Search Results for: ’

The fledgling right-wing propaganda war continues in the Senate race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken. As of yesterday’s midnight deadline, Franken trails Coleman by 206 out of 2.9 million votes.

The latest error-prone Wingding propaganda piece comes from Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. writing an opinion piece for Fox News. Lott, a right-wing academic, begins his article by insinuating something sinister behind the changing vote tallies:

[On Wednesday morning,] Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 — a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount.

It is hard to know if this is genuinely spin or whether Lott is simply unaware of elementary elections procedures. Changes in vote totals are almost guaranteed in the days leading up to initial certification. There are numerous reasons for this, including ongoing tallying of absentee and provisional ballots, correction of tabulating and reporting errors, and resolution of disputed ballots. In Minnesota, however, the changes are mostly corrections of tabulating and reporting errors because absentee ballots must be received by election day, and with election day registration possible, provisional ballots are not used. (In 2006, Minnesota had no provisional ballots cast. I am unclear whether provisional ballots play any role in Minnesota’s new voter challenge procedures.) Some ballots do remain uncounted at the time the polls close on election day:

Ramsey County found 55 absentee ballots which arrived on time to be counted on election day, but which were not. Those results have now been included in the new totals.

Counting these ballots will obviously affect subsequent reporting.

Contrary to Lott’s insinuations, the only thing unusual about these changes is that people are paying attention:

…county auditors are finding minor errors as they’re proofing their unofficial numbers before shipping them to St. Paul, said John Aiken, spokesman for Secretary Mark Ritchie.

“The counties are trying to be as accurate and transparent as possible. You’ll see fluctuations here and there,” Aiken said.

It happens all the time in every election, he said. The only difference is that for most elections, the margin is much wider and the election less prominent. Here, he said, “The eyes of the nation are on this Senate race.”

Lott goes on to “analyze” the errors, and he offers alarmist rhetoric that overlooks the specifics of known cases. For example, one case of an additional 100 votes for Franken simply reflected a typo:

In Pine County, an election official accidentally entered 24 votes for Franken on Tuesday night instead of the 124 he actually received. The mistake was caught on Thursday and the numbers changed, said Jim Gelbmann from the Secretary of State’s office.

In another case, the change reflected a failure to report any result at all:

In northeastern Minnesota, the town of Buhl’s ballots had been cast but not counted in statewide totals. It turns out election officials there counted the votes but never called them in. […]

Election official Mike Buchanan said that when Buhl election officials arrived a work at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, “we received a phone call from St. Louis County — they wanted our election numbers.”

They got them.

Coleman received 152 votes in Buhl and Franken got 343, for a difference of 191 in the Democratic candidate’s favor. Not enough to change the results, but enough to tighten the contest even more.

Sinister! Sinister, I tell you!

Lott’s specifics-free discussion of the precincts from which Franken’s votes came ends with this bit of factually challenged, pure Wingnut propaganda:

It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

This is the kind of statement that somehow seems authoritative—I mean, using words like “statistically more likely” and all. But it is bullshit technobabble. Statisticians use the term “statistically more likely” to refer to a result that exceeds some benchmark by an amount that is (probabilistically) outside of the sampling error. When the entire population is surveyed (as, say, when all voters in an election are considered), there is no sampling error. A difference is just a difference (or every difference is statistically significant). So Lott either doesn’t understand statistics (doubtful) or he is trying to bullshit us.

Lott offers more sloppy propaganda:

The recent Washington State 2006 gubernatorial recount is probably most famous for the discovery of ballots in heavily Democratic areas that had somehow missed being counted the first and even second time around. Minnesota is already copying that, though thus far on a much smaller scale, with 32 absentee ballots being discovered in Democratic Hennepin County after all the votes had already been counted.

In fact, the 32 absentee ballots in Hennepin County (and the 55 absentee ballots found in Ramsey County) are part of the first count. Even so, it is possible additional ballots will be found in the Minnesota recount. What of it? The whole purpose of a recount to ensure that every ballot is counted and counted correctly. Ironically, it was Republican Dino Rossi’s campaign in the 20064 Washington state race that ended up hunting down additional ballots—after the second recount.

Lott then goes on to downplay expectations that the recount will affect much about the election. He poo-poos an AP article about the magnitude of the undervote, and its possible significance. He incorrectly suggests that voters are warned about undervotes in Minnesota. This is simply incorrect—overvotes are flagged, not undervotes.

Optical scan machines do make mistakes. Minnesota estimates this error rate after each election by conducting audits in about 5% of precincts. The 2006 results gave a rate of 53 errors in 94,073 votes cast. Indeed, in Ramsey County yesterday, the machine audit found Franken gaining one vote out of 7,700 counted.

Lott uses his misunderstanding of the optical scanning machines to raise the same old tired talking points against “voter intent”:

There should be no role to divine voters’ intentions. If a voter wanted a vote recorded for a particular race, the machine tells him whether his vote in all the races was counted.

Yes, there really is a role for discerning voter intent—it’s the law. Minnesota, as a voter intent state, provides clear guidelines on how voter intent is to be discerned.

Finally, Lott offers a Wingnut taking point that has no place in this discussion:

With ACORN filing more than 43,000 registration forms this year, 75 percent of all new registrations in the state, Minnesota was facing vote fraud problems even before the election. Even a small percentage of those registrations resulting in fraudulent votes could tip this election.

Un-huh. I suppose it is possible that Lott has been in a vacuum and actually believes this crap. More likely, he knows better, but just throws this out as Wingnut bullshit designed to cast doubt on the election. Specifically, he is exploiting the widely publicized fact that some ACORN employees have made up registrations (i.e. they have defrauded ACORN, who pays them for registering new potential voters)—information that has come to light in some cases because ACORN has reported what they believe are fake registration forms. Unless Lott believes that dishonest workers subsequently go on to recruit people to go vote as Micky Mouse, there is no link between real people registered by ACORN and “vote fraud problems” at the polls.

So…that is the latest in wingnuttery over this race. Get ready for the howls of “election fraud” when the voter crediting numbers turn out to be less than the numbers of ballots cast.

This past week saw the passage of nearly every drug law reform initiative on ballots across the country. Among the big ones, medical marijuana is now legal in Michigan. Possession of up to an ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized in Massachusetts and replaced with a $100 civil infraction. And Hawaii County, Hawaii residents made marijuana enforcement the lowest priority for the police. All three initiatives were landslides. In fact, the percentages of people voting for the initiatives in Michigan and Massachusetts were higher than the percentages who voted for Obama.

The result was clearly not from a lack of opposition. Drug Czar John Walters even traveled to Michigan in October to beg people not to vote for medical marijuana (which is probably a violation of The Hatch Act of 1939). In Massachusetts, law enforcement officials actively campaigned against the decriminalization measure. Now that the voters have loudly stood up for more sensible drug policy, law enforcement officials are throwing temper tantrums over it. Let’s break down five of the dumbest things said this past week by those who can’t figure out why voters are giving them the finger.

1. Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association representative Jim Carnell

“Few people, if any, who were arrested for simple possession were ever in any real jeopardy of a serious nature, provided they learned from past transgressions.”

The initiative in Massachusetts has law enforcement officials all twisted around. After complaining that the initiative was unnecessary because pot smokers never really had anything bad happen to them, they’re now complaining about how there’s no teeth to the marijuana laws any more. It’s been comical to watch them try to have it both ways.

The major reason why this initiative was needed was because people with an arrest for even minor marijuana possession will have a lifelong criminal record that makes it difficult for them to obtain housing and jobs, even if there wasn’t a conviction. In 2006, nearly 7,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession. Now, the vast majority of those people would only be written a $100 ticket (although there’s an interesting question as to whether police can ask for a person’s ID to be able to write that ticket).

2. Holyoke, MA Police Chief Anthony Scott

“It’s basically telling young people that it’s okay to possess an ounce or less of marijuana, after we have been spending millions of dollars trying to tell kids to say no to drugs, not to drink, and to quit smoking.”

This is totally ridiculous. Alcohol and cigaretters are legal for adults. Does that mean that we have to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal in order to tell kids that they shouldn’t drink or smoke? There’s nothing dangerous about treating marijuana the same way we treat alcohol or cigarettes. In fact, cigarette smoking among young people has been dropping. We didn’t have to make it illegal to accomplish that.

3. Six Michigan Law Enforcement Officials

“How do law enforcement officers respond to marijuana growing operations when the owners claim that they are “caregivers” who must cultivate marijuana for their customers?”

It’s very simple. You should find out if they’re telling the truth, and if they are, let them be.

It never ceases to amaze me that law enforcement officials think that when they bust a marijuana grow operation that they’ve somehow completely eradicated marijuana from their area. They actually believe that they’re some “front line” against marijuana, and that if they didn’t do what they do, all hell would be breaking loose. It’s just another example of the great adage that “a man will never understand something if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.”

Whenever a grow operation is busted, another one that doesn’t get busted just gets richer. In the end, organized criminals end up controlling the entire trade and getting filthy rich. Not exactly a smart way to protect people in a community, but for reasons that continually amaze me, law enforcement officials will fight tooth and nail to keep doing it this way.

4. Hawaii County, HI Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna

“If you’re pro-drug, or pro-marijuana, you’re automatically pro-terrorist.”

What a moron. I don’t even know what to say.

5. The Drug Czar’s new ad campaign

“Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren’t many jobs out there for potheads.”

Actually, there a quite a few jobs out there for pot smokers. For one, President. The last time we had a President who’d never smoked pot before was 1992. There’s a video here with the many, many other people who smoke pot and have jobs, including scientists, businessmen, and entertainers. Personally, I know of doctors, lawyers, corporate executives, and people of all walks of life who enjoy smoking pot. The myths about this drug are dying. Hopefully, prohibitionists will figure this out and stop making asses of themselves.

There’s no question the economic downturn has been hard on house builders. But at least one BIAW-affiliated official is optimistic. Here’s David Roewe, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Clark County, the local unit of the BIAW, in a Columbian business section article:

Roewe predicted home sales would improve after the first of the year and continue to pick up in the second quarter of 2009.

“Springtime is when you’ll see the release of money, with the new (presidential) administration in office,” he said.

See, even some BIAW folks are rooting for President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress to succeed. Now that’s refreshing.

I’m in the midst of writing a rather longish post-election analysis of the gubernatorial race, attempting to explain Gov. Chris Gregoire’s decisive victory in what most observers expected to be a nail-biter of a rematch, but I thought I’d take a moment to quickly share a rather heretical observation:  Gregoire not only ran a better campaign, her winning strategy was exemplified by her much maligned ads attacking Dino Rossi for opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Of course it is true, as many critics have pointed out, that few if any voters would cast their ballots based on an issue the Seattle Times angrily argued had “nothing to do” with the job of governor, but that critique misses the broader symbolic value of the issue.  What the Gregoire campaign accomplished with these ads was something they failed to even attempt in 2004:  they defined Rossi as a religious conservative, a strategy that ultimately pays off big dividends with our state’s politically split, but decidedly socially libertarian electorate.

In fact, I’d argue that the Gregoire campaign borrowed an earmarked page from the Republican playbook, successfully portraying the Governor as the candidate who best represented the values of the majority of voters.  And toward that end, these stem cell ads proved to be an extremely effective if subtle tactic.

One could have attacked Rossi on his opposition to legal abortion, but a lot of people oppose abortion on moral grounds, and we tend to be a religiously tolerant nation.  One could have attacked Rossi on the pharmacist rule or abstinence only sex education, but these are complicated issues not easily explained in a 30-second spot.  But the stem cell research issue proved to be a perfect proxy, defining Rossi as a candidate who would impose his own conservative religious values even into the realm of science, adversely affecting the ability of individuals to make health care decisions for themselves.  In effect, these stem cell ads defined Rossi as too conservative for Washington, along the lines of Ellen Craswell and John Carlson.

Indeed, this values theme was repeated throughout Gov. Gregoire’s paid media, for example, on the issues of education and children’s health care.  Even on the issue of our state’s projected multi-billion dollar revenue shortfall, the Gregoire campaign focused on her pro-children values, emphasizing that Rossi attempted to cut health care for 40,000 children while the Governor expanded the rolls, and that Gregoire had increased spending on education while Rossi’s transportation spending proposal would come at the expense of our schools.  Who do you best trust to balance our budget, Gregoire asked, leaving it to voters to choose the candidate who best represented their values.

By comparison, the Rossi campaign was for the most part value free, attacking Gregoire on her performance in office—taxes, spending, budget deficit, etc.—while failing to even attempt to define the Governor as too liberal, apart from a half-hearted last ditch effort to claim she would impose an income tax.  Likewise, following 2004’s successful Tabula Rossi strategy—in which voters read moderation into his refusal to discuss social issues—Rossi even declined to define himself.  Only this time around, the Gregoire campaign did it for him.  As Stuart Elway noted in his October poll:

“Gregoire has an edge on values among those who care most about those issues.  Gregoire is seen as Moderate Liberal.  Rossi is seen as conservative.  He wasn’t in 2004.”

This shift in public perception of Rossi’s values proved to be one of the major differences between 2004 and 2008… and it didn’t happen by accident.  Score one for the Gregoire campaign.

From Editor and Publisher yesterday:

The American Press Institute (API) will host an invitation-only, closed-door “summit conference” Nov. 13 in which 50 CEO-level executives will ponder ways to revive the newspaper business.

The one-day conference at API’s Reston, Va., headquarters will be “a facilitated discussion of concrete steps the industry can take to reverse its declines in revenue, profit and shareholder value.”

And here’s Robert MacMillan of Reuters writing about the closed door policy at the crisis summit in a post today:

Many sources whom we deal with in the media world — particularly reporters, editors and other members of the editorial staff — find it funny that the industry they’re in (finding and reporting information, truthsquadding the government, holding the powerful accountable, etc. etc.) relies on publishers and other executives who are among the most press-averse people in the business world. Some executives talk. But many others hide, and only come out once a quarter to share some more bad news.

Maybe reporters should try publishing false accounts of their owners’ educational backgrounds, that might shake things up a bit. We’ll call it the Heffter-Pickler Reporting Method.

As the GOP faces day two of 40 years in the desert, the stories about what they should do are coming fast and furious, both nationally and locally.

The Columbian quotes Clark County Republican chair Ryan Hart thusly:

“I think that this is still a center-right country,” Hart said. “We have a message that reflects the majority of the electorate. … We just need to find candidates that can clearly articulate that message.”

To be clear, I’m not trying to mess with Hart, who has conducted himself as the Republican chair here with aplomb and decency. And what he’s saying is pretty common.

[Read more…]

From November, 2004:

This past election cycle, [the BIAW] spent between $1.7 million and $1.8 million, mostly in support of three candidates: Republican gubernatorial hopeful Dino Rossi, Republican Attorney General-elect Rob McKenna, and conservative state Supreme Court Justice-elect Jim Johnson. Erin Shannon, the BIAW’s public relations director, is thrilled with the results: “It was a big ‘Fuck you!’ to all the liberals out there.”

Hey Erin… after pissing away over $7 million in the governor’s race, imbuing your illegal smear campaign with the BIAW’s own nasty and dishonest spirit, only to see your boy Rossi get trounced by an 8 to 10 point margin… exactly who is getting their ass kicked these days?

I’m just askin’….

Looks like turnout is heavy in Clark County. Which was already known because of mail in voting, but it sounds like people are coming out in large numbers to do things like get ballots because they have moved. From The Columbian:

“There were people showing up before 7,” said Elinor Perlich, an election worker manning a drop-box at Image Elementary School in northeast Vancouver.

Many of the 33 drop-box locations reported having to empty ballot boxes into plastic totes, filled with hundreds of ballots coming in on Election Day. Many voters who have moved since the last election headed to the Elections Office at 1408 Franklin St. to pick up fresh ballots.

“Our line’s getting longer and longer here,” county elections Supervisor Tim Likness said shortly before noon.

Not quite the same as standing in line to vote, but clearly the enthusiasm is there. The weather down here has been chilly but while doing errands for part of the day I never got rained on.

Maybe I’m being too sanguine, but I kind of wonder if stuff like this is really going to matter as much as it did in the past. Columbian reporter Michael Andersen has this article this morning:

For the second time in four years, would-be casino developer David Barnett is dropping tens of thousands of last-minute dollars to stop Tom Mielke from becoming a Clark County commissioner.

On Wednesday, a Seattle-based company owned by Barnett bought $59,000 in mailers opposing Mielke, state records show.

—snip—

Last week, the county Republican Party, boosted by a big donation from the local Building Industry Association, dropped $41,800 in a sharp anti-Brokaw mailing and TV campaign.

Mielke’s direct donations include $7,500 from La Center’s four existing casinos, which have long opposed a larger tribal operation nearby.

Things will change somewhat next cycle, as a sidebar to Andersen’s piece points out, if Clark County continues to have over 200,000 registered voters. That would result in the triggering of contribution limits. It won’t do anything about independent expenditures, though, so I guess this sort of thing will likely continue in the future.

Another thing in Andersen’s article: something like half the ballots have already been returned, so the folks who can afford to drop wads of cash at the last minute are seeing a diminished return.

I don’t know of a Constitutional way to deal with independent expenditures, but it sure gets old. Neither the BIAW nor Dave Barnett have the interests of the entire citizenry at heart. It’s just a game to them, if admittedly a game involving the mountains of money they hope to make by influencing public policy. Meanwhile, the regular old Joe (is everyone named Joe?) watches as his community struggles to pay for basic services like parks, roads and public safety. Maybe voting in large numbers will help.

Just a few minutes ago on KUOW’s The Conversation, Seattle Times editorial board member Joni Balter kvelled over her paper’s editorial independence and quirkiness, boasting:

“You’d have to open our paper to figure out who we are going to endorse.”

Uh-huh.  And yet, back on September 21, I accurately predicted the Times’ endorsement in every single contested federal and statewide race:

As expected, the Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States, paving the way for endorsements of Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all the while leaving their vaunted bipartisan principles intact.  At least, in their own minds.

In fact, with the possible exception of the race for Commissioner of Public Lands, I can’t imagine a single additional closely contested statewide or federal race in WA state in which the Times endorses a Democrat.

So if your ed board is so unpredictable, Joni, how do you explain my prediction?

Democrat George Fearing’s campaign is touting a new internal poll showing that he’s closed to within 52-47 against “Do Nuthin’ Doc” Hastings in central Washington’s 4th Congressional District… a truly stunning margin in this very Republican district.

Voters in Washington’s 4th Congressional District are clearly unhappy with the direction of the country (79% wrong track).  […] On the question of “Are you happy with the performance of your Congressman”, 65% of voters said ‘No’.

I’ve met Fearing a couple times, and he’s come across as a great guy who would make an excellent congressman, but given his lack of resources, the dearth of media coverage and his district’s Republican leanings, nobody really expected this race to be that close.

Still, this is a pretty cranky electorate (and with good reason), so while I wouldn’t bet money on Fearing, I wouldn’t entirely dismiss this poll either.  Who knows… perhaps we have the biggest upset in the nation brewing in our own backyard?

UPDATE:
Of course, Jon had this earlier, but I just wanted to add my own two cents.

In response to Wednesday’s expulsion of me and Josh from a Dino Rossi press conference, I wondered out loud if our friends (and enemies) in the traditional media would stand up for the rights of their new media colleagues:

I don’t know if there are some in the old press who applaud these efforts to exclude new media journalists like me, but they certainly don’t seem to be standing up for us.

Well, it turns out that at least a few print journalists have stood up, and I want to thank them for their support.

Over at The Stranger, Josh’s former co-worker Erica C. Barnett slogged on Josh’s plight, remarking that she’s “still pissed” about the one time she was asked to leave a press conference.  She offers this sage advice:

People who work with the media need to learn that you get better press by letting the media (even the partisan media!) in than by excluding them.

Meanwhile, Bellingham Herald political reporter Sam Taylor offers his own defense of both me and my medium:

I would strongly wager that, while my page views are pretty dang big here in our area, Goldy’s make mine look like a tiny, female Chinese gymnast (of legal age to compete, of course) in a Sumo wrestling contest. Blogging is the new journalism, my friends. Mark my words.

But I was most heartened to read Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey’s first hand account of the incident, not only vouching for my description of the events, but defending my media credentials, partisan or not:

Being an employee of a big paper, I have hardly ever had that happen to me. The one time I remember was in the 90s as a business reporter being denied entry to a stockholder meeting of the Fisher Companies, which was then under SEC rules a public company. I was furious–shaking–and a good deal less polite to the Fisher vice-president who kicked me out than Goldy was yesterday–and I don’t regret anything I said to that Fisher man, or about him, thereafter. My experience wasn’t exactly the same as Goldy’s, but close enough.

Obviously, a lawyer holding a press conference in his private offices may let in who he likes and exclude who he likes. It may well be, as Goldy suspects, that they excluded him because he’s anti-Rossi, and because his style of expression is less than genteel. Maybe even the name of his blog has something to do with it. But for the record: Goldy is part of the media in Seattle. People who follow politics know who he is. They read him. Whether Feit is paid, or how much he is paid, is beside the point. We are not media because of how much money we make, or that we make any at all. We are media because of what we do.

Goldy, or his man Feit, should have been let in.

As Ramsey clearly explained in the comment thread of a previous post, the Times op/ed page is opinion, and as such “is not bound to be evenhanded”… and I’d argue that yesterday’s Rossi apologia certainly wasn’t.  That was the sort of partisan editorial the Rossi campaign wanted and expected from the Times, and that is the sort of partisan editorial Ramsey delivered.  There is this convenient fiction that journalistic partisanship is a vice unique to the blogs, and that it inherently diminishes our credibility, but in this particular race it is fair to suggest that Ramsey and I are equally partisan… only in favor of different candidates.

In the end, Josh and I were excluded from the press conference not because we are partisans, and not because we are bloggers, but because Rossi’s handlers feared the difficult questions we might ask in the presence of a roomful of reporters.  The “partisan blogger” label was just a bullshit excuse.

Four years ago when I first started blogging, I didn’t really consider myself a journalist either, but over time both my blog and my thinking has evolved.  As Ramsey unequivocably argues, we are a legitimate part of the media, and it is in the public interest that we be treated that way. For as more and more traditional media moves online while blogs like mine expand the quantity and quality of our coverage, the line between the two will continue to blur, making any effort to ghettoize mere bloggers nothing more than a convenient excuse to deny access to journalists who produce unflattering coverage.

And when subjects get to pick and choose the reporters covering them rather than the other way around, our democracy loses.

Looks like even long-time Republican incumbents are really feeling the heat. So what should Republicans do? In the case of struggling state Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, the answer is predictable. Just lie.Senate Republicans Thursday accused Democrat David Carrier of violating state campaign finance laws by receiving $40,000 more from the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee over the past two weeks than the law allows his campaign to accept.

But Carrier, who is running to unseat Republican Sen. Don Benton, denied the charge, calling it “a complete lie.”

“What they’re trying to do is create the appearance of inappropriate activity that isn’t there,” he said.

And what exactly was the heinous crime that has the senate Republicans so exorcised?

Chris Gregorich, executive director of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, said the committee’s contributions remain well within the limit.

As of Thursday, he said, the Carrier campaign reported $31,070 in in-kind contributions and $14,000 in cash from the committee, for a total of $45,070.

Gregorich said the committee wrote a $30,000 check to the Carrier campaign on Oct. 12 that would have put the campaign over the legal limit. But he said the check was written in error by the committee’s treasurer and later destroyed.

Pass the smelling salts. Now the GOP Party is complaining about stuff that didn’t actually happen. It stretches credulity to believe that Senate Republicans actually believed their Democratic counterparts would violate contribution limits by $40,000. I mean, wisecracks aside, these are professional campaign operatives on both sides.

Besides, the voters could give a rip, especially right now. Little things like retirement funds and jobs are weighing a wee bit more on people’s minds than manufactured Republican outrage. But Republicans are always the victims, you know. It couldn’t possibly be that Republicans generally have few positive ideas and people are finally seeing through their boilerplate platitudes about taxes.

And with the PDC complaint coming on behalf of a special interest glutton like Benton, the whole kerfuffle is nothing but a last-weekend smear aimed to the GOP Party base. Like we’ve never seen this play before.

If nothing else it was good to see Carrier call them out on their lie. He’s one to watch.

Here’s hoping Carrier gets added to the list of incredibly pleasant surprises come Tuesday.

Worst. Campaign. Ever.

From Iowa State Daily:

Elborno said after seeing the people who were asked to leave, she was concerned that McCain’s staffers were profiling people on appearance to determine who might be a potential protester.

“When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked,” Elborno said. “It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic.”

Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

So you think that girl is going to continue to vote for Republicans?

McPalin is alienating an entire generation with their abusive, paranoid style. Four years ago at Shrub rallies you at least had to possess something terrorist-related like a Democratic tee shirt. Now you just have to look like you might want to vote for Obama.

Truly unbelievable. Let’s hope we can put a permanent end to this iteration of the institution known as the Republican Party. They have not one redeeming feature as a major political party. If they get their clocks cleaned as we all hope, when the inevitable “what went wrong” discussions start in earnest, honest grass roots Republicans are going to need to point out that the first step is to stop being lying, paranoid, vicious morons who throw their own supporters out of rallies.

Or, you know, honest Republicans can come on over to the big Democratic tent. Friendly discussions about the appropriate marginal tax rate can be held among fellow citizens of good will. If one truly believes a certain rate is too high, we can investigate it, listen to economists argue, and legislate it and so on. That’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s called governing.

(Props to Atrios.)