Oogedy-Boogedy in the BloxiconBy Kathleen Parker
Friday, December 5, 2008; 12:00 AM
When it comes to irresistible words, "oogedy-boogedy" has few peers.
In the several days since I first used the term in a column describing the Republican Party's "religious" problem, oogedy-boogedy seems to have entered the bloxicon. (New word invented right here, meaning: the blogosphere's lexicon.) Google produces more than 26,000 references.
Despite its sudden popularity, oogedy-boogedy is nonetheless causing some consternation and confusion. What does it mean and whence does it come? In the Dec. 15 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru writes that he doesn't know what oogedy-boogedy means, "but I gather it's bad."
Not so bad, really, but not so good either. Like most things religious and political, it's a matter of taste and timing. (See Ecclesiastes 3:1).
We were doubtless talking about our shared Southern heritage, about which one does not speak long without mentioning religion.
And, you betcha, oogedy-boogedy.
Marlette, whose childhood was spent among Pentecostals, Baptists and other passionate believers, had religion in his bones and forgot more scripture than most preachers can recall on a given Sunday. He also won a Pulitzer Prize for his lampooning of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (peace be upon them) and their "PTL Club."
If Jim and Tammy Faye put you in mind of oogedy-boogedy, you're getting warm.
Otherwise, the term may best be illuminated by two connoisseurs of the linguistic arts: Fats Waller and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.
The latter, unable to define pornography, famously said, "I know it when I see it." Waller, responding to a request to explain "swing," said, "If you got to ask, you ain't got it."
The list of commentators who ain't got oogedy-boogedy is long, though Ponnuru is the most recent to out himself. While dismissing assertions -- mine and others' -- that the Republican Party has a religion problem, Ponnuru acknowledges that social conservatives "could present themselves more attractively," and "pick their spokesmen more wisely."
That's a start, but let's take it another step. How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one's values, but let reason inform one's public arguments.
That was and remains my point. It isn't so much God causing the GOP problems; it's his fan club.
The broad perception among centrists, moderates, conservative Democrats, renegade Republicans, etc., is that the GOP is the party of white Christians to the exclusion of others, some of whom might also be social conservatives.
One can believe this or not. But as the gazillions who have written me to say either that "God Is Here To Stay" or that "Conservatives Won't Be Silenced" ought best to know: Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it untrue.
It may be, as Ponnuru insists, that Barack Obama won for other reasons (health care, for instance) than that evangelicals repelled the less overtly religious. But oogedy-boogedyness remains a problem for the GOP, as hundreds of other letter writers confirm.
As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican Party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.
The cause is not helped when someone of the stature of Rick Warren interviews the leading presidential candidates in his church, questioning them about their faith. If that's not a religious test, I don't know what is.
The glue that binds the GOP's religious right -- social issues, especially abortion -- is not insignificant and doesn't deserve to be dismissed. But nor should those issues be tied to scripture. Some religious conservatives understand this, but the memo apparently isn't reaching all the pews.
They might take a cue from Nat Hentoff, a self-described Jewish-atheist, who has written as eloquently as anyone about the "indivisibility of life" and the slippery slope down which abortion leads.
He uses logic and reason to argue that being pro-life, rather than resolving the religious question of ensoulment, is really a necessary barrier against selective killing, such as when someone else decides it's your time to die.
Hentoff's arguments, and others on related issues, ultimately may fail. But at least they will fail for reasons other than that oogedy-boogedy got in the way.
kparker@kparker.com
Bad Recession Requires Bold Responses
On Monday, the National Bureau of Economic Research formally declared that the U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007—the second economic downturn of George W. Bush’s presidency. We’ve lost jobs every month since then. This downturn, already long, is likely to be painfully deep unless our government quickly enacts an economic recovery program that is substantial, strategic, and sustained.
* The current recession is already unusually long. Recessions in 1990-91 and 2001 each lasted only eight months. This one has already lasted a year, making it the longest contraction since 1982. Virtually all economists expect this recession to continue through 2009, if not longer, which will make it the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Sources
* Americans continue to lose their jobs at an alarming rate. So far this year, 1.2 million workers have lost their jobs, and there are now 10.1 million unemployed Americans. U.S. employers cut 240,000 jobs in October and another 325,000 in November. On December 5, the Labor Department is expected to report an increase in the jobless rate to about 6.8 percent—the highest level since 1993. Some analysts believe the unemployment rate could reach 10 percent in 2009. Sources
* The housing market remains a disaster. The median price of a single-family home has dropped by 22 percent since July 2006. It is the first time since the Great Depression that home prices have declined for an extended period. Today, one of every 11 mortgages in America is delinquent or in foreclosure. One in six homes with a mortgage is under water, worth less than the mortgage. The average homeowner has lost more than $70,000 in home equity over the past two years. Nationwide, we’ve lost nearly $6 trillion in housing wealth. Home sales are at a seven-year low and experts say the housing market will continue to plummet into 2009. Sources
* Americans have lost $8 trillion in the stock market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped by about 40 percent in little more than a year. Sources
* Most have little or no savings with which to weather the economic storm. Our nation’s personal savings rate is now at its lowest point since the Great Depression. Sources
* Because of lost jobs, diminished assets and insufficient savings, Americans are now spending less. Consumer spending plunged in the third quarter of 2008. U.S. auto sales dropped 37 percent in November to the lowest annual rate in 26 years. Home construction has hit a 50-year low. Consumer confidence is at its lowest rate in history. Unless it is offset by government action, diminished consumer spending means the economy will continue to slow and unemployment will continue to rise. Sources
The Argument
Bush helped Wall Street but not Main Street. The Bush administration has used trillions of dollars to prop up Wall Street’s banks, but other than the ineffective tax rebates this year, Bush has opposed and threatened to veto any program aimed at putting Main Street back to work.
Senate Republicans have blocked even modest stimulus legislation. In September, Senate Republicans used a filibuster to kill a modest, $56 billion stimulus plan. Even today, as the economy nosedives, they continue to block similar legislation.
Economists call for a major economic recovery program. Leading economists like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker—and even the great majority of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal—support a large-scale economic recovery plan. Sources
Progressive Solution
America urgently needs a bold recovery program to keep itself from falling into a deep, painful recession. Without a substantial, strategic, and sustained recovery program to lift the real, Main Street economy, we risk economic disaster.
For more about our Main Street Economic Recovery Plan, click here.
Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. Tell-a-friend!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Campaign for America's Future.
For mega-retailer Nike, workers' rights are taking a back seat to holiday profits.
This holiday, take a stand for the truckers who help keep Nike running!
Dear Worker' Rights Advocate:
When it comes to protecting workers' rights, it's time for Nike to stop talking about it and just do it.
Nike is one of the world's largest retailers – raking in billions in profits – but the truckers who haul all their sneakers to JCPenney say they have faced unfair working conditions including intimidation during contract negotiations and rising healthcare premiums.
Nike won't join other leading retailers in defending these workers, but you can.
Stand up for the drivers who ship for Nike – demand fairness TODAY!
Over 500 employees of Oak Harbor Freight Lines – the company that ships merchandise for Nike and Ralph Lauren to JCPenney – are on strike.
They're taking a stand against on-the-job abuses, including an outrageous proposal to cancel health coverage for retired employees, cut paid sick days and overtime pay for current employees, and reduce pension benefits.
But rather than negotiate in good faith, this shipping company has hired a notorious strike-breaking firm to strong-arm workers into giving up. What's more, the subcontractor reportedly recruited disadvantaged drivers from the south as replacement workers, promising them high wages and stable employment, then fired them when local employees became available.
Nike pretends to be an advocate for workers' rights – working hard to shed its association with sweatshops abroad – but hasn't stood up for these American drivers.
Show Nike that protecting America's workers is the right thing to do this holiday season. Take action today!
Thanks for all that you do.
Sincerely,
Liz CattaneoAmerican Rights at Workwww.AmericanRightsatWork.org
Is Obama Truly Like Lincoln - As His "Team of Rivals" and Other Parallels Suggest?
By EDWARD LAZARUS
Thursday, Dec. 04, 2008
As President-elect Barack Obama selects his cabinet and other top-level advisors, he is being widely hailed as having assembled a "team of rivals," a description borrowed from Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Abraham Lincoln and the cabinet Lincoln assembled from among the powerful political figures that he had battled on the way to the presidency.
This is but one way in which Obama's victory, and the anticipation of his Administration, are linked in the public imagination to the Civil War now more than 140 years distant. And as I will discuss further below, this is altogether fitting. But while much of the linkage between Obama and Lincoln is cast in a rosy light, there is also a cautionary aspect to these ties that should not be wholly overlooked.
From the outset, it was inevitable that Obama would be considered against the backdrop of Lincoln, and he actively invited the comparison. Obama formally launched his campaign from the steps of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois, the very place where Lincoln began his own run for the presidency. Obama's soaring rhetoric on that day, and on many since, borrowed openly from Lincoln's own exceptional eloquence. Recasting Lincoln's inaugurals for a modern-day audience, Obama called upon the better angels of our nature and the mystic chords that bind us together as Americans in divisive times.
As Obama's opponents attacked his relatively thin resume in elected office, the Lincoln comparisons deepened. Lincoln had served but a few years in Congress when he sought the presidency. It was his judgment, temperament, and political acumen - not long experience -- that guided the nation through its darkest hour. Obama's supporters, myself among them, saw similar strengths in him.
At an even more fundamental level, too, the very possibility of Obama's candidacy was tied directly to the Civil War, the end of slavery, and the enactment of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments granting persons of all races equal protection of the laws and equal access to the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
As is well-known, the road from constitutional promise to constitutional reality was long and arduous and full of backtracking and the occasional U-turn. By 1877, the Reconstruction of the South, imperfect as it was, had come to a close and the nation had sunk into decades of government-tolerated and government-sponsored racial subjugation.
It took a thousand small steps for the nation to find its way from Lincoln to Obama. Over decades of legal battles and boycotts and marches, amid sacrifice, lynchings, and even assassination, black Americans redeemed their Constitutional rights to vote, to attend desegregated schools, to live in the neighborhoods of their own choosing, and to participate in civil life on equal terms.
The landmarks on this path are legion: the early cases opening up previously all-white primaries to black voters, Truman's order desegregating the armed forces, Brown v. Board of Education, Selma, the Little Rock crisis, Martin Luther King's March on Washington, the court decisions enforcing the rule of one person/one vote, the great civil rights bills of the 1960s, the black legal and political leaders from Thurgood Marshall to Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson.
Over time, changes in law were matched by changes in attitudes. Explicit expressions of racial bias became socially unacceptable. African-Americans rose to prominent positions in politics and business. Society as a whole inched closer and closer to King's dream of a world in which individuals would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
The Cautionary Side of the Obama/Lincoln Parallel: A Journey that Is Far From Finished
Obama's election, of course, was made possible by and reflects that very progress. To the last day, there were those who said that the so-called "Bradley effect" - the idea that many voters, in the privacy of the voting booth, simply would not pull the lever for a black man, whatever they might have claimed to pollsters - would swamp Obama's lead in the polls and vault John McCain into the White House. That did not happen and, on November 4, the death of the Bradley effect became another chapter in the long saga of the redeeming post-Civil-War possibilities and the ongoing challenge of healing the wounds of a conflict still lingering generations after the death of all of its combatants.
But for all that, the election results suggest that the Civil War still haunts us. Candidate Obama did better than his Democratic predecessor John Kerry in almost every section of the country. The one section, however, in which he did worse than Kerry - and significantly worse - is the swath of the old Confederacy that runs down the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, down to the Gulf Coast, and then across through Texas. The stubborn, unfortunate truth remains that, across most of the South, Obama commanded much less support from white voters than his less charismatic and otherwise less successful Democratic predecessor did.
One of Obama's challenges, thus, is Lincoln's unfinished business. In the hearts and minds of many in some parts of this country, the Civil War remains unfinished business. We are not yet fully one nation, blind to caste and color, indivisible. And it will take all of Obama's political skill - which is towering, as was that of the great President whom Obama self-consciously evokes - to end this conflict altogether.
Battle looms on access to birth control
Advocates play tug of war over teenagers’ well-being
BDN Staff
BANGOR, Maine — A state policy group that wants to preserve teens’ unrestricted access to birth control is gearing up for a potential legislative battle.
The Family Planning Association of Maine held the first of seven community forums on Tuesday in Bangor to discuss the importance of providing youth with options regarding birth control and reproductive health. The featured panel was largely preaching to a sympathetic choir of about 30 people, but the event’s organizers stressed that generating a coalition of support is paramount.
“Access to birth control will be challenged by the Legislature,” said Dr. Connie Adler, a Farmington physician and chair of the Family Planning Association’s Heart of ME campaign. “It’s really important that we have this conversation.”
The Heart of ME campaign was launched in response to anticipated legislation that would require parental consent before school clinics and other health care providers could prescribe birth control. Sen. Doug Smith, R-Dover-Foxcroft, who sponsored a similar bill unsuccessfully during the last session, has indicated he is considering revisiting the topic. Other lawmakers also may be considering submitting similar measures before the mid-January deadline for filing bills in the 124th Legislature.
Kate Brogan, a policy analyst with the Family Planning Association, said her group’s goal is to build a broad base of support to counteract aggressive campaigns on the other side of the issue. Powerful lobbying groups such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, the Maine Family Policy Council (formerly the Christian Civic League of Maine) and the Jeremiah Project have pledged support for parental consent in the past.
“They want to reverse 35 years of state law,” Brogan said. “So we want an army of people to be ready to contact legislators and have this conversation.”
Current Maine law does not require parental notification or consent for minors to be prescribed birth control pills as long as the prescriber believes the minor would suffer “probable health hazards” — including unintentional pregnancy — without them. In addition, emergency contraception, also known as “the morning-after pill,” is available without parental consent, along with pregnancy testing and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.
Dr. Eric Brown, a family physician in Bangor who sat on the panel, said it’s a no-brainer that teens should have access but added that not everyone knows their rights.
“My experience is that teens don’t have a clue,” he said. “They are just as surprised as parents.”
The issue of parental consent, which went largely unnoticed for many years, was brought back to light when the Portland School Committee voted 7-2 in October 2007 to make a full range of contraception available to sixth- through eighth-graders at King Middle School without requiring a parent’s approval. The vote didn’t sit well with some parents and community members who called for changes in the policy.
Linda Ross, a Hampden parent who sat on the panel at Tuesday’s forum, said all parents want to believe that their children are abstinent, but reality suggests otherwise.
“You can talk about abstinence, and you should,” she said. “But our kids are sexually saturated. Oftentimes we don’t bring it up because it’s hard. My daughters don’t have a choice but to talk to me because I just keep bringing it up.”
Unfortunately, Adler said, most parents are not like Ross.
“Eighty percent of teens who are sexually active would not seek assistance if parents had to be involved,” she said. “That’s a really big problem.”
All of the panel members agreed that open communication is the biggest factor. Maine, which used to have one of the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rates, now has the fifth-lowest.
“Communication is the biggest part of that,” Brogan said. “And access.”
In addition to the Bangor forum, the Family Planning Association of Maine has meetings planned in Augusta, Biddeford, Calais, Lewiston, Rockland and South Paris. A list of locations and times has not yet been completed, but it will be posted on the organization’s Web site, www.mainefamilyplanning.org.
Women need an advocate like Clinton
By KELLI CONLIN
First published in print: Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton's nomination to be secretary of state provides her an unprecedented opportunity to bring her unique leadership, advocacy and diplomacy skills to the world's stage. We could not ask for a better candidate to help expand our country's foreign policy, which has for the past eight years focused exclusively on the military, to include a more comprehensive understanding of the global impact our policies have on economics, health and human rights.
But we need to make sure that our gain is not simultaneously our loss.
As a senator, Clinton has not only been a strong advocate for New York, but a singular champion for all the women of the United States. Clinton led the way for progressive, pro-choice legislation in the Senate and, because she represents New York, our state's priorities helped push the rest of the nation forward.
So when we think about appointing her replacement, we must ask what it truly means to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It means replacing the woman who nearly single-handedly ended the Food and Drug Administration's foot-dragging on approving emergency contraception for over-the-counter access. Clinton's strategy of stalling a confirmation until the FDA made a decision ensured that women were more easily able to access this important method of back-up birth control.
It means replacing the woman who joined her fellow New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer to oppose the administration's plan to reduce federal reimbursements to health clinics (including family planning clinics, substance abuse counseling and mental health clinics). The predicted loss of $350 million in funds to our state would be devastating to health care providers and the more than 400,000 New Yorkers, many of them low-income, who rely on them.
It means replacing the woman who joined her colleague Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to introduce the "Protecting Patients and Health Care Act," legislation that would that would block the Department of Health and Human Services from passing a bill limiting patients' access to basic reproductive health care service. Clinton and Murray have been leading the opposition to this misguided legislation since July, when rumors of the bill first began.
It means replacing the woman who has not only been a staunch ally on health care issues, but also a sponsor of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation would've helped close the pay gap and end the inequities that have shortchanged women and families for far too long.
It means replacing the woman who cosponsored legislation to repeal the global gag rule, to end funding for abstinence-only education and fund comprehensive sexuality education, to expand contraceptive access, and to codify the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling in federal law.
Simply put, there is no other senator who has shown such commitment, dedication and leadership when it has come to standing up for women's health and rights.
Some may argue that, with the election of a pro-choice president and additional pro-choice senators and Congress members, we no longer need an advocate like Clinton. We argue, though, that we need someone like her even more. Not to just defend against regressive legislation, but to push forward a proactive, pro-choice agenda. We need someone who not only represents New York's pro-choice values, but has the political acumen and ability to confront the entrenched power structures in the Senate. We need someone who has the same willingness to be an ally and advocate for New York and for women across the country.
We hope that as Gov. David Paterson considers the appointment of Clinton's successor, he will choose someone who will commit to upholding this legacy. Though gender need not his only guide, the governor must keep in mind that Clinton is one of only 16 women currently serving in the Senate and that her advancement provides an opportunity for another woman to build upon her foundation.
Kelli Conlin is president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York.
In America, no one is above the law. Speak out against preemptive pardons and restore the American values of justice and due process.
"The Bush administration distorted statutes and case law to legally justify interrogation techniques that had long been considered torture under domestic and international law. It relied on sloppy or aggressive legal analysis as a basis for evading judicial review of a warrantless wiretapping program. It has at every turn chosen the most expansive interpretation of the law to rationalize indefinite detentions and deny federal court review to those in custody. It has, in short, determined its preferred course of action first and then stitched together absurd readings of the law to defend those choices."
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-w... Arianna Huffington Posted November 4, 2008 | 10:23 PM (EST) Obama Wins: Why All Americans Have a Reason to Celebrate
Even if your candidate didn't win tonight, you have reason to celebrate. We all do.
Ten months ago, when Obama won in Iowa, we had a glimpse of what was possible and what became real tonight. What I wrote then about one state is now true for the whole country:
Barack Obama's impressive victory says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter.
Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to step into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven-plus years wanted to recapture its youth.
And they turned out in unprecedented numbers today to make sure that no amount of scrubbed rolls, malfunctioning machines, endless lines, or polling places running out of ballots would block the way.
The history of America is studded with great breakthroughs -- propelled by leaders such as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Martin Luther King - followed by decades of consolidation and occasional regression.
The Bush years have clearly been in a period of regression. The repudiation of those years is now almost universal. Even conservatives are admitting it; over the course of today, I've received numerous emails from conservatives ending with some variation on "Go Obama!"
In America's journey toward a more just and truly democratic society, tonight is another milestone. And not just because the son of a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas is now President-Elect. But also because tonight's outcome is a declaration that we are once again a nation more driven by hope and promise than a nation driven by fear.
Bush's re-election in 2004 was a monument to the power of fear. And McCain, his staff stocked with Karl Rove disciples, followed the Bush blueprint and played the fear card again and again.
Be afraid of Obama, the GOP warned us. Be afraid of something new, something different. He would meet with our enemies. His middle name is Hussein. He "pals around with terrorists," consorts with the radicals at Acorn (which is "destroying the fabric of democracy"), and doesn't see America "like you and I see America." A vote for Obama would be "dangerous" and "too risky for America."
The people of America listened, but chose to take the risk. So even if you voted for John McCain; even if you love Sarah Palin, who is still in search of the "pro-American areas of this great nation"; even if are Joe the Plumber - or, hell, even if you are Michele Bachmann - tonight is a night to be proud of America.
Obama's victory holds up a mirror, reflecting the country we are. And it turns out to be the kind of country we've always imagined ourselves being -- even if in the last seven-plus years we fell horribly short: a young country, an optimistic country, a forward-looking country, a country not afraid to take risks or to dream big.
Of course, it will take more than big dreams to help America dig out from the many crises we face. From the global economic crisis to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the day of reckoning is upon us.
But these challenging times also will provide the new president with the opportunity to really transform America. As Gary Hart points out, "Great presidents do not emerge form quiet times; they arise in times of chaos and crisis."
This is an idea that has animated Obama's candidacy from the beginning. As he put it on the stump many times last week:
We began this journey in the depths of winter nearly two years ago, on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Back then, we didn't have much money or many endorsements. We weren't given much of a chance by the polls or the pundits, and we knew how steep our climb would be. But I also knew this. I knew that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics.
Since that time, the size of our challenges has grown even bigger -- and the smallness of our politics has even downsized McCain from a noble hero to a hack fearmonger.
But over the course of this long and arduous campaign, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to inspire us to tap into the better angels of our nature -- to stir the American people to expect more of themselves than they otherwise would.
It's a theme Michelle Obama touched on many times on the campaign trail. "Barack Obama will require that you work," she said at a rally on the eve of Super Tuesday. "He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism; that you put down your divisions; that you come out of your isolation; that you move out of your comfort zones; that you push yourself to be better; and that you engage."
This call echoed something that historian and presidential biographer David McCullough had once said about JFK. "The great thing about Kennedy," he told me, "is that he didn't say I'm going to make it easier for you. He said it's going to be harder. And he wasn't pandering to the less noble side of human nature. He was calling on us to give our best."
And when Bobby Kennedy was agonizing over whether or not to run in 1968, he told one of his advisors: "People are selfish. But they can also be compassionate and generous, and they care about the country. But not when they feel threatened. That's why this is such a crucial time. We can go in either direction. But if we don't make a choice soon, it will be too late to turn things around. I think people are willing to make the right choice. But they need leadership. They're hungry for leadership." Forty years later, we are starving for it. Real leadership. Leadership geared to transforming the country.
Tonight is a night to celebrate the victory of a candidate who seized his moment in history and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture. Let's savor it.
The dark years of the Bush regression are almost done. It's time for another American breakthrough.
Read more Election Day Liveblogs, Reaction and Analysis from HuffPost Bloggers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/guide-for-watching-e... Thomas B. Edsall Edsall@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC Guide For Watching Election Night Results November 3, 2008 10:34 AM For those obsessed with the results on Tuesday night, here is a November 4 guide to watching television and searching exit poll data on the web.
The basic rule of thumb is to follow the poll closing times in each state. Once voting is stopped, the networks can start using detailed exit polling (HuffPost will post those polls here). If the networks are unwilling to call a given state, an examination of the exit poll data can often give you a clear signal of the ultimate results. The state-by-state exit polls released after poll closings will have large samples and should not suffer the defects that plagued the early findings in 2004 which pointed to a solid Kerry victory nationwide. (CNN and MSNBC have exit polls that are relatively easy to negotiate.)
For additional help, HuffPost has election night widgets from Google, CNN, and MSNBC that will allow you to watch the electoral vote count and the congressional balance of power with the national U.S. map or choose a state and see how individual counties are voting.
At 7:00 P.M. ETthe polls will close in Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia and Indiana.
Virginia is a crucial battleground state, and an Obama win there (without Georgia or Indiana) would suggest he is likely to take the oath of office on January 20. Turnout in the state is already reported to be off the charts. One person helping out the campaign there says that nearly half the expected electorate showed up by noon. The state also has a hot congressional battle being waged as well. Arch-conservative Rep. Virgil Goode, in a district that includes Charlottesville (UVA's home town) is in a tight fight with Democrat Tom Periello.
If Obama carries either Georgia or Indiana, look for a big Democratic night all around. If he carries both (along with Virginia), Republicans should consider turning on the gas and closing the windows. Conversely, if McCain carries Virginia, Indiana and Georgia, plan to stay up a little later.
There are Senate battles in these states as well.
The Kentucky Senate race, pitting Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell against Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford, a businessman and U.S. Army veteran, is a crucial contest in the fight for filibuster-proof control of the Upper Chamber. McConnell has a 5.7 percent advantage according to RealClearPolitics and a Democratic victory would be a major upset.
Another upset could be in the making in Georgia, where Democrat Jim Martin has been closing the gap in his challenge to incumbent Saxby Chambliss, although Martin remains 2.7 points behind. If Georgia goes for Martin, it will indicate that black voters are turning out in droves, mobilized by the prospect of electing the first African American president.
At 7:30 P.M. ET, polls will close in the Big Enchilada of 2008: Ohio -- as well as another important state, North Carolina, although officials there have the option of staying open until 8:30 if there are problems in completing the voting process.
Ohio has become the national battleground state and this year is no exception. Carried twice by George W. Bush, this year Obama is favored, with a 7 point edge, but neither side is taking it easy. The closing Ohio trend line has been in favor of McCain, who in recent days has cut in half what had been a double digit deficit.
The presidential race in North Carolina is a dead heat, and has been so for a month. The RCP average has Obama ahead by a statistically meaningless 0.3 percent. An Obama victory there would be another strong sign of a good night for the Democratic nominee and his party -- especially if combined with an Obama win in Virginia.
North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole (R) is fighting for her life against Kay Hagan (D) in the Tar Heel state. Hagan holds a 5.5 point advantage and appears likely to pull off an upset win, but the big question is whether Dole's last minute airing of highly controversial commercials linking Hagan to a "Godless" supporter gains traction.
At 8:00 P.M. ET, there will be a flood of voting results and poll data begins from key states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and New Hampshire. In addition, there are two crucial Senate races: Sen. John Sununu (R) v. Jeanne Shaheen (D) in New Hampshire, and Senator Roger Wicker (R) v. Ronnie Musgrove (D) in Mississippi.
Of the presidential states with 8 pm poll closings, Florida is by far the most important. RCP's 4-poll average in Florida gives Obama a 4.2 point edge over McCain. If that holds up, Obama would be well on his way to victory.
If, conversely, McCain wins Pennsylvania while holding Florida and other states carried by George W. Bush in 2004, it's a whole new ball game, and a late night: you will have to wait for returns from Colorado, New Mexico (both 9 PM ET closings) and Nevada (10 PM), to have any real confidence in the outcome.
In Connecticut, meanwhile, Rep. Chris Shay's - a perennial endangered GOPer - is hoping to be the lone House Republic left in New England. He could be hurt by Obama's appeal in the New York City suburbs - where he is a bit more popular than the average Democrat - but mainly by minority turnout in Bridgeport.
As a side note: The networks will not go anywhere near calling the presidential race until the polls close on the West Coast at 11 PM. Barring the Pennsylvania-McCain scenario, the odds are that the winner will be known to anyone following the results once the states with 8 PM closings are in.
At 9:00 P.M. ET, polls will close in a host of important states, including Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, Louisiana and Arizona. Obama is looking strong in the first four. And in a surreal Democratic landslide, he could take McCain's home state - though that is incredibly unlikely.
Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado all have big Senate races. Al Franken's hopes of knocking of Norm Coleman seems destined for a too-close-to-call finish, with third party candidate Dean Barkley likely to take somewhere between 13-18 percent of the vote. The Udall brothers are expected to win in New Mexico and Colorado, both open seats. One of the few hopes for the GOP is for John Kennedy to win in Louisiana where polls have tightened. Though Mary Landrieux, the current Senator, seems likely to squeak out a win.
Minnesota also is hosting two interesting House races. Michelle Bachmann's rant about investigating un-American activity in the U.S. Congress catapulted her opponent into a nipping-at-her-heels position. Meanwhile, Ashwin Madia, a Marine vet and son of East Indian immigrants (who was subjected to political attack-ads that distorted his skin color) is poised to knock of Erik Paulson.
At 10 P.M. ET, the polls from Montana and Nevada will close. Montana will show the strength of Obama's mountain west appeal. His showing in Nevada will underscore how well his candidacy has done with Latino voters.
At 11:00 P.M. ET - the polls in California, Oregon and Washington will close. The gubernatorial race in the latter is the tightest in the country. In 2004, Republican Dino Rossi lost to incumbent Christine Gregoire by just 129 votes after a third recount. The two are at it again and it will likely, once more, be too close to call.
In California, it is a ballot initiative that is gathering all the headlines. Proposition 8 would eliminate the rights of same sex couples in the state. Early results show that a slight majority are against the initiative.
In Oregon, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley leads incumbent Gordon Smith by 5.3 points. If Democrats are still on the cusp, with 59 seats, when Oregon's results are counted, it will take Alaska's results to be sure of the balance of power in the Senate.
At 1:00 A.M., polls will close in Alaska. Recently convicted incumbent Republican Ted Stevens looks like a probable loser to Democrat Mark Begich, who leads by 10.3 points -- although no one is going to state publicly that Stevens is politically dead until the results are officially declared. Rep. Don Young also hurt by ethical transgressions, seems likely to lose his post.
There is an even worse scenario for those with a desperate need to know: The Democrats could be at 59 Senate seats at 2 AM on November 5, but, when all the votes are counted in the Georgia race, a number of experts say that a reasonable expectation is that neither Chambliss nor Martin will reach the 50 percent required to win, and that Libertarian Allen Buckley will siphon off enough votes to force a run-off later in the month.
Whoever wins this election, I understand what Barack Obama meant when he said his faith in the American people had been "vindicated" by his campaign's success. I understand what Michelle Obama meant, months ago, when she said she was "proud of my country" for the first time in her adult life. Why should they be immune to the astonishment and vertigo that so many other African Americans are experiencing? Why shouldn't they have to pinch themselves to make sure they aren't dreaming, the way that I do?
I know there's a possibility that the polls are wrong. I know there's a possibility that white Americans, when push comes to shove, won't be able to bring themselves to elect a black man as president of the United States. But the spread in the polls is so great that the Bradley effect wouldn't be enough to make Obama lose; it would take a kind of "Dr. Strangelove effect" in which voters' hands developed a will of their own.
For African Americans, at least those of us old enough to have lived through the civil rights movement, this is nothing short of mind-blowing. It's disorienting, and it makes me see this nation in a different light.
You see, I remember a time of separate and unequal schools, restrooms and water fountains -- a time when black people were officially second-class citizens. I remember moments when African Americans were hopeful and excited about the political process, and I remember other moments when most of us were depressed and disillusioned. But I can't think of a single moment, before this year, when I thought it was within the realm of remote possibility that a black man could be nominated for president by one of the major parties -- let alone that he would go into Election Day with a better-than-even chance of winning.
Let me clarify: It's not that I would have calculated the odds of an African American being elected president and concluded that this was unlikely; it's that I wouldn't even have thought about such a thing.
African Americans' love of country is deep, intense and abiding, but necessarily complicated. At the hour of its birth, the nation was already stained by the Original Sin of slavery. Only in the past several decades has legal racism been outlawed and casual racism been made unacceptable, at least in polite company. Millions of black Americans have managed to pull themselves up into mainstream, middle-class affluence, but millions of others remain mired in poverty and dysfunction.
A few black Americans broke through into the highest echelons of American society. Oprah Winfrey became the most powerful woman in the entertainment industry by appealing to an audience that is mostly white. Richard Parsons, Stanley O'Neal and others became alpha males in the lily-white world of Wall Street. Through superhuman skill and unbending will, Tiger Woods came to dominate a sport long seen as emblematic of white privilege.
Along came Barack Obama, a young man with an unassailable résumé and a message of post-racial transformation. Initially, a big majority of African Americans lined up behind his major opponent in the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton. The reason was simple: In the final analysis, white Americans weren't going to vote for the black guy. Better to go with the safe alternative.
But an amazing thing happened. In the Iowa caucuses, white Americans voted for the black guy. That's the moment Obama was referring to when he said his faith in the American people was vindicated. For me, it was the moment when the utterly impossible became merely unlikely. That's a fundamental change, and it launched a sequence of events over the subsequent months that made me realize that some things I "knew" about America were apparently wrong.
Even if John McCain somehow prevails, that won't change the fact that Obama won all those primaries, or that he won the Democratic Party nomination, or that he raised more money than any candidate in history, or that he rewrote the book on how to run a presidential campaign. Nothing can change the fact that so many white Americans entrusted a black American with their hopes and dreams.
We can all have a new kind of pride in our country.
The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. today at http://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
The Election That LBJ Won
Alabama troopers attack voting rights marchers at Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge in March 1965. (Associated Press)
By Richard Cohen Tuesday, November 4, 2008; Page A17
If the polls are right, if it don't rain and the creek don't rise, the winner of the presidential election is sure to be . . . Lyndon Baines Johnson. When he signed the epochal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Johnson knew he was also signing away the South and, with it, much of the white vote elsewhere as well. "We have lost the South for a generation," he supposedly said back then. For that generation, time's up.
Barack Obama is often called a transformational figure, and this election, it then follows, is a transformational one. I beg to quibble. Barack Obama is a confirmational figure, and this election confirms what has been gradually occurring in American society ever since that July day when Johnson virtually outlawed most forms of racial segregation in America. We've been transforming ever since.
My colleague David Broder dates to Dec. 8, 2007, the moment he knew "this presidential campaign was going to be the best" he'd ever covered. That was when about 18,000 people crammed into Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines to see Obama and Oprah Winfrey, and you knew, if you were there -- and I was -- that something momentous was happening. There, on the stage, were Obama, his wife, Michelle, and Winfrey. I turned to my friend Joe Klein of Time magazine and said we were immeasurably lucky. We were witnessing history being made.
I am not naive. Pockets of racism exist, and depending on the issue -- crime, for instance -- they can swell. But the country has changed. It has done so because of personalities, policies and actions that at the time might have been questionable. The civil rights acts of the Johnson era compelled whites to eat with blacks in the same restaurants and to share the same motels and hotels. Affirmative action accustomed whites to seeing blacks in positions from which they had, by custom or by law, been excluded. Blacks and whites could, in fact, work together. The racists were wrong.
Constant pressure on the entertainment industry to feature more African Americans paid off handsomely. Some of the top American entertainers are black -- Denzel Washington and Chris Rock, for instance -- and their audiences are multiracial. Still, it seems that certain themes do not do well. Washington's very good film "The Great Debaters," the story of the 1935 Wiley College debate team, was no box-office smash, maybe because it had a mostly black cast and was about a black college, or maybe because it had no car chases; probably, both.
Somewhere beyond the gaze of Karl Rove, America was changing. You could see it on TV all the time. Oprah -- not some white, Andy Griffith-type, as the 1957 Elia Kazan movie "A Face in the Crowd" envisioned -- had become the most powerful figure in the medium. Ellen DeGeneres also has a daytime talk show. She's a lesbian -- not reputed to be or reported to be, but proud to be. She's a hit, too.
America is a changed country. Blacks have been the mayors of majority-white cities and the governors of majority-white states (Massachusetts, for instance). The governor of Louisiana is Bobby Jindal, an Indian American, the senatorial contest in Minnesota is between two Jews -- one a former comedian, for crying out loud -- and the governor of California cannot even pronounce the name of the state.
The wedding pages of our newspapers announce the unions -- civil or otherwise -- of gay men and lesbians. The governor of Alaska accepted the vice presidential nomination of the family-values party accompanied by her pregnant, unmarried teenage daughter -- and (almost) no one batted an eye. Maybe this was because a recent president had extramarital sexual relations in the Oval Office and left the presidency with an approval rating in the mid-60s. It was the economy, stupid.
Just as John F. Kennedy was only incidentally a Catholic, so is Obama only incidentally a black man. It is not just that he is post-racial; so is the nation he is generationally primed to lead. This, of course, was the dream of the man who is buried on his beloved ranch -- the unheralded winner of this election. As he would put it: My fellow Americans, we have overcome.
LBJ, RIP.
cohenr@washpost.com
A note from Rabbi Michael Lerner Join or Donate Now!
From Tikkun Magazine (www.tikkun.org)
By Michael Lerner and David Seidenberg
Click here to view a PDF (Acrobat) version of Rabbi Seidenberg's prayer in English and Hebrew
ref:
http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php/20081016155033441
By now most people agree: George W. Bush's presidency was a devastating failure.
But Bush couldn't have done it alone. He got lots of help from his Republican yes-men and women in Congress -- and today I want to make sure you know exactly who they are.
Take a look at our list of Bush's closest backers in Congress, and forward this email to at least five of your friends so they know who's really to blame.
% of Votes with Bush
Rep. John Boehner (OH) 94% Sen. Michael Enzi (WY) 93% Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) 92% Sen. John Cornyn (TX) 92% Rep. Roy Blunt (MO) 91% Sen. Thad Cochran (MS) 91% Sen. James Inhofe (OK) 91% Rep. John Shadegg (AZ) 90% Sen. John McCain (AZ) 90% Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA) 90% Rep. Mike Pence (IN) 90% Sen. John Sununu (NH) 89% Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) 89% Sen. Pat Roberts (KS) 89% Rep. Tom Feeney (FL) 88% Rep. John Kline (MN) 88% Sen. Elizabeth Dole (NC) 87% Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC) 87% Rep. Barbara Cubin (WY) 86% Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA) 86% Rep. Bill Sali (ID) 85% Sen. Roger Wicker (MS) 85% Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ) 84% Rep. Steve Pearce (NM) 84% Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN) 83% Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (CO) 83% Sen. Norm Coleman (MN) 82% Rep. Mark Souder (IN) 82% Rep. Joe Knollenberg (MI) 82% Rep. Bob Goodlatte (VA) 82% Rep. Lee Terry (NE) 82% Rep. Jean Schmidt (OH) 81% Rep. Steve Chabot (OH) 81% Rep. Ric Keller (FL) 81% Sen. Gordon Smith (OR) 80%
With President Bush's approval rating hitting a stunning new low of 22 percent last week, these members of Congress have been leaving human-shaped holes in the wall of the Capitol as they desperately try to run away from the President.
But they can't run away from their records. They can't run away from their irresponsible handling of the economy, their blind support for the mismanaged war in Iraq, or their repeated attempts to privatize Social Security.
We won't let them. We launched the Bush Legacy Tour to help make that point, but today we need you to spread the word simply by forwarding this message to at least five of your friends. Make sure everyone you know remembers who's to blame for the state of our nation.
Jeremy FunkAmericans United for Change
Paid for by Americans United for Change P.O. Box 65321 Washington, DC 20035
Contributions or gifts to Americans United for Change are not tax deductible. Americans United For Change can accept contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other sources in unlimited amounts. Americans United for Change is organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
With all the energy and excitement about Obama and this election, the reality is that some folks will have to wait in line before voting. But there's no reason for it to be a downer. With your help, we can turn it into a party!
Why a party? So many people showing up and voting for change is a reason to celebrate. And, of course, we need everyone to stick it out and vote. Here's the idea: If we can make the lines at polling places fun and entertaining, more folks will stay in line and vote. It's easy: after you vote (or while you're waiting), you can bring food, water, and entertainment for your neighbors who have a long wait. Just a few words of kindness and encouragement could mean the difference between a vote being cast or thrown away.
To learn more and sign up, click below:
http://colorofchange.org/party08/?id=2257-160034
How to Start a Party at the Polls
You can do this while you're waiting in line yourself, you can come back after you've voted, or you can go to other polling places in your area where you hear there are long lines. Here are some ways you can make the wait easier and more fun for voters:
Please let us know what you plan on doing, and read our tips for making sure we do this in a responsible and inclusive way. It just takes a minute:
Thanks and Peace, -- James, Gabriel, Clarissa, Andre, Kai, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team November 3rd, 2008
Copyright © 2008 Starbucks Coffee Company. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/election-predictions...
The Huffington Post | November 2, 2008 12:27 PM
Karl Rove Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Rove writes on his website:
The final Rove & Co. electoral map of the 2008 election cycle points to a 338-200 Barack Obama electoral vote victory over John McCain tomorrow, the largest electoral margin since 1996. All remaining toss-up states have been allocated to the candidate leading in them, with Florida (27 EV) going to Obama, and Indiana (11 EV), Missouri (11 EV), North Carolina (15 EV), and North Dakota (3 EV) going to McCain. The two candidates are in a dead heat in Missouri and North Carolina, but they go to McCain because the most recent polls conducted over this past weekend show him narrowly ahead. Florida, too, could end up in McCain's column since he's benefited from recent movement in the state.
Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200 Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 250 Democrats 185 Republicans
George Will, conservative columnist Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 378 McCain 160 Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 254 Democrats 181 Republicans
Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 343 Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 39 Republicans House Seats: 262 Democrats 173 Republicans
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News anchor Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 353 McCain 185 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats (59 if there's a run-off in Georgia) Republicans 40 House Seats: Democrats 264 Republicans 171
Mark Halperin, Time editor Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 349 McCain 189 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans House Seats: 261 Democrats 174 Republicans Watch these predictions on "This Week"
Chris Matthews, MSNBC host Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200 Senate Seats: 56 Democrats 42 Republicans House Seats: 264 Democrats 171 Republicans
Nate Silver, statistician Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 347 McCain 191 Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 258 Democrats 177 Republicans
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post columnist Winner: Obama Electoral College: 312 McCain 226 Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 266 Democrats 169 Republicans
Arianna Huffington Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans House Seats: 254 Democrats 181 Republicans
Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard editor Winner: McCain Electoral College: Obama 252 McCain 286 Senate Seats: 55 Democrats 43 Republicans House Seats: 255 Democrats 180 Republicans
Eleanor Clift, political writer Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 349 McCain 189 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans House Seats: 265 Democrats 170 Republicans
Markos Moulitas, DailyKos founder Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 390 McCain 148 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans House Seats: 268 Democrats 167 Republicans
Ed Rollins, Republican strategist Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 353 McCain 185 Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 249 Democrats 186 Republicans
Paul Begala, Democratic strategist Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 325 McCain 213 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
James Carville, Democratic strategist Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 330 McCain 208 Senate Seats: 60 Democrats 38 Republicans
Charles Mahtesian, Politico national politics editor Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 311 McCain 227 Senate Seats: 56 Democrats 42 Republicans House Seats: 256 Democrats 179 Republicans
Morton Kondracke, Fox News host Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 379 McCain 159 Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 269 Democrats 166 Republicans
David Plotz, Slate editor Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 336 McCain 202 Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 39 Republicans House Seats: 257 Democrats 178 Republicans
Obama wins North Dakota, has more paid staff in state than voters... Joe Lieberman thrown to pack of wild dogs behind Cannon Senate Office Building. Washington left without a Bush or Dole in office for the first time since, well, a really long time ago.
Alex Castellanos, Republican media consultant Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 42 Republicans
Obama wins Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa and Florida; McCain wins Ohio and Missouri.... Coleman wins in Minnesota; Chambliss loses Georgia; Landrieu loses in Louisiana.
Dan Gerstein, Democratic media consultant, former manager of Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220 Senate Seats: 55 Democrats 43 Republicans House Seats: 260 Democrats 175 Republicans
Tom Doherty, New York Republican consultant Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 331 McCain 207 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 42 Republicans House Seats: 255 Democrats 180 Republicans
Robert Y. Shapiro, Columbia University political scientist Winner: Obama Popular Vote: Obama 53 McCain 47 Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans House Seats: 259 Democrats 176 Republicans
Obama will hold all Kerry states and pick up Iowa, VA, NM, Colorado, NV.
Gary Jacobson, (University of California-San Diego political scientist Winner: Obama Major Party Vote: 52.7 Obama 47.3 McCain Senate: 57 Democrats 43 Republicans House: 264 Democrats 171 Republican
Sandy Maisel, Colby College political scientist Winner: Obama Electoral College 353 Obama 185 McCain Senate Seats 59 Democrats 41 Republicans House 265 Democrats 170 Republicans
Robert Erickson, Columbia University political scientist Winner: Obama Popular Vote: Obama 52.5 McCain 47.5 Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 41 Republicans House Seats: 253 Democrats 182 Republicans
Obama wins Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia, not Florida... Democrats pick up Alaska, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico and North Carolina.
Alan Abramowitz, Emory University political scientist Winner: Obama Electoral College: Obama 361 McCain 177 Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 40 Republicans (with a run-off in Georgia) House Seats: 256 Democrats 179 Republicans
Obama wins Co., Va., Fla., Oh., Ia., N.Mex. and Indiana.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-votemap,0,2338623.htmlstory?usergen=110100010111111011111210111110110010002001000000210
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-murray/virginia-republica... Riley Murray Posted November 3, 2008 | 10:06 AM (EST) Courting the Pro-Palin Hooters Demographic in Va.
Wayne: "She's a babe." Garth: "She's a mega-babe." Wayne: "She's from Babe-alon. She's Babe-alonian." Garth: "She's Babealicious...SCHWING!"
Republicans in Augusta County, Virginia have been working hard to sustain a rise in base enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket. As a by-product of the full-out promotion of Sarah Palin, they are also attracting what can best be described as, the "Hooters" vote, from male voters. It all started with blue and white, 4 foot by 8 foot field signs stating, "I Am Voting For The Chick" campaign signs being planted outside local businesses in September. Smaller yard signs have sprouted up in next to McCain-Palin signs across the county, in Staunton and Waynesboro, and beyond. Local Republicans say that they have helped deliver more than 600 of the signs and have had sign orders from as far away as Florida and Alaska. The larger signs seem to be the most popular with male small business owners.
Seems like the tag, Caribou Barbie, works for some guys. A local outdoor sporting goods store is prominently displaying a Chick field sign along with "Sportsmen for McCain-Palin" signs. Palin's physical attributes, and her Alaskan hunting and fishing credentials, makes her a very popular gal with hunters and fishermen. Palin has become an object of desire for some younger guys, too. At the national level, it should have been no surprise that after the "hot governor" hype surrounding her nomination, the internet domain name "VPILF.com" was quickly registered. Explaining the meaning of MILF and VPILF is best left to the reader to discover.
Stalwart Augusta County Republican women, see no offense in using the "chick" label for Palin. In an interview with a local newspaper, Local Republican activist/blogger, Lynn "SWAC Girl" Mitchell, said
"... the reason behind the sign's popularity is simply Palin's appeal to many Republicans in the area. "They just love Sarah Palin," she said. "And this is just a way for them to express how much they support this woman." However, not all reaction to the signs has been positive. Mitchell said she has heard negative comments from just a handful of people and some of the signs have been vandalized, such as when the word 'not' was inserted in the phrase on one of the larger signs. Mitchell said she does not believe the sign's use of the word, "chick," is being used negatively or in a sexist manner. "It is meant in a respectful way, which is reflected in the number of women that want these signs," she said. "I mean, I'm a chick and I don't mind." McCain-Palin spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said the signs are not campaign-issued or approved. While she said it goes to show the strong support Palin has in the Valley, she downplayed the importance the signs bring."
Of course other local folks are scratching their heads over the tone-deafness of local Republicans. Roger Watson, President & Publisher of the News Leader in Staunton, Virginia commented in his blog,
"If Barack Obama said in a debate or in a political speech something like, "John McCain and that Chick want to raise your taxes," it would be an international incident. I have no doubt that he would be roundly criticized by feminists, all Republicans and probably even Hillary Clinton. Hillary would put a chokehold on anyone who called her a chick. It might cost Obama the election and would certainly be parallel to George Allen's Macaca moment. But local Palin supporters put signs in their yard calling the potential vice president a "chick." Those same people would probably be offended if their wife was called a chick by somebody. I would be offended if somebody I didn't know called my wife a chick. She might like it. I don't know. But I wouldn't."
Local physician, Elizabeth Pinkston, MD (News Leader, 11/2/08) adds her reaction,
"... as a woman and medical professional, I believe that the term "chick" is insulting to any woman, whether Republican or Democrat. From my experience, "chick" is a term used mostly by men to refer to a woman who is defined more by her appearance and social interactions than by her accomplishments. Despite my belief that Sarah Palin is out of her league and not qualified to take over the presidency of the United States at a moment's notice, she is a successful woman who deserves more than being referred to as a "Chick ".
The Chick sign phenomena is one more example of the widely divergent views in the on-going American culture clash, being fully aired in the final days of this presidential campaign. The so-called Republican base would appear to be conflicted over the family-values version of Palin, versus the hot babe version that appeals to the boys, young and old. Sarah's special assets are clearly of political interest to a 72 year-old former Navy pilot named, John McCain, who's had more than his share of beautiful women in his life.
Local Democratic headquarters, have seen a steady flow of self-identified Republican women, looking for Obama-Biden campaign materials. This is probably a leading indicator, signaling that many women of a certain age, who have spent a lifetime striving to reduce these stereo-typical labels, see the Chick label as one that diminishes their standing in the workplace. This local political campaign sign issue is not likely to get much attention beyond this traditionally conservative area. But I think this may be another small Macaca moment, for Virginia Republicans.
Women voters, of all ages, will have their say on this issue on Tuesday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/no-currency-left-to... John Cusack Posted November 2, 2008 | 08:09 PM (EST) No Currency Left to Buy the Big Lies
As I contemplated the real possibility of an Obama victory and listened to right wing pundits revise history still unfolding, I thought of titles for this blog:
"Neocon Logic: This Statement is Untrue" "The Modern Free Market System is False But a New Revelation Shall Come" " They Would Feast on Themselves: All the Money's Gone, Nowhere to Go" I decided on: "No Currency Left to Buy the Big Lies"
In the pre-capitalist reality, James Madison said when he put power in the hands of the business elite, he would be entrusting "enlightened statesmen and benevolent philosophers who would devote themselves to the welfare of all."
Clearly, he believed this statement in the way I guess some modern Republicans do. The only problem was that he eventually realized this didn't work and in 1792, disillusioned and worried about the democratic experiment, condemned what he called "the daring depravity of the times." He went on to denounce the business elites who, given ultimate power, "become tools and tyrants of government...they overwhelm government with their powers and combinations and are bribed by its largesse." That's how he perceived the system he had helped design. In 2008, this is an apt description of the Republican relationship to government and power.
Finally, some blue light, tectonic plate shifts, a sea change, we hear... a wave of despair carrying us to a new place. The bastards are finally meeting their grisly ends and will be discarded and abandoned as men come to power who will actually try to govern. I know we're supposed to be civil but I'm not a real believer in this method when dealing with crimes.
What does the sea change mean? How can we help people understand what is happening and help them contextualize it? First the past: Senator McCain, Governor Palin and assorted surrogates are delusional and breathtakingly corrupt. They disgrace themselves and their country as they lie, smear, slur and write it off as political manner. Yet the creeping truth must frighten them late at night: there is no currency left to buy the big lies.
There is no more money left to loan or borrow the big lies or to sell them. No more money left to pay off the debt, the wreckage in the wake. The orgy of excess has drained every bottle, smashed the furniture and left the cupboards bare. All that's left is derivative debts -- bets between liars and lies. Trillions of dollars. Turned capitalism into a Ponzi scheme for trading worthless paper. No real value anywhere. No matter how much money Ben Bernanke prints. We are asked to stand over the abyss and experience our own destruction as another political game show -- just another surreal horse race. We watch millionaires and paid Republican hacks appear on television yelling "Socialist!" at Obama as if the Bolsheviks are coming to rape our daughters. These are the same people who oversaw the greatest upward redistribution of wealth in the history of this country. The same people who, through general lawlessness and a privatization frenzy, succeeded in shredding the Constitution, turning war, illegal domestic spying, security, border patrol, interrogation, and even torture into profitable industries gorging on the state.
So define the big lie: free marketers want free markets. Not so, the facts say. They are the biggest welfare freaks on the planet. These men and keepers of the faith would lecture us with a straight face on the evil socialists/ communists/terrorists /vampires/space aliens who would dare "redistribute wealth" by amending the tax code. Two wars and the only shared sacrifice they want is more tax cuts for the rich and for the U.S. citizenry to continue shopping. As Sidney Falco said, you gotta give it to them, their gall is gorgeous. If we stay the course, we are told, we will finally, one day, reach that shining city on a hill, the free market-based fundamentalist utopia. Even though all evidence points the other way, we should listen, reason, step back and watch them as they devour what's left of the government. They will feast on themselves -- the feast of carrion the Book of Revelation tells us -- but I digress, sort of. It's over. This would be a great system if there were no human beings.
Mathematical realism. Eat what you kill. The bottom line. Greed is good. Graphs and flow charts and metrics for success. All social organization is based on profit as the unifying force and engine of the common good and even social justice; worship the market, even as you corrupt it.
Our perfect system will provide for all.
And yet Wall Street cripples America and the world because it won't adhere to the same rules it says we must obey for the good of freedom. Because reality won't be a slave to their machine.
And so this is how we can rationalize privatizing war. At last look, with 630 corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton getting 40% of the $2 billion spent each week in Iraq, no one can doubt the corporatist dominance of the war machine.
Mathematically, the market crash shouldn't have happened according to their system, but human feelings make panic and panic cannot be calculated. I would bet that someday someone will discover that math adheres to a quantum reality: the participants and the observers affect the outcome. I digress again. But not really.
Instead of an international consensus based on trust and global community, the Neocons say trust no one, need no one, ask no one. Rigged, "open" markets are created at the barrel of a gun after bombing a country. We must all bow to the market. Collapse, chaos, lawlessness. And even the market voted with its feet.
The era of market idolatry is over.
This is the end of Milton Friedman, Reaganomics and supply-side theory. This ideology has never been about free markets but a fundamentalist vision that is a cover for naked aggression and a social contract based on fear and greed. The government's job is to create optimal conditions for corporate profit, to privatize everything in sight and to sell off its own body parts. To literally devour itself.
So we have laws that allow borrowing money against derivatives -- basically a bet between two people who create nothing without collateral. They leveraged the public financial health on something you wouldn't be allowed to do in Vegas. It illustrates the corruption that has become institutionalized through deregulation and a culture of predatory greed. Alan Greenspan testified that he was shocked: business didn't regulate itself. The common good was not achieved by greed. Naomi Klein read him the definition of crony capitalism and asked if it fit the description of the Bush administration's relationship to its favorite corporations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09zvzzCOB2M
I suppose he was shocked about that too. His testimony was incredible and felt like it was coated in lies or at least standing deeply in their shadows. But one doesn't doubt him as a true believer, absolved of messy feelings of collective responsibility. We made him a high priest even though we saw the suffering and the cruelty of the system. The final irony of the free-market Darwinist model is instead of the strongest and best surviving, it's really the weakest and the worst. From a moral and spiritual point of view this is hardly in doubt. See George Bush. The gospel he purports to serve tells us this but perhaps he saw Christ as a conqueror. I've always doubted men who call themselves Christians who live by the law of the jungle. The gospels, the Koran and the Torah make no bones about it: wealth is not strength; power often represents not the brightest and the best but the weakest and worst. The beast in the Book of Revelation is not a horn-rimmed devil but Rome. Empire. Any empire. Every empire.
As Bush leaves office, the real truth is this: the new economies of the world disprove everything he ever said. Apparently that doesn't matter. Neoconservatives will lie in the weeds and gather forces, the same players in a revolving door. They want back in and if history has proved anything, worshiping the markets is not enough. We must actually kill to feed them. A horrible cross-pollination of fundamentalism, dementia and market fever has turned America into a willing enabler of corporate cannibalism. Nothing else to call it when murder is seen as a legitimate extension of economic policy. Preemptive war is not only justified but openly referred to as a market opportunity. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. As we look out at the wreckage -- world economies collapsing, nationalized banks and a complete loss of trust -- we can see the hypocrisy as all are revealed as true socialists on the way down, crying in their scotch and Ambien as they run to the state for cover. Many, like the Financial Times, endorse Obama. But let's remember when the F.T. and the Wall Street Journal talked glowingly and starry-eyed about the "Baghdad Boom" -- as horrifying a moniker as Shock and Awe. It was not the site of a gold rush, it was the sight of massacre and armed robbery. Now these men jump like rats off a death ship but don't be fooled. Francis Fukuyama and company will just lay low, regroup and rebrand. They speak openly about such things, beaten but unbowed, with no moral connection to the fiasco they have fostered. They speak as passing spectators watching the Weather Channel, (see Frum, Kristol, Brooks and all the rest), rather than intellectual architects, defenders, and foot soldiers in an illegal war and the thirty-five year assault on the New Deal. As we help Obama try to implement another New Deal, I asked Naomi Klein about the parallels to The Shock Doctrine as it's polar opposite. She told me:
"I have been talking about the need for a progressive shock doctrine in speeches a lot. I call it disaster populism and the key difference is democracy. The right has been using shocks to suspend and sidestep democracy, declaring states of emergency and the progressive use of shock to enlarge and deepen the democratic space to bring more people into the political process. This is why it is important to remember that the New Deal did not come only from kindly elites handing it down from on high, but also because those elites were under massive popular pressure from below. We can all use shock and crisis to move the political direction of the country, but the progressive route is a democratic one, the right is an authoritarian one, even if it takes place within an electoral democracy."
The real challenge is to erase the delusion that greed equals freedom and prosperity, let alone the hideous lie that it somehow spreads justice. Amazingly, we are asked to listen to this gibberish in political life no matter how high the bile rises. Many believe economies must serve humanity and not the other way around. Economies must make a moral connection to the republic. Brace yourselves free marketers: the quality of economic and human transactions will have to take priority over money. Faith and hope have to manifest in the social transactions we make. A new social contract could be coming based on a real currency my friend Kevin McCabe calls the currency of grace. It is a currency of economic fairness and institutionalizing concepts of shared responsibility; a currency based on the gold standard that every human has value and should be awarded respect and opportunity, the dignity that comes from human beings protecting each other from the values and ideals of a Darwinist world. Its spirit is in Keynesian economics, a mixed economy with regulated markets and social spending. In the new era, we must remove fundamentalist right wing economists as the high priests and kings. Their ideology will stay dead only if we remain vigilant and call things what they are. It's a battle for the idea of America and it's just beginning if Senator Obama becomes president. We should worship God if we want to, not the markets. R.I.P Studs Terkel.
For more on War, Inc. go to my MySpace Page, or Amazon.com.
