bad metaphor

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall offers a great summary on the whole ACORN fiasco that’s got Republicans seething. The allegation is that ACORN, a shadowy organization backing Obama (another community organizer!) is backing a massive voter fraud effort, to cast fake votes and therefore steal the election away in key swing states from McCain.

In short: ACORN is a program committed to increasing voter registration, particularly those in low-income and minority neighborhoods. The program doesn’t rely on volunteers; they provide work and income for people who need the money. Since the workers are paid per number of registrations turned in, there is an incentive to turn in fake registrations. And some do.

In many states, voter registrants are required by law to turn in every single registration form they receive to county clerk offices. ACORN will sift through the forms turned in by their workers, and try to flag obvious fake registrations. But they still have to turn in every form they get.

Perhaps they should refine their methods. After all, ACORN is the organization getting ripped off, paying workers for registrations that don’t exist. The bottom line is that there has never been any evidence to demonstrate that these fake registrations will result in actual voter fraud. Logistically, it’s just not feasible – you have to round up enough individuals to show up at the polls, presenting fake names (and fake IDs), and even if you managed to do that, there’s no guarantee that these voter mercenaries will even vote for your candidate. If you were going to commit voter fraud on a scale massive enough to sway an election, far easier and more efficient to hack a Diebold machine.

In fact, remember all those Bush-appointed attorneys that were wrongfully fired? It was because they couldn’t find or would not fake this evidence.

I have not been as concerned as some about assassination attempts on Obama, because I’ve trusted that the Secret Service knows what it’s doing. After all, we have a sitting president with an approval rating below 30%, sending people’s kids in harm’s way for an equally unpopular war – and I’ve not heard of any serious attempts on Bush. So I’ve trusted that the suits with the earpieces can competently do their job and shield the potential first African-American president from any unhinged nuts with too much time on their hands.

But this week, seeing the McCain and especially Palin rallies sent an absolute chill down my spine. McCain/Palin supporters yelling “terrorist”, “traitor”, and even “kill him!”, and one guy actually waving a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker on its head — they’re getting nigh indistinguishable from Klan rallies. Finally, at a Friday event, McCain made a half-hearted attempt to shut down some of the craziness that he and his campaign have been fueling all week. He was promptly booed for this faint injection of decency by his own supporters.

Now I don’t believe for a second that McCain buys into the fears stoked by his own campaign about Obama. And I suspect it wasn’t his decision to use this strategy, so much as his handlers and campaign managers – particularly Tucker Eskew, a consultant who had worked for GWB in 2000 and who was the very architect of that vicious “illegitimate black baby” smear against McCain. But what does that say about McCain’s ability to lead, if he can’t control the direction of his campaign, or of his supporters? And what does that say about him, that he would be willing to join forces with the same despicable people who’d slandered him and his family back in 2000? To slander the Obamas?

In contrast, Obama’s rallies have been largely uplifting and positive. Of course this is probably an artifact of a winning campaign; if your guy is winning, you’ll naturally tend to be happier and more charitable towards the loser. But I do think a lot of credit has to be given to the Obama campaign’s message control, and that Obama has by and large set that positive tone for his supporters.

The fact is, McCain has nowhere to go but negative. At this point he is not winning on issues that matter, particularly the economy, and desperate efforts to throw conflicting solutions are not bolstering confidence. Nearly 100% of McCain’s ad buys are negative, attacking Obama rather than making the case for McCain.

It doesn’t look like this is a winning strategy for McCain, and I’m confident at this point that our next president will be Barack Obama. I do fear very intensely, though, that McCain’s current “attack Obama’s character and accuse him of being a terrorist” strategy will incite desperate racists to do something crazy. God forbid something happen to Obama. But in the event that something did, I will remember this week, and John McCain’s silent acceptance of the hate-mongering surrounding him.

You can read Frank Rich’s take on this in his column in yesterday’s New York Times.

A fascinating and fairly morbid look into how the foreclosure crisis is destroying entire communities, and creating new challenges. The correspondent follows a trashing crew as they go from foreclosed house to foreclosed house, sifting through people’s abandoned belongings. People oftentimes leave in a hurry, as though fleeing a sudden natural disaster – food on plates, toys, photos, birth certificates. Even someone’s ashes were left behind.

Bottom line – the subprime mortgage crisis has resulted in a lot of waste, broken dreams and wrecked lives. Yes you can say it’s the fault of the people who entered into these bad mortgages, and you might be right to some extent. But that’s only part of the story. A lot of banks and firms made an insane amount of profit pushing these mortgages on people. Now that the foundation of the house of cards has collapsed, we’re going to be seeing the pain spread over the next few years.

For more insight into how the insanity and unchecked greed spread at all levels, check out this episode of the fantastic podcast ‘This American Life,’ called The Giant Pool of Money.

Last night, we had a special political edition of our weekly potluck. All our food and beverage was (very loosely) related to the candidates in some way: I made “mooseburger” casserole (actually lamb, cause where am I gonna get moose in Kansas?), Krissy made “pigs in lipstick” pork with cranberry sauce, Sarah brought chicken hazelnut marsala (I still don’t get that one), and another friend of mine made moose track cookies. Krissy, being a hospitable girl, also invited two brothers to the potluck – nice guys who are new to town and needed a social scene! One of the brothers had been to our potlucks before, and apparently somehow we hadn’t scared him off with our peculiar blend of vulgarity and dorkery. So we were happy to see him back with his brother in tow.

As we sat down to watch the debate, plates piled with food and bingo sheets at the ready, Krissy looked over at me and said “Oh, by the way, he’s a REPUBLICAN,” pointing at one of the brothers. Then afterwards followed an immediate look of regret and maybe panic on her face, as I turn to him and go “really?”

Now, let me explain the night from my point of view. I LOVE engaging in political discussion, and frankly I find it more interesting to talk with someone that doesn’t agree with me. So I asked him why he supports McCain over Obama, and he said “taxes,” so I mentioned that he might want to look up Obama’s tax plan and compare that with McCain’s (long and short of it: if your annual income is under $250,000, you’ll get a tax break under Obama, and even more of a benefit if your income is under $75,000). He mentioned that he’d heard that, but he was concerned because he is a small business owner, and then I started to try and talk with him about Obama’s plan to help support small businesses, when all of a sudden I noticed the horrified chirping from the two other girls in the room.

I looked over and both Krissy and Sarah were staring at me with frightened looks on their faces. From their perspective, I imagine, they were worried I would 1) offend our guest, who didn’t start the conversation about his political views, and might not want to discuss them or 2) be offended by my guest, just by virtue of the fact that he disagreed with me politically. At one point, Sarah even turned to me and whispered tensely, “Down, girl! Down!” I was pretty shocked, especially considering that I was trying to answer a question that he had about the debate. His question was something along the lines of “what are the candidates even talking about when they discuss corruption on Wall Street?” and it was a valid question considering how often that vague term is tossed about, and I gave the example of credit rating agencies relaxing their standards because it was profitable to do so. Nothing politically incendiary, yet the girls seemed to act as though I’d detonated a bomb or something!

Taken aback, I asked the Republican guy and his brother if I have offended them, and they insisted “no, no, you’re fine, we actually like talking about this.” And you know, maybe they were just politely tiptoeing around meanie old dragon me, breathing fire in their faces, but I really didn’t sense that anyone was upset besides the girls. I thought I was careful to not be offensive or patronize him because of his views, a trap that liberals often fall into, but I don’t see a point in sweeping one’s political views under the rug. Especially at, you know, a politics-themed event! (At my house even!)

There is a definite sense, I think, that politics is not something to be discussed in “polite society.” Maybe it’s because we’re nice Midwesterners who don’t like conflict. I’ve even speculated that there’s a gender element to this too – in my anecdotal experience, girls tend to be shyer about getting into political discussions in public than boys (this may be an effect or cause of the fact that most of my friends are boys). Lately I haven’t noticed this as much because of the intense interest in politics, even among previously apathetic types. It seems as everyone’s got an opinion and commentary on this election, whether it be grannies in the checkout line, the bus driver, gas station clerk, or whomever.

But there’s still this reluctance to actually talk to people who might disagree with you politically. Not shout at them or call them names or belittle them, but actually talk to them and hear what they have to say. This is actually one of the many reasons I favor the Obama / Biden approach to policy-making – the idea that much can be achieved from open communication. It’s not a cure-all, obviously, and negotiations can break down. But it should absolutely be the very first option attempted, well before the use of force, which should be the last resort.

I don’t think anyone has much to gain from ignoring the elephant in the room. I see the purpose of politics as trying to get a large number of people with varying interests to form a consensus. And you can, in fact, talk with people who fundamentally disagree with you on issues, without resorting to mudslinging or vitriol. Moreover, I think you should – what fun is it to live life in a constant echo chamber?

p.s. – Krissy, I love you and didn’t write this post to pick on you! But you know you can’t invite a Republican to my house, and expect me not to try and talk some sense into him