The Top Ten Things Written on Sarah Palin’s Hand

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=12154

With everyone talking about Sarah Palin’s crib notes on her hand, I would like to present The Top Ten Things Written on Sarah Palin’s Hand (after passing them through a spell checker). I know this is a lot of stuff to fit on a hand, but Palin has practice at this. After all, this is how she passed her tests in college.

10. Will cut taxes & reduce deficit at same time after elected

9. 12345 (My secret password for all internet sites)

8. Foreign Policy Experience–Can See Russia from Alaska

7. Obama is a Socialist (Note to self: look up what “socialist” means)

6. Uphold the Constitution (Note to self: must read the Constitution some day)

5. Ask for divine intervention from God when have questions about what government should do

4. Stay away from explaining about dinosaurs and people–audience often laughs at me when I talk about this unless all Republicans

3. Explain how it is cold outside, proving global warming is a hoax

2. Make sure not to use any Purell on hand before speech

1. If not listed here, just say whatever a Maverick would say

The draft Senate proposal on health care was just released today and already conservative blogs are starting to lie about what the report says. I have the specifics (and what the proposal really says) here:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=8738

Text of the post follows:

Health Care Proposal: A Quick Initial Look and The Start of Right Wing Misinformation

June 6th, 2009 by Ron Chusid

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has released a draft of a health care bill which I have just started wading through (pdf available here). This is just a draft, with debate to begin in the near future, and any final bill is likely to differ. So far I have noticed some things I like and some things I do not and want to complete reading this to comment in detail. (There is even one aspect where a recent Republican proposal was better.)

Of course conservatives don’t have a similar regard for fact or accuracy. Ed Morrissey has already begun attacking the bill based upon a false statement about what it contains, which I’ll mention now as other blogs are picking up his claim. Morrissey quotes this section from pages 39-40:

(1) IN GENERAL - A State shall keep an accurate accounting of all activities, receipts, and expenditures of any Gateway operating in such State and annually submit to the Secretary a report concerning such accountings.

(2) INVESTIGATIONS - The Secretary may investigate the affairs of a Gateway, may examine the properties and records of a Gateway, and may require periodical reports in relation to activities undertaken by a Gateway. A Gateway shall fully cooperate in any investigation conducted under this paragraph.

Morrissey then makes a false statement in interpreting this provision:

“Gateway” means “provider,” and this appears to do away with that pesky Fourth Amendment, which normally requires search warrants and probable cause to access the records of individuals and businesses. Not under ObamaCare! Now, everyone belongs to the government … rather than the other way around. George Orwell, call your office!

Provider is commonly used to refer to physicians and others who provide health care services. Reading Morrissey’s post made me concerned that this bill would give the government even more authority to investigate my records and patient charts (although in reality they already have considerable ability to do so). Checking out the actual bill revealed that this section means something quite different from what Morrissey suggests. The term Gateway is actually defined on page 23. The bill calls for the creation of American Health Benefits Gateways (subsequently referred to as Gateway) to facilitate the purchase of health insurance products. It makes sense that there be considerable transparency in the operation of such Gateways. Reviewing the records of such Gateways is quite different from having every one’s medical record belong to the government.

Update: I should have also noted that page 24 specifically includes a clause on the voluntary nature of Gateways. It both says that an individual will have a choice of whether or not to enroll in a Gateway and a second part states that “no individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, in a post linking to this item, reports that Ross has voted early for Obama. I have a follow up post to my original post on this at Liberal Values:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=5357

Cross posted from Liberal Values--see original post for links

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3913

John Kerry For Vice President

August 15th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

There’s been speculation that Obama might pick someone totally unexpected as his running mate as opposed to the names being discussed the most. WBZ TV has one suggestion:

Barack Obama has yet to name a vice presidential nominee and some are wondering if he might turn to Massachusetts to round out the ticket.

John Kerry for vice president?

Don’t dismiss the notion just yet.

Some political insiders are telling WBZ it could happen.

So why would Obama reach out to Kerry as his choice?

Kerry brings more money and name recognition to the table than any other name on the Obama list so far. Americans do tend to love a comeback kid and this would be the most amazing political comeback since Richard Nixon came back from the dead forty years ago.

“I’m not looking for any new job, I’m running for re-election,” Kerry told WBZ last week.

Asked about the V.P. buzz, his press secretary told WBZ in a statement Thursday night:

“If I was bi-lingual, I’d say no in multiple languages. The only job John Kerry is running for, contemplating, or considering is the one he already has.”

If you’re laughing off the idea of Kerry back on the national ticket again, I don’t blame you. While he came close four years ago, his campaign was widely derided as, to put it politely, clumsy.

But consider some reasons why Obama might now turn to Kerry as a running mate.

Polls show many voters question Obama’s foreign policy credentials to be a wartime president. As a decorated veteran and longtime member of the senate foreign relations committee, Kerry could fill that gap.

Obama suffers from being a new face on the political scene, but Kerry - warts and all - is well known to the voters, and in 2004, he did draw more votes than any democrat ever has.

And judging from a new anti-smear web site funded by Kerry’s political action committee, Kerry would eagerly assume the role of attack dog… Allowing a nominee who prefers to float above the fray to minimize the amount of political hardball he has to play.

One other note: the vice presidential nominee will address the convention on Wednesday night, August 27.

The theme set for that evening - a salute to America’s veterans.

The Obama campaign says we shouldn't read anything into that. We'll soon see if they're blowing smoke on that one.

From a political point of view I doubt Obama will choose Kerry as it would mean reopening all the bogus attacks which came in 2004. However this could also work in Obama’s favor as this could highlight the fact that the attacks on Obama are just typical right wing lies which come around every four years, often from the exact same sources. More importantly, Obama could not do better in terms of a running mate who is qualified to be vice president, or president should that become necessary. It also turns out that Kerry has been vetted by the Obama campaign.

Cross posted from Liberal Values--see original post for links.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3913

John Kerry For Vice President

August 15th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

There’s been speculation that Obama might pick someone totally unexpected as his running mate as opposed to the names being discussed the most. WBZ TV has one suggestion:

Barack Obama has yet to name a vice presidential nominee and some are wondering if he might turn to Massachusetts to round out the ticket.

John Kerry for vice president?

Don’t dismiss the notion just yet.

Some political insiders are telling WBZ it could happen.

So why would Obama reach out to Kerry as his choice?

Kerry brings more money and name recognition to the table than any other name on the Obama list so far. Americans do tend to love a comeback kid and this would be the most amazing political comeback since Richard Nixon came back from the dead forty years ago.

“I’m not looking for any new job, I’m running for re-election,” Kerry told WBZ last week.

Asked about the V.P. buzz, his press secretary told WBZ in a statement Thursday night:

“If I was bi-lingual, I’d say no in multiple languages. The only job John Kerry is running for, contemplating, or considering is the one he already has.”

If you’re laughing off the idea of Kerry back on the national ticket again, I don’t blame you. While he came close four years ago, his campaign was widely derided as, to put it politely, clumsy.

But consider some reasons why Obama might now turn to Kerry as a running mate.

Polls show many voters question Obama’s foreign policy credentials to be a wartime president. As a decorated veteran and longtime member of the senate foreign relations committee, Kerry could fill that gap.

Obama suffers from being a new face on the political scene, but Kerry - warts and all - is well known to the voters, and in 2004, he did draw more votes than any democrat ever has.

And judging from a new anti-smear web site funded by Kerry’s political action committee, Kerry would eagerly assume the role of attack dog… Allowing a nominee who prefers to float above the fray to minimize the amount of political hardball he has to play.

One other note: the vice presidential nominee will address the convention on Wednesday night, August 27.

The theme set for that evening - a salute to America’s veterans.

The Obama campaign says we should.

From a political point of view I doubt Obama will choose Kerry as it would mean reopening all the bogus attacks which came in 2004. However this could also work in Obama’s favor as this could highlight the fact that the attacks on Obama are just typical right wing lies which come around every four years, often from the exact same sources. More importantly, Obama could not do better in terms of a running mate who is qualified to be vice president, or president should that become necessary. It also turns out that Kerry has been vetted by the Obama campaign.

Cross posted from Liberal Values--see original post for links:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3450


Dobson Accuses Obama of Distorting the Bible

Barack Obama has had some success in reaching out to compete for the evangelical vote. While he might receive the support from some religious voters who do not follow the political agenda of the religious right, the far right is certain to oppose him. James Dobson plans to attack Obama with accusations of “distorting” the bible. AP reports that this attack will air on Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio program on Tuesday. Dobson criticizes Obama over a speech given in 2006 where he referred to his difference in approach to religion with Dobson:

“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader.

Obama has often included reference to religion in his speeches, but has made clear his belief in separation of church and state. Their differences are actually over matters far more significant than their interpretations of the bible, which would not be of significance in a political campaign if not for the problem that the religious right also desires to impose their view of the bible upon others. Dobson objects to beliefs on religion and public policy similar to those Obama expressed during a debate last year:

"But what I also think is that we are under obligation in public life to translate our religious values into moral terms that all people can share, including those who are not believers. And that is how our democracy’s functioning, will continue to function. That’s what the founding fathers intended."

While Dobson objects to Obama’s views on religion on public policy, he has also stated he will not vote for John McCain. After being spoiled by the Bush year, only a full blown theocrat is now acceptable to him.

Obama on the FISA Compromise

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3438

June 20th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Following is Barack Obama’s statement on the FISA compromise:

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.”

This was somewhat disappointing but not a terrible shock. One reason I supported Obama was because out of the choices available among viable candidates I believed he will do the best with regards to civil liberties. That has not changed.

I remain hopeful that Obama will do better when he is leading the country as president than in a situation such as now where he must vote upon legislation proposed by others. I remain hopeful that we will see a major improvement in civil liberties once Obama is elected. In any event, there is little doubt that he will be better than George Bush or John McCain.

Unlike the stereotype of Obama supporters spread by his opponents, I have never been under any illusions that either he will be right on all matters or that he is not a politician. You have to be a pretty sharp politician to get as far as Obama has. My suspicion is that this is Obama the politician speaking today, motivated by a reluctance to appear weak on fighting terrorism.

This might be understandable. It is also the same mistake that many made in voting for he Iraq war. Obama knew the right course then. At least, unlike those who voted for the war, he will hopefully get a chance to redeem himself for this vote by changing government policy after he is elected.

I have used variations on hope several times in this post. Supporting Obama is partially about hope. That is hope that he will do the right thing once in office, and that his knowledge of Constitutional law will lead to the changes we are hoping to see.

Obama on NAFTA

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3434

June 19th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

One thing I like about Obama is that he does appear, far most than most politicians, to consider both sides of issues. Of course he is a politician and gets dragged into the usual games politicians play. Unfortunately a non-politician would not make it to the level he has and we are forced to look for politicians, like Obama, who at least understand the problems in our current political system and attempt to address the issues honestly.

In the heat of campaigns, especially partisan primaries, politicians are often drawn to more extreme positions. It is refreshing to see a politician such as Obama who simply admits this. Many liberals who are philosophically sympathetic to free trade, but also see the problems with NAFTA, are conflicted on the issue. This is not an issue where the answer is black or white. Obama shows his thought on the issue in an interview with Fortune:

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

Obama says he believes in “opening up a dialogue” with trading partners Canada and Mexico “and figuring to how we can make this work for all people.”

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune’s interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact.

This is not a flip-flop or a 360 degree change in views as some Republicans are twisting this. It is an honest reaction to a complex issue which does not lend itself well to debate in a partisan political campaign. Besides, if we are to remain obsessed with flip-flops, Steve Benen has compiled quite a lengthy list from McCain.

Values Issues Help Obama

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3432

June 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Values issues matter–just not in the way in which they are used as wedge issues by the Republicans. One reason this blog was formed was to counter the claims that the Republicans were winning on values issues when in reality Republicans are out of touch with the country on true questions of values.

One reason John McCain is polling much better than other Republicans is that many voters believe that he is more moderate than he actually is. For example, many are unaware of his opposition to abortion rights. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner conducted a post for NARAL which showed that when the candidates’ views on abortion are considered, Obama moves out to a greater lead. Following are their key findings:

* Once balanced information about Obama and McCain’s respective positions on choice is introduced, Obama gains 6 points overall, with his lead in battleground states expanding from a net 2 points (47-45 percent) to a net 13 points (53-40 percent).
* The issue of choice moves the swing vote and generates crossover support. Obama gains 13 points among pro-choice Independent women (who make up 9 percent of this electorate) and 9 points among pro-choice Republican women (who account for 5 percent of this electorate). When these groups are combined, this movement equates to a gain of 1.6 points overall in the general election race against McCain.
* Choice can also help Obama consolidate his base—Obama gains 6 points among Democratic women after balanced descriptions of the candidates’ positions on choice is introduced.
* Despite the fact that the national focus seems to be on the economy, among pro-choice Independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care. Moreover, among these three groups critiques on McCain’s anti-choice position are the strongest attacks against him, trumping attacks on the economy, the war, and special interests.

The Republicans have likely diminished their electability by putting abortion back on the table. When people felt confident that Row v. Wade would hold, many people felt that they could safely vote Republican as abortion would remain legal. Now that there is a real chance that the Republican could return us to the era of shirt hanger abortions, it is harder to ignore the views of Republicans on abortion.

Obama Has “The Right Sort of Left-Wing Ideas”

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3431

June 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Among bloggers and writers there are two different views of the left. Some ignorant bloggers and writers fail to realize how labels have changed over the years and continue to identify the left with socialism and past leftist economic ideas. In actuality, left-right divisions are now along issues such as support for liberty and opposition to the Iraq war. With the Republicans becoming the party of corporate welfare and redistribution of wealth (to the top one tenth of one percent), the small-l libertarian left more often than the increasingly authoritarian right is the side which is more likely to support free market ideas.

While Obama is clearly the more libertarian candidate with regards to civil liberties and opposition to the war, his economic views are a little less clear. Many of us are encouraged by many of his statements which indicate free market leanings, the influence of the University of Chicago on his economic views, and some of the policy differences between him and Clinton, such as opposition to health insurance mandates. I’ve often quoted libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives who find reason to back Obama (such as here and here).

Megan McArdle is another libertarian who has often written favorably about Obama. Yesterday she commented on his economic plan, realizing that there are different types of people on the left with respect to economic beliefs:

…as far as lefties go, he has the right sort of left-wing ideas; he wants to model America on Denmark, not Germany or Italy.

Today he’s announced new details of his economic plan. They include an infrastructure plan which will undoubtedly do approximately nothing to increase the rate of economic growth (though it probably won’t much harm it, either). But they also include a cause near and dear to my heart: simplifying and lowering the corporate income tax. Obviously, I’d be happier if he’d pledge to eliminate it entirely; I think what taxes we need should be raised through a simple, progressive income tax with few deductions, or Pigovian taxes. Nonetheless, it’s a step in the right direction. And a rather brave step. American politicians find it politically nearly impossible to cut the thing, even though it’s a stupid, wasteful tax. In the “Only Nixon can go to China” sense, probably only a politician like Obama can do something about it.

Larry Sinclair Found To Have Long Criminal Record

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3430

June 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

It was already pretty clear that Larry Sinclair had no credibility. Simply listening to his accusations against Obama raised serious doubts about him. He subsequently failed a polygraph test regarding his claims. The Politico now reports that Sinclair has a long criminal record:

Public records and court filings reveal that he has a 27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit. The record includes forgery charges in two states, one of which drew Sinclair a 16-year jail sentence. The Pueblo County, Colorado, Sheriff’s Office also has an outstanding warrant for Sinclair’s arrest for forging an acquaintance’s signature and stealing her tax refunds.

This comes as no surprise. The article later elaborates further on his record:

He was first arrested on a larceny charge in 1981 in Denver, according to his Colorado arrest record, as filed in federal court. In 1985, he was convicted of theft and of forging a check in Florida, and sentenced to a year in jail, according to Florida records filed in federal court.

After the Florida episode, according to the records, he returned to Colorado, where he faced check fraud and credit card charges in 1986. Then, in 1987, he was convicted in Colorado on more serious forgery charges, and sentenced to 16 years in jail.

In prison, according to state records filed in federal court, Sinclair was disciplined 97 times for infractions including assault, threats, drug possession, intimidation, and verbal abuse, most recently in
1996.

“He has not institutionalized well,” a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections, Liz McDonough, told the Denver Post in 1996 after a month-long Sinclair hunger strike. She said he had served time in prisons in Buena Vista, Delta, Limon and Canon City before being transferred to the state’s maximum security penitentiary in 1993.

In the summer of 1996, according to Colorado’s state court database, he began proceedings to formally change his name from LA Rye Viz. Avila to Larry Wayne Sinclair. By 1999, according to a mention in a local newspaper, he was out of jail and living in Pueblo, Colo.

The Public Citizen investigator in Colorado stated that Sinclair’s outstanding legal troubles there appear to date from 2001, and that Sinclair’s effort to convince the judge in 2004 to dismiss those charges failed. The Pueblo County Sheriff’s website, which pictures Sinclair under the word “Wanted,” cites felony theft and forgery charges.

Sinclair was also arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in South Carolina last September, according to state records filed in federal court.

Obama Doing Well in Early Red State Polls

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3426

June 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Polls this far before an election are not very predictive as many people have not made up their minds and many events to come could influence the results. The national polls also mean little as the electoral college determines the winner based upon individual state results. While polling in individual states can change dramatically between now and the election, current polls look very favorable for Obama.

Ohio was a key state in 2004 and this year it looks like the Buckeye State is going to go blue. Public Policy Polling, which was accurate in their predictions for the Democratic Primary, shows Obama with a 50% to 39% lead over McCain.

Virginia also looks competitive. Rasmussen shows Obama with a one point lead. A Mason-Dixon poll shows McCain only leading by two points in Nevada. Other red states might not be likely to flip, but Obama is doing much better than expected. For example, Rasmussen only gives McCain a ten point lead in Kansas, which might force McCain to devote resources just to hold on to formerly solidly Republican states.

Due to leads in several red states, predictions with regards to the electoral college look very favorable for Obama. Mark Nicholas has listed several:

Obama McCain Net

Electoral-Vote.com 304 221 Obama +83
FiveThirtyEight.com 300 238 Obama +62
Real Clear Politics 238 190 Obama +48
Rasmussen Reports 260 240 Obama +20
MSNBC 200 200 Tied
CNN 190 194 McCain +4

(The formating isn’t working well but hopefully readers can figure out the intent of the columns.)

It is interesting that the two media polls, which have an interest in portraying a close horse race, show the race to be closer than the more independent sites. Naturally CNN, the Conservative News Network, has the most favorable results for McCain. MSNBC, which in recent years has tried moving to the left after their attempts to be a Fox clone failed financially, has them tied as a good representation of their mixed ideological nature.

“Yes We Can” Wins Emmy

Video included in post

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3425

June 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The Yes We Can video (above) which I described back in February has won an Emmy. The video includes clips of Barack Obama’s New Hampshire primary night speech combined with various celebrities singing. CNN reports:

Produced by Black Eyed Peas frontman Will.i.am, the video won in the first time “New Approaches in Daytime Entertainment” category that “recognizes innovative production techniques and the use of media enhancement to support content.”

The video became an internet sensation when it first appeared shortly before Super Tuesday. Among the many celebrities who lent their voices to t project, which was filmed in black and white, are John Legend, Scarlett Johansson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

McCain Camp Resorts to The Politics of Distortion

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3424

June 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

I had hoped that we might have had a clean campaign stressing the significant differences in views between Barack Obama and John McCain. I have criticized Democrats when they have concentrated on attacking brief quotes from McCain as opposed to a more through review of their differences. I’ve opposed attacking McCain on his quotation of being willing to remain in Iraq for one hundred years without including the full context. While McCain might not have been treated totally fairly in some of these attacks, the McCain campaign is now engaging in an attack upon Obama based upon distortions far worse than any of this.

Political Punch quotes from an interview with Barack Obama in which Obama discusses fighting terrorism while still respecting the Constitution:

TAPPER: Speaking of the Supreme Court, you applauded the decision that the Supreme Court made last week. The Bush administration says, no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they’ve initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11. And they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs. How do you know that they’re wrong? It’s not possible that they’re right?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind I haven’t opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program. What I’ve said that we can do it within the constraints of our civil liberties and our Constitution.

TAPPER: They disagree, though.

OBAMA: Well, but the fact that they disagree does not mean that they’re right on this. What it means is, is that they have been willing to skirt basic protections that are in our Constitution, that our founders put in place.

And it is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. And there has been no evidence on their part that we can’t.

And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

The McCain campaign is distorting this interview by falsely claiming that Obama believes “we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals.” This is a total misrepresentation of what was said. Obama has taken a position similar to other Democrats in advocating fighting terrorism with a combination of military actions and use of law enforcement, while respecting the Constitution. This is a principle which has been discussed since the founding of our nation, such as when Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This does not mean that he considers terrorists to be nothing more than common criminals.

Law enforcement has been responsible for many of the successes against terrorism, as I’ve previously discussed here, here, here, and here. This has been discussed in previous posts as this dishonest attack on Obama is just a retread of the same dishonest attack used by George Bush against John Kerry. If John McCain desires to show that he is not George Bush he must refrain from engaging in this type of dishonest Bush-style politics.

Polling Independents

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3423

June 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

It is amazing how quickly the conventional wisdom has changed. In recent elections the conventional wisdom, fueled by Karl Rove’s political theories, was that there were very few voters in the middle and that the way to win was for each party to mobilize their base. This led to the Republican Party moving to the extreme right. The result was predictable to those of us who believed Rove was wrong in the long term. Large numbers of people left the Republican Party as they moved to the extreme right and now identify themselves as independents or Democrats.

The Washington Post shows the new conventional wisdom in writing that, “McCain needs support from independents because in recent elections, partisans have overwhelmingly supported their own party’s candidates, and self-identified Democrats now outnumber Republicans.” Suddenly elections are no longer decided by mobilizing the extremes but once again are decided by which direction the independents go.

This story comes in a report of their recent poll which shows that Obama and McCain are even among independents. This might be accurate in terms of people who at this moment in time consider themselves independents, but it can be misleading if taking a long term view of politics. I’m less interested in those who say they are independents right now as opposed to a larger group of voters who shift party allegiance over the years. Many of the people I would consider independents currently label themselves as Democrats. Such voters considered themselves Republicans or independents in past elections but are no longer included in polls of independents. If these independent voters could be accurately polled, I’m confident that Obama would have a large lead among independents. McCain also gets a boost in a poll of self-identified independents as many people who now call themselves independents are people who were Republicans before George Bush.

While we have only had one election since 1980 without a Bush on the ticket, this election remains heavily influenced by George Bush. It is largely due to the extremism and failed policies of George Bush that many former independents now consider themselves Democrats and that many former Republicans are now independents or Democrats. Bush’s approval has reached a new low at 29% in this poll, with views on Bush influencing views on McCain. While 80% of those who approve of George Bush are backing McCain only 26% of those who disapprove of Bush are supporting him.