Rightwing in Gay Panic Mode Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Social conservatives are in gay panic mode over the prospect that Congress will eventually repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The National Research Council released a bogus report warning that "gay rape" will surge in the military if Congress repeals the policy. I guess NRC is only worried about "gay" as opposed to "heterosexual" rape. Besides, rape is really about violence and domination, not sexual identity.

In addition, Think Progress reports that the socially conservative group America's Survival has produced a video proclaiming its opposition to allowing the threat of "disease-tainted gay blood" in the military. The group believes that gays will spread HIV in the military, even though the virus has no sexual boundaries. Furthermore, the military already conducts HIV screenings and excludes HIV-positive individuals from service.

In an effort to attract social conservatives, Senator John McCain is having a nervous breakdown over the prospect that Congress will lift the ban. As someone who was captured and tortured during war, McCain should realize that gayness is not the enemy of the nation's troops. Instead, he is shamelessly seeking votes by any means necessary.

Of course, the Democrats are making themselves vulnerable to some Republican criticism, including from McCain. Because Obama has moved painfully slow on this issue, he has faced condemnation from his liberal base. Representative Patrick Murphy and Senator Joe Lieberman tried to speed up the process by proposing legislation repealing the ban. Obama, however, announced a year-long study of the policy and asked Murphy and Lieberman to alter the bill to delay any repeal until the review is complete and the military has decided that the repeal should actually occur. Now, the legislation is in tension with itself. Still, the rightwing deceit and homophobia are reprehensible.

Truth or Dare: McCain Says He Was Misled Regarding the Bailout

Senator John McCain, who faces a tough reelection battle, says that he was misled regarding the details of the bailout. McCain says that he believed that the bailout would focus on the housing crisis, but that the money went to Wall Street companies, like AIG, and to the auto industry.

But Wall Street firms, including AIG, helped to create and were negatively impacted by the housing crisis. Also, the bailout legislation is drafted broadly and allows the government to purchase bad assets from "financial institutions" and other companies, regardless of whether the assets are mortgage-related.

5 1/2 Minutes of Fame: Joe the Plumber Says McCain Tried to Use Him

I was shocked, annoyed and amazed that characters like Joe the Plumber and Obama Girl became media sensations during the 2008 presidential campaigns. Now, I am shocked, annoyed and amazed that Joe continues to make the headlines. Well, at least this story is interesting enough to give a blurb.

Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher became the face of the "beleaguered white middle-class male" whom John McCain's campaign needed to excite. McCain referred to Joe during a presidential debate, and he became a temporary celebrity -- i.e., the face of the victims of Democratic-led Nazism, socialism, oppression, brutality, etc.

Today, however, Joe has harsh words for McCain. During a radio interview held in connection with a Republican campaign event in Pennsylvania, Joe said: "I don't owe [McCain] s---. . . He really screwed my life up is how I look at it."

And while Joe eagerly projected himself into national politics, he says McCain used him: "McCain was trying to use me . . . I happened to be the face of middle Americans. It was a ploy." Really, Joe, you thought you were a colleague or buddy of McCain?

Joe also disapproves of Sarah Palin because she is campaigning for McCain. But Joe says he appreciates Obama, describing him as "honest." Yet, Joe says Obama's policies are "un-American." I see a possible role as a Tea Party delegate in Joe's future.

More Lunacy: McCain Thought Palin Was Fit for VP, But That Sotomayor Unfit for SCOTUS

Interesting: Senator John McCain has decided to vote against Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Previously, I defended McCain and Palin (when appropriate), but this decision is indefensible. According to McCain's decision making, Palin was qualified for the job of Vice President, but Sotomayor is unfit for the Supreme Court. Will the madness ever end?

GOP Will "Retool" It's Image by Dispatching a Non-Diverse Crowd -- Including a Bush?

I have been pretty fair to the GOP -- even defending RNC Chair Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh against silly Democratic antics. But I am completely baffled this latest Republican effort to heal the wounded GOP brand.

According to CNN, the GOP will sponsor a series of town hall meetings across the country, billed as "The National Council for a New America." But the group does not look so "new" to me.

First, Jeb Bush and John McCain are two of the leading participants. On some level, I understand having John McCain on the program because he is the most prominent Republican at the moment. But he is also the most prominent Republican to lose to a Democrat in recent memory -- so it will take some work for him to attract people outside of committed Republican circles.

Also, Jeb Bush has been out of office for a while, and (most importantly) his brother has a lot to do with the party's image falling over a cliff. The "Bush" name does not symbolize a "new" America for most voters.

Finally, other than Bobby Jindal, I do not see much diversity on the proposed list of speakers. This will only fuel arguments that the party is "out of touch" with the U.S. mosaic.

Well, let's see what happens. I wonder if McCain's pro-same sex marriage, clearly new Republican daughter is on the list? Probably not. But then again, I didn't see Limbaugh's name listed either.

UPDATE: According to an article in the New York Times, the questions I have raised about this retooling effort are being debated within the GOP. Apparently, the party is somewhat divided over what direction it should take. Some Republicans, for example, praise Specter's departure and want the party to become more solidly conservative. Others, however, are demanding greater flexibility on social and economic issues.

I have argued previously that conservatives could frame support for social causes normally seen as "liberal" by using conservative/libertarian principles. For example, supporting the rights of the accused, keeping the government out of GLBT bedrooms, and endorsing a woman's right to choose are consistent with the Republicans' purported belief in limited government.

How the party works through these issues will certainly impact the way it performs in the near future. I do not think that the current political scene is permanent. Politics comes in cycles. The 60s and 70s were liberal, but this ushered in a period of conservatism. Now, things "look" more liberal -- although I am suspicious about how liberal things actually are. Nevertheless, history provides overwhelming evidence on this: Things do not always remain the same over the course of time in politics. Cycles exist. How a party manages the cycle will determine its fate in the short-term and maybe over the long haul as well.

Fundamentals of the Economy Are Sound -- Really?

During the presidential campaign, Senator John McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. This sent the media and Obama into orbit. Today and earlier this week, however, President Obama and Christina Romer -- Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors -- basically said the same thing. Jake Tapper's Political Punch blog has more details.

Romer, for example said:

"Of course, the fundamentals are sound," Romer said on Meet the Press, "in the sense that the American workers are sound. We have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, temporarily, we're in a mess, right? We have seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. Certainly in the short run, we're in a bad situation."

But Obama beat down McCain as being "out of touch" for making the same comment:

"We just woke up to news of financial disaster, and this morning he said that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong," Obama said on September 15 in Grand Junction, Colo. "Sen. McCain - what economy are you talking about? "What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family? What’s more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your head at the end of the day?"

And earlier last week, Obama himself said that:

"[I]f we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we're going to get through this. And I'm very confident about that."

Even Huffington Post, which beat up McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy were sound last September, has published an article showing the striking similarities between Romer's and McCain's statements. Since the time McCain made his comments, the stock market has plunged, unemployment has soared, foreclosures have climbed to record highs, and GDP is in free fall. But now, the fundamentals of the economy are sound when they were not last Fall. Amazing stuff.

Check out this "just posted" item: Sincere or False Outrage? The Obama Administration Smacks Down AIG

Dining With Rivals: Obama to Honor McCain, Biden and Powell at Pre-Inauguration Event

According to the Associated Press, President-elect Barack Obama will host three dinners during the week of his inauguration in order to honor "leaders who worked across party lines." On the night before the inauguration ceremony Obama will recognize John McCain, Joe Biden and Colin Powell as individuals who put "their country ahead of their political party."

Cynicism Overload Alert: Isn't this the exact same campaign message upon which McCain ran, but which Democrats and Obama blasted and contested almost to the point of overkill?

Also, aside from saying he believes in affirmative action and endorsing Obama, how has Powell challenged his party? Depending upon your political ideology, you might not even agree that he put country first during these discrete moments of "rebellion." And when has Biden ever contested the Democrats on substantial issues? I do not recall him ever disagreeing with the Democrats in a very public way that mattered. Perhaps a reader could fill in this blank.

This news of the dinners comes directly from the inaugural committee, according to the article. So, it looks official.

I accept the fact that Obama apparently wants to go down in history as the president who loves his election opponents once he can do so safely. But at some point, the reconciliation movement will begin to look too peculiar. The nomination of Hillary Clinton, whom he said lacked judgment, as Secretary of State has already tested the limits of my cynicism. But honoring McCain, whom Obama called erratic and out of touch seems a bit much, especially using the "country first" theme. But perhaps I'm too critical. What do you think?

Obama Might Abandon Campaign Promise on Taxes, Names Economic Team; Plus: Rubinomics and Citigroup

Obama Names Economic Team
Although the rumor mill had already leaked the information, Obama named his economic policy team today. Tim Geithner will head the Department of Treasury, while his mentor Larry Summers will serve as the Director of the National Economic Council. Christina Romer will head the Council of Economic Advisors.

Source: CBS News

Rubinomics?
Members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party are already up in arms over some of Obama's staffing decisions. Today's New York Times adds more coals to the fire in an article that links Obama's economic team with Robert Rubin, who served as Secretary of Treasury to Bill Clinton. Liberals and progressives blame "Rubinomics" for free trade and deregulation, which they argue caused job losses and the current credit crisis. The article states that:

The president-elect’s choices for his top economic advisers — Timothy F.
Geithner as Treasury secretary, Lawrence H. Summers as senior White House
economics adviser and Peter R. Orszag as budget director — are past protégés of
Mr. Rubin, who held two of those jobs under President Bill Clinton. Even
the headhunters for Mr. Obama have Rubin ties: Michael Froman, Mr. Rubin’s chief
of staff in the Treasury Department who followed him to Citigroup, and James
Rubin, Mr. Rubin’s son.

All three advisers — whom Mr. Obama will officially name on Monday and
Tuesday — have been followers of the economic formula that came to be called
Rubinomics: balanced budgets, free trade and financial deregulation, a
combination that was credited with fueling the prosperity of the 1990s [Editor:
And the recession of the 2000s].

Source: New York Times

Speaking of Rubin: Citigroup Gets Largest Bailout Package to Date
Citigroup, the troubled financial conglomerate where Rubin serves as a Director, will receive the largest federal bailout of any financial institution to date during the present credit crisis. Under the plan, the government will give Citigroup at $20 billion cash infusion and insure losses on the bank's $300 billion portfolio of bad debt -- largely from risky mortgage instruments. Geithner helped negotiate the bailout pursuant to his role as Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Obama: "No New Taxes"
Taxation became a major debate issue during the general-election campaign. McCain promised to cut taxes for the "middle class," but he also said he would maintain Bush's controversial tax cuts for high-income earners. Obama, by contrast, promised to cut taxes for the middle class, but raise taxes on upper-income earners in order to fund his social programs and to prevent an explosion in the deficit. Many economic experts argued that both candidates' plans (which involved higher spending and fewer taxes) would increase the deficit. McCain's plan, however, would cause greater injury to the deficit because it would not involve any tax increases (as would Obama's).

Now, less than one month after the election, it seems that Obama's tax plan suddenly looks like McCain's. According to Reuters, Obama's team is now considering abandoning its plan to impose new tax increases due to the poor state of the economy. Wasn't the economy bad a month ago?

Source: Reuters

Obama to Joe: No Need to Go! Turn-Coat Lieberman Will Likely Retain His Powerful Senate Chair

It is a great time for political dissenters. While my liberal buddies are running around proclaiming that our party has slain the awful Bush-Cheney-Rove-GOP-Rightwing-Socially Conservative-Multi-Headed dragon, it appears that the Democrats are too timid to dispose of their own Judas Iscariot. Although Joe Lieberman delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention urging voters to pick John McCain (affectionately known as Bush III and McSame among Democrats), he will likely remain Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. Lieberman will, however, lose control over a less powerful and more obscure Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works ("who"?).

A story on CNN.Com confirms earlier rumors that President-Elect Obama stopped efforts to remove Lieberman from his Senate leadership positions. After Lieberman betrayed the party and campaigned for McCain, it seemed certain that the party would remove him from his leadership positions. The media ominously reported a meeting between Lieberman and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But things changed when insiders revealed that Obama wanted Lieberman to stay on board. According to CNN: "Several lawmakers involved in the discussions over Lieberman's fate credited President-elect Barack Obama's desire to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and let bygones be bygones as being a key reason Democratic leaders have agreed to support allowing Lieberman to keep his committee chair." I imagine that if Senate Democrats actually want to oust Lieberman, only Obama could stop this from happening. So, perhaps the article is on to something.

Other than proving that campaigning and governing involve a lot of political song and dance, perhaps a bright spot can emerge from this situation. If Obama is willing to keep Lieberman in a leadership role despite his ultimate betrayal of the party, perhaps Democrats can learn to accept constructive dissent from people who are not acting as de facto Republicans (as Lieberman did). A lot of people, myself included, began blogging because they believed that other liberals and progressives lacked the ability to support Obama passionately but offer constructive and critical insights at the same time. If Obama can accept Lieberman despite his very public betrayal (not just dissent), then perhaps Democrats can embrace constructive dialogue as an enduring principle. I could appreciate that kind of change.

Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman

Well, bless her heart (that's southern for "wtf?"). By "her," I mean Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman for the Washington Post. After the presidential election, Howell released a study confirming the complaints of many readers who asserted that the Washington Post's election coverage favored Obama. Apparently, the newspaper wants to reassure its angry readers, because Howell has released yet another article on the subject of media bias.

Howell reports that customer dissatisfaction with the Washington Post has caused 900 people to cancel their subscriptions in the last 4 weeks (web traffic may have declined even more significantly, but Powell does not mention this). Howell also reiterates her prior conclusion that the newspaper has exhibited a "liberal bias." But Howell has an interesting explanation for this bias. Liberals (as opposed to conservatives) flock to media because of their commitment to social change. According to Howell: "Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world." Oy vey!

My (indignant) take:

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Really Want Meaningful Change
Liberals do not want to "change" the world. Instead, they want to supplant conservatives in leadership positions and pass superficial and symbolic policies that look like "change" to people who cannot imagine more substantial reform. Progressives and the extreme rightwing are the true proponents of change -- even if their polar-opposite ideas are not rooted in pragmatism. Extreme leftist and rightwing agendas will not succeed because society's powerbrokers will not endorse them.

Liberals and conservatives are just on opposite sides of a vast middle conspiracy. They occupy the center-left and the center-right, and every four years they compete for power first by appealing to the extremes in their respective parties during the primaries and then running squarely to the center in the national election.

I do not see much in this election cycle that deviates from this script. Obama is picking up people daily from the Clinton administration -- and is seriously considering Hillary Clinton herself for a Cabinet position. That just does not strike me as some monumental "change" in society. It might represent a departure from Bush, but it is not a change from politics viewed with an historical lens. So far, the Obama administration looks a lot like the 1990s.

Liberals Can Present All Sides -- If They Try
Second, Howell's arguments imply that liberals cannot present all sides of an issue. I am a self-identified progressive, but I have tried to criticize liberals, conservatives, and progressives on this blog. Consequently, rightwingers, leftists, and moderates have favorably cited my arguments. In the few months that I have operated this blog, I have criticized both blacks and gays over Proposition 8. I have criticized the way McCain ran his campaign, but have also acknowledged that the media gave him a raw deal. I have embraced leftwing positions but have refused to demonize conservatives and uncritically accept liberals. Similarly, liberal journalists could explore all sides if they chose to do so. Apparently, they have not.

Journalists Are Not Principled Liberals, But Are Professionals Who Use Their Influence to Gain Access to Power and Popularity

Finally, I doubt that many journalists are actually principled liberal. Instead, they are professionals (likely moderates) who cling to popular candidates and court individuals whom they believe will give them the most access to power. For example, just four years ago, the media stood by while the rightwing bashed Kerry, and four years prior to that, they helped conservatives construct a narrative that Gore was a pathological liar (or at least a gaffe machine). They also helped Republicans in their effort to slam Bill Clinton. In 2004 they concocted the "Dean Scream" because they preferred Kerry to Dean and saw the former as having a better chance to win and (thus) gain power. They preferred Reagan to Carter and Mondale, and they were literally "embedded" in the tanks during the Iraq War -- until public opinion turned on Bush and the war. This is not the behavior of a liberal media -- but rather the actions of a power-hungry profession that wants to consolidate and preserve its own power and influence. As a lawyer, I am pretty familiar with this drive.

Howell's explanation for the media's failure to report objectively is better than others I have heard recently. Two reporters for Politico.Com, for example, conceded that the election coverage has favored Obama, but blamed McCain for this!

Related Articles on Dissenting Justice:

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

New York Times to Hillary Clinton: "Call Off the Dogs"

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

Silencing the Opposition? Obama Set to Meet With Clinton and McCain

Rumors have floated around for a day which suggest that Obama's team is considering Hillary Clinton for the role Secretary of State. Now, Obama is set to meet Clinton and McCain next week. Perhaps Obama is set to give Bush III a cabinet position too! Is this bipartisanship or cooing away the opposition -- or both? Whatever it is, the meetings have cause a lot of political speculation; they could also serve as elements of a brilliant strategy.

If Clinton is tapped to head the Department of State, she would become the third woman in the position -- almost consecutively (Rice came aboard after Powell resigned). Do the old boys now consider this "women's work"?

Sources:

McCain and Obama Meeting

Clinton and Obama Meeting

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

After the public began turning against the Iraq War, the New York Times and the Washington Post both conceded that they were literally and figuratively in the tank with Bush. The newspapers admitting either failing to publish anti-war stories or refusing to place them on their front pages. They also rushed to publish pro-war stories without confirming the accuracy of the content.

Today, Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, released a report (which remarkably concluded the night of the election) that shows that the Washington Post tilted towards Obama in its coverage. The results confirm opinion polling data and a study by the Pew Center which show that voters found the election coverage biased and that the content of media coverage heavily favored Obama. Here is a slice of the article:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen.
John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than
there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement.
The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about
McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered
those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most
of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African
American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the
new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more
scars from his longer career in politics...

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin
grew up in Alaska.

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

New York Times to Hillary Clinton: "Call Off the Dogs"

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

Spookiest State Polls of the Day (Take One): Minnesota and Montana

In an earlier blog entry, I discussed the wide variation among the results of the latest national polls. Now, state polling data from Minnesota and Montana also show peculiar results.

Survey USA, a highly accurate and reputable pollster, released a poll today which shows Obama leading McCain in Minnesota by only 3 points. Because the lead fits within the margin of error, the race is statistically tied. Furthermore, because 2% of voters report being undecided, the Minnesota race is truly a tossup if this poll is accurate.

Moving to the West, the latest release from Public Policy Polling shows Obama with a one-point lead over McCain. The results of this poll also lie within the margin of error. In this poll, Obama receives a tremendous boost from early and younger voters. Among election-day voters, McCain has a sizable lead.

The Minnesota poll is consistent with an IBD-TIPP poll which, contrary to most other surveys, shows McCain closing in or leading in the Midwest, while the Montana results, if correct, would substantiate Obama's claim of success in the West. Although conventional wisdom predicts a landslide victory for Democrats, the race could actually end up as a thriller.

Last-Minute Polls All Over the Place, But Obama Leads in Virtually All of Them

The final round of presidential election polls offer nothing certain about Tuesday's results -- except that Obama leads in all of them. Despite Obama's consistent lead, the polls show a lot of variance, and the "fine print" often raises more questions.

Variation

Although the presidential election is really a series of state-to-state contests, the national popular vote polls can provide some indication of the overall sentiment of voters. The nationwide polls, however, lack uniformity: they either show that the race is very close or tied or that Obama will win in a landslide.

The most recent CBS poll, for example, has Obama up by 13 points (54-41), but Obama leads by only 2 points (47-45) in the final IBD/TIPP poll. Last week, Pew reported that Obama had a 12-point lead; today, the pollster gave Obama a comfortable, but much smaller, lead of 6 points. Overall, the Pollster.Com average of all the major polls has Obama up by 6 points nationally.

Fine Print

Reading the details in some of the polls only makes things even more confusing -- or interesting, depending upon your perspective. In the Pew poll, for example, people who have "already voted" favor Obama 52-39. The remaining 9% are in a category "undecided/other." I assume that people who have already voted are not undecided about how they voted. On the other hand, I cannot imagine what "other" candidate could garner 9% of the national vote among early voters. Furthermore, despite Obama's lead among those who have already voted, the Pew poll actually shows McCain winning among election-day voters 46-45. A significant amount of likely voters remain undecided, which I find baffling.

In an earlier post, I analyzed the CBS poll that gives Obama a 13-point lead. In that poll, Obama leads among early voters, but 50 percent of early voters in that survey are Democrats, 60% are women, and 16% are black -- which explains Obama's substantial lead.

The TIPP poll, co-sponsored by IBD (or Investor's Business Daily) does not provide the racial demographics of the individuals it polled (which is a startling omission). In that poll, a large degree of voters also remain undecided. For example, 11% of "northeastern" and 12% of "midwestern" voters have not picked a candidate yet, according to the poll. Interestingly, the pollster has a "hot topic" poll which seeks to determine whether Americans are "ready for socialism." The results will shock you (not really).

Pretty soon, the only relevant polls -- the election-day results -- will give us an actual winner, and pundits will drown us with repetitive and unlearned commentary about the returns. Until then, the poll-obsessed readers can only speculate about the accuracy of the pre-election data. For a great resource in this process, visit the presidential polling site on Pollster.Com.

Do Early Voters Favor Obama? Yes, With Caveats

CBS News reports that early voters favor Obama over McCain 57-38. This survey is consistent with many other polls that also show the Democratic contender leading as election day approaches.

Sifting Through the Data
Although the poll shows a clear advantage for Obama, a closer look at the data reveals that much of the lead stems from a disprortionate share of traditional Democrats among early voters. The poll, for example, samples 50% registered Democratic voters but only 30% Republican voters. Also, women comprise 60% of the sample, while blacks comprise 16%; both figures exceed the expected share of the overall pool of likely voters for the two demographic groups (and these groups tend to vote for Democrats). Finally, not surprisingly, more of the voters in the sample chose Kerry over Bush. Although this poll confirms the safe assumption that Obama leads among early voters, the results do not mean that Tuesday's vote will mirror pre-election findings.

Strong Support for California Anti-Gay Measure Proves That Many Blue-State Voters Embrace Red Agendas

The prestigious Field Poll has released polling data which reveal that support for Proposition 8, which would amend the California constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, has grown substantially since the summer. According to the latest poll, 44% of voters support the measure; 49% oppose it; and 7% are undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5%, which basically makes the contest a dead heat.

The closeness of the vote on Proposition 8 differs dramatically from the state's presidential contest. A Field Poll released earlier this week gives Obama a whopping 22-point lead over McCain in California. This enormous advantage for Obama, however, has not translated into similar success for opponents of Proposition 8, despite the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate himself opposes the measure.

In an earlier blog post, I argued that Democrats who believe that a November Democratic Sweep would represent a dramatic shift in the nation's political ideology are deluding themselves. In addition to the quality and skillfulness of Democratic candidates, the party's success stems, in large part, from GOP exhaustion, the declining economy, the poor state of the war, and the historically low approval ratings for President Bush. The fact that California, a pretty safe state for liberal candidates, might pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment demonstrates that social conservatism remains attractive for a significant portion of the electorate, even though many of those same voters support Obama's candidacy. For more on this subject, see: "Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S. Liberals."

My fellow Democrats need to discard their mistaken belief that a seismic shift in the nation's general ideology has occurred. With all of the irrational exuberance safely behind them, they can use their immense talents to develop strategies to persuade a center-right American public to embrace center-left political agendas. The steamroller approach that some Democrats now advocate (see, e.g., HuffingtonPost essay urging Democrats to ignore the GOP and my pointed response) will only invite a serious electoral backlash -- just as the GOP's excesses during the last 8 years have now created.

After the Obamercial: A Hint of Criticism Amidst Effusive Praise

Predictably, most media have offered very effusive praise for Obama's infomercial, including those that received millions to air it. ABC's George Stephonopolous calls it a "virtuoso performance," and the San Francisco Chronicle describes it as a "classic closing commercial."

But buried under the plethora of feel-good reviews, CBS correspondent Wyatt Andrews offers a blunt "reality check," which scrutinizes the multitudinous promises made during the Obamercial. Andrews argues that "very few independent economists believe [Obama] has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges." After detailing the estimated cost of Obama's increased spending and tax reduction platform (sounds like Bush), Andrews concludes that Obama "gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House." In the interest of being fair, neither does McCain (see this blog entry).

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

Two Politico.Com reporters have conceded that the media coverage of the election has "hosed" McCain. Despite denials by others in the media, John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei admit the following:

In the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.



And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

I would say that this started prior to the "closing weeks" of the campaign, but I find their honesty refreshing. Nevertheless, instead of criticizing the media for failing to exhibit necessary detachment in something as critical and delicate as electing a president, they place blame on John McCain himself. Specifically, they assert that the media are punishing McCain for limiting their access to his campaign. Interesting. I did not know that media ethics varied depending upon whether the particular journalist was upset with the candidate. As a lawyer, I cannot refuse to offer zealous advocacy to a client if I end up not liking the client -- and as a law professor, I certainly cannot grade students differently based on my own personal tastes. Maybe people in the news media should rank below lawyers in the "most disfavored professions" rankings.



I am a Democrat, and I will proudly vote a Democratic ticket this year, but I am concerned about media bias because it has not always benefited Democrats, as I argued in a prior blog entry. This same media rode in the tanks with the military during the war, failed to criticize the Republican witch hunts during the Clinton administration, and did not critically analyze Reagan's claim that Carter (rather than the oil price shocks) ruined the economy. The Politico authors admit, in fact, that the media's fascination with Obama does not reflect an ideological shift because most journalists remain centrists. Accordingly, Democrats should let go of their pride and admit the truth. Most Democrats I know will tow the line if they believe that admitting mistreatment of Republicans could reflect badly upon Obama. I actually thinks that it makes us look better.

Which Candidate Will Keep His Campaign Promises AND Reduce the Deficit? Neither!

The next president will face many fiscal constraints. With a soaring debt, credit crisis, spending obligations from two wars, and a federal bailout of the financial sector, the introduction of new spending programs and tax cuts that both candidates promise would strain an already stressed budget. Amid the public debate over which party will better manage the economy, today's New York Times reports that many experts do not expect either candidate to fulfill his campaign promises without hurting the deficit.



Obama promises to maintain Bush's tax cuts for all Americans -- except for those making in excess of $250,000. He also plans to create a federally sponsored health care plan, turn the war against terrorism to Afghanistan, invest in alternative energy exploration, and other initiatives. McCain promises "no new taxes," and he wishes to create a governmental health plan, fight terrorism, and propose solutions to the energy crisis as well. Both of these plans deprive the government of revenue, by maintaining tax cuts; both also increase federal spending. This combination inevitably would raise deficit levels.



Obama has stated that the additional taxation of higher income earners can fund his programs, but many economists seriously doubt this. McCain's spending initiatives are less ambitious than Obama's, but his tax plan would generate less revenue. Although some experts believe that McCain's plans could have a greater negative impact on the deficit, they all agree that neither candidate's policy's -- if fulfilled -- would create a surplus. In other words, they are both attempting to deceive the public on this issue. They will either fail to spend as much money as they promise or will raise taxes -- or will do neither of these things and add to the soaring budget deficit and national debt. But these sober options do not win votes on the campaign trail.

Palin's Neiman Marcus Run a Drop in the Bucket: 2008 Is Most Expensive Election Ever

While the public carefully scrutinized Sarah Palin's $150,000 fashion budget, they forgot to place it in an appropriate context: This presidential election has cost far more than any other election in U.S. history. According to statistics from the Center for Responsive Politics, the presidential election will cost around $2.4 billion. When you factor in Congressional races, that number jumps to $5.4 billion. Palin's wardrobe represents a tiny .00625% of the total dollars spent to finance this year's presidential election. The biggest sign of campaign riches will come with Obama's $1 million per network infomercials which air tomorrow on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and Univision.