A common charge of Republicans during the 2008 presidential campaign was at Senator Barack Obama's perceived liberalism. Republicans often stated that Mr. Obama was the most liberal senator in the United States, according to a ranking by the National Journal. The attack against Mr. Obama's liberalism has continued during his time in office.
The ranking by the National Journal, however, seems to be flawed in several ways. Take the 2004 rankings, for instance. Guess who was ranked the most liberal Senator in 2004.
In the wake of President Barack Obama's premature capitulation to the Republicans in the tax wars, a party who I might remind you controls neither congressional chamber at this moment (they will take over the House in January), once muted criticism of the Commander-in-Chief on the Left has suddenly erupted into a full scale flurry of condemnation.
There have been calls for other Democrats to primary him in 2012, jeremiads that Progressives should have been treating him as an adversary, and a feeling on the Left, put into words by a Congressman (Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York), that Democrats "can't trust him."
So you could say it's been a somewhat bad month for the president - although that might be akin to saying the guys attending South Carolina's "Secession Ball" will only be missing some of their teeth. The president has not only caved on eliminating budget-busting tax cuts for people who have toilet plungers more expensive than your house, but has backed off long-delayed (but promised) environmental regulations to govern smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers.
He also negotiated a new Korea Free Trade Agreement that isn't free from deleterious affects on American workers, enacted a freeze in pay for federal employees for reasons nobody can figure out, and was ready to listen to recommendations to cut Social Security from a committee of rich, irrelevant Beltway primates so old they look like they should be starring in Weekend at Bernie's 3.
It's been more than a year since the 2008 presidential election, when Illinois Senator Barack Obama and Arizona Senator John McCain engaged in that great, quadrennial contest for votes.
Initially, this poster was not quite sure who to support. Mr. Obama seemed quite the exciting, inspiring candidate. On the other hand, like many Americans, I was concerned about his relative lack of experience. Mr. McCain, I knew, was an honorable, decent man who had served the country well. Throughout the summer I hesitated, leaning towards the side of Senator McCain.
I remained in this state of mind until the Republican National Convention. It was then, in the second or third day of watching the RNC, that I decided to support Mr. Obama. More fundamentally, it was then that I decided to become a member of the Democratic Party.
Unlike the Versailles punditalkcrazy, which remains deeply enamored of the mythical "center-right country" they think America is, the real, actual American people--also known as the electorate, citizens, folks, what-have-you--are quite clear-eyed about why the Republicans lost this election: they're just too damn concervative! The evidence from the post-election Democracy Corps report, "The Change Election Awaiting Change", could not be clearer [click image for wider version]:
That's how the American people see things. But the majority of the subset of Republican voters disagrees [click image for wider version]:
Earlier this week, my diary "Ayers Attack 'Ridiculous,' 'Nonsensical,' 'Silly'--Former GOP IL State Rep" highlighted an NPR story debunking the notion that William Ayers was some sort of sinister figure when Barack Obama first crossed paths with him politically. This morning, my previous diary, "The Discourse of 'Terrorism' - Thinking The Unthinkable", cut more deeply, questioning even the notion of casually labelling Ayers a "domestic terrorist" and the larger framework of "terrorist" discourse behind such labelling. I now want to take a similarly broad look at how ACORN and Ayers are both being used in building a demonizing narrative against Obama, which we should expect to be used to try to delegitimize him, just as the GOP worked feverishly to delegitimize Bill Clinton in the 1990s. I had hoped to do it in a single diary, but that's not really possible, so here's the first installment.
The latest "bold move" by the McCain campaign is to tout their unkown, untested VP as actually being "more experienced" than Barack Obama--in a desperate attempt to salvage their long-time theme of questioning Obama's experience. And they've found a wonderful way to do it---with the qualifier of "executive experience", which, of course, Palin also got as mayor of Wassalia.
There are only two or three dozen things wrong with this argument. But I'd like to present just one. If you accept this argument, just look who else Palin is better qualified than:
2 years in US House; no other elective office
6 year in US; 8 years in US Senate
12 yeass in US House; 12 years in US Senate
4 years in US House; 22 years in US Senate
A patently absurd argument, no? So just watch the Republicans run with it for all their worth.
The neglect and abandonment of New Orleans three years ago has come back to haunt the GOP in ways that were literally unimaginable, and that threaten to overwhelm the party as thoroughly as the city of New Orleans was overwhelmed three years ago, as Hurricane Gustave threatens a devastating landfall.
The fear of all their folly being underscored for all America to relive once again has actually driven them to scale back plans for their convention, and possibly even cancel it entirely if conditions worsen. Simply toning down their festivities does not seem to be an option, so badly have their played their hand.
"But the good times are all gone, and I'm bound for moving on...."
As noted in a comment, by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, TPM has a new, up-to-date overview of Sarah Palin's Troopergate scandal here. This is the scandal over the pressuring, and eventual firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, for his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's ex-brother-in-law who's involved in a bitter custody dispute with Palin's sister.
Josh explains his reasons for presenting the overview as a response to some particularly noxious spin:
A critical Republican campaign strategy is working when it comes to framing for the November election. Despite actual facts, media reporting increasingly reports that there is no difference of import between John McSame McCain and Barack Obama when it comes to the arenas of energy and Global Warming. Take David Kesterbaum's NPR report yesterday.
If you are trying to figure out whom to vote for in the upcoming presidential race, the issue of climate change may not be much help. This is one area where both leading candidates for president do not have a lot to disagree about.
Shallow, misinformed, and misleading reporting is about the most polite way to describe Kestenbaum's report which focuses solely on selected sound-bytes rather than the substance of the two candidates' positions.
There are fundamental differences between McSame's and Obama's positions and fundamental differences about the prospects for the future between President McSame and President Obama. Differences that Kesterbaum reporting will leave you ignorant about.
10 Reasons For The False Media Narrative of A "Tied Campaign"
The media narrative of a tied campaign is yet another sign of the rightwing bias of the Versailles media, but it is not a simple phenomena. In fact, it has many contributing elements, each of which, in turn, is a result of rightwing influence combined with press laziness of at least distinct kinds--intellectual laziness, the habit of not thinking things through, and ordinary laziness, the habit of simply not bothering to check things out.
While I'm certain to have missed something, I've compiled a list of contributing factors to "campaign is tied" narrative. This list is my attempt to show why this false narrative is so deeply embedded, and so impervious to facts.
Of course the real reason is the conservative Republican dominance of Versailles, the result of a virtually-unopposed 30-40 year Gramscian "culture war"/"war of position", that involves systematically taking over all the reality-defining cultural institutions they can get their hands on. But that long-term structural advantage has to be translated into various forms that directly impact campaign coverage. This is my attempt to map out the major ones as they appear to me now. The reasons appear on the flip.
Yesterday, Chris wrote a diary, "Flip-Flop Attacks Are Generally Ineffective" , in which he argued that historically flip-flop attacks have not been effective, by looking at when such attacks have come to the fore, and how well candidates have done while that was happening. He concluded, in part:
Do flip-flop attacks hurt politicians? I'm not seeing much evidence of it. I could be wrong, but I at least wanted to float the thesis: flip-flop attacks are generally ineffective. They also form large percentage of the attacks that people seem to be suggesting, and even engaging in, against McCain. If my thesis is right, they probably won't work.
While I thought the lack of an immediate effect was an important discovery, I wasn't convinced that that should be our only concern-or that there was necessarily a direct equivalence between making the attack on a Democrat and a Republican. I said as much in a comment, here. And then I saw a related comment over at TPM-related in that it appealed to the apparent lack of success of McCain attacks so far.
What connected these two arguments was the assumption that campaign is basically a linear process, which overlooks, or at least minimizes cumulative effects that may not show up immediately, but may still be quite important, could result in significant shifts later in the campaign. And that concerned me.
For many, many years, in elementary and middle schools across the south and perhaps other regions in the nation as well, at a certain time each year, the student body would perhaps `nominate' several young boys and girls to be Mr and Miss `small town' (or whatever the name) of that particular school may be.
But, this contest would not be based purely on popularity, being a good citizen or high academic achievement per se, but instead, by the number of pennies that each student was able to raise since each penny counted as one vote.
After the votes, no, actually, the pennies were tallied the winners would be crowned, perhaps photographed for the yearbook, maybe even ride on a float in a local parade and then carry the largely insignificant title throughout the rest of the year.
After execution of this widely accepted practice by which these schools would raise much needed funds for things like chalk, art paper, kick balls or other necessities utilized for richer educational experiences in the classroom there was an unfortunate fact that remained embedded in the minds of the millions who witnessed or lived through it.
The children who took the title Mr and Miss local school, was in fact the student who in the end, turned in the fattest check to the powers that be at that school, a check that was often written by a wealthy parent.
In the end, the contest was not about merit or popularity but wealth although perhaps in rare cases, childlike money raising prowess. Still, for millions of children, it instilled or perhaps at least reinforced the bitter pill that money equals title, perhaps too power.
What often got lost in the drama of those contests that appears to have rewarded those children who had wealthier parents, was the cold hard fact that the schools who conducted them, often operated under umbrella school systems that under-funded them, a greater system that in many states bore the stench of inequity from district to district that left individual schools in desperate need of cash to operate fully.
It was a greater reality that was complained about, but many parents and others felt powerless to change.
Interestingly, many of our most treasured rights, the very fundament(s) of what we cherish as a free democracy are tainted by similar flaws.
While there is no doubt that Barack Obama did in fact go back on his word when he announced that he would opt-out of the public financing system, irking many, both Republican and Democrat along with those who would like to extinguish the flames of influence that large moneyed private donations, be it corporate donors who bundle, be it lobbying interests who disguise donations through other methods, be it even individuals who accept the fact that in order to win an election in these free and open United States they must contribute dollars to help their choice win votes, the facts in today's electioneering process are what they are.
The United States electoral system is broken.
It truly does not matter who is nominated or who chooses to enter a campaign for any office in this country because, in the end, that candidate must go out and raise vast amounts of dollars because in this nation, in the end, a dollar can be likened to a bullhorn by which to broadcast a message more effectively and thus win a vote.
Until we as a nation begin to aggressively address the fundamental flaws that money in politics has grown into over the past few years, we are only going to continue to witness the political pollution that money buys on an increasingly grand scale.
Yes,the presumed Democratic nominee appears to many to have gone back on his word. But, the nominee from Chicago is only operating under an umbrella, a system that has relegated him to this unfortunate choice. It is his political reality and more importantly, it is ours. We as a nation have yet to raise our collective voices and demand change in the way we pick our leaders.
It's really not fair for critics to bombard the Barack Obama campaign machine with criticism or to express profound disappointment in the candidate for choosing to opt out of public financing. It is more appropriate that we express our displeasure with our system of electing our leaders.
What makes this all similar to the analogy of students who go out and raise pennies for the tile of Mr or Miss School?
Well, that's fairly obvious.
But, this is not just a `title' that Senator Obama and Senator Mc Cain are raising their coins for. It is in fact, the most powerful title in the world.
STATE BLOGS
12 yeass in US House;
4 years in US House;
