Intolerant Accusations

As we lurch closer to the final 24 hours before the election it seems important to correct a few misunderstandings that have developed. There has been some talk in class regarding the idea that the McCain campaign has, perhaps unwittingly, stirring up racial animosity in an all out effort to win the election. Two specific examples have been pointed to: First, that during a Palin Rally some one shouted out "Kill him" in reference to either Ayers or Obama, most likely Obama; second, that during another Palin Rally someone yelled out a racial epitaph and Palin continued to speak on, unconcerned by this bilious slur. Both of these, particularly the second, seem to have been proven false. On the first count an investigation by the secret service which included interviews with an undisclosed number of undercover law enforcement officials who were stationed among the crowd has found nothing that backs up the story. On the second even a member of the Daily Kos was forced to admit, and provides the relevant tape, that shows clearly that the word shouted was "redistributor". Below I also include a video of McCain supporters, including Muslims, at a rally telling off a kook who was trying to hand out stickers that implied that Obama was a secret Muslim and consequently that being a Muslim was a something shameful.

This contrasts with the recent news that a 53 year old Obama supporter hospitalized a 75 year old McCain fan. The older gentleman was displaying a Pro McCain sign and was shoved into a fire hydrant for his efforts. The photograph at the beginning of this post is one found in a Halloween display in California, showing a Palin like mannequin in a noose.

This is not to say that their are not extremists on both sides of the election, only to point out that we shouldn't be so quick to take the first reports of Republican intolerance as fact or believe that the unhinged exist only on one side of the aisle. Elections, as Tocqueville noted, are apt to stir Americans into a feverish state,  which, luckily, soon afterwords disipates.

"'Long before the appointed moment arrives, the election becomes the greatest and so to speak sole business preoccupying minds. The factions at that time redouble their ardor; in that moment all the factitious passion that the imagination can create in a happy and tranquil country become agitated in broad daylight. . . . The entire nation falls into a feverish state; the election is then the daily text of the public papers, the subject of particular conversations, the goal of all reasoning, the object of all thoughts, the sole interest of the present.'

"And then? 'As soon as fortune has pronounced . . . this ardor is dissipated, everything becomes calm, and the river, one moment overflowed, returns peacefully to its bed.'"

Palin the Celebrity

At first, when McCain chose Palin as his running mate, everyone ran around screaming, "he did it because she's a woman!  He's just trying to steal Hillary supporters!"  And it made a lot of sense to think that.  He did get a huge bump right after the convention, and got the base fired up like never before.

But here's a different opinion: he did it because he needed a celebrity to counter Obama's popularity.  In an article in The Huffington Post, Lauren Cahn posits that McCain saw Palin as "a media-ready, photo-friendly moldable piece of political clay" that could be used to counter Obama's celebrity status.  There's no way he could have ever come close, so, why not try Palin?

And he's been successful, past his wildest dreams.  Palin is easily the name most often on people's lips these days, rivaling Obama's and far outstripping McCain's.  Palin and troopergate, Palin and clothing purchases, Palin and the pitbull joke, Palin and the Couric interview, Palin and SNL, Palin and negative attacks, etc.

But now, his celebrity protegé is trying to break away.  She's gone off script to address her clothing issue, and has actually talked to reporters in a setting other than an official news conference, without receiving permission from her handlers -I mean, her press agents first.

Now, she seems to have her eye on the presidency in 2012.  In an article in The New York Times,  there are several unnamed prominent conservatives who are bouncing around Palin's name for 2012.  If McCain wins the election, she'd be in prime position to stay in the spotlight for four years, create more appealing policies, develop political credentials of some kind, and run  for pres.  If Obama wins, she'd have more problems.  Since her nomination, her popularity in Alaska has plummeted - troopergate and her expense reports for her children come to mind as reasons.  Returning to the governor's office might not be such a smooth transition - and she may not last there.

We've had some conversations in class about the convergence of pop culture and politics - especially in the realm of celebrity politicians.  Well, I'd say Obama is the perfect celebrity politician- popular, young, and tech-savvy.  The Republicans needed someone to counter him, so enter Palin.  She's added a popularity and a youth to the McCain ticket that has drawn young conservatives in a way McCain never could have.  In two other articles in The New York Times (see sources), conservative college students have become energized by Palin.  So while this election won't put a celebrity Republican in the Presidency, Palin is seriously being groomed to become the new celebrity face of the party.  What a scary thought.

Sources: 

On Campuses, McCain Supporters Are Running on a Shoestring and Conviction

Young, Republican and Inspired by Palin

What did he just say?

A recent post on Politico yesterday highlights elitism and its relativity to the campaign and its voters. In the interview between Brian Williams and Palin/ McCain, the Republican ticket gives interesting insight into their definition of the American elite.

Sarah Palin describes the elite as those "who think they are better than everyone else", apparently without regard to education, political power, or wealth, terms which are the characteristics of ALL American social elites. So, according to Palin, you don't have to be wealthy or educated, or politicians, to be part of the elite network of American culture, a notion completely untrue and manipulative in that it positions the Republican ticket as serving the interests of the middle class. She has clearly been taught how to be ignorantly vague in hypocritical subjects. These remarks further lead to the candidates using the media to denounce elitist "outsiders",  surely of which they aren't a part. 

Later, they directly contradict each other, Palin defining the term itself instead of its application, while John McCain claiming those arrogant elites (who?) have fundamental centralized locations in DC and NYC. What might that imply, Mr. McCain? I find it hard to understand how McCain claims not to be part of the elite if he has friends among them, and runs a campaign that spends 150K at Neiman Markus and Saks for the VP. Yes, those scummy elitist snobs who "think that they can dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves". 

John Kerry's Joke?

John Kerry took a jab at John McCain at a summit concerning about energy issues. Kerry joked, "Barack got asked the famous boxers or briefs question...then they asked McCain and McCain said, 'Depends'." Depends referring to the adult sized diaper used mainly be geriatrics. Is this joke a reflection of this elections personal attacks and ill humor, or a harmless jab?

The Bradley Effect

As of October 20, 2008, according to pollster.com, the current polling percentages between the two major party candidates are Barack Obama with 49.3% and John McCain with 43.7%. As Barack Obama’s polling numbers grow, I have heard a growing use of the term “the Bradley Effect” being used by pundits and political analysts in the media. This term “Bradley Effect” is used to describe the discrepancy between the projected polling numbers and the actual outcome of election results for non-white candidates.
This effect is believed to be caused by people giving inaccurate polling responses to pollsters saying they would vote for the non-white candidate in order to not be perceived as racist instead of stating their true preference. This originated from the 1982 gubernatorial election in California in which Tom Bradley, an African-American democrat ran against a white, Republican candidate George Deukmejian and lost. In the last days before the election, polls showed that Bradley had a significant lead over Deukmejian, yet on election day, Bradley had a worse turnout with white voters then formerly received and narrowly lost the election.
This effect is not always relevant to all elections between a white and non-white candidate as there are still non-white politicians. But in this historical election, the media appears to be becoming more skeptical of Barack Obama’s advantage in the polls and the term Bradley Effect has been making its way into the vernacular of the media. We will only know if this phenomenon had any impact on this election on November 4.

Joe the Plumber: The Real Story

In the debate on Monday, McCain made Joe the Plumber from Ohio a centerpiece of his policy points, especially when he attacked Obama's tax and health care policies.  Overnight, Joe was transformed into a political celebrity.  However, it seems that (surprise!) McCain didn't really find out the whole deal with Joe.  Like Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher was not vetted by McCain's team, and now there are some nasty truths coming out.

It turns out, Joe's not such a perfect citizen.  He owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income taxes, doesn't have a plumbing license, and he actually makes less than $250,000 a year - so he would most definitely be getting tax cuts under Obama's tax plan, contrary to what McCain repeatedly claimed in Wednesday's debate.

But McCain doesn't care, he's a maverick - who cares what skeletons are in the closets of his people?  Palin abused her power in Alaska, but whatever - she's his VP choice and nothing will stop that!  Joe will actually be benefitted by Obama's tax plan and not McCain's, but hey, McCain doesn't care!  Joe has become the poster boy of the McCain campaign, being used as a talking point in rallies, and is the focus of a new ad that McCain has released.

As the new poster boy, Joe needs to be defended from the Democrats at all costs.  When Obama's campaign and the media began calling attention to Joe's less-than-perfect record, the campaign went on the attack.  Tucker Bounds, the McCain-Palin campaign spokesman, said, "It's an outrage that the Obama campaign and the media are attacking Joe the Plumber for asking a legitimate question of a Presidential candidate.  Instead of answering tough questions, his campaign attacks average Americans for daring to look at the reality behind his words."

The question being to referred to was when Obama met Joe at a campaign stop, and Joe asked about his taxes, claiming he would make $250,000 a year as owner of a plumbing business.  Obama responded honestly, that those making $250,000 or less would not get tax raises - which would include Joe, if he was honest in his taxes.  

So to me, Bounds' defense of Joe in inexcusable.  Obama and the media are only completing the vetting process that McCain utterly failed to even begin.  I mean, they found Joe on the Drudge Report, and immediately made him a campaign focus!  Which makes me wonder, where did McCain find Palin - in an old beauty contest magazine?

All of this only highlights a side of McCain that worries me.  It seems to me that he can be impetuous, making a decision without fully examining any background information, and then sticking by it no matter what.  We saw this with Palin, when it was revealed by the bloggers and mainstream media that her daughter was pregnant, and then that she was involved in a power-abuse scandal in Alaska.  Then we saw that she knew nothing policy-wise, with her despicable interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric.  Unbelievably, McCain still stuck by her, when others began calling for her to be dropped.  Kathleen Parker, a well-known conservative columnist with the National Review, wrote an article in which she called for Palin to be dropped, and then stuck by her article, defending it to Stephen Colbert on an episode of the Colbert Report.  But still, McCain has made a decision, and he DOES NOT BACK DOWN! That would be showing WEAKNESS!  And now, he's made a campaign hero out of a man that is in no way someone that he should be trumpeting.  Come on, McCain!  Show some humility, accept the fact that you made a stupid, rush decision, and drop Joe the plumber!  I doubt he would mind, anyway - he never signed up to be a political celebrity.  I would say drop Palin while you're at it, but it's way, way too late for that now.  You're stuck with her.  

Of course, if McCain had changed his mind after choosing Palin, or even Joe, well, that would be flip-flopping, right?  And it's dangerous for a politician to change his mind on an issue, as we found out in 2004.  A leader needs to make decisions and stick by them, NO MATTER WHAT!  Like Bush once said, "I'm the decider!"

Yeah, right.

Sources: Politico.com: McCain Discovers plumber no ordinary joe

McCain's Got Nothing To Say

Woooo!!! 3rd and final debate last night!  Of course, I was rooting for Obama, but I was really interested to see if either of them had anything, ANYTHING new to say, or if it would simply be the same old, same old.  Even Bob Schieffer agreed: "By now, we've heard all the talking points, so let's try to tell the people tonight some things that they - they haven't heard."  And, of course, we were both disappointed.  This far close into the campaign, there's nothing else to say, it's all been said before - they're just fighting over every small difference in their policies, trying to win those few percentage points in the battleground states.  

But one thing really struck me hard - McCain focused so much on attacking Obama, it just made me want to puke.  On the majority of the issues, he would make an attack on Obama's policy, and then seem to ignore what Obama said to refute the attack - because he would then repeat his attack, with different wording, in his next chance to speak.  Here are several examples I picked up on:

TAXES

McCain used an encounter with a plumber named Joe from Ohio to accuse Obama of planning to raise his taxes.  Obama refuted the attack, saying that the plumber would most likely be making less that $250,000 a year, and so therefore would not see a tax raise.  McCain then came right back at him, saying all over again that Obama would raise his taxes.

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

McCain made his good ol' attack about Obama's relationship to Ayers, and then threw in a new one, where the organization ACORN was "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy" - and then having the gall to insinuate that Obama was connected to them.  Bizarre claim, but Obama refuted the attacks with skill, proving there was no justification for McCain's claims.  (All of this is old hat, been said before by both of them).  But does McCain listen? No, of course not!  He comes right back with more of the same, taking a quote from a book Ayers wrote way, WAY out of proportion and still insinuating Obama had something to do with ACORN.

HEALTH CARE

McCain goes back to his good buddy Joe the plumber, and claims that under Obama's plan, Joe would have to pay fines if he didn't take Obama's health care plan.  But Obama refutes this point, saying that Joe, as a small business owner, would be exempt from the health care requirements that big businesses would have to cover.  But McCain wasn't listening, because he repeated himself once more, saying that, under Obama, Joe the plumber would have to pay fines if he didn't provide the health care that Obama wanted.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that McCain really has nothing to go on now.  He's slipping in the polls, the voters trust Obama way more than McCain on economic issues, and his policies really don't look that different than Bush's.  So what does he have left to run on?  Nothing but (incorrect) attacks on Obama's policies, and, what's really troubling, accusations calling into question Obama's character.  I believe I've said this before in an earlier post, but it seems like I need to say it again: McCain is calling out the worst in American Politics, by getting down and dirty in his attacks against Obama.  We, the voters of America, need to show him and his fellow Republicans that we are not going to accept any longer the terrible and demeaning campaign methods that "elected" Bush into office.  Vote Obama into office on November 4, and vote out an era of negative campaigning.

Source: CNN Transcript of the Debate

McCain's Health: Should We Be Worried?

There's one thing that keeps worrying me about McCain: we really have no idea about how healthy he is. He still has not released his medical records, despite repeated calls for him to do so. Sure, back in May he let 20 select reporters look at 1,173 pages of his medical history for 3 hours. But he also did not let them make photocopies or calls or use the internet. And somehow, the public has accepted that that's all, case closed. However, I have several problems with that.

1. Since when are reporters qualified to make judgements on someone's health?
2. 1,173 pages is a lot of material. And 3 hours is not a lot of time. I believe the math comes out to approximately 400 pages per person, per hour.
3. Without access to a cell phone or internet, how can the reporters ask questions of the people who should really be there, the doctors?

So we're supposed to believe that McCain has a clean bill of health, based on the word of 20 unqualified people speed-reading his records, without any method of contacting experts? I don't, that's for sure.

But guess what? McCain doesn't have a clean bill of health. 8 years ago, he had a cancerous lesion removed from his temple. Afterwards, there were two conflicting reports issued, one by the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, and one by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, both of which are highly respected medical institutes. The Mayo Clinic simply stated that it was a low stage of melanoma, but the Armed Forces Institute stated that the melanoma was much farther advanced than previously thought. Now, who to believe? McCain seems to want us to believe the Mayo Clinic, but without his records, that's not possible. That's why over 2,300 doctors have signed an online petition to get access to McCain's records. Many of these doctors are oncologists and melanoma experts - the kind of doctors that should have been allowed to examine McCain's records back in May.

It's also true that Obama has not released his records - just a one-page summary, with his doctor's opinion that he is in great health. It's true that he should also release his records to doctors, so that the public can find out for themselves his state of health. But here's the big differences between Obama and McCain, why I'm not worried about Obama's health.

1. Obama has a VP running mate that is competent, intelligent, and experienced. Palin, on the other hand, only knows Alaskan energy issues, has extreme views, and has no experience governing a large population. Should Obama's health fail, whoever-you-believe-in forbid, I would be able to confidently trust Biden to take the reins of the presidency. Should Palin take over, I would panic.
2. Obama is much younger than McCain, a spry 47 compared to McCain's 72. Obama is also athletically active, running and playing basketball.
3. Obama has no history of major illnesses. McCain, however, has a history of melanoma, a type of cancer. And as we all know, cancer is unpredictable and often quite deadly.
   

I think we can all agree that McCain should stop playing this dangerous hiding game with the American public and come out with his records - because he just might be unfit for the presidency. So sign the petition, and spread the word - we want the truth about McCain's health!

Source: The Huffington Post, John McCain's Cancer

Hey, McCain - Rein in your Pitbull!

On Monday, McCain announced that he would enter a new stage of attacks on Obama - ones focusing on Obama's character, background, and leadership.  This is not unexpected, with less than a month left until the election and Obama gaining a lead in the polls, due to his perceived superiority in economic matters.  However, the lengths that the McCain camp and supporters have been going to to discredit Obama and create fears and doubts in the minds of voters is simply despicable.  McCain himself, so far, has only ramped up the attacks on Obama's policies and past records in the Illionois and U.S. Senate.  Which, I believe, is appropriate, to a certain extent.  It's a good thing for the voters to see the candidates explain their policies and past decisions, as it can give us insight as to what they truly believe, beyond party platforms, and how they can be expected to act in the Oval Office.  However, what is truly despicable, and, unfortunately true to Republican form, is the effort that Sarah Palin and the Republican surrogates have gone to in order to create an image of Obama that sounds like an un-american, terrorist-favoring, America Hater.  

First, the surrogates:

• During the weekend, Sean Hannity hosted a program on Fox News called "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism".  As you can imagine, the program was filled with (completely unsubstantiated) attacks on Obama's character and background.  One of these claims was that Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago was actually "training for a radical overthrow of the government".
• Andy Martin, a conservative writer, accused Obama of secretly of being a Muslim.  He also created a bizarre, twisted connection between William Ayers, the former member of the Weather Underground, and Barack Obama, that went through the Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, to Fidel Castro, back to Hugo Chávez, and finally to Obama.
• Jerome Corsi just published a book that is filled with unsubstantiated accusations about Obama's alleged drug use and connections to Islam.

And then, there's Palin.  She just finished a campaign rally swing through Florida, where all she did was make accusations and smear Obama's good name.  She talked a lot about Obama's relationship to Ayers, making it sound like Obama is sympathetic to a violent overthrow of the government.  And the scariest thing about it?  The audience bought it all, snapped it right up - even yelling things like "kill him" and "terrorist" when she mentioned Obama by name.  

Is this what America has come to in this election?  Use of xenophobia and anger to defeat the opposition?  One man even yelled racial slurs at a black cameraman at the rally.  To me, that is absolutely unnecessary, over the top, and just plain wrong.  This is the 21st century, and America is nothing if not everything.  The America I know is made up of Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Caucasians, and everything in between.  Obama shouldn't have to defend his "American-ness".  HE WAS BORN IN AMERICA!  What more could you want for a definition of an American?  

So please, McCain, Mr. "Maverick", rein in your pitbull.  She's just dividing the country even more, between "us" and "them", at a time when we need to come together more than ever and show that we are a nation, united.  And to the American Voter - please, let's show the Republican Party that we are above fear- and hate-mongering, that those terror tactics have no place in a truly democratic and free America.  Vote Obama into office in November, and usher out this era of smear politics.

Sources: The New York Times

Palin Plays to Conservative Base in Florida Rallies

Obama's Personal Ties are Subject of Program on Fox News Channel

Campaigns Shift to Attack Mode on Eve of Debate

McCain: A Maverick?

Everyone knows that McCain (and Palin especially) refers to himself as a "maverick", claiming he goes against the grain in Washington, and reaches across the aisle, etc etc we've heard it all before.  However, recently there have been three relationships/actions of his that I think call this "maverick" label into question:

1)  His campaign manager Rick Davis used to work for a lobbying firm pushing for deregulation of the markets.  The lobbying firm was connected to the now-extinct mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

2)  McCain has been proven to be a special friend of the gambling industry, getting them hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks and deregulations.

3)  McCain was one of 5 senators accused of aiding Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loans failure scandal, by pushing deregulation and a looser prosecution.

How's he look now?  Not so "maverick-y", huh?  Seems to me he's just like any other long-term politician: can't keep his hands out of the cookie jar.  Now I'm not saying Obama's perfect, either - he's definitely pushed some to help out the coal industry in Illinois, for example.  But at least he's honest about who he is and what he's done.

McCain and Special Interests

Everyone know how McCain always portrays himself as a maverick, unswayed by special interests.  Except, it turns out, by the gambling industry.  In an article yesterday by The New York Times, it was revealed that, actually, more than 40 of his fund-raisers and top advisors have significant ties to the gambling industry.  And throughout his years in Washington, he has always been there to help the industry out, with an estimated $326 million in tax breaks over a dozen years and an amendment in 1994 that let more Native American tribes open casinos.  Oh, and I'm sure you remember the Jack Abramoff scandal, when McCain was in the forefront of the investigation?  Well, turns out that one of the crimes Abramoff committed was to steal $66 million from several tribes.  No wonder McCain was so incensed - NO ONE messes with McCain's gambling industry!!!!  And McCain really profited from the take-down, too. One, he crushed a competitor.  Two, he collected inquiry fees from the tribes that had been bilked.  Three, he confronted political enemies from his 2000 presidential campaign while polishing up his maverick self-image.  Good job, Old Boy!

Of course, the McCain campaign was not at all happy when this article ran.  McCain's spokesman, Tucker Bounds, attacked The Times, saying, "Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists - and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has."  Sound familiar?  It should.  Last week, on Monday, The Times ran an article highlighting the relationship between McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis and Fannie and Freddie Mac.  The McCain campaign attacked The Times then, too, saying that it was no longer a fair reporting agency.  So, now, this is really not right.  Any time The Times comes out with news about some impropriety on McCain's part, it loses it's impartiality?  Uh-uh, I don't think so.  It is just so incredibly rude, and just so wrong, that McCain's advisors would resort to insults!  I'd say that maybe it makes McCain lose some of his credibility.

McCain Campaign v.s. NY Times

On Monday, September the 22nd, The New York Times ran an article highlighting the fact that McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis used to be president of an advocacy group pushing for looser regulation of the now-bankrupt mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Today, The New York Times ran an article about the McCain camp's response (consisting of insults) to the yesterday's report.  McCain's senior campaign advisor Steve Schmidt, when talking to reporters, stated that the Times is no longer "by any standard a journalistic organization", claiming that the Times is "completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate".  He went on to say that, "Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective."  Oh, really?  So when a reporter writes an article that shows a possible conflict of interests in a campaign group, that means that they're rooting for the other political party?  I thought that journalists try to uncover any such of conflicts, no matter which political party it pertains to, because that's their job.  But I'm not surprised that Schmidt's playing dirty by accusing the Times of partisan politics.  He's just trying to deflect the news of Davis's prior job, and by any means necessary - even insulting the integrity of a major national newspaper that, as Bill Keller, executive editor, said in response, "is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively".