Conspiracy Theories Abound in the Modern GOP

A new PPP poll asked voters whether they believed Barack Obama actually won the 2008 presidential election, or whether "ACORN stole it for him." 62% of voters think Obama legitimately won, versus 26% for the ACORN conspiracy theory.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% -- an outright majority -- saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided. Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%. By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.

As TPM and Matt Yglesias point out, the comparison to Democratic discontent over Florida in 2000 doesn't really hold -- not just because the difference in the magnitude (less than 600 votes in Florida, versus a 9.5 million vote edge for Obama nationwide), but also because the Florida controversy stemmed from a well-observed and legitimately disputed controversy over how to count imperfect ballots (butterflies, hanging chads, the whole she-bang).*

Meanwhile, Research 2000 put a poll in the field showing right-wing star Marco Rubio surging against wildly popular (statewide, anyway) but moderate Governor Charlie Crist in a GOP primary for the Senate seat -- showing a whopping net 43 point improvement from the last R2K poll. And this is with Rubio at only 50% name ID and with no money spent on advertising yet.

The poll also asked GOP voters whether they believed Obama was born in the US. Only 35% said yes (29% no, 36% not sure). Break that down for Crist and Rubio voters, and a distinct pattern emerges. 73% of Republicans who believe Obama was born in the US go for the more moderate Crist, with only 16% for Rubio. Among birthers, it flips to 31% for Crist and 54% for Rubio. There is, in other words, a pretty clear linkage between the resurgent conservative base currently driving the party and adherence to some pretty ridiculous conspiracy theories about the President. Sayeth Kevin Drum:

This is craziness. I could understand 10 or 15% believing this. That's sort of the base level of people who will believe any nutty idea. But 52%? Someone in the GOP needs to take a deep breath and a long look in the mirror, and then try to rescue their party. Condoning insanity is not a long-term electoral strategy.

This is 9/11 trutherism turned into a legitimate political force. It's a scary thing to behold.

* My own feeling about Florida is that I believe more people in the state filled out a ballot believing they had cast a vote for Al Gore. Whether there was any fair or manageable standard for counting ballots that could have reflected that decision is unknowable, however. The Washington Post's re-recount indicates that Gore's own litigation strategy would have caused him to lose, but a recount of all ballots statewide would have given him the winning edge.

The Big Lie

Quin Hillyer argues that limiting big government isn't just a good principle for Republicans, but historically has been good politics for them as well. He proves his point through the brilliant argumentative strategy of (a) defining "big government" only to encompass things that conservatives dislike (no critique of the partial-birth abortion ban here!), (b) excluding all counter-examples, like the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections where George W. Bush was specifically running on big government conservatism, as outliers, and (c) making believe that Republican losses which clearly stemmed from other factors are really a result of having too loose a grip on the purse-strings. Republicans didn't lose in 1998 because they looked like crazed maniacs pursuing a broadly unpopular impeachment investigation which was the biggest political news story in a decade. No, the problem was they relaxed spending constraints in order to keep moderate GOP representatives on board! I only missed the scoop because I'm tainted by beltway-insiderism.

My understanding of the reality is that (a) Americans are opposed to "big government" in the abstract and (b) they, for all practical purposes, support every specific manifestation of big government with the exception of (other districts') pork -- which is a relatively insignificant portion of the federal budget anyway. As much as Hillyer might wish it were so, there is no proof that voting patterns in 2008 can be explained through broad-based disgust with the Medicare expansion. Indeed, if anything 2008 represented a broad repudiation of conservative purism -- there were several cases of Democrats winning districts they had no business competing in specifically because the local Republicans had replaced moderate incumbents with right-wing crazies (ID-01, MD-01, MI-07).

Now, is it true that different messages may work better in different places, and a principled small-government strategy might be a winner in some contested districts? Sure. But Hillyer's Palin-esque insistence that he's got the pulse of "real America" ("Washington might not have recognized it, but those of us outside the elite cultural echo chamber (I was in Mobile, Alabama, at the time) heard [disgust about big spending] not just among politicos but out on the street, quite regularly and quite vociferously.") is a sure-fire way to insure that the GOP remains a party that can only win in, well, Mobile, Alabama.

Hey, best of luck though.

Duh! Redcoats!

There are several BYU grads in my 1L class at the University of Chicago. All are very smart, qualified, intelligent people. I have to remember that upon reading statements like this:

David Hunsaker and his sister, Katie Hunsaker, traveled with the Brigham Young University Campus Republicans from Provo to help get out the vote. The group arrived in Clark County on Friday.

"We can't believe that Americans can be so blind as to chose socialism when that's what our founding fathers fought against," Katie Hunsaker said after Obama's victory was announced.

Umm....better take another look in your history book, Katie.

Via UCL.

Goode to Seek a Recount

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), down 745 votes in his race against Tom Perriello, is asking for a recount. Perriello's victory was one of the bigger upsets of the 2008 cycle, a fact made all the sweeter due to the nature of his opponent.

Yet, watch me be principled. Goode has every right to ask for this recount. If he requests it, it should be granted. Democracy means knowing who actually won contested elections. If it turns out Goode won, he should be re-elected. It's that simple.

Listen to Perkins!

Chief of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins is out blaming the moderates for GOP losses in 2008. What's needed, he says, is a party more committed to pure Republican principles -- fiscally and socially.

This, to put it mildly, is tough to swallow in the face of the evidence. The fact is that there are several seats in deep red territory that are now Democratic directly resulting from Republican intolerance of moderate politicians. The Maryland first, gerrymandered specifically to elect a Republican, will be sending a Democrat to Congress after a right-wing challenger knocked off a moderate incumbent who would have assuredly cruised to re-election. The Michigan 7th saw the same thing -- a right-winger who defeated a moderate incumbent in 2006 got defeated in 2008. Bill Sali, the furthest right-wing candidate in a multi-member primary in 2006, lost his Idaho(!) seat this year to a Democrat. The blood red 2nd Ohio district is competitive every year because Jean Schmidt is their representative. And so on.

Put more broadly, there is very little proof that "pure" conservative principles enjoy broad popularity in the United States (gay-bashing, alas, is a major exception). Most Americans voted for Barack Obama even though they (wrongly) believed he was raise their taxes. There isn't much proof that Americans really oppose spending on social welfare programs. Even on social issues, this was a pretty good year for liberals (outside of gay rights), winning battles on abortion, marijuana, and assisted suicide.

The fact is that, at the moment, conservative governance is not all that popular. They can talk all they want about how conservatives "abandoned conservative principles", but if they respond to this election by lurching even further to the right, they're going to spend a long time out in the cold.

Those Left Behind

In his victory speech last night, Senator Barack Obama stated that this election gave us an

answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

At least with regards to gay Americans, he was wrong.

* California narrowly voted to overturn its state supreme court ruling granting gay couples the right to marry.

* Arizona passed its own amendment barring gay marriage, after narrowly failing in the endeavor two years ago.

* Florida managed to leap its 60% hurdle to also write discrimination into its constitution.

* Arkansas prohibited gay couples from adopting children.

There was a sense yesterday and today that America had taken a great step forward -- that it had spoken with a voice of inclusion and respect for all persons, regardless of who they are or how they were born.

I can't imagine what it feels like to be someone who was written out of that message of inclusion. The historic nature of this election makes the resounding repudiation America gave to the equal human dignity of gays and lesbians that much more shameful. The nation this year was primed to be thinking about discrimination. In a very real sense, the decision to cast a ballot for Barack Obama was a decision to cast off the weight of our prior inequities. In such a context, the choice to strip gay and lesbian Americans of their natural human rights was more than just a failure of imagination. It was an affirmative decision by the electorate to announce that gays and lesbians are less than full Americans. In past years, we could blame inertia, apathy, and ignorance. This year, it was willful.

It is a decision that we will look back upon in shame, and it is a decision that is a disgrace to America, no matter what other barriers we broke today.

To My Conservative Friends

2004 was a more difficult year for me than 2000. 2000 was the first political election I followed with any level of sophistication (I was 14), and it was an education to be sure. I first voted in 2004, however, and that year stung, because I saw a country which had seen what President Bush had wrought upon the nation, and still a majority of Americans re-elected him. If you want to search through my archives from that time period, you'll see that I was not a happy camper.

I asked then that my conservative friends not gloat at me, and it is only fair that I oblige them back. Many Republicans are, obviously, quite unhappy with this result. Believe me, I've been there. But I want to take this moment to reach out to you. John McCain got the votes of 46% of all Americans. Given that President Bush's approvals are in the mid-20s, there are plenty of folks out there who preferred McCain, who still recognize that something went fundamentally wrong over the last 8 years. Many of these problems are one's that will require bi-partisan efforts to correct. Restoring impartiality to the Justice Department. Rooting out corruption and politicization in bureaucratic agencies. Restoring balances on executive power. These are things which Republicans and Democrats can, and I hope, will work together to achieve vibrant and sustainable solutions.

On many other issues, conservatives and liberals remain quite a ways apart. And that's okay. This year, the electorate gave progressives a sweeping mandate for change. Obama's electoral college tallies are approaching rout levels, and on the Congressional and Senate side, Democrats still performed quite strongly (though slightly below the optimistic estimates that came forth over the last month or so). We will take this historic opportunity as a chance to prove that progressive ideas work. But conservatives can and should continue to pitch their best laid plans to the public and on the House and Senate floor. Barack Obama was a former faculty member here at Chicago Law School, and one of my professors today noted that Sen. Obama has an openness to ideas that is rare amongst the political set. If you pitch your plans and proposals in good faith, with an eye towards getting bills and past and moving our nation forward, then I pledge as a Democrat to listen.

The greatest break we could make from the last eight years, would be to heed Barack Obama's advice from four years ago. If we will it, we can cease to be a collection of red states and blue states. Working together, we are more. We are the United States.

Election Day Liveblog

It won't be a reprise of 2006, but I'll keep jotting down thoughts throughout the night. Latest posts will be at the top (for real this time -- sorry about before):

***

12:36 AM: It's bed time for me. I'll have more thoughts tomorrow (probably). Suffice to say, this was a great moment for America -- regardless of whether you supported Barack Obama or not, it is impossible not to feel joy about the barrier he brought crashing down.

12:10 AM: It's recount time in the VA-05, but the Democratic challenger will enter with a 1,000 vote advantage. Suck it, CNN.

11:55 PM: Lest I be entirely a gloomy gus right now (and let's be clear, I'm still on a tremendous high just from "President-elect Obama"), let's look at some of the good news that's come out recently:

1) I think Obama will take both Indiana and North Carolina.

2) Democrats are poised to pick up both the VA-02 and the VA-05 -- the latter of which CNN erroneously called for incumbent Rep. Virgil Goode several hours ago.

3) New Mexico is now solid blue -- House, Senate, Governor, and President.

4) Franken still has plenty of votes to pick up in Hennepin (Minneapolis) and St. Louis (Duluth) counties.

11:53 PM: I think a lot of Democrats were taking Mary Jo Kilroy's election for granted in the Ohio 15th -- a problem, given that she's down 1,000 votes with 96% reported.

11:21 PM: Oh, and echoing the below point, there are going to be some disappointing losses for incumbents. And not even old, tired guys like Kanjorski, but promising new folks like Boyda (D-KS) and Cazayoux (D-LA) (the former is down, the latter is out). Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) also went down in defeat.

11:19 PM: Not to be a downer, but I think we're going to leave quite a bit on the table down ticket. I'm not optimistic about Minnesota. I'm getting worried about Oregon. There have been a few House seats we've ended up on the wrong side on -- not just the long shots, but one's that we genuinely thought we could take.

I think my standards are too high.

11:15 PM: Obama is on tonight, but I think it is getting lost in the moment. There is a collective exhale, stemming from how important this day is, and not even Obama can rise above that.

10:56 PM: Just because I'm excited about Obama, don't think Minnesota will escape my wrath if it re-elects Coleman and Bachmann (and gives Paulsen the nod over Madia).

10:46 PM: I had forgotten entirely about ballot measures. The news doesn't look good, particularly for gay rights.. The California gay marriage ban has an early lead, but only 8% has reported. Arizona will likely ban gay marriage (a move which was defeated last cycle), and it will be joined by Florida, and Arkansas will likely ban gays from adopting children (which eventually has to be ruled unconstitutional.

Other issues are more of mixed bag. Washington looks to legalize physician assisted suicide, Michigan will allow medical marijuana, and Colorado will not define life as starting from conception. While Nebraska will ban affirmative action, it may be narrowly beaten back in Colorado. The parental notification law for abortion in California is polling dead even.

10:41 PM: Sen. Mary Landrieu has apparently held her Louisiana Senate seat. There will be no Senate-side pickups for the GOP (they have won a handful of house seats).

10:35 PM: Now that Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) has gone down in defeat, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) may take on the title of the ultimate Republican survivor. He's pulled back into the lead by 8 points in his southwestern Ohio district.

10:32 PM: McCain's concession speech was very pretty. I couldn't figure out what the crowd was yelling, though.

10:12 PM: Also problematic is Louisiana, which had fallen a bit below the radar. Sen. Mary Landrieu is up only 2 points with 82% of the vote in. We already lost a House seat in the Cajun State.

10:10 PM: The biggest nail-biter is looking to be the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D). Franken's sitting on a 2,500 vote lead with 28% in.

10:00 PM: It's been called: Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

9:53 PM: With 44% of the vote in, Frank Kravotil's 2,500 vote lead is the largest margin I've seen yet in the Maryland 1st. This would be another feel good pick up, as it's a direct result of the GOP's banishment of moderates.

9:49 PM: Almost as good as Obama winning, is watching the repellent Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) go down in flames. She's losing 58/42 with 59% in to Betsy Markey.

9:39 PM: Took them long enough. CNN moved the VA-05 back into toss-up land. Goode is down 700 votes with 3% outstanding. Of the six counties which have votes left to report, 4 are in Goode's camp (though nobody has much left on the table).

9:19 PM: Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) looks like he's going down. Good. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) might follow suit. No tears for him either, though a few might be warranted for having to say "Rep. Lou Barletta, crazy immigrant hater". The only truly saddening loss that's visible right now would be Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), who took Tom DeLay's old seat but was always the underdog to retain it.

9:01 PM: Thus far, the House races have represented a Democratic cleanup of 2006, with the Donkey picking up a bunch of the seats we just missed last time around. The latest victim: New England's final Republican, Chris Shays (R-CT).

8:57 PM: It's always exciting when Maryland has a competitive race. Currently, we're witnessing a deadlock in the MD-01, where right-winger Andy Harris is struggling to retain this conservative seat in the face of strong Democratic head winds, his own extremism, and a tough opponent who was endorsed by the incumbent Republican Representative whom Harris knocked off.

8:40 PM: Projection fail: CNN still "projects" Virgil Goode to win in the VA-05. Unfortunately, he's currently down 2 points with 89% in. Charlottesville came through big time for Perriello (it's all in now). It's not locked down, and much of the remaining votes are in Goode territory, but it's definitely "too close to call".

8:35 PM: Ohio news ahead. First, CNN just called it for Ohio. That's big. On the House side, random district #1 (the 3rd) is now 52/48 for the GOP, but random district #2 (the 12th) is at 49/48 for the Democrats with 20% in. Finally, Rep. Steve Chabot's (R) perpetually endangered 1st district is, well, endangered, with the Democratic challenger currently sitting with 57% of the vote. However, that's pretty much all from early voting.

8:19 PM: All my friends have been freaking out about Virginia. I told them to chill. McCain is up 20,000 votes, with 2/3 of the vote in. A huge chunk of that is from Northern Virginia, where Obama will rout. Things are looking good there.

7:51 PM: Kentucky's Senate race continues to be deadlocked, even though Lunsford is not racking up huge margins in Jefferson County (Louisville). In fact, nobody seems to know exactly where he's doing well enough to hang with McConnell. I still predict a loss. Just more heartbreaking than predicted.

7:43 PM: In the Virginia 2nd (Drake), it's essentially deadlocked with 15% in. My intuition is that this race will be Norfolk (D) and Virginia Beach (R) duking it out for supremacy. But I'm not sure about that.

7:41 PM: Virgil Goode's political life depends on how lazy UVA students are. He's up by 12,500 votes with 62% in, Charlottesville hasn't reported at all.

7:23 PM: The first strange blip of the night comes from the OH-03, which was not on anyone's map. The Democrat is up 52-48 with 0% reporting ... but 58,000 votes cast sounds like more than 0% to me. I'll keep an eye on it.

7:16 PM: House races we won't win: IN-03, KY-02. Races that still look good: VA-05, everything competitive in NC. Charlottesville is where to look in the VA-05 (that's where UVA is), and if Rep. Virgil Goode loses in a year suffused with anti-Muslim paranoia, it'll be that much sweeter.

7:06 PM: It's still early in Florida, but just judging off the House returns, the D machine is in good shape. Obama is currently overshooting projections in several vote-rich, Democrat-rich counties.

7:01 PM: Deep breath: Maryland's been called for Obama.

6:54 PM: The Democratic wave might be so strong this year that Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL), who took over Mark Foley's seat only to have a whole slew of marital infidelities (including some pretty sketchy behavior) revealed, might managed to squeak out a win. Though it's a good sign about the broader trends in this race, I still hope he loses -- we don't need the seat, and we're better off without folks like him in our caucus.

6:35 PM: I'm hearing good things about Obama in Indiana. He's significantly outperforming Kerry's margins so far. Early returns in the Indiana 3rd (Souder) do not look great, but that race was a long shot anyway.

Ad Watching

My vote went out in the mail weeks ago, and was exactly for who you thought it would be in a state where it couldn't have made even a remote difference even if I had gotten a bit nifty. But here in Chicago, I've started to see a few political ads. One for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is up for re-election here and is sure to win it. One ad attacking Barack Obama for his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright -- obviously the GOP was going to go there eventually, and even if it is from an "independent" group I imagine the subtlety will be lost on the swath of swing voters who find those sorts of attacks distasteful. And there was one ad for Antoine Members, who is running against Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), and though you wouldn't know it from the ad or his campaign site, is a Republican. I imagine even the most entrenched Senate incumbents put out a few ads re-introducing themselves to the crowds, and national ads put out in Chicago undoubtedly hit the Northwestern Indiana region, so I'm going to pin down Members' ad as the most futile expenditure I've seen so far (the 1st District generally gives Democrats around 80% of the vote).

The War Within

Ezra Klein thinks the prevailing model of how racism might take the election away from Obama is non-sensical:

It's one thing to build a mental model of a quietly racist electorate. Under this hypothesis, McCain, a war hero and credible candidate, would see unnatural levels of support as voters who were turned off by Barack Obama's skin color pretended they were attracted to McCain's biography and political platform. But that's not evident in the polling -- or, if it is, it hasn't been enough to give McCain a lead. So instead, the model seems to be that a substantial slice of the electorate are prankster racists who have spent the campaign deceiving pollsters so that, come election day, they can trigger a McCain upset, destroying the credibility of random statistical sampling and really putting one over on liberals who thought this country would turn out for a black guy named Hussein. I guess that's possible, but it doesn't seem very likely.

Not to be a cynic, but that's not even close. What folks are worrying about is the voter who has some racist tendencies but, being a good American, finds them shameful and wrong, and suppresses them. One way by which to affirm one's not racist status is to express support for Barack Obama -- and through that affirmation you can persuade yourself, too, that you're not a racist. The question, then, is whether these voters will be able to pull the trigger in the ballot box. This is a battle of psychology -- the racist id going to war with the rationalizing ego and super-ego -- and it will rage mostly beneath the surface and in code. The voter whose id wins out isn't going to say to himself "I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for a Black guy", he'll say "I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the guy."

That's not to say that everyone who is voting against Obama because they don't trust them is engaging in justification for latent racism. The point is merely to show that we could see a noticeable effect from racism reflected in the final polls, without thinking that folks have just been playing tricks on the pollsters. The tricks are being played in their own minds.

Obama Calls the ACORN Bluff

So John McCain has been crying wolf over ACORN registration fraud? Fine, says Obama, let's appoint a special prosecutor to take a look at it, along with all other allegations of voter fraud or voter suppression. The McCain campaign's response? Strident opposition, of course. It's an "absurd" attempt to "criminalize political discourse". But, the spokesman continued,

Rest assured that, despite these threats, the McCain-Palin campaign will continue to address the serious issue of voter registration fraud by ACORN and other partisan groups, and compliance by states with the Help America Vote Act's requirement of matching new voter registrations with state data bases to prevent voter fraud.

Yes -- having qualified professionals actually take a look at your allegations would be a threat when your claims are completely bogus.

Meanwhile, it is worth stressing again what this ACORN business is all about. ACORN's objective is to register as many new voters as possibly (or, depending on your level of cynicism, as many new liberal voters as possible -- it actually doesn't matter for purpose of our analysis). It pays some of its employees by the amount of registrations they collect, and some of those employees collected fraudulent registrations -- either by registering the same person multiple times, or by simply putting down false names. ACORN is legally bound, however, to turn in every registration card that it receives -- a good thing if you think they're just a left-wing front group, as it means they can't sort through the cards and chuck out all the Republicans.

But if ACORN's goal is get new (liberal) voters out there, registration fraud doesn't help them. Federal ID is required for first time voters, so even if Micky Mouse is on the rolls, he's not going to show up at the polling place, ID in hand, and cast a ballot. There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that registration fraud spills over to voter fraud. The fraud here is being committed on ACORN, who has to pay its employees for bogus registrations that don't actually help their cause.

Let Him Lose?

Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kanjorski is in trouble in his re-election bid. DCC polling has him below 50%, while his opponent, Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta has his own numbers placing him with an eight point lead over the two-decade incumbent.

The 11th District is normally considered safe terrain for Democrats. But Kanjorski seems to exemplify the type of politician who thinks his seat is his by birthright. He has been a very sluggish campaigner this cycle. He was previously under federal investigation. He's old. And he's not all that liberal.

I'm not saying I want him to lose, if for no other reason than Barletta's main source of notoriety is as one of the most vicious opponents of immigration even during the peak of the xenophobic wave that crested in 2007. But I have to say, the prospect of losing this seat -- probably for only one term when it is not at all critical for a Democratic majority -- does not cut me up that much. If it lets us clean a little deadwood out of our closet, so much the better.

Vote or Die! (Vote, Please)

I voted today. I suppose I could regret it, if Barack Obama morphs into his true, Maoist form in the next few weeks. So I preemptively apologize for my vote, in that case. But somehow, I'm skeptical that will happen. And I'm also skeptical that my vote will be a decisive player in the paradigmatic swing state that is Maryland.

The VP Debate

These are off-the-cuff reactions, without having seen any commentary on the debate.

In my only post on the subject prior to the VP debate, I talked a little bit about the "expectations game" and the extent to which it's reasonable or unreasonable to use it as a frame for evaluating the debate. The basic theme I tried to lay out was that while beating expectations -- particularly when the bar was set as low as it was for Gov. Palin -- wasn't enough for a win per se, it's not entirely untrue that Palin doing better than expected was irrelevant if she didn't objectively beat Joe Biden. Insofar as some voters who would be agnostic about a seemingly typical, average, mediocre politician might still be turned off if they thought Palin was in a uniquely dim-witted class, she could still score points simply by being pretty good if that would move her overall impression into "average" territory.

So, did Palin "beat expectations"? Depends what you mean. If the expectation was that she would be a babbling nitwit, then yes, she did exceed that bar. Most of the time, anyway. But she didn't get much above that, and there were times were she lapsed back into Katie Couric territory -- most notably, her answer on the global warming question, which embarrassingly came right after she named energy as her core area of expertise. She got caught totally blind by the question about endorsing Dick Cheney's "ghost branch" argument regarding the VP, and actually endorsed it, which is incredible to me -- though I don't think she actually understood what it was she was being asked. The net effect was that, even if she performed marginally better than she did with Gibson and Couric, it was still not enough even to mark her as mediocre.

So let's be clear: under any objective evaluation, Joe Biden thrashed Sarah Palin tonight. It was a demonstration of what happens when you put politicians who are simply in separate leagues together in a room. And I got the distinct impression that Biden genuinely either does not like or does not respect Gov. Palin. It's hard to blame him -- I feel the same way -- and if I were a distinguished public servant like Biden I would have taken Palin's answers as a personal insult to the entire public profession. I think that explains the one time Biden really seemed to snap tonight, when Palin started talking about how she knew what it was like to raise a family in difficult circumstances, and that made her unique. Biden virtually never talks about his first wife and the horrible catastrophe that struck him, and it's obvious it's still painful to him. From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, maybe you could say Palin rattled him. But I think it made him more human, and more Palin -- who went right back on the attack -- look even more craven.

But Biden was, for the most part, on his game tonight. He was substantive, he was clear, he was aggressive without coming off as mean-spirited. And Governor Palin was the absolute reverse. Her talk about how Biden kept looking to the past when he was talking about the failures of Bush/McCain policies was absolutely inane. She would flat-out refuse to talk about any issue that might be difficult for her -- from when she smarmily said she wouldn't answer the way the "moderator" and Biden wanted her to in response to a perfectly reasonable request to discuss Biden's charges regarding McCain's stance on regulation (she talked about tax cuts instead), to her blanket refusal to admit she's ever changed her mind about anything. The latter quality was something she claimed as a virtue -- an exemplification of "straight talk" -- much as the fact that Sen. Kerry had learned from mistakes was taken as evidence of weak character in 2004.

Indeed, quite often Gov. Palin sounded like a 2004 flashback. She was at her strongest -- which in this case is "maintained reasonable coherency" -- when she was either a) reciting campaign cliches about being a maverick or hailing from small town America (note to Palin: I've met plenty of small town Americans in my life, and without exception none of them felt compelled to keep pointing it out to me. If being from a small town really impacts who you are and how you live your life, you should be able to demonstrate it by showing us, not telling us) or b) lobbing superficial rhetorical bombs about how Democrats want to "surrender" in Iraq, are "dangerous", and of course, the conservative mantra about tax raising. It's not impressive to me, and I don't think it stirs good memories in the minds of American voters anymore.

This is the election for the vice presidency. We don't grade on a curve here. Biden I give an A- -- I wish he would have mentioned even more his work on the Violence Against Women Act, which opens so many angles of attack it is not funny. And Palin? D+. "Exceeds expectations" isn't good enough. She had to prove Couric and Gibson were flukes, and she did not come close to doing that.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/02/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

A Nebraska law intended to stop the abandonment of new born babies is now seeing parents drop off older kids -- including teenagers -- saying they can no longer care for them.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will decide whether to leave the national church in protest of its ordination of a gay bishop.

GLBT voters in New Haven, Connecticut, got a chance to fire questions at the leader of the state Republican Party. Though he opposes most of the items on the agenda, he did raise a good point: In a state where Democrats hold substantial majorities in both legislative houses, "we're not stopping anything".

Alabama allows non-violent offenders to vote while in prison (who would of thought Alabama would be ahead of my curve here?). But they are refusing to allow a voter registration drive to get these men and women on the rolls.

Also, it's apparently really difficult for the average voter to figure out how a criminal conviction affects their right to vote.

The student association of the University of Nebraska has voted to oppose the effort to ban affirmative action in that state.

DC still can't figure out what went wrong with its electronic voting in the primaries, which is less than reassuring with the general election a month away.

San Francisco students are protesting the school board's decision to get rid of JROTC. The board is cutting ties to military organizations in protest of the discriminatory "don't ask don't tell" policy. (Fun fact for superdestroyer: the article reports that the fight to save JROTC is being led by "college-bound Asian-American students who make up the majority of cadets here".)

The US is rolling out a new citizenship test that focuses more on relevant knowledge and critical thinking skills. As always, the question of how many natural-born citizens could pass raises its head.

Arkansas is defending its policy of forbiddening unmarried couples from being foster parents. Observers note that the ban was passed shortly after state judges struck down the state's law barring gay individuals from serving as foster parents. Child care advocacy groups argue that these restrictions are depriving numerous children of well qualified and desperately needed foster families.

A jury found that a hearing-impaired man was discriminated against on basis of disability when his federal job wouldn't allow him to use a hearing aid during his hearing test. The man can hear perfectly fine with the device, and is permitted to use it while working.

Campaign Ads for Kids

What political campaign ads would look like if the electorate was kids.

Fun fact: these are only slightly less mature than the status quo! But much funnier.

Fun fact number 2: "Obama '08: Get Yours" would make a fantastic slogan. It also reminds me of a remark by I believe Ezra Klein when news organizations wrote about a CDC reporting "some good news that the rate of teenage sex has gone down." He responded something to the effect of, "not to anybody who's a teenager, it isn't." (It might have been vice versa -- the joke is the same).

The Missing Piece

David Bernstein complains about an excerpt from a "one-sided" NYT article about the McCain campaign's move towards distortions. Here's the offending passage:

On Friday on "The View," generally friendly territory for politicians, one co-host, Joy Behar, criticized [McCain's] new advertisements. "We know that those two ads are untrue," Ms. Behar said. "They are lies. And yet you, at the end of it, say, 'I approve these messages.' Do you really approve them?"

The problem? The Times doesn't tell you that (gasp!) Behar's a liberal.

What Bernstein must have forgotten to write in his shock is anything that points to Behar being wrong in her accusation. Which makes sense, because she's absolutely right, and there is no real way to go about disputing it. The two ads in question are the one's in which he accuses Obama of supporting sex education for Kindergarterners, and of calling Sarah Palin a "pig" (as in, lipstick on a....). If you watch the relevant clip, it becomes painfully obvious that McCain has no real defense here. After being told by Behar that his ads are "lies", McCain awkwardly stumbles out "no they are not lies", before immediately trying to tell the hosts that Obama runs negative ads too. Then a different host reminds him that he himself used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase to describe Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan. McCain responded that he was talking about a policy, not Clinton herself, but the hosts reminded him that Obama was talking about change (and McCain's, not Palin's, change to boot!).

The point being that, Behar, liberal or not, levied an accurate charge. McCain's ads are lies. Phrasing it as a typical "liberals-say/conservatives-say" dispute obscures the truth of the matter, which is that John McCain released two ads that are flagrantly untrue, and when called on the matter, he continued to lie without reservation. And the article continues to give several "independent" speakers (and some not-so-independent ones, like Orrin Hatch) who verify that McCain is fabricating in his ads.

I'm sorry that Professor Bernstein doesn't think that the New York Times obfuscated the issue sufficiently -- but to my mind, clarity is a feature in journalism, not a bug.

Risks Ahead for Palin

It's been barely a day, and already the Palin pick is starting to look like a big mistake. Cast aside the issues I already raised, as well as the big one I didn't (how the pick stomps on McCain's "experience" narrative). Palin also fits into another important Democratic attack line this cycle: that McCain and the GOP are in the pocket of big oil.

Now, Palin tried to argue that she is actually a crusader against the oil industry. But from the looks of it, she is if anything oil's handpicked candidate. To the extent that she breaks with the industry, it's because they aren't aggressive enough, which is not what most people have in mind when they think of the "energy crisis". This strikes me as a risk free attack on her -- it has no gendered associations, it fits in with Obama's pre-existing strategy, and it keeps McCain on the defensive on an area he's weak in. Palin, in other words, doesn't just negate one of McCain's primary strengths, she also exacerbates one of his biggest weaknesses.

Top that with the fact that a report on her role in an Alaskan corruption scandal is scheduled to come out on the eve of the election, her past close association with indicted Senator Ted Stevens, and the surprisingly tepid response of Alaskans themselves to her addition to the ticket, and we've got issues.

There's one more angle I want to write on Palin, and that's how it'll affect the votes of women. But I'm saving that for another post.

Country First?

That's the slogan McCain's got front and center on the lectern he's speaking in front of. After Barack Obama specifically blasted McCain's attack on his patriotism, this is an interesting double down. There is no doubt now that McCain is deliberately trying to play the patriotism card against Obama -- a low blow, and one that I think will end up backfiring against him.

Palin's the Ticket

So CNN reports. It's an intriguing choice, and I think a dangerous one, for both the Democratic and the GOP tickets.

What do I mean by that? Simple: Palin is a risky choice for McCain. It could turn out really well, or it could turn out really badly. The breakdown on Palin shows someone who has the potential to really create movement for McCain, but whose main benefits are speculative, unproven, or based on shaky assumptions.

So what are the key points to consider? First, Palin's a woman, and McCain has of late been very focused on trying to grab disaffected Clinton supporters over to his side. Contrary to media reports, Obama actually is running better than the typical Democrat with the double-X set, but McCain clearly believes that this support is soft and that he can bite into it. Democrats will undoubtedly focus on Palin's unabashedly pro-life record as a reason for women not to take the bait. And I fully expect Obama to deploy Hillary Clinton as a virtual shadow for Palin on the campaign trail to neutralize whatever advantage she may bring.

Second, Palin, like McCain, has a not entirely deserved good reputation on ethics issues. The travails of Alaska Republicans on the corruption front are well known, with one Senator indicted and one Congressman in the fight of his life both due to scandal. Since Palin rode into office specifically as a challenge to that branch of the state party, it's unlikely to me that she'll be tarred with guilt by association, and she may even try to jujitsu the troubles of Stevens and Young into benefits. On the other hand, Palin's been mired in a serious scandal of her own in recent weeks, allegedly pressuring termination of a state trooper who is mired in a custody dispute with her sister. McCain clearly is hoping that she'll be treated deferentially on this score by the media. Much of her effectiveness on the trail will hinge on how much that issue taints her credentials as an outsider and reformer. Is she the real deal, or does she get false credibility by leaping the not-so-high-bar of "better than Frank Murkowski"?

Third, Palin is not known as an attack dog, and is far less experienced than her Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden. In terms of the VP debate match-up, the DNC must be salivating at the moment. I have to think Biden would rip her to shreds when they come face to face (unless, of course, he makes one of his ever-threatening gaffes). Now, the question is whether anyone actually cares about the VP debate. I think it matters, but then I'm a political junkie. To the extent that it does have an affect, Democrats have a clear advantage.

Which brings us to fourth: what does Palin bring to the campaign trail? I don't see her as a particularly exciting campaigner. I think she may suffer from Sebelius syndrome: great resume on paper, but does it translate to the stump? We'll see on that score, but Palin is largely untested here. You can talk about Obama's inexperience, but it was only a few years ago that Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska: population 5,470. And unlike Obama, she's done nothing to demonstrate she has the type of big-ticket drawing power necessary to play ball at the highest levels. Maybe she does, but as I said, it's a risk.

So the best case scenario for McCain is that Palin a) picks off female voters, b) portrays the image of a reformist, youthful, crusading outsider, and c) surprises with strong campaign skills and holds her own against Biden. The worst case is that a) female voters prefer Obama's policies to Palin's gender, b) her reformist credentials don't hold water, and c) Biden and other Democratic surrogates eat her alive on the campaign trail. Either scenario, to be honest, seems plausible to me.

Ultimately, I think Palin is a better choice for McCain than many of the other finalists, including Romney, Pawlenty, and Lieberman. She doesn't actively anger the base (unlike Lieberman), she isn't loathed by everyone (unlike Romney), and she at least offers the potential for some game changing movement (unlike Pawlenty). And she probably pushes Alaska out of play, which is actually an issue this cycle.