Palin (Abuse of) Power

Darn that pesky gotcha-media

So much for Palin being a straight talking, "not your typical politician" politician. Let's recount her public record to date that hurts her credibility.

Palin abused her power while governor according to official state findings, contrary to her interpretation of that same report, in relation to exerting power in an attempt to have her ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/795/

Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" until she was later against it after a public/national outcry:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/680/

Maybe she read the state's official report regarding her abuse of power the same way she read the U.S. Constitution regarding the powers of the Vice-President in relation to the Senate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40nrw3V3GA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goBHI1yYbro

By the way, the VP's only power, per the Constitution, is to exercise the power or take the office of the President should the President be incapacitated or worse and break ties in the Senate, that's all.

And now it's revealed that Palin had Alaskan taxpayers foot the bill for her family's travel expenses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_family_travel

So to recap everyone else's reality VS. Palin's reality:

1) The VP's power in the Senate is to break a tie VS. being in charge of the Senate and driving it's agenda

2) Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" VS. Palin saying, "thanks, but no thanks"

3) the official report found that Palin abused the power of her office VS. Palin saying that the very same report cleared her of all wrong doing

4) Palin wastes taxpayer's money on free trips for her family VS. Palin saying that she's against wasteful spending

Now that's maveriky maverikness at its best. What color is the sky on planet Maverick? Oh, it's probably blue but, Palin would tell us that it's orange and somehow look like she meant it while lying to the cameras and America.

Oh, yeah, McCain lost the ability to effectively use the "Inexperience" attack/argument against Obama the moment he chose Palin as his running mate. Now that's a mavericky move if there is one.

Read All About It! Teddy Roosevelt Supports Socialist Policy (According to McCain)

Is McCain insinuating that Teddy Roosevelt was a Socialist? And is McCain a Socialist too?

If McCain thinks that progressive tax policies are socialist then he thinks his hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a socialist. Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive tax policy as well as a high inheritance tax.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/hes-no-teddy-roosevelt/

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/teddy-roosevelt-socialist-advo.html

The McCain campaign has been hinting or outright calling Obama's progressive tax plan "socialist". A progressive tax policy is, simply stated: if you make more you pay more, specifically a greater percentage of your income. Obama endorses a progressive tax. So does McCain. We have a progressive tax policy now. The difference? McCain wouldn't tax the higher brackets quite as much as Obama but McCain would still tax them more than lower brackets. So to be clear, McCain also supports a progressive tax plan, just not as "progressive" as Obama.

Here's a simplified version of our tax brackets now:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Here's how the candidates differ:

http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/

So, for example, under McCain's plan the higher tax brackets would pay a lesser percentage than under Obama's. But, under both plans the higher tax brackets would pay a greater percentage of their income than the lower brackets. Again, this is a simplification and not taking into account tax loopholes that, generally, are taken advantage of by the top brackets.

So, both candidates' tax plans are progressive, just to varying degrees. Does that mean McCain's tax plan is also socialist, just not quite as much as Obama's? Answer: no, neither is socialist under a strict definition of socialism. Socialism refers to "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Nothing regarding tax policy, in and of itself, concerns, "state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." As an aside, I would also add "services" to that definition. Now, that is not to say that taxes cannot be used for socialist policies like, well uh, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, police, hospitals, fire departments and subsidies of any kind, to name just a few current "socialist" policies. And a universal health care policy would absolutely be socialist. What is also socialist is the bailout that both candidates voted for, granting the federal government the right to buy stakes in banks. Those stakes in banks are "collective ownership" by taxpayers. Now that's socialist, and both voted for it. The fact of the matter is that since the New Deal we have been and are living in a mixed economy. It's just that no one likes to talk about it or admit it.

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/mccain-will-raise-your-ta_b_131935.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

(If John McCain Gets His Wish) From Russia, With Love

John McCain has looked in Putin's eyes but apparently he also wants a look in his country's wallet. A letter signed by McCain was sent to the Russian envoy to the U.N., Vitaly Churkin, asking for a campaign contribution. Here's a link to the official Russian response, with a link to the letter received by Mr. Churkin.

http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/press/201008eprel.htm

The response and letter were released to the public by the Russian Mission to the United Nations. Needless to say I am confused and suffering from a headache from trying to resolve the apparent and inherent contradiction. Just for my own sanity I am going to chalk this up to McCain and his campaign once again saying one thing (McCain denouncing Russian domestic and foreign policy by commenting about how he, “looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes and I saw three things — a K and a G and a B.”) and doing another (asking a top Russian official for a campaign contribution).

In all seriousness, it was probably an honest mistake by some lowly staffer in the McCain campaign. The person who made the mistake is probably not having a good day. However, if the Obama campaign had done something like asking a top Russian official for a campaign contribution wouldn't the probable Republican attack-response have been to call Obama a communist, regardless if it was a mistake?

Does this remind anyone else of McCain decrying Obama's tax policies as socialist (saying one thing) but at the same time McCain votes in favor of a bailout that allows for partially nationalizing our banking system (doing another thing in contradiction)? Plus, his own party runs anti-bailout campaign ads.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/16/mccain-sees-something-in-putins-eyes/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/McCain_camp_hits_up_Russian_ambassador.html#comments

McCain Acolytes on Display

Mindy Green (featured in the first clip) is going to vote, does that scare anyone else besides me? It shouldn't matter if you are a Democrat or Republican or Independent, the type of ignorance displayed by some the people in the below clips should be combated at every turn by everyone.

Michele Bachmann: the New Joe McCarthy?

 











Channeling Joe McCarthy - Have you no decency, ma'am, at long last ?

Michele Bachmann is a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Minnesota. Below is a link to a full blog post with part of the interview she had on Oct. 17 with Chris Matthews. In that interview she called Obama, "Anti-American," and called on the media to investigate the U.S. House and Senate to ferret out other "Anti-American" members. I am not the first to say this but, she is raising the specter of Joe McCarthy and one of the darkest times in our county's history by calling for another witch hunt in to so-called "Anti-Americans". Whatever her intentions by making these careless and incendiary comments, they have had an impact that she could not have foreseen. See the link for that consequence.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/Bachmann_comments_raising_money_for_opponent.html

Is this indicative of the the general Republican response to opponents with whom they disagree? Plainly, the Republican mantra, whether it be their vice-presidential candidate or Ms. Bachmann, as examples, appears to be at times and at its worst, "if you don't agree with me you must be Anti-American." That type of rote, circular argument (if one can call it an argument without being insulting to those that actually want to have a meaningful debate and trade constructive arguments on issues of substance) is, I would assert, the epitome of "Anti-American." Perhaps one should ask, "have you nothing better to offer to the discourse, ma'am?" But, I again return to that fateful question asked of Joseph McCarthy decades earlier by Joseph Welch that essentially derailed McCarthy and his sad, witch hunting hearings. Specifically, to Ms. Bachmann and those of her ilk I ask, "have you no sense of decency, [ma'am], at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Update: From

StarTribune.com" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; width: 452px; height: 17px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 6px; display: block; ">

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/31261989.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

Presidential Candidates Being Funny, Really

This dinner is an election year tradition in the name of Alfred E. Smith, the first Catholic nominee for president and who lost to Hoover, for the benefit of Catholic Charities, I think. The two presidential candidates roast each other and some of those in attendance and are self deprecating:

McCain went first.

part 1:

part 2 of McCain:

Then Obama, part 1:

part 2 of Obama:

Funny. Both of them.

A Racist Piece of Mail

The below racist mailer was actually sent to the membership of a Republican women's club in San Bernardino County, California and was intended as an attempt at humor, according to the club's president. Their attempt at humor failed miserably. The organization responsible is Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated, their president is Diane Fedele.

Their local website is/was: http://www.crfw.org/ ; contact email: ChaffeyCommunityRWF@cfrw.org

Their website was down or not active as of the time of this post. I have not attempted to send them an email.

The umbrella organization that is over the local organization responsible is the California Federation of Republican Women - Southern Division - website: http://www.cfrwsoutherndivision.org/ ; it was working as of the time of this post. There is a "contact us" tab on the left side. Maybe the umbrella organization should hold those responsible accountable and kick them out of their organization.

The president of the club, Diane Fedele, said, "If I was racist, I would have looked at it through racist eyes," she said. "I am not racist, which is why it probably didn't register." How many racists do you know of that think and acknowledge that they are, in fact, racist? This is just a reminder that as far as we have come as a nation, we still have further to go. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-foodstamps17-2008oct17,0,2209911.story

Side Note: As if we need any more evidence of some people's ignorance and racism look at these if you have the stomach for it. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good people with good, informed, intelligent and articulate reasons to vote for McCain rather than Obama. Most of these people aren't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTps4Iau1E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkFG1ebuKZU&feature=related

Golden Girls Attack

Allegedly, some Obama supporters were assaulted by more than a dozen people at a Palin rally consisting of, quoting the alleged victims, "old ladies." Why would the alleged victims admit something like that if it's not true? We'll see if it's ever confirmed.

http://multimedia.boston.com/pub/tn/15/politics.htm?bctid=1859060243

Have Campaign Will Travel

From the WSJ: "In the five weeks since the fall campaign officially began, Sen. Obama, his wife, Michelle, and vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden have appeared at a total of 95 separate events in states that both sides are contesting.

Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , have appeared at 55 events in those areas, with Cindy McCain, the nominee's wife, adding only one more to the total, according to a Wall Street Journal tally based on schedules provided by the campaigns."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122383794476626615.html

If you were behind in the polls wouldn't you be trying to at least keep up with your opponent on the campaign trail? Or again, is it a money thing?

"Keating" v. "Ayers"

Keating mug shot - 1990 Ayers mug shot - 1968

There have been four recent talking points between the campaigns, two on each side. Specifically, "Keating" and "Erratic" have been leveled by Obama against McCain. McCain has leveled "Ayers" and "Inexperience" against Obama. Although, Obama's camp has not hammered away as much on Keating as I would have thought they would. Also, in the last debate when Ayers was brought up it would have been easy for Obama to go to Keating, Rick Davis or William Timmons. Obama did not. Probably because a campaign won't go that negative unless it has to, usually when it's losing. I understand that there other talking points like on the economy, McCain=Bush, Obama=tax spend liberal, ect. But those are boring. I wanted to take a look at these specific talking points' effectiveness. By effectiveness I mean who is gaining traction, if any, in the polls by hammering at these talking points.

Williams Ayers is a 60's and 70's radical, domestic terrorist that bombed federal buildings. Obama served on a board, by invitation, for an organization founded by a conservative Republican, on six occasions Ayers advised the board on education issues. One incident is hammered on by the McCain camp. Namely, Obama attended a gathering at Ayers' house where then State Senator Alice Palmer told those there that she was stepping down and Obama was going to run for her seat. This was not the first such gathering that Palmer organized to introduce Obama around and it was not the last. A New York Times article does a good job of exploring the relationship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html

Obama's camp has since said that Obama did not know Ayers' background until after they had first met. Obama does not consult Ayers for advice. Obama was a pre-teen when Ayers was committing criminal acts. Obama has denounced those crimes.

McCain was friends with Keating. McCain and Keating would vacation together, with their families. When Keating's sham Savings & Loan was being investigated one the first peopled Keating called to try to call off regulators was McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/06/fact-check-did-mccain-intervene-on-behalf-of-charles-keating/

Keating cost his customers their money and contributed to the cost to U.S. taxpayers, about 125 billion dollars to bail out S&L's in the early 1990's. McCain was a U.S. Senator when this occurred. Lack of oversight and regulation is what allowed Keating to commit his crimes. Until the latest financial crisis McCain was for deregulation.

Obama says McCain is erratic. I think erratic is code for a hothead. Who looked more "presidential" during first week of the economic crisis? McCain first said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, then nine days later called the economic situation the worst since the Great Depression, "suspended" his campaign ("suspended" is in quotes because commercials continued to run and his surrogates still went on all the talking heads shows), called on (demanded) that the President call a bipartisan meeting including himself and Obama (a meeting that amounted to nothing more than a photo op for McCain since he apparently said and asked almost nothing), flew to Washington to grandstand and took credit for a bailout that did not pass. Obama told people to stay calm and only went to Washington after Bush requested his presence at the bipartisan meeting, during which, according to those that attended, Obama peppered Treasury Secretary Paulson with questions.

Here are some examples of McCain being "erratic", again, which I think is code for a short temper:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976739/posts

McCain says Obama is inexperienced. Is experience everything? No, but it helps, kind of, sometimes. And not this time. McCain definitely has more experience. Just not all of it's good. See the above S&L scandal. Sometimes a candidate without a long track record is better suited for the political climate. Such is the case now with the economy doing so poorly. Clinton happened into the same good luck against H.W. Bush in 1992. Obama has come upon the scene when being the "inexperienced" candidate is good. Obama just took "inexperienced" and morphed it into "change". McCain tried to wrest the "change" mantra from Obama. But, that is hard for McCain to sell to independents and Reagan Democrats who have had at least a faint understanding that he's been around for a while.

End all be all for McCain is that he has not been able to gain any traction in the polls using these talking points, namely "Ayers" and "Inexperience". In fact, according to the polls Obama's lead has increased, especially in some key swing states. Again, that is if you trust the polls. Ultimately, it may not be so much that these talking points for McCain are absolutely without any teeth. It is more likely that they're overcome, over shadowed and overwhelmed by a political landscape dominated by the economy. And McCain has yet to be able to gain any traction on this economy shaped landscape.

The Return of The Angry - The Final Presidential Debate of 2008

What do you think "She Who Shall Not Be Named,"

thought of McCain's final debate performance?

And the winner is........Joe the Plumber!

McCain vs. Middle Class: McCain-3; Middle Class-0

McCain and Obama have had 3 presidential debates. I watched them. I don't recall McCain ever, ever uttering the phrase "middle-class". If I'm wrong let me know. By my count: McCain debates-3 , "Middle-Class" mentioned by McCain-0

If you consider middle-class anyone that makes $250,000.00 or less, that's a lot of people McCain did not address. Why? Please, someone let me know.

Side Notes:

McCain hurt himself, BADLY, when discussing the abortion issue. He said at some point that the states should regulate abortion and used the two handed "quote" hand sign to refer to the health of a mother.

I swear I heard McCain sighing off camera more than a of couple times. Not to mention the constant blinking and face making half way through it when he was on split screen. And he started looking angry about mid way through the debate.

During the debate McCain said, "I admire, so much, Senator Obama's eloquence and you really have to pay attention to words." So let's pay attention to Senator McCain's words shall we?

McCain said that "all" the people that come to his rallies are "patriotic". And that he has, "repudiated every time someone has been out of line, whether they have been part of [McCain's] campaign or not. And [McCain] will continue to do that. But the fact is that we need to absolutely not stand for the kind of things that have been going on, I haven't."

Has Senator McCain corrected his vice-presidential nominee, "She Who Shall Not Be Named," when she issues the rhetoric that Obama, "pals around with terrorists," plural, present tense? No. No, he has not repudiated that statement, at least not to date.

As for, "all," the people that attend his rallies being, "patriotic," does that include those that yell, "terrorist," "kill him," "off with his head," "treason," ect., at the mention of Obama? Are they, "patriotic" too? According to McCain, yes, they are all patriotic. Live by the rhetoric...

Second to lastly, McCain declares he's a "Federalist". Does he mean "Federalist" as in one of the founding fathers of our country that supported the ratification of our constitution like those that wrote the Federalist Papers and supported our first two presidents, Washington and Adams? Or Does he mean a "Federalist," like the Federalist Party founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1792 and lasted until roughly 1816, now defunct, that was formed to rival Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's Democratic-Republican Party? If he's been around that long he looks good for his age. What year are we in? 1787 or 2008? Again, live by the rhetoric...

Lastly, and kind of on a comical note, McCain said that Obama voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer. One problem with that, Obama was not a U.S. Senator when Justice Breyer was confirmed in 1994.

Here's a link to a transcript of the debate: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/debate-transcri.html

more thoughts on the last debate

More Thoughts:

McCain stated early on that, "Americans are angry." Yes, if they attend your rallies they do seem very angry. It's just a question of at what or who.

According to McCain, Obama is for class warfare. Really? Since when? Based on what? Giving tax cuts to the middle class?

McCain says says tax rates for businesses are high. I don't think that's going to resonate with any middle-class voters, but with rich folk, it will, especially with Exxon making record profits for how many years in a row?

McCain again mentions the over-head projector. Again. OK, we get it. Obama got an over priced projector for his home state/town, no one cares.

McCain had a nice line about not being President Bush. Obama a took while to link him to President Bush, but did make the link eventually.

McCain did make eye contact with Obama. Good. Or is it? Especially when the he began sighing audibly when split screens started later in the debate.

Once the "negative campaigning" questions started McCain looked angry, and from there on started sighing audibly off screen.

Obama thinks Biden is qualified to be POTUS but, he doesn't mention "she who shall not be named (Palin) ," unless forced to; later on he is force talk about her and, is very cordial speaking about "she who shall not be named" without saying anything.

McCain says Palin is tough on reform. But what if she is POTUS? McCain never answers the question. He does say that he thinks Biden would not be so good.

Health care debate goes over most people's heads. But, McCain throws out some numbers, namely, the average health care cost for Americans is $5,800.00. McCain offers a $5,000.00 tax credit, whatever that means. Where does the other $800.00 comes from for the average American come from?

Education: It's a state/local thing, let's be honest. Not to say that it's not a problem that needs serious attention. More on this later.

No one looks good when they interupt someone else.

And twice McCain bagged on Dallas. He referenced Kennedy not being able to carry out debates with Goldwater because he was assasinated in, you guessed it, Dallas; debates, by the way, that Kennedy never agreed to. And the Cardinals beating the Cowboys this past Sunday. McCain, apparently doens't care for Dallas.

A Parable, Saying, and Quote Applicable to This Election

The Scorpian & the Frog

The scorpian would be the the Republicans and McCain swearing that this time their going to regulate big finance and industry; the frog would be the electorate believing the Republicans and McCain

http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

Old Saying

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome."

It would arguably be insane to vote for a Republican again and expect anything different than the last 8 years.

Joke

Guy says, "hey, Doc, it hurts when I do this." Doctor says back, 'Then stop doing that."

Doing "this" would be voting for a Republican. If it eventually hurts when you do that, stop doing it.

PalinAsPresident.com

http://www.palinaspresident.com/

After you click on the above link and the page loads, move your mouse around and click on stuff.

Sidenote: If McCain brings up Ayers in tonight's debate does Obama find a way to somehow bring up Charles Keating and William Timmons?

McCain Campaign's Fake Pre-Debate Talking Points

Here's an interesting article from ABC describing how the Obama campaign accidentally released their pre-debate talking points. Since they've run such a smooth campaign so far is it fair for me to wonder if they ever do anything "accidentally" given the innocuous tone of the talking points?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obama-flack-acc.html

What if, and this is only a what if, McCain's camp had accidentally released its pre-debate talking points? (that pre-supposes that they have pre-debate talking points, which I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't given how poorly the McCain campaign has been run) What might the McCain camp's pre-debate talking points consist of? Here's a guess:

1) Denounce negative tone of people at McCain campaign rallies in media interviews.

2) At rallies issue the "pals around with terrorists," line (make sure it's plural terrorists and present tense, people may yell, "terrorist," "kill him," "treason," "off with his head," ect., don't denounce such sentiment).

3) John McCain is the victim. (Don't worry if it doesn't make sense.)

4) The stock market recovered quite a bit of its losses from last week. See, the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Now it is the time to turn the page on the economy and talk about foreign affairs.

5) If they point out that the jobless rate, new jobs numbers, home sales, foreclosure rate and other key economic indicators are still bad respond with: we're still in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and John McCain is single handedly going to fix it. (Find McCain's accounting visor and his calculator)

6) Announce McCain is suspending campaign to focus on economic crisis again. (don't tell reporters it's to save money so the campaign can make it financially until Nov. 4; we'll still run web ads and tv ads we've paid for already)

7) Announce McCain is calling Letterman and canceling on him again for this Thursday and heading straight to Washington after the debate. (Then do interview with a real news person Thursday night nowhere near Washington.)

8) Obama-Ayers over and over again. (We don't care if the poll numbers are getting away from us. It's got to work eventually.)

9) Downplay McCain's ties to lobbyists

10) Palin is not running the campaign and is just offering suggestions. (will someone tell her to wait until 2012?)

11) Who is the real Barrack "Hussein" Obama? Emphasize "Hussein", even say it twice to scare the ignorant people out there.

12) Oh yeah, talk about the issues or something, maybe something about the economy.

(Again this is a comical, fictional guess at what the McCain camp's pre-debate talking points might be if they had been accidentally released)

Side Note: "This One Goes to Eleven"

It's pretty telling when the big debate inside the McCain campaign is whether or not to go more negative.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14587.html

McCain Seduced By Dark Arts

That McCain is using fear and half-truths against his opponent is surprising since it was these same Rovian tactics that derailed his campaign in South Carolina in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries. One of the articles below was written by Richard ("Rick") H. Davis, McCain's 2000 and current campaign manager, who therein bemoans the use of such tactics, tactics described by him as specifically smearing a person's reputation. Davis even describes it as, "the blackest of the dark arts." Perhaps, Davis and McCain, now the Rove apprentices, have truly embraced the "dark arts," the very same "dark arts" they both combated first hand in 2000.

Maybe McCain and Davis think that since it worked for Bush in 2000 against McCain and 2004 against Kerry it will work for them. But 2000 is a vastly different world than 2008. In 2000 there weren't two wars and we had a budget surplus and the dot com bubble had not quite burst. In 2000 we weren't, according to McCain, facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In 2004 Kerry's campaign was run almost as poorly as McCain's current campaign. Keep in mind Obama and his staff have run a solid campaign. Remember, Obama and his staff beat Hillary Clinton. Unlike Kerry, Obama addresses the smears and dismisses them as assertions made by a desperate campaign that is out of touch and cannot run on the issues. And let's be honest, Obama is a better candidate than Kerry. And this time the issues really matter, especially at home given our economic outlook.

My belief (and that's all it is, my own thoughts on this subject) is that half-truths and fear mongering/pandering won't work this time, like it did against McCain in 2000. It won't work because there are more important things at stake than personal feelings and reputations. In 2000 as between W. and McCain (and then Gore) all there was to really differentiate candidates was a question of who did you like better. Who would you rather have a beer with? It really was a popularity contest. Now is more reminiscent of 1992. H.W. Bush couldn't get any traction out of the attacks against Bill Clinton in 1992, that he was pot smoking draft dodger, because the economy was bad. Well the economy is worse now than it was in 1992, by a mile. The world has changed. The strategy of a presidential campaign and the tactics employed should have changed when the changed world.

Unfortunately, Rick Davis and McCain have not yet grasped that the landscape has changed. Potentially, their overall campaign strategy (fear) and tactics (such as asking questions like "who is the real Obama," and asserting that he, "pals around with terrorists", present tense plural) used to carry out that strategy are outdated relics, not applicable to our current political landscape. Maybe they've been blinded by the fear of losing another election. Again, the "dark arts" worked against them in 2000. Too bad for McCain the "blackest of the dark arts" is not working for him, like it did against him in 2000, at least according to the polls. No matter the outcome of the election, it seems apparent that McCain really has been seduced by the "dark arts".

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks

The "Great Schlep"

This great article from CNN's Patrick Oppman demonstrates the misinformation that Obama is combating. Remember the older lady at the McCain rally who said that Obama was an, "Arab" (Post #5, this blog)? I guessed that she may have received her information about Obama from smear, chain emails. Given what the below article relates, I may not be too far off the mark about where some people are getting their information, namely, smear, chain, patently false emails.

Meanwhile the "Great Schlep" tries to get out the Jewish vote in favor of Obama in Florida.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/great.schlep/index.html