Red State

[UPDATE: If you read the Ambinder piece, you'll see that this was leaked to Marc: it's an internal document designed to make sure that the GOP's people are up to speed on this issue. - Moe Lane]

This makes a good point. Congress (Republican and Democratic) attacked Enron, but nothing against the politically connected Fannie Mae. Here's a slide show, care of Marc Ambinder, that the McCain campaign is passing around:

Fox is covering the voting issues in OH:

Transcript after the jump:

Read More

Early voting is taking place in Ohio. Through the end of the week, people can register and vote on the same day. The Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner argues that they are merely "casting their ballot" rather than "voting" so the fact that Ohio statute requires 30 days between registering and voting would not interfere.

 So here is what is happening today. People are showing up to register and vote. There is no affirmative evidence that these people have not registered or voted somewhere else. There is no control. Normally in an election, partisan election monitors are allowed into polling places so that they can police each other. But not in two counties, Franklin and Montgomery, in Ohio. Brunner also issued an advisory opinion to counties saying that they are not required to allow election monitors. Watch an election observer be turned away.

Now if you want to see what is actually happening on the ground? This video shows interviews with people who are voting in Franklin County, where Republican election monitors are not being allowed into polling places.

 My favorite is the quote:

It's a perfect opportunity for them to come in, register at a temporary address like a homeless shelter or a YMCA or something like that. They can register at that address because they don't know where they're going to be tomorrow or next week."

The registrar also doesn't know where they will be. And there is nothing stopping that person from registering at a different location tomorrow (or later today).

Note that Brunner cannot be said to be simply trying to protect the franchise. After all, she directed county officials to discard absentee ballot applications. These are just partisan hacks interested in winning elections. If that means stealing votes... I wonder how much that bothers her?

Earlier Redstate's Pejman Yousefzadeh argued that Nancy Pelosi misread her caucus. I have an alternative hypothesis: she wanted the bill to fail. I have three pieces of evidence. First, yesterday, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the House Majority Whip told the Politico that he was not whipping the vote and was not asked to whip the vote:

Asked about Monday’s vote on the bailout bill, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn tells reporters: “We haven’t started whipping.” Asked if he’s going to start whipping, Clyburn says: “The speaker hasn’t told me yet. I do what I’m told.”

Second, as Pejman noted previously, Rep. Peter deFazio (D-OR) told NPR that he was never whipped on the question. Listen:

Third, look at the actual procedure on this. From the clerk's floor summary:

2:07 P.M. -

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment Failed by recorded vote: 205 - 228 (Roll No. 674).

Note the "motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection." If the Democrats had wanted this to pass, they would not have said that. The procedural guts of this is that any vote in the House can be "reconsidered" by a motion to reconsider that is in order from a member of the prevailing side for two legislative days. By tabling this, that option is off the table.

The simplest option for Pelosi would have been to wait an hour, watch the markets collapse for a while, scare 12 Democrats and hold a revote. Surely some Republicans would have participated in this.

Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats had a way to win this vote today. Either out of incompetence or strategy, they walked away from that opportunity.

Barack Obama's campaign demonstrated what shameless hypocrites they are. This morning, they went up with an ad calling John McCain dishonorable and sleazy.

Yet on Friday, they released an ad that accused him of not using a computer (a strange accusation). When it turned out that his well-known mobility problem is part of the reason, what do they do? Change the subject by quoting him out of context. Watch the painful exchange: They don't even have an answer. They don't even try. They just pivot and keep on lying.

This is after the wheels started to come off yesterday with Claire McCaskill, one of Obama's national Co-Chairs arguing that people shouldn't vote for McCain because he is old and has had cancer.

These people are trying to talk about running a dishonorable and sleazy campaign? These guys could write the book on it.

When the going gets rough, Barack Obama's principles get going.

Marc Ambinder notes that Obama is abandoning his previous statements on outside groups:

There's been a spurt of 527 activity on behalf of Sen. John McCain, but Barack Obama campaign has suddenly gone silent on the subject.

That's because, after of year of telling donors not to contribute to 527 groups, of encouraging strategists not to form them and of suggesting that outside messaging efforts would not be welcome in Obama's Democratic Party, Obama's strategists have changed their approach.

An Obama adviser privy to the campaign's internal thinking on the matter says that,with less than two months before the election and with the realization that Republicans have achieved financial parity with Democrats, they hope that Democratic allies -- what another campaign aide termed "the cavalry" -- with come to Obama's aid.

This is the same guy who was for the public financing system until he realized he could raise more money outside of it. This is the same guy who took on the Chicago Daley machines opponents in State Senator Alice Palmer and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL). This is the same guy who was for a bipartisan ethics proposal with John McCain until the Democratic leaders in the Senate yanked his chain and brought him back into line.

This guy doesn't do what's right. He does what's right for him.

Yesterday, I noticed these very strange first two paragraphs of a Politico story:

The liberal blogosphere was abuzz Friday with news that a friend of Sarah and Todd Palin had tried to seal his divorce records.

Surely, the Netroots speculated, that friend must be the unnamed business partner whom this week’s edition of the National Enquirer alleges — without proof so far — was romantically linked to Palin. The McCain campaign's characterization of the story as a "vicious lie" seemed to only fuel more speculation.

The reporter makes explicit that he (or at least they. The they of the media and the Politico) are being driven by the netroots. At least the Politico is self-conscious enough (or post-modern enough) to admit its role in the farce. He goes on to note:

Those who couldn’t make it to the Palmer courthouse in person were out of luck for much of Friday, since the court’s website crashed from all the traffic directed to it by a link on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

It couldn't be clearer that the media is not being driven by the responsible lefty news outlets like Talking Points Memo, but by the delusional crazies like DailyKos and FireDogLake (and, now, sadly Andrew Sullivan, once a serious person).

In that context, Diane West quotes Steve Schmidt in the Washington Times

Mr. Schmidt said. "Many reporters have called the campaign and have apologized for asking the questions and said, `Our editors are making us do this, and I am ashamed.'"

These are the same editors that are signing off on stories, and probably encouraging them, like Vogle's. It is clear who to blame both for the irresponsible coverage and the self-destruction of the media's credibility.

At this rate, they will continue to destroy themselves and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. In a twisted, way I think, "bless their hearts." They'll defeat themselves and Barack Obama. Two birds with one stone.

Today's New York Times has a story about Sarah Palin's critics in Alaska. These are the "facts" that they use in the story:

• They quote the guy she beat for Mayor of Wasilia.
• They quote a Democratic city council member who says that Palin did something but doesn't corroborate. The person who could have corroborated refused to comment.
• They note a guy who she fired and who sued and lost his lawsuit over wrongful termination.

In other words, they interview people she beat. Funny. They don't like her. Politics ain't beanbag. I suspect that Barack Obama knows that too.

The only person they quote who isn't directly hostile because they lost a political battle to her is her Deputy Mayor who just seems to punt.

Now, this is a woman with astronomical approval ratings. Don't you think that the New York Times could find at least one person who would defend her? I mean... She won a primary for Governor based, in part, on her record in Wasilia. They could have tried, at least, right?

Give me a break. This isn't news. This isn't honest. This is just the New York Times in full attack mode. And the "newspaper of record" should be ashamed of itself for publishing it. And William Yardley should be ashamed for writing it.

Craig Crawford at CQ has the story:

The Democratic convention now teeters on the brink of a media disaster thanks to real news that threatens to distract reporters from the scripted show.

And wouldn't you know, it's all about the Clintons. The trouble with the news-free nature of modern conventions is how anything unplanned can instantly get of hand with thousands of reporters in town vying for every morsel of something different.

The word on the street is total meltdown. The Clintons and their advisors aren't even staying for the final speech. Bill Clinton is openly whining about his speaking assignment.

And that's before Joe Biden stuffs most of his leg in his mouth.

Where would you put your business? And wouldn't cutting it be real stimulus?

H/T Greg Mankiw

The Messiah thing just doesn't let up. Ben Smith has Nancy Pelosi describing Barack Obama as "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

Maybe he is the one?

In the meantime, Obama says that McCain is "the devil" but that Obama is merely "unknown":

“Even when people are having a tough time, sometimes the devil you know may be preferable to the unknown.”

Of course, it is a joking point. But it is still telling that he can only quote the saying so far to call McCain a devil, but himself only unknown.

Barack Obama's mentor, Emil Jones, will announce his resignation from the Illinois State Senate today, according to the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune describes Obama as Jones' protege.

Rumors are floating that Jones is wrapped up in a criminal investigation. We will keep you updated... We have written about his own private slush fund in the past.

In the meantime, here's what you need to know about the relationship between Jones and Obama:

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.

Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.

I'll never forget what he said:

"Some call it pork; I call it steak."

I watched Rick Warren's Saddleback event last night. I thought it was interesting. I thought John McCain won, an opening shared by Zack Exley, a former John Kerry staffer. He called Obama's performance "disappointing" and notes that he had been coached on a number of issues by evangelical leaders but that Obama "kind of went around in circles", calling it "a little John Kerryesque".

By contrast, he describes McCain as:

Wow. McCain is doing really well. He’s so relaxed and natural. What’s going on? He was supposed to be old and spent and out of touch. But he’s being so much more engaging than Obama was. I think… Right?

But, in some circles, the news of the night may be different. Just minutes after leaving the stage, Obama gives an interview with CBN's David Brody. Brody drills down on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which we have discussed here. The key passage:

Brody: Real quick, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main -- they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

When a group like the National Right to Life Committee is called out as liars by the candidate himself, the group responds and the issue is elevated. Obama has now given editors reason to print these stories.

By the way, the best details on this issue are, to my knowledge, in David Freddoso's book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate

This will be an interesting fight to watch. If NRLC and Freddoso are right, Obama just lied on video to the Christian Broadcasting Network. That's a story.

The LA times has exposed a nice little bit of hypocrisy from Barack Obama's campaign. His campaign is now directly soliciting high-six-figure checks from unions:

In an example of the campaign's late-innings effort, a very senior Obama campaign official called the political director of one of the largest labor unions about two weeks ago and asked for a $500,000 contribution on top of a similar amount that had been committed just a few weeks before, according to the union official.

The campaign, further more, refuses to deny whether Obama is doing it directly:

A spokesman for the campaign, Hari Sevugan, declined to say whether Obama himself had become involved in these fundraising efforts or to confirm any details of work done by others from the campaign.

Now, my problem here isn't that he is doing it. It is the hypocrisy of attacking it and then doing and claiming that he is clean. This "say Mister Clean, do Mr. Washington" pattern is the pattern of his campaign. Read on for details.

Read More

Regular readers will know that I hate corruption, especially by elected officials and unions. The press seems to love the stories about the elected officials, but rarely focuses on the unions. The LA Times breaks the mold:

Advocates for low-wage caregivers called on authorities Monday to investigate the spending practices of a Los Angeles union and a related charity that have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by the wife and mother-in-law of the labor organization's leader. ...

It gets tastier:

In addition, the union last year spent nearly $300,000 on a Four Seasons Resorts golf tournament, a Beverly Hills cigar club, restaurants such as Morton's and a consulting contract with the William Morris Agency, the Hollywood talent shop, records show.

The union paid a combined $219,000 in 2006 and 2007 to a video firm whose principals include a former employee of the local, according to Labor Department filings and interviews. And a now-defunct minor league basketball team that Freeman's brother-in-law coached received $16,000 for what the union described as public relations.

The local paid about $106,000 to a firm called the Filming, for which no incorporation record, business license, address or telephone listing could be found.

And:

The Times reported Saturday that the payments to the company owned by Freeman's wife, Pilar Planells, were among the local's largest single expenses last year, at about $178,000. Planells has said she did not personally profit.

With all that money, no wonder they could afford such a swank destination wedding.

For more, try the LAT story from the weekend too.

So someone pleads guilty to tring to bribe Mississippi Democratic Senate candidate and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove. The Clarion-Ledger has the details:

Georgia businessman pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy to corruptly influence a public official in connection with Mississippi’s costly and failed beef plant venture — a decision that could spill over into a U.S. Senate race.

Who? Ronnie Musgrove, with $45k to his campaign account:

Robert Moultrie, chairman and chief executive of The Facility Group of Smyrna, Ga., admitted he gave $45,000 in contributions to the re-election campaign of then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, who is now running for the Senate.

And:

Moultrie has agreed to cooperate with authorities. He first gave Musgrove $20,000 through a PAC Moultrie formed in July 2003. In September 2003, “Musgrove contacted Moultrie for another campaign contribution of $25,000,” according to court documents.

Currently, no one is alleging that Musgrove did anything wrong. Currently.

Jen Rubin passes on a great little tibit from the document dump from the Atlantic. You want to read this one which contains Mark Penn's analysis just prior to the Iowa Caucus.

On page 8, in the scenario that Hillary Clinton comes in second behind Barack Obama, Penn recommends:

If it is a two-way race with Obama, on Friday we do a media interviews (sic) and basically say that he is unvetted, discuss his ever-changing positions. Release the tapes. Create immediate pressure that deprives him of oxygen

What tapes? If it is the Wright tapes, why did it take so long? If it is something else..., what tapes?

Crossposted from The Next Right

Jen Rubin passes on a great little tibit from the document dump from the Atlantic. You want to read this one which contains Mark Penn's analysis just prior to the Iowa Caucus.

On page 8, in the scenario that Hillary Clinton comes in second behind Barack Obama, Penn recommends:

If it is a two-way race with Obama, on Friday we do a media interviews (sic) and basically say that he is unvetted, discuss his ever-changing positions. Release the tapes. Create immediate pressure that deprives him of oxygen

What tapes? If it is the Wright tapes, why did it take so long? If it is something else..., what tapes?

Crossposted from The Next Right

Mark has addressed some of Barack Obama's campaign's handling of the "race card" issue. But it is worth watching the appearance. It is astonishing that Axelrod was so unprepared for this:

Note that the closing argument that Obama has never proposed an energy tax increase is laughably false with today's Politico story about funding a $1,000 rebate with a tax on energy companies. Axelrod is just lying and making stuff up. Totally unprepared and without a single compelling answer.

At the same time, Davis just drills away.

Real Clear Politics felt the same way:

I had the read the quotes from the AM Report posted earlier today, but hadn't watched the video until just now. This was, to put it politely, not Axelrod's best. He essentially admitted that Obama was in fact making a reference to his race with his "dollar bill" remarks and then - almost as if he recognized the mistake and lost his train of thought - stumbled badly when trying to answer on the question of energy and taxes.

Strieff nicely handled the absurd charges of racism against John McCain for the celebrity ad. Hopefully the blowhard press can let that one lie.

But Barack Obama's slip last night on Hillary Clinton is telling and fits a pattern of mysogyny in his campaign. Visa CBS:

"At a time when we’ve got bigger challenges than any time in our history and you’re running ads with Hillary and er – with Britney and ah Paris in it. I mean come on. The American people deserve better."

Of course, this is par for the course. He diminished Hillary Clinton with sexist attacks in the primary. I wrote this a while back:

Jake Tapper first noted this when Obama said that Hillary was "taking out the claws." At the same time he noted that Obama would use "[l]anguage such as 'when she's feeling down' 'periodically' she 'launches attacks.'" Tapper noted that a number of female reporters and bloggers picked up on this. Later Obama complained that Hillary was "throwing the China" at him. Again, Tapper heard the dog whistle. Tapper noted that this "feeds into the 'harridan' caricature of Clinton."