and head over to the individual market, either purchasing very cheap health care or no health care at all. This will bring down total spending. Holtz-Eakin is saying the theory may not work. The individual market sucks. You can be eliminated for preexisting conditions. Administrative costs are sky-high. There is no protection against the whims of your insurer. The same policy you had with your employer will, for these reasons and others, cost $2,000 more on the individual market. As such, young people may fight the plan ad refuse to give up their employer-sponsored coverage."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Poor Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He's stuck having to defend a healthcare plan that's really a healthcare 'plan.' It doesn't work in theory, it doesn't work in practice, and it's not something that would appeal to most Americans in any case. But McCain needed a plan to compete with Obama's plan, and Republicans like tax credits, so that became the basis of his plan. The fact that it doesn't make sense isn't something that McCain really cares much about."

MCCAIN II: The Netroots Heart Crist

Liberal bloggers are praising McCain surrogate/FL Gov. Charlie Crist for "extend[ing] early voting hours" -- a decision that FL GOPers believe will benefit Obama:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It's weird that Crist would take an action so clearly detrimental to his party's chances. One could argue that it's Crist's 'F.U.' to McCain for not picking him for veep, but Crist has taken actions like this in the past. He seems to be genuinely in favor of increased voting access."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Whether Crist's action is out of the goodness of his heart, a result of political pressure from Democrats or out of pure political expediency (no one wants to be the next Katherine Harris), Crist should be applauded for this move today. It's a rare example of a Republican acting contrary to our worst expectations of them."
• Benen: "Given the recent trend -- most of the early Floridian voters have been Democrats -- the decision doesn't do McCain any favors, which makes Crist's decision all the more honorable. Indeed, it's also worth noting that Crist also broke with traditional Republican norms upon taking office, making it easier for released felons to regain their voting rights. I disagree with Crist on a whole lot of issues, but when it comes to voting, he seems willing to do what too many Republicans won't: the right thing."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "Crist appears to be that rare politician in either party that seems to care more deeply about American citizens excercizing their right to vote than in giving his party a political advantage."

MCCAIN III: Joe The Plumber Goes Off The Deep End

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain surrogate Joe Wurzelbacher after he "twice agreed with a claim from an audience member at a John McCain rally that 'a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the death to Israel'". Lefty bloggers are also praising FOX News anchor Shepard Smith for aggressively questioning Wurzelbacher following his claim about Obama and Israel:

• Think Progress' Ali Frick: "Wurzelbacher's unfounded claims -- backed by McCain -- were clearly too much even for a Fox News host. Smith grew increasingly exasperated during the interview, and forcefully clarified that Obama is committed to a strong friendship with Israel. At the end, Smith called the whole thing 'frightening.'"
• Beeton: "It's disgusting the way the McCain campaign is desperately exploiting this guy to appeal to the lowest common denominator; indeed, in the process, Joe has revealed himself to be the very walking talking breathing embodiment of the lowest common denominator that McCain/Palin need to win next week. And the way they're doing it -- casting Joe as a product of the American heartland and as someone who represents 'real' American values -- is particularly pernicious. To his credit, Shepard Smith isn't buying it and in fact pushed back aggressively on the mis-information Joe was spreading."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit critiques Smith's interview with Wurzelbacher: "Shep's consumed here with the incongruity between Wurzelbacher's accusation and The One's consistently, and conspicuously, strong support of Israel on the stump, but one needn't impute sinister motives to Obama -- as [Wurzelbacher] seems to do early on by mentioning his associations -- to worry about the practical effect of his Middle East policy. The question today is the same as it was 18 months ago: Is Barry O prepared to enrage his base by sending the United States to war with these people if diplomatic efforts to stop the Iranian nuke program fail? Or will his 'first-class temperament' lead him to back off and hope for the best? There are existential implications for Israel in the answer to those questions, even if you believe Obama has the best of intentions."

OBAMA: Waiting For Silly Season To End...

Liberal bloggers are extremely critical of the GOP's efforts to portray Obama as a crypto-Socialist:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This is how John McCain ends up -- finishing his presidential quest by arguing that allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse will bring Socialism to America. If only those generations of lefties had known it would be so easy. And what happened to [Obama's] being a terrorist?"
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Personally, I can't wait for this election to be over. I'm tired of writing about disingenuous arguments in which people note that Obama used a word like 'redistribution', pay absolutely no attention to what he actually seems to have been talking about, and infer that appearances to the contrary, he's a socialist (or a Black nationalist, or a Muslim, or whatever.) I don't expect that this sort of thing will vanish once the election is over, but I do hold out some tiny hope that there will be less of it."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers predict that the GOP's efforts to portray Obama as a crypto-Socialist will backfire if Obama wins the election:

• Yglesias: "Presumably, come January and February conservatives are going to be wanting to argue that Obama's got no mandate, that Republican legislators have no need to fear him, and that Democratic legislators should live in terror of overreaching. To that end, it'll be helpful to argue that Obama got elected as a tepid centrist. But in their last-ditch efforts to beat him, they're doing the reverse, and dramatically overpainting Obama as a wild-eyed radical ready to unleash Marxism on the country. Well, if you spend a month or two running around saying that, and then the voters back the Marxist anyway, he's got pretty much carte blanche to do what he wants if he wins."
• Mark Kleiman: "John McCain says that Barack Obama is the 'redistributionist-in-chief.' Thus, if next week Obama wins the election, then we need to acknowledge that the public wants redistribution. QED."

MEDIA CRITICISM: LA Times In The Crosshairs

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a video of Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet (a Times spokesperson says they will not release the video "because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it"):

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The Times says they promised the source it wouldn't be shown (but it was fine to describe it?), so they are keeping it under lock and key. Well, then, perhaps they should do a better job describing the scene. Why not a fuller account of what Obama actually said? Who else was sitting at Obama's table? [...] This isn't ancient history. This event was five years ago. Whom he sat with, what he said, and what others said may be highly relevant to the decisions of millions of voters. At the very least, the Times owes the voters a very complete description of what went on."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If the Times promised to keep the videotape under wraps, then it must contain content other than their 'detailed account of the events'. What exactly did the LA Times leave out of its reporting in April? If it left nothing out, then what good was the promise not to release the tape itself?"
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "[Is the Times] protecting a source or just protecting Obama?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "Have you noticed how journalistic 'ethics' seems mostly to involve not telling the customers what they need to know?"

Meanwhile, Ace of Spades promises a $20,000 reward for anyone who can give him a copy of the video: "I can guarantee...that if the goods are delivered the blogosphere can contribute $20,000. In a matter of hours. Maybe more. More would depend on the tape. This offer includes is particularly directed towards Los Angeles Times employees. Maybe ones that just got fired. Or will get fired in the next couple of weeks. Guaranteed. Anonymous. That's how we roll. Pretty pathetic that we have to try to bribe 'newsmen' to release newsworthy tapes. If your conscience is troubled, They should have released it anyway."

HORSERACE: Did You See Those Tracking Polls?

Yesterday's Gallup tracking poll (which showed Obama up by only 2 points among traditional LV's) and today's Rasmussen tracking poll (which showed Obama up by only 3 points among LVs) have instilled hope in conservative bloggers, who believe that McCain is closing the gap:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Now we know why John McCain and Sarah Palin were both in PA yesterday. The election is tightening across the map as those of us who remember 1976 have been predicting all along. Barack Obama represents a much more radical alternative than Jimmy Carter did in '76, and Carter's unusual profile sent voters by the millions towards Gerald Ford in the closing days. The same thing is happening this year as the very well known and very reliable John McCain enters his last big comeback within striking distance and very much on target."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The race is getting closer. Barack Obama's national lead over John McCain is down to two points in Gallup's 'traditional' turnout poll, and this morning Rasmussen Reports has Obama's lead dwindling to three points. The Rasmussen result is especially significant, I think. Rasmussen uses a more or less constant set of assumptions that could turn out to be wrong, but that provide a solid basis for following trends. In other words, Obama's lead may or may not be three points, but I think we can rely on Rasmussen for the proposition that McCain is closing the gap."

RedState's Erick Erickson thinks the GOP is on the rise, whether or not Obama wins: "Here's what's fun. Let's assume the worst case scenario. Just for a minute. Here we have a situation with undecideds breaking for McCain, the media vetting of Obama beginning after the election, and a whole host of people who voted for Obama asking 'WTF?' That helps us long term tremendously. But let's look at the best case scenario. We can a delight on election day as the undecideds break decisively for McCain, carrying him and Sarah! across the finish line. We'll have a lot to savor. Good times people. One way or the other, we know this: the trend has headed toward McCain at the same time the media and the McCain camp have finally gotten around to raising key questions about Barack Obama. Because of the failure to vet Obama early, those questions will continue after the election whether he wins or loses. And both scenarios are ripe for our advancement as the seeds of doubt get sown. America won't tolerate an unrepentant lefty in the White House. The Obama camp and media have gone out of their way to cover up who Obama really is. Whether we win or we lose, we'll make sure the public knows the truth about what the media and Democrats did during this campaign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Jindal In 2012?

The New Republic's Christopher Orr thinks LA Gov. Bobby Jindal's 2012 presidential prospects have dimmed:

"...While there are plenty of 2012 GOP presidential aspirants who have reason to be unhappy with the McCain campaign's decisions over the last couple months (and, in particular, the Palin choice), a case could be made that no one's nearish-term prospects have been hurt more than Bobby Jindal's. Though rarely explicit (and certainly not exclusive) a large portion of the GOP's closing argument this cycle has been to stoke white, working class fear and suspicion of the Other. The dark-skinned man with the foreign-sounding name may be a Muslim, or a socialist, or a friend of terrorists, or a racial huckster, or a fake U.S. citizen, or some other vague kind of 'radical.' You may never be sure which he is (maybe all of the above), but in your gut you simply don't 'know' him the way you know the other candidates. This is not, to put it mildly, a message likely to benefit Bobby Jindal. [...] Add to this the blunt fact that the GOP probably can't afford to lose racist white voters, especially in the South...and I think Jindal's chance of being the nominee in 2012 is, despite his obvious talents, pretty close to nil. The GOP isn't going to be looking for its own Obama; it's going to be looking for an anti-Obama."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat disagrees:

"I think this vastly, vastly overestimates the extent to which the attempt to 'Otherize' Obama has been about race qua race (and racism qua racism), and vastly underestimates the extent to which it's been about the way Obama's name, ancestry and skin color have dovetailed with other aspects of his background -- from his liberation-theology church to the academic-lefty and urban-machine milieu in which he spent much of his early political career -- that the GOP would have tried to play up against any Democratic candidate (and especially in a year when the party didn't have much else going for it). If anything, I think the way the McCain campaign has finished up -- and the way the media has covered it -- works to Jindal's advantage in 2012: Conservatives are going to be extremely eager to prove that they only hate Obama because he's a radical, not because they're racist, and what better way to demonstrate that than to nominate a dark-skinned conservative with a funny-sounding name? Indeed, much of the current affection for Jindal among movement conservatives -- and especially in talk-radio land -- can be traced to precisely such a yearning for a conservative Obama: A multicultural prince who channels Ronald Reagan, and whose nomination would at least reduce the taint of racism that clings to the American Right."

LEST WE FORGET: Bruce Springsteen Concert Totally Changes Area Man's Mind About Voting

From The Onion:

"PHILADELPHIA -- A recent Bruce Springsteen free acoustic set on Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Parkway completely changed the mind of sales associate Grant Garlock regarding the basic democratic process of voting, sources reported Monday. 'It hadn't really occurred to me until Bruce said it, but when you think about it, voting really is the most important right we have as Americans,' said Garlock, 38, who for various reasons ranging from scheduling mishaps to pure apathy has not voted in a local, state, or national election since 1988. 'I used to think that my vote didn't count, but now I realize the Boss was right when he said, "Every vote counts."' On Nov. 4, Garlock plans to vote for John McCain because he thinks Sarah Palin is hot."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:06 PM

October 28, 2008

10/28: Red Scare

Yesterday we reported that conservative bloggers were buzzing about a 2001 audio clip (which was heavily promoted by Matt Drudge) in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren to pursue "redistribution of wealth." In the past 36 hours, this audio clip has become the focus of the conservative blogosphere, conservative talk radio, and FOX News, and it has received over 1.8M YouTube views. This entire episode illustrates the considerable influence of what Jonathan Martin describes as "ye ole right-wing apparatus" (or which one Daily Kos blogger describes, less charitably, as "The Axis Of Weasel"). It appears that Drudge was once again the instigator of this frenzy; Mark Halperin observes that Drudge has been on an anti-Obama tear lately.

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: many conservative bloggers appear absolutely terrified by the prospect of an Obama Presidency. These bloggers don't think of Obama as your standard liberal Democrat. Rather, they view him as a "European socialist" who seeks to implement a "radical transformation...in our national political and economic structure". Liberal bloggers believe that their conservative counterparts have lost their marbles and don't understand the difference between a progressive tax and Socialism. Other lefty bloggers believe that conservatives are deliberately pushing intellectually dishonest arguments because they're desperately trying to stop Obama's momentum.

OBAMA: The Latest Manufactured Outrage

Liberal bloggers are arguing that Obama's 2001 comments are not the least bit controversial and that conservatives are deliberately distorting them:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I see that Drudge is blaring a headline about how Barack Obama believes it's a tragedy that the Supreme Court hasn't confiscated all your money and given it to poor people. Turning on the TV, I see that Fox New is all over it too. So is John McCain. Clearly, the guy's a total socialist. Except, you know, he's not. The whole thing is based on a distinctly academic radio panel Obama was part of seven years ago, and over at the Volokh Conspiracy even conservatives Orin Kerr and David Bernstein aren't buying this nonsense. After all, Obama specifically says in the interview that it's a mistake for liberals to rely too heavily on the courts, rather than on public opinion and the legislative process. And supporting a progressive income tax or equal funding for school districts is hardly a sign of incipient socialism. [...] Is this really the best McCain can do?"
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "Fresh off of breaking the 'story' that a McCain volunteer was 'mutilated' (er, scratched) by a big, bad black man (er, herself, really), Drudge continues his decent into the absurd and the McCain campaign is again willing to join him in the nosedive down the rabbit hole. [...] The 'tragedy' [that Obama mentioned] wasn't that the Supreme Court did not, as Drudge screeches, pursue the 'redistribution of wealth.' In fact, he states that the 'tragedy' was that the civil rights movement, in seeking equalizing policies, focused too much on courts and not enough on political and community organizing. In other words, the Drudge/McCain/Fox 'News' hype of this story is as painfully desperate and transparently faux as a backwards 'B' scratched into the face of a McCain volunteer by her own hand."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Now, I've let my subscription lapse on Republican Talking Points Weekly, but shouldn't conservatives agree with Obama had to say? Obama may have used a few big words, but his argument included some basic ideas that Republicans need not find controversial -- the courts have never played a role in improving economic conditions of working Americans, and the left should look to policy makers, not judges, to address economic inequalities. Over-reliance on the courts, Obama said, is a mistake. And yet, the three-headed McCain/FNC/Drudge monster is just shocked by what Obama had to say, pointing to his remarks as evidence of, well, something nefarious. It's not quite clear what. [...] That McCain/FNC/Drudge are hyperventilating today says more about their desperation than Obama's ideology."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "A 2001 recording of Obama discussing 'redistribution' in the context of a purely academic discussion of the role of the federal courts has become the latest evidence of the Democrat's socialistic tendencies, blares the Drudge Report, National Review, and the McCain campaign. Of course, if you actually listen to what Obama is arguing, he's generally dismissive of the idea of using the courts to enact a policy agenda, preferring instead to use the good old fashioned -- dare I say conservative? -- option of letting legislatures hash it out."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "The more robust liberal jurists of yesteryear believed in affirmative economic rights. Barack Obama was on Chicago public radio back in 2001 and said he disavowed those views. [...] This should all be clear enough, but a lot of the right-wing, led by the McCain campaign and the Drudge Report, have decided that it would be good to pretend that Obama said the opposite of what he said. So we get a series of posts by Mark Levin dedicated to that idea. But the text is clear -- Obama thinks you could come up with a rationale for affirmative economic rights if you wanted to, but that it would be a bad idea to do so. On this topic, the right would do well to take 'yes' for an answer."

OBAMA II: His Secret Communism Has Been Revealed!

Many liberal bloggers are mocking the recent conduct of the conservative media:

• dday: "I fully expect one last-minute 'Shocking revelation!!! Must credit Drudge!!!eleventy!1!' for each remaining day until the election. John McCain has run his entire campaign from news cycle to news cycle, and so they'll grasp on to whatever they can manage to find. Today's big hit is a 2001 interview with Barack Obama about the civil rights movement, where he lamented the movement's propensity to lean on the courts to mandate changes as opposed to building social change from the bottom up within local communities. That's pretty much all he said, but because he used the words 'redistribute' and 'wealth' every conservative in America figures they've cracked the Da Vinci Code and revealed Obama for the Maoist-Leninist-Marxist-Communist-socialist that he is."
• Sadly, No!'s D. Aristophanes: "Eat your heart out Eugene Debs and break out the vodka rations, comrades! Because Barack Obama's Communist agenda has been caught on tape! So says the wingnutosphere, and they are never wrong!"
• Oliver Willis: "Did you ever think that the entire conservative movement would be reduced to pointing to chopped up audio on a Youtube video as their lodestone pointing to the secret communism on the left? Well, that's where they are today."
• Mark Kleiman: "Is this really the best the wingers and their tame press and their adopted candidate can do in the way of an Obama scandal?"

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing McCain after the GOP nominee accused Obama of being in favor of "redistributing wealth":

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Not to belabor the point, but unless McCain plans to disband the entire Federal government and amend the Constitution to ensure that it can never gear up again, he too is running for the post of 'redistributionist in chief.' If McCain doesn't think the job of President entails drawing up budgets that determine how the citizenry's tax money should be spent, he should say so. It would certainly be newsworthy. Again: This is yet another silly stunt from a candidate who is suffering badly from what might be called the 'Seriousness Gap' between himself and his opponent. I'd really be interested to see detailed polling on whether the electorate is buying the argument that Obama harbors the shadowy socialist and redistributionist leanings that McCain and Sarah Palin are alleging."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "Need I point out that literally having every any government at all involves taking somebody's money and giving it to somebody else? Even the more restrictive definition of redistribution -- using government to create a less unequal distribution of wealth -- has been going on for a century. If McCain is really opposed to redistribution, then that means he thinks the rich should get back a dollar in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes."

OBAMA III: What's All The Fuss About?

While most conservative bloggers are savaging Obama for his 2001 comments, several conservative law bloggers are siding with their liberal counterparts in arguing that Obama's comments are not particularly controversial:

• The Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein: "There is no doubt from the interview that [Obama] supports 'redistributive change,' a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process. What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge. [...] At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more 'fairly' distributed than it is currently?"
• Ann Althouse: "If [Obama's comments] alarmed you, chances are, you are not a law professor. Let me tell you that, in this radio interview from 2001, Obama is making the most conventional observation about the limits of constitutional law litigation: The courts will recognize rights to formal equality, but they hesitate to enforce those rights with remedies that become too expensive or require too much judicial supervision and they resist identifying rights to economic equality. Such matters are better handled by legislatures, and courts tend to defer to legislatures for this reason. Obama was not showing disrespect for constitutional law in any of this. More radical law professors would criticize the courts for not engaging in more expansive interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and for failing to provide much more expensive, invasive remedies. He did not do that. He accepted the limits the courts had recognized and advised against the unfruitful pursuit of economic justice in the judicial forum. It's a political matter. That is a moderate view of law."

These conservative law bloggers are also criticizing Drudge for distoring Obama's comments:

• Althouse: "Drudge is linking to the video clip with the headline '2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT.' No, no, no, no. That is absolutely misstated. Shame on Drudge! [...Obama's] saying that civil rights activists made a tragic mistake by fighting for their cause in the judicial forum. It's part of his separation-of-powers point. Changes that involve complex economic choices need to be made in the political sphere. He never says he wishes the courts would have done more. He acknowledges the limitations of law and courts. Let's play fair people. Words have meaning. Read carefully and don't distort."
• Bernstein: "Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear."

Not surprisingly, Obama's legal advisor Cass Sunstein also defends Obama's comments: "In answering a caller's question, [Obama] said that the court 'is just not very good at' redistribution. Obama added, with approval, that the Constitution 'is generally a charter of negative liberties.' Obama's principal claim -- about the institutional limits of the courts -- was made by many conservatives (including Robert Bork) in the 1960s and 1970s: Courts should not attempt to guarantee 'positive' rights, or interpret the Constitution to redistribute wealth. Obama is squarely rejecting the claim that was made by many liberal lawyers, professors, and judges at the time -- and that is being made by some today."

OBAMA IV: America, Prepare For Red Dawn

Conservative bloggers continue to blast Obama over his 2001 comments:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Obviously, this seriously damages any and all incentives to work hard and to be successful. Under an Obama economic plan, one could work less and then wait for wealth redistribution to make the difference between a lower and an augmented standard of living. There is no way to overemphasize just how radical a transformation this would be in our national political and economic structure. [...] How any of this is different from 'From each according to his ability to each according to his need' is beyond me."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Not too many years ago, a Presidential candidate who explicitly advocated taking your money and giving it to someone else, on the theory that you have too much and it would be nice if he had more, would have been a dead duck. Whether most Americans now understand either the terrible unfairness or the social and economic consequences of Obama's leveling instinct is not so clear."
• Michelle Malkin: "'Change We Need' = Less change in your pocket. 'New politics' = old, failed redistributionist politics. 'Obligations...to...one another' = From each according to his ability... [...] 'Higher purpose' = 'Reparative economic work' and 'redistributive change.'"
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "In the wake of Obama's statement to Joe the Plumber that America is better off if we 'spread the wealth around,' Obama has tried to argue that he is not a socialist. But he puts the lie to the claim here, when he made pretty clear that wealth redistribution to bring about social justice is exactly what he was aiming for. [...] Obama's words are quite clear: he laments that the civil rights movement missed the mark in looking to the courts to order income redistribution. He thinks that's the work of legislatures -- with the necessary cooperation of the executive, of course. And now Barack Obama wants to be the executive, working with the liberal leaders of Congress."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "[Obama's] past views, his tax plan, and other spontaneous offerings ('Spread the wealth around') are a fair enough representation of a European socialist view of how to take money from higher wage earners and redistribute it to the less well off, apparently on the twin premises that one's income is really property of the state, and, that the mechanism by which a market compensates people is arbitrary and unfair and in need of 'redistributive change.' This view is shared by former associates like [Jeremiah] Wright and [William] Ayers, Obama's parents, and almost everyone in his circle in Chicago."

OBAMA V: Maybe An Ideological War Isn't The Smartest Idea...

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder thinks the GOP might be making a mistake by turning this election into a referendum on economic liberalism:

"Whether or not the [David] Frums of the punditosphere are correct, it might be dangerous for the Republican Party to elevate the stakes for this election to a death match between competing ideologies. If Barack Obama's victory is as decisive as it is shaping up to be, the Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected as a political and governing philosophy. In the closing weeks of the campaign, as the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative."

Many liberal bloggers agree with Ambinder:

• Ezra Klein: "Conservatives may end up ruing this descent into ideological war. Two months ago, it wasn't exactly clear what an Obama win would 'mean.' But as McCain has worked to transform this election into a referendum on liberalism, it's increasingly becoming...a referendum on liberalism. [...] If Obama wins, it's going to be very easy for folks to claim that the old conservative pressure points of taxes and government have dulled, and we're entering an era in which economic instability and widening inequality necessitate a more assertive role for progressively-conceived governance."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The conservative movement folks still believe, you see, that America is, at its core, a conservative nation, so they truly think that if the fight is on this turf, they will win handily. What they don't seem to get is how spectacularly this could backfire on them and on the future of conservatism (unless that's already an oxymoron.) This is one attack on Obama that we should all welcome."

STEVENS: Down The Tubes

Liberal bloggers are happy that AK Sen. Ted Stevens was found guilty on seven ethics counts, both because they (a.) dislike Stevens, and (b.) believe that this conviction increases the likelihood that Dem candidate Mark Begich will win Stevens' Senate seat:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This is a very good thing, for (at least) two reasons. First, Senators who are corrupt ought to know that there is a non-negligible possibility that they will be convicted of felonies and sent to prison. Second, the Republicans might lose another Senate seat because of this, a fate they might well have avoided had they either induced Stevens not to run for re-election or fielded a successful primary challenger against him."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Had the trial been postponed until after the election, we'd still have a dead heat today, the indictments a minor political annoyance. But today, the jury didn't just remind people about the indictments, they announced to the world that Stevens was guilty of corruption, and it's game over in Alaska. He should've had the trial delayed. He might've pulled it off, and worst case scenario, with a post-election indictment, Sarah Palin could've named his replacement keeping the seat in Republican hands. Now, this is yet another piece as we close in on 60."
• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "With Stevens now officially a convicted felon, any good will he built up with voters will probably be falling away very quickly. Over the next eight days, voters are likely to swing heavily to Begich in a state that hasn't elected a Dem to federal office since 1974. And this also puts the Democrats one step closer to that magic number of 60 seats."
• Klein: "The GOP can kiss that seat goodbye."

digby isn't quite ready to declare Begich the next AK Senator: "Keep in mind that Alaska is a very red state. They have even been known to elect wingnut Wasilla mayors to the governorship rather than a highly qualified Democratic ex-governor and mayor of Anchorage. So don't count on Stevens' conviction not leading to his reelection. It could happen. Obviously, he wouldn't be able to serve out his term. But one Sarah W. Palin would be the one to appoint his replacement to the Senate. It wouldn't surprise me if she appointed herself. I think she's got the chutzpah (and the wardrobe) to do it, don't you?"

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers are arguing that Stevens' conviction is bad news for Palin:

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "The biggest remaining question...is the extent to which Sarah Palin's close ties to Stevens weigh down on the Republican ticket in light of this verdict. At the least, this is yet another lost day for the McCain campaign, which can ill afford to have missed opportunities this late in the game."
• Benen: "[Palin is] likely to face new questions -- assuming she ever actually speaks to the media -- about her support for and long-time association with Stevens, whose political group Palin helped run and whose support she relied on to get elected."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Sarah Palin was the one who set the standard for associations. She's pals around with a convicted felon -- a felon who can't even vote for her or himself. And, apparently, Palin has no problem with a felon serving in the Senate."

STEVENS II: Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out!

Conservative bloggers have little sympathy for Stevens:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "[Stevens] should have been gone a long time ago. It's hard for me to think of another elected official that is more of a poster-child for the damaged Republican brand."
• Glenn Reynolds: "He will not be missed."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I know that numbers in the Senate matter, but this is one seat I didn't care to win with. Republicans should have pressured him to resign long before today. But they, of course, didn't. And so here we are."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Quite frankly, the Republicans deserve to lose [this Senate seat] for not doing a better job of defeating Stevens in the primary."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Begich was running a little bit ahead of Stevens even before the guilty verdict, so this should seal Stevens' fate -- and make no mistake about it, Stevens richly deserves to lose. So, here's the real question: why didn't the people in the Republican Party who call themselves leaders have the courage to stand against Stevens when it could have made a difference?"
• RedState's Directors: "Good conscience compels us to advise Alaskans not to vote for Ted Stevens for Senate or Don Young for the at-large House seat in Alaska. We leave it to the individual voter whether to abstain or take the step of voting affirmatively for Mark Begich, the Democrat mayor of Anchorage, and candidate for the U.S. Senate, or for Ethan Berkowitz for the at-large House seat in Alaska. [...] But Ted Stevens and Don Young have been a pox on the Republican house for too long -- too addicted to the pork barrel, too fast and loose with ethics. Stevens' conviction in federal court today is the exclamation pointon an era in Republican politics in general and Alaska politics in particular that needs to end (and which Gov. Sarah Palin has been battling to clean up)."
• The Next Right's Jon Henke: "Inexplicably, some Republicans have been arguing that Sen. Stevens could still win. They should have been discussing how Republicans can be rid of him. Republicans should not be relying on juries and courts to be the ethics enforcers."

DEAN BARNETT: The Rightroots Mourn One Of Their Own

Dean Barnett, a respected conservative blogger who suffered from cystic fibrosis, passed away yesterday at the age of 41. A number of righty bloggers are paying tribute:

• Malkin: "Dean was brilliant, hilarious, and gracious -- one of the OG's of the blogosphere, a trenchant essayist, and a talented radio host to boot. He will be missed."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "One of the smartest and sweetest people I've ever met, online or otherwise."
• NRO's Peter Robinson: "Laughter, wit, a tough Boston charm, and perpetual ebullience -- those are the characteristics I associate with Dean Barnett."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Dean told me early in our friendship that his disease had forced him to deal with the possibility of living too short a life and that he thus threw himself into everything. This ferocious desire to live well and fully is what I will always tell people marked Dean Barnett."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Barnett] emerged as a blogger, first on his own SoxBlog, then on Hugh Hewitt's blog, and finally with The Weekly Standard. But he considered himself a writer, not a blogger, and the quality of his prose fully justified this assessment. Indeed, at The Standard Barnett contributed frequently to the magazine itself. It was no accident that, of all the conservative bloggers out there, Barnett was the one that Bill Kristol wanted to bring 'in house.'"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "He had made us laugh and made us think so many times since he started blogging back in 2004, that when he recently reentered the hospital, there was a palpable absence in the conversation about the campaign. I had already started to miss reading his take on the latest twists and turns of the campaign, and I don't think it's going to get any easier."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Degrading The Discourse

David Bernstein:

"It's true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it's emphatically not the government's job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a 'right to health care,' or 'equalizing educational opportunities,' or 'making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,' or 'ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,' and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don't actually use phrases such as 'redistribution' or 'spreading the wealth,' in which case he suddenly becomes 'socialist'? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought."

LEST WE FORGET: Ouch

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison presents "The Key To Understanding The McCain Campaign" (h/t John Cole):

'Lost, I also like Lost.' -- John McCain in an interview with Radar magazine

"This explains so much. Now we have found the real reason why McCain's campaign has been an interminable series of twists and turns that promises some payoff but always leads nowhere."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 02:04 PM

October 27, 2008

10/27: Incendiary Charges

On Friday we observed that Matt Drudge was aggressively promoting a report that a 20-year-old PA female was robbed and mutilated by an African-American male who allegedly wanted to "teach her a lesson" for being a John McCain supporter. It was eventually revealed that the female (a McCain campaign volunteer named Ashley Todd) had "made the whole story up". Now Talking Points Memo is reporting that McCain's PA communications director initially "told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story...well before the facts of the case were known or established." Lefty bloggers are accusing the McCain camp of being both irresponsible and cynical in pushing such a racially charged story before it could be confirmed. Ezra Klein rips the McCain camp for trying "to eke out some temporary political advantage from a brutal street crime (country first, my friends!)."

Interestingly, that's not the only blogosphere story involving the PA GOP. Liberal bloggers are also blasting the state party for sending an email to Jewish voters "that likens a vote for [Barack Obama] to events that led up to the Holocaust". Lefty bloggers consider this email to be beyond the pale, and they're strongly denouncing the PA GOP's tactics.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are buzzing about a 2001 audio clip (which is being heavily promoted by Drudge) in which Obama talks about achieving "redistributive change." Righty bloggers are describing Obama's comments as "Socialism 101" and "almost classic Marxism".

MCCAIN: First, Verify

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the role that McCain spokesperson Peter Feldman allegedly played in promoting the fake assault report. TPM's Greg Sargent reports:

"John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the 'B' carved into the victim's cheek stood for 'Barack,' according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions. [...]

The McCain spokesperson's claims -- which came in the midst of extraordinary and heated conversations late yesterday between the McCain campaign, local TV stations, and the Obama camp, as the early version of the story rocketed around the political world -- is significant because it reveals a McCain official pushing a version of the story that was far more explosive than the available or confirmed facts permitted at the time."

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "It comes as no surprise to learn that the McCain campaign was involved in pushing the now discredited Drudge and Fox News-generated deranged-black-man-mutilates-white-McCain-supporter story. [...] All this while the investigation was still going on and before any of Todd's claims had been verified."
• Klein: "Though it's true that the blogosphere showed admirable restraint in refusing to push the Ashley Todd hoax until more details emerged, you really can't say the same for the McCain campaign. They pushed the story hard, hoping to eke out some temporary political advantage from a brutal street crime (country first, my friends!). The McCain campaign: Not quite as fair-minded and temperamentally even as Michelle Malkin."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Reportedly, McCain and [Sarah] Palin both called the hoaxer to offer their support. Imagine the judgment, or lack thereof, of McCain and Plain. There's that vetting problem again."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "It is time for the McCain campaign to come clean about what role any of its staffers may have had in hyping or pushing the press to hype the charges stemming from Ashley Todd's vicious and reprehensible hoax. [...] Our reporting did not find any direct evidence that the McCain campaign's national headquarters played a role pushing the story. However, the national campaign has now come forward and lied about what happened in Pennsylvania. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers has now told NBC that alleged quotes from the McCain campaign in early reports of the story were actually the product of 'sloppy reporting' and that they were actually quotes from the Pittsburgh police. This is simply not credible. Initial reports specifically quote the McCain campaign. And at least two sources involved in the contemporaneous reporting have come forward and said on the record that the quotes came directly from the McCain campaign. To believe that two separate local news organizations made the identical mistake with the same quotes and are now both covering it up is simply not credible. But that is what Rogers is now claiming. The McCain campaign's after-the-fact lie about its role in this hoax makes it essential that it provide a complete and honest account of both the local and national campaign's role."

MCCAIN II: Stay Classy, Pennsylvania GOP

Liberal bloggers are blasting the PA GOP after it sent an email to Jewish voters "that likens a vote for [Obama] to events that led up to the Holocaust":

"'Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008,' the e-mail reads. 'Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake. Let's not make a similar one this year!' A copy of the e-mail, provided by Democratic officials, says it was 'Paid for by the Republican Federal Committee of PA -- Victory 2008.'"

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Pennsylvania GOP warns Keystone State Jews that Barack Obama is going to send us chosen folk into the ovens. This is so absurd I'm not even going to bother to be outraged. Someone ought to tell these people, though, that there's some kind of baseline level of plausibility that your attacks need to reach if you want them to be effective. You can say a candidate's health care plan will cost your family money, you can't say that a candidate's health care plan involves chopping up babies and serving them as medicinal."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "There are things you should not say unless you really, really mean them, and events you should not invoke lightly. Saying that voting for Obama, or for McCain, or for any of the major party candidates in my adult lifetime, would be a mistake that is in any way 'similar' to underestimating the horror of the Nazis is one of them. We should never forget what the Nazis actually did, or what the Pennsylvania Republican Party has seen fit to invoke so lightly; and we should not dishonor those who were murdered by using them to score cheap political points."

Several liberal bloggers are noting that the PA GOP spokesperson who's now trying to distance the McCain camp from this email is the same person who allegedly promoted the now-debunked assault report:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "Like the state GOP, the McCain camp is running away from this email, and the spokesperson doing the distancing is none other than Peter Feldman. That's the same guy who on Thursday, the day the email went out, was pushing the mugging hoax to reporters as a politically motivated attack by a black Obama supporter, playing to the worst of white fears and racial prejudices. Speaking of the email to Jewish voters and without any apparent hint of irony, Feldman told the AP Saturday night that McCain 'rejects politics that degrade our civics.' Amazing."
• dday: "The same spokesperson who's distancing himself from this mailer is the one who was feeding reporters the story of the campaign worker mugging. [...] If you're looking for the trends reflecting the worst of the Republican Party, check out Pennsylvania for the next ten days."

OBAMA: All Your Money Are Belong To Us

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a 2001 audio clip (which is being heavily promoted by Drudge) in which Obama made the following remarks:

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. [...] And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's remarks about "redistributive change" as "shocking":

• Michelle Malkin: "The blogosphere is buzzing about this video posted on YouTube Sunday night. It's Barack Obama musing about how best to redistribute wealth in America in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001. Not whether, but how: Through the courts or through legislation? [...] Joe The Plumber, you barely scratched the surface."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "If people thought Joe the Plumber was some kind of stumble for Barack Obama, a rediscovered interview from 2001 should dispel any doubts about Barack Obama's redistributionism. Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale. In fact, Obama wanted them to break the Constitution and reorder American society far outside of what the founders intended."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "[This is] more shocking than Obama's exchange with Joe the Plumber by far."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Would Obama have come as far as he has in this campaign if his slogan were not merely 'CHANGE' but 'REDISTRIBUTIVE CHANGE'?"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Underlying Obama's remarks is his hostility to the constitutional protections of property that I wrote about in 'Obama, Joe the plumber, and the gosel of envy.'"
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "What's shocking isn't that Obama bemoaned the Supreme Court's unwillingness to impose 'redistributive change' -- or even the fact that his statement that the Warren Court really wasn't terribly activist at all (although it's a chilling insight into his judicial philosophy and what we might expect in terms of nominees). After all, after one learns that Obama blamed 9/11 on a 'failure of empathy,' well, what do you expect? What is shocking is that all this redistribution talk is coming to light only now -- having been conveniently ignored by the press these many months. How is it that 'journalists' found time to contact Bridget McCain's friends on Facebook, but couldn't dig up this clip?"
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "...It is fairly obvious that Obama was saying nothing extraordinary in his own mind. This is the sort of thing left-leaning 'intellectuals' bandied about. It's the outlook that underscored the bent of not just his closest comrades at the time ( e.g. Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright and Father [Michael] Pfleger), but the activist organizations he and Bill Ayers supported through the Woods Fund. It is absurd, really, to write off all these associations as an aberration or exaggeration, or to ignore them as some imagining of paranoid conservatives. What comes through loud and clear was that Obama shared the classic anti-capitalist, redistributionist philosophy accepted as dogma by many on the Left."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Balloon Juice's John Cole mocks his conservative counterparts: "It is Monday, so you know what that means. Dozens of breathless right-whinge posts about Obama the socialist. As usual, they have NO EARTHLY FLIPPING IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT."

OBAMA II: The Netroots Vs. Mark Levin

For the past several months, conservative bloggers in general -- and several National Review bloggers in particular -- have been arguing that Obama is a dangerous radical who is only leading in the polls because the media is concealing his true views from the electorate. Mark Levin recently made a version of this argument in a lengthy post:

"I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country -- not yet anyway -- but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. [...] My greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The 'change' he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. [...] Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks 'fundamental change,' i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Sen. Maj. Leader] Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands."

Liberal bloggers think this argument is insane:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Poor Mark, good conservative that he is, is intellectually just stumped as to why, after the last eight miserable, no-good, scandal-plagued, war-ridden, economy-melting, soul-crushing, budget-raping, government-butchering years, anyone would possibly be switching sides in this election...and presumes it's because Obama and his campaign have some sort of crazy warlock power that's fooling all these poor dumb used-ta-be-conservatives. Because there's just no way a popular Democrat would be ahead if the media was doing its job. Or if Katie Couric hadn't asked Sarah Palin mean questions. Or if young people weren't wearing pro-Obama shirts, or Colin Powell still held fast to his own sanity. And it's all because SOCIALISM BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA! MARX! STALIN! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR STAR WARS COLLECTABLES, TO REDISTRIBUTE THEM TO THE COMMON MASSES! PIRATE FLAPJACKS! KITTENS WITH HOWITZERS! BE VERY AFRAID RIGHT NOW! It's almost cute. The last refuge of a broken spirit."
• Kurtz: "Barack Obama is noted for his powerful intellect, but I don't think he gets nearly enough credit for the mental dexterity it takes to be simultaneously an Islamic theocrat, atheistic communist and national socialist while posing as a center left candidate. Those must be the compartmentalization skills they taught him at that Manchurian madrasah in Indonesia."
• Oliver Willis: "Is Barack Obama driving the right even crazier? This madman rant from Mark Levin says yes."

Sadly, No!'s Gavin M. paraphrases Levin's post: "The Communist Terror-Fascism of Animatronic-Skeletons-With-Scimitars Islam Negro Auschwitz Death Hitler is upon us."

HORSERACE: Abandon McCain? Never!

Most conservative bloggers disagree with David Frum's thesis in his recent Washington Post op-ed, in which he urged GOPers to give up on the Presidential race and focus on protecting their endangered Senate seats:

• Morrissey: "The Republicans are defending 23 seats in the Senate, and the Democrats 13. There's no way on God's green Earth that the GOP will have enough seats to block the Democratic agenda no matter how much the RNC spends; they'll be lucky to get 43 seats, and they can't spend the next two years filibustering everything if they plan to win seats back in 2010. They're better off spending the money on McCain -- his odds are much better than the Senate Republicans."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Keep talking like that in this last week and you're liable to make a contribution to the dulling of presidential turnout on the Right. That's not going to get [NC Sen. Elizabeth] Dole, [NH Sen. John] Sununu, [KY Sen. Mitch] McConnell, [GA Sen. Saxby] Chambliss, [MN Sen. Norm] Coleman, etc., relected. I just don't see how the presidential race is over."
• Levin: "[...Does Frum] expect John McCain to take what remains of his war chest and distribute it to Republicans in tight races when, according to some polls at least, he is involved in a tight race himself? And, as Kathryn also pointed out, if the top of the ticket surrenders in advance of the election, totally demoralizing the Republican and conservative base and reducing turnout on Election Day, just where are the votes in these tight Senate races going to come from? Moreover, virtually all of the media time has already been purchased this late in the game -- that is, the money has already been obligated. I suppose that leaves the RNC. But the RNC isn't swimming in cash, either. Some of our deep thinkers need to think a little more deeply."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "David now wants to prioritize the senators in order to save the party. We're in this mess in the first place because we have an over-Senatized party, starting with the presidential candidate, whose fortunes went south not when he picked his running mate but when the subprime hit the fan and he reacted senatorially -- by heading back to Washington and 'reaching across the aisle'. Whether the bailout bill was good or bad, it was always going to be ugly -- and it was something a shrewd national candidate would have stood aside from, as Obama did, coolly detached as the Capitol pygmies scurried hither and yon. In Westminster terms, Obama acted as if he was running for monarch while McCain was running for chief whip. [...] If McCain loses and he's back in the Senate with [PA Sen.] Arlen [Specter] and the Maine ladies and the rest of the gang, it will be a club of bipartisan accommodationists and capricious eccentrics. The idea that these guys will be any kind of 'engine of our renewal' strikes me as far more ludicrous than the possibility of Mister Maverick getting to 270 next Tuesday. The best way to help Senator Sununu & Co is not to write off the top of the ticket but to drive up turnout for it."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Frum is a terrific analyst, but here I find him mostly unpersuasive. First, in the polls I've looked at, McCain isn't running that badly among independents. He's trailing Obama because the pollsters find or assume (correctly, I think) that there are now many more Democrats than Republicans. This phenomenon is mainly the result of (1) new voter registration fueled in part by Obama-mania and (2) disillusionment with the Republican party as a whole. It has little or nothing to do with McCain's recent efforts at outreach to the Republican base, by which Frum seems mostly to mean the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. [...] Second, Frum presents no evidence that 'McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot.' It seems more plausible that congressional Republicans are hurting for the same reason McCain is -- voters blame Republicans for the nation's economic woes, especially the financial meltdown. Third, Frum prescribes that 'every available dollar that can be shifted to a senatorial campaign be shifted to a senatorial campaign.' In principle, I agree that some RNC resources should be shifted to close Senate races. However, I'm not sure how feasible it is to shift significant amounts of RNC money at this juncture."

NRO's Mark Krikorian is one of the few righty bloggers who agrees with Frum: "Stopping a Democratic supermajority in the Senate is just a lot more likely than stopping Obama from being elected president. That being the case, I don't see any way to argue against David's advice that 'Every available dollar that can be shifted to a senatorial campaign must be shifted to a senatorial campaign,' and for vulnerable Senate candidates to present themselves as a needed counterweight to an Obama White House. [...] Sen. McCain has spent his whole career looking out for his own interests at the expense of the Republican party and conservatism. Given the circumstances, it's imperative they return the favor, not out of pique or spite, but simply self-preservation."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Candidates Matter More Than Campaigns

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"...What is striking about 2008 is how little the campaigns have mattered in comparison to the fundamental nature of the two men running. Nothing the McCain campaign did could change the reality of McCain the candidate's poor management instincts and his tendency to fidget around and not stay on message. When the economic crisis hit, this reality flew in the face of the McCain campaign's message of steadiness versus inexperience. Whether by design or the candidate's nature, Obama's caution and deliberation was a living, breathing talking point against the experience card.

Likewise, I think it will be said that the McCain campaign has yet to really lay a glove on Obama character-wise because Obama himself simply does not project the cloying, insecure, effete tendencies of past nominees like [Al] Gore and [John] Kerry, though the only two times he's come close (Wright and bitter/cling) have barely figured in the general election campaign. I do think 'celeb' was the best chance we had to define Obama personally, but again, though there is something to be said for attacking a guy's strength, Obama's grassroots appeal was a legitimate strength, not a hidden weakness.

I am becoming more and more convinced that to run for President, you need to be the kind of person who doesn't give a s*** what's said about you and you just keep on going, steady as she goes. Obama has this, and so did Bush in both his campaigns. The key is to appear calm, unruffled, and grounded in your persona while seeming to be a man (or crucially, woman) of action in politics and policy."

LEST WE FORGET: Ron Paul Promises To Return When Country Needs Him Most

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- After piling the last of his Campaign for Liberty signs in the back of a beat-up Ford truck Thursday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) once again abandoned his candidacy for president and rode on out toward the low western sun, but not before vowing to come back to Washington 'when [the country] is ready.' 'When the river swirls and the wind blows, and when uncontrollable inflation forces us to revert to the gold standard, and the Federal Reserve bank is exposed as the unconstitutional, neofascist cabal it really is, you'll see me coming over that hill,' said Paul, leaving a dusty cowboy hat and a stack of 'no' votes on his seat in the House of Representatives. 'But don't you fret, America. If you ever feel like your government is getting too big or too intrusive, just give a little whistle, and there I'll be. I'll be there quicker'n you can spit.' Although no one has seen or heard from the Texas congressman since Thursday, sources report the Ron Paul for President campaign has gained an additional $2.3 million in contributions since his disappearance."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:52 PM

October 24, 2008

10/24: The Freak Show Ruled By Matt Drudge

Thanks to heavy promotion from Matt Drudge, the top story in the political blogosphere is a report that a 20-year-old PA female was robbed and mutilated by an African-American male who wanted to "'teach her a lesson' for being a [John] McCain supporter." Several prominent conservative bloggers are using this incident as an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama. Erick Erickson blames Obama for the assault, while John Hinderaker describes the incident as "symbolic of a race in which every voter who has not jumped on the Obama bandwagon has been subject to various forms of harassment and bullying."

On the other hand, Michelle Malkin thinks the story might be a hoax (as do several liberal bloggers). These bloggers are pointing out that officials have requested that a polygraph test be administered because the victim's "statements about the attack conflict with evidence from the Citizens Bank ATM where she claims the incident occurred." Regardless of whether this incident turns out to be completely true, completely false, or somewhere in between, the buzz it has generated is reflective of Drudge's ability to drive a story into the media spotlight (to the frustration of liberal bloggers).

UPDATE, 1:56 PM: "Police: Campaign Worker Admits Making Up Story"

ASSAULT ON COLLEGE STUDENT: Symbolic?

Several conservative bloggers are explicitly linking the assault to Obama:

• RedState's Erickson: "Josh points out in RedHot that Obama did tell his supporters to get in people's faces. Hey! The dude was just doing what The One asked him to. Full pardon on January 21st. [...] This means we cannot just blame the media. We must blame Obama too."
• Dan Riehl: "Well, I'm sure the Kos Kidz will get some real laughs out of this. Obama's run his campaign just like a street thug out of Chicago. Now we get to see what some of his worst supporters are like. Don't tell me -- after Obama passes his welfare-like tax plan guys like this won't be forced to rob and maim innocent people, right? Yeah, sure."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Change, the 'Direct Action' Way."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that this incident will hurt Obama at the voting booth:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Do those who stoop to engaging in violence in service of Obama's cause really think they're helping their candidate? Rather, they may be frightening normal voters, who won't be eager to bring to power someone who, even unintentionally, inspires such ugly zealotry."
• Power Line's Hinderaker: "I don't think for a moment that Barack Obama wants his supporters -- even the muggers among them -- to engage in this kind of brutality. I think he is content with financial fraud, voter fraud, and mild bullying of voters without actual physical attacks. (The physical attacks will come once the Democrats have enacted the Union Thug Empowerment Act, and they are 'persuading' workers to vote for unionization.) Obama condemned this felonious assault, and I am sure his condemnation was sincere. But I also think that a great many voters, some of them heretofore uncommitted, will see this incident as symbolic of a race in which every voter who has not jumped on the Obama bandwagon has been subject to various forms of harassment and bullying. Americans, generally speaking, don't like to be bullied. This, as much as anything, explains why the McCain campaign still has a chance."

Other conservative bloggers are complaining about media bias:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Of course, it's unfair to hold Obama responsible for hooligans and nut cases claiming to act in his name. But then again, for the past two weeks, we've seen the press holding McCain and [Sarah] Palin responsible for what a few hooligans and nut cases shout at campaign events."
• Glenn Reynolds: "This is so serious that I predict it will get almost one-tenth as much national coverage as something some guy may have yelled at a Palin rally once. [...] A commenter...adds: 'But, were it a black woman with an 'M' carved in her cheek, we'd be getting 24/7 coverage.'"
• Erickson: "Words versus actions. How many news outlets have covered the Obama supporters trying to block Sarah Palin's motorcade? How many news outlets covered the vandalism of Senator Norm Coleman's property? Compare that to how many covered the words spoken at a Palin rally that allegedly foment hostility toward Barack Obama. Today there is a new, more violent twist. A McCain supporter, a 20 year old college Republican volunteer, was savagely attacked by a Barack Obama supporter in Pennsylvania. She was at an ATM getting money. He saw the McCain sticker on her car, robbed her, and carved a 'B' into the side of her face. He carved her face like it was a pumpkin. [...] But someone yelled 'kill him' at a Sarah Palin rally in reference to Bill Ayers."

ASSAULT ON COLLEGE STUDENT II: A Hoax?

Several conservative bloggers think the alleged assault might be a hoax:

• Ann Althouse: "Come on, people. First, verify. I've seen the photograph, and, quite aside from the backwards 'B' -- does the surveillance camera show an upside down attack? -- the scratching looks too even and shallow to seem like the result of a violent attack. And even if it did happen, what would it mean? There are violent attacks all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and if you want to assert that they say something about anybody other than the attacker, you'll need to prove that too. Bottom line: This is the stupidest distraction in the whole history of this crazy campaign season."
• Malkin: "Throughout my career, I've covered dozens of fake hate crimes -- campus hate crime hoaxes, Muslim hate crime hoaxes, fake noose hangings, etc., etc., etc. Most were perpetrated by liberals, but there have been some shameful ones on our side of the aisle as well. [...] Which is why I'm not jumping up and down with outrage over Drudge-promoted story of a McCain volunteer claiming to have been attacked by a black man whom she accused of carving a 'B' in her face after spotting her McCain bumper sticker. She refused medical treatment after reporting the incident to police. Why on earth would she do that? [...] If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. If I'm right, will this woman? [...] Hate crimes hoaxes -- by anyone, of any political persuasion, and of any color -- diminish us all."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey thinks "the two media reports appear to check out," but adds: "I don't think this says anything terribly significant about the election or either candidate. [...] The initial crime had nothing to do with politics at all, so it's not an example of partisan thuggery as one would expect some to paint it. [...] We have many more important issues to debate, and many more cogent reasons to oppose Barack Obama than the offhand cruelty of one criminal in Pittsburgh."

ASSAULT ON COLLEGE STUDENT III: The View From The Left

Several liberal bloggers are have doubts about the story:

• Wonkette's Ken Layne: "From the rest of alleged victim Ashley Todd's Twitter page, we learn she got a speeding ticket, and oh boy she is sure sore about those ACORN people trying to register minorities to vote, and then she is just cold twitterin' while driving around, lost, on the 'wrong side of Pittsburgh' (where blacks are), and of course she doesn't use her phone to call Bank of America and ask where there's a branch, because why do that? And then oh noes she gets mugged out of view of the bank security cameras, and one of Barack Obama's brothers jumps out of the bushes and, uh, sort of gently indents a backwards 'B' on the side of her face, the way you might do such a thing to yourself, using a mirror, if you were a tragic loser trying to get attention -- you know, like that black Tawana Bradley!!! Is any of this real? Because it smells like the dumbest stunt in two years of incredibly dumb stunts."
• Oliver Willis: "Why do I have doubts? Well, there's a history. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that this sort of thing needs verification."

Other liberal bloggers are criticizing Drudge's role in pushing the story:

• The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "Even Michelle Malkin is skeptical about the alleged act of anti-McCain brutality in Pennsylvania that Drudge is pushing like crazy. She's right: That backwards 'B' is pretty hard to explain. It's worth noting that even if true, this sounds like a standard robbery with an insane, politically-related act tacked on after the assailant noticed a McCain bumper sticker. Even in the victim's telling, the original assault was not about politics. [...] Clearly something terrible happened here, but I'd be happy to say nothing about it because it has no real relevance to the campaign--except that it's clear some people, notably Drudge, are determined to make it an issue in a critical swing state where race is probably a factor."
• The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Feldman: "The problem with this crime, however, is not just that it happened, but the way that Matt Drudge has obviously tried to spin it into a political watershed for the 2008 Presidential campaign by rewriting the headline and carefully omitting several crucial elements. The end result is that a mugging punctuated by an odd act of violence has been transformed at the hands of a right-wing media figure to appear like a targeted act of violence against the McCain campaign."
• Mark Kleiman: "Maybe Michelle Malkin is moving too fast in saying that the story has 'shades of...Tawana Brawley all over it,' but certainly caution seems to be in order. The McCain flacks who are pushing this before they know what's there, and people like John Hinderaker who use an incident that perhaps never happened as 'symbolic' of the Obama campaign, are acting disgracefully."

OBAMA: First It Was Voter Fraud, Now It's Donor Fraud

Conservative bloggers are accusing the Obama camp of not doing enough to combat fraudulent online donations (which the New York Times details here):

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "The Obama campaign has turned its security settings for accepting online contributions down to the bare minimum -- possibly to juice the numbers, and turning a blind eye towards the potential for fraud not just against the FEC, but against unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud. The issue centers around the Address Verification Service (or AVS) that credit card processors use to sniff out phony transactions. I was able to contribute money using an address other than the one on file with my bank account (I used an address I control, just not the one on my account), showing that the Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors. [...] The end result? 'Donors' like 'Doodad Pro' can submit tons of donations totaling well above the $2,300 limit using different bogus addresses (this does clarify how donations from 'Palestine', or PA, got through). And the campaign has no way to reliably de-dupe these donations, besides looking at the last four digits of the credit card number, which with 3.1 million donors is an identifier that could be shared by literally hundreds of donors, and is not as easy to eyeball like a common name or address would be. The ability to contribute with a false address, when the technology to prevent it not only exists but comes standard, is a green light for fraud."
• Geraghty: "Everyone who has ever bought something from a web site knows the basic security precautions taken to prevent fraudulent purchases. It appears that the basic minimum precautions were not in place for Obama's web site, the kind of precautions that were in place for McCain and Hillary [Clinton] (and almost any other candidate or sales web site). This is a huge story. It doesn't necessarily reflect on Obama (although some of my readers won't give him the benefit of the doubt on that) but it sure as hell does reflect on [Obama strategist] David Axelrod, his tech team, and his fundraising team. The press has been telling us about Obama's amazing online donations for more than a year now. There is absolutely no excuse for not digging into this story."
• Erickson: "There is now ample evidence that Barack Obama's campaign has intentionally opted out of credit card address verification services ('AVS') thereby making it extremely easy to contribute to his campaign while the campaign can claim ignorance to theft, excessive contributions, improper contributions, and illegal contributions."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "The AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign -- and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations. The McCain campaign retains the AVS system used by other online retailers and thus rejects fake names and fake addresses. Advantage: Obama!"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "The Obama campaign has chosen to establish an online contribution system that faciliates illegal anonymous or falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits. Why has it chosen to do so? Why has it not availed itself of the AVS protection that would expose or prevent such illegal contributions?"

Some righty bloggers are denouncing the Obama camp's conduct in even harsher terms:

• Hinderaker: "Everyone knows that Barack Obama has created the biggest money-machine of any politician in American history. But it is becoming increasingly evident that Obama's money-machine is largely fraudulent and therefore criminal. One can imagine a world in which newspaper reporters think it's a serious matter when a Presidential candidate tries to buy an election with illegal and fraudulent contributions. That, of course, is not the world that we live in."
• Ace of Spades: "Draw up the impeachment papers. If Obama wins, we should be ready. This is the deliberate evasion of campaign finance rules. It's shocking the media never checked before -- and apparently isn't even checking now."

PALIN: She Still Doesn't Know What She's Talking About

Liberal bloggers are once again accusing Palin of ignorance after she offered the following definition of "precondition" during her interview with NBC's Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: Governor Palin, yesterday you tied this notion of an early test to the new president. Would this notion of precondition --
PALIN: Right.
WILLIAMS: -- that you both have been hammering the Obama campaign on. What — first of all, what in your mind is a precondition?
PALIN: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il, one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or her allies. It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a- a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them. So that -- that's -- that's some ill-preparedness right there.

• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "Ummm...What Palin is describing is what would be called preparation not preconditions. Just to be clear. Not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiations until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed. In the case of Iran, McCain insists that the Iranians suspend their uranium enrichment program before we can even begin to negotiate. Obama opposes this precondition. The basic argument against preconditions is that you can't ask your adversary to give up a big negotiating point in exchange for absolutely nothing and expect them to actually sit down at the table. [...] Anyway, this is not very complicated. It also happens to be the crux of one of the most important foreign policy issues being debated between Obama and McCain. You'd think Sarah Palin would understand this."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[Palin's explanation is] just not what preconditions are. As Ilan Goldenberg says, she's talking about the need to prepare before a meeting, which is different, 'not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiating until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed.' That's our current policy -- that we need to isolate Iran until they preemptively give in to all our demands, and then we can talk. Obama's proposal is also Palin's proposal -- to negotiate first in hopes of getting a deal. Of course you have to prepare. You don't just fire up Air Force One and head to Pyongyang without some kind of bargaining strategy and preliminary meetings. But that's uncontroversial."
• Ezra Klein: "[Palin] found herself trying to attack Barack Obama for endorsing negotiations without preconditions but instead accidentally endorsed negotiations without preconditions but condemned negotiations without preparation, which is something we can all agree on."

Yglesias notes that this is not the first time that Palin has strayed from GOP orthodoxy: "One of the virtues of Sarah Palin being badly underbriefed about national security issues, is that she has to rely on common sense to bluff her way through questions, and she keeps accidentally straying from conservative dogma. When asked about the 'Bush Doctrine' of preventive war, she said she embraced the doctrine, but then actually outlined a much more reasonable 'imminent threat' standard for action."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Freedom To Create Your Own Reality

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan:

"If you read Drudge, you might believe that there's a one-point gap between Obama and McCain, and it's neck and neck in the final stretch. If you read 538, you find that McCain's chances of winning this election just shrank dramatically to 3.7 percent from 6.5 percent yesterday. The beauty of the web is that every take has a chance. And the beauty of democracy is that you get to have the final say."

LEST WE FORGET: What Gives A TV Show Bipartisan Appeal?

The Hater's Amelie Gillette:

"Nielsen analyzed several cable channels to determine which shows had the highest level of engagement amongst Republicans or Democrats, and also which shows engaged members of both parties equally. Not surprisingly, Republicans tend to enjoy the Blue-Collar comedy of The Bill Engvall Show, while Democrats watch the shit out of The Colbert Report. But some of the other results were a little surprising: generally, it seems that Democrats love watching people do dangerous, blue-collar jobs (Ax Men, Deadliest Catch), shows that take place in a bar or in close proximity to alcohol (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, My Boys), and tawdry dating shows involving people who have touched Flava Flav (I Love New York). Republicans, on the other hand, enjoy watching morally bankrupt big city lawyers (Damages), people win money by getting in a big city taxi (Cash Cab), and tawdry dating shows involving Bret Michaels (Rock Of Love).

So what gives a cable TV show bipartisan appeal? Blank stares (The Hills), characters that openly talk to God (Saving Grace, The Cleaner), and competitions where the winner gets to continue to star on cable (The Next Food Network Star, HGTV Design Star). But apparently one of the biggest things that both Republicans and Democrats look for in a cable TV show is a very high jerk judgment quotient. Three of the shows on the bipartisan list (The Hills, What Not To Wear, and The Real Housewives Of Orange County) are reality series that are essentially open invitations for the audience to judge the lives and overindulgent lifestyles of the participants. Judging spoiled, exhibitionist jerks on TV: it's what brings America together!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:38 PM

October 23, 2008

10/23: Al-Qaeda Endorsements And Shopping Sprees

Back in April, conservative bloggers (along with John McCain) criticized Barack Obama after a Hamas spokesperson made positive comments about the IL senator. Now left-wing bloggers are giving their right-wing counterparts a taste of their own medicine. Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that "al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency". Although lefty bloggers are emphasizing that "this 'endorsement' shouldn't itself influence voters", they're claiming that this news shouldn't come as a surprise. In their view, al-Qaeda has every reason to hope that McCain wins the election, since "the war in Iraq, as well as saber rattling against Iran by McCain and those who surround him...are an excellent recruiting tool for al Qaeda." Lefty bloggers are also criticizing the McCain camp's "panicked" response to the report.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to mock Sarah Palin following the Politico's report that the RNC "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize [Palin] and her family" since late August. The netroots believe that this is a very damaging revelation that "pulls back the curtain on Palin's everywoman facade" and exposes her as "just another fake 'bootstrapper' Republican". Conservative bloggers are more divided: some are blaming the RNC for spending so much money on clothes, while others are defending the RNC's expenditures.

MCCAIN: The Coveted Al-Qaeda Endorsement

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that "al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency":

"...The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, 'impetuous' Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

'If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests,' the message said, 'this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it.'"

Liberal bloggers aren't surprised that (at least some) al-Qaeda members prefer a McCain Presidency to an Obama Presidency:

• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "This should come as no surprise, really. The CIA concluded that bin Laden attempted to swing the election for Bush in 2004 with the release of a videotape in the last weeks of the campaign. Despite McCain camp claims that Obama is soft on terrorists, and an appeaser who thinks that all terrorists need is 'a good talking to,' bin Laden and al-Qaeda fear an Obama administration more than a McCain administration."
• TAPPED' Adam Serwer: "I've never been a big fan of patterning U.S. foreign policy on what terrorists may or may not think of us. Still, this AP report on who some Al Qaeda supporters would like to see in the White House is consistent with the idea that in order to function properly, terrorist groups need an effective enabler. [...] I don't believe that Americans should pick their candidates based on who terrorists or their supporters would like to see in office, let alone on an internet message board. But many people on the Right do believe this is incredibly important, and that Americans should base their votes entirely on who the terrorists seem to be most afraid of. That apparently isn't McCain."
• The Huffington Post's Jon Soltz: "There's no question that continuing the war in Iraq would prolong the strain that our military is facing, trying to fight a two-front war, and that continuing in Iraq saps resources in the fight against al Qaeda, where they are based -- the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would be much worse off if the U.S. shifted priority from Iraq to going on the offense in Afghanistan, as Senator Obama has proposed. But there's something else at play, here. The war in Iraq, as well as saber rattling against Iran by McCain and those who surround him, like Joe Lieberman, are an excellent recruiting tool for al Qaeda. [...] Of course, this 'endorsement' shouldn't itself influence voters, as Hamas' statement on Obama shouldn't. The American people shouldn't base their votes on the basis of what maniacs say. But it once again underscores the question of who would be stronger in the fight against al Qaeda, which candidate is proposing a stronger plan to go after those who attacked us on 9/11, and which is for continuing the policy that has allowed al Qaeda to gain recruits and regain strength."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It was common in 2004 for Republicans to imply...or even state outright, that John Kerry was Al Qaeda's preferred candidate. For example, when asked if he felt that Al Qaeda would 'operate with more comfort' if John Kerry were elected, [ex-House Speaker] Dennis Hastert said Yes. Even oh so honorable John McCain has made reference this year to the idea that if you listen to its leaders, Al Qaeda clearly wants Barack Obama to win. Umm, really?"

Several liberal bloggers are speculating about the possibility that al-Qaeda will try to influence the Presidential election in order to help McCain:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "There's no telling what al-Qaeda is actually capable of doing at this point. But it's well-known that al-Qaeda does try to influence western elections. We saw it with the Madrid bombings before the Spanish elections, and then we saw it with the October 2004 bin Laden tape that the CIA believes was designed to boost George W. Bush's re-election fortunes. Al-Qaeda members will probably be able to come up with something to do between now and Election Day to help push things in the direction they prefer."
• Ezra Klein: "It's stupid to take the endorsements of terrorists seriously. But it means it's worth being mentally prepared for the possibility that the terrorist group will stage a late intervention in the election, either via a tape or something worse. Meanwhile, can you imagine the outcry if intelligence experts had broken into a locked al Qaeda site and found deep conversations asking how best to ensure Barack Obama's election?"

MCCAIN II: Digging A Deeper Hole...

Several top McCain aides held a conference call in which they blasted the report about al-Qaeda's alleged preference for McCain:

"Senior McCain aides blasted a report published in today's Washington Post quoting commentary on an Islamic extremist Web site that 'Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,' saying that The Post had relied on a 'blogger' whose connections to al-Qaeda were questionable. And the McCain team accused The Post of running an 'inflammatory' headline while ignoring words of praise for Barack Obama from other Middle East leaders."

Liberal bloggers believe that the McCain camp's argument is logically inconsistent:

• Democracy Arsenal's Max Bergmann: "On the McCain campaign's conference call they just dug their hole even deeper. Instead of just saying that talking about who terrorist groups endorse is ridiculous, Randy Scheunemann -- McCain's foreign policy adviser -- decided to whine that the Washington Post article should have included comments from Hamas, Qaddafi, and Ahmadinejad saying positive things about Obama. I see, stories that say 'terrorists endorse McCain' are unfair but ones that say the same about Obama are fair. I just don't understand how they can possibly complain about stories on Al Qaeda members endorsing McCain and then in practically the same breathe say stories should be written about other terrorist groups endorsing Obama. Randy -- the correct response was this is all ridiculous. If those other endorsements of Obama are fair game then so is Al Qaeda's. And it would seem to me that Al Qaeda's endorsement is a bit bigger deal than Hamas'."
• TPM's Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld: "One especially fun moment on the call came when McCain adviser Jim Woolsey badly undercut the campaign call's message. Woolsey said that Al Qaeda supporters who praise McCain are actually doing it to hurt him, because praise from Al Qaeda is the 'kiss of death.' At that point, a reporter quite naturally asked whether the same could be said of Hamas advisers who praise Obama, prompting Woolsey to pull a homina homina homina and dodge the question."
• Martin: "As for the contention that al-Qaeda is trying reverse psychology (attempting to damage McCain by stating a preference for him), that is a difficult claim to defend while simultaneously pointing to the statements of support for Barack Obama coming from other suspect groups. The attempt to thread that needle goes something like this: You can't trust al-Qaeda, and they're obviously using reverse psychology. But Hamas would never lie to us, and isn't now. Nor [Ahmadinejad]. Or something."
• Yglesias: "[McCain's aides] seem to have taken a two pronged approach: (1.) Other 'bad guy' types have said nice things about Obama. (2.) Al-Qaeda saying they're hoping for a McCain win is obviously a bankshot effort to help McCain. Of course these arguments contradict each other."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If al Qaeda really wanted to play some kind of reverse-psychology game here, it probably wouldn't have posted a message to a website closely linked to the terrorist group, in Arabic, on a page accessible by a password. Indeed, if the situation were reversed, and that same page had expressed support for Obama, every Republican in America would be screaming hysterically right now. But what seems clear is that Republicans are stuck in a trap of their own making. Bush, [Dick] Cheney, McCain, and other leading Republicans have argued for years that we must take the terrorists' words seriously and accepted at face value. Today, they're arguing the polar opposite."

Liberal bloggers are also accusing the McCain camp of not addressing the substance of the report:

• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "To describe the call as panicked would be an understatement. [...] What was absent from the call, oddly enough, was any discussion about why al-Qaeda might want McCain to win. And there the case is simple enough. al-Qaeda prefers an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq and a bellicose U.S. all across the Muslim world in order to radicalize Muslims to its terrorist cause and drain the U.S. of its financial wealth -- what Osama bin Laden calls his 'bleed to bankruptcy' strategy. Hence the reason why, as the CIA eventually concluded, bin Laden tried to help George W. Bush's reelection in 2004 by releasing a late-October tape. McCain pledges basic continuity with Bush on the Iraq war. As Scheunemann put it, 'John McCain will spend what it takes to win.'"
• Think Progress' Matt Duss: "What was most striking to me is the way McCain advisers James Woolsey and Randy Scheunemann simply refused to accept or even seriously address the idea that policies supported by John McCain could have possibly benefited Al Qaeda. The press call was intended to beat back the idea that Al Qaeda might prefer the policies of John McCain, but I think Woolsey and Schuenemann only succeeded in reinforcing why that could be."

PALIN: The Hockey Mom Gets Exposed

Following the Politico's report that the RNC "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize [Palin] and her family" since late August, liberal bloggers are arguing that Palin isn't the middle-class "hockey mom" that she claims to be:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[This] officially ends Palin's ability to run as 'small town hockey mom.' You don't get to shop like Leona Helmsley and then play that class card."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "[Palin is] just another fake 'bootstrapper' Republican. What a shocker."
• Beeton: "The amazing thing to me is that anyone actually bought into this idea of Sarah Palin as everywoman. Her whole 'Joe sixpack' thing was so clearly a cynical ploy to appeal to the real 'Joe sixpacks' who value that connection with the plain speakin' politicians. The fact that the RNC would spend so heavily on Palin's wardrobe reveals the hollowness of this image, both because it implies that Palin was merely an actress in need of a costume (duh!) and because it pulls back the curtain on Palin's every woman facade. On a larger level, this lays bare the hollowness and cynicism with which The Republican Party regularly exploits the fears and values of the white working class for electoral gain. Is this story, of all things, beginning to wake people up to this?"
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "Be it Larry the Cable Guy or his Ohio cousin, Joe the Plumber, or their political and spiritual leader, Bushie the Commander Guy, or their newly discovered co-star Sarah the Hockey Mom, it should be obvious to anyone watching that the Republicans have been engaging in a seemingly endless game of dress up, and pretending to be something they're clearly not. [...] As we've all observed today with the news of Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe -- purchased, I hasten to underscore, from stores based in the 'anti-American' areas of the nation -- the Republican 'Joe Sixpack' flimflam appears to be crashing and burning faster than McCain's poll numbers."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin defends Palin and blames the RNC for giving her a costly "makeover": "Joe Biden is imploding, but Sarah Palin's RNC-funded wardrobe budget is the headline. The libs are claiming that some unnamed Republican National Committee donors and members are 'disgusted' by the expenditures. Are you surprised? The RNC has squandered its time and money on a lot of stupid things. [...] Heckuva job, RNC."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren, on the other hand, defends the RNC's clothing expenditures: "Had she been a creature of Washington, Palin would have had closet full of suits, unexciting, perhaps, but appropriate. [...] Instead, she had zero time and no personal fortune. And she faced the terrible hurdle of being young and attractive -- the very sort of woman who most desperately needs wardrobe cues to make her look authoritative. If she had had to pay for it herself, she could not have run. The bill would have been ruinous to a genuinely middle class person. So the GOP did what it had to do in order to put a non-rich woman on a national ticket. Whatever one thinks of the choice -- and I am a supporter -- it's nice to see that someone was thinking about the details. The difference between Palin at the announcement in Dayton, and Palin at the convention was a subtle but impressive transformation. Subtle always costs more. As a sometime GOP donor, I begrudge her none of it."

PALIN II: Six Degrees Of Sleaze

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about a new Atlantic report which found that Palin's clothes were purchased by GOP consultant Jeff Larson, "whose firm has been tied to the onslaught of negative robocalls from Senator John McCain's campaign":

• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "Sarah Palin's folksy authenticity must have been touted by Republican operatives at least once for every dollar the RNC has spent on her clothes, hair, and makeup over the past six weeks. [...] But it turns out the Republicans didn't trust Palin to dress herself for the big time. No, her Saks Fifth Avenue, Barneys, and Neiman Marcus clothes were purchased by one Jeff Larson. And in a stunning coincidence, $75,000 of the clothes for Palin were purchased by Larson at the very same Neiman Marcus where Republican donor Nasser Kazeminy allegedly bought suits for...[MN Sen.] Norm Coleman. I foresee an ad for that store: 'The choice for Republican operatives seeking to outfit up-and-coming politicians who can't dress themselves.'"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Palin personal shopper = McCain robocaller = Sen. Norm Coleman's very generous landlord. What a tangled web those Republicans weave."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Jeff Larson is not only John McCain's chief robocaller and Sen. Palin's $150k clothes shopper, he's also the guy who's giving that sweetheart rental deal on his apartment in DC [to Coleman]."

HORSERACE: A Dead Heat?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about yesterday's AP poll which found Obama and McCain in a statistical tie:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Toldja so. After decrying the McCain and Palin debate performances for episodes 1-3 (breaking with the conservative consensus all three times, and all three times seeing my assessment mirrored in the poll movements in the subsequent days), I wrote right after the last debate that McCain won a solid victory for what he needed to do. Well, again, a poll confirms my analysis. The AP now has the race essentially even, and the crosstabs are even more interesting, because they explain WHERE McCain made his gains."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This election is not over. And John McCain continues to hang around. [...] I recognize that there are plenty of people interested in making this a coronation, not an election. Alas for them, the voters may still have something to say about the matter."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Take this, as with all polling this cycle, with a grain of salt -- but usually the error in the AP polling goes the other direction. A new poll of likely voters has Barack Obama clinging to a one-point lead, 44%-43%, with John McCain making up almost all of a seven-point deficit over the last three weeks. [...] There's still plenty of time left in this election. McCain has now obviously found a winning message that negates Obama's economic populism."

HORSERACE II: Don't Let The Polls Get You Down, Conservatives!

Several conservative bloggers are suggesting that the media is portraying McCain in worse shape than he actually is:

• Morrissey: "The proliferation of polls gives media outlets their choice of narrative. Maybe they focus on the worst of the polls more than the ones indicating more of a dead heat? That could explain why some media outlets (I won't name names like CBS, of course!) routinely conduct polls with ridiculously-skewed samples favoring Democrats by 14 points, just to drive that kind of negative coverage."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Today's AP poll showing a dead heat in the presidential campaign, like yesterday's Battleground Poll with the same result, are so far outside the MSM's narrative as to be instantly dismissed by even many McCain-Palin supporters as too good to be true. And perhaps they are. Or perhaps the pollsters simply don't know how to catch this year's bouncing ball. Or they are catching many different balls depending where they are polling."

Several righty bloggers are also questioning the reliability of pollsters' party ID weighting:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I'm thinking back to this post, pointing out that the vast majority of pollsters in 2006 overestimated the percentage of the electorate that would be Democrats, sometimes by a wide margin. [...] This doesn't guarantee that those guys will be wrong again this time around. But it is within the realm of possibility."
• Liebau: "The problem for pollsters is that, at this point, no one is sure how to weight Democrat vs. Republican participation. How much of a partisan edge do Democrats have over Republicans? Not clear. But how that's calculated has a lot to do with what kind of results pollsters are getting. Put wrong information in, get wrong information out. Same goes for the extent to which 'leaners' are pushed to choose a candidate. If those who are truly undecided are forced to choose a candidate for purposes of the poll, it offers a mistaken impression of how many voters are still 'convinceable' for the candidate who's behind. So nobody really knows what's going to happen on election day. That's why it's important for Republicans to keep pushing..."

MEDIA CRITICISM: Where's The Love For The Maverick?

Conservative bloggers are once again complaining about media bias following a new Pew report which found that McCain has received significantly more negative press coverage than Obama during the past six weeks:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Does this surprise ANYONE? [...] Shocker! [Howard] Kurtz insists it's because being ahead in the polls creates the condition for more favorable coverage. Hm. Too bad there's no way to factor in all the negative stories that could have been reported about Obama's policies, character and past (uncovered by journalists like Stanley Kurtz) -- but which the media has conveniently overlooked. The imbalance would be even more striking."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "When reporters provide coverage of the McCain campaign where negative stories outnumber positive stories 4-to-1, it's pretty obvious that their news judgment is not balanced. I will note, however, that the First Amendment does not require balance. Newspaper editors and TV news producers can be as biased as they wish; the audience, however, should understand that they're not getting the full truth."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Good thing the Republicans nominated a media darling for President!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dissecting The Democratic Coalition

The Next Right's Sean Oxedine:

"Racial minorities are consistently one of the most conservative demographic groups when it comes to gay rights. [...] Hispanics Democrats in Congress already tend to be more conservative than their brethern, especially on cultural issues, and especially when they hail from rural areas like South Texas. As time progresses, we also begin to see increasing diversity in the African American congressional delegation, with more and more Congressmen like Sanford Bishop, Harold Ford, and David Scott sounding conservative themes when it suits their constituents.

I don't expect to see African Americans and Hispanics vote Republican anytime in my lifetime, although if the party goes the [Mike] Huckabee route (the opposite of what I'd like to see) of increased economic liberalism combined with cultural conservatism, this may become more likely. Of more interest is the effect this has within the Democratic caucus as time goes on. Will we see more ideological primaries in minority-majority districts, as we saw with Majette-McKinney or Cuellar-Rodriguez[?] Ironically, this is what we saw in the South in the 1930s-1960s, where race held together a Southern Democratic party split by serious ideological divisions."

LEST WE FORGET: Zogby Poll: John Zogby Coolest Dude In America

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In a poll taken by Zogby International, 100 percent of respondents agreed that American pollster John Zogby is the coolest dude in the United States of America, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and all of the other U.S. territories. The poll results were posted on Zogby.com all day Thursday and revealed that, of the 300 million citizens surveyed, John Zogby not only had the coolest friends, but was also easily the coolest guy in both high school and college. In addition, when Americans were asked who would be the one person they would most like to 'hang' with if given the opportunity, every one of them responded with 'John Zogby.' The poll, a Zogby representative said, has a zero percent margin of error and is potentially one of the most awesome polls ever conducted."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:31 PM

October 22, 2008

10/22: Wasilla Main Street Meets Saks Fifth Avenue

Sarah Palin is back in the netroots' crosshairs today. First, Politico reported that the RNC "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize [Palin] and her family" since late August -- including a $49,000 bill from Saks Fifth Avenue and a $75,000 bill from Neiman Marcus. Liberal bloggers are mocking the RNC for spending so much money on Palin's wardrobe instead of putting it to (arguably) better use in swing states. They're also claiming that these massive clothing expenditures completely undermine Palin's "Mrs. Joe Six Pack" persona. David Kurtz quips: "Nothing says Main Street quite like Saks Fifth Avenue."

Liberal bloggers are also buzzing about an AP investigation which found that Palin "charged the state [of AK] for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business." Liberal bloggers are arguing that this revelation undermines Palin's claims about being a reformer.

Finally, liberal bloggers are (once again) accusing Palin of ignorance following her erroneous claim that the Vice President is "in charge of the United States Senate". The netroots are mocking Palin for being unable to "explain the job that she's running for".

PALIN: It Ain't Cheap To Look This Authentic

Liberal bloggers are mocking Palin after Politico reported that the RNC "has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize [Palin] and her family" during the past three months:

"The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74. The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Sarah Palin spent on clothes in one month, $150,000, what the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. [...] Gee, Marshalls and Target are too good for Mrs. Joe Six Pack?"
• Firedoglake's watertiger: "While the American economy is cratering, the 'Hockey Mom Who's Just Like You, Doncha Know' is at Neiman Marcus, dropping $75K of RNC donors' hard-earned money on red leather numbers, fuck-me pumps, and underwear for the First Dude. [...] Fiscal responsibility -- now available in petites and plus sizes."
• Mark Kleiman: "After all, how can you be a real, genuine, hard-working, down-to-earth, non-elitist, middle-class American without $150,000 worth of clothing and make-up paid for by someone else?"
• TPM's Kurtz: "Nothing says Main Street quite like Saks Fifth Avenue."
• Atrios: "A Message To Republican Donors: This is what you're paying for."
• Oliver Willis: "McCain supporters won't like seeing this at the same time they're pulling out of swing states. Couldn't they have used that money in Michigan? Sheesh!"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, American households spend an average of $1,874 a year on clothing. The RNC spent $150,000 on family in seven weeks. Frankly, I'm not even sure how one family can spend that much so quickly. We're talking about an average of more than $2,000 a day, every day, since late August."
• Ezra Klein: "Sarah Palin wasn't a beet farmer last week. She was a governor. Presumably, she had clothing already. The sort of clothing that was appropriate for giving political speeches and attending campaign meetings. You can imagine the need for a couple new things (lots of different climates, etc), but not $150,000 for a whole new wardrobe. And not $150,000 of other people's money for a whole new wardrobe. [...] In any case, I think the odds of the long-awaited Sarah palin press conference just got that much slimmer..."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "If Sarah Palin wants to bilk the RNC's donors out of tens of thousands of dollars in designer clothes, that's her business as far as I'm concerned. It does, however, certainly further complicate efforts to portray a woman with a six figure household income and a personal airplane as a simple country gal with working class tastes."
• Pandagon's Jesse Taylor: "All I'm saying is that if a girly-man Democrat had spent $150,000 outfitting themselves for ten weeks, it would be the story that consigned them, their ticket and perhaps their party to FOREVER ELECTORAL DOOOOOOOOOOM."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "I wonder...how this will resonate with Joe the Plumber types and those who are struggling economically, facing foreclosures and unable to pay their bills, or even those concerned about wasteful government spending."

Daily Kos' Jed L thinks this revelation will damage McCain's chances: "McCain-land might get lucky and skate by on this if they play their cards right and other news drowns out this story, but nine times out of ten, this will be the moment when not just the media, but also other Republicans, start talking about the McCain-Palin campaign in the past tense."

PALIN II: Welfare Queen?

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Palin after an AP investigation found that Palin "charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business":

"...The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol [Palin] for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters' 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls."

• dday: "Why is the nanny state, in the form of the state of Alaska, caring and feeding for Sarah Palin and her family? Doesn't she know she has to WORK for that money instead of taking a handout?"
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "[Palin] does seem to have a talent for getting other people to pay for things, though. And while I don't mind when she charges the RNC, I might be a bit annoyed if I were a citizen of Alaska. [...] Where I come from, when you say that your kids were invited and they weren't, that's called 'lying.' And when you amend expense reports to say they were on official business when they weren't, that's called 'falsifying documents.' No doubt that's because I don't come from Real America, and haven't absorbed nearly enough of its timeless moral values."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Socialist! Palin put kids on state tab."

PALIN III: Know The Job You're Running For, Governor!

Liberal bloggers are (once again) accusing Palin of ignorance after she erroneously claimed that the Vice President is "in charge of the United States Senate" (video here):

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, 'What does the Vice President do?'
PALIN: Aw, that's something that Piper would ask me, as a second grader, also. That's a great question, Brandon, and a Vice President has a really great job, because no only are they there to support the President agenda, they're like a team member, the team mate to that President. But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job.

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "The Vice President may sit as the presiding officer of the Senate, but has no legislative role whatsoever, with the exception of casting tie-breaking votes if the Senate is deadlocked. There's no 'get[tin'] in there with the Senators and mak[in'] a lot of good policy changes.' Which is why modern Vice Presidents hardly ever bother to take the chair on more than a few ceremonial occasions."
• Think Progress' Ryan Powers: "While Palin suggests that questions about what the Vice President does is something only her daughter Piper would ask, Palin herself asked this very question on national television in July. Apparently, she still hasn't learned the correct answer. Article I of the Constitution establishes an exceptionally limited role for the Vice President -- giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is 'equally divided.' [...] Moreover, the U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of Vice Presidents has been to preside over the Senate 'only on ceremonial occasions'."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "This is the second time that Governor Palin has tried and failed to explain the job that she's running for. [...] She [has] made Dan Quayle look like a genius."
• Blue Texan: "This just in: Sarah Palin still doesn't freaking know what the Vice President does. I know wingnuts aren't supposed to know jack about the US Constitution, but this is getting rigoddamndiculous."
• Willis: "Sarah Palin does not know what the Vice President does. When asked [about] the role of the veep, she proceeds to describe...the Senate Majority Leader. Please, America, let's not go dumb this election."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "[Palin told] an NBC affiliate in Colorado that the Vice President is 'in charge' of the U.S. Senate. I confess, it never occurred to me that Palin's vast executive experience would actually make her more ignorant of how the legislative branch works."

BIDEN: Listen To Joe, Swing Voters!

Conservative bloggers continue to mock Joe Biden for predicting that Barack Obama's election would lead to "an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy":

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "As I have written many a time, if Joe Biden didn't exist, we would have to invent him. But it is worth recalling that during the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Biden made clear his belief that Obama was not prepared to be President. Maybe, his selection as Vice President notwithstanding, he let it slip that he still doesn't believe that Obama is prepared to be President. Either that, or Joe Biden possesses no control whatsoever over his own verbiage."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As we and many others on the right have noted, but as the mainstream media have mostly ignored, Joe Biden issued a remarkable warning on Sunday: within six months after his inauguration, fledgling President Barack Obama will face an 'international crisis' brought on by our enemies to 'test [his] mettle.' [...] Most remarkably, Biden forecast the Obama's response to such a crisis will seem wrong to most Americans."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I guess that we know now why Biden took the day off -- but not what the method is that the Obama campaign is using to keep this from happening again. I'm personally guessing electroshock, but that's because I'm married to a mad scientist (well, mad engineer)."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt predicts that Biden's gaffe will boost McCain's poll numbers: "The Battleground Poll: A Dead Heat! What happened to push these numbers into the statistical tie? Obama's lecture to Joe the Plumber about 'spreading the wealth around.' What will continue the favorable trend for McCain? Joe Biden's blunt warning of how the globe's very bad guys would try and push the rookie around."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis complains about media bias: "Is it just me, or is the fact that Palin spent a lot of money on clothes getting as much -- or more -- attention than Joe Biden's 'guarantee' that Obama will be 'tested'?"

HORSERACE: Is McCain Betting The Farm On PA?

Bloggers are discussing reports that the McCain camp is cutting its ad spending in CO, NH, WI, MN, and ME in order to focus on winning PA. Several liberal bloggers think this strategy makes some sense:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "When presented with a list of crappy choices, Pennsylvania is the best option for McCain. Its large size and lack of early voting provides McCain with potential time and a potential margin no other targeting strategy can. He has to win a state where he currently trails by 8% or more, and Pennsylvania is clearly the best option."
• Al Giordano: "Here's what I think is going on at McCain strategy central: They're getting tired of the daily drumbeat on cable TV news and by newspaper pundits that says things like, 'here are the six or seven swing states, all of them voted for [George W.] Bush in 2004, Obama is winning or tied in most of them, and for McCain to win he has to run the table, taking every single one of them or it's over.' That message...has cast a deathly spell over the GOP base's enthusiasm, which is now being reflected in paltry early voting numbers by Republican voters, especially in Nevada and North Carolina. And so they're trying to offer the faithful a belief in the suggestion that McCain, too, has multiple paths to win. The senior staff seems to think it has convinced McCain to drop his reluctance to play the race card, with trial balloons afloatin' that Obama's ex-reverend will get an encore in the coming days in negative ads and such. And if they're really going to go there -- to try to make the campaign about race and, specifically, some white people's fears of pigmentation -- then it would make total sense for McCain to temporarily ignore Colorado, where that message ain't gonna hunt, and shift focus to Appalachia and the South: Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and, yes, Pennsylvania and even Florida being the swing states where racially charged politics have sometimes, in the past, worked for the Republicans, or, in Appalachia, where they worked for the Clintons during the primaries."

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver isn't convinced that this strategy is wise: "My guess is that something like this happened: they ran their usual set of internal polls over the weekend, and saw themselves 5 points down in Colorado and Virginia. 8 points down in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and 10 points down in Iowa and New Mexico. But perhaps Pennsylvania came in at a -6 or something -- not much worse than the others -- and they decided: why worry about all those states when we can worry about just this one. [...] If a campaign gets an internal poll that diverges from the consensus of public polling, it needs to ask itself why the divergence exists. If it cannot explain it, it should probably not treat the internal poll as actionable."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I worry that by ceding Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota, McCain may be trying to use a desperate racially and culturally divisive strategy to gin up some votes in Appalachia. If you're going to lose, it seems to me that this is a horrible way to define the GOP for the next four years. If you're going to win, the polarization of such a strategy could make governing all but impossible."

HORSERACE II: The Rightroots Approve

Several conservative bloggers think McCain's emphasis on PA makes sense:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I think TNR's right that with so many toss-ups to defend and the Democrats with an almost $40 million cash advantage (and growing), he's probably better off concentrating on one state that can get him those extra 18 EVs rather than spreading out across the country and dividing resources among several. If he wins Pennsylvania, he can lose both [CO and VA] and still win the election. As the Times notes, late deciders and rural white voters broke hard for Hillary [Clinton] there so a full push into the state is bound to do some good."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "My guy on the ground thinks...that if McCain does as well among the key demographics in neighboring Pennsylvania as he is in Ohio, then the Democrats ought to be sweating about that state. That's far from a given, of course; Pennsylvania is a bluer state than Ohio. I don't know that McCain will win Pennsylvania, but it isn't like he hasn't been given enough material -- 'spread the wealth around', 'no coal plants', [PA Rep. Jack] Murtha alternately calling his constituents 'racists' and 'rednecks,' the bitter small-town clinger comment, etc."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers are buzzing about PA Gov. Ed Rendell's admission that he's "a little nervous" about Obama's chances in PA:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The good news is Ed Rendell is nervous."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I thought Obama had things sewn up."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Bowers thinks Dems should ignore Rendell: "During this time, please ignore anything Ed Rendell says, as he is a long-time concern troll for Democrats (remember: he loves Rick Santorum, Justice [Samuel] Alito, and Fox News, but hates Social Security). On top of it all, any trolling Governor in his position would write dozens of memos to cover his ass in the event of a Pennsylvania debacle. If, somehow, it all goes wrong, Rendell can at least say to Fox News 'hey, I warned Obama to campaign more in Pennsylvania.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Toward A New Sobriety

Ezra Klein:

"There's a lot that's weird about David Brooks' column yesterday, but I don't think it's the sort of thing liberals should dismiss. What you're seeing right now, with Obama looking likely to win the election, is an effort to define the center. Jon Meacham defines it as the center-right. David Brooks, through 'Patio Man,' defines it as the right-right. In either case, it's an attempt to cement a conventional wisdom that circumscribes a President Obama's options.

Central to the battle will be how folks choose to understand the financial crisis. And this can go either way. On the one hand, the crisis could be seen one of those historically disruptive events that punctures the system's preference for gridlock and creates a space for bold action, much like JFK's assassination or the Great Depression. But Brooks is trying to define it differently as a troubling crisis of uncertainty that will trigger a reflexive status quo bias in the electorate. Under this model, the crisis explains away Obama's presidency -- oh, he only got elected because the stock market bottomed out, not because people agreed with him -- rather than enables his agenda. You can see it in Brooks' column. '[Democrats], or any party, will run astray if they threaten the mood of chastened sobriety that has swept over the subdivisions.' Has a 'mood of chastened sobriety' overwhelmed our exurbs? Dunno. Indeed, it's not even really clear what that would imply. What is a 'chastened sobriety?' But if elites become convinced that it has, and they define it as a popular resistance to actual government action, that will be rather bad for a President Obama.

Which is one reason I'd like to see liberals wrest back the concept of sobriety. There's nothing sober about letting carbon scorch the earth and cause untold trillions in economic damage. There's nothing sober about letting health care costs crush the federal budget and explode our deficit. There's nothing sober about letting a recession deepen rather than accepting the countercyclical spending that will restart the economy. The people who want to head off these catastrophes are being responsible. The people who want to disrupt action on looming threats are being reckless. When the car is headed off a cliff, there's nothing prudent about refusing to change its course."

LEST WE FORGET: How Can You Possibly Be Undecided?

David Sedaris unloads on undecided voters (h/t Sullivan):

"...You'll see this man or woman -- someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. 'Well, Charlie,' they say, 'I've gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can't seem to make up my mind!' Some insist that there's very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they're with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?'

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:09 PM

October 21, 2008

10/21: Joe Steps In It

Conservative bloggers are having a field day with Joe Biden's recent remarks, in which he predicted that if Barack Obama is elected, "we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy". Righty bloggers are describing Biden's comments as a "mega-gaffe" that destroys whatever benefit Obama may have received from Colin Powell's endorsement. Matt Lewis mockingly praises Biden for "making a compelling case for why Obama should NOT be president," while Hugh Hewitt predicts that Biden's remarks will become "the focus of the American electorate for the next two weeks." However, it's unclear whether Biden's ill-advised remarks will have a significant impact when so many Americans are focused on the economy.

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are slamming John McCain after his campaign manager Rick Davis declared that "they are reconsidering using the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as an issue in the last two weeks of the presidential race". Davis suggested that Rep. John Lewis had opened the door to the Wright issue by comparing the atmosphere at McCain's and Sarah Palin's rallies to the atmosphere at George Wallace's events. Liberal bloggers are describing Davis's rationale as "ridiculous" and are arguing that the McCain camp is trying to pre-emptively justify the use of "race-baiting" tactics. However, most liberal bloggers aren't too worried about the prospect of the McCain camp bringing up Wright, since they believe that such a move would not work and would look desperate.

BIDEN: Gaffe-tastic!

Conservative bloggers are mocking Biden after he predicted that if Obama is elected, "we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy":

• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Biden: Obama's Inexperience Will Prompt International Crisis. That's reassuring."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "So according to Biden, by voting for McCain, you'd be sparing the country this manufactured international crisis."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I was under the impression that Biden's job was to reassure American voters to go with the exceptionally inexperienced natsec pick. Not to let them know that he was going to not only be tested right off the bat, but that he would probably flunk."
• Michelle Malkin: "Keep talkin', Joe. God bless ya for telling the truth about your running mate's dangerous inexperience."
• Townhall's Lewis: "Wow! Joe Biden is making a compelling case for why Obama should NOT be president."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "On the very same day he told us that Colin Powell should have ended all questions about Barack Obama's national security bona fides, Joe Biden comes along to tell us precisely why we should be scared of Obama as commander-in-chief. [...] Well, golly, if Obama is so untested that we will have a series of international crises -- at the very time we are in a financial meltdown -- which will make the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a walk in the park, shouldn't we vote for the other guy who will keep all the miscreants in their place?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Joe Biden continues to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Barack Obama. In a stunning statement, Biden acknowledged that Obama's lack of foreign-policy experience will provoke America's enemies into creating an international crisis. [...] Isn't this an argument for electing someone with more experience? Why should we elect a man who will embolden our enemies and push us to the brink of disaster? Biden seems convinced that electing John McCain will make our enemies abroad much less sanguine about provoking us -- which is one of the best arguments yet heard for electing McCain."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Biden has now topped himself, as only Biden can, with a gaffe that constitutes a timely warning that deserves wide notice among the voting public."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Here's Joe Biden making a 'gaffe,' which in D.C. terms means that he's accidentally telling an embarrassing truth: there are nations in the world that don't like America and they see Barack Obama as a weak, naive, wet-behind-the-ears empty suit whom they can easily manipulate and intimidate. Incidentally, they're probably right about that."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "Senator Joseph Biden made remarks yesterday which should be the focus of the American electorate for the next two weeks (when they aren't considering the implications of Senator Obama's desire to 'spread the wealth around,' and the reliability of Senator Obama's promises measured against his spectacularly broken pledge to accept public financing.) [...] When even Joe Biden tells you what is going to happen under a President Obama, there's no way to deny the reality of the defeatism and retreat represented by a vote for Obama-Biden."

MCCAIN: Going Back On His Promise?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the McCain camp after campaign manager Rick Davis said that "they are reconsidering using the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as an issue in the last two weeks of the presidential race":

"Look, John McCain has told us a long time ago before this campaign ever got started, back in May, I think, that from his perspective, he was not going to have his campaign actively involved in using Jeremiah Wright as a wedge in this campaign. Now since then, I must say, when Congressman [John] Lewis calls John McCain and Sarah Palin and his entire group of supporters, fifty million people strong around this country, that we're all racists and we should be compared to [ex-AL Gov.] George Wallace and the kind of horrible segregation and evil and horrible politics that was played at that time, you know, that you've got to rethink all these things. And so I think we're in the process of looking at how we're going to close this campaign. We've got 19 days, and we're taking serious all these issues."

• Ezra Klein: "Is anyone surprised that in the final weeks of the race, when they're trailing by 5-10 points, the McCain campaign is 'reconsidering' their refusal to make an issue of Jeremiah Wright? And why wouldn't they? What could be more mavericky than first adopting a principled refusal to deploy Jeremiah Wright then reversing course and using him as part of a straightforwardly racist effort to close the gap in the final days of the election?"
• Booman Tribune's Steven D: "McCain wants us to seriously believe that his Rev. Wright attacks will all be the fault of Rep. John Lewis, because Lewis called McCain out for his demagoguery and his deliberate (or at the very least grossly negligent) attempts to incite anger among his supporters? Who's the Patriot, John? Where's the man of honor? Because from where I sit, all I see is one more power hungry, nasty, 'play to people's fears rather than their hopes', greedy, little politician with a bad temper [...]. And all the Joe Non-Plumbers in the world can't save you from who you really are: a dirty, race baiting scumbag."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "These dudes are worthless. Calling them Nixonian would be a compliment, because they're not even good at running the [Richard] Nixon game. Please, no BS about how McCain's heart isn't in it. Whatever. I so want them to go there. And throw in the drugs while they're at it. I want these dudes to throw the whole book at Obama, and then I want him to bury them. This isn't about a hatred of McCain, it's about my utter and complete disgust with Northern Virginia not being the 'real Virginia,' with small-town American snobbery, with neo-red-baiting, with Obama monkeys, and Obama bucks. End this now. Let's close this chapter -- not because it will be the end of our problems, but because we have huge actual problems that we should be fighting over."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Why did Rep. John Lewis have to go and make the honorable John McCain start race-baiting?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "John Lewis never said [that McCain supporters are all racists]. He said that the atmosphere at several Palin-McCain rallies was reminiscent of the camp followers of Wallace. And Lewis was right. Using John Lewis as a reason to unleash another round of thinly-veiled racism and guilt by association would, however, be a fitting end to the McCain campaign. And to his entire reputation, or what's left of it."

MCCAIN II: Too Little, Too Late

Several liberal bloggers believe that bringing up Wright two weeks before the election would do little to help McCain and may even backfire:

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Let's set aside the ridiculous notion that Rep. Lewis forced the McCain campaign to consider malicious race-baiting. More fascinating is that Davis is telegraphing this smear before it happens. Negative AND inept. And boy did the competitive primary help Obama -- now that everyone knows about Wright, there's not a reporter around that would see such tactics from McCain as anything but desperate."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I think if McCain reverses course on this now, it's likely to backfire. First, everyone in America has already heard all about Wright -- voters who are going to base their vote on the former pastor of Obama's former church decided a long time ago not to support Obama. Second, the more McCain tries to move the campaign away from the economy, the more he cedes the one issue most on the minds of voters. And third, pivoting to Wright in the final two weeks would reek of desperation, reinforce the 'erratic' meme, and shrink McCain's stature at the very moment he needs the opposite. I wouldn't be especially surprised if the Obama campaign hopes McCain does go this route."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I find the idea that they've been holding back from this out of a sense of virtue a little non-credible. Rather, they presumably haven't been talking about Jeremiah Wright because it's not clear what they're going to say about it. When Hillary Clinton brought this up, her main point was that (a) this was an electoral vulnerability that the Republicans would exploit and (b) Obama didn't have a track-record in big-time politics that showed he could handle the attacks. Neither of those, however, can actually be the point of a McCain attack. With, say, Willie Horton, the point was that [Michael] Dukakis was soft on crime. With Wright the point is...what?"

MCCAIN III: Uniquely Sleazy?

Marshall calls the McCain campaign "the dirtiest and most dishonest campaign" of the past 35 years:

"I don't think there's any question that McCain's is the dirtiest and most dishonest campaign, certainly in the last 35 years and possibly going much further back into the early 20th century. You may say, wait, Willie Horton? The Swift-boat smears? What about those? But here's the key point, one that is getting too little attention. President [George W.] Bush's father didn't run the Willie Horton ad. And this President Bush, however much they may have been funded by his supporters and run with Karl Rove's tacit approval, didn't run the Swift Boat ads. These were run by independent groups. Just how 'independent' we think they really are is a decent question. But even the sleaziest campaigns usually draw the line at the kind of sleaze they are wiling to run themselves under their own name. In this case, though, the kind of toxic sludge usually run by one-off independent groups in very limited ad buys makes up virtually all of McCain's presence on TV. Even setting aside this distinction, McCain's campaign has charted new territory in deliberate lying and appeals to racism and xenophobia. But this distinction itself is too little recognized."

Benen agrees with Marshall: "Josh's point about independent groups getting their hands dirty so the candidates don't have to is important, but I'd add that one of the factors that amplifies the sleazy nature of the McCain campaign is its willingness to jump from one detestable attack to another. [...] Obama's a rookie. That didn't work? OK, he's a 'celebrity.' That didn't work? How about, he's a partisan Democrat who won't stand up to his party. Nothing? All right, he's insufficiently supportive of the troops. Or he's a pervert who wants to bring sex-ed to kindergarteners. Or a terrorist-sympathizer. Or he's a socialist. All the while, the subtext of McCain/Palin rhetoric vacillated between Obama's race, patriotism, and/or being 'foreign,' but it's never come together in a coherent way. I labeled all of this 'pinata politics' back in August, hoping to capture McCain's habit of appearing blind-folded, swinging a bat wildly in every direction. The effect, though, has been the same -- by struggling to come up with a consistent line of criticism, and ratcheting up the hate and fear whenever one line of attack failed to move the needle, McCain's position as the sleaziest candidate in a generation is secure."

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum thinks George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign was just as sleazy as McCain's: "Yes, the Willie Horton ad in 1988 was officially an independent expenditure, but the 'Revolving Door' ad was very much a Bush-Quayle production. Lee Atwater promised to make Horton a household name, and he did just that. Bush Sr. spoke about him frequently in speeches. And [Michael] Dukakis's patriotism was a major theme too, as the Bush campaign hit him over and over and over about his stand on the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, I'd say 2008 is a surprisingly faithful replay of 1988. On the Republican side it's been sleazy, it's been issue free, and its biggest feature has been a young, attractive, unqualified, base-pleasing conservative vice presidential choice. The big difference is that Obama is a better candidate than Dukakis and 2008 is a far more Democratic year than 1988. On the sleaze-o-meter, however, I think it's pretty much a draw."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers are denouncing McCain in particularly harsh terms:

• Atrios: "I've never been a fan of John McCain. I never had a mancrush on him as most of the 'liberals' in the media once did. But there was a time not all that long ago when I thought that a McCain presidency would at least be a marginal improvement over the Bush presidency. Now I believe it would be much, much worse. [It's a] frightening prospect."
• Drum: "I was never a fan of McCain, even in his 2004 semi-liberal incarnation, but I did have at least some respect for his positions and his character. As Republicans went, especially compared to the sad sack crew they put up for the presidency this year, he wasn't too bad. But now? If you put a gun to my head and forced me to pull the lever for either McCain or Bush, I'm not sure who I'd choose. [...] Compared to McCain's barely suppressed rage and erratic, free-form bellicosity, the 2008 model George Bush almost seems like a statesman. It takes a very special talent to make people like Atrios and me come to that conclusion. John McCain is obviously a very special talent."

OBAMA: After The Bank Bailout, GOPers Have The Nerve To Play The Socialism Card?

Many liberal bloggers think the McCain camp is demonstrating hypocrisy by accusing Obama of advocating "socialism":

• dday: "It is remarkable to see McCain play the socialism card on Obama, days after voting for a $700 billion dollar bailout of the banks and the largest government intervention of the last 100 years. The institutional memory doesn't even go back three weeks anymore? Furthermore, he characterizes Obama's refundable tax credits as 'welfare,' neglecting the fact that his own refundable tax credits, the centerpiece of his entire health care plan, which go to the same low-income members of society who supposedly 'don't pay taxes,' are not welfare but 'reform'."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "The appropriate response to any Republican who calls Obama a socialist after eight years of Bush and after listening to McCain's own proposals is outright ridicule. Laugh in their face. Mock them. They have zero credibility, and the word socialism no longer has any meaning, at least not in American politics. That the Republicans still have not realized this on the very day that [Fed Chair] Ben Bernanke is on the hill advocating more spending in order to stimulate the economy is just extra precious."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "If John McCain wants to accuse someone of being a socialist, he needs to start with George Bush. [...] Given what's happened over the past few weeks, McCain's attack rings hollow."
• Yglesias: "Not that anything about the current 'socialism' rhetoric is meant to be taken seriously, but isn't the closest thing to socialism on the American policy agenda the status quo situation in...Sarah Palin's Alaska? You have collective ownership of valuable natural resources that generates lots of revenue for the state, and then the government makes 'spreading the wealth around' through the Permanent Fund, etc. its main priority. It's actually, for all the flaws of Alaska politics and public policy, a pretty good system. But I think the best way to think about it is that it's an example of a somewhat special case in which socialism is a good idea. Of course another time where you need a dose of socialism is if, for example, there's a financial system emergency and the government needs to partially nationalize large banks in order to recapitalize them. But that's been brought to us by George W. Bush with the support of John McCain."

In a separate post, Cole writes: "Over the past few years, we have watched major corporations dump their pensions and move hundreds of thousands of people off private health insurance on to medicare and medicaid at the government's expense (Delta Airlines comes to mind, I believe United was another one from the 2005 PBGC mess), we have doubled the national debt and passed the MASSIVE prescription drug plan, we have watched the government nationalize several industries, the government is currently nationalizing the banks, the Republican party candidate is proposing spending near a half trillion dollars allowing the government to buy private mortgages, and the right wing is running around screaming 'SOCIALISM' because Obama is proposing increasing the top tax rates a few percentage points. That is funny. Sad and depressing, but funny."

Conservative blogger Ross Douthat doesn't think this line of attack is particularly effective: "For a week or so now, I've been listening to smart conservatives suggest that Obama's 'spreading the wealth' remark might really, really hurt him...and I have a question: Hasn't Obama been promising to spread the wealth throughout the entire race -- a race he seems to be winning at the moment? His signal domestic-policy proposals are 1) a series of tax cuts and tax credits aimed at Americans making less than $250,000 a year and 2) a big-ticket health care reform aimed at expanding coverage; both of these plans, he promises, can be paid for with tax hikes on the richest 5 percent of Americans. This agenda isn't a big socialist secret; it's more or less the basis of his campaign. I suppose it's possible that the 'spreading the wealth' turn of phrase throws the redistributionist aspect of Obama's agenda into relief in a way his campaign promises haven't. But it seems to me like a generic restatement of a message that's central to the Democratic campaign: Namely, that the rich haven't paid their fair share under Republican rule, and that people making over $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes so that most Americans can pay less, to the IRS and in health-insurance premiums."

OBAMA II: The Prince Of Welfare?

Many conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama's proposal to cut taxes for 95% of Americans will result in welfare for Americans who don't pay income taxes. Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently made this argument:

"...Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he 'cut' zero? Abracadabra! It's called a 'refundable tax credit.' It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as 'welfare,' but please try not to ruin the show."

• NRO's Cliff May: "OK, so we all know that taxation without representation is a form of tyranny. But as Kimberly Strassel and others have been pointing out, '40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes.' What if, not implausibly, in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more? At that point, the majority of Americans not paying taxes would elect leaders who decide how much the minority must fork over to the government -- to be redistributed to the majority through government programs and services. A majority of American would enjoy representation without taxation. This is probably not a form [of] tyranny that [Thomas] Jefferson, [James] Madison, [Benjamin] Franklin et al. envisioned."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Cliff, I actually think it's exactly the form of tyranny the Founders feared. As an increasingly sizable majority pays no taxes, the minority's representation becomes ever more illusory. The minority will be taxed, its property rights will be eroded, and it will have no meaningful say in the matter. A tyrant is a tyrant, whether he's a king or a block-voting majority of dependents. As Obama and his ACORN friends used to say when he was a community organizer signing up half of Chicago, 'It's a power thing.'"

Liberal bloggers are rebutting this argument by pointing out that "a worker can be a 'taxpayer' whether or not they owe any income tax". Obsidian Wings' hilzoy writes: "How can you cut taxes for people who pay no income taxes? Magic? Welfare? Or maybe -- just maybe -- people who pay no income taxes pay some other kind of tax. I know, I know: how could there be any sort of tax other than the (federal) income tax? I have heard that in distant lands there are strange, exotic taxes, like the 'sales tax', the 'property tax', 'state and local income taxes', the 'capital gains tax', 'use taxes', 'permit fees', other fees, the 'severance tax', the 'occupational privilege tax', the 'estate tax', the 'gift tax', the 'federal excise tax', and even the fantastically named 'generation skipping transfer tax'. But surely we have no such outlandish customs here! We who live in a country that has only one sort of tax, the federal income tax, can only stare in wonder at those benighted countries where people actually pay taxes whenever they buy a shovel or realize capital gains. Oh. Wait."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Sarah Palin The Right's Howard Dean?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"I'm rooting for Sarah Palin, and in temperament she is nothing like [Howard] Dean. But she is situated similarly politically, and this is worth exploring further. Howard Dean emerged when the Democratic Party was in full capitulation mode. Dean was the only semi-sorta-mainsteam candidate who said 'no' on Iraq. This in-your-face style galvanized the Democratic base, but party mandarins gasped. Dean couldn't have been more different in style than the 'seven dwarves' running against him.

The party elite seemed vindicated when Dean self-destructed. But a little over a year later, Dean was elected DNC Chairman with surprisingly little fuss. How was this comeback even possible? Whatever Dean's faults, there was a sense that the party elite had bankrupted itself by running a series of poll-tested me-too triangulators. Dean's easy victory at the DNC was the precursor of the grassroots' long-term victory over the elite, culminating in the evisceration of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Does any of this sound familiar? And who seems to be the flashpoint in this elite-grassroots war currently raging in the GOP? Like Dean, it's Sarah Palin. [...]

Sarah Palin's legacy as the VP nominee will matter inordinately in defining the Next Right. If the experience is seen as a constructive one (much like Dean), reminding us that it's possible to get regular activists excited about being Republicans again, that Barack Obama ain't the only one who can pack the arenas, and injecting a positive vibe into the GOP at the grassroots level, then I am optimistic about the GOP bouncing back. If instead the lesson of Palin is that we need to pick safe, uninspiring candidates (who will get utterly clobbered by Obama's $1 billion+ re-election campaign, btw) who don't offend Christopher Buckley, then I fear we are in for a long winter indeed."

LEST WE FORGET: You Know the Paper Doesn't Actually Go Through the Phone Line?

From Overheard in the Office:

Boss (giving papers to peon): Would you please fax these for me ASAP?
Peon (taking papers): Sure thing.
Peon (faxes, brings back papers): Here you go.
Boss: I thought I told you to fax these!

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:45 PM

October 20, 2008

10/20: The Ultimate Obamacan?

Unsurprisingly, conservative bloggers are playing down the importance of Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. Jonathan Garthwaite calls it the "non-story of the year" while Hugh Hewitt asserts that "only Manhattan-Beltway elites think this matters." Several bloggers on the right are questioning Powell's motives and accusing him of endorsing Obama out of a desire to to curry favor with the media.

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, view Powell's endorsement as an unquestionably positive development for Obama, although they differ as to how much it will ultimately impact the race. Several lefty bloggers are emphasizing how much respect Powell commands among "self-described moderates and independents". They're suggesting that Powell's endorsement could push a not-insignificant number of undecided voters toward Obama. Other liberal bloggers believe that the significance of Powell's endorsement lies not in its persuasive value, but in its ability to capture the media's attention for the next 24 hours and prevent John McCain from establishing a "comeback narrative".

OBAMA: Endorsements Rarely Matter, But...

Several liberal bloggers believe that Gen. Powell's endorsement of Obama is a big deal:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Okay, I just actually watched the Powell endorsement on my Tivo, and I think it's a more devastating blow to John McCain than I initially would have thought. Of course this won't move real liberals, who don't like Powell much and are already committed to Obama anyway. Nor will it move conservatives, who don't like Powell either. But there are people out there -- lots of people -- who, just like Powell, voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and then again in 2004 even though maybe Bush was a bit too conservative for their tastes. Now those people maybe regret having done so and see that Bush was a disastrous president. But at the same time, the Democratic Party seems to have shifted left, and nominated a relatively green figure, while the GOP nominated someone who has a reputation for moderation. And now here's Powell, probably the only Republican moderate with a meaningful national profile, speaking in detail about problems with McCain, about the process of growing disillusioned with McCain, and vouching for Obama's readiness to lead and fitness for office. [...] It's a signal to every right-of-center person who maybe thinks the GOP has gotten too right-of-center that Obama's okay."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "What struck me was that Powell's rationale for supporting Obama tracked very closely with some of the harshest critics of Sen. McCain, despite the fact that he used less cutting words to express them. There were three key points he hit. First, he questioned McCain's unsteady and erratic response to the economic crisis. He didn't use the word 'erratic' but he might as well have [...] Second, he questioned McCain's 'judgment', particularly but it would seem not exclusively in his decision to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate, someone Powell said was unqualified to serve as president. Third, he said he was 'disappointed' in McCain's sleazy campaign tactics. [...] It's quite a blow for McCain on each point. But the most galling must be what Powell said about his judgment, his steadiness in moment's of crisis. Powell and McCain are both in their early 70s. Obama is a quarter century younger. And in so many words Powell said that compared to Obama, McCain simply lacks the seasoning, the maturity to be president."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Powell didn't just tacitly offer a vague endorsement, he offered his unapologetic support to Obama, while blasting what's become of his old friend, John McCain. He sounded like a man who barely recognizes what's become of today's GOP. For self-described moderates and independents, Powell remains a widely admired figure. What's more, few if any Americans enjoy the media adulation that Powell has, which means coverage of this morning's announcement is likely to be very strong. With that in mind, Powell's endorsement this morning may very well have a significant impact."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "Powell didn't just endorse Barack Obama -- he also systematically dismantled the entire rationale for John McCain's presidential campaign. [...] Whatever you think of Colin Powell, in the context of our national discourse, an endorsement of Barack Obama from a Republican military figure like Powell is a severe blow to McCain's smear campaign."
• dday: "This is devastating for McCain, of course, because Colin Powell was John McCain before John McCain became John McCain, if that makes any sense at all. He was the Very Serious GOP Daddy who everybody in the media establishment fell all over admiring. Heck, even Oliver Stone gives him a wet kiss in 'W.' And so Powell's rejection of McCain shows that the GOP nominee is no longer worthy of admiration."

Other liberal bloggers don't think Powell's endorsement of Obama is particularly momentous, but they believe that it makes it more difficult for McCain to regain momentum:

• Ezra Klein: "I don't think that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is a huge deal one way or the other. It strikes me as more of a 'you don't need a weatherman -- ahem -- to know which way the wind is blowing' sort of thing. But the current dynamics of the race are that the election is in 17 days, and McCain needs something to upset the dynamics while Obama needs to keep producing stories and events that sustain his momentum and run out the clock. This is one of those events. The Obama campaign can be pretty sure of what's going to lead in tomorrow's Monday papers."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Is this game changing? It's unclear as of yet whether Powell's endorsement is more significant for any persuasive value it may have or rather for what it says about how moderate Republicans may break this year. But one thing is clear is that, as Mark Halperin noted on CNN, the news coverage of Powell's endorsement will take up precious days of a news cycle thsat McCain can ill-afford to lose."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "[This] makes it much tougher for any kind of 'McCain comeback' narrative to break through."

OBAMA II: Powell Endorsed Him? Ho-Hum.

Conservative bloggers are portraying Powell's endorsement of Obama as a non-story:

• Townhall's Garthwaite: "Non-story of the year."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Colin Powell endorses Obama. Dog bites man?"
• Michelle Malkin: "The media's in a tizzy over Colin Powell's Meet the Press endorsement of Barack Obama this morning. It's not a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to his pro-Obama murmurings over the last four months. How will people outside the Beltway bubble respond? Yawn. [...] The press only loves maverick Republicans when they jump in bed with Democrats. Just ask John McCain."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "[This] endorsement moves, what, the .1% of the vote waiting around to hear what Colin Powell thinks of McCain-Obama? Secretary Powell is a great American and much admired, but only Manhattan-Beltway elites think this matters. McCain on [David] Letterman, Sarah Palin on SNL and of course Joe the Plumber are of far greater consequence that Secretary Powell's blessing."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I don't think this will have the same impact it may have had in the summer, for two reasons. First, I think most people expected Powell to endorse Obama, and most of us expected it at the Democratic convention. [...] Coming as it does now, it may impact some voters who still feel uncomfortable with Obama's lack of experience. Otherwise, I don't think anyone likely to be swayed by this endorsement didn't already factor it into their thinking. In August, Obama could have used this when he fumbled the Russo-Georgian conflict. Now, though, foreign policy has dropped to the second tier for most voters. They're more interested in economic issues, and I think Joe the Plumber has more resonance than Colin Powell at this point in the election."

Several righty bloggers are arguing that Powell endorsed Obama because he wants to curry favor with the media:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Never mind abandoning a political party ... what would make a General turn against a friend of 25 years who had sacrificed so much for this nation -- in favor of a man who just arrived on the scene? I believe Colin Powell when he says this decision had nothing to do with race. Instead, my guess is that it had everything to do with rehabilitating his image with the media (which was tarnished when he became Bush's Secretary of State)..."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Colin Powell has long been known as someone who cares enormously about the opinion of the elite media -- and, frankly, elites of all kinds. Clearly, his reputation has taken a beating in those rarified circles ever since he (along with Joe Biden, incidentally) supported the Iraq war. He's desperate to regain his supposed 'stature,' and this is a quick and easy way to do it. Obviously, if his support for Barack were predicated on principle alone, Powell would have endorsed him back in July, when Barack was courting him, well before the Democrat Convention -- when it would have been huge. Instead, he chose to wait until the media had anointed Obama a certain winner, and the polls are encouraging. Look, everyone has to do what they have to do to get by. And for Powell, it may have been that the chance to rehabilitate himself among the Manhattan and DC cocktail party elites was simply too tempting to pass up. So be it."

Unsurprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan praises Powell's decision: "Powell says a lot of what this blog has been expressing these past six weeks: McCain's hotheaded response to Georgia and the economic crisis, combined with this selection of Sarah Palin and deployment of pure Rovianism as a tactic, has tarnished his reputation permanently and rendered Obama's calm, maturity in selection of running mate, and care to be always inclusive of all Americans that much more appealing. [...] Powell is really taking a stand in defense of decent, inclusive, moderate Republicanism. It's amazing it has taken Powell to say this publicly, to stand up against the [Karl] Rove machine and say enough. But it is welcome nonetheless. One more thing: Powell's endorsement of Obama is privately echoed by many moderate Republicans across the country and in Washington. It isn't about race. It's about the need to remake conservatism anew, and to restore to fiscal and foreign policy the kind of conservative prudence and restraint of [Dwight] Eisenhower."

OBAMA III: $150 Million Man

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system after it was reported that Obama raised a staggering $150M in September:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Amazing. There should be no doubt now, that his not accepting public financing was the right decision."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The decision to forsake the public campaign finance system was one of the best moves the Obama campaign made. It made Senator Cranky even crankier -- and annoyed some of the pundits, like David Broder, who love and adore Senator Cranky. But, it was a brilliant move. Over $150 million. Wow. Just wow."
• Benen: "I vaguely recall some grumbling in Democratic circles a couple of months ago, with many wondering whether the Obama campaign's fundraising would be strong enough to justify opting out of the public financing system. $150 million in September seems to answer the question."
• Klein: "This does more than simply pump Obama's campaign full of money (and for that matter, dissuade Republican donors of putting money into a cause as unlikely as McCain). In normal years, the DNC has to split its funds between downticket races, party building, and supporting the presidential candidate. This year, as you've heard, the RNC is the only institution keeping McCain viable. But for once, the DNC is freed from such presidential level responsibility, which is why you're hearing rumblings that they're going to inject $20 million -- $20 million! -- in state legislature races meant to construct the majorities needed to take control of congressional redistricting in 2010. Obama having a lot of money, in other words, also means the rest of the party has a lot of money, and can spend it on things that are not Obama. They can spend it on building a majority."

OBAMA IV: Would McCain Like Some Cheese With That Whine?

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain's response to Obama's Sept. fundraising numbers, in which the GOP nominee complained, "History shows us where unlimited amounts of money are in political campaigns, it leads to scandal":

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[The McCain camp's] assault on the small donor is an assault on our democracy itself. They are saying that unless you can give a $200 contribution, then you don't deserve to participate, that you are committing a fraud against our country. It's insulting, no doubt, but it's tilting at windmills. [...] Obama has taken no PAC money. His average contribution was $84 dollars in a month in which he raised $150 million. These individual contributors can't buy access because there's too many of them. No one stands out. And Obama isn't beholden to any constituency, since he can afford to lose support and still have plenty more to fall back on. No special interest has bought Obama, rather, the American people have."
• Atrios: "While McCain's real position is just 'WAH OBAMA HAS MORE MONEY THAN ME IT'S NOT FAIR,' what he's saying might get some play in the media. But given the current contribution limits, and the volume of donations, the idea that even a maxed out donor could exert financial influence over a candidate is pretty ludicrous. More than that, even large donation bundlers are being swamped by small donors. Obama solved the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics by hauling in too much money, and doing so without corporate PAC money. It'd be pretty hard to raise enough money to get his attention because he's raised so much."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Does allowing more and more people to donate below the legal limit lead to scandal? If so, how? If anything, it would seem to decrease the possibility of scandal: people often worry that politicians will listen more closely to their contributors than to ordinary citizens, but the more ordinary citizens contribute, the less likely that becomes. Likewise, a candidate who got only a small number of contributions might not want to alienate those few people who donate to her campaign, but a candidate who gets lots of donations is, by definition, less dependent on any individual donor for contributions. So that part [of McCain's statement] makes no sense."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Paul Mirengoff thinks McCain should continue pressing this argument: "Obama didn't break his promise to rely on public financing (if McCain did too) for nothing. Shouldn't McCain emphasize, in the waning days of the campaign, that none of Obama's other many promises should be believed, in light of the fact that Obama broke this fundamental one? Of course, having kept his own promise, it's not clear that McCain has the resources necessary to get this, or any other, message out."

MCCAIN: Apparently I Live In "Fake" Virginia...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the McCain camp after McCain senior adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said that Northern Virginia is not "real" Virginia:

• Jed L: "There is no level of desperation to which the flailing McCain campaign will not stoop. It is now their official position that the suburbs of our nation's capitol, home to millions of Americans, are not 'real' because they aren't 'Southern in nature.'"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The McCain campaign says that the Pentagon, and those who died there on 9/11, weren't 'real' Virginia."
• Yglesias: "Of course it's true that there's a contrast between those portions of Virginia that are part of Metro DC and the rest of the state and probably correct to say that the rest of Virginia is 'more Southern in nature.' But still, lots of folks live in Northern Virginia. They're perfectly real people. And they live in real places. And progressive candidates with their base in NoVa won the governor's mansion in 2001 and 2005 and the Senate election in 2006, are poised to win the state's other Senate seat in 2008 and currently are winning in the presidential sweepstakes. It all seems real enough to me."
• Atrios: "It's long been somewhat frustrating that while we all know that liberals are supposed hate America, it's actually Republicans who hate Americans. Lots of them. Anyone not of their tribe gets chucked out of the country."
• Mark Kleiman: "Having announced Thursday that the parts of the country that are voting for Obama aren't 'the real America,' the 'pro-American' parts where 'hardworking people' live, the McCain campaign now says that the parts of Virginia where the GOP ticket is going to get slaughtered seventeen days from now aren't 'the real Virginia'. My God, it must hurt to lose an election based on areas that don't even exist!"

Open Left's tremayne responds with sarcasm: "Barack Obama has surged into the lead in the superficial parts of the United States. For example, he is solidly ahead along the Pacific coast which is comprised of newer 'fancy' states. Obama is also ahead in the phony Great Lakes states and the equally inauthentic states of the Northeast. Not surprisingly, Obama is popular in the D.C. area and in much of Virginia. In real Virginia, however, John McCain is dominant. McCain is authentic and naturally his message resonates with real Americans. Other parts of real America include: Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky (well most of it), Tennessee, South Carolina and the gulf coast states. In fact, there's a whole stack of genuine states above Texas extending vertically all the way to North Dakota (where things get iffy). And of course Idaho, Utah and Wyoming have almost no fake people in them. Unfortunately for McCain the courts have consistently ruled that superficial people have almost as much a right to vote as the authentic ones. And right now the authentic people appear to be outnumbered."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Is The Conservative Cocoon?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing conservative institutions -- think tanks and advocacy groups, talk-radio shows and websites -- that can create the same echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple with reality. The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully, awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-2004 crisis in Iraq wasn't just a matter of an MSM that wouldn't report the good news. The cocoon is the place where conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was excessive spending, and especially excessive pork. And today, the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing themselves that Sarah Palin's difficulties handling high-profile media appearances aren't terribly important, that her instincts are more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that Palin has used on the stump -- Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN -- and take them to eleven.

So when I say that a populist conservatism needs elites, what I really mean is that it needs elites who can step outside this cocoon and see national politics more clearly -- whether they work for conservative outlets, MSM outlets, or something else entirely. This is not, I repeat not, a matter of listening to Beltway conventional wisdom instead of the practical wisdom of the heartland. It's a matter of recognizing political realities, instead of denying them outright -- whether you're in DC, New Hampshire, or Wasilla. [...]"

LEST WE FORGET: Dream About You Not Sexual, Coworker Reports

From The Onion:

"BURLINGTON, VT -- In an impromptu conversation held in the elevator of your office building Monday, coworker Andrew Pagano announced that he had a dream about you the previous night. In the moments following the announcement, Pagano added that he 'just thought you'd find that funny' before assuring you that the dream wasn't what you're thinking.

'I just thought it was weird, just because you and I have been working so many hours together on this Hendricks account, and now you're popping up in my dreams,' said Pagano, chuckling nervously and taking a single step back. 'Ha, no, totally G-rated.'

He then issued a number of additional statements in rapid succession, confirming that you had all your clothes on, the dream was really short, and it was actually one of those dreams where no one has faces. Upon reaching the door to your office, witnesses said, he playfully slugged you on the shoulder and walked back to his cubicle."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:25 PM

October 17, 2008

10/17: Not Your Average Joe

The big topic in the political blogosphere is Joseph Wurzelbacher, the Ohio plumber whom John McCain repeatedly invoked during Wednesday night's debate. Liberal bloggers began to perceive Wurzelbacher as a threat after he gave several interviews yesterday in which he criticized Barack Obama's tax plan and health care plan and claimed that "the only experience" he'd seen from Obama involved "raising our taxes." The netroots didn't like the fact that news organizations were portraying Wurzelbacher as the stereotypical "everyday voter" when he is actually a registered Republican who appears to hold quite conservative views. Several lefty bloggers argued that Wurzelbacher's attacks on Obama's tax plan were misplaced because he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president. Others argued that Wurzelbacher was obviously a McCain supporter who only pretended to be undecided while "spewing McCain talking points". Still others raised questions about Wurzelbacher's character, pointing out that he owes $1,200 in back taxes. That said, the majority of liberal bloggers were simply annoyed that Wurzelbacher had suddenly become the media's topic du jour. Atrios complains:

"I don't care anything at all about Joe the Plumber. I care about our stupid media who have elevated this registered Republican to represent the everyman undecided voter, even though he isn't even an undecided voter. It's all so stupid."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, decried "Team Obama and the Obamedia's mission to tear down Joe the Plumber". Many righty bloggers accused news organizations of doing "more investigations into Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than they've done on Barack Obama in two years". Others predicted that there would be a "backlash" if voters perceived the media as attacking Wurzelbacher in order to help Obama. It's worth noting that all of these complaints echoed the ones voiced by conservative bloggers in the initial weeks after McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate.

JOE THE PLUMBER: Joe May Be A Plumber, But He Sure Ain't Undecided

Liberal bloggers don't believe that Wurzelbacher is really an undecided voter, since he is a registered Republican who voted in the GOP Presidential primary and appears to hold conservative views:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "It turns out Joe the 'Plumber' is like the perfect McCain supporter. He says Social Security is a joke and he 'hates' it."
• TAPPED's Mori Dinauer: "Maybe I'm wrong on this, but before Joe Wurzelbacher became a household name, wasn't there an implicit assumption that he was one of these quadrennially-revered 'undecided' voters? Well, watch him being interviewed this morning or read the transcript of an earlier this conversation with him and ask yourself whether this guy would ever vote for a Democrat."
• Daily Kos diarist icebergslim: "Joe the Plumber is a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN. Look, the man has been all over television this morning [repeating] the McCain talking points. He is going line by line from taxes, schools and social security. He is not, repeat, not an undecided voter. After watching his interview on MSNBC, the man is a plant or faking to be undecided while spewing McCain talking points."
• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "We don't know much about Joe The Plumber, but we do know this: he made up his mind who he was voting for before last night's debate. Speaking with Katie Couric, 'Joe' said that he 'wasn't swayed' by the debate last night, yet pretty much knew who he was going to vote for. So if (a) he wasn't swayed by the debate and (b) knows who he is going to vote for, then (c) he had already made up his mind before the debate. Unfortunately, the national media has had a field day with Joe, almost universally reporting that he is an uncommitted voter, even though he doesn't make the same claim. [...] The last thing that struck me as odd was that when talking with Katie Couric, Joe was totally on message for McCain (except the part where he said that he had already made up his mind on who he was voting for). Bottom-line: it's not entirely clear what the real story of Joe The Plumber is. But it is entirely clear that he's not just some undecided voter. He supports McCain, and the McCain campaign sure seems to support him. This wouldn't be a story worth mentioning if the media wasn't so excited to put him on all the morning shows, but since they are, they have a responsibility to get the story right. So far, there's little indication that they will."

JOE THE PLUMBER II: He Doesn't Pay Taxes Anyway, So What's He Worried About?

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Wurzelbacher's concern that Obama would raise his taxes is unfounded, since he would be eligible for a tax cut under President Obama:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "It's pretty ridiculous that somebody who earns more than 99% of Americans should become a stand-in for the average working man. The picture becomes a little more clear in this interview with Katie Couric, in which Joe the Plumber admits he doesn't actually earn $250,000 a year. [...] In the same interview, he says that Barack Obama did a 'tap dance... almost as good as Sammy Davis Junior.' But Joe the Plumber is the one who lied about the central premise of his question to Obama. So the whole premise that made Joe the Plumber the icon of the debate turns out to be made up. I don't think reporters should start investigating the details of his life or anything. But if he's going to freely admit that he just made up the one fact that gave his story any political salience, then that's pretty relevant."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Based on the reports this morning, the profits of Wurzelbacher's small business are well under $250,000, so Obama's proposal wouldn't adversely affect him at all. He's apparently concerned that he may someday have those kinds of profits, though, which is obviously his prerogative. In the meantime, depending on some of the details, Wurzelbacher would probably get a tax break under Obama's plan, and if he's like most of the middle class, his break would be bigger under Obama than under McCain."

Other liberal bloggers are noting that Wurzelbacher "owes the state of Ohio almost $1,200 in back income taxes":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "John McCain's role model for a fair and just America: A guy who doesn't even pay his taxes. Expect Joe to join Phil Gramm, Carly Fiorina, and Lady Lynn Forrester de Redneck in the secret undisclosed location they've been banished to after having proven too much an embarrassment."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Is this average, model American citizen a tax cheat? If that's the case, Joe doesn't really need to worry about his tax rates at all, does he?"
• Oliver Willis: "Well, now we know why he doesn't like taxes and social security."

JOE THE PLUMBER III: Enough With The Silliness!

Liberal bloggers are accusing the McCain camp of using Wurzelbacher as a political prop and are criticizing the media for playing into it:

• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "So Joe (whose name is Sam) the Plumber (who isn't a plumber) was used by McCain to attack Obama's tax proposal, though Joe/Sam actually pays less tax under Obama (if he actually got around to paying his taxes.) Brought to you by the same people who think character attacks are more important than issues."
• Atrios: "I don't care anything at all about Joe the Plumber. I care about our stupid media who have elevated this registered Republican to represent the everyman undecided voter, even though he isn't even an undecided voter. It's all so stupid."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "In what has to be the stupidest day of the campaign since the 'Lipstick on a Pig' incident, there are nearly 4,000 Google News results for 'Joe the Plumber' today. Now, it turns out that he isn't named Joe, isn't a Plumber, isn't an undecided voter, isn't even properly registered to vote, and doesn't even pay taxes. Hard to imagine that many falsehoods packed into a single story of this utterly minimal consequence, but never underestimate the degree to which dominant news stories can be based on mendacity, especially when they are pushed by Republican campaigns."

Bowers continues: "The reason the story is so popular is almost certainly connected to the national, established media's continuing fetish for socially conservative whites as the dominant archetype for swing voters in America. This obsession has a long history, with an almost uninterrupted lineage dating from the silent majority, through the southern strategy, Reagan Democrats, soccer Moms, Bubbas, and on to 'values voters' in our own decade. It is an obsession that came out frequently in this campaign in the hundreds of stories about Obama's supposed problems with socially conservative white Democrats, and how those problems posed a barrier to winning the Presidency. If you can't win the socially conservative white vote, you supposedly can't win national elections. Not-Joe the Not-Plumber is just the latest instance of this type of story, which grants an absurd amount of power to socially conservative whites in our national political discourse."

JOE THE PLUMBER IV: Stop The Witch Hunt, Media

Conserative bloggers are accusing the media of trying to destroy Wurzelbacher in order to help Obama:

• Michelle Malkin: "My syndicated column today reports on Team Obama and the Obamedia's mission to tear down Joe the Plumber. Yes, we are in the midst of a new contagion: Joe The Plumber Derangement Syndrome. JTPDS. Now, pay close attention to how the MSM rushes to uncover every last bit of gossip and dirt about Joe Wurzelbacher's life. Some of it is relevant to the public policy questions he posed to Obama. Much of it is not."
• Glenn Reynolds: "[Reporters have] done more investigations into Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than they've done on Barack Obama in two years...."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "The MSM is asking Joe Plumber much harder questions about Barack Obama than they've ever bothered asking Obama himself."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The Tanning-Bed Media seems to feel that they have a duty to expose every last part of Wurzelbacher's life, but that asking Obama to explain his political partnerships with Tony Rezko and William Ayers, and his long friendship and financial support of rabid demagogues Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, are not just out of bounds but downright racist."
• K. Daniel Glover: "With 15 minutes of fame comes 15 hours of 'gotcha' scrutiny -- especially if you're a voter who has dared to criticize Barack Obama, the liberal media's Chosen One for president. [...] Why is it that political reporters only get curious when a conservative Joe America storms onto the scene? Why aren't they just as curious when liberals trot out, say, a 12-year-old boy to give a national radio address? It has been almost a year to the day since journalists dropped the ball on telling America more about Graeme Frost, the boy who made the case for sinking billions of dollars more into the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But when Michelle Malkin and other curious conservative bloggers did the legwork the press wouldn't, they earned the scorn of their mainstream colleagues. This time around, with Joe The Plumber as their target, the MSM is coming out with guns blazing. Maybe they should spend more time telling the bigger story about Wurzelbacher -- that he managed to get Obama on the public record as favoring a socialistic redistribution of wealth."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The press is attempting to find dirt on Joe. So far it has discovered that he doesn't have a plumber's license (but he apparently doesn't need one because he's working for a licensed company) and that Joe owes less than $2,000 in taxes. That's more digging than the press did on Bill Ayers, Obama's political ally, and more than all but one reporter did on Rev. Wright, Obama's spiritual mentor, until the story broke quite belatedly. [...] I don't see Obama's response to Joe the Plumber saving this election for John McCain. But to the extent that Obama, or his supporters, or his sympathizers in the media are seen as attacking the guy, there might well be a backlash. After all, Joe isn't running for office; he's just trying to make a living."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see. Bristol Palin, Trig Palin, -- hey, it's all fair game. They've got to make an example of them. Show them that this sort of dangerous speech won't be allowed in the New America. Remember the man in the plaid shirt, standing at the town meeting in one of Norman Rockwell's 'Four Freedoms' paintings? He wouldn't recognize this country anymore."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Balloon Juice's John Cole also criticizes the media's conduct: "For the record, I really do not care about Joe the Plumber's background. All he did was ask a candidate for President a question, something I wish everyone got the chance to do at least once in their life. More power to him, and Obama seemed to enjoy the conversation, to boot. [...] Now there are actual MSM reporters going all through his shit and posting it everywhere, and quite frankly, it sucks. Leave him alone. [...] Granted, the right-wing whining is particularly rich after the [Scott] Beauchamp/[Terri] Schiavo/Graeme Frost incidents, and the attempts to blame media conduct in regards to Joe the Plumber on the Obama campaign are stupid and predictable, but just leave the guy alone. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but the guy deserves the privacy I would want for myself and for the rest of you."

ACORN: Here We Go Again...

Liberal bloggers were upset to learn that the FBI is investigating "whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud". Lefty bloggers believe that this is a partisan effort designed to suppress the vote, and they're pointing out that the Bush Admin. launched similar investigations into allegations of voter fraud before the 2004 and 2006 elections:

• dday: "This is outrageous. This is a federally-backed effort to suppress the legal votes of minorities and the lower class. Bottom line. [...] The FBI is taking an organization with a 97% accuracy record in turning in registration forms, certainly better than the paid signature gatherers of any right-wing ballot initiative out here in California, and subjecting them to investigations and scrutiny that is wholly unwarranted. When a paid worker for ACORN falsifies a registration form, they are not scamming the voting system, they are scamming ACORN. They are trying to get paid extra for illegal work. ACORN flags every single suspicious form and turns all of them in to election officials BY LAW in most states. If they didn't, the right wing would be screaming about how ACORN holds back forms that Republicans fill out. And then, of course, the flagged registrations are noticed by election boards (if they weren't you wouldn't be hearing so much about this). And even if they weren't, Mickey Mouse and Hugh Jass and Ivanna Tinkle aren't showing up at your friendly neighborhood polling place. Not one honest person in this country seriously thinks that individual voter registration fraud is part of a coordinated effort to tip the election. [...] The Justice Department is using its law enforcement arm to stir up doubt about a legitimate community organization as a means to delegitimize this election. This is designed to sap voter confidence in the process. It's also designed to harass and intimidate low-income and minority voters."
• digby: "It's hard to believe they are doing this again, but they are. You'll recall that this was done back in 2004 as well. [...] I don't actually blame the Bush administration for continuing their voter fraud fraud and calling in the FBI in the month before an election. Why shouldn't they? Nothing really happened as a result of their corrupt practices before, so what could possibly happen to them now that they are lame ducks? [...] You would have thought after a bogus impeachment and dubious elections in both 2000 and 2004 the Democratic party would have stopped ignoring this ongoing (and increasingly successful) propaganda campaign against non-existent voter fraud and its vote suppression effects."
• Marshall: "DC Republicans have been aggressively lobbying the DOJ to open an investigation into ACORN in advance of the election. And leaking word of such an investigation (possibly starting the investigation at all) most likely violates DOJ guidelines about DOJ/FBI actions which can end up interfering with or manipulating an election. But, remember, this is right out of the book of the Bush Justice Department's efforts to assist in GOP voter suppression efforts in the 2004 and 2006 elections (part and parcel of the US Attorney firing story). This is the same scam US Attorney firing player Bradley Schlozman got in trouble for pulling with ACORN just before the 2006 election. And before he got canned, [ex-AG Alberto] Gonzales helped revise and soften the departmental prohibition on DOJ announcements, thus making it easier to play these kinds of games. This is a big deal. It may be their last gasp to use the DOJ to help mitigate the scale of Republican defeat on November 4th."
• Benen: "Let's be clear: the Bush administration's politicized Justice Department pulled a scam, got caught, suffered through a massive scandal that forced an Attorney General to resign in disgrace, and now appears to be pulling the exact same scam just two years later."

On the other side of the blogosphere, Malkin is delighted that the FBI is investigating ACORN: "The FBI steps in. Finally. Let's hope it's not too late."

Meanwhile, Hot Air's Allahpundit wonders: "What if the feds come back and report that they've found some cases of fraud but nothing on a mass scale? Will that conclusion be accepted or is the 'ACORN's fixing the election' meme already too far gone?"

MCCAIN: It Ain't Over Yet

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about what they perceive to be McCain's momentum, especially after yesterday's Gallup tracking poll showed Obama leading McCain by only 2 points among "traditional" likely voters:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "I've been saying privately for a few days...that my sense was a shift back toward John McCain. Today's Gallup poll, along with a host of other polls, shows that. Here is the safe rule for this election: ignore the numbers, but watch the trends. The trend had been toward Obama. It is now toward McCain. Joe the Plumber resonates with people. ACORN resonates with people. People are concerned and worried about the future. As a result, at this point in the campaign, these ancillary issues have a real impact. [...] We are behind. But the wind has shifted in our favor. Game on."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As Paul noted earlier today, John McCain is 'hanging around' in the Presidential race despite what would seem to be overwhelming odds. Maybe even doing a bit better than hanging around, as the current Gallup poll has Obama up by only two points, within the margin of error, among 'traditional likely voters.' [...] I think several developments may be helping McCain a bit. The emergence of ACORN as an issue is one. Voter fraud really angers people, for good reason, and most voters understand not only that ACORN is registering Democratic voters, but that Obama's relationship with ACORN is much deeper than he admits. [...] Another factor working in McCain's favor is the emergence of Joe the Plumber, who finally -- and more effectively than the McCain campaign has ever been able to do it -- put Obama where he belongs, in the long tradition of tax-raising, wealth-distributing liberals."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "This is a pro-growth, anti-tax country, and Obama is running on a high tax 'spread the wealth' European program. Rasmussen has the race down to four points, and there is extraordinary volatility in the country. The question about Obama's judgment is real and won't go away as the Ayers, Rezko, Wright and ACORN issues remain on the table and certainly tell us how Obama will staff his 3,000 appointments if he becomes president. [...] The Chicago Machine is already measuring the drapes, but there's a slight wind blowing in a new direction today, and both camps know it."
• RedState's streetwise: "Gallup [is] showing Obama and McCain nearly tied. [...] Who knew that the recent investigations of ACORN would push the Obama percentage towards McCain's so soon!"

On the left side of the blogosphere, Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias offers his thoughts: "Right now we're looking at an average of 49.8 percent for Obama and 43.2 percent for McCain. That leaves 7 percent undecided. That's a very strong position for Obama -- he only needs something like 3 percent of the remaining undecideds to break his way in order to get over 50 percent and win the election. That should be easy to do. But since Obama's already almost at 50, the remaining pool of undecided voters is more conservative than is the general population, so it shouldn't ultimately be difficult for McCain to get most of them to go his way. Most isn't enough for McCain to win. Not nearly enough. But it is enough to make the race tighter and perhaps generate a 'McCain comeback' media narrative."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama's Embrace Of Tax Cuts

Ezra Klein:

"If you look at the Obama campaign, the basic argument has been...tax cuts. Their biggest economic policy is a massive tax cut. Their health care argument has largely been a tax-based attack on John McCain. Their stimulus proposal was a tax cut. Now, these are not Republican tax cuts: They're decidedly progressive. The Obama campaign is taking advantage of the unequal distribution of wealth in this country, which allows you to drop taxes sharply on the vast majority of Americans while raising them modestly on a small minority and not blow a hole in your budget. They've realized, in other words, that cutting taxes on most people is what folks want in a tax cut. Aggregate revenues don't have to go down. And when the top one percent control 20 percent of the country's income, you can make up a lot of revenue by taxing them a bit.

But tactically smart though this decision may be, it's not exactly the sort of thing that pleases the Gods of Public Policy. This country needs more in the way of tax revenues. The Republicans have turned honesty on that score into a form of electoral suicide. The Obama campaign -- and thus the Democrats more generally -- have basically thrown up their hands and said 'fine.' If Republicans are going to demagogue taxes and make irresponsible cuts a constant feature of elections, then the Democrats will prove that two can play at that game. Politically, that may be wise. But it's going to make the eventual reckoning much worse."

LEST WE FORGET: Man Dives Haphazardly Into Conversation Like Wounded Osprey

From The Onion:

"BLOOMFIELD, CT -- Local man Alan Heller, 37, hovered near a gathering of acquaintances for 30 seconds and then plunged haphazardly into their conversation, much like an osprey with a clipped wing and poor depth perception that spirals wildly into the sea. Heller reportedly saw the group engaged in a discussion, circled twice when he thought he recognized something on the surface of the conversation, and then dove in with the suddenness and lack of grace characteristic of severely injured diurnal sea hawks, asking those around him if they were indeed talking about popcorn. 'It was sad to watch,' said Amy Messer, who witnessed the pathetic event. 'Why didn't anyone put him out of his misery?'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:12 PM

October 16, 2008

10/16: The Final Debate

Once again, the majority of liberal bloggers thought that Barack Obama won last night's debate, whereas the majority of conservative bloggers thought that John McCain had the better night. Lefty bloggers were relieved that McCain (in their view) failed to create any game-changing moments that could potentially change the dynamic of the race. Moreover, a number of liberal bloggers believe that McCain may have actually hurt his candidacy with his performance. They believe that McCain alienated swing voters with his "surly" demeanor and his aggressive attacks on Obama. Nate Silver writes: "McCain [treated] this debate as though all the undecideds were Fox News viewers."

As they did after the first two Presidential debates (as well as after the VP debate), liberal bloggers pointed to snap polls to bolster their argument that their candidate won. Many liberal bloggers are mocking the cable news pundits who initially seemed to believe that McCain had the better night until the results of the snap polls were reported.

On the other side of the blogosphere, most conservative bloggers felt that McCain won the debate handily, although they're not convinced that his performance will be enough to close the polling gap between him and Obama. Several bloggers complained that McCain "lacked the killer instinct" that was necessary to really hurt Obama. That said, most righty bloggers were pleased with McCain's performance and feel that he "gave independents and centrists some reasons to reconsider their choice".

DEBATE: Obama Goes 3 For 3

Once again, liberal bloggers thought that Obama had the better night and that McCain failed the change the dynamic of the race:

• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "McCain needed a game-changing debate. It's not just that he hasn't had that. It's that Obama has owned him like he didn't in those two previous debates -- both of which Obama roundly won."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Obama won by not losing -- and by not allowing the campaign's dynamics to change."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Another win for Obama. Clearly. The best word to describe McCain tonight is 'cranky.'"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Tonight was John McCain's last best opportunity to change the direction of the race, and as was the case with the previous three debates -- the two featuring McCain and Barack Obama, as well as the Vice Presidential debate -- the Republican just plum came up short."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This debate didn't matter in the scheme of things, it was a calm and collected centrist debating a mean and sarcastic old man."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Bottom line? McCain needed a game changer and didn't get it. He got in his attacks, Obama parried. [...] McCain smirked, rolled his eyes, interrupted, and was generally an ass. Standard McCain."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "Holy crap, I actually agree with [NBC's Tom] Brokaw. He declared Joe The Plumber to be the winner of the debate, and I really can't argue with that. Obama came in a strong second, though. Very poised, while McCain came across as dickish and angry, with lots of blinking and interrupting."
• Ezra Klein: "McCain scored the most points, and lost the debate. He was looking to land shots, and often succeeded. But the effort to find openings and vulnerabilities left him with little time to appear presidential. And if he connected with jabs, he never found his knockout blow. Worse, the attacks came at a cost: The angry energy showed on McCain's face as clearly as in his answers. CNN, at least, had the split screen, and McCain was grimacing, twitching, blinking, sighing, smirking, eye-rolling. Scores of YouTubers are, as we speak, constructing videos that will be nothing but a three minute collection of McCain's angry tics. They will make Gore's affectations in 2000 look mild. He looked like nothing so much as a man enduring acute gastrointestinal discomfort."

DEBATE II: Who You Gonna Believe -- The Pundits Or The Polls?

Liberal bloggers are mocking the cable news pundits for offering excessive praise (in their view) to McCain when post-debate polls conducted by CNN and CBS found that Obama won the debate handily in the eyes of undecided voters:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If it wasn't for the snap polls, the pundits would be proclaiming this night a glorious victory for McCain. [CNN's] John King, who gave McCain an 18-15 victory in his debate scorecard, was just on ranting against the snap polls, saying they were bunk because people are answering just after watching the dabate, while being too 'emotional' ... unlike the pundits who are all about reason and logic. Whatever. I love how the American people don't give a shit what John King thinks. They can decide for themselves who won. And that's why John King hates them."
• MissLaura: "[NBC's] David Gregory repeatedly proclaimed McCain's 'I'm not [George W.] Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have run 4 years ago' to be The Line Of The Night. He clearly wanted it to be a defining moment of the campaign. But something held Gregory and his colleagues back. That was the knowledge that snap polls were coming, and the likelihood that those polls would show Obama to be the winner. [NBC's] Andrea Mitchell articulated it directly -- and sniffily -- saying that McCain had won on points, whether the polls would reflect that or not. They didn't like it, but polling technology is one more way their role as gatekeepers has been diminished."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I got the sense that quite a few of the on-air pundits wanted to side with McCain last night. Obama's support from actual voters seemed to mess up the media's preferred narrative."
• TPMCafe's Todd Gitlin: "If almost all the postgame pundits thought McCain had a good night; but the snap polls show that overwhelming percentages thought Obama 'won'...what does the discrepancy tell you? Either (a) the pundits had some extraordinary insight denied to ordinary benighted Americans, or (b) the pundits' snap judgments are worthless -- in fact, a negative indicator."
• Singer: "Don't listen to the pundits -- it's the people who matter. And so far, they think Obama swept the debates."

Several liberal bloggers are speculating about why the pundits were more impressed by McCain's performance than were undecided voters:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "McCain had some okay jabs at Obama that I think impressed some of the CNN panelists and, especially, got the conservative ones jazzed up. But he used a lot of right-wing echo-chamber jargon, never explaining what he meant about trial lawyers and scare-quote 'health' and so forth. He doesn't really speak to problems in people's lives. Nobody's laying in bed, nervous about their situation in life, pondering the threat of pork-barrel spending. It's an issue purely for political insiders."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Conventional pundit wisdom seems to accept that a vigorous attack shows strength. But that's not true. Think of all the genuinely strong people you've known in your life. What sets them apart is that they stay calm when other people are attacking. McCain doesn't seem to get this, and neither do the conservatives who were insisting that McCain needed to haul out the heavy artillery tonight. Obama does."
• Mark Kleiman: "All the numbers are in, and it's clear that Obama won this debate even more decisively than he did the first two: e.g., 2-to-1 among independents on mediacurves. Which leaves the puzzle of why the talking heads scored it for McCain until they saw the numbers. [...] At least in the CNN discussion, the theme was that McCain was 'on offense' and Obama 'on defense.' That leads me to a guess about what was going on. The chatterers were judging a dominance contest among bull elephants, with points awarded for trumpeting, stomping, and slashing with tusks. The voters were selecting a President. Since the two groups were scoring different contests, it's not surprising that the scores were different."
• Sudbay: "The pundits so badly wanted McCain to do well....they still like their old pal. But, they know him too well to understand how badly he comes across."

On the right side of the blogosphere, NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez was confused by the post-debate polls: "I just don't get any of the insta polls, which seem to give it to Obama."

Moulitsas mocks Lopez: "There's nothing like befuddled conservatives wondering what happened to their 'conservative America'. [...] Who is most in tun with independents and the American people? Hint: Not the deluded folks at the National Review, fresh off kicking their founder's son off the magazine."

DEBATE III: Comeback Kid?

Many conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate handily:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Tonight we finally saw what so many of us have been waiting for. John McCain mopped the floor with Barack Obama. Throughout the night, Barack Obama looked distant, like he did not want to be there, like he was annoyed. He really looked annoyed all night. McCain on the other hand looked like the comeback kid -- the guy who knew he had to do well. And he did."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "McCain has cleaned Obama's clock. The question is whether it will help the growing perception that an Obama win is unstoppable. But McCain came across as strong and confident -- without a whiff of the flop sweat that would have doomed him."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "McCain upped his game a couple of notches while Obama didn't. Because of that, McCain thrashed Obama handily, even though he still missed some rather obvious points he could have hit. Will McCain's performance be enough to make up the whole gap between Obama and McCain? No, but it should help him a bit and I wish we had seen this McCain in all three debates, as opposed to the McCain who sleep walked through the first two debates."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "It's still an uphill battle for McCain, because he didn't land a knockout blow and had only one truly memorable line ('SenatorGovernment'), rather than a Reaganesque line that will be played over and over again for the next 30 years. But McCain started a comeback tonight, and gave him a chance to claw himself back into the match before reaching the finish line. Obama, meanwhile, lost a little bit of his air of invincibility. Short version: McCain won."
• The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "The winner, and in my view quite decisively, was John McCain. From the very first question, McCain seemed certain of himself and his answers. While he wasn't as polished and articulate as Obama has been in the first two debates, I thought McCain had several winning moments. [...] In the end, there probably was no 'game-changer' -- the measure by which many analysts will judge the outcome of the debate. And it may well have been John McCain's last chance to generate one with such a major audience. But he won the debate and if it doesn't change the game, it might be enough to change some minds or at least get voters to give him another look."
• CBN's David Brody: "John McCain put a dent in the Obama persona. There's no doubt that out of all the debates this fall, John McCain had his best one at Hofstra University. He was able to pokes some holes in Obama's armor. He nicked him with [William] Ayers, ACORN, public financing, negative advertising, abortion and yes, Joe the Plumber."
• Michelle Malkin: "No, there weren't any knockout punches. But John McCain was still standing at the end of the night -- doubts about his fortitude adequately quelled -- and Barack Obama ought to be wiping the smirk he borrowed from Joe Biden off his face."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "McCain kept Obama on the defensive, hit him with abortion, Fannie/Freddie (more of a glancing blow, really), Ayers, and on inexperience and his tax-and-spend philosophy all night long. He clearly won, but was it enough? Did he get the game-changer he needed? I'd say that McCain missed a few opportunities last night, but overall did as well as anyone could have hoped. With the race already starting to tighten, McCain gave independents and centrists some reasons to reconsider their choice. We'll know in a few days, but I think this gives McCain a boost heading into the final stretch."

DEBATE IV: Good...But Good Enough?

While most conservative bloggers believe that McCain did well, some aren't sure whether his performance will be enough to close the polling gap between him and Obama:

• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer on the final verdict: McCain won, but he didn't finish. He landed several jabs and flurries, but always backed off or allowed the subject to change before ever landing a knockout blow."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "McCain was much, much better than in previous debates, but I don't know how much good it will do him."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "McCain was certainly a lot stronger in this debate than in the last one, though I do worry that his demeanor may have been a little too aggressive for a lot of swing voters. Was there a moment that A) will be remembered and replayed and B) helped McCain significantly? I can't think of one. (No, I don't think 'Senator Government' qualifies.) Did McCain win on points? Yes. Will it matter? I'm not so sure."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "John McCain opened strongly in his debate with Barack Obama tonight, but he faded in the second half. Ultimately, it seems unlikely that McCain cut into Obama's lead through this performance. And Obama may have taken another small step towards making Americans comfortable with the prospect of his presidency. That Obama accomplished this by taking considerable liberties with the truth is, I suppose, beside the point."
• NRO's Jay Nordlinger: "Did McCain do what he 'needed to do'? No, not by a long shot. But that might have been impossible."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain, in my estimation, 'won' the debate -- yet he still did not do enough to change the trajectory of the campaign. McCain started off very strong, putting Obama on defense for much of the first half of the debate. But having backed Obama into the corner, McCain consistently failed to deliver a death blow. On at least two instances (John Lewis and Bill Ayers), McCain allowed Obama to escape what might have been 'game-changing' events, unscathed."
• Glenn Reynolds: "McCain seemed more improved than Obama over last time, but scored no knockout punches. This time McCain looked like he was having a better time than Obama; Obama's smirking was unattractive, but his closing statement was strong."

NRO's Mark Steyn complains that McCain "lacked the killer instinct": "McCain was never able to cast aside the Senatorial collegiality and really stick it to Obama. Why couldn't he have used the s-word -- 'socialism'? [...] Why couldn't he have pointed out that Barack Obama would be the most left-wing president ever elected in the United States? McCain lacked the killer instinct. A man who cheerfully crashes planes and survives years of torture appeared nervous that clobbering his opponent might dent his image as Mister Bipartisan. You look at the way he sneered at [Mitt] Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama. His reluctance to whack the Democrat wound up, by default, elevating Obama. When a veteran Republican who's been on the national scene for a quarter-century and a Democrat whom nobody had heard of 20 minutes ago appear to be equal in stature, then by definition the Democrat wins."

DEBATE V: We Want More Joe!

Conservative bloggers loved the debate's emphasis on Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, and they are urging McCain to continue talking about "Joe the Plumber" during the final three weeks before the election:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "My humble advice to Sen. McCain -- talk about 'Joe the Plumber' all the way to Nov. 4th. Whether it's taxes or health care or ACORN, explain to the voters how 'Joe the Plumber' will be affected if Barack Obama is elected. Talk about government intrusions into 'Joe the Plumber's' life. Talk about the hopes and dreams of 'Joe the Plumber' and how Obama will get in the way. Talk about 'Joe the Plumber's' family. Joe, Joe, Joe."
• Malkin: "Someone from the McCain camp better have Joe's phone number and arrange a joint appearance pronto. Joe made Senator Government squirm. Let's see more. Better late than never."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "If there is any winner in tonight's debate it's Joe the Plumber and that should put McCain closer to the 'W' column than Barack Obama. By speaking directly to Plumber Joe John McCain was able to explain why 'Senator Government,' a welcome Fruedian slip for Obama, is wrong for the economy during these turbulent economic times. [...] The race is still on. And because of that we'll have a lot to keep talking about for the next 20 days of the campaign and beyond!!"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Hey, Joe. Not you, Joe Biden. You, Joe the Plumber -- Joe Wurzelbacher. You were the center of attention in last night's debate. Both Barack Obama and John McCain invoked your authority and sought your approval. You proved yourself to be a very powerful man. You made your name when you told Barack Obama you were afraid he would raise your taxes and Obama responded that he wanted to spread 'the wealth' (i.e., your wealth) around. In American political lore Abraham Lincoln sowed the seeds of his victory over Stephen Douglas in 1860 with a single question that he put to Douglas at Freeport in the course of their 1858 debates. You may have had a similar effect. Whether or not you choose to step forward and make your own case, your expression of concern and Obama's response will serve as a marker in the days to come. With your expression of concern you may have become the most famous critic of Barack Obama in the United States."
• Geraghty: "Whatever the outcome of this election, Wurzelbacher is making sure the country knows what it is getting into when if it says 'okey-dokey' to Obama's tax plan. For this he deserves our salutes. If Wurzelbacher keeps this up, maybe the GOP ought to run [Sarah] Palin-Wurzelbacher in 2012."

MCCAIN DEBATE: Alienating Swing Voters?

Unsurprisingly, most liberal bloggers were critical of McCain's performance:

• Benen: "I thought this was the worst of McCain's three debate performances. On the substance, McCain had nothing new to offer. On his demeanor, McCain seemed angry and dismissive (did anyone count how many eye-rolls we saw?). On rhetoric, he was clumsy and repetitious."
• Drum: "I know I'm partisan, but McCain seemed completely out of his depth tonight. He was flitting from point to point all night without ever putting together a coherent argument, and then grabbing miscellaneous attacks from the rolodex in his head whenever some bright idea popped into his mind. His energy level was weirdly erratic, tired at times but then suddenly perking up whenever he got annoyed by something and remembered some zinger that he wanted to fire off. McCain also interrupted a lot, and when he did he seemed clearly upset. That really didn't sound presidential. I'm sure McCain thought he was 'scoring points' all evening, but his points were disjointed and often inappropriate. I really don't think this kind of thing goes over well, especially when it's sustained for 90 minutes."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "John McCain was in a tough spot tonight. He's tanking in the polls as he ramps up the personal attacks on Barack Obama, yet the base was clamouring for a knock-out punch. He had to throw them some red meat, even if it meant alienating the non-insane. There were landmines everywhere and McCain stepped in all of them. His smirking, snarky tone was decidedly un-presidential, and his bitter, whiny complaining performance probably satisfied no one."

Many liberal bloggers thought that McCain's performance was directed at the GOP base instead of swing voters:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "McCain is treating this debate as though all the undecideds were Fox News viewers."
• Yglesias: "[This was] a weird performance that seemed directed at people already inside the conservative bubble -- people who think that when the public says it doesn't like Bush, they mean they think Bush has spent too much money."
• Benen: "McCain positioned himself as a far-right Republican at precisely the time Americans want to move away from far-right Republicans. How did McCain present himself to Americans? As an anti-abortion, pro-voucher conservative who wants to slash federal spending and talk about how mean television ads and t-shirts hurt his feelings."
• Moulitsas: "While McCain seemed better prepared than in the previous debates, tonight was also the wingnuttiest McCain has looked all campaign. All the veneer of being a moderate was stripped away as he derisively tossed aside the notion of 'health of the mother'. The notion was a insult to his sensibilities!"
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "In general-election debates, it's a losing strategy to 'rally the base.' That's what your own campaign events, and your fund-raisers, and your targeted ads, and your running mate are for. Especially by the time of the second and third debates, the job is to 'rally the center.' That's where most of remaining persuadable and undecided voters are. Everything about Barack Obama's approach to this debate, and all debates, was consistent with this reality. Almost nothing about John McCain's approach was."

MCCAIN DEBATE II: The CNN Split Screen Was Not His Friend

Many liberal bloggers thought that McCain hurt himself with his facial expressions and demeanor:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Nobody, other than the conservative base, liked McCain's smirking and condescending manner tonight."
• publius: "I thought McCain was at his most unlikeable tonight."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain was angry, annoyed, frustrated, and cocky. The snorts, the heavy breathing, the eye rolls. McCain didn't go on the attack enough to hurt Obama, and didn't come back home to his former maverick status enough to convince the middle that he's not a risk. Watching CNN, undecided women hate McCain. And they may very well be the group that decide this election."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I think that in formal debating terms McCain definitely did better than in the two previous debates. Often, in formal terms, he had Obama on the defensive. But McCain was just surly and contemptuous through the whole 90 minutes. He looked angry. I mean, let's not kid ourselves: he was angry. That was obvious all the way through. I think that voters will not like that. And just as important it tends to confirm the current narrative of the campaign, which is that McCain is negative and angry."
• Klein: "McCain looks angrier and more petulant than any participant in any major debate I've watched. Watching him try to stay seated is like watching a furious child try and obey a timeout. He can hardly hold still."
• Singer: "If there is a historical precedent for tonight's debate, it was the debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush when, at least according to the post-debate meme embraced by the establishment media, Gore sighed and was generally disrespectful of Bush in the background while the Republican was speaking. McCain seemed plain mean. He was huffing and puffing in the background like he was James Gandolfini in the final season of 'The Sopranos.' He looked angry and disdainful while Obama was speaking. He even rolled his eyes at the recitation of the situation in Colombia, where labor leaders are assassinated. As Paul Begala put it on CNN, 'The reaction shots just killed John McCain.'"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The split-screen isn't doing McCain any favors. His harrumphing and blinking and impatience remind me a teensy bit of Gore in 2000. Obama has smiled much more. And he has been positive more often. I know McCain had to get a little testy to get back in the game. But it still feels off to me."

MCCAIN DEBATE III: So Much For The Women's Vote...

Liberal bloggers thought that McCain turned off female voters when he put the phrase "health of the mother" in finger quotes during the abortion exchange:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This is a moment, as many have said before, that John McCain will come to regret."
• Marshall: "The part of the debate where Sen. McCain seemed to mock the issue of a woman's health was weird and ... well, kind of disgusting. It's hard for me to see how's he seriously pushing for the women's vote."
• Yglesias: "Here's McCain deriding women's health as some kind of ruse. He doesn't even try to spell out the argument conservatives make on this point, he just kind of asserts it as if (a) everyone is familiar with the argument and (b) it's obviously correct when in fact neither is the case."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "McCain, believing he was at a Palin rally rather than a debate, threw up air quotes around 'health of the mother,' as though this was some kind of elaborate trick that women pull just so they can kill their babies. But of course he was just impatient with an argument he feels like he's had a million times. He wanted to be dismissive of Obama, and instead he sounded dismissive of women in general. He did this throughout the debate -- seeming more interested in making Obama feel bad than earning any votes, and probably ended up alienating people who might be inclined to agree with him."
• Hamsher: "The most memorable moment of the debate -- the one that should come back to haunt McCain -- was when he sneeringly dismissed concerns for women's 'health' with regard to abortion. Contempt for women just oozed out of every pore of his being, and it was no stretch to imagine the same man turning to his wife and saying 'at least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t.'"

OBAMA DEBATE: Cool As A Cucumber

Most liberal bloggers praised Obama's performance -- particularly his calm demeanor:

• BooMan: "In the contest over who the American people would rather have a beer with, it's no contest. The answer is Barack Obama. Barack Obama exudes cool."
• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "Nothing can get under [Obama's] skin. Nothing. No attack can cause him to lose his equilibrium, to cause him to squint or gawp or stare like McCain seems to do three times every minute. Barack Obama is a fundamentally cool cat -- and that's one of the reasons he's not just going to win this election, but win big. Americans respect a person who won't get thrown off his game, who won't let his enemies and opponents rattle him."
• Hamsher: "[This] was Obama's best showing yet. His answers were poised, direct and sincere -- especially when he dealt with the difficult subjects of Ayers, John Lewis and the ugly mob that Sarah Palin has been stirring up at her public events. He addressed the accusations of being a terrorist head on, and didn't try to dismiss the ugliness of it. It's the first time I've heard him speak quite so unflinchingly about something so personal and vicious, and he did it in a way that was grounded and made him appear totally confident and calm in his conviction. It inspired a lot of confidence that he has the maturity and the gravitas to address really complex and difficult situations. He definitely showed grace under pressure."
• Benen: "Obama has cornered the market on stature, temperament, and control. Where McCain was nasty, Obama was unflappable. Where McCain was angry, Obama was confident. On the substance, Obama was on message, and just as importantly, made personal connections on the issues he cared about. I also noticed that Obama seemed to go out of his way to appeal to centrists and independents. While McCain reached out to his base on abortion and vouchers, Obama sought out middle ground on practically every issue."
• Aravosis: "Obama was smart, calm, collected, even feisty when necessary -- at his core, Obama was presidential."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Media Loves Internal Fights

Moulitsas:

"[...I'm] having fun with another recent trend, which NRO's Mark Levin bemoans here: 'Let's be honest, [David] Frum was invited on CBS because the producer knew he has expressed repeatedly his dislike of Palin. He represents a tiny fraction of conservatives but makes for good liberal TV.'

K-Lo responds: 'No question about it, Mark. I never got more media requests than the day I criticized the campaign for holding Palin too tight, overcoaching her, and not setting her free.'

The media loves internal fights like nothing else. It has nothing to do with 'liberal TV', as Levin fantasizes. Like K-Lo says, nothing will generate more media requests than one of my pieces blasting Democrats. Those requests are certainly ignored, since there's a place for our dirty laundry, and it ain't on some bullshit cable news show. But for years it's our side that has had to suffer Harold Ford, Joe Lieberman, Lanny Davis, and the whole lot of 'Democratic strategists' who do little but criticize and undermine our own party. Conservatives haven't had to deal with that annoying media tic because 1) conservatives had little to complain about, they had the trifecta, and 2) conservatives have always been able to keep their people in line better than us.

That's all changing. And while I sympathize, all I can say is 'welcome to our world'."

LEST WE FORGET: Cool McCain Supporter Wears 'McCain 2000' Shirt To Campaign Speech

From The Onion:

"COLUMBUS, OH -- According to attendees at a rally held in Columbus' Capitol Theatre Monday, a John McCain supporter in his early 30s was envied and admired by onlookers for wearing an original navy blue 'McCain 2000' T-shirt with a peeling logo, frayed neckline, and several holes in the sleeves. 'When I saw his shirt, I was like, "No way! That's totally vintage!"' said 24-year-old David Bennett, noting that it was not a pre-distressed 'McCain 2000' shirt like the ones available at Urban Outfitters. 'This guy's been a McCain fan since the beginning. He said the campaign kickoff speech in Nashua in '99 was fucking mind-blowing.' Sources reported that the hip McCain backer knew all the words to the Arizona senator's speeches, and silently mouthed McCain's entire energy policy while waving a cigarette lighter."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:17 PM

October 15, 2008

10/15: It's The Same Old Song...

Liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against accusations that ACORN is trying to steal the election for Barack Obama. Lefty bloggers have watched the GOP make a fuss about voter fraud for years, and they're convinced that the conservative campaign against ACORN is just another bad-faith effort designed to to justify more restrictive voting laws and/or portray Obama's eventual victory as illegitimate. Josh Marshall declares: "There's no evidence of vote fraud. Nothing. This is an effort of a losing political party to a) lay the groundwork for challenging their defeat at the polls b) lay the groundwork to pass laws to make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote."

Liberal bloggers are also hammering home the point that registration fraud and voter fraud are two different things, and that there has been little evidence of the latter. Nevertheless, the vast majority of conservative bloggers are convinced that by submitting so many fraudulent registration forms, ACORN is paving the way for widespread voter impersonation. Marc Ambinder says that "it's hard to find an honest GOPer who actually believes that Barack Obama will benefit in any statistically significant way from ACORN-related voter registration shenanigans." However, there are plenty of conservative bloggers who believe that this is exactly what's going to happen.

ACORN: Wanna Know What This Is Really About?

Liberal bloggers are convinced that the conservative campaign against ACORN is a bad-faith effort to justify more restrictive voting laws and/or (to borrow Ambinder's phrase) "pre-emptively delegitimize Obama's victory":

• TPM's Marshall: "Let's be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they're not entitled to cast. It doesn't and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely. The level of lying, bad faith or at best ignorance of the people making these claims is really beyond imagining. This isn't vote fraud. There's no evidence of vote fraud. Nothing. This is an effort of a losing political party to a) lay the groundwork for challenging their defeat at the polls b) lay the groundwork to pass laws to make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's tempting to ignore the incessant right-wing whining about ACORN. We're dealing with a group of people who either a) don't understand the difference between registration fraud and voter fraud; or b) do understand the difference and hope to deceive voters. Either way, some well-intentioned folks are getting confused, so ignoring the nonsense isn't a viable option. To hear Republicans, Fox News, and far-right bloggers tell it, an untold horde of illegally-registered voters are going to swarm into precincts on Election Day and steal the election from McCain/Palin. While it's generally best not to impugn anyone's motives, in this case, we're clearly dealing with a group of partisans who are operating in bad faith."
• Ezra Klein: "It's probably worth saying that the ACORN gambit isn't exactly a new strategy. It's just the latest iteration of what Art Levine has termed the 'voter fraud fraud'. [...] When it comes to this ACORN stuff, there's nothing new under the sun. It's just that Republicans are more desperate, and more likely to lose, and there's more potential in stoking racial resentment and fear when the Democratic candidate is black, and so they're spending more time on it."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "If you want to reduce the number of bad forms submitted, you have basically three options: (1.) Make voter registration much easier and more automatic so as to reduce the need for registration drives. (2.) Let registration organizers toss out forms. (3.) Stop all registration drives by conflating good faith errors with systematic, criminal fraud. Conservatives like option (3) because they don't like it when large numbers of people vote. And that's what this is about, finding a backdoor way to delegitimize all efforts at large-scale registration drives. It'd be as if instead of trying to ban computers (obviously impossible) you passed a law saying you could throw someone in jail for selling a computer that's prone to crashing. It's computer sales fraud -- the thing's supposed to work! Well, nobody knows how to build a crash-free computer so, bye bye computer industry."
• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "As Matt [Yglesias] says, if for some reason it was critically important for virtually every single name collected in mass voter registration drives to be accurate, there's an obvious solution in effect in many other liberal democracies: have professionals trained by the government be responsible for ensuring that citizens are registered. Of course, we're not going to hear about that remedy from people frothing at the mouth about ACORN because the point isn't to make registration a perfect process, but rather to use inevitable errors as a pretext to suppress legitimate voters."

digby lays out what she perceives to be the GOP's true motives in making a fuss about voter fraud: "Their full blown propaganda campaign of the moment is aimed at furthering several different related goals. The first is to freak out the local registration offices, many of which are run by small town bureaucrats who are either subject to the propaganda or are GOP partisans themselves. They want to create a feeling of chaos around the voting processes and call the absentee ballots into question. The second is to intimidate voters into not participating and making it difficult for those who do. They want people to believe that they will be grilled and scrutinized when they try to vote and perhaps make lines long and the process so arduous that people will give up. Third, if the election is close, they will challenge its validity in court. After all, that worked like a charm in 2000. But barring that --- and it looks like it won't be close enough to do that --- they are laying the ground work to delegitimize the victory. That is an essential tool for rebuilding their movement and crating justification for the kind of character assassination and obstructionism that is their specialty."

ACORN II: For The Last Time, Registration Fraud And Voter Fraud Are Not The Same Thing!

Liberal bloggers are hammering home the point that registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud:

• Lemieux: "The rhetoric notwithstanding, registration 'fraud' is very different from vote fraud, and in fact the former is extremely unlikely to lead to non-negligible amounts of the latter. Even if somehow the fake names get through and are registered to vote it doesn't actually matter in terms of the integrity of elections since 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Amanda Huggenkiss' and 'Al Koholic' can't actually show up to vote because they don't exist. Until Glenn Reynolds et al. can actually find an example of 'Foghorn Leghorn' actually being permitted to vote, this is a trivial issue that certainly doesn't constitute 'vote fraud.'"
• Yglesias: "There's simply no way to gather over one million new voter registration forms without some of the forms having been filled out with bogus information. You could ask the group to automatically toss out the obviously wrong ones -- some guy saying he's Tony Romo, someone else saying he's Mickey Mouse -- but the law requires them to hand all the forms in to prevent them from tossing out forms filled out by people who say they want to register Republican. Consequently, if you go out and register over a million voters you'll wind up with a lot of bad forms being submitted. But just as 30,000 is a lot of people and also only a very small fraction of one million people, when you're talking about registering over a million new voters you'd need orders of magnitude more bad forms to constitute real evidence of a systematic fraud campaign."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit agrees with his liberal counterparts that ACORN's registration drive probably won't result in widespread illegal voting: "It's not really voter impersonation that's the big worry, it's the logistical nightmare of poll workers having to sift so many bogus registration forms that bona fide registrations can't be processed in a timely manner. Which is a problem, but given the trend in party identification, especially among new voters, would seem to be more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans."

Allahpundit appears to be the exception in the conservative blogosphere, however. Most righty bloggers believe that ACORN is trying to steal the election through massive voter fraud:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "What Obama knows but doesn't want to acknowledge is that when hundreds of thousands of phony registrations have been submitted, and ACORN knows what those phony names and addresses are, the door to voter fraud is wide open. Absentee ballots can easily be cast on behalf of those non-existent but registered 'voters,' and they can cast ballots in person as long as someone from ACORN or the Obama campaign is willing to show up at the polls and give a false name. This is, however, a point of no concern to Obama, since he knows that every one of those votes will be cast for him and his fellow Democrats."
• The Next Right's Blue Collar Muse: "Much has been made of the Democrats' 50 state strategy to win the election. Who knew there was a fall back 15 state strategy to steal it if they couldn't win it?"

ACORN III: Don't Let The Dems Steal Ohio!

Conservative bloggers are pleased that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that OH Sec/State Jennifer Brunner "must provide access to a state database showing new voters whose registration information does not match" DMV or Social Security records:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Essentially, SecState Brunner is now back and stuck with the oh-so-onerous task of making sure that all of long-time Democratic ally ACORN's work of committing voter registration fraud in Ohio was actually done in vain. [...] All in all, it's good news for the good guys (us, and the voting public in general), bad news for the Democrats, and very bad news for the bad guys (ACORN)."
• Michelle Malkin: "...A Sixth Circuit court ruling tonight...orders fraud-friendly Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to implement a new system to verify voter registrations. [...] Thug thizzlin' just got a wee bit harder."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If the [Ohio] vote is close, there will be nothing but question marks election night."

OBAMA: The Grand Unified Anti-Obama Theory

NRO's Stanley Kurtz "connects the dots": "It took me a while to put the pieces together, but I think I've figured out what's had the Obama camp so worried about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records. It goes way beyond Bill Ayers. In fact, it connects the dots between Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama's own early radicalism. I lay out the details today in my new piece, 'Wright 101.' The gist of what I found is that, from his position as board chair at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Jeremiah Wright. As I argue in today's piece, this puts the Wright issue back in play in this campaign."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff finds Kurtz's argument compelling: "At one level, the connection between Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama's spiritual mentor) and William Ayers (Obama's political ally) is apparent. After all, Ayers set out to bring 'America's chickens home to roost' decades before Wright applied that phrase to 9/11. But now Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated a more concrete connection, and one that implicates Obama directly, not just through 'association.'"

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are mocking Kurtz:

• Yglesias: "Specifically, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge on whose board Obama served gave a grant to an outfit called the Coalition for Improved Education in [Chicago's] South Shore (CIESS). CIESS was 'linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system' called the 'South Shore African Village Collaborative.' According to Kurtz, this network which was linked to an organization which got a grant from a group on whose board Obama served, 'was very much a part of the Afrocentric "rites of passage movement"' and also at time did events featuring guys named Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard. These two, in turn, seem to have held fringy opinions somewhat similar to some of Jeremiah Wright's fringy opinions. Ergo, according to Kurtz, Wright is back on the table. I'd say McCain's in luck with this one! Obama's doomed! Seriously, though, is there anyone who could withstand this kind of guilt-by-association? Obama was on the board of an outfit that gave a grant to an outfit that was linked to another outfit that organized an event where some dude spoke, and thus Obama is responsible for the dude? Really? I spoke at the Heritage Foundation once. Does that make Heritage's board members responsible for stuff on my blog? It doesn't make any sense."
• The New Republic's Jason Zengerle: "[Kurtz is] grasping for a grand unified anti-Obama theory. [...He] ends the article by pleading with McCain to use this as a reason to bring up Wright and, frankly, I kind of hope McCain does -- if only because we haven't had enough lunacy in our presidential campaigns since Ross Perot (along with his accusation that George HW Bush threatened to sabotage his daughter's wedding) left the stage. Although I do concede that when it comes to crackpot anti-Obama theories, I find the Bill Ayers Really Wrote Obama's Book one much more elegant."

OBAMA II: He Killed Vince Foster!

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are mocking some of the other recent anti-Obama claims made by conservative bloggers:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "What's that, you say? Barack Obama is palling around with terrorists? That is so last week. Here's a more recent tour of the Gamma Quadrant: One: Bill Ayers really wrote Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. Two: Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile. Three: It's entirely possible that Obama was involved with bombing the South African rugby team while he was at Columbia in the 80s. Four: Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright (via a chain of associations too Rube Goldbergesque to summarize) were engaged in a conspiracy to teach Pan-African 'cultural nationalism' to Chicago schoolkids during the 90s. Five: Obama was having an affair with one of his fundraiser babes in 2004 until Michelle found out and banished the woman to a 'little Caribbean island.' There's no evidence yet that Obama was actually the secret love child of Malcolm X, but I'm sure we'll find it soon enough if we just keep digging."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about black people and their conspiracy theories. The cat on the corner -- or even the Reverend -- yelling about the government inventing AIDS is off his rocker. But my God, all these people do is sit around think. And this is what they come up with -- Bill Ayers wrote Barack's memoir. Wow."
• Sadly, No!'s Brad: "If you thought tales of Vince Foster's murder and of smuggling cocaine through the Arkansas governor's mansion were fun, then hold onto your seats. The next four years are going to be something to behold."

MCCAIN: Pallin' Around With Saddam's Lobbyist?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about Murray Waas's recent report, "McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort":

"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime. The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."

• Think Progress' Satyam Khanna: "Did McCain know Timmons was 'palling around' with Saddam's friends?"
• Democracy Arsenal's Adam Blickstein: "McCain's campaign is now intimately tied to Saddam Hussein's murderous regime in Iraq with William Timmons overseeing his transition planning and team. Under McCain's own rubric then, he himself is palling around with a pal of a globally malevolent terrorist who, over decades, killed tens of thousands. [...] McCain has once again put country last during a critical moment in campaign decision making. The McCain/Timmons situation is the Obama/Ayers connection on 100% pure anabolic steroids delivered straight to the vein. And hopefully, the media will jump on this, not because it is some political ploy by a desperate campaign as is the case with McCain's Ayers argument, but because this is a completely shady, improper and duplicitous breach of trust towards the American people, reflective of a leader who simply has no good leadership qualities left."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "[This story] fits in well with one of the running narrative of this general election -- that McCain is too close with lobbyists, that he relies too heavily lobbyists to run his campaign, and that lobbyists would play too powerful a role in his administration. Indeed, the position held by Timmons is as powerful a position as they come."
• Benen: "Hmm. I wonder what the response would be from the political world in general, and Republicans in specific, if a top Obama campaign aide was associated with lobbying on behalf of Saddam Hussein."

Several liberal bloggers think that Obama should mention Timmons if McCain brings up Ayers at tonight's debate:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "The timing of Waas's piece couldn't be better, given that reports are circulating today that McCain intends to bring up Barack Obama's tenuous relationship with William Ayers in tomorrow night's debate. Looks like Waas just handed Team Obama a bit of ammo for return fire."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Here's hoping McCain brings up Ayers [Wednesday] night. We can all watch John McCain's head explode when Obama hits him with his associate's ties to Saddam."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Conservative Civil War

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"...Suppose that you accept the most cynical account of, say, Peggy Noonan's uncertainty about whom to vote for in this election, or Christopher Buckley's Obama endorsement -- that they're just craven, self-interested bandwagon jumpers who want to keep getting invited to all those swanky cocktail parties I keep hearing about. Suppose that you regard every right-of-center writer -- or single-issue fellow traveler with the Bush Republicans, in the case of Christopher Hitchens -- who's publicly hurled brickbats at the McCain campaign as a quisling and a coward, a stooge for liberalism and a rat fleeing a fast-sinking ship. In such circumstances, what's the best course of action -- denouncing the rats, or trying to figure out why the hell the ship is sinking?

Even if [David] Brooks and Noonan and Buckley and [Rod] Dreher and Kathleen Parker and David Frum and Heather Mac Donald and Bruce Bartlett and George Will and on and on -- note the ideological diversity in the ranks of conservatives who aren't Helping The Team these days -- are all just snobs and careerists who quit or cavil or cover their asses when the going gets tough and their 'seat at the table' is threatened, an American conservative movement that consists entirely of those pundits with the rock-hard testicular fortitude required to never take sides against the family seems like a pretty small tent at this point. And if I were [Victor Davis] Hanson or [Mark] Levin or [Mark] Steyn I'd be devoting a little less time to ritual denunciations of heretics and RINOs, and at least a little more time to figuring out how to build the sort of ship that will make the rats of the DC/NY corridor want to scramble back on board, however much it makes you sick to have them back. Who knows? It might just be the sort of ship that swing-state voters will want to climb on board as well."

LEST WE FORGET: Krugman Could Turn into Massive Douchebag, Colleagues Fear

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"One day after the Nobel committee announced that Paul Krugman had won the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics, colleagues of Mr. Krugman voiced concerns that winning the coveted award could turn him into an egregious douchebag. [...]

'I think it's safe to say that Paul had pretty high self-esteem before the Nobel thing went down,' said one of Mr. Krugman's Princeton associates, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'But now he's walking around like he's Jay-Z or something.'

The first ominous sign, according to the associate, came at a meeting of the economics department this morning, when Mr. Krugman showed up with a coffee mug reading, 'No. 1 Economist.'

While his colleagues discussed the current global financial crisis, Mr. Krugman 'couldn't be bothered' and spent the meeting texting Matt Damon instead. At one point, one of his fellow economists asked him a question about credit default swaps, to which Mr. Krugman reportedly snapped, 'Credit default swaps can suck my ass -- I'm Paul Fucking Krugman!'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:22 PM

October 14, 2008

10/14: ACORN Wars

The debate over the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, is heating up. For the past several weeks, conservative bloggers have been criticizing ACORN on a daily basis, accusing the group of deliberately submitting thousands of fraudulent voter applications in a massive effort to help elect Barack Obama. Today, conservative bloggers are buzzing about a new report from CNN's Drew Griffin (video here), which finds that ACORN submitted at least 2,100 (and possibly up to 5,000) fraudulent voter applications in Lake County, IN. Righty bloggers are complaining that ACORN is trying to "steal" the election and are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the group. John Hinderaker darkly observes: "News reports have suggested that Indiana, traditionally a Republican state, may be in play. We're beginning to understand why."

Liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against allegations that ACORN is trying to steal the election. Many lefty bloggers are pointing out that registration fraud and voter fraud are two different things, and that there has been little evidence of the latter. Jane Hamsher writes: "A handful of people could feasibly submit 2100 non-legitimate registration forms out of a desire to get paid an hourly wage without actually doing the work. On the other hand, finding and mobilizing 2100 people to vote fraudulently would be a massive organizational task requiring the work of many. Occam's razor, people."

Liberal bloggers are also arguing that conservatives are attacking ACORN for political reasons. Josh Orton complains: "The right-wing noise machine is shamelessly using ACORN's work registering low-income voters as both a character attack on Obama, and as a means to justify acts of voter suppression in swing states." Other lefty bloggers believe that the right is attacking ACORN in an effort to portray Obama's eventual victory as illegitimate. Ezra Klein writes: "[This is] a preemptive project to leverage racial resentment and mistrust in order to a create a rightwing counternarrative that paints Barack Obama's election as the illegitimate product of black voter fraud. Charming."

ACORN: Stealing The Election?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a new report from CNN's Griffin (video here), which finds that ACORN submitted at least 2,100 (and possibly up to 5,000) fraudulent voter applications in Lake County, IN:

• Power Line's Hinderaker: "This is one of those news stories you can hardly believe. In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 new registrations. The authorities there started reviewing them, and quit after they found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent. The mind boggles: ACORN turns in thousands of new registrations, and not a single one represents a legitimate voter. [...] News reports have suggested that Indiana, traditionally a Republican state, may be in play. We're beginning to understand why."
• Glenn Reynolds: "More reports of massive voter fraud by ACORN. [...] Where's the Department of Justice on this?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Do remember that these are the people that Barack Obama paid 800 grand for get-out-the-vote efforts -- although I do credit him with having sufficient cunning to at least try to lie about it."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "What does Acorn do? It steals elections. [...] Who does Acorn steals elections for? Ah, well, that's a little harder to figure out from the CNN report. But the Obama campaign gave 800 grand from its many illegal foreign contributions to Acorn. [...] As I said to my pal Alan Colmes on Fox last night, unlike us poor chumps on the other side, the Dems have a glamorous charismatic candidate who, according to the polls, is on course to win. Why do they need Acorn to steal it?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit is impressed with CNN's reporting: "Not only is CNN sticking with this story but they're actually building it out. And not just this one. Remember, Drew Griffin's also responsible for that clear-eyed, bolt-from-the-blue look at Obama's relationship with Ayers. What on earth's going on over there? Are they worried that MSNBC will be the Obama administration's mouthpiece of choice so they're slapping him around a bit as a warning not to make enemies of them?"

That said, Allahpundit thinks some on the right are overstating ACORN's capacity to impact the election: "How, precisely, do people think ACORN's going to influence the election? The worry, as I've understood it, is that the race will narrow and we'll end up a la 2000 in a cliffhanger with one or two counties in some swing state deciding who wins. In that scenario, a few thousand phony votes would be monumental. Judging from some of the e-mail we're getting, though, true believers think something bigger's going on, as though an Obama win by a few percentage points -- which would mean a margin of a few million votes -- would be inherently shady. Explain to me how ACORN's supposedly planning to convert these bogus registrations into actual bogus votes on a mass scale."

ACORN II: Stealing The Election, My A**!

Liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against allegations that ACORN is trying to steal the election:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "The anti-ACORN juggernaut that seeks to delegitimize the election and/or drive John McCain into the White House is operating at full speed. [...] There is not one example of voter fraud in the ACORN case. Not. One. Single. Example. It isn't voter fraud until someone votes. That is a pretty simple distinction, but one that many seem incapable of grasping. In an election that will largely be determined by votes cast by people of color, the wingnuts just can't wrap their heads around the fact that this could legitimately happen in the United States of America. Thus inconvenient facts must be shoehorned to fit into an extremely emotional narrative. [...] A handful of people could feasibly submit 2100 non-legitimate registration forms out of a desire to get paid an hourly wage without actually doing the work. On the other hand, finding and mobilizing 2100 people to vote fraudulently would be a massive organizational task requiring the work of many. Occam's razor, people."
• Ezra Klein: "I dealt with ACORN a couple times in 2005 and 2006, and the idea that they're the genius architects of some national effort to rob Republicans of the election they're already going to lose is pretty amusing. At the time, I largely stopped using ACORN on stories because I found their press shop too amateurish. Among other things, their communications guy found e-mail to be an intimidating and needlessly complex tool. [...] Some segments of our political system have decided it would be helpful to argue that the black guy got elected through massive voter fraud that wherein poor and minority voters illegally registered and then came out to steal the election. I think we're not allowed to call these people racists (so shrill! so accurate!), but they're certainly racial opportunists engaged in a preemptive project to leverage racial resentment and mistrust in order to a create a rightwing counternarrative that paints Barack Obama's election as the illegitimate product of black voter fraud. Charming."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "I've written time and time again about the Right's inability to distinguish between registration fraud and voter fraud, and the media's gleefully panicked reporting on the subject. Yesterday the McCain campaign sent out an email suggesting that it was within ACORN's ability to 'steal' the election through voter registration fraud, which would actually be impossible."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "John McCain might want to worry about his large, outside-the-margin-of-error [deficit] in both national and state-by-state polling before he worries about the prospect of someone voting in Florida, then coming back and trying to vote a second time under the name 'Mickey Mouse.'"

TPM's Josh Marshall: "You can judge the magnitude of the smashing defeat Republicans believe they are approaching by the scale of lying and bogus charges of vote fraud. But organized lying from partisans should not surprise us. What does deserve censure is how readily mainstream media organizations, including CNN, are picking up these bogus stories and running with them."

ACORN III: Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is McCain

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy for attacking ACORN even though he attended an ACORN rally in 2006 (a picture of McCain at the event is also making the rounds):

• MyDD's Orton: "As we've documented, the right-wing noise machine is shamelessly using ACORN's work registering low-income voters as both a character attack on Obama, and as a means to justify acts of voter suppression in swing states. But not only are the accusations a lie, they're flatly hypocritical coming from McCain. Observe the Republican nominee back in March of 2006, attending an ACORN co-sponsored event that McCain himself headlined. [...] So make no mistake: the right-wing efforts to demonize ACORN is pure political desperation."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[The 2006 rally] was a great event, and I'm glad McCain headlined it. But it does make it a bit more difficult for his campaign to press this line of attack, doesn't it? We even have a picture. [...] This campaign is one of a kind. Every time it settles on a line of attack, it always undermines it days later."
• Serwer: "It would be interesting to get the full transcript of McCain's remarks that day...I somehow doubt that McCain was there to lecture ACORN on not stealing elections, though. Do you think the campaign thinks things through before they pick their bogeymen?"
• Firedoglake's Ari: "Republicans are trying to pretend ACORN is part of some grand Democratic conspiracy. What are they actually doing? Registering new voters -- the horror, the horror. Most hypocritically Republicans have been working with ACORN for years. Earlier today I posted a picture of John McCain at an ACORN rally. [...] According to the Sun-Sentinel, McCain was the 'principal speaker' at the 'immigration reform town hall rally' organized by 'the Archdiocese of Miami, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, ACORN, People for the American Way, and the Service Employees International.' Why would McCain speak at such an event? Maybe because ACORN was backing his immigration bill."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin criticizes McCain for his past association with ACORN: "If you want to know why see-sawing John McCain has had to be goaded, prodded, begged, and dragged into spotlighting Barack Obama's radical ACORN roots, here's your answer: Turns out John McCain had no problem calling ACORN members his friends during his ill-fated illegal alien shamnesty crusade. Ugh. [...] ACORN is now gleefully reminding McCain of his common cause with the group to paint itself as bipartisan -- while at the same time issuing the usual strident, anti-conservative statements that ought to be immediate grounds for revoking its non-profit tax status. 'I'll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep,' McCain said in February. That's not working out so well now, is it?"

MCCAIN: Reinforcing The "Erratic" Meme?

The New Republic's Christopher Orr critiques the McCain camp's roll-out of its new economic proposals:

"Over the weekend, the McCain campaign signaled that it would unveil a series of new economic proposals to deal with the financial crisis, and trotted surrogate [SC Sen.] Lindsey Graham out to preview the 'very comprehensive approach to jump-start the economy.' But sometime late yesterday, they evidently changed their minds, telling the Times, 'the Republican presidential nominee would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some,' and basically pretending they had no idea what Graham was talking about. Now, less than 24 hours later, Marc Ambinder reports that the campaign plans to address the economy tomorrow and will, contrary to the latest reports (but in keeping with the ones immediately preceding them), be unveiling new proposals. Be sure to check back though. Plenty of time for them to change their minds again before dinner."

Several liberal bloggers are mocking the McCain camp's conduct:

• Marshall: "So first it was the bold new economic proposals from McCain. Then that was called off. Then it was a bold new speech. Now we have late breaking news that the bold new economic proposals are back on."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "So now McCain will have a plan -- tomorrow, mind you -- when a few hours ago he had none. It's like magic! Right after Obama rolls out a plan, abracadabra! McCain announces he has one too! This feels like campaigning by younger irritating sibling in the back seat on a long cross-country car ride screaming Me too! Me too! Me too!"

Other liberal bloggers are portraying the McCain camp as "erratic":

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's almost as if they're trying to look erratic, unable to deal with the pressure of a crisis."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "So, call me crazy but if the number one criticism about you is that you act erratically and it's sticking because, well, you're undeniably acting erratically, wouldn't it be wise to stop? To start acting with purpose, with some modicum of discipline? Wouldn't that just be Politics 101?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Let's just put this in perspective: The McCain campaign knows its being closely watched. Their repeated stunts, combined with the ugly negative attacks, have caused the McCain to drop precipitously in national and state polls. Yet, against this scrutiny, McCain and his campaign honchos only reinforce the idea that erratic behavior reigns. It's quite stunning. No wonder so many Republicans are fleeing from the McCain campaign."

OBAMA: C'mon Guys, Spread The Wealth

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for saying, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody":

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It really doesn't get any clearer than this, although a close look at Obama's tax policy makes it almost as obvious. He doesn't want to penalize your success! He just wants to take a big chunk of it and give it away to people he likes better."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Those who buy into the politics of envy and resentment will think it's just fine that the government starts taxing -- not simply to fund the functions that are necessary -- but to enforce Obama's vision of 'equality.' More clear-headed people realize that when 'the rich' (a group that includes a sizable proportion of small businesses) are paying more in taxes, that means that less capital is available to hire people, expand their business, donate to charity, or purchase goods and services (an activity that creates jobs and keeps the economy humming)."
• Hinderaker: "Spreading the wealth around is, in fact, the essence of Obama's tax plan. It isn't really a tax plan; rather, it's a tax and welfare plan. Obama likes to say that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But 40% or more don't pay any federal income taxes, so how can their taxes be 'cut'? [...] Obama's 'tax' plan would in effect undo the greatest accomplishment of the Republican Congress, welfare reform. It would reinstate the federal welfare system that we thought was gone for good with the repeal of AFDC. Not only a welfare system: a welfare system that would rapidly grow from more than a half trillion to over a trillion dollars a year."

Steyn: "This is a rare, clear moment of explicit self-revelation from Obama. If McCain can't get traction from it, he's Bob Dole and that's that."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case Against Tipping

Ezra Klein:

"The main takeaway of this long article on the resilience of restaurant tipping even in the face of folks who try to do away with the practice is that...some folks actually like tipping. But why? It's always struck me as an idiotic custom. I don't tip doctors for doing a good job, but I tip bartenders for reaching beneath the counter and pulling out a Yuengling. Is good service from a bartender more important to me than good service from a surgeon? Are bartenders more responsive to economic incentives than medical professionals? It's hard to see why that would be. I tip, of course, because I understand that the tip is central to the bartender, or waiter, or cabbie's, income -- but for that very same reason, I never tip low, and don't really vary the amount I tip based on service. And nor do most folks I know. And nor, it seems, do most folks in general. [...]

Rather than simply paying a price that reflects a fair wage for their work, I'm instead laying down a voluntary sum and hoping others do the same. It's a wage model that's reliant on charitable donations enforced through social pressure, and in that way, a little demeaning. I think I'd feel less guilty about the interaction if I knew they were being paid fairly, and it wasn't part of their job, in theory, to vary their performance to my whim so that I might leave an extra dollar. Now, most folks in tipped professions don't seem to vary their service to ensure the tip, and I don't seem to vary my tip to reward service, and so we've hit some rough equilibrium, with the byproduct being I have to pull out my tip calculator at the close of each meal. But still: Down with tipping!"

LEST WE FORGET: Financial Planner Advises Shorter Life Span

From The Onion:

"TUCSON, AZ -- After reviewing his client's income, assets, and personal budget Tuesday, Morgan Stanley financial adviser Henry Dalton determined that Jason Hutchinson, 43, could make the best use of his portfolio by dropping dead at the age of 62. 'Taking account of inflation and the rising cost of living versus the projected direction of the economy in the coming decade, I told Mr. Hutchinson that he could significantly reduce his spending by simply living less,' Dalton said. 'After looking at his investments, I calculated that he really shouldn't live a day over 62 -- or 59 if he wants a funeral.' In order to help his client plan for his financial future, Dalton presented Hutchinson with several of the company's comprehensive suicide packages."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:18 PM

October 13, 2008

10/13: When Supporters Become The Story

Last week we observed that liberal bloggers were buzzing about the hostile tone of recent John McCain events, in which angry GOPers were denouncing Barack Obama as a "terrorist" and a "traitor." Now conservative bloggers are pushing back, arguing that the media is focusing on a few over-the-top McCain supporters in order to make the GOP look bad. Michelle Malkin complains: "The Obamedia is attempting to set yet another false narrative: The narrative of the McCain 'mob'."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are appalled by what they perceive to be the ugly sentiments being expressed at McCain events. They're accusing the McCain camp of encouraging their supporters to fear Obama by portraying him as a terrorist sympathizer (e.g., by comparing him to Osama bin Laden). They're arguing that it's natural for GOP voters to view Obama as dangerous figure when McCain surrogates portray him in such a scary light.

Liberal bloggers were also decidedly unimpressed by McCain's efforts to tamp down the fury of his supporters. They believe that McCain only spoke out because he was afraid that the visceral anger of some of his supporters was turning off swing voters.

MCCAIN: Fear And Loathing On The Right

Liberal bloggers are denouncing the hostile tone of McCain's recent events:

• Firedoglake's Eli: "This is getting really disturbing. Every day, John McCain and Sarah Palin stir up more and more violent hatred at their public appearances. As they hammer relentlessly at Obama's supposed connection with William Ayers, their audiences shout 'Socialist!', 'Kill him!', 'Traitor!', 'Treason!', 'Terrorist!', 'Off with his head!', and 'Bomb Obama!' [...] For the most part, both candidates have completely ignored these yawps from the Republican id, with McCain making pleas for decency only in response to direct questions...and getting booed by his own supporters when he does. The Republican base is getting bolder and meaner, and McCain and Palin are either deliberately inflaming the situation, or have lost control of it, afraid to antagonize their own mob."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "John McCain and Sarah Palin should be very proud of the modern Republican party they've helped to create. The GOP has for years been a party far too cozy with hate and intolerance -- with racists, anti-Semites, gay-bashers, and religious extremists -- that's why many of us left the Republican party years ago. And now John McCain and Sarah Palin, in a last-ditch effort to win at any cost, have whipped up calls for violence against their opponent that we've never seen in an election season that I can recall. Repeated calls at Palin/McCain rallies, and at election events around the country, for Obama to be assassinated. That'll go over well with women and independents. And the Republicans wonder why more and more people are fleeing their party."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The danger here is not mobs of violent Republicans marching through the streets. The danger is that John McCain is setting us up for a repeat of the 90s, an era that conservatives to this day have never been willing to come to grips with. If the looney-bin right decides to treat President Obama as not just an opposition leader, but as a virtual enemy of the state, as they did with Bill Clinton, it's going to be a very, very long eight years. Whatever grownups are left in conservative-land really need to step up to the plate soon before their movement goes even further off the rails than it already is."

Liberal bloggers are also accusing McCain and Palin of encouraging their supporters to fear Obama by portraying him as a terrorist sympathizer:

• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't think pushing the Ayers line is so bad, as in, arguing that Ayers is a despicable guy who Obama didn't distance himself from. I don't buy that line, but I'm not supposed to, I'm an Obama supporter. But when you start accusing homeboy of 'palling around with terrorists,' you've gone too far. Think about it logically -- terrorists caused 9/11. And we basically believe that they are worthy of death. From that perspective, what do we think should happen to people who are friends with them? From that perspective, what do we think should happen to Barack Obama? Think there aren't some crazies out there who are connecting those same dots? These guys need to watch what they say."
• Mark Kleiman: "The country has been told that we're at war with terrorists. Identifying a political opponent -- especially one likely to be President soon -- with the national enemy amounts to an accusation of treason. The penalty for treason is death. Are there people out there crazy enough to act on that line of reasoning? Of course there are."

MCCAIN II: A Media Creation?

Conservative bloggers are disputing the notion that McCain supporters are excessively angry. They're accusing the media of holding McCain to a different standard than Obama:

• Malkin: "The Obamedia is attempting to set yet another false narrative: The narrative of the McCain 'mob.' McCain-Palin rallies are out of control, they wheedle. Conservatives are mad! They're yelling mean things about Obama and calling him names! It's scaaaaary!"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "You have to hand it to the mainstream media: they are utterly shameless in their effort to hand this year's election to Barack Obama. The latest MSM theme is 'Republican rage.' Supposedly, Republicans have become dangerously angry; the evidence is mostly that at McCain/Palin rallies, Barack Obama is sometimes booed! Wow. How deranged can you get? Of course, John McCain gets booed at Obama rallies, too. But that's different: McCain deserves to be booed. When Republicans boo the reporters' beloved Barack, that's an entirely different phenomenon."
• Glenn Reynolds: "So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It's nice of McCain to try to tamp that down, and James Taranto sounds a proper cautionary note -- but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here? [...] The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved -- particularly on the part of the press -- are what are feeding this anger."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Without any sense of irony, the media has created a new narrative that the McCain campaign's sharp attacks on Obama are to blame for inciting every angry and misinformed crank at their rallies. So let's just get this straight. When Louis Farrakhan praised Obama as the Messiah and Hamas endorsed Obama as the second coming of JFK, the argument was that he can't be responsible for all of his supporters. When questions are raised about Obama's close 20-year relationship with racist pastor Jeremiah Wright, his personal friendship with former PLO spokesman and leading anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, business dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko, and ties to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, we're told it's an unfair attempt to establish 'guilt by association.' With Obama, all that matters is whatever he is currently saying. Yet when an angry dude grabs a microphone at a McCain town hall and says he's scared of Obama, and [an] old woman says Obama's an Arab, it tells you all you need to know about McCain -- even though McCain himself immediately condemns them and defends Obama."
• NRO's Mark Levin: "So, a couple of idiots at a McCain-Palin rally apparently called Obama an Arab or a terrorist, and the entire McCain campaign, Republican base, or whatever, are said to be fomenting racism. And McCain and his advisers are so easily intimidated that they waste 48 precious campaign hours defending themselves against something they have not done. I received a call on my radio show last week from an Obama supporter accusing President Bush and John McCain of being terrorists and mass murderers. And these kind of calls have actually been going on since the beginning of the Iraq war. And in this regard my show is not unique. Yet, where is the outrage? There is none. And are Obama and his campaign responsible for the latest of these outbursts? Come on! What a crock."

MCCAIN III: Stay Classy, VA GOP!

Liberal bloggers were appalled after VA GOP Chairman Jeffrey Frederick compared Obama to Osama bin Laden:

"[Frederick] climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points -- for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: 'Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon,' he said. 'That is scary.' It is also not exactly true -- though that distorted reference to Obama's controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. 'And he won't salute the flag,' one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, 'We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born.' Actually, we do; it's Hawaii."

Frederick stood by his remarks, even though the McCain camp called them "not appropriate." Liberal bloggers are disgusted:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Here is the top Republican official for the State of Virginia comparing Obama to Osama bin Laden and provoking claims that he hates the flag and isn't really even American. The raw tribalism and resentments that are being stoked here, and the pure hatred against Obama based on his Terroristic Foreignness, is unprecedentedly ugly and dangerous, and reporters who dismiss and minimize it all through false equivalencies and other justifications are doing nothing less than aiding and abetting it."
• Firedoglake's Teddy Partridge: "Senator McCain, if you'd still like to keep up the fiction that yours is a respectful campaign and that you believe Senator Obama is a decent family man and citizen, you'd better stop TIME's Karen Tumulty from writing down what Virginia state GOP chairman Jeffrey M Frederick says as he briefs your volunteer canvassers -- and what the volunteers say to each other."
• Raising Kaine's Lowell Feld: "This wasn't some offhand remark by Frederick; he said it knowing that a reporter from TIME MAGAZINE was in the room taking notes for a story! Imagine what he says when the media isn't present?!?"

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Frederick's comments undermine McCain adviser Mark Salter's complaint that the media is holding the McCain camp "responsible for the occasional nut who shows up and yells something about Barack Obama":

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Jeffrey M. Frederick isn't some random yahoo or blog commenter. He's the Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party. [...] Occasional nut, head of the state party, whatever."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Let's be absolutely clear: the 'occasional nuts' are running the Republican Party."

MCCAIN IV: You Reap What You Sow

Liberal bloggers were unimpressed by McCain's efforts to tamp down the anger of his supporters:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This afternoon on the campaign trail, John McCain began dialing back (or began trying to appear to be dialing back) the rising tide of hatred and verbal violence he and his running mate have been whipping up over recent weeks. After all we've seen over recent months, I think it would naive to conclude that McCain did this for any other reason but that the attacks appeared to be backfiring. [...] McCain has really gotten himself into a hole because the campaign he's been running has almost entirely been premised on the claim that you should be scared of an Obama presidency. Not that McCain, if he'd run a very different campaign, couldn't have run on issue disagreements with Obama. But right now if you take away fear of Obama becoming president, there's almost no reason not to vote for him since McCain has basically conceded the issue agenda to Obama."
• Benen: "Obviously, I'm not going to criticize McCain for having done the right thing. It was overdue, but welcome nevertheless. But under the circumstances, it's not unreasonable to wonder what brought about this rather dramatic change of heart. Some might be inclined to think McCain reflected on what his campaign has become, and felt regret. [...] Then there's the other possible explanation: inciting rage was a political loser. McCain set this fire deliberately, but discovered that he was the one getting burned as observers from across the spectrum were repulsed by the campaign's tactics. More and more news outlets were focusing less on McCain and more on his tolerance for unhinged and hysterical and attacks."
• Ezra Klein: "McCain deserves real credit for staging a public intervention against the partisanship of his own base. But it's not an easy position he's in. If his vice president is going to continue telling audiences that Obama sees 'America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country,' and if McCain is going to continue funding ads that say 'Obama worked with [a] domestic terrorist,' then the occasional calming word during a townhall is a tinny counterweight. When McCain's supporters call Obama a danger, they're drawing the only logical conclusion from their candidate's rhetoric. A president who supports terrorist attacks against this country would indeed be a danger. That McCain makes that case, then tries to calm the firestorm by saying Obama is a 'decent man' is unlikely to change their minds. They'll just believe him to be bowing to the pressures of the liberal media. McCain should either end the rhetoric producing these fears or accept his role as the instigator. But he cannot be both the cause of, and solution to, the problem."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "John McCain seems to be realizing the monster he has created and appears to be trying to undo some of the damage. [...Now] McCain keeps getting booed at his own events for defending Obama. Reap what you sow, my friend."

MCCAIN V: You Can't Win A War With One Hand Tied Behind Your Back!

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing McCain for not being sufficiently willing to attack Obama's character and personal associations:

• Malkin: "As I said on Fox and Friends this morning, [McCain] needs to embrace his own advice and ditch the Hello Kitty mittens. How are we supposed to take his call to arms seriously when he continues to shush conservatives (reminder that this is Mr. 'Calm Down' we're talking about) and tell his supporters that we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency? [...] It's a hell of a lot easier to 'Fight for what's right for America' when your candidate leaves the toddler leashes at home."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "McCain wants to win the election but doesn't seem to have the stomach to get truly nasty, so he compromises by bringing up Ayers but not pressing the issue too much. Gotta commit one way or another, champ."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "After the second presidential debate passed without John McCain mentioning the name of Bill Ayers, Barack Obama noted that McCain, 'wasn't willing to say it to my face.' Of course, the Townhall format was not particularly conducive to such controversy. Still, McCain's omission felt odd -- inasmuch as the McCain campaign had frequently referenced Ayers during the runup to the debate. Presidential candidates typically delegate such attacks to surrogates -- while they stay safely above the fray. In 2004, it was outside groups who performed this function for both sides. Unfortunately for McCain, though, Obama has more money -- and there is no 'Swift Boat' cavalry to rescue Republicans this cycle. And time is dwindling. And the economy is the big news. And the media isn't helping him. [...] And so, it seems reasonable he should put all the cards on the table for this one last debate. Wednesday night is huge. Of course, going after Obama personally is risky -- and could backfire. In the short-term, voters could punish him for 'going negative.' But candidates who are down in the polls don't have the luxury of playing it safe."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "In the end, we may conclude that for a Republican candidate to overcome this tough campaigning environment, he or she has to be A) extremely comfortable talking about complicated problems in the credit markets and how to fix them, in ways that will resonate with Americans who don't follow the markets and B) simultaneously comfortable making criticisms of his opponent that the MSM will scream are completely out of bounds. We've seen some movements in this direction, but it is not yet clear that John McCain has this in him."

The Next Right's Soren Dayton disagrees, arguing that McCain should maintain a positive message while leaving the character attacks to surrogates: "Once McCain has articulated a credible position on the economy, outside groups need to attack on Ayers, Wright, and all the other cultural symbols that will alienate voters from Obama. [...] Outsiders are necessary as surrogates to provide either defense or attack. McCain needs to be articulating his positive message for America and other people need to providing defense of that and attack on Obama's policies. At the same time, outside groups need to be dismantling Obama's personal image and narrative."

ACORN: The Latest Right-Wing Boogeyman?

Liberal bloggers are aggressively pushing back against GOP attacks on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. Many are arguing that the GOP has ugly motives for attacking ACORN:

• Marshall: "The Republican party is grasping on to the ACORN story as a way to delegitimize what now looks like the probable outcome of the November election. It is also a way to stoke the paranoia of their base, lay the groundwork for legal challenges of close outcomes in various states and promote new legal restrictions on legitimate voting by lower income voters and minorities. The big picture is that these claims of 'voter fraud' are themselves a fraud, a tool to aid in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. [...] Vote registration fraud is a limited and relatively minor problem in the US today. But it is principally an administrative and efficiency issue. It is has little or nothing to do with people casting illegitimate votes to affect an actual election. That's the key. What you're hearing right now from Fox News, the New York Post, John Fund and the rest of the right-wing bamboozlement chorus is a just another effort to exploit, confuse and lie in an effort to put more severe restrictions on legitimate voting and lay the groundwork to steal elections. It's that simple."
• Firedoglake's Ari: "The rightwing echo chamber's ability to turnout boogiemen always astounds me. In 2004 it was George Soros, now its ACORN. If any conservative tells you this campaign against ACORN is about 'voter fraud', they are either lying, ill informed, or just plain stupid. [...] This campaign is about race, plane and simple. ACORN is helping minorities to vote -- and guess what, that scares Republicans. Politically they fear losing elections, but this is about something much deeper."
• Yglesias: "To repeat what I wrote before, what's always missing from these allegations of voter fraud is instances of fraudulent votes being cast. But if conservatives are really concerned about the integrity of the registration process, the thing to do would be to make registration much simpler and easier. With same-day voter registration, for example, there's little need to mount registration drives at all. Everything just becomes standard get-out-the-vote."

ACORN II: You Can Register Mickey Mouse, But You Can't Make Him Vote

Lefty bloggers are also emphasizing the difference between registration fraud and voter fraud (the latter of which is rare):

• Daily Kos' georgia10: "What is occurring (and what isn't unique to this election) is isolated incidents of voter registration fraud. Fraud is also being committed on ACORN, an organization that is being tricked into paying volunteers for these fake registrations (clarification: ACORN pays its volunteers by the hour, not per registration). Voter fraud has not occurred. Mickey Mouse [will not] show up to vote, even if he did 'fill out' a registration form. And if someone registered more than once? They can only vote once at the polling booth once their name is checked off. But pesky facts like that mean little to certain Republicans who see McCain's plunging numbers and who are looking for any reason -- other than the failure of conservatism -- to blame for a possible crushing electoral defeat."
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "(1) Registration fraud is not the same as voter fraud. Registration fraud, if not caught, produces phony names on voter roles, nothing more. Voter fraud produces illegal votes. Both are and should be illegal, but they are two entirely diffrent things. (2) The perpetrators of registration fraud are overwhelmingly -- if not exclusively -- the employees of organizations like ACORN. The primary victims of registration fraud are those same organizations, who are paying for honest work that is not being done. (3) There is virtually no evidence of any voter fraud in the US in recent years, despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration to dig up such evidence."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "The voter registration issues involving ACORN are not the same as voter fraud itself. In Las Vegas, for example, reports surfaced that ACORN submitted voter registrations listing the names of the Dallas Cowboys. But that doesn't mean someone's going to voting fraudulently even if the right-wing media implies so. It just means there may be faulty registrations that are never touched. Contrary to the implication, the Dallas Cowboys will not be voting in Clark County."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is McCain Willing To Do What It Takes?

Geraghty criticizes McCain's strategy:

"...When a guy keeps reiterating that he would rather lose an election than lose a war, and that he wants to win in 'the best way, not the worst way', it's easy to conclude there are certain things he's just not willing to do to win. There are two problems with this approach. One, is that it seems McCain -- and notice I say the candidate, not the campaign -- is more or less assenting to the MSM's view of what is in bounds and what is out of bounds in terms of relevance and good taste in this campaign. The MSM thinks that Ayers, Wright, Rezko, the theme of the 'Celebrity' ad, ACORN voter fraud efforts, the Democrats' blind eye to the mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie, and basically any other story that might actually harm Obama's standing in the polls is out of bounds.

The second problem is that it's tough to dabble in the controversial topics. (And I understand the argument that many voters only pay attention in the final month, but when you bring up Ayers, etc. with four or five weeks to go, when you're behind, it is a near-guarantee that the strategy will be painted as a desperation move.) You either have to insist that the whole lot of Obama's associates -- Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Meeks, Pfleger, Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Rashid Khalidi, Alexi Giannoulias -- are revealing about the candidate's character, judgment, and worthy of discussion, and defend that argument full-throatedly...or you can't go there. You certainly can't back down in the face of media criticism; that back-and-forth implicitly validates the media criticism.

The current circumstance -- where the bottom half of the ticket seems to have no hesitation, while the top of the ticket tells audiences his opponent is 'decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States'... it creates the worst of both worlds. The press paints Palin as the ruthless smear artist, while the base concludes McCain is too addicted to Senate courtesy to really make the case against his opponent."

LEST WE FORGET: Much-Criticized Media Vows To Return To Softball Tactics

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Having endured weeks of pointed criticism over their aggressive questions, research-based analyses, and recent tendency to reference the candidates' actual records, America's political journalists vowed Monday to return to their long-standing tradition of lobbing meaningless questions and admiring remarks at this year's presidential and vice presidential nominees.

'On behalf of the entire American media, I would like to apologize to the free world for our unwelcome and inappropriate forays into public accountability and accurate reporting,' said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post. 'We don't know what got into us. One minute we're printing Obama's iTunes playlist, but the next minute we're checking the veracity of McCain's negative campaign ads. That's not what political journalism is supposed to be about, and we are sorry.'

Further reports indicate that all television news outlets will immediately cease their unnecessary vetting of the vice presidential candidates, and plans have been announced to replace the upcoming debates with an optional, multiple-choice mail-in questionnaire."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:48 PM

October 10, 2008

10/10: Now It's Personal

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the angry tone of recent John McCain events, where furious GOPers are denouncing Barack Obama as a "terrorist" and a "traitor." Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain and Sarah Palin (and their surrogates who invoke Obama's middle name "Hussein") of stoking these ugly sentiments by portraying Obama as a dangerous unknown who sympathizes with terrorists. Many bloggers believe that the McCain camp is playing with fire by using such inflammatory language. Daily Kos' Hunter warns: "Inciting right wing crowds to consider an American presidential candidate a 'terrorist' isn't merely dirty politics or otherwise unseemly -- it comes uncomfortably close to implicitly encouraging actual violence."

On the right side of the blogosphere, conservative bloggers continue to hammer Obama over his ties to ex-Weatherman William Ayers and other unsavory figures. Several righty bloggers are even tying Ayers to the financial crisis and speculating about the possibility that Ayers wrote Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father. Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are accusing McCain of cowardice because he's willing to attack Obama over his ties to Ayers but not willing to raise the issue during debates. John Cole complains: "John McCain had 90 minutes to bring this stuff up to Obama, to his face, and passed. John McCain is a coward."

MCCAIN/PALIN: Festivals Of Hate?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the angry tone of recent McCain/Palin events, and they're blaming McCain and Palin for stoking these ugly sentiments in their supporters:

• Daily Kos' Devilstower: "McCain-Palin rallies over the last few days have disintegrated into festivals of hate, and the two candidates at the center of this are encouraging it. [...] The language McCain and Palin are using: 'radical,' 'palling around with terrorists,' 'willing co-conspirators' is growing more heated by the day. It's language that's compounded by the 'dangerous' commercials McCain is running across the country. It's the kind of language that you use in describing an enemy in wartime. It's the kind of language that not only excuses violence, but encourages it."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Just look at the videotapes of the angry, hateful hordes attending these rallies -- screaming that Obama is a socialist; that he's both a Muslim and a terrorist as proven by his 'bloodline' and his name; that his supporters are 'commie faggots'; that he's guilty of treason; underscored by increasing racial invective and even punctuated in one case by a call from an audience member for someone to be killed. These aren't just isolated individuals; these sentiments are common at these rallies and becoming increasingly virulent and enraged. [...] This is what happens when you stoke the fury and resentments of people looking for scapegoats and work them into a blind rage. And they didn't just pop up and start believing this. They're saying this because the core premise of the McCain/Palin campaign has become that Barack Hussein Obama is a Terrorist-sympathizer, being funded by secret Arab sources, who hates the military and the troops. As McCain now asks in his most sinister tone in every speech: Who is the real Barack Obama?"
• digby: "This is upsetting. John McCain and Sarah W. Palin know that Barack Obama is not a terrorist (well, maybe Palin doesn't...she's Queen of the tribe that believes this crap) and yet they are purposefully inciting people who are obviously dumb enough to believe it. [...] Validating a bogus accusation that your political rival is a terrorist in our current environment is the most irresponsible thing I've seen a campaign do in many a year. They know they are very likely going to lose this election. And McCain certainly knows that the main reason he is losing is because of the dramatic failures of fellow failed Republican George W. Bush. But even knowing that his candidacy was always very likely doomed is not stopping him from releasing this poison into the bloodstream of the body politic, a poison which will be with us for a long time to come. I guess that's what McCain means when he says that Americans should fight for a cause greater than themselves. That cause, evidently, is him."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "The McCain campaign has now sunk to the putrid depths of the Bush 2000 crowd and beyond, and it is to the point it can not be argued. Those shouts at McCain/Palin rallies of 'terrorist', 'treason', 'kill him', and 'off with his head' all have a direct line back to the McCain/Palin campaign. They can not be denied. While there may still be some dim bulbs who need to see some burned effigies and more overt incitements to violence, the rest of us can clearly see the connection here. John McCain may have bear-hugged George Bush in the past, now he is passionately tongue-kissing Karl Rove."

TPM's Greg Sargent: "When is the unhinged frenzy gripping crowds at McCain-Palin gatherings -- not to mention McCain-Palin's own role in stoking that frenzy -- going to become a big story? Today in Wisconsin, a McCain supporter unleashed a long, unhinged rant in which he blasted the 'socialists taking over our country' and referred to Obama and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi as 'hooligans.' McCain didn't utter one syllable of objection. In fact, he nodded bemusedly at the 'socialist' mention. And at the end of the man's rant, McCain said that the man was 'right.' [...] The point is, McCain is letting this whack-job fear and hysteria ride across the board, and is even encouraging it. That's news, and you'd think it would get some serious and aggressive treatment from the big news orgs."

MCCAIN/PALIN II: Playing With Fire?

Several liberal bloggers think McCain and Palin are veering dangerously close to inciting actual violence against Obama and his supporters:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "I'm not sure what it would take to convince Palin and McCain that insinuating another candidate for the presidency might somehow be a secret terrorist is a very, very bad idea. America has had plenty of experience with right-wing militia nuts and paranoid loners over the last few decades; it should be transparently obvious that sneeringly inciting crowds to such an extent is a dangerous game for Palin and McCain to be playing. [...] To put it plainly, inciting right wing crowds to consider an American presidential candidate a 'terrorist' isn't merely dirty politics or otherwise unseemly -- it comes uncomfortably close to implicitly encouraging actual violence. And that 'uncomfortably close' part is putting the most charitable possible face on it."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "John McCain has authorized Sarah Palin to use not just lies and smears but deliberately inflammatory rhetoric to incite hatred and fear of Barack Obama. Audience members are already calling for violence. It is only a matter of time before McCain/Palin's falsely linking Obama to terrorism and unAmerican sympathies will erupt in violence against Obama's people, the media or anyone opposing the McCain/Palin ticket."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "There was always going to be a point of revolt and panic for a core group of Americans who believe that Obama simply cannot be president -- because he's black or liberal or young or relatively new. This is that point. As the polls suggest a strong victory, the [Sean] Hannity-[Rush] Limbaugh-[Mark] Steyn-[Bill] O'Reilly base are going into shock and extreme rage. McCain and Palin have decided to stoke this rage, to foment it, to encourage paranoid notions that somehow Obama is a 'secret' terrorist or Islamist or foreigner. These are base emotions in both sense of the word. But they are also very very dangerous. This is a moment of maximal physical danger for the young Democratic nominee. And McCain is playing with fire. If he really wants to put country first, he will attack Obama on his policies - not on these inflammatory, personal, creepy grounds. This is getting close to the atmosphere stoked by the Israeli far right before the assassination of [ex-Israeli PM Yitzhak] Rabin. For God's sake, McCain, stop it. For once in this campaign, put your country first."

MCCAIN/PALIN III: Why Don't You Just Called Him A Thug?

Liberal bloggers are disgusted that McCain's campaign co-chair, ex-OK Gov. Frank Keating, called Obama "a guy of the street" and brought up his past cocaine use:

• digby: "I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but what we are really seeing is the beginning of a right wing story line about the next president of the United States -- he is a drug user, a foreigner, a terrorist and a traitor. And the importance of that is that it gives permission to the right wing machine to do anything and everything to destroy him. He will not really be president, you see. He will be illegitimate -- a usurper."
• Oliver Willis: "At this point, with the McCain campaign taking on water and these sleazy attacks getting more desperate, it's only a matter of time before the 'N' bomb is deployed. They've already tried to dehumanize Obama by calling him 'that one', made clear references to him being a terrorist sympathizer, and they can't help trying to push his middle name as a signifier of some dark 'other'."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen slams the McCain camp's response: "Now, obviously, Keating's remarks are pretty disgusting, even by the ridiculously low standards of the McCain campaign. But let's also not forget the response from a McCain campaign official, who balked when asked if McCain would repudiate Keating's attacks. 'We didn't ask him to do it,' the aide said. 'He didn't clear it with us, but obviously he's read Senator Obama's books.' In other words, McCain is not only comfortable with Keating's sleaze, he thinks the attacks have merit."

MCCAIN: A Coward At Heart?

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of cowardice because he is willing to attack Obama over his ties to Ayers but not willing to raise the issue during debates:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "John McCain is such a coward. [...] McCain didn't have the guts to mention Ayers name while face-to-face with Obama, instead waiting until he was safely back in his cocoon of race-baiting rallies and Fox News interviews before going with his latest lie and smear campaign. Pitiful."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain's moral cowardice has been one of the subtexts of this campaign ever since he wound up the nomination and turned his attention to Barack Obama. But I did not realize it would reveal itself in such a physical dimension. The tell came this week as McCain unearthed the Ayers story which, for whatever its merits, was fully aired months ago and has no clear relation to the particulars of October other than McCain's collapsing poll numbers. He's on it. Palin's on it. He's releasing slashing new TV ads like this one. [...] He ever swaggered on for a couple days about how he was going to 'take the gloves off' when he met up with Obama in Nashville. But when the two of them were there in each others physical presence ... nothing. By a myriad of gestures and reactions Obama owned him. Nor is it a matter of shifting off the tactics, because as soon as McCain made his hasty retreat from the stage at Debate #2 he was right back at it. In every other aspect of life, high and low, refined and unlovely, we have a word for that kind of behavior: cowardice."
• Cole: "John McCain is not man enough to own his shit. John McCain will not openly confront Obama with his smears and lies and innuendo. John McCain will not come out and talk about Ayers, he has to be asked. That is why he goes to places like Fox News, so he can be asked. What a coincidence. John McCain is a coward. John McCain would rather hide behind his wife and Sarah Palin than say it himself. He would rather produce 2 minute ads that his campaign will never pay to air anywhere, and hope that the tire-swinging media will bring up the topic so he doesn't have to do it himself. John McCain just wants to throw shit out there, and 'raise questions' about Obama, and hope his supporters connect the dots, because he is too much of a coward to directly push this toxic stew. He would rather hide behind right-wing bloggers, surrogates, and scummy websites staffed with wingnut welfare recipients like the NRO and the Weekly Standard. John McCain had 90 minutes to bring this stuff up to Obama, to his face, and passed. John McCain is a coward."
• BooMan: "John McCain is a coward. [...] All this manly posturing by John McCain is disgraceful. He can't back any of it up. He can't even look his opponent in the eye. Barack Obama never posed with all that macho stuff. The economy is going to hell, and John McCain wants to talk about William Ayers. Just not to Barack Obama's face."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "McCain talks tough about Obama, unless Obama is around. Then, McCain wusses out. There's a growing consensus: John McCain is really a coward."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Here is what I know: McCain will talk that shit about Ayers and brag about taking the gloves off. He will send his wife and Sarah Palin out to do his dirty work. But when faced with the man who he believes 'palls around with terrorists' he played his position. Don't let these people fool you. Come November, the only tough guy will be the one left standing."

MCCAIN II: Say It To His Face, Senator!

Liberal bloggers were pleased that Obama criticized McCain for being unwilling to make the Ayers attack in person:

• Benen: "Obama, in this sense, is almost daring McCain to make these attacks directly. He's practically questioning McCain's fortitude, calling him out for using sleazy tactics behind Obama's back, but not to his face. I suspect Obama is baiting McCain for a reason -- he wants McCain to lose his cool, make personal attacks, and try to change the subject away from the economy. Obama isn't afraid of this scenario, he'd welcome this scenario."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Either way, Obama wins. If McCain goes there in the third debate, no doubt Obama has a well planned reply along the lines Bill Clinton used in 1992. If the McCain campaign backs off, that's good for Obama too."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Obama seems to me to be needling McCain, trying to provoke him into losing at least his cool, and possibly his temper. [...] I do not think that this is unfair. For one thing, nothing Obama has said has seemed to me to cross the line into incivility or unfairness. He is trying to provoke McCain not with actual rudeness, but with tiny pinpricks that McCain genuinely should not respond to. [...] For another, it does not seem inconceivable to me that Obama might provoke McCain into a real flash of temper. If that is possible, I would rather know in advance. Leaders should have self-control. It should not be possible to provoke them. If Barack Obama can get inside John McCain's head, there's no reason to think that Vladimir Putin or Hu Jintao wouldn't be able to. One way or the other, I'd rather know up front."

PALIN: She's Been Exonerated -- By Her Own Campaign!

Liberal bloggers are mocking the McCain camp after it tried to pre-empt the AK legislature's report on the Troopergate scandal by releasing its own report exonerating Palin:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Good news! The McCain-Palin campaign has released its own report on this subject, and it turns out Palin is innocent! [...] Can anyone every remember a campaign releasing its own 'investigation' when it was embroiled in a scandal? We really are sliding toward Soviet-ism."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "You couldn't make this crap up. Not even [Richard] Nixon tried to pull this one off."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Sarah Palin releases her own ethics report clearing herself. Was it written in crayon?"
• Cole: "And all this time, I thought Obama was the one pushing audacity."

OBAMA: Ayers, Ayers, Ayers

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize Obama over his ties to Ayers and other unsavory figures:

• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Obama and Ayers worked well together -- happily funding the same communists, socialists, America haters, Israel haters, etc. -- because they were ideologically aligned. Obama is smoother and more marketable than Ayers, but ideologically they're coming from the same place: American society needs drastic change. And if you want to know the change Obama and Ayers have in mind, look at what they did at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Look at Obama's Chicago years, which explains why Ayers and [Bernardine] Dohrn would host the launching of his political career from their living room. That's where Obama doesn't want to go -- because if voters look there, he's toast."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "As Sarah Palin has said, this is a man who has been 'palling around with terrorists' like Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn. He spent 20 years going to a radical, anti-white, anti-American church. He had the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate in 2007. In other words, this is a man who is comfortable on the farthest fringes of the American Left. [...] Given what we know about Obama, it would be far less risky to hand a teenage boy a bottle of whiskey and your car keys than it would be to hand Barack Obama the keys to the White House."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The next time Barack dismisses Ayers' terrorism with the airy observation that he was only eight years old at the time, keep in mind that John Murtagh was only nine years old when Bill Ayers and his fellow terrorists tried to fire bomb his house and set a car bomb for his father."
• NRO's Byron York: "To repent, you have to confess your wrongdoing. To be unrepentant, you have to acknowledge your actions and still maintain that you did the right thing. But to avoid prosecution, you have to duck the question altogether. That's what Ayers is doing. In a sense, he's still on the lam. Which might make Obama's situation even worse."
• NRO's Jay Nordlinger: "There are reasons not to talk about Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc. -- not to talk about Obama and radicalism. But there are reasons for doing so, too. And I ask this: If not now, when? (If not us, who?!) After November 4, it will be too late. Isn't now the time to talk about it, discuss it, air it? Let Obama address it? What are campaigns for?"
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "Whether the McCain campaign should stress Obama's judgment/radical associations or the economy isn't an either-or proposition. McCain should do both. And as Stanley Kurtz demonstrates, McCain can do both at the same time. Stanley distills the connection between the Obama/Ayers relationship and the economy as follows: Obama and Ayers serve together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where they funnel tons of cash to finance ACORN --> ACORN pressures banks (through, among other things, CRA-related complaints) to extend high risk mortgages to risky customers --> ACORN also works with Democrats in Congress and others to pressure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to further loosen credit standards, spreading the contagion of high-risk credit practices to the broader financial markets --> Subprime mess -- credit markets emergency."

ACORN: Barack ACORN Obama?

Conservative bloggers are attacking Obama over his ties to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "So we have an organization that has been joined at the hip with Obama from the beginning of his career, whose members have been convicted in Washington state, Wisconsin and Colorado, and had various forms of reprimand, investigation, indictment, and other run-ins with the law and state election authorities in Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Arkansas. Perhaps most disturbingly, the organization has repeatedly entrusted convicted felons with voters' most sensitive personal information, sort of a small business assistance program for aspiring identity thieves. Is it time for Americans to tell ACORN to get out of their faces? Or perhaps for law enforcement to get into their faces? Or perhaps some media entity should get in Obama's face about why one of his longtime allies keeps coming up in investigations of vote fraud?"
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "During the 2008 Democrat primary, the Obama campaign paid Citizen Services Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, more than $800,000, a payment that Obama's campaign somehow managed to misreport to the FEC. As of yet, we can only speculate about why Obama is lying about his involvement with ACORN, what other aspects of that relationship he has failed to disclose, and what other things have been conveniently 'disappeared' from his Chicago past."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Why has no reporter asked Obama directly about his history with ACORN, and what role ACORN would play in his administration? Remember, ACORN, when they aren't fraudulently registering people to vote, spends most of it's time trying to place low-income persons in homes they can't afford on their own. Would [Obama] appoint ACORN cronies to FHA and HUD? Would he support increasing federal funding of their group? What role would he have them play in the housing crisis? These are reasonable questions to be asked, but I think we already know the answers."
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "Forget 'Hussein'. I like the sound of Barack ACORN Obama."

ACORN II: A Crime Syndicate?

Several conservative bloggers are accusing ACORN of engaging in a criminal conspiracy to elect Obama:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans. Which makes it all the more remarkable that Barack Obama paid ACORN $800,000 to register new voters, and then lied about it, falsely telling the Federal Elections Commission that the $800,000 went to a group called Citizen Services Inc. for 'advance work.'"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The pattern seems very clear. Wherever ACORN works, they file hundreds and thousands of bogus registrations. These aren't isolated incidents, but strongly suggest a systemic effort to undermine democracy. Not only should taxpayers not fund such an organization, but the Department of Justice should treat it the same way they treat organized-crime syndicates."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I understand that ACORN loooooooves its 'few rotten apples' argument, but when you keep getting nothing but rotten apples from every barrel that you sample, at some point you really do need to look at the way the barrels are being put together. Which is what's happening now."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Ayers, McCain, And The Dow

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"Imagine you're an undecided voter, turning on the news tonight. You hear about the enormous plunge Wall Street took today. You hear about the U.S. government taking ownership stakes in American banks. You hear about a global economic crisis. You hear about the Great Depression.

Then the subject turns to the Presidential race -- and if the news channel behaves the way the McCain campaign clearly hopes it will, the first thing you'll see is a short feature on how John McCain has cut a new anti-Obama ad featuring Ayers, Ayers and more Ayers. It's possible that this inspires you to think: Man, that terrorist-sympathizing Obama can't be trusted in an economic crisis. In that case, Steve Schmidt, Andy McCarthy and sundry others are political masterminds, and I am a plain fool.

But I don't think I'm a fool. I think McCain looks, to our hypothetical undecided, utterly disconnected from what's happening in the world, and the details of the Ayers connection, however troubling they might be in another context, blur away into a broader impression of a flailing, desperate, out-of-touch candidate. At this point, the McCain camp seems to be taking its cues more from the liberal caricature of past conservative campaigns -- that they've all been fundamentally unserious exercises in culture-war button-pushing -- than from the campaigns themselves. It's as though they're being paid under the table by Thomas Frank to goose his book sales and vindicate his thesis."

LEST WE FORGET: Even Little Kids Watch Chappelle

From Overheard at the Beach:

Mom #1 (watching her boy): We originally chose the name Eric, but now I'm thinking we should just call him Rick.
Mom #2: But then he would be...Rick James?
Mom #1: Yes. I think it suits him better.
Little boy (running by): I'm Rick James, bitch!
Mom #1: Maybe we should just stay with Eric.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:08 PM

October 09, 2008

10/9: Fear And Loathing In The Conservative Blogosphere

Now that Barack Obama appears to be a strong favorite to win the election, conservative bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated. Many of them are convinced that Obama is a stealth radical who is concealing his true views from the electorate. Righty bloggers are accusing Obama of being a "socialist" and a "wild-eyed radical" who seeks to "infiltrate bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within". They're also complaining that John McCain isn't doing enough to draw attention to Obama's ties to William Ayers -- an association that they believe "disqualifies Obama from being president". Liberal bloggers are accusing conservative bloggers of "going completely around the bend" by positing "delusional" theories that Obama is a secret socialist.

The other target of righty bloggers' rage is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which has been conducting "a voter registration drive targeting battleground states Obama needs to win the White House". Conservative bloggers are convinced that ACORN is deliberately submitting fraudulent voter applications in a massive effort to help elect Obama. Liberal bloggers are responding by arguing that "registration fraud and voter fraud are two distinct things" and by pointing out that the latter is rare. They're also accusing conservative bloggers of tossing around allegations of voter fraud because they want to "cast doubt on the election results and prepare the rhetorical ground for post-election recounts".

OBAMA: Is America Going To Elect A Socialist President?

Conservative bloggers are stepping up their criticism of Obama's personal associations and his alleged radical politics:

• Roger L. Simon: "There's nothing wrong with being a socialist. I called myself one for the better part of twenty years. Millions of people have and many still do. But there is something very wrong with hiding who you are or who you were from the electorate -- especially if you want to be President of the United States. Yet that seems to be a habit of Mr. Obama's, with the collusion of the press."
• Dan Riehl: "ObaSocialist [is] still lying about his past. [...] Frankly, the public education system in America has dumbed down voters so much and our capitalist economy has provided the ability for people to enjoy so many distractions from serious issues, I'm not even certain enough voters appreciate the significance of Obama's past -- let alone seem upset that he lies about it so much. [...] I guess we'll find out on November 4 if the fundamental principles that have made America great are still appreciated by enough of the electorate. Perhaps they aren't. What a joke it'll be watching these dummies whine when they experience the watered down standard of living and services a socialist tilt will bring."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This may be a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The political, media, cultural and social establishments are determined to elect the pro-status quo, anti-change candidate, Barack Obama, as President. The power and money arrayed behind Obama seem unbeatable. At the same time, it is inconceivable that the American people would elect a socialist President. So, if this report is correct, something's got to give."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. [Niccolo] Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?"
• Ace of Spades: "Obama's communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis -- admitted by Obama to be his mentor in his books, but only naming him as 'Frank,' and forgetting to mention he was a lifelong radical and communist. The speculation is that Obama met Ayers at Columbia because proxy father Frank Marshall Davis told his ersatz son he'd connect him up with 'the right people.'"
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "The guy who is currently ten points ahead in the presidential polls worked as a community organizer for a fraudulent, corrupt GOTV operation called ACORN, pushed fringy educational reform issues and secured money for a known terrorist to create a UN-like 'Peace School' in Chicago, lies outright about his record on infanticide, attended a radical church for 20 years that spews anti-American hatred and we're supposed to look the other way? [...] Obama says it's a 'distracting' tactic of 'guilty by association.' Yes, it is guilt by association. Totally. Obama hung out with these people and accepted them and never spoke a word against their terrible deeds. That makes Obama guilty."

OBAMA II: Stealth Radical?

The bloggers at National Review's The Corner are blasting Obama for his alleged radicalism:

• NRO's Mark Levin: "How can anyone who actually follows this stuff, who reads [David] Freddoso, [Stanley] Kurtz, and scores of other reliable sources of information, conclude that Obama is not some wild-eyed radical?"
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Obama's radicalism, beginning with his Alinski/ACORN/community organizer period, is a bottom-up socialism. This, I'd suggest, is why he fits comfortably with Ayers, who (especially now) is more Maoist than Stalinist. What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within -- in essence, using the system to supplant the system. A key requirement of this stealthy approach (very consistent with talking vaporously about 'change' but never getting more specific than absolutely necessary) is electability. [...] This is why Ayers is so important: it is a peek behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric."
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "The positions [Obama] has taken in this campaign, combined with his past, leave open at least two possibilities. One is that he has quietly ditched his former radicalism for a more mainstream left-liberalism. Another is that he remains as radical as he was years ago but is concealing his basic orientation for political reasons. There is a question mark here, and it is one reason many people ask 'Who is Obama?'"

The Cornerites are also arguing that McCain must step up his criticism of Obama's ties to Ayers:

• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "It seems to me indisputably true that Obama is the most leftwing Democratic nominee in a generation. And that's why I think the Ayers' card is not only legitimate but potentially effective. The American people have been sold a bill of goods on Obama. He is not the candidate he makes himself out to be with the record he claims to have."
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "Obama consorted with a terrorist who brags about planting bombs and whose organization planted hundreds of bombs. Some were meant to kill cops. Some were meant to kill soldiers. Some were meant to kill civilians. Let's put this quite simply: This is an abomination. This alone disqualifies Obama from being president. Even if he can heal the planet. Even if the Dow tanks to 5000. Even if he puts a unicorn in every garage. A majority of Americans will not vote for a candidate who they know has had a working relationship with a terrorist -- foreign or domestic. But they must know it."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Why in the world was Barack Obama still communicating on the phone or via email with Bill Ayers up until 2005 -- when in 2001 Ayers gave widely publicized interviews claiming he had no regrets about the bombing, indeed regretted that he had not done enough, and did not necessarily have any remorse either about his Weathermen career? [...] That is a damning indictment of his judgement -- among other things -- and it is no 'smear' to raise the issue."
• NRO's Ed Whelan: "I'd be a lot more optimistic if John McCain showed the ability and inclination to highlight the hard-left alliances of Barack Obama that make him so alien to most Americans. Surely, it was the anti-American screeds of Obama's longtime pastor and spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright that caused so many Democrats to wonder who Obama really is. Why isn't McCain making full use of Jeremiah Wright, not to mention Bill Ayers and various other radical associates? When has McCain mentioned Obama's stance on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act? When has he highlighted Obama's support for the California supreme court's decision inventing a right to same-sex marriage? And so on."

OBAMA III: Get A Grip, Cornerites!

NRO's David Frum thinks his fellow National Review bloggers are placing too much emphasis on Ayers:

"American voters are staggering under the worst financial crisis since at least 1982. Asset values are tumbling, consumer spending is contracting, and a recession is visibly on the way. This crisis follows upon seven years in which middle-class incomes have stagnated and Republican economic management has been badly tarnished. Anybody who imagines that an election can be won under these circumstances by banging on about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is...to put it mildly...severely under-estimating the electoral importance of pocketbook issues. We conservatives are sending a powerful, inadvertent message with this negative campaign against Barack Obama's associations and former associations: that we lack a positive agenda of our own and that we don't care about the economic issues that are worrying American voters. [...] If we couldn't beat [Bill] Clinton in 1992 by pointing to his own personal draft-dodging and his own personal womanizing, how do we expect to defeat Obama in a much more anti-incumbent year by attacking the misconduct of people with whom he once kept company (but doesn't any more)?"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are portraying the bloggers at National Review's The Corner as unhinged -- particularly McCarthy:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "As regular readers know, I'm a fan of NRO's The Corner, which I think of as sort of a direct pipeline into the conservative id. Lately, as an Obama victory has become more and more likely, the Cornerites have started going completely around the bend, venting their frustration in lunatic conspiracy theories and manic love notes that are increasingly untethered from the real world."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "The crowd at The Corner seems to have gone well and truly insane. [...] So, if I understand this correctly: Barack Obama is in fact a radical; if not himself a Maoist, then at least someone who 'fits comfortably' with people who are 'more Maoist than Stalinist.' But he is disguising this fact in order to infiltrate bourgeois institutions and implement his radical vision from within. [...] There's only one problem with that hypothesis: if Obama were as stealthy as that, if he had lived a secret life for decades, completely concealing his inner Maoist, he would never, ever have blown his cover by getting on a board with William Ayers. Corner: you're getting into When Prophecy Fails territory. Get a grip."
• Ezra Klein: "Is it weird that I far prefer parts of the Barack Obama of Andy McCarthy's fevered imagination to the one we actually have? I mean, it would be nice if he actually wanted to nationalize health care. Instead he just wants to do some tinkering. Meanwhile, it would be useful if conservatives were a little clearer on what 'surrender' entails. It's not obvious to me what McCarthy is talking about when he says Obama would 'surrender to terrorists,' but he presumably doesn't have documented instance of Obama drawing up legislation that would see America formally submit to al Qaeda and install Osama bin Laden atop our governance structure. That doesn't seem like the sort of scoop McCarthy would keep a secret. Meanwhile, earlier today McCarthy called Obama a 'terrorist sympathizer,' and it's unclear how you surrender to your allies. Is Obama trying to surrender to himself? It's all very confusing."

ACORN: Massive Voter Fraud?

Conservative bloggers have lately been directing a lot of fire at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which has been conducting "a voter registration drive targeting battleground states Obama needs to win the White House". Conservative bloggers are accusing ACORN of deliberately submitting fraudulent voter applications in an effort to help elect Obama:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "There really cannot be enough attention paid to groups like ACORN, that are quite clearly engaged in voter fraud. [...] ACORN claims to have sought to alert officials in Nevada about voter fraud and swears that it is innocent of any charge that it sought to pass along fraudulent voter applications as being genuine. Funny thing, of course, is that ACORN's hands are being caught in all sorts of cookie jars."
• Hinderaker: "In most states, hardly any serious effort is made to prevent voter fraud. If more fraud does not exist, it is only because the effort required to cast a fraudulent ballot is more trouble than most people think it's worth. But when a well-funded national organization gets into the act, targeting the swing states that Obama needs to win to assure victory, the potential exists for significant harm to the integrity of the ballot."
• The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan: "I don't think many of us expect perfection, but it would be encouraging if it didn't look so much like ACORN was facilitating fraud. Reports of fraudulent registrations by ACORN have come in for years, and they are legion in this cycle. There are accusations of fraud against ACORN in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Nevada. That's four states in less than one week."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "ACORN members have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and had various forms of reprimand, investigation, indictment, and other run-ins with the law and state election authorities in Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, and Arkansas. Yes, this is the ACORN that Obama worked for."
• Glenn Reynolds: "If Baptists were doing what ACORN has been doing, the press would be all over it, 24/7..."
• Michelle Malkin: "I hope Sarah Palin will start talking about this. You know John McCain won't. Wouldn't want to be labeled a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST."

Righty bloggers are also focusing on Obama's alleged ties to ACORN:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Barack Obama helped run an ACORN unit, represented them as an attorney, and is now a client of ACORN. He needs to answer for their fraudulent tactics. His money helped fuel the organization, after all, and there is little doubt that they are working on his behalf. Their fraud intends to get him elected President. Will he denounce it, and demand prosecution? Or will he keep pretending that he doesn't know them?"
• Malkin: "Despite his adamant denials of any association with the group (his Fight the Smears website now claims 'Barack Obama never organized with ACORN'), Obama's political DNA is encoded with the ACORN agenda. The Obama campaign's 'Vote for Change' registration drive, running parallel to ACORN/Project Vote, is an all-out scramble to scrape up every last unregistered voter sympathetic to Obama's big-government vision. [...One] homeless man targeted by the registration drive...exulted that he was voting for Obama because 'I want him to do his thang. You know, do his thug thizzle.' 'Thug thizzle' is street slang for performing your trademark move. Obama and ACORN have practiced their thug thizzle together for years: organizing an ever-expanding community of ineligible and marginal voters to expand the Democratic power base. Rules be damned."

ACORN II: The Netroots Push Back

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against the right's "voter fraud" accusations, arguing that voter fraud is "practically nonexistent" and that voter intimidation is a much bigger problem in this country:

• Daily Kos' Adam B: "Republicans want to kick up as much sand as they can about so-called 'voter fraud,' in order to cast doubt on the election results and prepare the rhetorical ground for post-election recounts. [...] As for the current ACORN issues, well, obtaining 100% quality control from low-paid part-time workers is impossible, and from everything I've read, ACORN has been aggressively reviewing workers and its applications, flagging the bad ones, but under state law you're generally required to turn in all applications that you collect because, otherwise, you're just opening the door to ridculous chicanery. As long as ACORN continues to cooperate with every legitimate investigation, then it's all a big nothing -- especially without evidence that people are showing up to the polls claiming to be 'Mickey Mouse.'"
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "I don't really have an opinion as to whether or not ACORN is guilty of registration fraud, but given the hysteria on the right over this issue it's worth pointing out that registration fraud and voter fraud are two distinct things. What people refer to as registration fraud can be as simple as filling out a form incorrectly. It's certainly true that you can fill out a form for a potted plant or your dog. What is far more difficult and rare is actually getting a registration card for your plant or your dog and then showing up to vote more than once on Election Day. Fortunately registration fraud is far more common than voter fraud, since the latter is practically nonexistent, and without it, the former is basically meaningless. A far greater threat to fair elections are the kind of voter intimidation and caging schemes that we've seen applied in past elections, and that some organizations are aggressively fighting this time around."

Open Left's Paul Rosenberg accuses the ACORN critics of having ugly ulterior motives: "There's NOTHING conservatives hate more than poor people voting. Except, of course, poor people of color voting. No wonder they hate ACORN and Project Vote."

MCCAIN/PALIN: Stirring Up Lynch Mobs?

As we observed yesterday, liberal bloggers are buzzing about the various reports of ugly outbursts occurring at McCain/Palin events:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "What we are watching more generally is an attempt to turn the Republican base into a 21st century lynch mob. Whether it's using Obama's middle name to imply he's a Muslim, or McCain and Palin saying nothing when a frothing crowd screams 'kill him!' or 'terrorist' in reference to the Illinois senator, the right is doing everything it can to stir up a violent mob. And it's working. [...] I fear for Barack Obama's safety in these final days. I really do. The conservative movement is not going to go down quietly -- and with this upsurge in unbridled anger, I'm worried we're going to see some violence. I really hope I'm wrong -- but I'm concerned."
• Firedoglake's Ari: "I like negative politics. Defining your opponents is a vital part of winning elections, but there are lines that should never be crossed. When a campaign is so negative that it inspires crowds to spew racial epithets, you've probably gone to far. Right now, John McCain has sunk so far down in the mud that pigs are complaining he's messing up their sty."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I've been thinking about this McCain-Palin Obama 'palling around with terrorist' idea more lately. [...] When the McCain campaign cast the spell of diabolical jingoism, they have no idea of the forces they are toying with. We remember Martin Luther King's murder as a sad and tragic event. Less remembered is the fact that ground-work for King's murder was seeded, not simply by rank white supremacy, but by people who slandered King as a communist. [...] The Muslim charge, the 'Hussein' thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then -- a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some shit pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say 'How could I have known?' Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all."

dday analyzes McCain's campaign: "John McCain has a problem. He isn't trusted by the base and so he must appeal to their darkest instincts, but every time he does so he turns off independents. Indeed, during the debate, every time he launched an attack, such as they were, the dials plummeted. But without his base he's sunk and he has no ground game, so attack he must. That's why Sarah Palin is taking the [Spiro] Agnew role and whipping crowds into a frenzy (and Joe Biden is right to call her on it), but McCain is backing away and hedging. That's why his campaign is taking tentative steps in the water with the Ayers and [Tony] Rezko and Wright stuff but never full steps. They know they must take the campaign into the gutter, but every time they do they destroy this carefully cultivated 'honorable' brand [...] The end result is that you get this lurching, haphazard, erratic campaign. Last night we saw the 'compassionate conservative' asking for the government to buy out struggling mortgages [...] And by this morning, there are Ayers attacks and new ads calling Obama 'secretive'."

MCCAIN/PALIN II: Twice Is A Pattern...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the McCain camp after "two pre-rally speakers in the last three days have invoked Sen. Barack Obama's middle name 'Hussein' in their warm-up speeches at McCain and Palin events":

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Seems like almost every day now there's a McCain-Palin rally where the campaign has the candidates introduced by someone who hits on 'Barack Hussein Obama'. [...] After the fifth or sixth time you pretty much know on the orders of the campaign. It is obviously with tacit approval (to believe anything else is to be a dupe at this point); and quite probably on the campaign's specific instructions."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "To be fair, a [McCain] campaign aide later conceded that this was 'inappropriate rhetoric.' But the trend nevertheless seems to point in one direction: whipping the angry, far-right Republican base into a frenzy. That includes the increasing frequency of 'Hussein' references, but it also includes looking the other way while campaign supporters exclaim 'treason!,' 'terrorist!,' and 'kill him!' during official rallies.
• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "McCain has distanced itself from the deliberate and malicious use of Obama's middle name in the past. When a conservative radio talk show host first discussed Barack 'Hussein' Obama in February, the campaign said it was inappropriate and not reflective of the race they are seeking to run. But it is hard not to notice how rabid the crowds have recently become at McCain events and how demonstrative they have been in their disdain for Obama. In addition to introductory speakers raising the Senator's middle name in the form of an insult, audience members have screamed out, during recent events, 'terrorist,' 'treason,' and 'kill him,' when the Illinois Democrat's name has been discussed."

Balloon Juice's John Cole doesn't think the repeated "Hussein" references will damage Obama: "While it is certainly annoying, and it most definitely is not an accident, I have a hard time imagining that this nonsense will really have any impact on the race. After five million chain emails from right wing dads across the nation, thousands of blog posts by the folks like NoQuarter and the Free Republic and elsewhere, daily announcements on talk radio, everyone on the planet is pretty much aware that Obama's middle name is Hussein. Those people who are not going to vote for Obama because his middle name is Hussein are already [supporting McCain]. [....] To me, the accusations of terrorist coddling and hating on the troops are a different matter, but at this point, the Hussein nonsense is accomplishing nothing but pushing the middle more towards Obama [and] firing up the Democratic base..."

MCCAIN: Freudian Slip?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain for referring to Americans as "my fellow prisoners" during a speech yesterday (video here):

• Marshall: "For what it's worth, my own hunch is that McCain's just gotten so in the habit of peppering his speeches with gratuitous POW references that it's hard to keep the two things separate."
• Daily Kos' Plutonium Page: "EPIC FAIL, Senator McCain."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I sort of don't even know what to say about McCain's little slip up on the trail today. It appears that instead of saying 'my fellow citizens' or 'my fellow Americans' he said 'my fellow prisoners,' perhaps a Freudian slip revealing that he feels like a prisoner in his own presidential campaign. If he could get out, he would but he can't."
• Oliver Willis: "Don't worry John, soon you will be able to go home and take a nice long nap."
• Mark Kleiman: "All right, candidates misspeak. But 'my fellow prisoners'? That's not like saying you've visited 57 states when you mean you've been in 57 delegate contests, or conflating 'green' and 'wet behind the ears' as metaphors for inexperience into the Martian-sounding 'green behind the ears.' That's just weird. And note that McCain doesn't correct himself."

Open Left's Matt Stoller thinks McCain's health is becoming an issue in the campaign: "Today we find out that McCain is taking a supplement that is also used for Alzheimer's and dementia while saying 'my fellow prisoners' instead of 'my fellow Americans'. And then there's the question of anger and mental stability. These are all reasonable questions and concerns for the Presidency, considering [Ronald] Reagan's legacy of having dementia while in office. It's good to see them out there so the public has a choice on the matter."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The McCain-T.I. Connection

Yglesias:

"Thinking about John McCain's Foo Fighters problem, some of the issue here is that not only are there few contemporary rock bands that are inclined to support McCain, but there are few contemporary rock songs that are thematically appropriate to the McCain campaign. [...] This problem goes back, of course, to Ronald Reagan's (mis)appropriation of 'Born in the USA.' It's somewhat counterintuitive, but I think conservative politicians would actually do better to turn to the world of commercial hip-hop, where key conservative values like greed and violence are frequently lauded. Consider T.I.'s 'Rubber Band Man':

Ay, who I'm is?

Rubber band man

Wild as the Taliban

9 in my right, 45 in my other hand

Who I'm is?

Call me trouble man, always in trouble, man

Worth a couple hundred grand, Chevys, all colors man

That's the McCain message. He's a maverick ('wild as the Taliban'), endorsed by the NRA ('9 in my right, 45 in my other hand'), understands the need to cut marginal tax rates on the most productive Americans ('worth a couple hundred grand'), and owns thirteen cars ('Chevys, all colors man')."

LEST WE FORGET: Presidential Badassery

Cracked's Daniel O'Brien lists "The 5 Most Badass Presidents of All-Time." Andrew Jackson is #5:

"...When [Jackson] wasn't busy shaping the Presidency as we know it today, you could find him out back dueling. In case you haven't been to the 18th century lately, this unmanly sounding activity actually involves standing across from an armed man and shooting at him while he in turn shoots at you. The number of duels that Jackson took part in varies depending on what source you consult; some say 13, while others rank the number somewhere in the 100's, both of which are entirely too many times for a reasonable human being to stand in front of someone who is strying to kill them with a loaded gun.

On one occasion, he challenged a man named Charles Dickinson to a duel, (the reason behind it wasn't important, not to us and certainly not to Jackson), and Jackson was even kind enough to give Dickinson the first shot. We're gonna go ahead and repeat that: In a duel with pistols, Jackson politely volunteers to be shot at first. Dickinson happily obliged and shot Jackson, who proceeded to shake it off like it was a bee sting. When Jackson returned the favor, Dickinson was not so lucky, and that's why his face isn't on the twenty. The bullet, by the by, remained in Jackson's body for 19 years because, we assume, Jackson knew that time spent removing the bullets would just fall under the general category of 'time not dueling,' Jackson's least favorite category."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:27 PM

October 08, 2008

10/8: A Missed Opportunity For McCain

Following the first Presidential debate, conservative bloggers almost unanimously proclaimed John McCain the winner, whereas liberal bloggers saw a draw or a narrow win for Barack Obama. This time, liberal and conservative bloggers both seem to agree that Obama had the better night, although they disagree about the size of his victory. Most liberal bloggers believe that Obama won the debate convincingly. They're arguing that he came across as calm and confident and that his answers were much more coherent than McCain's. Like they did after the first debate, lefty bloggers are pointing to snap polls to bolster their argument that Obama helped himself more than McCain did.

Most conservative bloggers are also (sadly) concluding that Obama had the better night -- not because he significantly out-performed McCain, but because McCain failed to knock him off his game. Many righty bloggers are frustrated that McCain did not bring up Obama's ties to shady figures such as ex-Weatherman William Ayers, as Sarah Palin has been doing for the past few days. Andy McCarthy complains:

"Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clearly qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists. If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing. With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side."

DEBATE: Another Win For Obama

Liberal bloggers overwhelmingly believe that Obama had the better night:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I apologize if I sound like a broken record. But once again, Obama won the debate according to essentially every objective metric. And recall that, even if the debate were a tie, this would not have helped John McCain; he needed a clear win tonight. Instead, he's continued to dig himself into a deeper electoral hole."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Obama won the debate overwhelmingly. There's no question. This was supposed to be McCain's forum. But, apparently, the town hall format only works for McCain when he's surrounded by adoring Republicans."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "While the debate was a snoozer, this was a clear win for Obama for me. [...] Barack was not only once again speaking directly to the viewers AND the group in the room, repeatedly referring to them as 'You,' but he also answered the questions thoroughly, with fully formed thoughts, a beginning, middle and an end. McCain was all over the map, shifting focus and I think rarely connecting with the audience (saying we're your friends, Senator, doesn't make it so.) In a word, McCain was erratic."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This debate struck me as a marginal victory for Obama on points, but because of the state of the race a substantial victory in terms of the overall race. Obama more than held his own. I think Obama's answers were more coherent. [...] That said, McCain did fine. I think his supporters will think he put in a solid performance. But the bottom line is that right now McCain is losing. He has to shake things up. But he didn't."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I am a homer, but I felt Obama won pretty handily."
• Oliver Willis: "Sen. Obama won this debate the way he did the last one. Strong and steady. He doesn't get hyperactive, and that's what we need."
• Mark Kleiman: "I think this was a decent-sized Obama win, though McCain didn't decompensate as I'd hoped. But it was no worse than a wash, and a wash was all Obama really needed."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I thought Obama won this one -- he was more fluid and fluent and confident, and McCain sounded tired to me. That said, I didn't think it was a blowout. But it didn't need to be. McCain is the one who needs to shake up the race; Obama just needs to solidify is support. And I thought he did a good job at that."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "[McCain] needed to kneecap Obama. But both candidates came away with mere cat scratches. In being ordinary when the circumstances called for the extraordinary, McCain ensured that the status quo -- which now heavily favors Obama -- will remain in place. And with the clock running out on this election season, that's a very dangerous position fo