Mosque Madness Brings iPOPA Back to Defend President Obama

President Obama was stupid, stupid, stupid.

He could have stayed mum about the controversy surrounding the construction of an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero.

Yes, let's make that "two blocks thingy" clear from the outset.

Nothing Islamic is being constructed on the site where the Two Towers fell. For a sturdy analysis of how the national media is perpetuating that myth, see Michael Calderone's outstanding article.

In addition, nobody who has been two blocks in every direction of where the Two Towers once stood could call two blocks away "hallowed ground" unless Dunkin Doughtnuts, discount jewelry stores, and strip clubs are America's new definition of sanctity.

But back to Obama's idiocy.

Why not stay silent or oppose construction of the mosque, which was the much smarter political play? Certainly, other Democrats, such as the beleaguered Harry Reid, have done so.

Instead, Obama waded in and gave Republicans, conservative pundits, and all those who think Obama harbors a secret (or even a not-so-secret) allegiance to Islam, a huge talking point, and one with staggering political resonance. To the degree most Americans are united on anything, it is their suspicions of Muslims.

So at a time when many political observers believe Democrats are already going to get walloped in the midterm elections, what was Obama thinking making any statement on this?!?

Before I answer, let me say two other things.

First, most people have not read the President's entire remarks on the controversy. Do yourself a favor and do so now:

That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms – it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us – a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

Second, I understand why many Americans do not feel this opposition is about freedom of religion because, in the strictest sense, it isn't. There's no law saying you can't be a Muslim now or that you can't build a mosque where you want. So for any political official to pitch it solely in those terms is a bit misleading. But Obama had to frame the issue under a noble constitutional freedom because he can't tell the real truth, and it is this:

The Americans who oppose the construction of this mosque do so out of prejudice, as defined below, and any objective person would recognize this.

"Prejudice" is defined as "making a judgment, usually negative, about an individual or group of individuals (say, for example, a group who want to build a cultural center) on the basis of their social, physical, or cultural characteristics." One of those cultural characteristics is clearly religion.

Opponents believe that because some so-called Muslims were responsible for 9/11, no Muslims should build anything identifiably Muslim within two blocks of Ground Zero.

But is that the real demarcation line? What if the community center were three blocks away? How about four? Or five? Precisely how many blocks away from Ground Zero would be acceptable to the Sarah Palin's of the world?

Would I be wrong in suggesting that at least one of the 9/11 victim's families would suggest you shouldn't even have a mosque in New York City? Should we kowtow to that person's wishes, no matter how prejudiced, because they had loved ones die? (For the record, Toby Harnden notes that two blocks is a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero, and there is already a mosque a third of a mile away. Do we need to relocate that one? Oh, also, as Justin Elliott with Salon has reported, there's also a mosque in the Pentagon, where Muslims have been praying since 2001. Do we need to move that, too?)

Also, what of the sixty Muslims who died on 9/11? Of course you didn't know until now. Nobody wants to talk about them because they make the conversation too inconvenient.

But back to the prejudice.

If a KKK-Christian (and, yes, the Klan does claim Christianity as its abiding faith) had destroyed the Two Towers, would anybody protesting the cultural center now say that a Christian Church couldn't be built two blocks away from Ground Zero? Of course not. Nor would anybody question whether those who wanted to build the church were doing so as some kind of victory dance. What people would recognize is that some racist "Christian" psychos can't discredit every other practitioner of Christianity. In fact, most of us would recognize that the Klan members had engaged in a perversion of Christianity, which is precisely what those who want to construct the center say about the 9/11 terrorists' view of Islam.

If an African-American snipered a bunch of people in Times Square, would anybody say the NAACP couldn't build a center within two blocks because some of the victims's families were upset? Of course not. Most likely because, even if the victims' families felt personal racial animus toward the sniper, they wouldn't even think to project it against an entire race.

But many Americans cannot (or will not even try to) differentiate a handful of Muslim terrorists from the hundreds of millions who peacefully practice Islam, and therein lies the completely transparent conflict. While claiming there is no prejudice at play, many Americans also will tell you without any qualifiers, limitations, or irony that "Muslims" are intent on destroying us all.

One analogy Rush Limbaugh has used is to compare the outcry over the construction of the Islamic center to the expected outcry over building of a Shinto (predominant Japanese faith) Temple next to Pearl Harbor. And to Rush I would say that prejudice would cause that outcry as well because it would be saying that just because someone is of that faith, they were somehow responsible for what others of that faith did.

Or, let me put it a way Rush's fans might understand: "Religions don't kill people; people who pervert religions kill people."

Now, having said all of this, had I been hired as a PR consultant for the financiers of this center, I most certainly would have told them when the outcry began to accept offers for an alternative location.

But I also would have recognized that by doing so, they would legitimize for the rest of America the perception that their faith - and not a bunch of psychos - was what caused 9/11.

So why was Obama so stupid, stupid, stupid? Because he was right, right, right, and if he turns out to be a one-termer, at least he'll know he didn't cave to the darkest instincts of some Americans.

As Michael Douglas says in The American President:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

I'm proud to have a President who will take a massive political hit because he sees a chasm between our deeds and our most cherished ideals.

If you're not, maybe you're not ready for advanced citizenship.

Mosque Madness Brings iPOPA Back to Defend President Obama

Tom McKenna, Vop Osili, Brad Ellsworth & Identity Politics

I’ve never feared conversations about race. Today is no exception.

When a few people (translation: mostly white Republicans and white, Hillary-supporting-Democrats) complained that some African-Americans were voting for Obama because “he's black,” I laughed. If you've never had someone who shares your identity rise to exalted status, of course, you will give more benefit of the doubt.

Did it shock the conscious to see disproportionate support among Muslims for Keith Ellison, gays for Houston Mayor Annise Parker, Latinos for Bill Richardson, women for Hillary Clinton, or evangelicals for Pat Robertson in 1988? This, of course, doesn’t mean support from whatever “group” we originate is automatic. If it did, Alan Keyes would at least be an alderman somewhere and Clarence Thomas would be a beloved justice among African-Americans. (Shhhh! Don't tell him, but he’s not!)

Nobody can deny identity politics is more prevalent than ever (see this great article by James Poniewozik in Time on Sarah Palin), and as much as we want to declare America is post-racial, race remains a key identifier.

Democrats strive for, and with decent success, achieve racial diversity.

Republicans? Well, in his book Right Now, beleaguered RNC chair Michael Steele claims that “Republicans reject identity politics.” I’m assuming he wrote this ironically.

Republicans routinely engage in the practice, just not well. For example, they might elevate a not-particularly-savvy African-American to national party chair so they can criticize the black Democratic president. Or, they might make sure to get the one Asian guy and the one African-American woman in the crowd into the frame on the close-up. Watch for at least 30 seconds, and you'll know what I'm talking about). Or the Indiana GOP might front a guy on its webpage who they know they wouldn’t but for his ethnicity (though maybe youth as well, as age is an identifier).

Identity politics was going to be a political headache for Tom McKenna in his competition with Vop Osili to become the Democrats’ candidate for Secretary of State. But when Evan Bayh stepped down, things turned migraine.

Before going further, know that the Secretary of State position is critical politically. The Secretary of State is our tie-breaker for Speaker when the Indiana House of Representatives splits 50/50. As McKenna has argued repeatedly during his campaign, a D Secretary of State can stave off future Republican efforts to impose new burdens on voting that will likely prejudice Democrats at the polls in 2011 and beyond.

There are local effects as well. The party whose Secretary of State candidate garners the highest vote total in each county determines which party appoints precinct committee inspectors and which party is placed first on the ballot.

In Indiana, Democrats don't choose their Secretary of State candidate in a primary; they decide in a state convention (this year on June 26) populated by up to 2,288 delegate, with each county allotted a share based on an equation only slightly less complicated than the school funding formula.

When you look strictly at political considerations for those delegates, Vop has a formidable advantage.

In the 2008 general election, 381,000 votes were cast in Marion County, President Obama got 241,000 (or 63%) of those votes, and 135,000 (35%) of which were straight-ticket Democrat. Only Lake County delivered a higher percent of Obama votes (67%), and only four counties topped Lake's 70% turnout. In short, give Lake County the right candidate, and it performs. These two counties helped Obama become president while carrying only fifteen of Indiana's ninety-two counties. Given the high concentrations of black folk living in Marion and Lake, is it a stretch to hypothesize that African-Americans are the single best source of Democratic straight-ticket vote in Indiana?

Smart politicos maximize straight-ticket votes, so a savvy delegate might ask, this question:

"Which Democratic state-wide line-up delivers the high turnout, straight ticket (African-American) voters we need to keep our Senate seat now that it's going to be a battle royale without Evan Bayh? The one with Brad Ellsworth (white guy) for Senate, Tom McKenna (white guy) for Secretary of State, Pete Buttigieg (white guy) for Treasurer, and Sam Locke (white guy) for Auditor, or the one that gives African-Americans the chance to elect Indiana’s first black Secretary of State and put him in position to become Indiana's first black Lieutenant Governor?

(Hey, if Evan Bayh runs in 2012, he’ll need a running mate who can smooth African-American ruffled feathers from all his anti-Obama statements and votes).

Some may think I'm naive to not consider the "identity politics" downside for Vop, given the GOP's historic skill at running the campaigns of the type that can generate subconscious (or even outright) fear of Vop's name, race, heritage, or all three combined.

To those folks, I would say studying the 2008 election results certainly depressed me at first blush. Given ballot fatigue, we would expect Obama to be the highest vote getter across the board, even in the counties he lost, right? But he wasn't.

In seven counties where Democratic Attorney General candidate Linda Pence and Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Dr. Richard Wood won and Obama didn't, both gained more total votes than Obama, even though fewer people voted. For example, in Fayette County, 9,457 people voted for President, and Obama got 4,389 votes, or 46.4% of the vote. Linda Pence polled 288 more votes than Obama (for 53%) in Fayette County, even though 681 fewer Fayette residents voted for AG.

This means that even in seven "Democrat" counties, Obama didn't poll highest at the top of the ticket, even as the first Democrat to carry Indiana since Lyndon Johnson.

But that's not all. Pence or Wood outpolled President Obama in a staggering 38 counties in which all three Democrats lost. (In contrast, where the President won, he was only outpolled by his downticket colleagues in three counties - Starke and Madison by Pence and Vermillion by Wood).

But then I realized something critical. In 2008, both Pence and Obama got 49% of the respective votes cast for their offices (President Obama actually won by a plurality if you don't round up). But statewide, the presidential contest drew 153,000 more voters than the AG's race did, and Obama outpolled Pence by 95,000 votes overall.

In contrast, in 2004, both John Kerry and Democratic Attorney General candidate Joe Hogsett had 40% of the respective votes cast for their offices. But statewide, the presidential contest drew 79,500 more voters than the AG, and Kerry had 15,500 more votes than Hogsett. In other words, Obama owned the overvote with 61%. Kerry only got 20% of his overvote.

If Indiana suffered from a pervasive and deep-seated race-based antagonism, I don't see how Obama would have done as well outpacing his national predecessors. At a minimum, we can say that the counties that went for Obama went all the way.

Of course, to suggest that just because Obama won Indiana, any African-American Democrat can do it minimizes the uniqueness of the decentralized Obama campaign and the President's formidable PR skill set. But at least it can be said that the political advantage from identity politics can clearly outpace any identity downside, whether it be perceived or actual for Vop Osili.

Here's why.

If you combine the delegates of all seven counties where both Pence and Wood won and Obama lost, it's only 79 total delegates. Even if you add all counties that either Wood or carried and Obama lost, you only get to 207.

You see, Indiana is populated with a lot of counties that Jesus couldn't crack 45% in if he came back and ran as a Democrat. And if no Democrat can win the county, a savvy county chair will likely persuade his folks to do what (s)he can to help the statewide ticket, including Brad Ellsworth, who will need every vote he can get, and the candidates for Indiana House of Representatives.

The two counties with the strongest African-American populations, Lake and Marion, have 547 combined delegates, or half of the total needed to clinch the nomination. If you add the 15 counties Obama carried, you get over 50% of the total needed.

In short, Vop doesn't have to be liked everywhere, just strongly liked in the areas where astute party operatives know he can boost turnout and benefit both the candidates above and below him.

I know and like both of the candidates, and this post isn’t intended as an exhaustive assessment of their relative strengths, or in Vop’s case, intended as a dismissal of the same because its focal point is on his identity advantage. It’s intended solely as a raw political analysis. (Of course, we'll probably get a good hint if I'm right when the campaign finance reports come out today, so stay tuned).

I will say I like Tom McKenna’s passion for the central issue of his campaign - voter protection. I also think from strictly a resume perspective, his lengthy government service puts him in better stead, and he definitely knows the state better right now and lives in GOP candidate Charlie White's backyard (Hamilton County), so he might make inroads in a GOP stronghold.

That being said, I have no reservations whatsoever about Vop being able to perform the SoS job based on his impressive business success and broad vision for the office. Plus, he doesn't need to wow Hamilton County. He just needs to run up the numbers in D strongholds.

Also, I have never begrudged somebody a political job because they're looking past it (and nobody thinks Vop would be content to be just a Secretary of State). Some of the best public service is rendered by people intent on executing their duties flawlessly to create a testament to their ability to manage a bigger office.

In sum, Democrats have two equally-matched and well-qualified candidates. Unfortunately for Tom McKenna, on the rare occasions when that happens, all that's left to break the tie is the politics.

UPDATE: I haven't studied the reports closely to see if there are any self-loans, big "insider" donations, or other tricks that candidates use to puff their reports, but Vop Osili raised $138,067 during the last reporting period to Tom McKenna's $115,049. However, Vop spent $69,489 to Tom McKenna's frugal $21,434, meaning Tom has $93,614 left in the bank to Vop's $68,577.

Both Democrats outraised the GOP candidate, Charlie White, who pulled in $52,067, spent $12,504, and has $39,563 c-o-h.

Tom McKenna, Vop Osili, Brad Ellsworth & Identity Politics

GOP Encourages Communication With Dems; Churns Phony Opposition to Healthcare

It seems lately that with every fiber of its being the Republican Party stays on one message: No.

Whatever President Obama wants, don't give him. No matter what. No matter how much he agrees with us.

And now they've wed their "Go with No" mantra with a nice slice of "divide and conquer" by targeting Indiana Democrats in conservative districts.

Via blast email from the Indiana GOP, entitled "Alert: Help Stop Democrats Healthcare Reform!" -

Last summer, you helped us generate thousands of phone calls and e-mails into the offices of Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly regarding the health care legislation that Democrats in Washington are trying to force on the American public. Once again, we need your help in this effort.

Since last summer, Reps. Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly voted for the House version of the bill after months of pretending to have the same concerns as Hoosiers: How much will it cost? Will you get to keep your doctor? Will premiums go up? Will quality of care go down? Months later, we still don't have definitive answers to those questions and the Senate passed an even more egregious bill.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is talking about passing that same Senate bill through the House. We must encourage Reps. Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly to stand with Hoosiers and oppose a government takeover of health care. They already ignored our concerns once, but with a renewed effort and a worse piece of legislation, we might convince them to oppose their own party's bad idea!

Please contact these Congressmen today and tell them that Hoosiers won't stand to have this legislation thrust upon us.

If you want healthcare reform, Democrats, you better get to work offsetting this Republican-orchestrated astroturf opposition. Contact Baron, Brad, and Joe.

While it's masterful political strategy to call this a "government takeover" of healthcare given how people hate the word "government," it's intellectually dishonest.

Under no Democratic plan will the government own hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, or medical device manufacturers or employ a single medical provider. What the government will do is cut checks and negotiate rates, just like with Medicare.

How many elected Republicans have called Medicare a "government takeover" or asked that it be dismantled? Not one. In fact, when Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) proposed a budget that talked about even cutting Medicare benefits, House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues ran away from it, though when pressed Boehner couldn't name a single substantive disagreement he had with that budget.

There are robust discussions to be had on healthcare. Most Americans do favor market-based solutions. The problem is that "the market" has almost never delivered solutions Americans want in healthcare.

Has the market done away with prohibitions on pre-existing conditions? No.

Has the market kept premiums down? No.

Has the market kept healthcare costs down? No.

Did the market create portability in coverage? No.

Did the market ensure that medical decisions were made by doctors and not HMOs? No. (This is why "the government" tried to pass the Bi-Partisan Patient Protection Act).

Some may contend that the problem has been "the market" is artificially restricted because you can't sale insurance across state lines. That's an excellent point. But each state has a Department of Insurance that heavily regulates insurance products sold within its boundaries. If companies sell across state lines, who ensures that companies in Ohio haven't denied claims arbitrarily for customers in New York? Who ensures that all plans sold comply with minimum terms that even Republicans would claim they want? Who ensures comparable pricing structures so people can make informed comparisons? It will have to be some entity with federal authority, won't it?

Another Republican Party disconnect is on the notion of forcing people to buy insurance. Oh, the horror! But isn't that precisely what forty-seven states, including Indiana, require before you can operate an automobile? If you drive without insurance, you get a suspended license; drive with a suspended license, go to jail. Why aren't Republicans talking about dismantling these laws in 47 states?

Because many Republicans right now aren't serious about dismantling anything except the Obama administration.

Here's the truth about insurance. The more people in a pool who don't file claims or really even need the insurance, the cheaper it is for everybody. In other words, there has always been and always will be a subsidy from good case to bad case.

A healthy person might want to play the "healthcare lotto." I know because did. I was self-employed, young, single, and healthy, and I could get coverage for $258 a month. Instead, I opted out and spent my money having nice dinners with friends. Fortunately for me, the gamble paid off. But I was precisely the person Wellpoint points to as the cause of its 39% premium increase in California. When you let healthy people (or good drivers) walk away, there are fewer payors to subsidize the remaining people in the pool, and the irony is, the more the premiums go up, the more people will walk away, if they can.

This is how you know the GOP is not serious about eliminating pre-existing conditions. As soon as insurance companies can't "cherry pick" (i.e., offering coverage only to the healthiest people least likely to ever file a claim), premiums will go up unless you ensure that people can't leave the "national" pool. You might let them go from one company to another, but they can't walk away completely, or the premium cost containtment breaks down.

And this setup is precisely what Medicare is, except you have to think of senior citizens as the ones with the "pre-existing" condition of old age. They pay less in "premiums" than they'll use in claims, which is why the system has to be subsidized by healthy people. And guess what? Medicare pays less for services than private insurance. Why? Because it's "government" at the switch negotiating rates, not thousands of smaller insurance companies with less bargaining power.

Republicans also claim they want to empower consumers by advertising prices for services just like at Jiffy Lube. This is a talking point with common sense appeal. But has "the market" made anybody list prices? No. As it stands, there is no website or pricing sheet I can get at a hospital to show me what a tonsillectomy runs. So who is going to compel price listings if not "government?"

Of course, I need to be able to compare apples to apples, or competition doesn't work. But how do I compare the value of an appendectomy? Republicans say they want performance measures for healthcare providers advertised. But to compare appendectomies to appendectomies, we'd need uniform criteria and data collection methods. Has the market developed that to date? No.

What if hospitals fudged their numbers? Would the market impose a penalty on them? Of course not. "The market" wouldn't even know. Detecting wrongdoing by insurance companies, doctgors, and hospitals and penalizing it is what "government" does. (Lawsuits can serve this purpose as well, but Republicans do everything they can to limit those and the resulting damages).

But at the end of the day, all you need to remember is that sixteen years have passed since the Republicans killed the last effort to reform healthcare, and the House Republicans plan will increase coverage by only three million people. Has "the market" gotten thirty-six million Americans coverage they don't have now? No.

In short, when more Republicans get real on what America needs to get healthy, I'm in the market to listen.

GOP Encourages Communication With Dems; Churns Phony Opposition to Healthcare

Cheney's Unspoken Words

I have a love-hate relationship with politics. I love what it can be. But at times, I hate what it is becoming.

I’m disturbed by our obsession with dissecting our opponents’ every utterance. We don’t stop at what they speak. We fault how they speak, when they speak, and why they speak. We even fault what wasn’t spoken at all.

Why?

Because politicos know the media beast puts conflict on page one, so we have to serve it up or get served in turn. Unfortunately, most political figures in divided government achieve little except managing the status quo, or the things they accomplish are supported by a majority of Americans, otherwise, they wouldn’t pass. That means all that’s left is to point to an opponent’s words (or lack thereof) in an effort to brand them as different from “us.”

Republicans have arguably pioneered “word dissection politics.” But even if you dispute this contention, as with most slash-and-burn tactics, they’re clearly employing it with more rigor than Democrats now, even if they often do so with intellectual dishonesty.

I’m thinking primarily of Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism after the Christmas bomber episode (though for another example, see Republican Congressman Peter King's request that Obama say "terrorism" more, as if repeating the word three times will make national security fairies appear and transport us all back to a pre-2001 Kansas).

Cheney excoriated President Obama for allegedly trying to hide the fact we are “at war.” Here is Cheney’s salvo:

[President Obama] seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war.

We are at war, and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency—social transformation, the restructuring of American society. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war.

What an asinine line of attack for people who have…what’s the word I’m thinking of here? Oh, right. Logic.

Does Cheney fault Obama principally for policy change? Absolutely not. His emphasis is on rhetoric. Cheney thinks Americans are stupid enough to fault our President for being less bellicose than George W. Bush. Whatever happened to the great American axioms “speak softly and carry a big stick,” “you will know a man by his deeds,” “let your game speak for you,” and “all talk and no action?” They’re apparently out the window with the VP, for whom talk even exceeds deeds.

As peeved as I am that the VP goaded the White House into a "war on war words," I respect the White House’s political smarts in responding. The conservatorati and the GOP galvanize their base attacking Democrats’ alleged lack of patriotism and military cocksureness, and the White House’s response demolishes Cheney. Here it is:

For seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq -- a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion -- Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda.

Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the president.

The White House added that the President knows we are at war, but "The difference is this: President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest to prove it, and -- unlike the last Administration -- we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent, extremist allies.

I don’t know how any objective observer can read the two statements and not think the VP really shot himself in the foot politically on this one. Of course, that’s an improvement over him shooting......over never mind. All I can say is he's the Conservative of the Year? Who else was in the running? Alan Keyes?!?

Cheney's Unspoken Words

Tew for One! Kennedy Picks Up Kip, iPOPA Quotes "The Wire"

Here's a message for my fellow Marion County Democrats.

Kip Tew, President Obama's state campaign chair, has shelved his mayoral ambitions and endorsed Democrat Melina Kennedy for Mayor. Kip states that Melina's work ethic and ability on the campaign trail convinced him she's the best candidate for the Democratic Party.

Embracing the Kennedy talking points, Kip notes, “Melina is an experienced job-creator, she is passionate about all of our families’ futures, and her vision of an Indianapolis that reaches higher is something--as a father--I believe in.”

While iPopa is a fan of Kip's mavericky ways, objectively, I knew his vocation ("lawyer-lobbyist") wouldn't bode any better for his candidacy than the media's labeling of Brian Williams as a "venture capitalist." (Yow! Way to morph a thoughtful idea man into a cigar-chomping, Republican archetype!)

By stepping out now, Kip furthers the coalescence that has been building around Melina among Democratic Party regulars since Joe Hogsett stepped out.

Part of being painfully objective means you give both sides of a story, even when it pains you. So here it is.

It will be difficult to convince me the Kennedy campaign operation isn't getting smarter. Her press release bio footer no longer starts with her employment at a (gasp!) big, Indianapolis law firm. Instead, it centers on Melina's job growth efforts, both as deputy mayor and as co-owner of what, for my money, is the best athletic shoe store in Indy. The bio footer also highlights Melina's notable civic engagement. While this footer should have been done from the outset, I'm fond of the saying, "Don't complain they showed up late to the party; celebrate the fact they got here."

On the downside, while Melina has an endorsement from the Laborers, I'm hearing that she's got some selling to do in the labor community (which wasn't all that eager to cough up for her prosecutor's race until an eight-hundred-pound gorilla-mayor sat on some folks). Also, I've talked to too many people who, while acting certain Melina is going to be our consensus candidate, do so with an air of startling ambivalence. It reminds me of a guy whose crotch is sideswiped by a football toss - he knows the pain is coming, and so he just accepts its inevitability.

I'm sorry, but I'm just seeing too much muted enthusiasm for my tastes, but what galls me is that nobody will express reservations publicly (or for attribution).

I'm praying I'm reading this all wrong because Melina is amazingly talented and prepared. She's legit, not faux mayor dressing. But soon it won't matter because the window will close on everybody who thought about saying the Empress has No Clothes but didn't.

To paraphrase Slim Charles from the greatest show of all time, The Wire:

"Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain't no going back. Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."

If you think our best hope to reclaim the 25th floor is Brian Williams, Jose Evans, or Melina, get off the fence and speak your piece urgently because when this moment passes, whoever emerges (smart money says Melina) will need your full-throated support and donations.

And anybody who thinks Mayor Ballard will not be formidable is delusional. Look at his bank account. Too many people that spit on him four years ago have a vested interest in him now.

We can win the Mayor's office, but only if all the good soliders are ready for battle. If Melina is our General, are you?

Tew for One! Kennedy Picks Up Kip, iPOPA Quotes "The Wire"

Elrod's Retort: Even a Flawed America Still Leads the World in Pursuit of Noble Ideals

Well played, Chris.

I would first note that AE does not mean that America is always right or has always been right. AE is (or should be) based on the triumphs of America, its continuing trajectory toward the realization of its noble ideals; not that it has realized those ideals. I also truly believe that no country lives up to those ideals as faithfully as the United States.

Obama’s election shows how far this country has come. Of course there are still bigots in America upset about the election. Every country in the world has bigots. Could someone like Obama have been elected in the UK? Italy? Canada? Japan? Brazil? I honestly cannot think of another nation where a person of the non-majority race could reach the presidency or its equivalent.

Of course Americans still “marginalize” some groups, as do people in every other country in the world. That, by the way, is a conveniently vague term. Try being Christian in China. Try being an untouchable in India. Try being gay in Saudi Arabia. Try being a Muslim convert to Buddhism in Indonesia. Try being a woman wearing pants in the Sudan. Marginalization in those countries means lashings, mobs, honor killings, secret detentions, systematic state discrimination, etc. The Multiculturalist Moral Relativist (MMR) too often equates the glass ceilings and racial profiling in the US with the transparent oppression in other countries.

It is this mentality that allows the world’s worst human rights abusers to sit (and chair) the UN Human Rights Committee (China, Venezuela, Iran). This is how Yasser Arafat gets a Nobel. This is why a Spanish judge will indict George Bush for war crimes, while ignoring warlords in Darfur. MMR has real consequences. The number of free countries (open elections, representative government, free press) is declining.

I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that our president supports any of the above, much less that he has caused a global decline in freedom. The point of my post is to advocate that he return to the inspiring words of his inaugural speech.

People do vote with their feet. I couldn’t put it better myself. I remember all those news stories about a huge liberal emigration to Canada in ’04 after Bush’s reelection. It didn’t happen. And people from around the world still flock here. There must be something exceptional about this Union.

As for specific speeches where Obama apologized, see http://www.heritage.org/research/europe/wm2466.cfm. I’m not sure all of those speeches should be classified as apologies, but it is a good reference for Obama’s shift from Bush’s diplomacy.

If your political views are refined enough to know where you stand on card-check, cap and trade, the public health option, cash for clunkers, deficit spending, government bail-outs, etc., then you should have a pretty good idea whether you’ll vote R or D in 2012, even without a crystal ball.

Elrod's Retort: Even a Flawed America Still Leads the World in Pursuit of Noble Ideals

Jon Elrod & American Exceptionalism's Decline Under President Obama

American Exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is unique in its place in history, and in many ways, superior to other nations and societies.


Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism form the belief that the United States is not unique nor superior, and that the US should be more like other countries. This belief system is hostile to the ideal of American Exceptionalism and generally focuses on the faults of the US rather than its virtues.


American Exceptionalism is abhorrent when it is based on xenophobia, prejudice, tribalism, jingoism, or bigotry. Suggesting America is superior simply because it is the place of one's birth is absurdly ignorant.


But American Exceptionalism is proper when it is founded on American civil liberties: free speech, free exercise of religion, rule of law, upward mobility, equality of gender, equality of race and creed, democratic representative government, free markets, etc.


Multiculturalism is proper when it is founded on dialogue, appreciation of history and culture, comparative studies, and general open-mindedness regarding other societies.


Moral Relativity and Multiculturalism become abhorrent when critical thought is abandoned. Too often this belief system refuses to make judgments. And when the judgments are reached, they tend to blame the US first, often through hyperbolic arguments.


The diplomacy of Barack Obama has intentionally stepped away from the American Exceptionalism of the Bush Administration. His administration has pursued what could be described as an international apology tour. It is based on the mistaken belief that those who hate America will change their minds once we admit they have reason to hate America. I hope our President soon returns to the nobler thoughts found in his Inaugural Speech:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall heal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

These are inspiring words, spoken by someone who exemplifies American Exceptionalism. I did not and will not vote for our president, nor will I support most of his policies. But I take pride in this country, where a biracial son of a foreignor, with a Muslim name, could rise to lead our government. It speaks to how truly exceptional is this place called America.

Jon Elrod & American Exceptionalism's Decline Under President Obama

Uh oh! IPOPA and Jon Elrod Get Experimental on You!

Let's be honest. American political discourse is more acidic than ever. The public sphere seldom showcases respectful disagreement based on honest differences of opinion. Instead, we are bombarded with increasingly divisive rhetoric undergirded by a "gotcha" mentality that preys on isolated words from opponents to morph them into caricatures of the dimwitted and "dangerous." Those who disagrees get accused of harboring sinister motives.

IPOPA thinks we deserve better. I'm not alone.

Several months ago, I began communicating with (more appropriately, arguing with) former Republican Indiana State House Representative Jon Elrod. I have come to appreciate Jon's keen intellect, expansive knowledge base, and idealism, and despite our inability to agree on seemingly anything, never have we exchanged cross words. I say this though Jon knows I worked for my current state representative (Mary Ann Sullivan) to defeat him, and I would do it again. How can he not take our arguments personally against this backdrop?

Because he joins me in realizing that all public policy decisions, even value-based ones, are laden with tradeoffs and arbitrary line-drawing that can strain philosophical purity and even intellectual honesty. In such an environment, how can we be mad at someone who draws a line five or even five hundred feet further left or right of us?

In an effort that will hopefully raise the bar on how we discuss the pressing issues of the day, IPOPA will be hosting periodic commentaries from Mr. Elrod and then responding to the same.

Will we always get it right? Probably not. Some zingers are just too "fish-in-a-barrel" to let pass. But if nothing else, I hope all IPOPA readers will admire that we felt it worth aspiring to something more high-minded.

Be sure to come by tomorrow for Jon's piece on the virtues of "American Exceptionalism" and how President Obama is parting ways with it. Thereafter, I will kindly alert Jon to some flaws and contradictions in his argument and give him the chance to return the favor.

I hope you find our exchanges thought-provoking.

Thanks for reading!

- IPOPA -

Uh oh! IPOPA and Jon Elrod Get Experimental on You!

Mayor Ballard is a Coward!

Yes, Your Honor. I'm calling you out. By name. You are a coward with a logic deficit.

In the most insane example of having your cake and eating it, too, you had the audacity to glamour shot your way into Luke Kenley's press conference about the CIB bail out proposal only to offer the following, which comes from today's Indianapolis Star:

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, who joined Kenley at a news conference Wednesday at which the plan was outlined, wouldn't say he endorsed the details but said he supported the need to preserve the convention and entertainment business in Downtown Indianapolis.

WHAT?!?!?!?

If you're not there to endorse THIS deal, what deal are you there endorsing? We don't know. Because you won't say. And you won't say because you're a coward. You KNOW you came into office on a platform of lower taxes, and here you are, ready to stick it to us already to make sure we take care of billionaires who pay millionaires to play a game.

Let me be fair, you also said the following:

"This is not about any individual teams or anything. This is about Downtown Indianapolis. This is about the convention business. This is about $3.5 billion worth of convention business, 66,000 jobs in Central Indiana related to hospitality -- that's what this is about," Ballard said. "We must maintain this economic engine."

That's the illogical part. We COULD make up the entire deficit by raising admission per ticket at Conseco events. You know why we won't do that? We're told it would be too costly. People will stop going to Pacer games. But isn't this Republican Party orthodoxy? Raise taxes, lose voters? Raise prices, lose customers? And yet, here sits a Republican Mayor saying that by RAISING hospitality taxes to one of the highest IN THE NATION, somehow we're going to save our convention employees. (In fairness to the Mayor, his non-approach benefits millionaires primarily at the expense of average folk who will take the hit on these regressive tax increases, so that part is consistent with Republican philosophy).

NO convention group books here because they want to go to a Pacer game. They book because we have a lot of low-cost but nice hotel space, nice restaurants and nightlife to enjoy, proximity between hotel and convention space, and a clean and interesting cityscape (a/k/a "ambiance").

But, Mayor, you let Luke Kenley take the largest competitive arrow out of your quiver and break it over his knee before your very eyes. (Seriously, if you're currently in high school taking your first economics class, can you PLEASE call the Mayor's Office?)

You see, Mr. Mayor, in economics we have a notion called "competition." If person A can get something CHEAPER from city B than from City I (for incompetent), they will. This means And the 66,000 people you claim to protect are all laid off because NOBODY is coming here.

Here are two other concepts you might find "neat." Demand for a good can be "elastic" or "inelastic." If demand is "inelastic," people will buy even if the prices rise insanely. Medical care is a great example. Most people like to live, so they'll sell their second-born to finance a life-saving surgery, even if you double the cost. But if demand is "elastic," an increase in price means people won't buy the good or service anymore even with a slight increase. You know what makes demand "elastic?" Having options to do other things.

So, say for instance I'm already thinking about not eating out anymore because things are tight, and NOW I'm going to have to pay even MORE, not only in downtown but everywhere in Marion County. Guess what I'll do? Eat out less. So NOW your expected new tax money never shows up, and all you've done in the mean time is hurt the very restaurants you claim you're trying to help by keeping the Pacers downtown.

See what you've done? You've stood silent while the most powerful Republican at the Statehouse save Mitch Daniels constructed a fix on a shaky foundation. But the truth is, this is what Kenley and you wanted to do all along. You'll put this ill-thought out bailout into play, SAY "Mission Accomplished," and you'll pray that President Obama gets the economy moving. Then if it happens, you act like you're geniuses. If it doesn't, you'll blame Obama for the "sluggish national economy," though we'll all know the truth. Whatever protection of, or growth of, our "hospitality economy" you could have afforded RIGHT NOW was stagnated because one of your top advisors runs in a millionaire boys club. How grand. How Bob Grand.

Mayor Ballard is a Coward!

The Inaugural Inaugural Write-Up!

Because of a lengthy trial yesterday, I was unable to watch the Obama inauguration until last evening (Thank you, DVR!). I have not seen, heard, nor read a single thing about the event yet because I wanted to give my “gut” impressions. Here they are:

- DAMN! Barack Obama flubbed his oath. This will give Republicans fodder for the next four years. Also, some Freeman wackos plus Advance Indiana will probably say Obama is not president because he hasn’t REALLY taken the oath of office. President Obama looked at Chief Justice Roberts like, “Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?” I don’t blame him. Isn’t every significant oath given in rhythmic phrases of NO MORE than five words? To have and to hold? In sickness and in health? How are you going to hit a guy with more than that when you know he has to be nervous about becoming the most powerful man in the world? I have a sneaking feeling Justice Roberts is thinking today, “Ha ha! Got him!”

- When George Bush walked out, he looked as comfortable as a black man at a clan rally. His eyes kept darting back and forth like he was expecting someone to throw shoes at him or something. He might be suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from that well-heeled attack. Lord knows it’s the closest thing to combat he’s ever faced.

- Somebody needs to tell Michelle Obama not to wear that color of lip stick or lip gloss. It looked like her bottom lip was radioactive white during certain camera shots. (Oh, by the way, I’m still waiting for that top secret video where Michelle Obama says “whitey” that was much talked about on the internet. I guess Republicans are going to hold it until Obama runs for re-election?!?)

- People who can get past the fact the invocation was delivered by the “controversial” and “conservative” pastor Rick Warren will say he gave a phenomenal prayer. Of course, for some liberal activists, that’s almost like saying, “Hitler gave some great speeches if you can get past the whole holocaust thing.”

- Obama’s faith was on display throughout his speech. It was very scripture-based, which will make some people nervous. But he did something I hadn’t heard before from a U.S. president. He publicly acknowledged our nation also has “non-believers.” Conservative critics will attack him for it.

- I thought Obama’s speech was very moving, but not everyone agreed. I counted no fewer than eight people whose eyes were shut or whose heads were bobbing during the speech, and most of them were on the dais. Having people nodding off after an early morning that follows late-night festivities is nothing new, but this is where you can tell BET is not used to covering political events. Come on, BET! You NEVER show the sleeping people! Take a lesson from CNN. If CNN had shown all the people asleep at a McCain afternoon rally (say two hours after the MCL lunch rush), we would have seen entire rows in snoozeville. Even Michael Dukakis and the late, great Paul Tsongas never suffered the indignity of a public airing of people asleep during their events, but you KNOW there had to be thousands of potential targets from which to choose.

- I watched the movie Gladiator the other night, and the line that stuck with me is when Hinsou tells Crowe, “You have a great name. You must kill it before it kills you.” That’s what Obama is probably thinking. If he embraces his middle name of “Hussein,” he gives license to the conservatorati, like Greg Garrison, to say it with derisive emphasis (Barack HUUUUSEEEIIIIN Obama). But I cringed when I heard them announce “Barack H. Obama” as the President-Elect entered. Aside from mental comparisons to Hubert H. Humphrey, it was an obvious dodge of his own name, which everybody was going to hear anyway during the swearing in.

- Hillary Clinton seemed to have a forced smile to me during the entire proceeding. You know, the one where the mouth is turn up waayyy too high to be natural, so it suggests the person is really exerting effort? Inside her mind: “I should be taking that oath, damn it!” Bill Clinton kind of looked mad. Inside his mind: well, this one is actually anybody’s guess, but I’m going with, “Look at the diversity of hotties up in here.”

- It was, indeed, a broad swath of Americans, young and old, black, white, Asian, Arabic, and a whole lot of census-box-confounding “others.”

- While we all know Reverend Lowry was being ironical and tongue-in-cheek comedic at the end of his benediction when he said he hopes American can get to a place where “black doesn’t have to get back, yellow can be mellow, the redman can get ahead, man, and white can do right,” I promise there will be people who criticize that remark for (a) calling native Americans “red,” (b) calling Asians “yellow” (though when he said it, BET cameras caught some Asians who were laughing and applauding, and (c) for suggesting the white man needs to do more things right. I promise you Lowry will be painted by the same “white hater” brush that the conservatorati used on Reverend Wright.

- John Williams is a great composer (Close Encounters, Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Apollo 13, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler’s List, to name his signature works), but I wasn’t impressed with his original piece, which is saying something given that he had the world’s best violinist and cellist in the quartet. If every American got the joy out of their job that Yo Yo Ma gets out of playing his cello, we’d be absolutely destroying the industrialized world in productivity.

The Inaugural Inaugural Write-Up!

Powell Obama Endorsement Pulls the Race Curtain Further Back on the GOP

Remember back when Colin-mania gripped the Republican Party in the mid-1990s? Every white Republican you know bragged about how qualified Powell was to be president. The GOP was begging him to run.

GOP operatives and higher ups were all talking about Powell's sound judgment, record as a soldier, and statesmanlike manner. Some of the highest Republicans in the land made him a four-star general, a chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, and then Secretary of State, after all. The idea anyone would look at Powell as a token pick was folly; Powell's judgment was above reproach, the GOP said.

UNTIL...

...the General endorsed Barack Obama yesterday.

Now, General Powell is getting clobbered by the conservatorati. According to Rush Limbaugh, George Will, and Pat Buchanan, General Powell made this endorsement primarily because he and Obama are both black.

How loathsomely insulting. NOTHING has changed about General Powell, except who he supports. And now the GOP's top mouthpieces paint Powell as one who will throw America into a ditch for "the black man." (Funny, but I don't remember anybody saying we shouldn't have Powell engage in diplomatic talks with any African countries or the U.N. because their presidents were black, as was Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the U.N.). Did Powell "sell us out" to black world leaders?!? (Pun intended).

The Powell backlish lays bare the GOP's race problem for all to see.

When the most prominent Republican African-American appointment in American history doesn't follow the GOP white masters' orders, he gets stripped of his entire history of professional achievements and lifetime of good judgments and is reduced to nothing BUT a black man.

When Limbaugh et al. have the audacity to repeatedly complain that Democrats won't let America "move beyond race," we can only respond: "Sorry, but not until you let it."

Powell Obama Endorsement Pulls the Race Curtain Further Back on the GOP

ACORN is Weapon of Mass Distraction

Everybody should be concerned with any person or organization that interferes with the right to vote by suppressing turnout, purging voters who shouldn't be, or casting doubt on the integrity of the electoral process.

Accordingly, ACORN needs to evaluate its employment practices. Any company that gives financial incentives for the number of registrations a person turns in WILL get people who submit the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys in Texas (no, I'm not kidding) and "Jimmy Johns" in Indiana.

The problem is that most state laws require you to submit a registration card to state authorities. If ACORN employs me, and I give them a card that says "Peyton Manning" with an address at Lucas Oil Stadium, they can fire me, but they have to turn in the card. In many cases of bogus registrations, it is ACORN itself whose supervisors are flagging the problems for the state. And in many of these cases, people do get canned.

But even if you think this is all intentionally orchestrated, top-down attempts by ACORN to engage in voter fraud, here's a critical sentence from the Boston Globe:

"There is no evidence that anyone has actually voted as a result of the bogus registrations, which in some cases involve names being listed multiple times at fake addresses."

This organization has allegedly been submitting bad registrations since 2004, and there isn't a SINGLE act of fraudulent voting. In fact, here's the best that an ACORN critic can say:

But Cairncross of the RNC said the bad registrations constitute fraud and tie up local election officials and law enforcement agencies.

"What's going on here is a fair amount of partisan behavior on the part of local election officials," said Kettenring of ACORN. Noting that ACORN had flagged problematic registration cards to local authorities, he added, "They're politicizing cards that we identified ourselves and marked as such."

What? This is all McCain and the Republican Party have on ACORN?!?

I guess when nobody believes you can help the economy, you have to terrify America.

I saw an ad today talking about having Mayor Daley as an advisor. Did I miss something? Was Mayor Daley ever charged with a crime. It seems these days that all you need to do is say "Chicago" and Obama in the same sentence.

But what this desperation really shows is the vacuousness of the McCain campaign.

ACORN is Weapon of Mass Distraction

What the Heck is Going Down With Gas Prices?!?!

Gas prices were $2.72 last night in Indianapolis. Aside from Linda Pence saying she would zealously investigate Indiana gas stations as Attorney General, what has changed? (No, I know that couldn’t do it. Yes, she’s a bad@ss, but she’s not even in office yet!)

Seriously, America hasn’t begun drilling anywhere new yet, and most authorities say even if we did so TODAY, we won’t see the results for shy of a decade. Can someone explain how gas prices can drop so precipitously so quickly without market manipulation in the first instance or “politically-oriented price manipulation" now?

Some conspiracy-minded friends (who apparently are prescient) told me to watch gas go as low as $2.00/gallon until right after the election low gas prices helps McCain. This is common sense. Every public opinion taken on the matter says when the economy is bad, McCain suffers. Low gas prices lower the cost of everything.

But such a theory would assume that some American and European oil companies believe they’d be better off with John McCain. What would make them think that? Oh, wait. Barack Obama is going to tax them, isn’t he?

But how can the private oil companies alter production when they're all operating at capacity? And we know they are at capacity because multi-national corporations never lie, even when restraining production generates record profits for all of them. So, this price change must have occurred somewhere else.

Oh, guess what? On September 10, the Saudis said they would ignore OPEC requests to reduce production to keep oil prices from dropping below $100 per barrel. Oh, and guess what? The Saudis privately prefer McCain because they believe they want him to keep troops in Iraq, and they like his Iran rhetoric.

In short, two plus two equals cheap gas until November. Then watch us get crushed because then the Saudis won't care anymore.

What the Heck is Going Down With Gas Prices?!?!

McCain is in McPain

He regurgitated every talking point he'd been given, but no matter how hard John McCain tried, he just couldn't get a bunch of undecided voters to turn their little dials to strong approval for him, except in one context which I'll address below.

I didn't find Senator Obama particularly smooth tonight. That means only one thing, and it has to be disconcerting to Republicans. Despite all the Obamamessiah, "cult of personality," and "rock star status" talk, it was Obama's substance, not style, that decided the debate tonight. Americans just aren't buying what John McCain is selling.

This is great news for the Obama campaign because ALL campaigns reflexively think the message is fine but the delivery is off whenever they are flailing. Expect McCain's people to try to retool how McCain delivers his message for the next debate, instead of changing what he says. Once they realize they've goofed, this thing will be over.

The occasions McCain had the dials up were when he talked about how amazing America and its people are. Understand this. I love America, though I think its current president is a moron who has thoroughly discredited America on the international stage. America is probably the most prosperous and freest country in the world, our republican form of government with its checks and balances is genius, and our workforce is productive.

But even feeling as I do, I wonder whether other people like me, who aren't susceptible to empty appeals to patriotism, found it almost sycophantic to see McCain so brazenly suck up to Americans.

It was as if John McCain morphed into Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver before my eyes. You always knew Eddie would get Beaver and Wally in trouble, but he ALWAYS avoided it himself by complimenting Mrs. Cleaver to pull the wool over her eyes.

Politicians take note...as a rule of thumb, the more you try to kiss my butt, the more suspicious I am of you.

McCain is in McPain

Giving an Earful About Ifill

My favorite nemesis (and you know who I mean) is churning a story on his blog that Gwen Ifill is unfit to moderate the VP debate on Thursday night because she has an Obama "tribute" book coming out in January that he calls "The Age of Obama."

Here's the problem. The REAL title of the book is The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

Since Obama is not even the sole focal point of the book, why not truncate the title and make it seem that way?!? The Amazon description offers the rebuttal:

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African-American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.

If people want to say Ifill is not neutral, they can do so. I believe she bore an almost disgusted look after Sarah Palin's speech at the convention. People interpreted it as anti-Palin. I interpret it as her being offended about a belittling remark toward "community organizers." In truth, Ifill has been upfront about her view of Obama: "I still don't know if he'll be a good president."

If Ifill were shilling for Obama, she would have NEVER made this comment, and the notion she has a financial interest in the outcome is preposterous. People who are going to read a book about racial politics and Obama will do it independent of whether he wins. What idiot goes, "OH, I wasn't going to read about presidential nominee Obama, but now that he's "as seen at the White House" Obama, give me three copies!"

The McCain campaign agreed to Ifill, and nothing about the fact she's written a book partially about Obama should change their view of her now.

In short, we already see the excuse making for Sarah Palin coming from Republican-Land, and she hasn't even failed yet. This is a measure of how little faith even some stalwart Republicans have in her. It has never occurred to them that she could hold her own on Thursday night.

Giving an Earful About Ifill

Race Costs Obama Six Percent

An absolutely fascinating poll using inquiries about white people's attitudes toward black people suggests that Senator Barack Obama's lead over Senator John McCain would go up by six percentage points if America could be instantly purged of its racial animus.

The poll, which was conducted on-line because it is believed people will be more truthful giving non-PC answers to a computer screen, found that forty percent of all Americans, including one-third of white Democrats, held unfavorable views toward black people generally.

It is critical to note several findings so the wrong conclusions are not reached from this poll.

First, Republicans harbor racial prejudice as well as Democrats, but their opposition to Senator Obama is overwhelmingly based on a reluctance to vote for ANY Democrat for president, regardless of race.

Second, more white people say positive things about black people than those white people who say negative things.

Third, many white people who say negative things about black people are still eager to vote for Obama, meaning that they can assess Obama as an individual, regardless of the group labels they give black people.

And, finally, race is NOT the biggest factor driving away white Democrats from Obama. Many do not believe he is capable of bringing about the change they want.

Having said all of that, this poll makes it pretty clear that a close election will be decided by race, just as race affected the Democratic primary outcomes. Among white Democrats, for example, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well.

In addition, a quarter of white Democrats agree with the statement, "If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." Though, to my knowledge, Senator Obama has never embraced a contrary notion, those who agreed with that statement curiously were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Finally, despite our progress in race relations, over half of white people gave a more negative impression of black people than they did of their own kind.

In short, if Obama had begun in the U.S. Senate ten years before he actually did, right now he would be a sure thing. But this would only be because he could more easily overcome the votes of a sizeable segment of the white American population that harbors subconscious racist sentiments.

Were Obama a white man with the same resume with such an unpopular opposing party president? Yeah, he'd be crushing McCain.

Race Costs Obama Six Percent

McCain's Faith at the Forefront

There are many things I could say about the back-to-back McCain/Obama 60 Minutes interviews last night (and I will), but one thing that struck me is John McCain's first-time public comment that he believes his faith kept him alive in Vietnam.

I have no doubt this is true. Faith is powerful. But when asked why he hadn't spoke on it before now, McCain said he was a private person. McCain's "testimony" would have been powerful, but as a private person myself, I respect McCain's right not to disclose. What bothers me is that after decades of being a private person, now that he needs to curry favor with evangelicals, he has decided to talk about it?

McCain did something laudable by suggesting that Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who served in the Clinton Administration, should head the SEC. But McCain gave it right back by changing stripes from the private man who goes to his room to pray to a man who would offer up his faith at the altar of political gain.

McCain's Faith at the Forefront

A Contest for You! Who Tops McCain's Roll in the Pig Muck?

First, McCain's campaign says Senator Obama made a sexist attack against Sarah Palin ("lipstick on a pig") when it's clear from the video that Obama was talking about McCain himself.

Now this...

Senator McCain accuses Barack Obama of voting to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners "before they're even taught to read." GASP! How deplorable. Here's the problem. The bill in question allowed school teachers to teach "age appropriate" sex education information so that children could learn enough to protect themselves from sexual predators.

I've been in and around politics for a long time, and I've seen some pretty disgusting stuff, but man, this is the worst distortion of a position I think I've seen. Ever. There are people like me who hated the obvious racial overtones of the Willie Horton ad, but nobody could say it wasn't factually accurate, even if the implications were off. Horton was furloughed, and he DID kill somebody.

But here...the ad is just not true in fact or in its implication. McCain's campaign just lost ALL of its credibility about misleading ads. (Or should I say they gained tremendous credibility to speak on the subjct because they clearly know how to make them!?!?)

Here's Newsweek's Joe Klein ripping on the McCain ad:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html

I'm interested in compiling your top twelve picks for the vilest campaign distortions of all time. Post or drop me an e-mail at [email protected], and I'll post the "Dirty Dozen" soon. I've said before that my all-time negative "ad" was actually a yard sign. All it had was the candidate's name, and underneath that name it read: "No Morals!"

A Contest for You! Who Tops McCain's Roll in the Pig Muck?

Democrats Own Couch Potato Demographic!

The fine folks at Nielson report that 4.3 million fewer people watched Day 2 of the Republican National Convention than watched Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention. Also, there's a 600,000 viewer falloff for RNC - Day 2 - Version 2008 from the 2004 version.

Duh. That's what happens when you've heard it all before.

Also, Nielson reports that African-American viewing of the GOP convention (2.1 million) is less than half what is was for the Democratic convention (4.6 million). Quite frankly, given Obama's strong support in the African-American community, I'm astonished that 2.1 million African-Americans are watching. My guess is that half are trying to study the parties, candidates, and issues and make an informed decision. The other half are just playing the "Find a black delegate" game like me. One of my friends suggested we turn this pursuit into a drinking game, but after three hours, we still hadn't been able to open our beers.

Democrats Own Couch Potato Demographic!

Grandma Palin Has Some Explaining To Do

John McCain's VP pick, Governor Sarah Palin, has a pregnant, seventeen-year-old daughter.

Since this story broke, the conservatorati has attempted to blunt legitimate policy inquiries by calling this storyline "sordid," "lurid," and "unseemly." My witty retort: why?

If anything, the specifics of how this happened have major ramifications for every teen and pre-teen in America.

Let's start with abstinence-only education, which John McCain favors. In an Eagle Forum questionnaire, Governor Palin was asked the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Her reply? "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Is this the approach Governor Palin took with her own daughter? To say nothing "explicit?" If so, it's pretty clear that Governor Palin's personal AND state policy is ridiculously flawed, isn't it? (Seriously, is Governor Palin one of those mothers who handed her daughter a health book and religious pamphlet when her daughter asked her questions about sex? Did she tell her masturbation would make her blind? We don't know. And, yet, Republicans will take the leap of faith that she can tell the American people "the truth" should she become president?!?

And, of course, we can't ask her daughter questions that would probably reveal she knew about contraception from her friends and television but didn't get any from Planned Parenthood or at the drug store because she was afraid of how it would affect her right-wing Republican Governor mother should someone engage in a "unseemly smear campaign" about how little Palin doesn't practice what her own mother preaches to the citizenship of Alaska, not just her own family.

That would be very telling, indeed. But we can't ask these questions because politicians badger the media for badgering the families of politicians. Normally, I would say, "No doubt. Leave that subject alone."

But Governor Palin didn't. She could have issued a simple statement saying, "My daughter is pregnant. Respect her privacy. We will have no further comment." Instead, she kowtowed to conservatives by playing up that (a) her daughter is making a "life affirming" decision to not have an abortion; and (b) her daughter is doing the morally responsible (a/k/a "politically expedient") thing by getting married.

My point is that politicians who want us to "respect their families' privacy" don't get to open the door for their own purposes and then shut it at their leisure. And, unlike generally irrelevant questions about family members, such as, "Governor Bush, how many times have your kids been arrested," "President Bush, how many times have your girls been drunk in public," or "President Clinton, how many times have you cheated on your wife," questions around this incident have actual policy repercussions. We have a living, breathing case study on teenage pregnancy right in front of us, and, at a minimum, we should be entitled to ask Governor Palin how her daughter's pregnancy has influenced her thinking on abstinence-only education.

Since these crazy kids have no chance of making it (with the teenage shotgun wedding success rate being surprisingly low), we should probably also be able to ask Governor Palin her thoughts about reinstituting "fault-based" requirements for divorce, which is being pushed by many evangelical Republicans.

And how many times in the past few years have we heard evangelical Republicans advocate the use of shame in teenage pregnancy and divorce as a tool to decrease the incidence of both? (I will have some surprising comments on this in an upcoming post).

Yet, here we have Mom and teen, in a loving public embrace of support and warmth, almost bordering on excitement over teenage pregnancy. YIPPEEE!!!

The hypocrisy is staggering, folks, until you realize that many evangelical Republicans only want to condemn people who aren't them or who don't look like them.

At least Senator Obama told fathers in the African-American community to take their parental roles seriously.

Who will be the first evangelical to call out Sarah Palin for not shaking her finger publicly at her daughter and sending a message of condemnation over this immoral conduct? I'm waiting.

Grandma Palin Has Some Explaining To Do