Lady, you be whacked:
Sarah Gets Pranked
This is a real phone call to Sarah Palin. She thinks she's talking to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but she's actually talking to two Quebecian DJs who pull pranks.
Stupidity Among Teachers
The full story is here, but it boils down to this:
1. Art teacher tells students to draw a scary mask in art class.
2. One student draws this:
(The art teacher even helped with the shading of the eyelids).
3. Student gets in hot water for the "troubling" drawing, and isn't allowed back into school until he undergoes psychiatric evaluation.
Yup. He completed the assignment, and they punish him.
My Friends: The Musical
Yeah I guess it's a negative campaign ad, but it has some good music, and dancing, so….
Backfire
First Read: NORTH CAROLINA: Some said fresh polling in North Carolina suggested that incumbent GOP Elizabeth Dole had fallen further behind since airing an ad that tried to tie Democratic rival Kay Hagan to atheists."
******
Hagan's response ad, by then way, is masterful. Especially the "bearing false witness" part. With one phrase, she rebuts the criticism that she's an atheist, and she uses the Bible to do it.
The November Surprise?
With 3 days until Election Day, the story of the day apparently is the discovery that Obama has an aunt, a Kenyan woman who is the half-sister of Obama's biological father who he only knew for a month, and this aunt is an illegal immigrant living in Boston.
I'm not sure why this should be a game-changer. Obama didn't know she was an illegal alien. and he's planning to return her $65 campaign donation.
So…… where's the beef?
I think it should be nothing more than an interesting footnote. You certainly can't impute anything bad to Obama about this.
Worry Vapors
I see this a lot, too. The New York Times does a feature on it. The article starts with a look at Jon Downs, a liberal Democrat in New Hope, PA., who constantly checks his computer for latest polls.
“Look, I have this sense of impending doom; we’ve had a couple of elections stolen already,” Mr. Downs said. “The only thing worse than losing is to think that you’re going to win and then lose.”
He considers that prospect and mutters, almost involuntarily, “Oh, God.”
To talk with left-leaning Democrats in New Hope, San Francisco or Miami Beach, to drill deep into their id, is to stand at the intersection of Liberal and High Anxiety.
Right now, more than a few are having a these-polls-are-too-good-to-be-true, we-still-could-lose-this-election moment. Their consuming and possibly over-caffeinated worry is that their prayers and nightly phone calls to undecided voters in Toledo, Ohio, notwithstanding, Mr. Obama might fall short on Election Day.
To walk on Broadway, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, is to feel their pain. “Oh, God, I’m optimistic, but I can’t look at the polls,” said Patricia Kuhlman, 54, nervously tapping her Obama/Biden ’08 button. “I’m a PBS/NPR kind of person, and, O.K., I do look at some polls.”
Ms. Kuhlman shakes her head and says, “If he doesn’t get this, I’ll be crying so hard.”
A young woman, Shana Rosen, walks by. She is from Denver and said she had told her boyfriend that their love life was on hold while she sweated out Mr. Obama’s performance in Colorado. Ask Lucy Slurzberg, an Upper West Side psychotherapist, how many of her liberal patients speak of their electoral fears during their sessions, and she answers: “Oh, only about 90 percent of them.”
Listen….
Official McCain Campaign — Complete With KoolAid Stains
Marc Ambinder has the full memo from Rick Davis, Campaign Manager of the McCain campaign. It was released yesterday.
I just wanted to highlight a few of his points:
All the major polls have shown a tightening in the race and a significant narrowing of the numbers. In John McCain's typical pattern, he is closing strong and surprising the pundits. We believe this race is winnable, and if the trajectory continues, we will surpass the 270 Electoral votes needed on Election Night.
Uh, yes. There has been some minor "tightening". However, "if the trajectory continues", Obama is still way ahead in the national polls:
More Rick Davis:
Iowa – Our numbers in Iowa have seen a tremendous surge in the past 10 days. We took Obama's lead from the double digits to a very close race. That is why you see Barack Obama visiting the state in the final days, trying to stem his losses. It is too little, too late. Like many other Midwestern states, Iowa is moving swiftly into McCain's column.
One wonders what the magic Iowa numbers are, because….
Back to Mr. Davis:
Ohio and Pennsylvania - Everyone knows that vote rich Ohio and Pennsylvania will be key battlegrounds for this election. Between the two: 41 electoral votes and no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio.
JFK lost Ohio in 1960, FDR lost Ohio in 1944, Grover Cleveland lost Ohio in 1892. The Ohio trivia fact is that no Republican has ever taken the White House without Ohio.
Expanding the Field: Obama is running out of states if you follow out a traditional model. Today, he expanded his buy into North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona in an attempt to widen the playing field and find his 270 Electoral Votes. This is a very tall order and trying to expand into new states in the final hours shows he doesn't have the votes to win.
Translation: The fact that Arizona, McCain's home state, has moved into the toss-up column is a devastating development for Obama.
And my favorite part, at the end:
In short: the McCain campaign is surging in the final 72 hours. Our grassroots campaign is vibrant and communicating to voters in a very powerful way. Our television presence is strong. And, we have a secret ingredient – A candidate who will never quit and who will never stop fighting for you and for your families.
(Emphasis mine).
Pssst. Rick. Maybe, just maybe, you should reveal that "secret" to the public. Now might be a good time.
It has to be frustrating for McCain campaign workers to read this stuff. Unless they're drunk on KoolAid, too.
More On Palin’s Constitutional Scholarship
Hopefully you've heard by now Palin's blunder. It boils down to this:
Media Criticism of My Criticism of Obama = First Amendment Violation
Brian Beutler says that Palin has a "third grader's understanding of Constitutional rights" and asks:
If the conservative media convinces enough voters that Barack Obama is a Muslim, does that violate his right to freedom of religion?
Very true.
By the same token, the First Amendment also protects the "freedom of association". Doesn't Palin, under her own reasoning, threaten Obama's First Amendment rights, when she criticizes his "associations"?
Jonathan Schwarz has the audio of Palin, issuing her constitutional warning, here. It's actually more painful to hear it than read it, because you can hear her thinking about the analysis she's making as it leaves her mouth, and she clearly believes she's actually making an important and profound point about First Amendment rights.
No More Mr. Nice Blog calls it: AMENDMENT 1.5: THE RIGHT OF WHITE REPUBLICANS NOT TO BE MADE UNCOMFORTABLE
And here's Palin's Constitution from a commentor at Washington Monthly:
Amendment 1: Congress (nor the states, the media, George Soros, or liberal bloggers) shall make any law (or defamation suit, elitist editorial, blog post, or Keith Olbermann special comment) abridging (or criticizing or even fact-checking) the freedom of Republican speech, or the right of racists and other violent, ignorant mobs to assemble. Democrats, well, that's another matter.
Sarah's whining about the media threatening her First Amendment rights is very "Help! Help! I'm being repressed", isn't it?
Votes In The Bank: NC
Research 2000 poll of early voters in North Carolina. It looks good:
President
McCain (R) 40
Obama (D) 52
Senate
Dole (R) 40
Hagan (D) 58
Governor
Purdue (D) 55
McCrory (R) 37
RIP Studs Terkel
Sigh. He was 96. He would have liked next Tuesday a lot, I bet.
North Carolina Votes
There are lots of reasons to vote. One of them is to cancel out some of the morons who DO vote for all the bad reasons.
Winston-Salem Journal Endorses…. McCain
All the other major NC papers — from Charlotte to Raleigh to Asheville to Greensboro to Fayetteville, and more — have already made their endorsements. All of them went for Obama.
Yesterday, the Winston-Salem Journal finally made its endorsement (after saying it was going to sit this election out). It went for McCain.
It's one of the saddest mealy-mouthed endorsements I've ever read. The article praises Obama effusively. One of my collegaues told me that he stopped reading the piece a few paragraphs in, having assumed that he was reading an Obama endorsement.
The article goes on to lament McCain's campaign.
But it eventually endorses McCain, because it believes (based on…..?) that after the election, the "real John McCain" will emerge and do good for the country and not be like Bush at all and be able to work with Democrats yada yada yada.
Shorter Winston-Salem Journal endorsement: "We endorse McCain because he's a Republican and we don't endorse Democrats."
Some selected readers' comments (most of which hate the endorsement). Many of them note that WSJ, being owned by a company in Richmond, doesn't reflect the views of the immediate community. There may be some truth to that — Winston-Salem voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004, but the paper endorsed Bush both times.
What angers many of these readers is not the McCain endorsement per se, but the flawed rationale behind it.
My husband and I just canceled our subscription to the Winston-Salem Journal due to the paper's endorsement of John McCain for President. Your endorsement runs counter to your own logic. You proclaim that McCain's campaign has not been as strong as Obama's but then say that the "real McCain" will re-emerge once he is elected president. Don't you think we saw the real McCain in the last year? The bumbling, erratic politician who will go against his own principles to say or do anything to be elected? The nomination of Sarah Palin didn't convince you that his decisions were not to be trusted? Any newspaper that sees the truth, but then twists it to present a flawed argument to its readers is not a newspaper I want to read every day.
***
How sad, and how very disappointing that the Journal editorial page–which at times in the past has been a clear voice for reasoned progress–now has revealed itself to be completely ideological and unfettered by reality in issuing this very wrong-headed endorsement.
***
I am truly proud to live in the city of Winston Salem, NC. It is really wonderful to be a part of such a diverse and inclusive city. I am equally disappointed in this endorsement by the WSJ. Obviously, you did not consider the population which you represent when you endorse such a pathetic campaign, which is a reflection of the person at the top of the ticket. Today will be the last day that I patronize the WSJ.
***
After being assured that the Winston Salem Journal would not endorse either presidential candidate imagine my surprise to read in this morning's paper that you gave a lukewarm endorsement to Senator McCain. The rationale was confusing…. you believe that the McCain we are seeing in the campaign is not the real McCain but if he becomes president he will morph back into the smiling, laughing nice guy he has always been? Have I got it right?…
BTW, I may cancel my subscription. The Journal is owned by an out of state person and managed in Richmond. I want to support those journalists and employees who need their jobs and the businesses that advertise in the paper, but I am so dismayed by this endorsement and the flimsy rationale for making it that I don't know if I can continue to support you.
***
The Journal is asking readers to take them seriously when the entire endorsement is based not upon facts, but upon wishful thinking.
Jesus F*&*!&@ing Christ!! For The Love Of God, Will Someone Please Hand Sarah Palin A Copy Of The United States Constitution?!? (Part XXIV))
Here's her latest bizarre quote, from today:
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
Dear Sarah:
All I'm going to say about your continuing screed about "Obama's associations" is this: you're married to someone who was a member of a political party that wanted to secede from America.
So, you know, shut up, Sarah.
But as for the Constitution (the document that you wrongly think would give you the power, as Vice President, to be "in charge" of the Senate) — well, lets go to the text again….
No, no! Don't go anywhere Sarah. It only takes about ten seconds to read. I promise.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now Sarah — I know there are a lot of multi-syllabic words, and no accompanying pictures, but really — a Vice Presidential nominee should be able to parse the First Amendment and discern its meaning.
Just try. Try real hard.
*sigh* Okay, I'll help.
You see, the First Amendment protects your (and my) freedom of speech from acts of Congress. Meaning that Congress cannot pass laws that abridge your freedom of speech. That's what the words "Congress shall make no law…." mean!
The First Amendment doesn't limit the "press" at all. It does not say, for example, that the press can't beat up on you for making stupid comments. And it certainly doesn't protect your (or my) "ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media".
In fact, you've got it backwards, hon. The "freedom of press" clause specifically recognizes and protects the right of the press to call you an idiot for the embarrassing crap that comes from your mouth. Or my mouth.
Sarah, can you name a country – past or present — that attempted to stifle the press from being critical of those in power?
Ok. Never mind. I was going to say Communist Russia. You see, the First Amendment is what keeps us from being like Communist Russia. But you apparently believe that the First Amendment not only does, but ought to, stifle a free press.
Sarah, my love — THE CONSTITUTION is the document that, when you get sworn in as Vice President, you take an OATH — on the BIBLE — to uphold. Don't you think you might want to — oh, I don't know — learn what the thing SAYS?????
UPDATE… Greenwald echoes me:
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
UPDATE… BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS FOLKS….
Yeah, I'm a lawyer, who writes and occasionally specializes in constitutional law. And no, she's not. (She just has a journalism degree — a degree for a profession which is engaged in finding out the truth).
So yeah, I get worked up over this.
But it should be a concern to everybody. Because this woman purports to be a "real American" who "loves America" and who supports wars which send young Americans overseas, ostensibly to protect our Constitution.
Shouldn't a person who claims to have those "pro-American" characteristics and values have at least a rudimentary understanding of the very document upon which America is based? I'm not talking about a presidential candidate; I mean any person. Shouldn't a self-professed "real American" have an inkling about the ideals of America?
The Constitution. What we're talking about here isn't abstract Americana history; what we're talking about is the ideological foundations upon which this country still stands.
How can a person love America, if they can't even articulate correctly what the fundamentals and ideals of America are?
That's not patriotism; that's faux patriotism.
Immigrants seeking to enter this country have a better understanding of these things than Ms. Palin. As do 6th grade civics students.
And yet, she wants to be elected to a position which is one 76-year-old, cancer-stricken heartbeat away from the presidency. She could conceivably appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will "strictly interpret the Constitution", even though that's a document with which she clearly lacks any passing acquintance. She wants to raise her right hand and swear an oath to God to uphold a document that she is absolutely clueless about.
That is simply frightening.
Dole’s Second Attack Ad On Hagan
Dole unconvincingly asserts she is not attacking Hagan's faith, but then she attacks Hagan again for, uh, not being bigoted against atheists. Or something.
This second ad is only slightly less disgusting than the first.
The ad purports to just be "giving the facts", but this ad, like the other one, actually skews the fact:
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
On Sept. 15, Hagan attended a fundraiser in Boston hosted by author Wendy Kaminer and her husband, Woody Kaplan.
Both are leaders of the Secular Coalition of America, which advocates for atheists and humanists in public policy. Kaplan also sits on the advisory board of the Godless Americans political action committee, which advocates for nonbelievers.
Kaplan was listed as one of 10 chairs of the Hagan fundraiser, along with Sen. John Kerry, former U.S. ambassador to Austria Swanee Hunt and several other Boston-area businesspeople. Another 25 people were listed as hosts.
The fundraiser was advertised on the Democratic Web site ActBlue in August. After Dole criticized Hagan over the fundraiser in late August, Kaminer and Kaplan's names were removed from the invitation on ActBlue.
The Godless Americans PAC Web site says that it supports candidates who are atheists and supports the separation of religion and government, including a “Godless pledge.”
The news clips are of other members of the Godless Americans PAC on MSNBC's “Scarborough Country” in 2004 and 2005 and Fox News' “The O'Reilly Factor” in 2004. The unidentified woman's voice at the end is Johnson's from a Washington rally in 2002.
IS THE AD ACCURATE?
It is true that Hagan attended the fundraiser in question, but the ad is misleading in several ways. The fundraiser was not a secret. The people shown in the news clips were not involved with the fundraiser. And some viewers might be led to believe that the unidentified female voice at the end of the ad is Hagan's.
I have one question for Liddy Dole: Are you accepting campaign donations from atheists?