Saturday Night (Election) Fever

If you're like me, you've been spending this weekend decompressing and pondering the fickleness of the American financial system. I also did some shopping. With that:

Nobody likes Palin anymore.

And seriously, what the fuck is she talking about?

Nate’s projections have Obama winning 72% of the time. A remarkable swing from last week. I told you …

John Stewart for Secretary of State

In three sentences, Stewart sums up why "After 9/11, the world has changed" is not a good explanation for war in Iraq:

"Nineteen people flew into the towers. It seems hard for me to imagine that we could go to war enough to make the world safe enough that 19 people wouldn't want to do harm to us. So it seems like we have to rethink a strategy that is less military based."

See the interesting part of his interview with Tony Blair here:



-Law Dude

A Great Gun Compromise

Here’s a common-sense gun policy for both sides of the debate. Less gun control in rural areas, more gun control in cities. Hunters can go hunting, urbanites can feel marginally surer that when an argument breaks out, fists are thrown and bullets aren’t shot.

What’s wrong with this policy? Well, the Supreme Court may have shot it down in District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. Guns case. There, the Court interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not a collective right, applying only to militias. Individual right could mean a right to a hand gun in the home no matter where you live.

Was this a sensible decision? The plain text of the Second Amendment seems to support an individual right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But the question of individual vs. collective right misses the point. Just because the Second Amendment has a textual command giving individuals the right to bear arms, that does not mean the right is unlimited. Rather, individual right or not, cities should have the flexibility to restrict gun use as a means to reduce murder rates.

To illustrate this point, let’s look at what the First Amendment. If anything, the text of the amendment is even more direct:

Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .

Despite this clear command, the Supreme Court has been sanctioning laws abridging free speech for 90 years. An individual can be punished for statements likely to incite a crowd to imminent lawless action, for true threats on another’s life. As the saying goes, the First Amendment does not protect a right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

So Supreme Court, follow you own example. Even if an individual has the right to bear arms, that shouldn’t bar cities from passing laws aimed at reducing gun violence.

-Law Dude

Morning Schmorgasbord

Sorry the clips have been inconsistent this week. Anyone who's sentient knows that politics haven't been the big story this week, and that the candidates' reactions to the financial crises have been more or less some mix of tough talk and proposals for more regulation. This isn't astonishing, except for the fact that the newly minted conservative ideologue McCain has morphed - again - into a populist in the face of this crisis. Thanks for the steady hand John, I really hope you're in charge for the next one. Besides that, it appears that we've been trying to determine whether or not a President McCain would allow paella in the White House.

Ben realizes there may be some hypocrisy in McCain accusing Obama of cheerleading the crisis.

Ambers tries to get to the bottom of whether McCain really hates Spain and aggregates the battleground polls. Plus, McCain's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week.

Nate tracks a HUGE swing back to Obama in their projection model and examines the increasing possibility of an electoral college tie.

Palin has gone from most to least popular national ticket member in the last week.

And if you're in PA, make sure to help the living members of the Dead support Obama!

Leak from the Onion-- Obama's Gmail Account!

Afternoon Arugula

Sorry we've been slow on the clips this week, Education Dude has been traveling. We'll do a big one later to make up for it. On that note:

Ambers thinks the McCain campaign is the McCain campaign's worst enemy. He also thinks that the race is returning to something more familiar, except for the fact that:

the Obama campaign will have a massive resource advantage in each state it contests. In past elections, Democrats have had to pull together GOTV operations on the fly as if cramming for the final; this cycle, their field teams are extravagant and efficient. These are multiplier machines, and they're already turned on, culling, identifying and persuading tens of thousands of new voters.

Ambers also reminds us that campaigns aren't won by figuring out how to get the most electoral votes ... they're won by following the path that provides the highest probability of getting 270 of them.

When McCain Says "Fundamentals of Our Economy," He Means Puppies. Ergo, Obama Hates Puppies!!!!

For months, John McCain has been saying that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. He made a similar statement yesterday after the Lehman Bros bloodbath.

Yesterday, I'd give McCain an A for taking one for the team. Sure, the fundamentals of our economy don't look super strong when 3 of the 5 largest investment banks implode over a weekend. But, markets are cyclical, and maybe trying to garner investor confidence is the best way to turn the corner.

But clearly, such unbridled optimism plays into Obama's "McCain is out of touch" argument.

So what's a Karl Rove-inspired campaign to do? Simple. Redefine "fundamentals of our economy." McCain:

Well it’s obviously true that the workers of America are the fundamentals of our economy, and our strength and our future. And I believe in the American worker, and someone who disagrees with that – it’s fine.

Now next time Obama criticizes McCain for saying the "fundamentals of our economy are strong," he's not saying that McCain is out of touch-- he's saying that the American worker is weak! And did you know that Obama sometimes doesn't wear a flag pin?!?! And he probably hates puppies, too!

Thanks for the Straight Talk, John.

-Law Dude

Calling Conservative Dudes and Dudettes

We've been giving Sarah Palin a hard time on this blog for a while now (see here, here, here, here, and here).

Anyone care to defend Sarah? Leave a comment or email us at liberaldudes@gmail.com.

Fareed to U.S. Foreign Policy: Chill Out

The most enduring and dangerous legacy of World War II on U.S. foreign policy has been a worldview devoid of shades of gray. Potential adversaries become pure evil. Negotiations are nothing more than repeats of Munich.

Fareed Zakaria speaks truth:

It's also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to "Finlandize" Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Don't get me wrong, the pure evil label may fit some of our enemies (see Al Qaeda; the Taliban). But when prioritizing responses to threats and less clear-cut adversaries (see Putinized Russia; China), some nuance can go a long way.

-Law Dude

Weekend Caviar

Who cares about Derek Zoolander anyway? The man has only one look, for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I invented the piano key necktie, I invented it! What have you done, Derek? You've done nothing! NOTHIIIING!
- Mugatu

NYTimes Editorial board had a crazy pill moment themselves today:

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

Obama campaign, how bout using some of this for a new campaign commercial?

-Law Dude

The Toes Are Slipping Over the Line

McCain’s new ads are the kind of stuff most people will dismiss now, saying things like, “Yeah, this is pretty rough, but it’s a national campaign.”

But in a few years, we’ll look back and say, “Holy shit, that was straight up race baiting.”

Afternoon Arugula

Fallows has the best take on the Palin interview, methinks. I’ll ruin the money shot for you, but you must read the whole thing to appreciate the argument:

“What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues.”

The best speculation yet on the Obama-Clinton meeting.

Barack Obama: Shadow President. I think Sullivan is right on this, just another example of how good Obama’s judgment is.

He also eviscerates Kristol. I might start an official “Andrew-Sullivan-spontaneously-combusting” watch.

TPM looks at what Palin’s earmarks look like when scaled nationally. It’s a good thing she has never asked for them, according to her running mate.

Matt’s waiting for the “liar” narrative too. Seriously, guys, he keeps lying. Sullivan isn't nuts.

The weird earmark war.

Klein finds out that even McCain’s top economic advisor admits that McCain will raise taxes.

And the hardest hitting news team on television finally takes McCain to task.

Gloves Off

I think the new aggressiveness from the Obama camp is palpable today.  If you don't feel it yet, wait for the PM clips.

Please Stay Healthy, McCain....

Had Bush actually followed the Bush Doctrine, the world would be a safer place. And when I say the Bush Doctrine, I'm talking about the original, "If your country harbors terrorists then we'll treat you as a terrorist" Bush Doctrine and not the Preemptive War Bush Doctrine.

If Bush followed the original, we'd have had enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the country and wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of troops tied up in Iraq, thereby giving us greater flexibility (and moral authority) to deal with Al-Qaeda members operating out of the tribal regions of Pakistan.

Given that the original Bush Doctrine was a pretty good idea, it's sad that Palin's handlers forgot to tell her about it.



PS- If Palin had made substantive foreign policy statements prior to being nominated, I would not assume that most of her foreign policy positions are simply regurgitations of what McCain's advisers are telling her to say.

-Law Dude

New Idea for an Obama Ad

Starts with a black screen.  Cuts to a blow-up of an actuarial table, demonstrating the 33% likelihood that McCain dies in his first term, with voiceover reinforcing that fact.

Cut to video of Palin asking "What exactly does the VP do?"

Follow that with a fast-paced photo montage of a cavemen riding a dinosaur, a price tag on a rape kit, a bridge to nowhere, a plane listing on eBay, and a baby seal flopping around on a bunch of hundred dollar bills, a la Demi Moore in "Indecent Proposal."

"I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

Game changer.

Dear Obama, Please Hire Matt Damon

The Obama campaign needs to stop ignoring Palin and start engaging her. A good start would be pressuring her to accept a news conference. Even better? Hire Matt Damon.



-Law Dude

More on That Obama-Clinton Lunch

The NYTimes has a good picture of the Obama-Clinton meeting in NYC.

Also, we learn this important nugget:

The lunch menu, according to the campaign, was a choice of sandwiches and flatbread pizza from Cosi, plus salad. Beverages were not specified.

DAMNIT!!! Tell me what they f'ing drank!!!

-Education Dude

Afternoon Arugula

You know how some folks ask, “If you could have been in one place in history, where would it have been?” Some say on the grassy knoll, others the birth of Jesus. Here’s my new one.

New Blog! Phil Singer wants McCain to remember times he disagreed with Bush. Crickets …

Ezra doesn’t think all bad ideas are created equal but that “more of the same” is one of them.

He also ponders the structural nature of elections … should make us more confident!

Matt considers the metaphysics of calling oneself a serious person. Seriously.

I’m a little afraid that Sullivan is going to explode.

Prediction … we’ll be talking about seal DNA within 48 hours.

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

Ambers is hearing reports of push polling in MI, OH, and PA. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck ….

Matt revives our change argument in a discussion of the Department of the Interior scandal.

Nate points out the need to take back “change.”

Ben Smith gets meta.

Feeling the angst.

Afternoon Arugula

Sullivan longs for Putin as his last shred of respect for McCain evaporates.

Matt liked the Obama education speech, too.

Will saying there’s backlash really cause a backlash?? Let’s see!

Sam Stein to John McCain: “Don’t go there.”

Fallows gets in on this week’s extensive bout of media navel-gazing.

Nate has a very unique take on the outrage du jour. Today’s most interesting read.

Also, news flash! Progressives got cable! NPR to announce 24 cable news channel featuring Diane Rheem topless …