Palin unleashed:
... Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy." ...
Palin from the 2006 Alaska governor's debate, going on record to say that she'd support a constitutional amendment banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest:
Palin from the 2008 vice presidential debate:
... But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties. ...
Palin from the 2006 Alaska governor's debate again, saying that she thinks the denial of marriage rights to gay couples should include denial of benefits:
Palin used the work of ExxonMobil-funded climate deniers to oppose the federal listing of polar bears as an endangered species:
... The threatened species status might also impede the building of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, which Palin has called the "will of God". In a letter last year to the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, she said she believed the polar bear population was "abundant, stable and unthreatened by direct human activity".... Her own Alaskan review of the science drew on a joint paper by seven authors, four of whom were well-known climate- change contrarians. Her paper argued that it was "certainly premature, if not impossible" to link temperature rise in Alaska with human CO2 emissions. ...
What Palin did when she first "found out" about state investments in Darfur:
The Palin Administration testified in opposition to divestment from companies implicated in the Darfur genocide. On February 9, 2008, the Alaska Legislature's House State Affairs Committee held its first hearing on Rep. Lynn & Gara's HB 287. The Palin Administration and the Permanent Fund Corporation testified against the bill. Brian Andrews (since deceased), Deputy Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, testified on behalf of the Palin Administration. This testimony helped kill this bill, with 4 members of the Governor's Republican party stating their opposition to the bill (Reps. Bob Roses, Craig Johnson, Kyle Johansen and John Coghill). The bill never left this committee, and died when the legislative session ended on April 12, 2008. Deputy Commissioner Andrews testified at length against divestment from Sudan, and stated in part: "[T]he desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination."
And she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency:
Today with the release of a new Rasmussen poll showing Obama up 4 points in Nevada (a shift of 7 points in 3 weeks) we officially turn Nevada blue, giving Barack Obama 5 more electoral votes for a total of 338-200.
RCP: O 49.3 M 47.5
538: O 47.1 M 46.6
Pollster: O 48.0 M 47.7
MyDD EV Counter: O 48.1 M 47.3
Both RCP and Chris Bowers agree that, if you push leaning states, Obama is up to 364 EVs (this includes our 338 + Missouri's 11 and North Carolina's 15.) Pollster's more conservative map has Barack winning the election with 296 even without the toss-up states. Nate Silver's projection has Obama winning 343.8-194.2 and the super conservative NBC map puts Obama at 264 before toss-ups are factored in. Notice that every single toss-up state on the NBC map is a state Bush won and, as Chuck Todd notes, each is a state that John Kerry didn't set foot in after October 1.
Here are the past several elections' EV totals for comparison:
1980 Reagan 489 - Carter 49
1984 Reagan 525 - Mondale 13
1988 Bush 426 - Dukakis 111
1992 Clinton 370 - Bush 168
1996 Clinton 379 - Dole 159
2000 Bush 271 - Gore - 266
2004 Bush 286 - Kerry 251
What's going on tonight?
Here's a few things:
The wife of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel plans to endorse Democrat Barack Obama.Lilibet Hagel has scheduled a 10 a.m. news conference in Alexandria, Va., on Tuesday with Susan Eisenhower, the daughter of Republican President Eisenhower.
And what about Chuck?
Hagel, R-Neb., has made no endorsement. Lilibet Hagel said in an Associated Press interview that her decision was independent of her husband. She said she didn't know whether he would make an endorsement or whom he would support.
It appears that sometime in the last week a lot of North Carolina Democrats who were undecided about Barack Obama decided he was their man.For the first time in a PPP poll of North Carolina Obama is earning over 80% of the vote from self identified Democrats, and that's fueling a four point increase in his lead in the state compared to last week. He now has an 82-15 lead with voters in his own party. His share of the Democratic vote had been anywhere between 69 and 76% in PPP's previous five surveys of the state.
At PPP's blog you can vote on which state other than Colorado and North Carolina they should poll this week: Missouri, South Carolina or Nevada.
...what a desperate empty embarrassment the McCain campaign has become.
And you'll never guess what David Brooks said at The Atlantic's relaunch brunch today (via Ambinder):
Of course, this being an election year, politics came up. [David] Brooks, who started off the session by saying Bradley would be hit with a lawsuit for letting Goldberg write an advice column, called the election for Obama.
Speaking of which, Chris Bowers now projects Democrats will pick up between 15-19 seats in November.
What else you got?
On Saturday, I went into the lion's den to see Sarah Palin so you didn't have to. Because I was there on behalf of the Courage Campaign, who had paid for a plane to fly above the event trailing the banner "Sarah Palin, Thanks But No Thanks: No on Prop 4!", I spent much of my time interviewing people about Palin, about the banner and about Proposition 4 for a video we're putting together.
For some background, Proposition 4 is just the latest in a string of parental notification bills the right wing has tried to pass here in California via the ballot initiative process (Prop 73 went down 53-47 in 2005 and Prop 85 went down 54-46 in 2006.) Yet here it is back again in the form of Prop 4 with a few tweaks here and there to make it more palatable. Whether it's the tweaks or their ads (way to stay classy Yes on 4) there is a real fear that it may pass this year -- polling currently shows it ahead -- so we launched what we expect to be the first of several actions against Prop 4 in an attempt to tie it to Sarah Palin. We want Californians to have as much contempt for Prop 4 as they do for Palin herself. Not that she's endorsed it mind you, but that's beside the point. Prop 4 is perfectly consistent with Palin's politics. You'll recall when asked about abortion in case of rape or incest, she merely asserted that she is "unapologetically pro-life" and as the Courage e-mail that went out last week announcing our action made clear:
In late 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a parental consent law as unconstitutional, ruling on a 3-2 vote that it infringed on a girl's rights to reproductive freedom. Palin called the decison "outrageous" and then appointed a conservative judge to the court, shifting the balance of power. That decision earned her praise from Alaska Right to Life, the state's leading pro-life group.
Hell even one of the wingers I spoke to at the event on Saturday said with complete and utter confidence: "Sarah Palin would support Prop 4, absolutely!"
Yes, the people at the event on Saturday were Palin crazy and each and every one I spoke to supports Proposition 4 as passionately as they support her. So while it may seem crazy from an electoral perspective for Palin to hold a rally in the bluest county in one of the bluest states, it was actually really important for the California right wing base here -- both from a mobilization and organization perspective -- for her to hold this rally. It's no accident that the only right wing activists with any serious presence there were the Yes on 4 folks.
So, don't be fooled, California may be blue but the red parts are REALLY red, chock full of wingnuts who are wingnuttier than the average bear. And they're the ones who turn out. So with an initiative like Prop 4 on the ballot in November, which has unanimous support from the right wing base (the same can not be said for Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative) and is clearly winning some support from moderates, even in a year when the left is as motivated as we are this year this thing could pass. So get the word out to your friends and family in California: Vote No on 4.
For more on this year's California ballot measures and how progressives should vote on them, check out Calitics' excellent statewide proposition endorsements.
(Disclosure: I am proud to work for the Courage Campaign)
Over the weekend I noted the academic discussion over whether Sarah Palin had underpaid her federal taxes. In the time since, it appears that tax law professors are coming to harder opinions on the issue, and some bastions of the establishment media are beginning to take note.
Lewis and Clark law professor Jack Bogdanski, writing under the headline "There's no debate: Palins owe thousands in back taxes," concludes as follows:
There is no serious debate (at least, none that has been brought to our attention) about the fact that at least the amounts paid for the children's travel -- $24,728.83 in 2007, according to the Washington Post -- are taxable. The campaign's tax lawyer has got at least that much of the law, and perhaps more, wrong. ... The Palins, who had their tax returns done by HR Block, simply got it wrong. And the fact that the state payroll office got it wrong, too, doesn't erase the Palins' unpaid tax liability.
Per Paul Caron of TaxProf Blog, professor Bryan Camp of Texas Tech University agrees with Bogdanski:
The Palins did not report as income some $43,000 that the State of Alaska paid the Governor as an "allowance" for her husband and children's travel. Can they do that? No, most likely not.
The relevant regulation states that when a taxpayer ascertains that an item (like, for instance, travel allotments for children) should have been included in gross income for the previous taxable year, he or she "should" file an amended return and pay any additional tax. Treas. Reg. § 1.451-1(a). Now "should" means "should," not "must" or "shall," so Palin would be under no legal obligation to make this disclosure to the IRS. But what flies in the world of law doesn't always fly in the world of electoral politics, and trying to continue to exempt these travel benefits from taxable income even in the face of the agreement of scholars that such benefits should be included in taxable income doesn't have tremendously great optics.
And this story is beginning to be picked up by the establishment media. On Saturday, National Public Radio touched on the story, but not in a great deal of depth. Today, The New York Times' Caucus blog covered the controversy, linking to the posts by Bogdanski and Camp, though it remains to see if the story ends up in the dead tree version of the publication. The same goes for The Wall Street Journal, which covered the story online but not yet (to my knowledge) on paper. It's not clear to me that this story will have legs, particularly given how much is going on in the world, and in politics specifically, at present. Yet at the same time, if the story does even have a day in it, which it might, that's one more distraction and wasted opportunity for the McCain campaign, which is flailing to change the course of this election.
Marc Ambinder catches it:
A reporter tries hard to see whether Sen. Norm Coleman's spokesperson will acknowledge that his boss supports Sen. John McCain's health care plan.It's an obvious question, given that Democratic candidate Al Franken spent the day praising Barack Obama's plan and even sent out a press release asking "With McCain's Health Care Plan Coming Under Scrutiny, Franken Asks: Would Norm Coleman Vote For It?."
Coleman spokesperson Luke Friedrich won't say. Four times. Turning routine tit-for-tat into something more damaging for Coleman.
It's not an easy question to answer. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that McCain's plan would cut Medicare and Medicaid funding by "$1.3 trillion over 10 years" to pay for its tax credits.
Coleman will have to answer eventually: his race is close. Pollster.com's average shows Norm ahead by just 1.4%, with 3rd party candidate Dean Barkley stealing from both.
This race is winnable. Senator Feingold was just up in Minnesota pitching in - let's join him.
Throw Coleman a heavy $10 anchor over at the MyDD Road to 60 page. Or even a $20 or $50 anchor. They're even more heavy.
Update [2008-10-6 19:48:39 by Todd Beeton]:Does anyone get the sense, as I do, that Coleman's spokesman's evasiveness here is a sign that Coleman perceives McCain as somewhat toxic? It's telling that while Franken embraces Obama's plan, Coleman flees from McCain's. Is McCain the new Bush? Are we going to see other downticket Republicans, especially in blue or purple states, throw McCain under the bus? This could get fun...well, more fun than it already is.
One of the more maddening things for me during the primary was the persistence of the myth that Obama didn't go negative on Hillary Clinton. The reality was that there was an ongoing concerted effort, albeit rather subtle and largely under the radar, to portray Clinton as someone who would "do or say anything to win", the subtext, of course, being "she's a liar." The beauty of the attack from Obama's standpoint was that people already had a pre-conceived notion in their head about Clinton along those lines so it didn't seem like an "attack", it just seemed like he was saying what people thought they already knew to be true.
Obama has been doing the same thing against McCain with the whole "erratic" and "confused" frame. Here, Obama is tapping into people's concerns about McCain's age without actually going there but is basing it on McCain's own behavior, so it doesn't come off as an attack (although the media is certainly acting as though the use of the word "erratic" is somehow equivalent to Palin's use of the word "terrorist.") This is the brilliance of Team Obama's message machine: they subtly amplify a pre-existing narrative (much as Bush did in 00 against Gore and in 04 against Kerry) and let most of the association take place in the mind of the voter or, as with Claire "Best Surrogate Ever" McCaskill on FNS yesterday, out of the mouth of a surrogate.
Where Obama excels at this, the McCain team is floundering. Just check out these attacks McCain is trying against Obama. Does any of this ring the least bit true? What world have these guys been living in?
Via Marc Ambinder:
What Senator Obama says today and what he has done in the past are often two different things. He has often changed his positions in this campaign, and the best way to determine where he would really take this country is to examine where he has tried to take it in the past. ....Even after he refused to lift a finger to prevent this crisis, when the crisis hit, he was missing in action. He didn't start making calls to round up votes until after the rescue bill failed in the House and the markets crashed. We continue to see the price of delay today as the markets continue to fall. Today the DOW has fallen below 10,000. And yet, members of his own party said they felt no pressure to vote for the bill. Why didn't Senator Obama work to pass this bill from the start? Why did he let it fail and drag out this crisis for a full week before doing a thing to help pass it?
Umm, really? Does this seem like anything approaching how the last two weeks went down? And as Ambinder notes, it's fairly absurd to paint Obama as "a mystery, a liar, complicit in the economic crisis and an unaccomplished naïf, at all the same time." Not only does it not ring true but it's unfocused to say the least.
And then there was this, via TPM:
My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- "take off the gloves." Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don't need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn't seek advice from a Chicago politician.
My opponent's touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned.
Obama is "touchy?" Which Obama is that, exactly? The thrust of the speech is "Who is the real Barack Obama" to portray him as, as Greg Sargent points out, "an alien in our midst," but they never succeeded at framing him as this dangerous other that McCain is now trying to hammer home. The problem for McCain is that his attacks are directly contradicted by what everyone sees and hears from Barack Obama, not coinciding with them as they need to in order to stick.
Update [2008-10-6 21:16:9 by Todd Beeton]:Oh yeah, and don't forget "Barack's angry." More like "not angry enough."
I just got off a bipartisan blogger call with T. Boone Pickens ahead of his post-debate online rally along with Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, and to me the most interesting statement made by the Texas oil man-cum-energy independence advocate was the following: "There's no way we can drill our way out of it."
During the call, I asked Pickens about his focus on the production side rather than the consumption side of the energy market. If, in other words, America consumes between a fifth and a quarter of the world's energy production but produces only a fraction of that amount, can upping our drilling, our creation of wind farms and the like really make a big difference.
Pickens responded by saying that any increase in production will make a difference, in effect that closing the gap between production and consumption is important. Nevertheless, even as Pickens said that the focus of his effort is not on conservation, decreasing consumption is important. And to underscore the point, he did clearly say that "there's no way we can drill our way out of" the energy crisis.
To me, this says wonders. The Republicans are running on a "Drill, baby, drill" platform -- even Sarah Palin used those very words during the Vice Presidential debate -- but even a Texas oil man who has been among the strongest supporter of the GOP and conservative efforts admits that this is not a solution. Perhaps, then, it shouldn't be such a surprise that voters trust Barack Obama over John McCain on the question of handling the issue of energy.
Anyway, the call overall was interesting, and I'm assuming that others will be posting on it as well. For those who want to be a part of the online town hall tomorrow night following the debate, click here.
· IL-10, IN-09, NC-08, NH-01, NY-29, PA-04, WI-08: Democrats Post Leads in New SUSA Polls (HellofaSandwich)
· IA-04: Latham and Greenwald debate on the radio (desmoinesdem)
· More good polls in NM (fbihop)
· TX Voter Registration Deadline Today (KTinTX)
· New Gallup/USA Today/MTV Poll: Obama's Youth Advantage at 61 - 32% (Mike Connery)
· SEIU Ad: "Worried Sick" (Joaquin H Guerra)
· Interview with Russ Feingold (MN Campaign Report)
· LA-06: Can YOU Raise More Money Than Dick Cheney? (DailyKingFish)
· TX-Sen: Rick Noriega Back in the Game (KTinTX)
· SD: Sarah Palin Mentor Raids Fund for Deaf People (lowkell)
· NC-Sen: Top McCain official: Dole is finished (John Rohrbach)
· RACIST COMMENTS BY VIRGINIA MCCAIN OFFICIAL (notlarrysabato)
