October 11, 2008
It certainly seems as though the right wing of the blogosphere will be kept quite busy over the next three-and-a-half weeks -- so little time, and so many Obama scandals to investigate!
Over at National Review Online's blog, The Corner, Mark Hemmingway suspects -- based on, um, nothing -- that Tony Rezko may be telling the feds about nefarious dealings with a bank where Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias once worked. And we care because? Because Giannoulias has connections to Barack Obama! Hemmingway concludes: "Maybe there's nothing there, but it's worth looking into right?" Um, right.
At American Thinker, Jack Cashill has another bombshell: he has proved conclusively -- well, not so much proved conclusively as made up in his head -- that Obama's memoir Dreams From My Father was not really penned by Obama but was secretly ghostwritten by William Ayers. (Best line of Cashill's essay: "In Obama's defense, he did grow up in Hawaii.") Hey, Cashill is nothing but fair -- lamenting, for instance, that Obama doesn't simply come forward with proof, rather than guarding his past "more zealously than Saddam did his nuclear secrets. And I suspect, at the end of the day, we will pay an equally high price for Obama's concealment as Saddam's." So you see how high the stakes are!
The free world is presumably at stake when you have TOP OBAMA CAMPAIGN FINANCIER WORKING WITH STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM TO UNDERMINE U.S., as we are warned by Kristin Taylor at freerepublic.com. The article -- which is "heavily documented with supporting links," the author herself assures us, uncovers the secret link between Obama and the terrorists, who turns out to be a co-founder of Code Pink. The story "is very troubling for our nation," and yet one that "our news media refuses to investigate and report," Taylor says.
Oh, and I recently noted that nobody on the right was blaming the stock market collapse on investors' fears of an impending Obama Presidency. That only lasted a few hours; the ever-reliable Jonah Goldberg was the first one I saw pose the theory. But now we have the always entertaining editorial page of Investors Business Daily chiming in:
"Why has the market dropped so much?" everyone asks. What is it about the specter of our first socialist president and the end of capitalism as we know it that they don't understand?
Sadly, there is oh so much we don't understand. Thank goodness these folks will be keeping busy informing us!
October 10, 2008
You know, when you stop and think about it, one of the things you should probably avoid when selecting a vice-presidential running mate is someone who is the subject of an ongoing official ethics investigation.
I mean, when you put it like that, it does seem kind of obvious, right?
The bipartisan Legislative Council has released its report, finding that "Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act." (I recommend the Anchorage Daily News for coverage.)
The campaign campaign has cleverly blunted the likely impact of this news, by screwing up so many things so stupidly in recent weeks -- giving so many voters so many reasons to vote against the Republican ticket -- that the VP violating ethics laws barely stands out.
But seriously, he picked a VP who was the subject of an ongoing official ethics investigation. Who does that?
October 10, 2008
In the latest RNC anti-Obama ad, William Daley's black-and-white mug (above the words "political boss") comes right between Tony Rezko and William Ayers, so you know he's pure evil. So why did John McCain help make him Commerce Secretary?
Politico reminds us that John McCain was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee in charge of confirming Daley's nomination in 1997. McCain voted yes in the committee recommendation vote (and yes again in the full floor vote), and gave him words of high praise. McCain gave Daley further praise in assessing Daley's performance the following year.
On another note, go back and take a look at this ad that McCain put out in the first days of the financial-collapse panic three weeks ago. It warns that the worst, most dangerous this to do in this crisis would be to expand Washington powers and programs; it shows a menacing Capital building ballooning across a map. Less than three weeks later, of course, McCain is now touting as the cure a $300 billion program for the federal government to buy up and renegotiate millions of private mortgages worth trillions of dollars.
October 10, 2008
Connecticut's Supreme Court has ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples.
More to come once I get the decision itself. Meanwhile: congratulations Connecticut on joining us, and becoming domino #3 -- in either the fulfillment of the American ideal of true equality, or the decline and fall of American civilization, depending on your POV!
October 10, 2008
I am on record from a little over a month ago predicting a 35-state win for Obama. (OK, I initially predicted 40 states, and backtracked a few days later to 35.) I provided some of my analysis behind that prediction, at a time when polls showed a dead-even race. Now, with the polls widening, many are sensing that Obama's victory might -- emphasize might, obviously much can change -- be sizable. But how big? Is 35 states, or more, really possible?
Yes indeed, says I.
Let's start with the states John Kerry won in 2004, all of which appear to be in Obama's pocket as things stand today. There are 20 of them (including DC): HI, WA, OR, and CA out west; the six New England states; MN, WI, IL, and MI in the upper midwest; and PA, NY, NJ, MD, DE, and DC in the northeast.
There are 11 states that voted Bush in 2004, where Obama is leading, tied, or very close in the polls: NV, CO, NM, IA, MO, IN, OH, WV, VA, NC, and FL. If movement continues in the current direction -- and if turnout favors the Democrats, as I suspect it will in most "battleground" states -- Obama could sweep them all.
Two others have been shown in recent polls to be within single digits and closing: Montana and Georgia.
And that's where most people will say the possibilities end -- at a maximum of 33 states. After all, if you stop by the electoral-map web sites at the major news outlets, or sites like Pollster.com, you'll generally find the remaining 18 states deep, deep red, indicating "safe McCain."
But that evaluation is based almost entirely on a combination of past history and old polls -- which are perfectly valid reasons to paint them red until new evidence comes along. And since nobody bothers to poll states like Arkansas or South Dakota very often, there's no new evidence.
Arkansas is a perfect example. The Real Clear Politics (RCP) rolling average gives McCain a 16-point lead in the polls there -- but the polling dates included to make up that average, include nothing more recent than July 17, and go back as far as February.
Bear in mind that the RCP national rolling average has swung nine points in Obama's direction since Sept. 8. For all we know, Arkansas might have easily moved 10 points toward Obama since this summer -- as, say, North Carolina or West Virginia have.
Arkansas is one of 11 deep-red states with RCP average leads of between 11 and 16 points for McCain. For nine of those 11, that RCP average is based at least in part on polling conducted before the political conventions. Those nine are SC, MS, LA, AR, TX, KS, SD, ND, and AZ.
The other two, Kentucky and Tennessee, are probably out of reach, as are the seven states with RCP average McCain leads over 16 points: AL, OK, NE, WY, ID, UT, and AK.
But, based on the national trends, the other nine are probably closer to "lean McCain" status than "safe McCain" right now -- we just don't know it yet. Also remember that those states are being hit by national ads, where Obama has been recently outspending McCain 2-to-1, a margin likely to increase considerably in the final weeks. And, Obama is planning a half-hour all-major-networks prime-time infomercial before the election, which McCain almost certainly will not do.
So, if the race continues moving in Obama's direction, the uppermost limit looks like 42 states -- with 483 electoral votes.
That kind of total landslide is unlikely, to be sure. And the race could certainly tighten rather than widen over the next three-and-a-half weeks.
But I'm still standing by my 35-state prediction.
October 10, 2008
GLAD has put out an alert that the long-awaited decision in Kerrigan and Mock v. Connecticut Department of Public Health will be announced later this morning by the state's Supreme Court. Expect an announcement at 11:30.
Kerrigan-Mock is quite similar to the California case in many ways, and as the time has dragged on (it's been 17 months since oral arguments) there has been much speculation about what will happen.
The lower court ruled, in effect, that the state was within its rights to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Thus, gay-marriage advocates are hoping to see the SC overturn; a ruling to uphold would mean no same-sex marriage in Connecticut.
I think the odds are good for CT to become the third state to allow gay marriage. Stay tuned!
October 08, 2008
In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I have two articles.
In the Talking Politics column, I look at how the national financial crisis could affect the political fortunes of some of Massachusetts's top political figures -- beginning with Treasurer Tim Cahill. After I put the article to bed, word came that the state pension fund has lost $8 billion this year -- half of that last month alone. Surely nobody will blame him for what were obviously forces beyond his control, you say? Ask former-Treasurer-but-not-quite-governor Shannon O'Brien, as I did:
“[Mitt] Romney basically blamed me for the stock-market crash,” says O’Brien. “You can be doing the best job in the world, and they’re only going to see the latest numbers.”
That article is here: Financial Fallout.
In the second article, I look at the re-assessment of political fortunes within City Hall, in light of the suddenly not-so-secret mayoral ambitions of city councilor Sam Yoon. That article includes what was, at the time I put it to bed, the previously untold news that Mike Ross had secured the votes to become council president next year. Today, Ross publicly announced it. Congratulations to him, and read the article for more: City Hall Domino Effect.
October 08, 2008
Like many regular viewers of the current season of the "Election '08" semi-reality show, I have enjoyed watching co-leading character "John McCain" and his crew trying to take down the rival gang's leader, "Barack H. Obama" with things like William Ayers, ACORN improprieties, and other devices -- and I have believed all along that those are red herrings; single-episode diversions (like the Russian in the snow on Sopranos!).
But today my eyes were opened -- and my interest piqued -- by a post from the esteemed, if somewhat deranged, Erick Erickson, editor of the popular conservative blog RedState. Erickson claims to have seen script pages from upcoming episodes, which show that in fact these seemingly minor sub-plots will coalesce around a dramatic "reveal" a la The Usual Suspects:
And the separate plots begin to connect. The ACORN
narrative, the Ayers narrative, the foreign donor narrative — they
intersect, combine, tangle, and paint a very ugly picture of Barack
Obama. What Obama did on the board with the Annenberg money and what
he'd do with your money come in to the narrative. But I'm told there
will be a surprise twist in this plot that will make it even neater to
watch unfold.
Erickson's early review promises that the late-season episodes will be "tumultuous and fun."
So, does anyone have any guesses about the nature of the upcoming "Bruce Willis is dead too!" shocker?
My guess: secret videotape of Obama, Ayers, and other Chicago-area radicals at a convention of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America. The super-scandalous Obama-DSA connection was briefly raised much earlier in the season, but re-emerged unnoticed in the background of yesterday's "Town Hall debate" episode.
October 08, 2008
I'll admit I didn't fully appreciate this at first, but two wiser observers in my immediate circle did, and upon review it seems pretty clear-cut.
The first question in last night's debate came from an older white gentleman named Alan Shaffer, who asked:
With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?
The second question came from a younger black gentleman name Oliver Clark, who asked:
Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.
The two questions are almost identical -- in fact, it's hard to understand why Brokaw picked both of them. Notice that neither one mentioned anything about home ownership, mortgages, or anything along those lines.
In his answer to Alan, the older white guy, McCain introduced his new mortgage buyout plan like this:
You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes. (my emphasis)
McCain here is saying that people like Alan are at risk of losing their homes through no fault of their own, but simply because of the devaluation of their property, and the decline in the value of their investments.
McCain likewise turned young black Oliver's question toward the new mortgage buyout proposal, but like this:
Well, thank you, Oliver, and that's an excellent question... one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis. But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.... we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home. (my emphases)
Here, McCain is using the currently fashionable right-wing talking point that the entire crisis stems from loans made to poor, primarily minority home buyers who "could never afford to pay back" those loans in the first place -- who have now made innocent victims of people like Alan and his friends, who "are no longer able to afford" their payments.
It's worth mentioning that McCain appears to be looking directly at Oliver both when he says "you may never have heard of" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and when he refers to "Americans, like Alan" trying to stay in their homes.
It certainly seems as though McCain made grossly different assumptions about the two questioners, casting the black guy and his friends as the problem, and the white guy and his friends as the victims. And again, there is little or nothing in the questions themselves about the men's own housing situations.
October 07, 2008
I thought both candidates did fine tonight -- except for how John McCain dropped a massive new policy proposal into the campaign (to empower Treasury to buy and renegoatiate failing mortgages) that will force his campaign to talk about the economic crisis for the coming days, and specifically to explain what the hell he's thinking with this wildly impulsive approach.
McCain blunted its impact in the debate, by failing to mention -- any of the several separate times he brought it up -- that this was an entirely new proposal for him. To most viewers, I suspect that they didn't know it was knew, didn't really understand its value, and quickly forgot about it. This also allowed Obama, who clearly was blindsided by it, to simply ignore it rather than get forced into responding to it on the fly (and possibly validating it before his staff has a chance to pick it apart). In addition, the media was so blindsided by it, that from what I can tell they're ignoring it in the discussion afterward -- so he's getting no 'game-changing' buzz, at least initially, for having dropped what he presumably wants to be seen as a bold, new proposal to the crisis.
Of course, the plan is not entirely new -- versions of it were discussed during the bailout debate, and were rejected, mostly because Secretary Paulsen said that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to create the necessary vast bureaucracy in the short time necessary to have any impact.
According to a short release on the plan, released by the McCain campaign during the debate tonight, the direct costs of the plan would be $300 billion -- which McCain wants to divert directly from the just-passed $700 billion bailout plan. The campaign argues that, with this plan in effect (they're calling it the "McCain Resurgence Plan"), much of the Wall Street bailout would prove unnecessary.
So, what we have here is that John McCain rushed back to Washington to help negotiate a bailout bill, voted for it, and then announced plans to completely undermine it with another, totally different plan.
I'll leave it to others to assess the plan in greater detail, but in general this sort of plan is much-loathed by conservatives, and many people consider it by nature pretty fundamentally unfair. (For example, it rewards those who are failing to pay their mortgage, but not those in exactly the same circumstances who do pay -- indeed, for many homeowners whose homes have dropped significantly in value, this would create an incentive to stop paying the mortgage.) Also, as noted, the Treasury Secretary has said it won't work.
October 07, 2008
Since the Bar Overseer put forward the perjury charge against Dianne Wilkerson, several people have asked me about the post I wrote two years ago, when this charge also surfaced (coincidentally?) shortly before Wilkerson's election.
It seems that some old posts do not come up in normal archive searches. I've tracked it down, and here's the link to it for those interested.
I should note that I have written before about cases involving both of the detectives who contradict Wilkerson in this case. Most notably, Herbert Spellman was the lead detective in the Stephan Cowans case.
October 07, 2008
A few minor notes before the great dialogue begins:
--By my calculations, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed today 10.8% lower than the day George W. Bush took office on January 20, 2001; the NASDAQ is up 1.9%, the S&P 500 is down 26.1%.
--Credit where it's due: I read a fair amount of the right-wing blogosphere, and I have not once yet seen a single argument that the stock market is tanking as a reaction to the increasing likelihood that Barack Obama will be the next President, and investors know that he will be terrible for the economy.
--"[Obama's] nationwide [ad] buys have been climbing a systematic 20% a week since the
beginning of September, while Mr. McCain's have flatlined.... The Obama campaign upped its daily spending to more than $2.8 million, almost
double what the McCain team spends daily now." See full article here. Contrariwise, WaPo's Cillizza sez Obama's total ad spending is now triple McCain's.
--As a rule, political candidates don't want to be "linked" to "death squads" in the final month of an election.
--Chronicle of Higher Ed sez that Joe Lieberman is on the outs with the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party."
October 07, 2008
Earlier today, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and incumbent Republican John Sununu had their second debate (sort of -- this was billed as a forum) in the race for US Senate. Shaheen criticized Sununu for being in New Hampshire last Wednesday, instead of in Washington, according to the account in the Nashua Telegraph:
Shaheen fired back that Sununu spent two days last week campaigning that he
should have been working to give taxpayers more protection in the bill's final
version.
"John, I don't need a lecture about leadership," Shaheen said.
"If I had been in the Senate . . . I would have stayed in Washington and I would
have worked on that bill and done everything to make sure it was done
right."
Why was Sununu back in NH? For the first Shaheen-Sununu debate....
October 07, 2008
You have until 5:00 today to sign up (nefinance@barackobama.com) for a big ol' Obama fundraiser being held at the Fairmont Copley Plaza tomorrow. The "Lunch With The First Ladies" -- minimum suggested contribution $250 -- is being hosted by Diane Patrick and Angela Menino -- and features quite a few big-dollar co-chairs and co-hosts who were once in the diehard Hillary Clinton camp.
In other news on the local Obama fundraising front.... A $250 contribution will also get you into a debate watch party with Jimmy Tingle tonight in Cambridge. Those with fewer spare shekels can cough up $50 to join a debate watch party tonight with city councilor Mike Ross (OK, he's no Jimmy Tingle, but who is?) at Lir on Boylston Street.
October 06, 2008
Congressional Quarterly has compiled a set of "top three" likely appointees for cabinet positions, for both a potential McCain and potential Obama presidency. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry -- much rumored for a position -- is conspicuously absent.
Kerry rumors most often center on Secretary of State. CQ names Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, and Bill Richardson as the three most likely for the job under Obama.
To lead the Department of Defense, CQ guesses that Obama might keep Robert Gates, or tap either Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed or former Sec'y of the Navy Richard Danzig.