End of the Conservative Ascendency

The Washington Post reported Saturday that it's going to get ugly. 

Gov. Sarah Palin didn't waste any time that day. According to ABC News:

At a private fundraiser in Englewood, Colo., this morning, and later at a rally in Carson, Calif., this afternoon, Palin for the first time raised Obama’s connection to Ayers, one of the founding members of the Weather Underground, a '60s radical group that took credit for bombing attacks around the country, including explosions set off at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

"Our opponent, though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin told supporters at a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser in Englewood. "Americans need to know this."

Palin cited a front-page article in today’s New York Times that explored the ties between Obama and Ayers. Obama had served on a charity board with Ayers in Chicago during the mid-90s, and Ayers was present at an organizing meeting in 1995 to kick off Obama's first election campaign for the Illinois State Senate.

More incoming fire today. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's team is pushing back against U.S. Sen. John McCain's "guilt by association" campaign.

According to a 6:30 a.m. ET report by Politico's Mike Allen:

Pushing back against what it calls McCain's “guilt-by-association” tactics, the Obama campaign overnight began e-mailing millions of supporters a link to a website, KeatingEconomics.com, which will have a 13-minute documentary on the scandal beginning at noon Eastern time on Monday. The e-mails urge recipients to pass the link on to friends.

The Obama campaign, including its surrogates appearing on radio and television, will argue that the deregulatory fervor that caused massive, cascading savings-and-loan collapses in the late ‘80s was pursued by McCain throughout his career, and helped cause the current credit crisis.

The 13-minute Web video documentary is now live:

Update at 3:41 p.m. ET: Politico's Ben Smith reports that Obama's Keating campaign may be paying off:  

Obama apparently had today's Charles Keating attack in the can, ready to deploy against an attempt to revive Bill Ayers, and it seems to be working.

A glance at Google Trends finds "keating economics" the second-most-popular search term right now. Numbers 8, 11, 12, and 21 are terms like "keating five" and "charles keating."

Bill Ayers shows up at 36, just after "mccain keating."

The first term is Neal Kashkari, newly tapped to head the bailout. Voter registration terms also rank high.

Two major articles in today's Washington Post and New York Times focus in-depth on how the nation's worsening economy is presenting new opportunities -- and new challenges -- for the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.

It looks like things were going McCain's way after the GOP convention -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had electrified the base, Obama was losing ground and the Arizona senator took a slim lead.

Then the nation's finanical markets crashed, Palin-mania has subsided as many Americans didn't like what they've seen post-St. Paul and Democrats traditionally do better with pocketbook issues.

Now McCain has pulled out of Michigan and Obama is competitive in traditionally red states like Florida where foreclosures are epidemic; nationally, the economic news just keeps getting worse.

Amidst all of this, yesterday, I picked up a book, "Deer Hunting with Jesus" by Joe Bageant. It is in turn fascinating, frightening and depressing. The book addresses a question that has always bothered me: why do people who are so clearly hurt by the GOP's economic policies keep voting for them again and again and again? Another article in today's Washington Post highlights the economic struggles of a suburban Michigan enclave and focues on why, while some people there may vote for Obama, others struggling to make ends meet are still planning to vote for McCain, despite the fact that his economic proposals do nothing to help them or their children.

Until progressives find a way to reach the voters written about in "Deer Hunting with Jesus" and the Washington Post article, we will continue to lose their votes because they will continue to vote, not on economic issues, but social "hot button issues" such as abortion, guns and sex education. And, sadly, as many of them admitted, they simply will not vote for an African-American candidate. All in all, it is not their failure, but our failure, to explain to them how we will not allow globalization to leave them behind; how we will invest in their education; how we will ready them as we accelerate toward a 21st century economy.

In 2007, NDN conducted a series of polls on the how Americans view the economy. They are well worth reading here and here. I know I will be looking at them for answers.

Lastly, in what can be at best called a sophmoric effort to change the subject, the McCain campaign said yesterday that:

We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, one of McCain's top advisers. "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans." "We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [Washington Post, 10/04/08]

In response, the Obama campaign has launched a new ad on the economy, highlighting what has happened over the last eight years during the Bush-Cheney reign.

Watch it here:

For the last several years NDN has been making an argument that a "new politics" of the 21st century is emerging.  Driven by vast changes in demography, media and technology, and the a whole new set of very 21st century challenges (and one could add the utter collapse of modern conservatism) a new politics was emerging in America that would be very different from the century just past.  

Reflecting on the morning papers 3 stories stuck out as interesting examples of how the world is changing around us.  1st up is how the Army is starting to see nation building and the shoring up of "fragile states" as a primary area of responsibility.  2nd is a fascinating piece by Eve Fairbanks on the sensibility of the next generation of Congressional Republicans.  Finally, a wide ranging and important piece by our friend David Rothkopf, who argues: 

The current economic debacle is far more likely to be seen by historians as a true global watershed: the end of one period and the beginning of another. The financial chaos has brought down the curtain on a wide range of basic and enduring tenets also closely linked with the Reagan era, those associated with neoliberal economics, the system that the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has called "that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently and serve the public interest well." Already this crisis has seen not just our enemies but even some of our closest allies wondering whether we are at the beginning of the end of both American-style capitalism and of American supremacy.  

Change is indeed coming to Washington.  And this next Presidency will without doubt be among the most important in American history. 

When I first learned that U.S. Sen. John McCain had drafted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, I remember calling friends and saying, "Stick a fork in it. It's over. McCain is crazy. Obama's in."

Then came Palin's Oscar-worthy convention speech, the re-energized GOP base, the media frenzy. Suddenly, McCain wasn't so stupid. Or at least his advisers weren't.

Fast forward to now, five weeks later, the day of the first vice presidential debate. And what am I now? I am obsessed with Sarah Palin.

I am obsessed with Sarah because she's gotten this far on so little. To some, she has become a national joke. But to others, she has become a national hope. How can people in the same country looking at the same person feel so differently?

Apparently, even Palin's limited exposure has started to give pause to more and more Americans. According to a new Pew poll, "...opinions about Sarah Palin have become increasingly negative, with a majority of the public (51%) now saying that the Alaska governor is not qualified to become president if necessary; just 37% say she is qualified to serve as president. That represents a reversal of opinion since early September, shortly after the GOP convention. At that time, 52% said Palin was qualified to step in as president, if necessary."

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll had similar bad news for Sarah Barracuda: "Though she initially transformed the race with her energizing presence and a fiery convention speech, Palin is now a much less positive force: Six in 10 voters see her as lacking the experience to be an effective president, and a third are now less likely to vote for McCain because of her."

Ouch.

The more she opens her mouth (or just shuts it and smiles and smirks), the more her poll numbers drag her and McCain toward the abyss. In a column yesterday in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus asked how McCain could be dismissive of Obama's alleged inexperience when McCain had chosen Palin. Marcus noted that Palin said she has been educated about the world -- and thus is ready to lead -- by having read extensively. And what did she read?

This would be more reassuring if Palin had demonstrated more evidence of having read extensively about history or world affairs. Asked in an interview for PBS's Charlie Rose show last year about her favorite authors, Palin cited C.S. Lewis -- "very, very deep" -- and Dr. George Sheehan, a now-deceased writer for Runner's  magazine whose columns Palin still keeps on hand.

"Very inspiring and very motivating," she said. "He was an athlete and I think so much of what you learn in athletics about competition and healthy living that he was really able to encapsulate, has stayed with me all these years."

Also, she got a Garfield desk calendar for Christmas 1987 that made a big impression.

While I saw the whole series of Katie Couric interviews with Palin , I was most horrified by the installment in which Couric asks the Alaska governor about Roe v. Wade. While I am very strongly pro-choice, I accept that other people may feel very differently. I didn't have a problem with Palin's answer that she wanted to encourage a "culture" of life.

My problem, then? When Couric asked her if she could name another U.S. Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, she couldn't name one. Nothing. Nada. Zero. She just kept repeating the same words over and over -- buzz words about states' rights -- in a pathetic attempt to let the clock run out:

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

I was embarrassed for Palin and embarassed by the fact that she has come this far based on the ability of the GOP to continually market their inferior products in a superior way.

Let tonight's debate begin.

In the common law, there is a saying that when the facts are clear, you get bad law.  When the facts are murky, you get good law.  Mike Bloomberg's bid to serve a third term by repealing term limits on the grounds that he alone can shepherd the city through the Wall Street emergency  falls into the category of clear facts but terrible precedent. Bloomberg has been a good mayor, for the most part.  As a successful businessman and billionaire on good terms with fellow businessmen whose decisions about where to locate a business may be important to the city's weathering the Wall Street crisis, there can be no doubt.  In all likelihood, Bloomberg, if he succeeds in repealing the term limit law, will do as good a job in a currently forbidden third term as he has in his first two.  Conditions will be far worse but his skills and contacts seem better suited than most to the likely challenges.

That said, however, there is a reason that term limits were installed.  In an era when incumbency creates its own rewards, term limits are an additional public check on bad behavior and therefore can be an important part of public governance.  For every good long term mayor, such as Chicago's Mayor Daley, there have been numerous terrible ones from Mayor Berry in Washington, DC to Sharpe James in Newark, who used the power of incumbency to win re-election despite atrocious records.  While Mayor Bloomberg may appear to be different than these, law in the United States cannot be about one man.  Suggesting that repealing term limits on account of one person, no matter how much money he has, or what sort of record he has compiled, opens up a slippery slope.

Further, one thing we know for certain is that Mayor Bloomber won't be mayor forever and one day, he will have a successor. How would conservative Republicans feel about term limits, if Al Sharpton, for example, won the election?

In the election that placed Mike Bloomberg in office in 2001, delayed because election day in 2001 happened to fall on September 11th, initially the then mayor, Rudoloph Giuliani suggested that he remain as mayor because the ciy required his steady hand during the emergency that followed.  People rightly viewed this as an unacceptable power grab inconsistent with America's tradition of putting law above any individual no matter how qualified they might seem to be.  One of the people arguing against Mr. Guiliani remaining mayor indefinitely was ironically, Mike Bloomberg who was then elected. 

While New Yorkers may wish to have an open debate about the value of term limits at some future point, this important law should not be abandoned because of one man's desire to extend his rule. 

There are plenty of other ways Mike Bloomberg can serve the public, for example, by running for another office.  And there are plenty of other people who would make good mayors. 

Term limits should not be abolished to accomomodate Mayor Bloomberg and if he cares deeply about American democracy, he should drop his call to end them and retire gracefully at the end of two successful terms.

In 2000, Cuban-Americans represented 70 percent of Florida's Hispanic electorate. Today they make up less than half of the Latino electorate in that state, largely attributable to a large influx of new voters originally from Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela and other Central and South American countries. The result: Florida's Hispanic demographic is increasingly reflective of the transformation the Hispanic community has undergone across the country - increasingly diverse and not as party-loyal. As a result, both political parties are working to win over what Newsweek called the "Latino mix" in a piece today by Arian Campo-Flores. NDN has analyzed the trend of Florida's Hispanic population becoming more diverse and less affiliated with the Republican party for years, and conducted a major poll in Florida in 2006.

It is Hispanics who make Florida increasingly relevant this year. By all accounts, U.S. Sen. John McCain would not have won the Florida primary - and thus would probably not have been his party's presidential nominee - had he not won the 54% of the Hispanic vote that he won in the Republican primary election, while he only won 33% of the white vote and took that election with 36% of the vote overall. Thus, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is fighting in Florida, just today President Bill Clinton - loved by Hispanic Democrats and many overall - was campaigning for him in the state. As explained in Newsweek by our friend and collaborator, Sergio Bendixen:

"Now they need to have a domestic message"-terrain that favors Democrats these days. If he manages to capitalize on the opportunity, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama could outdo John Kerry's performance in 2004, when the Massachusetts senator captured 44 percent of Florida's Latino vote. "If [Obama] gets 55 percent, then he would pretty much ensure winning the state," says Sergio Bendixen, a pollster for the New Democratic Network (NDN) and expert in Hispanic public opinion."

And that is the relevance of the Latino Mix. As NDN explains at length in Hispanics Rising II, party ID among Hispanics can change very quickly, and this election in particular does not favor the party in the White House. Republican anti-immigrant campaigns have been perceived as anti-Hispanic, Latinos have the highest rate of unemployment as a result of this economic crisis, and the latest - now minorities are being blamed by right-wing conservatives for the housing crisis. 2008 primary exit polls showed a 66% increase in Hispanic turnout in Democratic primaries and Hispanic party ID became 72% Democrat, while in 2004 it was closer to 60%. Our latest polling data shows that the Presidential race among Hispanics in Florida is in a dead heat - 42% favoring McCain and 42% favoring Obama.

The question remains - as Florida's Hispanic electorate grows and becomes more complex, who benefits? I would say Hispanics do. The reality of a more complex demographic is that to win Florida, John McCain and Barack Obama will have to do so based on the strength of non-Cuban Hispanic support.

In yet another episode of the Sarah Palin-Katie Couric serial interview saga, Palin talked to the CBS anchorwoman about issues ranging from what newspapers she reads (she didn't name a specific one) to whether a 15-year-old girl raped by her father should have access to an abortion (she would encourage the child not to).

The interview aired last night and follows previous Palin-Couric interviews, which have been seen as disastrous for Palin, as she stumbled her way through them or just stopped talking and started smiling. I haven't yet been able to find the rumored segment of a portion of a Palin-Couric interview in which the Alaska governor can name only one U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roe V. Wade). If anyone unearths it, please let me know. 

Notably, the Couric interviews have prompted criticism not only from Democrats, but also from prominent conservatives, including George Will.

One interesting tidbit: making small talk between different segments of the interview, Palin did make a candid admission to Couric that, "Sweat is my sanity." Seems moose hunting has taken a backseat for the time being.   

With a few exceptions here and there (like not being able to name a single newspaper), Palin seems a bit surer of herself in this interview.

You can judge for yourself here:

Palin also found time to do a radio interview that involved decidedly more softballs (and decidely more six-packs).

According to ABC News:

In a radio interview with conservative blogger and columnist Hugh Hewitt, Palin says she’s not concerned by criticisms of her performance in recent network interviews with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, which many -- including some former conservative supporters -- have said showed her unprepared to be vice president.

"Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it," Palin told Hewitt.

Palin, who has complained this week about “gotcha journalism” on the campaign trail, told Hewitt that she invites the scrutiny, and that her recent media appearances have helped her better articulate her positions and prepare for her upcoming vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday.

“I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago,” Palin said when asked by Hewitt whether the Gibson and Couric interviews felt like “pop quizzes designed to embarrass” her. "I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that’s okay, those are good testing grounds. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don’t fight it. I invite it.”

And more from ABC News on Palin's new Joe Six-Pack gambit:

As the political world braces for Wednesday's Wall Street bailout vote in the U.S. Senate, Sarah Palin is stepping up her "Joe-Six Pack" pitch.

"It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it," Palin said Tuesday on the Hugh Hewitt show. "But it's motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe Six-Pack like me."

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is safely tucked away in Sedona, Arizona, preppring for her debate with U.S. Sen. Joe Biden under the watchful eyes of senior officals from U.S. Sen. John McCain's campaign and the Bush Administration.

According to a report by Politico's Jonathan Martin, after a series of serious media fumbles, Palin is going to start being more aggressive and reintroducing herself to the American public by doing more media interviews, this time with decidely friendly, conservative talk radio hosts.

According to Martin: 

To this end, Palin was far more aggressive in another interview with Couric today, this aide said

Sitting with McCain for their first joint interview a week after the widely panned sit-down with Couric, Palin interjected when the CBS anchor brought up a report about the Wasilla Assembly of God, the governor's childhood church and one she still attends at times, seeking to pray gays away from homosexuality.

"Sarah Barracuda showed up today," the aide said, reprising the feisty former point guard's high school basketball nickname and one that has been largely forgotten since her post-convention cosseting.

"We're encouraging CBS to run entire thing," the aide said of today's session. "Run it end to end online."

And while Sarah Barracuda may be back, there's still some unaired one-on-one Palin-Couric interview footage floating around out there and it has people talking:

Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

You can check out the joint interview McCain and Palin did with Couric here:

 

Huffington Post's Nico Pitney reports that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has just released his "Worst People" list and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has made the cut! Obama's sin? In a statement, the Illinois senator mentioned that he and wife Michelle were preparing to celebrate their 15th wedding anniversary. Not so fast, said Michelle. It's actually the 16th anniversary. While Barack may have won new votes from forgetful husbands everywhere, his misstep earned him a bronze on Olbermann's list.

Taking the silver is Sean Hannity, who took pundit Dick Morris to task for saying something intelligent about Obama's debate performance. Not much to elaborate on here.

And the Worst Person? No surprises here: it's Karl Rove. Seems like the Dark Prince is worried Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may be overprepared -- you heard me right -- for the vice presidential debate this Thursday (an issue I pondered last night).

Rove says Palin is much better when she's talking "one-on-one" with average folks -- like she did when McCain announced her vice presidential status in Dayton and during her convention speech. As Olbermann points out, she was hardly speaking one-on-one, unless a teleprompter is the other "one."

Check out Olbermann's hilarious awards ceremony here:

According to a very interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal, the pre-debate game plan for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been changed, and in lieu of whatever she was planning to do to prep, she's now been sent to debate boot camp at U.S. Sen. John McCain's luxurious retreat in Sedona, Arizona (Which house is this? Seven or eight?).

According to Sedona's official Web site, the town has a spiritual side; it is "...a mecca for alternative healers," and its "...body-temples are complex multi-dimensional organisms, and Sedona healers apply their gifts to every level of the body/mind/spirit spectrum. You will benefit from their intuitive skills and compassionate hearts as well as their intellectual training and hands-on experience."

But I digress.

Two camps seem to have developed regarding Palin's abilities prior to her debate with U.S. Sen. Joe Biden this Thursday night (a murky third -- let's call it the conspiracy camp -- thinks the debate will never happen due to some kind of state emergency in Alaska or another McCain campaign suspension). The first camp believes that Palin is utterly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. First populated by Democrats, this group has grown now to include conservatives and others such as Fareed Zakaria who are appalled at Palin's recent performances, particularly her series of interviews with CBS' Katie Couric.

Then there is the "Let Sarah Be Sarah" camp, which includes former Massachusetts Gov. and GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who, according to the New York Times political blog said:

On the "Today" show this morning, Mr. Romney also talked about how the McCain campaign could use Ms. Palin more effectively. Citing her bad reviews after the broadcasts last week of interviews with Ms. Couric, the host Matt Lauer asked Mr. Romney whether something deeper was going on than just the fact that “the honeymoon was over,” and whether the former presidential candidate wondered if she should drop out of the race.

Mr. Romney dismissed that notion, saying Ms. Palin had executive experience as a governor and showed “great capacity.”

“And you know she’s not a lifelong politician,” he said. “She’s not the master of words that Joe Biden is. And as a result she’s going to come across like an ordinary citizen, a person of great capacity and that’s what John McCain wanted.”

Mr. Lauer also asked Mr. Romney his take on sentiments uttered earlier by Republican strategist Ed Rollins, who suggested that the McCain campaign’s decision to “put her in storage” — meaning limiting access to her through few media interviews or daily give-and-take — had broken her confidence. (That’s something Christopher Orr wrote about last week, at The New Republic: whether Ms. Palin has been so coached, and so constrained by advisers, that she had lost her own sense of self.)

Mr. Lauer’s question allowed Mr. Romney to offer advice to the McCain campaign for the next and final stage of the campaign:

“I think it’s going to be better for her to be out talking to more reporters and just being herself,” he said. “I think if you have only one or two interviews the focus goes on those and any mistake is going to be amplified dramatically. So let her get out there and be herself. And I think people will say you know, I like what I see. She’s a person who understands the needs of the American people.”

Unfortunately for those in the "Let Sarah Be Sarah" camp, Palin has been delivered right into the hands of McCain's two top campaign advisers: Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis. There is no chance that these Rovian proteges won't "drill, baby, drill" talking points into Palin's head until she collapses from exhaustion at her exclusive barracks. 

But Palin seems to be taking it all in stride. According to her, she's been preparing for this debate since she was eight years old or so -- she started listening to Biden's speeches when she was in second grade: