PSoTD

Remember October 1996?

Bob Dole claimed credit Saturday for putting Democrats on the defensive over their acceptance of foreign political contributions, saying "The stone wall is beginning to crumble."

The Republican challenger pressed his efforts to link President Clinton to contributions from Asian business interests during a town-square campaign rally and in his weekly radio address."The ethical vacuum at the heart of this administration has been filled with foreign money," Dole told his radio audience.

Dole was trying to energize Republicans with campaign stops Saturday in this south-central Kentucky community and in southern Virginia, both GOP-dominated areas of states where recent polls have put Clinton ahead.

The travel came as Dole aides said internal polls found the GOP nominee beginning to narrow the gap and even move ahead in some usually Republican states where he had been behind.

Ugh. I received this email from a family member yesterday about a piece of shit article published last week:

To all of my family, friends, and acquaintances, please read this very important newspaper article. The truth comes out finally!

*Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?* /By Orson Scott Card /

/Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism. /

...

/This article first appeared in /The Rhinoceros Times /of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

I cut out all the actual "story", it was well reported about in the blogosphere last week and is really quite a bit of nonsense. And that's not precisely the point of this post.

One of the things I am now begging ANYONE that feels they need to forward me a news article is to Google the author and any specific subject before sending. If one did, you'd find that The Rhinoceros Times is not a news"paper" of any sort - it's an online site only, and a small, very local, and very unimportant to the national discussion website at that.

Secondly, you'd find that most ordinary people probably wouldn't define Orson Scott Card as a Democrat OR a newspaper columnist. He's supported Bush, the Republican Congress, and now McCain in the last three elections. He's a Halloween Republican, dressing up as something else so he can get some attention candy from unsuspecting readers. And it's kind of hard to be a newspaper columnist if the newspaper you write for isn't actually a newspaper at all.

So, if you're going to send me an article that purports to discuss "honest reporters", please make sure the author is actually being honest with you. Card has no credibility after the "Editor's note". People should feel a responsibility to look into it before shipping it off. I don't giftwrap sewage in a candy box, and I prefer to not have lies mailed to me wrapped up in some sort of "honesty" bow, either.

It's past time for the very public Senatorial humiliation of one Deputy Dog Lieberman. This includes items such as committee assignments of one "Senate Committee on Toilets" and a provision of the worst office available. Who is he going to complain to that should give a shit?

The guy is a phony, has been a phony, will continue to be a phony. He cannot be trusted. If Senate Leadership does not publicly demonstrate this with the public distribution of the worst responsibilities and most meager benefits of Senate Office, then they are not doing their part to heal the country. Phonies must be outed so the public will remove them.

Will McCain's campaign be rather dull and lifeless over the last week, or it will it be pitchforks and torches to everything? There's not much middle ground for them now.

You can see it in the columnists. Republicans already trying to define why Obama will be elected and limit his reach. Hey Peggy Noonan - people aren't going to listen to you. Just because you weren't one of the absolute worst Republican commentators during this election cycle doesn't mean you have any credibility with those who vote for Obama. You don't.

This is the thing: If Mr. Obama wins, and governs as a moderate liberal, not veering left, not seeming to be the cap that pops off a kettle that's been boiling for eight years, but governs to a degree, at least in general approach, as Bill Clinton did—as a moderate Democrat well aware of the terrain—he may know some success. And he may be able to tamp down the insistence of the long-simmering left by the force of his own popularity, which will grow once he is president among grateful Democrats, and others. But if he goes left—if it comes to seem as if the attractive, dark-haired man has torn open his shirt to reveal a huge S, not for Superman but for Socialist, if he jumps toward reforms such as a speech-limiting new Fairness Doctrine, that won't yield success. It will yield trouble, and unneeded domestic arguments. We have enough needed ones.

First of all, quit the 7-year-old's labeling tactic, we all know you don't believe it. Secondly - don't tell the candidate that wins by a considerable margin to avoid unneeded domestic arguments. Tell the people that just had their domestic policies shoved up their ass by the people at the ballot box - that's right, the Republican Party - to avoid them. BTW, if you look around your Republican Party these days, you'll notice that 90% of their campaigning is just that - unneeded and worthless arguments.

Well, the Republicans are desperate enough to run a guy for Congress who clearly doesn't understand what policies can help the middle class. Besides, I bet there's going to be a lot of leftover "Joe the Plumber" crap that could be used in a campaign...

Maybe in 2010 the Republican Party should recruit and ONLY run plumbers named Joe for Congress.

One of my little irritants about political campaigns is about the use of political signs - particularly, the yard sign variety that gets placed on unimproved property and relatively open spaces such as parks.

Political campaigns must adopt permission marketing in regards to placement of signs. I know that volunteers and advocates get excited and want to get the word out about their candidate as much as possible, and having that trunk full of signs emptied is easier to do if you don't get permission from the landowner.

But you have to. Our neighborhood has three parks, and we have a policy that all signs are removed if permission is not requested. There's another policy, which is that political campaign signs are not allowed to be posted on the park property. Which means there will never be a campaign sign given permission to be posted there.

So when I find a campaign sign there, it's immediately taken down. It's a dereliction of both responsibility and courtesy to post signs without permission, and it actually makes the candidate look bad to the property owner or manager.

I see these signs planted just off the roadside of empty fields and woodlands as well. Was permission requested? Somehow I suspect not.

I, for one, would like to see him run for President, if only so he can have his half-baked opinions stuffed back so they can be fully cooked to mediocre. Half-baked mediocrity is only accepted in the realm of talk radio.

Now I know when it was that Mom took us to the airport to see Bobby Kennedy.

The potential of an Obama victory over McCain on election day becomes more "realistic feeling" with every day that goes past with Obama leading significantly in the polls. This leads Republicans, particularly Republican bloggers, to try to find ways to discredit the evidence and/or change the reality in a way that will keep their readers hopeful on the election results. This week we've seen an evolution of "the polls could be changing, the polls could be wrong, the polls are wrong" posts from these folks, and no doubt we'll be seeing more of the same for the next few weeks. There's no way that statisticians and professional polling organizations could know as much as joe ordinary republican blogger. No way!

But as that "real feeling" starts to sink in deeper amongst both the bloggers and their readers, their reactionary blogging is likely to become more desperate. I'm sure that next week we'll start seeing weather report blogging, with focus on the ten day forecast for swing states, particularly in big cities. Could be a major rain storm in the DC area that will cut down voter activity in the Virginia suburbs? Could be hail in Philadelphia? Snowstorm in Denver? Locusts in St. Louis!

It'll get more desperate later next week. I'm sure that somehow the late night drinking of east coast college students for the Monday Night Football game between Pittsburgh and Washington could end up swaying the election as they are feeling too sick to vote. By election eve, look for

CHUDs Attacking Precincts in Florida!!!!!

on some Pajamas Media site near you.

What is the reasoning for giving houses of worship tax-exempt status again?

but I will question his reasoning as to why McCain might be moving up in Zogby polls...

McCain's strong performance at the Alfred E. Smith charity dinner in New York City Thursday, combined with his appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman Thursday night, may have had a positive effect.

I guess maybe they'll lead now after Sarah Palin's performance on SNL? Bizarro...

I think I read where the CW says that this election, at most, could be a 4 point win in total votes, either side, because of the split of the nation.

The tax code, once you get past some sort of flat rate tax, is ABOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH AND RESOURCES. Credits, deductions, exemptions - someone doesn't pay here, someone over there pays more, the bottom line is that this is restructuring wealth in this country. I doubt I've heard one conservative complain about Obama's comment that doesn't ALREADY RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF A TAX CODE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Anyone know who gets most of the credits and deductions and exemptions? Is it the wealthy?

A lot of right bloggers are incensed about the public vetting of Joe the Plumber, and there's a valid point. Ordinary citizens, asking a question of a candidate, don't deserve such treatment - and very rarely do they receive it.

However, there should be some honesty about this. Joe the Plumber went from ordinary citizen to campaign prop during the debate on Wednesday night, and John McCain used him as a crux to attack Obama's positions several times.

Fine. And that crux would have stood fine if what Joe the Plumber had said - in public, in his comments that went beyond a simple question about a candidate to an editorial determination about that candidate - were accurate. John McCain made political arguments based on what Joe the Plumber said that were not true about Joe the Plumber. Is the news media supposed to ignore that?

Once again, John McCain has pushed something - and this case, someone - as a central part of his campaign that has not been vetted. And it didn't help Joe the Plumber that apparently he didn't have the wisdom to realize that if what he said to Obama wasn't 100% accurate, he probably shouldn't be spending all that time with the news media regardless of the fact they were camped on his street. That's called stoking the fire, and that's how those who aren't media-savvy get burned.

I really don't see how Obama's campaign is to blame for the fact-finding into Joe the Plumber's life. I do see how John McCain used Joe the Plumber as an hatchet rather than a scalpel to try to attack Obama's positions, and Joe the Plumber is probably going to be the one that gets chopped up the most.

Does it make sense for the FCC to be pushing ahead on big issues on that day?

My favorite part of the debate was on Obama's health care plan, particular good on the split screen. McCain looked like he could have spit out his teeth in surprise.

Obama: I just described what my plan is. And I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there. Here's your fine — zero. You won't pay a fine, because...

McCain: Zero?

Obama: Zero, because as I said in our last debate and I'll repeat, John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees, but are not doing it.

Here it is on YouTube. Enjoy the dumbfoundedness.

Interesting stat coming out of a town in Mississippi that is considering banning the dogs...

RIDGELAND - A vote to ban pit bulls and other dangerous dogs was delayed Tuesday, but city officials expect to revisit the issue in the near future.

...

Police Chief Jimmy Houston championed the ordinance when it was presented Monday, touting statistics on pit bull attacks. Houston said that according to his research there have been 2,495 dog attacks since 1982, and pit bulls account for 1291 of those attacks.

Can't call it a theory, but a hunch, that for 2009, local government entities might see their specific web site's usage actually drop over previous years. It's based on how important, impact-wise, local government is going to be seen to users versus everything else in a limited time universe which is web browsing. How will people and organizations prioritize their web browsing? With a new administration coming in, with so much concern about news and issues that are larger even than the state government level, how much attention will local government get?

Dear Republicans,

In 2000, you had a primary choice: George W. Bush or John McCain. You chose Bush, overwhelmingly. Non-Republicans wondered why. But now, maybe, we get it, sorta - you went for a campaign that showed a little more discipline and structure.

You really need to find some better candidates.

Sincerely,

Not The Republicans

and the finding in "Trooper Gate"...

I think Obama's campaign would be smart to start mentioning the plausibility that terrorists will want to impact our elections. The USS Cole bombing happened in mid-October during the Bush-Gore campaign of 2000.

Bin Laden released a tape a week before the 2004 General Election.

So, we should be prepared to hear from them again in the next month in some manner - and vow that 2008 is the last American election that Bin Laden himself could possibly try to sway.

Even David Frum knows:

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.

The problem for Mr. Frum is that he seems to think that:

There's something good happening in this country, I hope. John McCain and Sarah Palin are doing the country a big favor by going all Karl Rove on us in this campaign. It's giving Americans another shot at a clear choice - to reward this kind of political behavior and intelligence, or to repudiate it. By doing this, McCain/Palin are doing the Republican Party a big favor also, because this election will hopefully provide the kind of crushing that will allow the silent and squeamish-about-Rove conservatives to squash the screaming memesters like political cockroaches and try to clean up their kitchen and be relevant in educated political conversation again.

McCain insisted on saying it, though, 19 times, during Tuesday's debate. "My friends"... what is the reason for repeating such a line so many times?

One of the clear cuts on this campaign is that McCain's effort is all about biography, whereas Obama's has been all about political strategy. The McCain camp has been woeful on political strategy. Obama's biography, although interesting, isn't as captivating as McCain's.

This is not a biography year. This isn't about what you did when you weren't President, it's about what you'll do, and how you'll get it done, if you are President. To that extent, all these expected efforts by the McCain camp to blast Obama's biography are likely to fail as long as Obama continues to work the "what the next President has to do" territory.

And to be honest, maybe we're seeing that NO year is a biography year for electing a President. When was the last time a candidate for the office won that had the most compelling - and impressive - biography? 1988?

Four weeks from today is election day. I'm leaning on being a retired political blogger five weeks from now.

"Maverick" is this year's "pet rock". By the end of this campaign, people are going to be so sick of the term that they won't buy ANYTHING that uses the term. Palin used it six times last night. The Republicans need a thesaurus. Thank you, Joe Biden, for pointing out McCain's dishonesty in advertising:

BIDEN: I'll be very brief. Can I respond to that?

Look, the maverick — let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there.

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against — he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send — can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't — we can't make it. How are we going to heat the — heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

If she didn't disclose to both campaigns about the book she was writing, that was bad judgment, and is unfortunate, since the biggest advantage a debate moderator has is the image of impartiality and above-board judgment.

On the other hand, the press should get a comment from both McCain and Palin about this before they decide this is a perfect way to avoid the debate in the first place.

About college costs:

A recent survey by the College Savings Foundation found that one in four parents want the federal government to cap college costs. Neither candidate plans anything like that, or even smaller steps such as forcing schools to spend more from their endowments to hold down prices. That's a relief to colleges, which resent interference from Washington.

The reasons why college prices are rising are complicated, and largely beyond the purview of the White House. Washington provides $86 billion annually in grants, loans and tax benefits to support students, but it's state budgets that mostly determine public colleges' list prices.

Critics say colleges share the blame, for failing to curtail their own spending. Families also bear some responsibility: While they gripe about rising prices, in the end, many still choose more costly schools. That could change in a prolonged economic downturn.

And there we have it, about the total depth of America's discussion on how to reduce the costs of college education. There is a culture of ignorance in our country about this issue, and even as one of the ignorant I realize that it's time I (and everyone else) get an education on the subject. I'm in the camp that the public college and university system is a grossly inefficient business system that cannot continue to be supported by continually increasing tuition and other costs, and that too many private colleges and universities are mired in branding additional value (and cost) rather than figuring out different and efficient models to expand educational reach. But I'm not married to that opinion, because...

I know I'm ignorant on the topic. I don't feel any less informed than most everyone else, though. I also have two kids that will be in college within a dozen years, and I'd like to hear a national conversation about what we want our country to do about postsecondary education and the values and costs of it. I'd like it to be a focus of the next four years, an effort to start working at a consensus of how our nation expects the college and university system to work in the future - what rewards our society expects, what value it provides, and therefore what kind of cost is reasonable.

I also am tired of the discussion of reducing price to college being so focused on scholarships and grants. That is not a true reduction of price, that is an enhancement to paying costs. Not the same thing, and there's a reason for the difference, and those reasons need to be part of the discussion as well.

So... I hope the next President finds some innovative ways to get the conversation really rolling on this topic. If people want things to change - really change - on this issue, then some radicalizing of the market needs to happen. This begins with a conversation about easy core questions - what are we trying to achieve as a nation with our postsecondary education, how do we measure success or failure with that system, what are the costs and benefits to America with the current system, what are the benefits needed tomorrow and how can we reach them - that have deep philosophical answers that need healthy consideration by the nation.