Quote Of The Day

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

Here it is:

[T]he very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. […]

So, look, here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. … And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they’re the ones that I would support tax cuts for first.

Can you guess who said it????

Hint:  The quote was in response to a question which asked, essentially, "Why should the rich pay more taxes?"

The answer is, of course, the socialist Barry Hussein Obama.

Oh, hold on.

Hmmm.  There seems to be some confusion.  Oh, hell.  Let's go to the videotape….

The Final Nail(s)

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

A couple of days ago, my mother asked me if I thought that Powell's endorsment of Obama was the final nail in McCain's quest for the presidency.  I said "no, it was too early blah blah blah".

However, the more I reflect on the past 24 hours, I think there are TWO developments which, taken together, put a McCain victory out of McCain's reach.  One of these is strategic; the other, cosmetic.

1. The Pennsylvania Gambit

08PAPresGEMvO Fox News (of all places) explains it this way:

John McCain is neck-and-neck with Barack Obama in Republican strongholds Missouri and North Carolina, and he is trailing in Virginia, according to most polls. 

And without victories in all three of those states, most electoral maps show it will be almost impossible for McCain to win the White House. So why is the Republican presidential candidate in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, staging three rallies in a reliable blue state where he trails Obama by an average of 11 points?

Nobody really knows the answer, but the most likely one is that McCain doesn't have any choice but to try to yank Pennsylvania from the blue column and pray that he pulls off a victory in Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, etc. — all states where he has diminished his presence (or completely abandoned).  (On the other hand, this theory is plausible, if not revolting)

What McCain ought to do is try to raise his numbers nationally.  Let the rising tide lift all boats, and the maybe he can pull Pennsylvania out of the bag, and hope for other battleground states to cut his way.   That's a  tall order, and I don't profess to know how McCain would do it, but the emphasis these next several days in Pennsylvania is going to amount to time wasted.  It's the equivalent of throwing in the towel.

The problem with Pennsylvania strategy is this, as explained by Nate Silver:

4,060,647
2,917,747
869,707

Those are the current numbers of registered and active Democrats, Republicans and independents in Pennsylvania. Democrats make up more than half the total — 52 percent, in fact — well outdistancing the Republican's 33 percent. Suppose that McCain were to split Pennsylvania's independents with Obama and win Republicans 92-8. He would need to carry 23-24 percent of Pennsylvania's Democrats to win the state; George Bush carried 15 percent.

Simply put, whatever McCain thinks he can do in Pennsylvania, he really really won't.

2. Evitagate

1224685633248 The Palin/clotheshorse story, not even 24 hours old, is absolutely killing McCain.  Granted, it's not McCain's fault, or even that of his immediate staff.  Nor is it the kind of substantive issue that voters should care about in these tough economic times.

But it IS the story of the day, and maybe of the next several days.

And the electorate is latching on to it because it is simple to understand.  It goes to hypocrisy.  Palin, who was thought by many at one time to be McCain's smartest strategic asset, has been slowly going down in the polls.  Even before "Evitagate" (my term, must give credit) happened, her unfavorables had, for the first time since her selection, outweighed her favorables.

With the disclosure that Palin spent $150,000 in one month on clothes for herself (RNC money), gone is her greatest supposed strengths: that she is just an average hockey mom, that she's from "real America" and identifies with "real Americans" from small towns, etc.; that she has the temperment and discipline to cut wasteful spending in D.C.

It may be admittedly unfair that she loses those strengths simply because she wanted to dress nice, but that's the nature of the political beast.  Hypocrisy kills. 

And already, she's getting hit hard for it — not from the "liberal" media or Obama supporters, but from Republicans.  As Mark Ambinder reports:

Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.

Furthermore, there hasn't been any effective damage control rapid response from the McCain campaign yet.  The first response only made things worse:

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent"

Oh.  It was campaign strategy, was it?

Nobody bought or liked that excuse, so the McCain campaign tried again:

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses… It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

I agree that with all these important issues facing the country right now, we shouldn't be talking about pantsuits and blouses.  But I would hasten to add that while Americans are facing economic hardships and loss of jobs, "we" (meaning the McCain campaign) shouldn't be dropping tens of thousands of donors' money at Saks either.  I mean, how can Palin talk about regular Americans like Joe the Plumber, while wearing a Vera Wang, and expect to have her message resonate?

And while it is nice (if one believes it) that the McCain campaign is donating Sarah's silky bras to charity after the campaign, I somehow don't think that will mollify RNC donors who really didn't give that money to the RNC for that purpose.

From hindsight, it would have been great for the McCain campaign if Palin (assuming she needed nice clothes, which I don't) had spent a couple thou at Walmart, and campaigned in those clothes.  At least she would have been consistant with her rhetoric.  But her spending sprees have put her, and John "Eight Houses" McCain, out of the grasp of the very "middle America" that they need to woo in the next 13 days.

In any event, fair or not, Evitagate has taken the McCain campaign off-message at a time when they simply can't afford to look like the Keystone Kops.  IF it were possible for them to succeed at all (with the Pennsylvania strategy, or any other strategy), they simply couldn't afford, in the 13 days remaining, any slip-ups — cosmetic, substantive, or otherwise.

Evitagate, a simple story that has "legs", represents such a slip-up.

Nail, nail.  Coffin.

Real Americans And Average Hockey Moms Spend $75,000 At Neiman Marcus In One Day, I Guess

Ken AshfordElection 20084 Comments

One wonders how Republicans, who hate wasteful spending, will react to this:

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.

Sarah-palin-vogue-magazine By the way, I'm no fashion expert, but it seems to me that Palin only has the one red business suit, and I'm pretty sure it didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars.  But maybe she bought, like, 30 of them.

But in truth, Sarah Palin wasn't a truck driver three months ago. She was a governor. Presumably, she had clothing already. The sort of clothing that was appropriate for giving political speeches and attending campaign meetings.

And $4,700 on hair and makeup in one month?  I know there are places in New York (aka "not real America") where you can pay $300 for a hair styling, and I assume makeup can be expensive, but come on…

Really?

And while America is facing a depression?

And can't she find regular good American clothes on the Wasilla's Main Street?  Seriously, it's a little unbecoming to suggest that America's metropolitan cities don't represent the "real America", and then spend — in one month — twice the average American's annual income on Fifth Avenue shopping sprees.

By the way, any of your remember this Sarah Palin from the convention, the one so keen about letting us know how fiscally responsible she was?

"I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef – although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her."

Remember that?  Remember how her minions went wild over that?

Then there's this:

The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.

Hey, I'm not saying that little Trig (or whatever its name is) shouldn't be allowed to travel with the campaign; I'm just saying that maybe the RNC shouldn't pay for the accessories which, presumably, Palin should already have.  [UPDATE: The Guardian is reporting the $295 was for a "pram" for Trig.  Presumably, Palin (who has 6 kids) never got around to owning a pram, and somehow the $50.00 ones at Target were just too "common" for Trig's babuy behind.)

Then again, she has a history of using money that's not hers to cart her kids around.  Nice perk if you can get, Mrs. Real America.

Fiscal responsibility – now available in petites and plus sizes.

I'm sure this is what was going through Sarah's head:

"I came from the people, they need to adore me
So Christian Dior me from my head to my toes
I need to be dazzling, I want to be Rainbow High
They must have excitement, and so must I"

"Rainbow High" from Evita

Large_palin_sarah  Evita

UPDATE:  Odd thought from Josh Marshall:

If Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe had a life of its own, it would get a tax cut from a President Obama.

NC Early Voting: Heavy Turnout Suggests Huge Obama Lead

Ken AshfordElection 2008, Local InterestLeave a Comment

From WSJ's Washington Wire:

Nearly half a million North Carolina voters have already cast their ballots, either with a mail-in absentee ballot or by casting one in person.

That means nothing Republican presidential hopeful John McCain and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, say or do between now and Election Day can change the choice made by about 9% of the state’s 5.5 million registered voters.

The enthusiasm has been fueled by the campaigns as well as North Carolina’s program allowing residents to register and vote during its “One Stop Absentee Voting” period, which began Oct. 16 and ends Nov. 1.

And there are some clear trends emerging:

• Most early voters, 84%, chose to vote in person rather than by absentee ballot.

• Between Thursday, when one-stop voting started, and Monday, 95% of ballots were cast in person.

• Of those voting in person, registered Democrats accounted for 61%, Republicans accounted for 22%, and 17% had no affiliation or were registered with an alternative party. That indicates a big advantage for Obama in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

• Democrats accounted for 29% of mail-in ballots while Republicans accounted for 54%.

• The absentee ballots include 3,400 cast by U.S. servicemen serving overseas. They are fairly evenly split between Democrats, 36%, and Republicans, 38%. About 17% have no affiliation or are registered or with an alternative party.

The key take from this is in the bullet point above, showing 61% of all in person early voters were Democrat, compared to 22% Republican.

If this were election night, the networks would already be saying, with 9% of the votes counted, Obama leads McCain by 61% to 39% (or something like that).  That's a huge early lead.

World View

Ken AshfordElection 2008, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

According to a recent BBC worldwide poll, these countries prefer Obama over McCain as U.S. President:

  • The United Kingdom
  • Germany
  • France
  • Poland
  • Italy
  • Turkey
  • Lebanon
  • United Arab Emerites
  • Nigeria
  • Kenya
  • China
  • India
  • Russia
  • Singapore
  • Indonesia
  • Australia
  • Phillipines
  • Canada
  • United States
  • Mexico
  • Panama
  • Brazil

Those were ALL the countries that the BBC polled.  ALL of them prefered Obama

I felt sad for McCain when I read that. 

But today, there's finally some good news for McCain.  Yes, there are fereners out there that would prefer to see him in office:

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

Just so we're clear: General Colin Powell supports Obama; al Qaeda supports McCain.

[In all honesty, "endorsements" like this are silly.  They were silly when conservatives tried to use the whole "Hamas supports Kerry" meme in 2004.  The truth is, al Qaeda is going to hate America regardless of who is in office, and we should take reports like the one above with a grain of salt].

About Whores And Socialism (But Mostly About Socialism)

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit, Election 2008Leave a Comment

At a dinner party one night, a drunken Winston Churchill asked an attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds. “Maybe,” the woman said coyly. “Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked. “Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman responded indignantly. “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”

I'm reminded of that anecdote when the political discourse turns, as it has done in recent days, to socialism.

Hiding behind the skirts of Joe the Plumber, the McCain camp is accusing the Obama tax plan of being, well, socialist:

"You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism."

When confronted about this in a recent interview, McCain explained that redistributing wealth is one of the "earmarks of socialism".

PM_soviet_wideweb__470x279,0 I would venture to say that typical Americans don't really know what socialism is.  They equate it (with good reason) with communism, which conjures images (in the minds of most Americans) of Soviet soldiers goose-stepping across Red Square in the shadow of huge missiles and tanks and large pictoral representations of Lenin.

Socialism and communism are similar in the sense that they seek to achieve economic equality among all the people.  Communism is actually a form of socialism (there are many possible forms) in that class equality is achieved through the elimination of classes.  Socialism in a political sense is often seen as a stepping stone to communism; socialism still has classes and a central government, which achieves economic parity through (among other things) nationalization of industries and financial institutions, and, of course, wealth distribution.

So it's quite true that an earmark of socialism is wealth distribution.  But so is nationalization of financial institutions.

My point here is that capitalism in America already has socialist earmarks.  Nationalization of financial institutions?  Well, we achieved something pretty close to that with the bailout.

And wealth distribution?  The thing that the McCain people (and Joe the Plumber) want America to fear?  News flash.  We've always had that, too.

Let me 'splain.  I pay my taxes.  That's taking money from me.  The governement takes that money and spends it.  For example, it contracts with Halliburton to manage prison camps in Iraq.  That contract inures to the benefit of Halliburton, its exeuctives, and its stockholders.  Or, the government takes my tax dollars and uses it in part to fund college grants to promising inner-city students.  Or when, as governor of Alaska, you tax the oil companies and then cut a check for $1,200 for every Alaskan.

That's all wealth distribution, my friends.  Anytime a government taxes its citizens and spends that money domestically, it is engaging in wealth distribution.  The only way to avoid this is to do away with ALL taxing and ALL spending altogether.

So like Churchill's whore, we've already established what we're talking about.  Now, we're simply negotiating the parameters of it.

And the choice boils down to this: Should we continue the policies of having wealth distribution benefit the already-wealthy (hoping that wealth will trickle down)?

The clear answer seems to be no, for the simply reason that wealth doesn't trickle down

Incomeinequality 

Obama, of course, does not seek income and wealth parity (which is what a REAL socialist would do).  There will always be ridiculously wealthy people and impoverished people, even under an Obama economic plan.  But Obama, unlike his predecssors (and that includes Clinton), is seeking, forthrightly, to close that income gap.  He is acknowledging that we already have wealth distribution in this country, except that it flows disproportionately to the benefit of the uber-wealthy.  Reversing that trend might correctly be viewed as a movement toward socialism, but there are plenty of air brakes — both politically and socioecomically — to prevent things from becoming ACTUALLY socialist.

So don't let the "socialist" or "communist" labels scare you.  We already have wealth distribution in our capitalistic society.  Obama just wants it to be more equitable.

UPDATE: Mainstream media does a better job at this than me.

In Which I Finally Get To Knock Obama

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

I really really thought he was above the local baseball team pander gambit:

Such disappointment.

Well, the Teflon is off.  The sheen is sullied.  Maybe he really is a Muslim socialist terrorist not from "real America" after all.

Too bad I already early-voted for him.

UPDATE:  I didn't realize the TDS hit on this last night.

And how about that Sarah Palin?  Pandering to three baseball teams, using the exact same phrase!

Obamacon

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

There are lots of prominent Republicans/conservatives who have endorsed Obama.

Two that surprised me was Julia Nixon Eisenhower (daughter of Richard Nixon and granddaughter-in-law of Dwight Eisenhower) and Francis Fukuyama (the political economist who basically was responsible for neo-conservatism).

The State Of The Race: Two Weeks Out

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

Two weeks out.

TPM reminds us that Obama is sitting on a solid 259 electoral votes, which means he only needs 11 more to win.  There are a number of ways he can get there, and (obviously), they don't necessarily include winning in Ohio and/or Florida.  That is what is making this race significantly different that 2000 and 2004.

Specifically, there are several battleground states right now, totalling 105 electoral votes.  Obama needs (as I said) to grab only 11 electoral votes from these states.  McCain, on the other hand, needs to grab them ALL.

It appears, however, that the McCain plan is to go after Pennsylvania, which is now a solid Obama state.  Somehow, in two weeks, they have to turn that around.  But look what they're up against…

PApolls 

Good luck with that.  Unless McCain becomes a second baseman for the Phillies and brings home the Word Series with a dramatic walk-off three-run homer in Game 7, I don't think he stands much of a chance.

Anyway, Josh Marshall lays it all out…

Rating The Polls

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

It's one man's opinion, but illuminiating nonetheless.  I'm talking about Nate Silver's reviews of the eight daily tracking polls out there (i.e., their strengths and weaknesses).

For example, Zogby's daily tracking polls assume that the voter turnout for Democrats and Republicans will be the same as it was in 2004 (where Dems and Reps voted in roughly equal numbers).  But is that a safe assumption?  This year, there appears to be a five to ten percent increase for Democrats in terms of party identification, compared to 2004.  Therefore, Zogby's poll results could be underestimating Obama's lead.

It's a good read, but for those who want the bottom line, Silver thinks that Rassmussen's daily tracking poll is probably has the best (or, better said, the least flawed) methodlogy.

Moving To The Right, McCain Lost The Center

Ken AshfordElection 2006Leave a Comment

This graphic in the New York Times, slightly modified by Kevin Drum, speaks volumes:

Blog_NYT_McCain_Poll_Indpendents 

By selecting Sarah Palin as VP, and my constantly speaking the rhetoric of the far right, McCain has lost what he needed to win this thing: the votes of the independents.

Kevin Drum suggests that McCain was in a no-win situtation from the get-go; that if he courted independents, he would lose conservatives, but if he courted conservatives (as he did), he would lose independents (as he did).

I disagree.  First of all, conservatives would never go for Obama; they would, at worst, stay home and not vote.  But McCain could have courted independents while still inspiring the conservatives to go to the polls.  Selecting Romney as VP, for example, would have been fine with most conservatives, even though Romney is not as pro-life (for example) as they might like.

But the selection of Palin and the use of harsh demagogery (i.e., "liberals aren't 'real Americans'") turned off a lot of the political middle.  Had McCain picked Romney, or even Thompson, as VP, and then run a campaign on issues rather than attacks on character, he would have pulled enough independents AND conservatives to make the race a lot closer than it is.

UPDATE:  Poor Cindy McCain doesn't get it, and blames the media….

In an interview with Fox news that aired Monday night, Mrs. McCain said she thought the biggest difference between her husband's first presidential run eight years ago and his campaign this year was the media's attitude toward the Arizona senator's candidacy.

"What has really stunned me is the — quite honestly, is the kind of viciousness of the media on occasion," Mrs. McCain said. "In 2000 — there's certainly always been, you know, differences, and the — you know, the things that occur. But this has taken on a different tenor. And I don't know why and what's caused that, and I'm sorry for it because I think it turns a lot of young people off."

Oh, *I* know why, Cyndy.  I just explained why.

More Ugliness In North Carolina, Part II

Ken AshfordElection 2008, Local InterestLeave a Comment

This time from North Carolina GOP politicians:

Warming up a crowd in North Carolina on Saturday, Republican Rep. Robin Hayes offered the diagnosis that “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.”

His remarks came shortly after he had said he would “make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean.” 

Hayes had followed Rep. Patrick McHenry, also a North Carolina Republican, who laid out the choice between McCain and Obama.

“It’s like black and white,” yelled someone from the crowd.

Nice.

[Follow the link at the top.  The Hayes campaign vehemently denied that Hayes made this statement.  Except — whoops — there's audio of it.]

UPDATE:  The aforementioned audio….

For what it's worth, there seems to be a lot of that going around.  Republicans say things, then deny that they said them.  Do they not understand that "we keep the tapes"?

Palin Still Doesn’t Know What Job She’s Running For

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

How embarrassing for her.

Iin July of this year, before she was selected to be McCain's running mate, she asked herself (during a TV interview) what is exactly was that the vice-president does. Back then, Palin didn't seem to know:

“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”

Well, now she's in line for that position, so presumably, she would have a better sense of what the Vice President of the United States does.

Sadly, no.

Having been allowed off her leash, Palin sat down yesterday with a local Colorado TV station for an interview (video link).  In that interview, there's this exchange:

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

Uh, no, egomaniac.  The VP is not "in charge" of the U.S. Senate.  The Vice President presides over the Senate, but the power they can exert is limited.  but don't take my word for it; just ask the U.S. Constitition:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

Furthermore, even though the Vice President presides (acts as President) of the Senate, this largely happens in ceremonial situations, according to the U.S. Senate government website:

Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed.

Sarah Palin a quick learner?  Nope.

If McCain Loses….

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

…expect any and all of the following excuses:

(1)  McCain received unfair press from the lie-beral media, which was "in the tank" for Obama.  For example, the media never fully exposed the Obama-Ayers connection.

(2)  The pollsters (all of them) were pro-Obama.

(3)  The polls were inaccurate; they made people think Obama was winning, and that caused discouraged Republicans to stay home and not vote.

(4)  The election was stolen by groups like ACORN, who committed voter fraud by registering thousands of bogus voters.

You can already see the groundwork being laid for these pathetic attempts at future Monday-morning quarterbacking.

But let's take them one at a time.

(1)  The excuse of a lie-beral media is almost laughable.  First of all, it ignores Fox, will-traveled sites on the Internet, talk radio, and the like, as well as countless appearance by conservatives who, without media help, shoot themselves in the foot.  Secondly, this excuse works on the premise that the "liberal" media, to the extent it exists, somehow influences voters.  If that's the case, then how does one explain Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004?  Was there no liberal media, or were voters unpersuaded by it?  Thirdly, the strengths/weaknesses of the candidates were exposed unfiltered to voters in the form of three presidential debates and two conventions.

As for "exposing" the Obama-Ayers connection, conservatives have to realize that the mere act of raising suspicions about their "connection" (i.e., "Just what IS the truth about Obama and Ayers?") doesn't mean there actually IS — in REALITY — something nefarious.  Every media outlet that has looked into it has discovered that they knew each other through mutual service on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, that Ayers did NOT have a fundraiser for Obama (just a meet-and-greet), that Obama did NOT launch his political career in Ayers' living room, and that Obama wrote a blurb for Ayers' book.  If there were more, wouldn't it have come out by now?  Is there ANYTHING to suggest that Obama supported the actions of The Weather Underground movement back in the 1960's (when Obama was eight)?

Perhaps McCain supporters should start warming themselves to the possibilitythat Obama is NOT aterrorist through his minor associations with Ayers, and that's why the media hasn't been able to report it that way.  It has nothing to do with the media being "in the tank" for Obama; it has to do with, you know, the facts.

(2)  Similarly, it is ridiculous to conjecture that multi-million dollar businesses specializing in opinion research are going to commit corporate suicide by knowlinglyreleasing made-up polls.  And of course, this meme ignores the fact that even Fox News polls show Obama ahead.

(3)  Yeah, polls are, by their nature, not an exact science.  Anyone with a passing knowledge of statistics understands this, and understands that "margins of error" are relevant.  However, when EVERY national poll shows Obama ahead by anywhere from 4 to 11 points, one CAN rightfully conclude with a certain degree of comfort, that Obama actually IS ahead.  That's just the facts (albeit facts with caveats), and what voters choose to do with those facts (including, staying home and not voting) is hardly something that can be blameworthy on the polls themselves.

(4)  I've dealt with this before.  The fraud was committed against ACORN, not by it.  ACORN volunteers were charged with the task of getting low-income people registered to vote.  The volunteers were paid based on the number of names they got registered.  Sadly, some ACORN people submitted fake and phony names, in order to benefit financially.  But ACORN organizers caught them and turned them in, which is how we know about it the first place.

And most importantly, even IF there is a non-existent registered voter whose name appears in the voter rolls, it won't make a wit of difference unless that voter shows up to VOTE on election day, complete with fake ID and SSN.  Any allegations of that?  Any allegations of "Mickey Mouse" being able to vote this election?  We'll wait and see, but I suspect not.  For a nice summary of the ACORN "controversy", go here] [Interesting sidenote:  conservative bloggers and the GOP, ever on the lookout for conspiracy, tagged New Mexico as a place where non-existent people are registered to vote.  Their Exhibit A?  There is a "voter" from Albuquerque registered under the name "Duran Duran" — obviously a bogus non-existent person.  Except, whoops…. there really is a person living in Albuquerque named "Duran Duran".]

******

So here's an open message to McCain supporters: Open yourself up to the possibility that McCain will have lost because….. he LOST.  It's a distinct possibility.  After all, most of you McCain supporters were never that crazy about him to begin with.  Remember?