"If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."*

*of course that's a quote from your favorite little green alien and mine, Yoda from Star Wars.

Well, looks like Yoda was wrong again-don't forget that Anakin/Darth Vader turned away from the dark side right before he bought the moisture farm in the sky. A conservative blogger has broken ranks with Emperor Limbaugh and Darth Beck. Charles Johnson, writer of the blog LittleGreenFootballs.com, has "parted ways with the Right." Read his reasons, in his own words, here.

GOP Launched a New Website (Straight Into a Dumb Brick Wall)

This is somewhat old news but, I'll explain below why I'm posting this now after all the coverage it's already received. As you may have heard from numerous news outlets, on Oct. 13, 2009 the GOP launched a new website, namely, GOP.com that had some problems.

Oh, GOP, you're like that elderly person from the early 1990's who tries over and over again to set the time on your VCR to no avail. After every failed attempt the VCR continually flashes "12:00" in what you believe is a mocking, condescending manner. Or GOP, you're like the 90's elderly person trying to look cool as you show off your new, hip cassette tapes to your younger friends, friends who wonder if you've heard of CD's.

One of the most covered aspects of the new GOP site was RNC chairperson Steele's blog titled, "What Up?". One day after launch they changed the name of the blog. I wonder why.

Another heavily covered snafu at GOP.com was the "future leaders" section of the site which displayed an error message or was blank part of the day it was launched.

Oh irony, you are a cruel, cruel mistress.

They've supposedly fixed the "future leaders" problem. They "fixed" the "future leaders" page by adding some prose that still does not list any future leaders of the GOP. I'm serious. And that's why I went ahead and wrote about the GOP's new site more than a week after its horrendous launch. GOP.com's "future leaders" section, as of this post on Oct. 21, 2009, still lists no one more than a week after the site's launch. Now, irony has evolved into plain, old stupid. Why even have a "future leaders" section? Sure, invite folks to give their 2 cents but, maybe, just maybe, you should list some up and comers in your party. Otherwise, it makes your party look lost. Just a thought.

To quote a famous GOP'er, "fool me once, shame on-shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again." Apparently, the GOP can be fooled again(original GOP.com launch) and again(Steele's "What Up?" blog) and again(error on "future leaders" page) and again(fixed "future leaders" page still lists no one). Now if only the GOP could figure out how to set the time on its darn VCR...

Party of...

Putting People In Their Place

I came up with the above after reading this story, this other story and this older editorial.

What Type of Person/Politican Is Palin?

Palin doesn't do interviews with the non-Fox-news-media, at least not since some not-so-great interviews she did during the campaign. Nevertheless, in a fascinating article about Palin from Vanity Fair, Todd S. Purdum takes a shot at giving us some insight into the Palin political playbook. To paraphrase from the article in part: she is polarizing, she takes things personally and can be vindictive, she seems to take pride in her own lack of experience and her own ignorance on certain topics and lastly, you are either with her or against her.

The article made me think of her this way: to some voters out there I'm sure she's the type of lady they'd want to have a beer with, maybe even go hunting with. Remind you of anyone, maybe a recent, former governor of Texas?

I'm Rubber, You're Glue Whatever You Say...

Update: RNC to Reconsider Calling Dems Names

Extraordinarily, the RNC has exercised a rarely used rule in its own bylaws to force an RNC meeting, and thus compel RNC chairperson Steele's attendance, to reconsider, among other things, a resolution to call the Dems the "Democrat Socialist Party".

The RNC had voted down such a resolution last month-see PTN post from last month for more. At this forced RNC meeting the RNC leadership will not consider a no confidence vote in Steele since the RNC has already further emasculated the RNC chair by reportedly gaining greater control over how Steele spends RNC money.

Steele had already voiced his opposition to the resolution to essentially resort to the juvenile tactic of calling the Democrats names, in this case calling the Dems "socialists". Remember the GOP's old favorite was to call Dems "liberals" but, that didn't work that well last election cycle.

Upon hearing of the proposed (and officially sanctioned) name calling of the Democratic Party by the RNC I recalled the quote by John Stuart Mill: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." In this instance, I think the above quote is an insult to stupid people, at least in reference to the conservative members of the RNC that are calling for this special meeting.

Maybe next the RNC will call for another special meeting and vote to toilet paper the Democratic National Committee's HQ.

Would the RNC Rather Have Had GM Go Out of Business? Apparently So.

RNC chairman Steele railed against the GM bankruptcy and the general administration's auto bailout plan. Again Steele, the RNC and the GOP generally come off sounding like the party of "No".

Moreover, conservatives again attacked a policy without offering any type of tenable counter proposal.

If the bailout of the auto industry is a bad idea then the logical alternative would necessarily have been to let GM fail. No one, liberal or conservative, has explained how letting GM fail would have been a good thing. If there is a cogent argument for allowing GM's failure I would genuinely be interested in hearing / reading it.

Instead of GM filing a Chapter 11 (reorganization, stay in business) bankruptcy, GM would have likely been forced to file a Chapter 7 (liquidate, go out business) bankruptcy without the government bailout.

RNC Chairman Steele & GOP Trying Old Tricks

The RNC's chairman, Mr. Steele, rolled out some of the same talking points that McCain tried to use in last year's campaign. He referred to the celebrity of Obama, as well as a talking about "real Americans". Here's some of the speech if you're interested:

Lastly, and this is confusing, the RNC also has pending for a vote a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename/rebrand itself the "Democrat Socialist Party". To reiterate, the RNC is taking time and money to consider and vote on a resolution essentially asking the Democrats to change the name of their party. Brilliant. And remember, this is more of the same from last election when they attempted to brand Obama as a socialist.

Some claim or are worried that the Republicans have become the "No" party. Some are worried that all they do is call the Dems names and don't offer any tenable solutions to issues and problems that the nation faces. What is the GOP against, in other words what do they say "no" to? Here's an incomplete list of what many in the GOP are against:

1) gay rights

2) abortion

3) government regulation

4) immigration reform

5) health insurance reform

6) stem cell research

7) environmental law reform

Fewer and fewer people identify with the GOP and what they stand for or against. Maybe the GOP should change their name to the "White Male Christian Republican Party". I'm joking of course. But see, my joke illustrates the GOP's problem because it's exactly that, a joke. I'm making a joke by demanding or suggesting that the GOP change it's name. The GOP's problem is that the RNC is actually taking time and money to seriously consider whether it should "demand" that the Democratic Party change its name. That the GOP would take time and money to consider what amounts to official name calling of the opposing party isn't funny or a joke, it's just sad.

All Apologies to the Godfather (of the GOP)

Limbaugh, Michael Steele, Don Limaugh, Godfather, GOP, Republican

Biden: "I Made a Mistake This Big!"

Or, "D'oh! I did it again!" Biden says as he has a Homer Simpson moment.

Biden spoke of four or five scenarios where an Obama presidency would be tested by an international crisis much like JFK was. Essentially, Biden said that a new inexperienced president, like Obama, would be tested. Biden did not elaborate on the specifics of the scenarios. D'oh!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14833.html

Obama and his camp can try to spin this all they want but, it was a stupid thing for Biden to say.

Also, it's a gift wrapped present for McCain to open and show to everyone that will listen. Unfortunately, McCain and his staff have not received quite the traction they should have because of the Palin clothing purchases by the RNC that somehow have taken up as much or more air time and print space.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14879.html

I think the Palin clothes issue is an RNC problem. I can understand why some of their donors would have a problem with their money going to buy her clothes. Does the RNC buy clothes for male candidates? I don't know. However, I think in large part it's a small story made big because or Palin's, "joe six-pack," supposed appeal. But, it is definitely not as big a story as Biden's remarks.

I think one could hear the top Obama campaign staffers yelling, "D'oh!" all across the country. Obama's camp had somehow lasted this long without letting Joe Biden say something to try to derail an otherwise smoothly run campaign. Remember, Biden has lost the Democratic nomination at twice, in 1998 and 2008 that I can think of off the top of my head, at least in part because of these types of gaffes. Again, off the top of my head, in 1988 there were plagiarism issues with some of Biden's speaches. In 2008 Biden described Obama as, "clean." Don't even ask me to start on what that last one means. Biden at times seems to have no filter. And now this.

The McCain camp should and has attempted to make an issue of this. But given their limited budget relative to Obama, the Palin clothing thing, and just the nature of the new cycle and it being negative of McCain (although much of that negativity McCain brings on himself) it'll be interesting to see if they can make any hay with this. (see blog post #4 here for more on McCain campaign budget)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14829.html

McCain also recently started describing Obama's tax policy as socialist.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/index.html

I have expressed my thoughts on that description already in relation to McCain's own tax policy. (see blog post #20) However, the "socialist" talking point is strong for McCain, especially coupled with Biden's prediction of an Obama presidency's international crisis.

They're both strong talking points because of Obama's lack of a clear and concise response to either or both. We'll see if over the weekend Obama's camp comes up with some type of cogent, responsive talking points to each. Or Obama's camp may just hope to let the news cycle wash them away as they watch the clock tick down to November 4. I've never been a fan of the latter. I think Obama needs some type of response, perhaps on Sunday, a slow news day and then start the last full week of the campaign anew. Respond once to each concisely and move on. Obama doesn't want to be saying, "D'oh!" on election day because he let these McCain talking points fester and gain traction.

"GOP Forms Circular Firing Squad"*

Or, "hey, that hurts when you stick that knife in my back."

*title of this post taken from the title of a great article on politico.com:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14891.html

Maybe some of the Republicans are tired of McCain the Maverick. By the way, I'm starting to think that Erratic/Maverick McCain is more correct in describing his campaigning style.

So the latest bad news for McCain is from his own party (supposedly it's his party, but you wouldn't know it from recent headlines). The National Republican Senatorial Committe is running an ad with the central premise that if Senator Dole loses her particular Senate seat the Democrats will control "all branches of govenment," and "have a blank check." So it seems they are assuming an Obama victory.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_ad_assumes_Obama_win.html

So McCain's fellow Republican Senatorial leadership is saving their own skin, by essentially advertising, "hey, Obama's going to win, so at least balance him out with a Republican Senator." Ow.

McCain's love/hate relationship with his own party may be why none of Bush's big 527 supporters are going to bat for McCain this election cycle.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14811.html

Lastly, here's another example of the animosity between McCain and his party. The very conservative Washington Times ran a story yesterday titled, "McCain Lambasts Bush Years." McCain takes dead aim at W. and the Republican controlled Congress (of which he was and is a member) instead of going after Obama and the Dems that have controlled Congress the last two years. I'm not sure what McCain's strategy is here. Is going after the Republican base's favorite son, W., and the Republican Congress from 2000-2006 in a newspaper only the Republican base really reads a good idea? Is it telling when the Whitehouse spokesperson has to defend the sitting Republican president against the Republican nominee?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14875.html

This is yet another example of a campaign that is all over the place, attacking everyone and everything, with no clear message or theme. In other words, classic Erratic/Maverick McCain.

Side note: At least the RNC is still finacially supporting McCain in his campaign. Representative, Michele "Joe McCarthy," Bachmann is no longer receiving money from the RNC. Ouch.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14549.html

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_10786683?source=rss

Side side note: If you're having trouble figuring out who to vote for go to:

http://www.electoralcompass.com/

and take their quiz.

Side side side note: The below link from MoveOn.org helps Obama supporters encourage others to actually get out and vote otherwise the loss of the election could very well be their fault. At the very least it's funny:

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/taf.html?id=&nid=T8r4wlb0jgTQo4xNqXpIvjQzODEwMA--

McCain Out of Money?

OK, not really. As far as I know his personal finances are fine and his campaign has plenty of money to make it the rest of the way to November 4th. But in relation to Obama's campaign, the McCain campaign appears to not have as much to spend.

Keep in mind that McCain took public funding, restricting his ability to raise and directly accept money for his campaign once the primaries and party conventions concluded. Obama did not.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/obama.public.financing/index.html

Plus, there are the 527 organizations and the Republican National Committee that can run their own ads and raise money. Obama also has 527 organizations behind him/against McCain. Moreover, both candidates can help raise money for their respective party's national committee. But McCain has a lot more incentive to do so because of the inability for him to receive donations directly.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-prezmoney_N.htm

But, what is a 527? It's an organization formed to comply with section 527 of the tax code. 527's are usually the attack dogs of a campaign. Let me put it this way, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", the organization that really hurt Kerry's chances at the presidency, was a 527.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group

Obama's campaign is setting records for fundraising, fueled in no small measure by small, online donations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143631954734245.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

But that fundraising by Obama has not come without controversy and scrutiny.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-money9-2008oct09,0,6439990.story

We'll see if the RNC gets their way and the FEC has to audit every single donation received by Obama. Again, the Obama campaign claims that a third of the nearly 500 million dollars it has raised came from donations of $200.00 or less. If the FEC does at some point decide to audit the donations it'll take an army of forensic accountants a little while to track where all those donations came from.

The RNC may just want to throw something else against the wall and just put out the idea that even a small percentage for Obama's received contributions were against the rules or worse, from nefarious sources.

In the short term here's the point. Relative to Senator Obama's campaign coffers, if spending on tv commercials is any indication, McCain's not doing so well :

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/obamas_spending_edge.html

Obama has recently begun outspending McCain 3-1 on tv ads. Not to mention the radio ads Obama is running. Couple that with McCain having to defend states that usually are no problem for the Republicans to win, like North Carolina and you have McCain spending more in more places than he and his campaign could have possibly contemplated a few months ago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14304.html

Now to add insult to injury, at least when it comes to spending money on the campaigns, Obama is buying half hour segments on major networks, in prime time, on October 29, days before the election and on the anniversary of Black Tuesday, the Wall Street downturn that marked the beginning of the Great Depression.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53722.html

In other words, McCain's campaign apparatus and finances are being stretched. And on top of everything else not going McCain's way (take for example the economy, Palin's favorability rating falling like the Dow, and his performances in the debates) he appears not to have as much to spend as Obama does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palins-favorability-drops_n_130027.html

So the McCain campaign's not broke, but it probably has fundraising envy when it looks and sees how much the Obama campaign is spending.