Telling Stories

Dumber Than a Box of Alaskan Rocks

This is what "Talkie Sarah" Palin said 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."

Emphasis added.  Lets look at the actual text of the First Amendment:

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.

First point:  The First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press.  Therefore, the First Amendment protects the people's right to speak their mind without unwarranted government intervention, e.g., don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  The legal standard any governmental measure must meet if it seeks to curtail speech is pretty high.  Not impossible, but pretty close to it.

Second point: The "freedom of press" clause is pretty much indistiguishable from an individual's freedom of speech.  As noted here,

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

In other words, if I have the right to call out Palin because I believe she's engaging in negative campaigning, so can the press.  The fact that they have a bigger megaphone than I do only makes them louder.

Like I've always said: freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism.  And it's particularly scary that someone who would be so close to being president is not aware of that.

Predictions, Predictions, Predictions

I really don't feel comfortable making predictions on this election, particularly four days out, but I looked at my schedule and I don''t think I'll have time to post them before Election Day, so here it goes.

The one and only caveat is that this estimate is being made on Friday, October 31 at about 11:00 AM EDT.  Any major development that happens between now and then will change these estimates.  If it does, I'll try to update this.  Anyhow, here it goes.

Popular Vote:

Obama - 51%, McCain 47%, Others, 2%

I'm pretty sure any path to the Presidency envisioned by McCain does not involve winning the popular vote.  There's a lot more enthusiasm on the Democratic side than on the Republican side, which should translate in more votes for Obama in deep blue states like California and New York and not as many votes for McCain in deep red states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Electoral College:

Obama - 311, McCain - 227

I live in NY's Southern Tier, just north of PA.  I don't see McCain carrying PA.  It will probably be one of those "too close to call" states until about  25% of the vote is in.  I think McCain does just enough to carry Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri, but Ohio goes for Obama.  The issue is the economy, the economy, and the economy and I don't think McCain's "dire warnings" about Obama will carry the day there.

I gave Nevada to Obama, but that's one battleground state that is not as tight as, say, Florida that could easily go the other way.

Virginia has been trending "communist blue" for a while and now they are on pace to have a Democratic governor and two Democratic U.S. Senators.  The perfect storm of economics, changing demographics, and a horrible year to run as a Republican are enough to flip it to Obama.

U.S. Senate:

Democrats - 56 + Bernie Sanders, Republicans - 42 + Joe Lieberman (or 57/43)

The Democrats will pick up New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska, North Carolina, and Oregon.  The Republicans will hold Maine, Minnesota, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi.

The Minnesota race is so volatile that it could well flip to the Democrats.  The polls are all over the place there and it is unclear whether the Independence Party candidate will draw more votes away from Coleman or Franken.

Elizabeth Dole did herself a lot of damage with the "Godless" advertisement.  Great for the base, but that's not what she needs to win her race.  I don't think she will have enough time to defuse this issue.

I don't know enough about Alaska to rule out a Ted Stevens win, but it doesn't appear to be in the cards.

But Alaskans are a weird bunch.  Just look at Sarah Palin.

(To my readers on the right . . . JUST KIDDING!!!)

And yes, Joe Lieberman will be stripped of his chairmanship.  The Dems won't need him to be the 51st or 60th vote, and he will be in the very awkward position of being an "Independent Democrat" who campaigned against the elected President.  The question is whether Lieberman chooses to tow the line and use the next four years to reform his image as a "Democrat" without the "independent" in the hopes to run for reelection as a Democrat in 2012 or whether he decides to burn all his bridges and join the Republican caucus as an "Independent."

The Democrats won't throw him out, but they won't try to stop him if he wants to walk out.

Because It Hasn't Been Discussed Enough

I'm not surprised that Colin Powell endorsed Obama.  He's been pissed off and disillusioned with his party for a while.  What I found really moving was this part of his endorsement:

He told Tom Brokaw that he was troubled by what other Republicans, not McCain, had said: “ ‘Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no. That’s not America. Is something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?”

Emphasis added.  Enough said.

Pathetic. Just Plain Pathetic.

This is what the McCain campaign has come down to:

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's permanent mission to the UN has received a letter from U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain asking for financial support of his election campaign, the mission said in a statement on Monday.

"We have received a letter from Senator John McCain with a request for a financial donation to his presidential election campaign. In this respect we have to reiterate that neither Russia's permanent mission to the UN nor the Russian government or its officials finance political activities in foreign countries," the statement said.

According to Ruslan Bakhtin, press secretary of the Russian mission, the letter dated September 29 and signed by McCain, was addressed to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's envoy to the UN, and arrived on October 16.

Enclosed was a request for a donation of up to $5,000 to McCain's election campaign to be returned with a check or permission to withdraw the money from the donor's credit card until October 24.

Emphasis added.  I really hope this is some kind of hoax, or an "error" on the part of the McCain campaign.  Otherwise, this man, who recently railed against Russia's intervention in Georgia, is the type that will stop at nothing to get elected.

That kind of President we don't need.

Luck - or Lack of it

At a different time and place, I might be tempted to feel bad for McCain.  After all, if he didn't have bad luck, he'd have no luck at all.

You see, he's been working so hard for so long to secure his conservative base.  He even got himself a life-sized version of "Talkie Sarah" to appeal to the base (ironically, Al-Qaeda translates to "the base" as well, so you draw your own conclusions).

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I eat moose burgers."

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I see Russia from my living room."

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I'm a maverick reformer!"

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I don't like taxes."

So here he is, very well received by the base - or maybe I should say "the Republican base" since I don't want to offend Al-Qaeda - and then he goes off to propose an additional massive bailout $300 billion more.  And this is what he gets for it:

John McCain is facing a fresh round of anger from members of his own party deeply opposed to the Arizona senator's proposal for the federal government to purchase troubled mortgage loans.

The pointed backlash from several economic conservatives -- many of whom already distrust McCain's commitment to free-market principles -- couldn't come at a worse time for the Republican presidential nominee less than four weeks before Election Day as he stares at a significant deficit in national and state polls.

But at a time when McCain can't afford to worry about a lack of support from his party's base, several conservatives are openly criticizing the plan as a flagrant reward for reckless behavior among lenders.

In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review -- an influential bastion of conservative thought -- derided the plan as "creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable" and called it a "gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom year. . . ."

But McCain is hoping the plan will resonate with moderate and undecided voters, many of whom viewed the bailout as a giveaway to Wall Street CEOs. This plan, the McCain campaign argues, better steers the money to Main Street, where struggling homeowners need immediate relief.

Emphasis added.  He can't win without the Republican base and he can't win without moderates and undecided.  And he can't figure out a was to net both before November 4.

Like I said, if he didn't have bad  luck, he'd have no luck at all.

How Does McCain REALLY Feel?

Via Political Wire.  Not too well, I think.  Otherwise, how would you explain the "Freudian slip" of addressing your audience at a campaign rally as "my fellow prisoners"?

Sometimes, Facts Are Your Worse Enemies (Or, "I wonder how this foot got stuck in my mouth")

This article simply speaks for itself:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked. 

The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain’s campaign’s difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy. 

Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines. 

“I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now,” McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “Sen. Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation.”

McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs up. 

“That's not leadership. That's watching from the sidelines,” he added to cheers and applause.

Heckuva job, Johnnie!!!  Heckuva job!!!

You Know McCain is in Trouble . . .

. . .  when not even the Wall Street Journal can throw him a bone for "postponing his campaign:"

Last we checked, the President of the United States was still George W. Bush, the Secretary of the Treasury was still Henry Paulson, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was still Ben Bernanke, and Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.

So count us as mystified by Senator John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his campaign and call for a postponement in Friday's first Presidential debate so that he and Barack Obama can work out a consensus bill to stabilize the financial system. This is supposed to be evidence of leadership?

Emphasis added.  What can you add to that except, maybe, "ouch!"?  Oh, this

[T]his is not what the country expects from its Presidential candidates. The Administration and the Congress have a responsibility to negotiate legislation, and we can only hope it isn't carbuncled to a point that makes it impossible for Treasury to hold a decent mortgage-backed securities auction, or allow markets to clear. As Senators, Messrs. Obama and McCain also have a responsibility to give us their up-or-down verdict on the bill as it emerges. If they have specific differences or suggestions, they certainly have a large megaphone to broadcast them.

As candidates, however, they are not serving the public by hiding behind a fog of faux bipartisanship that obscures their core economic principles and their approach to governance in times of crisis. Far from being an issue that is above electoral politics, the financial panic is too serious not to have a serious discussion about. President Bush gave both candidates a hand last night by inviting them to a White House meeting on the legislation today, but this looks more like political theater than it does actual governing. Both candidates are angling to get some credit for being in on the deal, whatever it might be.

Emphasis added.  The thing is, however, that McCain is the only one doing the hiding in this case.

Which, of course, is now a non-issue, since, for better or worse, we have a bailout package.

I guess McCain is stuck with having to debate, after all.

From the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" File . . .

John McCain on November 26, 2005:

On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

John McCain on December 18, 2007:

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

John McCain on September 24, 2008:

Republican John McCain said today he will suspend his presidential campaign and asked to delay his debate with Barack Obama in order to focus on the ongoing economic crisis.

Leaving aside the fact that this is purely political because he's getting pounded on the campaign trail lately, you really mean to tell me that the guy who doesn't understand economics is stopping his campaign to work on the largest bailout package in the history of humankind?

Are you for f***ing real?

(Mis)Judgment

Right now, I'm looking at John McCain and the Republicans with a mix of amusement and disbelief.  This is the guy who is supposed to be all about judgment, right?  Wrong.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.

"We made a political determination that the American people would not object to a female candidate with a 17-year-old daughter who was pregnant," Schmidt said Tuesday. "We believed that parents all over America would understand that life happens. The team made a recommendation to the senator that these issues were not disqualifying."

Emphasis added.  The first thing is that this is a truly sexist statement.  Do they believe that the public could object to a  female candidate with a 17-year-old pregnant daughter but not object to a male candidate under the same circumstances?  Call me crazy, but if I had a daughter it would be my responsibility whether she is sexually active and whether she is - at least - well informed as to how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

The second thing is that, regardless of whether or not one would object to a candidate, I certainly object to this candidate.  Sarah Palin has been staunchly opposed to any form of sex education in school beyond abstinence, and she can't even get her daughter to buy into it.  On top of that, this entire situation shows how ridiculous abstinence-only sex education really is.  Some teenagers will have sex.  They always have and in all likelihood they always will.  We should give them the information they need to make whatever choices they decide to make to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

But back to McCain, what a show of judgment!!!  He's starting to make Bush look not-so-dumb, and I thought that was impossible.