GOP Conflagration

Much to the delight of destitute liberals that have amassed under the Bush administration for 8 long years, America is witnessing the ruination of the Republican Party.

In addition to and in part due to the failed dirty politics of Rove, moderate Republicans are beginning to defect from their party. Yesterday, Gordon Smith of Oregon became the fourth Republican senator to condemn the McCain robocalls insinuating Obama's link to terrorism. Widespread distaste for the recent neoconservative turn of the Republican Party is opening debate and conflict amongst the Republican ranks.

Although the base of the Republican party may be small town voters, the new found tendency toward small town politicians like Sarah Palin is wearing on the party elites. Conservative pundit George Will is voicing his distaste for the choice of an "unqualified" vice presidential candidate. Accomplished conservative writer David Brooks has articulated not only his disgust with the current Republican stance, but is also giving high praise to Obama on a consistent basis in his columns. And perhaps the most significant party defection came with Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press last Sunday. He pointed to the radically ultra-conservative turn the Republican Party has taken, Sarah Palin's lack of qualification and the divisive negative nature of McCain's campaign that "goes too far" as reasons for siding with Obama.

Such a mass crossing of party lines by traditional party loyalists is more significant than many seem to believe. This election has become about more than simply who will become the next President (as if that weren't enough). The nature of this election and the effects of the Republican campaign are beginning to do serious damage to the Republican Party itself. Not only does McCain seem likely to lose the upcoming election, but he looks to be alienating some of his Party's most iconic leaders. The continued choice of unqualified candidates (George W. Bush, Sarah Palin) that cater to the religious right and ignore traditional republican ideals-like balanced budgets and small government-is eating away at the Republican Party.
Recent defections due to increasingly dirty tactics open the possibility that the gun-toting, bible-thumping, gay-hating, racist population that the McCain camp has connected with so intimately this fall is all that will be left of the Republican Party come winter.

Obama's Success

The comparatively sober Democratic campaign is winning over the American public in spite of the religious implementation of previously effective (but currently unsuccessful) Rovian tactics from the Republican side.

The illegitimate but fear-invoking message of a telephone operated smear campaign against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary led in part to McCain's surprisingly sound defeat. Character assaults like those peddled by the Swift Boaters against John Kerry played a key role in deciding the 2004 Presidential election. However, in 2008 these very same strategies, implemented in some cases by the exact same people as in the aforementioned elections, are simply not working.

Steve Schmidt, currently of the McCain camp, has tried to build a fire of scandal underneath Obama with same tactics Karl Rove used in 2000 and 2004 for Bush. They and the 527's working on their behalf have tested the issue of Reverend Wright, pushed Obama's connection with Bill Ayers, tried to tie Obama to voting fraud, and have even desperately purported that he is a closet Muslim terrorist. Contrary to the success of such scandalous accusations in the last two elections, the Obama camp has continued unfazed.

Why is it that Americans are putting less stock in the character assaults of 2008?
One simple possibility is that they trust Barack Obama (unlike past Democratic candidates-Kerry and Gore).

Obama has been under intense public scrutiny for a long time and has yet to crack under the pressure. He knows how to calmly rise above GOP assaults and he also knows, when necessary, how to respond to the assaults emphatically. He demonstrated his ability to stand tall most memorably at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with a Presidentially-strong response to Republican questioning of his patriotism.
America knows who Obama is and he has successfully held control of his reputation in the face of attempted slander.
(Arianna Huffington argues another possibility in The Internet and the Death of Rovian Politics).

Republican Smoke Screen

Republicans are trumpeting the allegations against ACORN to anyone that is willing to listen. McCain even gave the issue a plug in the final debate. What exactly is the issue with ACORN and are they responsible for voter fraud as McCain claims?


ACORN is a large grassroots organization that registers mainly low-income citizens to vote. In this election cycle ACORN did turn in some bad registration forms, however it is not likely that "voter-fraud" was the motive. There are many other reasons behind the submission of inaccurate registration forms. One reason is that some states require all voter registration forms to be turned in regardless of their accuracy, which is to be verified later by non-partisan state organizations. So even if someone were to leave a form incomplete or falsify their information, it is not for the ACORN employee who registered them to decide.

Given most state requirements, the most likely reason bad forms were submitted is that ACORN employees were attempting to meet a certain quota and embellished their results by throwing in fraudulent forms. Granted that this was wrong to do, these forms had no chance at actually giving any votes to a candidate. It was sure to be proven that these names and addresses were fake, they only served to help employees meet form quotas and thus get more money for their work. Check out ACORN's website for an in depth explanation from the source.

For every complaint the Republicans are making of ACORN, there are at least ten claims that Democrats could be hammering in response. Because low-income voters lean Democrat, Republicans can and do use many low-income based schemes to peel away voters from the Democratic base. One of the newest tactics being used this year in predominantly Democratic districts like Marion County, Indiana is refuting voter eligibility for those whose houses have been forclosed (by challenging their place of residence on their voter registration). Another dirty but sadly legal tactic is being used in predominantly black neighborhoods like Philadelphia's North and West sides. Flyers and rumers are being circulating anonymously that voters who have unpaid parking tickets will be arrested on site at polling facilities (in an attempt to discourage participation on November 4th by overwhelmingly Democratic black voters in Pennsylvania).

These voting fraud scandals are yet another testament to the superior organization and strategy of the GOP in relation to the Democrats. On an issue that they are most vulnerable on, the Republicans have turned the tables against the Democrats through a minor incidence that in this case it involves ACORN. The countless borderline illegal tactics that the Republicans are using all over the country are what Democrats need to publicize and complain about for the rest of October. The efforts to turn away and discourage Democratic voters from showing up on November 4th cannot be seen in poles but could have a serious effect on swing state election results. This is fair warning to all those glass-is-half-full liberals who think Obama will win in a landslide just becuase recent polls put him well in the lead. Polls are speculation, and no one is more aware of that fact than the Republican Party.

Final Debate Shows us True Colors

Finally we got a little excitement out of a Presidential debate. In their last appearance together the candidates engaged in heated discussion on negative ads, health care, economic plans, abortion, and the Supreme Court implications of the next Presidency. Both candidates took time (with Bob Schieffer's sage guidance) to highlight stark differences between their own plans and those of their opponent. McCain took this final opportunity to attack Obama directly and vehemently on many of his positions as well as his perceived associations (with Bill Ayers).

McCain had to make an attempt in this debate to somehow fluster Obama in order to reverse the critical lead his opponent has opened. He failed. Obama radiated confidence, poise, and respect in the face of McCain's crass, patronizing, myriad of assaults. Although McCain was on the attack and did make some good points, as Paul Begala said afterwards, "He looked like Grumpy McNasty again up there. 'Get off my lawn young man!' In addition, Obama responded with a coherent, civil answer to every allegation made by McCain . The American people concur once again that McCain came off as bitter and condescending while Obama came across as presidential and respectful.

The Republican nominee did all that he could in this debate, including an especially strong moment when he directly told Obama that he was not George Bush, but it clearly was not enough. McCain looked too much like the negative politics of the past, while Obama again showed the dignified qualities that the public seems to be yearning for and that have been missing in politics as of late. Michael Seitzman's blog in Huffington breaks down the contempt many are beginning to feel for McCain's political tactics and the corresponding admiration for how Obama has carried himself throughout these debates and this campaign.

Obama Poised to Lift America out of the Past

We are seeing record numbers of Democrats registering to vote, volunteering, and sending in their campaign donations this year. The unpopular record of the Bush administration is proving inescapable for the Republican Party in 2008 (in contrast with their 2004 victory against odds that favored Kerry and the Democratic Party).

Americans are showing their disdain for the Bush administration by seriously considering the removal of many incumbent Republican Senators and Representatives. Such incumbents are finding themselves touting their bipartisanship and any support they can muster from prominent Democrats. In addition to their desperate appeals to Democrats, Republicans are publicly disowning their own party (i.e. Senator Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon) just to have a chance at reelection. This goes to show how unsettled our country is with the Republican party.

But probably the most significant of all changes in public mindset is seen in the likelihood of electing a 47 year-old, first term U.S. senator of mixed race President of the United States (peculiar name and all). The fact that he beat Hillary Clinton, someone who many pundits predicted to be a shoe-in President and the Democratic nominee just about by default, goes to show the resonance Obama's message of change and particularly hope, had on the American people.

In his stirring speeches, ranging from the 2004 Convention to the 2008 Convention, he has articulated the plight of our country in a way that has Democrats, Independents and alienated Republicans showing their resounding approval. He has an uncanny ability, much like Bill Clinton before him, to shift our focus from the past and present to the future. No matter how terrible the circumstances, the ability to lift the spirits of the American people with the notion of hope is evident in Barack Obama.

In the face of the Reverend Wright scandal that threatened to ruin his bid at the White House by alienating white voters, Obama brought black and white Americans together with a speech on race and politics that will likely have a place in history next to those of Dr. King.

In the hardest of times Obama displays an undeniable confidence in America, its people, and its spirit that is contagious. We trust him to fix our health care, we trust him to end our seemingly endless war, we trust him to fix our ailing economy, and we trust him to bring our country together and move us forward.

In closing I would like to leave you with a clip of Donna Brazile speaking candidly at a forum for The New Yorker Magazine. The first few minutes are on a bit of a tangent, but starting at the 3:00 mark she taps into exactly what Obama has done to many Americans with relation to bringing our country together and moving us forward into the future.

Recent Developments

With two debate "victories" under his belt and the economy's failure being tied to the Republican Party, Obama has opened up a 14 percentage point advantage over McCain-according to the most recent CBS/New York Times poll. After working hard myself in voter registration and canvassing efforts, as well as phone banks, it is gratifying to take a step back and see the reflection of our efforts in the poles. This is proving to be one of the best political campaigns ever run from top to bottom (if not for surging ahead of John McCain in the poles then for upsetting Hillary Clinton in the primaries). With credit due to the record breaking online network of enthusiastic donors and volunteers and to the well executed policy proposals and speeches from Obama and his team of advisers, this campaign can almost taste victory.

Does the Media have a Liberal Bias?

Almost every time I have watched any sort of Fox News program, or listened to conservative talk radio, I have heard the phrase "liberal media" thrown around. Republicans are pushing this idea in an attempt to discount the power of traditional media (old, established media sources like the New York Times, ABC News, etc.) and to indirectly promote new media like talk radio, cable (fox) news and unregulated internet sources.

As it turns out, most experts from both the conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum who have studied the media have been unable to find a liberal bias in mainstream media as Fox pushes (one example is Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media?)

For any example the Republicans can give of liberal media bias, a counterexample can be offered for the Democratic side. Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin is one of the most recent cited examples of the "liberal media" trying to stick it to the Republican Party on purpose. Although Couric's questions were perfectly legitimate and could have most likely been handled by any competent sophomore DWA major, I will humor Palin's claim that she was blind-sided by the big, bad media elite. Even in the case that she was, I could cite John Kerry's interview with Charlie Gibson leading up to the 2004 election as conservatively slanted (link to transcript at the bottom of this post). He grilled John Kerry on his war record in addition to cutting off Kerry's attempts to explain himself.

From what I can see in America today, the current administration is getting itself involved in scandals that merit the media exposure it is getting. Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby, Trent Lott, and Charles Keating among others coupled with Bush's taste for bending Constitutional laws seem to merit their share of exposure to the public. There is no need to spin these stories in any sort of liberal fashion, they are ugly and sinister to being with.

It is time for the Republicans to stop complaining about media bias and own up to their own scandals and gaffes. If Sarah Palin doesn't read any newspapers, she should at least have the ability to name any one respectable periodical (when asked on national television, twice!) if she plans on being vice president of the United States.

Link to Kerry interview transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/Story?id=123457&page=1

Repeat Debate

I am very involved in politics right now and I find almost any political discussion in this election season particularly fascinating. That being said, last night's presidential debate was the most boring hour and a half I wasted on politics all year. And if a person like me who is willing to regularly write a blog on this year's election was bored, I can only imagine how the average American felt about this dreary display.

The dullness of this debate can be attributed in part to how circumscribed Tom Brokaw was as moderator. He was restricted from asking any follow-up questions of the candidates, despite their tendency to give overly-evasive "answers" to almost all questions. Regardless of what was asked, Obama and McCain went through slightly updated talking points from the first debate, uninterrupted. They both came in with agendas and responded to legitimate, specific questions with vague lectures that segued into whatever they wanted to talk about. Brokaw was more correct than I realized at the time when he referred to himself as nothing more than "the hired help."

The other serious problem with this debate was the town hall format. The idea was great, but the fact that it was not a town hall format at all negated the purpose. There were voters sitting in on the debate, but they were allowed a minimal amount of questions and the candidates did not give any of their questions the direct thoughtful answers that they merited.

To conclude, the fact that this debate was so uninteresting means that Obama won. Obama leads in the polls and in a majority of swing states. His only concern is holding that lead for less than four more weeks. His job was to look and sound presidential, exude confidence and poise, and not to screw up.
McCain's job was to shake things up, get Obama out of his comfort zone and bait him into leaving his scripted agenda. McCain was unable to do any of the above. Obama controlled to tempo of the debate and kept it uneventful. This means that his lead will most likely continue to swell as his army of volunteers continues to scour the country for swing voters at a feverish pace far superior to that of McCain's "hired help."

Wall Street Bailout: Necessarily Outrageous?

Nobody anywhere seems to know the answer. Politicians, economic experts, and people of all backgrounds across the country have been formulating opinions without legitimate reasoning. I have sifted through newpapers, blogs, radio, television and my own economic professors desperate for definitive answers. My search has been met with nothing but ambiguous claims that have NO tangible, factual foundation to rest on!

What if we didn't bail out anybody? Some folks, like Newt Gingrich, Ralph Nader and Dean Baker, say (in interviews and articles) that the bailout is misguided and the popular threat of a Great Depression is empty. Rather, as Baker posits, "There is no way that the failure to do a bailout will lead to more than a very brief failure of the financial system. We will not lose our modern system of payments."

Other folks, particularly Barack Obama, John McCain, and Treasurer Henry Paulson are strong advocates of the bailout and made many personal calls to congressional leaders to push the bailout bill through. They all provide the same compelling but vague argument that we better bite the bullet and do this... Or else!

Or else what? We're all going to be lining up for soup next week? Nobody really knows how bad things could get or what really would happen if we let the market system take its course rather than socializing the biggest insurance firm in the world, among other large corporations.

I'm not arguing that we should not bail out Wall Street. I am simply upset that our two presidential candidates and the rest of our governmental leadership have been so hasty in their decision to do so. They are showing an astonishing level of imprudence in their response to a crisis that was caused by precisely that; imprudence (on the part of home buyers, creditors and investors).

I am as interested and concerned as you are to see what will happen next in this rigorous test of modern capitalism. I believe that consumer and business confidence in our financial system will be a deciding factor in how bad this crisis really gets. And I can only hope that our next President, Congress, and the Federal Reserve move away from their initial approach (panic) and take a more wise and thoughtful stance with regard to this dilemma of unknown proportions.


Newt Gingrich Interview Transcript

Ralph Nader Interview Transcript

Who gained what in the VP Debate

Regardless of what anyone says, the vice presidential debate last Thursday night was about Sarah Palin. Palin and certainly John McCain did not want this to be the case, but it was and it's all Sarah Palin's fault.

Vice presidential debates are never supposed to be centered on the VP candidates themselves. They should be battling the opposing Presidential candidate as nothing more than a champion surrogate. The purpose of the running mate is simple; 1)pull in a certain demographic or region that your respective presidential candidate needs and 2)be a good wing man (or woman). That really doesn't entail much work or responsibility. Usually, your home state and your voting record account for job number "1". And being a good wing-person requires only that you speak highly of your candidate and poorly of the opponent.

Sadly, Sarah Palin failed miserably at one of the easiest jobs in all of American politics. How you ask? By looking and acting inept to the point that voters were forced to focus on her competence rather than what she had to say. As Adam Nagourney posed in his NY Times article yesterday (link at bottom), people tuned into the Thursday debate not to hear what Sarah Palin had to say about Barack Obama, but to see how badly she could possibly mess up her "cake" job.

As it turns out, she performed adequately enough to get people to take her somewhat seriously, but not enough to give McCain any sort of help in the polls. Her only hope at doing that hinged on Joe Biden making a catastrophic error, which never happened. He put on a nearly flawless performance that showcased not only his vice presidential competence, but his comprehensive knowledge of the issues, his commitment to the middle class, and his undying support for his running mate.
This debate further solidified Obama's lead in the polls, and with only 4 weeks left until election day there is little time or chance for McCain to unravel the tightly woven lead that Obama's campaign is knitting.

Link to the NY Times article mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03assess.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1&oref=slogin