Syndicated

Chopping down on free speech and shutting down the
opposition

H/T to
Dan Riehl for this:

If the Democrats get to 60 seats in the
Senate, this is one of the many things that they will do to rig the
system in their favor. Last week, I wrote up
a list of other things that they will try.

Talking Points Memo is one of the most important sources of news and framing in American politics today. I simply don’t feel like I know what is going on in American politics if I don’t read it. You also learn how the left is thinking.

Over the last several years, TPM has been engaged in a highly successful attack on the Bush Administration attempts to enforce election laws that limit the universe of voters to registered voters. I am perfectly willing to believe that the Bush administration exceeded its authority in places, but you get the sense that TPM’s goal was only secondarily to expose lawbreaking on the part of the Bush adminsitration.

They are engaged in a very smart attempt to delegitimize our election laws that protect the integrity of the ballot. You can see this in an absolutely astonishing post below. It seems that they have no interest in the law even being followed. Nearly every sentence contains a framing that acts to legitmize the crimes of voter and registration fraud. The piece is itself titled "Nevada GOP cracking down on urban voters". Normally TPM has credible journalism. Sometimes they go off the intellectual rails so far to push their agenda that it is hard to figure out what they are any more.

Read on for details.

<!–break–>

This post is an example. Let’s take it line by line to understand how far they go to legitimize illegal voting.

So we know that fake people are registering to vote, via the AP:

The stories are almost comical: Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, registered to vote on Nov. 4. The entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, signed up to go the polls — in Nevada.

We know that sometimes, fake people vote fraudulently (note that it was by absentee. Hard to vote as Mickey Mouse in person, but it is really easy by absentee):

Republicans released details for 10 of those votes. The registration cards that were filled out had no social security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdates for the voters.

We know that sometimes, fake people give to campaigns fraudulently.

Two thoughts. The first is that there should be accountability for this. As Patrick  just noted, Barack Obama raised $150m last month, and only half of that money is disclosed. Now, I seriously doubt that Obama’s campaign is engaged in fraud. But they seem  uninterested in identifying it.

They should, like the McCain campaign, put all that information online, regardless of how much was given, including all the information about address, employer, etc. It’s not that hard. They have the technology to do it. When he is getting $75m in a month from sources that are not publically identified, that’s a problem. In theory, these are all different people, but given the possibility for fraud (temporary credit card numbers can make it even harder to check), this does create yet another kind of crisis of legitimacy surrounding this election.

Second,  Obama has destroyed the public financing system, handing conservatives a win on the policy, even if a substantial loss on the politics. Democrats said Republicans would do it, but they did. This is a good thing, long-term, and it should be replaced by full-disclosure of contributions within 24 hours of receipt of the donation. The easiest thing in the world with today’s technology. And it would allow individuals, groups, and the press to address the legitimacy issues in Obama’s donations (and others in the future).

The EU and Canada deepen economic relations

This morning’s WSJ notes an agreement between Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and French President (and rotating EU
President) Nicolas Sarkozy to expand trade relations:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Nicolas
Sarkozy of France signed an agreement Friday to begin negotiations
for a free trade pact between Canada and the European Union. A
Canada-EU study released last week outlines the joint economic
benefits of such a partnership, with two-way trade estimated to
increase 22.9% by 2014.

The proposed partnership goes a lot further than Nafta.
In addition to allowing free trade in goods and services, it would
harmonize regulations, open up the air-travel market, and boost
opportunities in government-procurement. Most important, it
would free the labor market so that skilled workers could move
easily back and forth across the Atlantic.

Of course, Barack Obama threatened to unilaterally renegotiate
NAFTA, so no wonder the Canadians are looking to Europe again for
expanded trade opportunities. Thus, Europe.
From CTV, a Canadian news outlet:

Transportation Minister Lawrence Cannon told Mike Duffy
Live that Canada “has to seek out new markets” in these times of
economic uncertainty.

The AP drops a story about a power and money scandal at ACORN involving the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke and his brother Dale:

The lawsuit filed in August by two board members accuses ACORN founder and former chief organizer Wade Rathke of either concealing or failing to properly report that his brother Dale embezzled around $948,000 from New Orleans-based ACORN and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000.

I wonder if this might expand to SEIU in general, which has been getting a lot of scrutiny due to a fight with the California Nurses Association and corruption in the LA branch, ably reported by the LA Times’ Paul Pringle.

The issue is that Wade and Dale Rathke have also been leaders of significant SEIU multi-state locals.

Wade Rathke also founded SEIU Local 100 in New Orleans (more broadly Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas) and is still the "Chief Organizer" of the local, which is headquartered at the ACORN office.

Meanwhile, in 2000, Dale Rathke, was the Treasurer for Local 880 in Chicago, while at the same time being CFO of the national ACORN organization. According to the Illinois State Senate in 2001, Local 880’s email address was seiu880ch@acorn.org.

So in 2000 while Dale Rathke was embezzling money from ACORN he was also the Treasurer for one of the most important SEIU mega-locals and filing their compliance forms with the Department of Labor. See the filing after the jump.

Seems like it might be worth some investigation.

<!–break–>

H/T to Matt Stoller for noting that Barack Obama abandoned another centrist position that he has been running on. No more PAYGO:

Tucked into tonight’s debate was a little noticed statement from Obama about fiscal responsibility and what he’ll have to cut.  He talked about how the country needs to live within its means and so he supports PAYGO, but importantly, also said we’ll have to get back to that after we get through these rough economic times.  I don’t have the exact quote but it’s very good news that he supports a Keynesian stimulus, and hopefully he’ll be able to bring the Blue Dogs along.  They want to renounce the stupid PAYGO rules, because making all policy revenue neutral prevents obviously good investment choices like bonding out government revenues to build mass transit, new energy systems, etc.

What other respnsible, centrist positions will Obama abandon? And are Republicans willing to fight to peel off Democratic Blue Dog votes to win a rules fight on PAYGO in a time of a trillion dollar deficit?

While it would seem disinegenuous, given previous objections to PAYGO that it prevented tax cuts. But tax cuts aren’t exactly on the horizon. Matt gives us the schedule::

The first discussion of any import within the new Democratic caucus will take place on November 17, when the caucus decides the rules they will vote on in January.  Those rules may include PAYGO or they may not; hopefully if they do include PAGYO there will be exceptions for investment activities that will eventually produce revenue.

Republicans and responsible people (only partial overlap) have between November 17th and some time in early January.

This is the first of a two-day discussion between TheNextRight.com (Soren Dayton and Jon Henke) and Culture11.com (James Poulos and Conor Friedersdorf) about the Best Case and Worst Case scenario for the Right in 2008.  Conor Friedersdorf’s contribution is here.  James Poulos contribution is here.  Jon Henke’s is here.  Soren Dayton continues.

I have felt for a long time that the GOP’s electoral collapse in 2008 is a disaster for America. While the GOP has demonstrated itself to the incompetent at both politics and governing, our country is facing serious issues. While the GOP’s answers and the answers of conservatives are not completely adequate for the questions of the day, the Democrats and the left are much, much worse. Whether it is the future of international institutions, labor relations, electoral reform, immigration, welfare, taxes, trade, the nationalization of our banking system, among others, it is likely that the right will not have a seat at the table while these issues are resolved.

So let’s take a deep breath and be adult for a moment. Without really disputing the points about conservatism benefitting from a sooner moment to reset and without disputing the real reasons that conservatives find John McCain wanting, the guy has to win for the sake of our country and our party.

The biggest dilemma that I see for us as conservatives or people of the right is the power of the left to enact policies that have long-term feedback loops. Let’s look at some examples:

• The Democrats are proposing the "Employee Free Choice Act" or card-check which would strip an employee of the freedom to choose — or even debate — the structure of their employment contract. Aside from the essential loss of freedom, this will flood the coffers of union PACs and divert union pension programs from their path towards self-destruction. A President McCain can simply veto this and fight this from the bully pulpit.
• The Democrats are already drafting electoral "reforms" that will validate the essentially criminal behavior of Ohio Democratic Secretary of State who (seemingly) willfully refuses to implement the checks of the Help America Vote Act. The Democrats will talk about expanding the franchise, but they will really strip out the checks on fraud that are such a compelling story right now with ACORN. This probably wouldn’t even come to a vote without a President Barack Obama to sign it.
• The Democrats are salivating at the possibility of delivering an immigration reform proposal that delivers a contrast with Republicans that will help solidify Latino votes for the Democrats. Republicans will be struck with a brand in the Latino community as hateful while giving the Democrats the image of compassionate problem solvers. McCain is a compassionate figure in the Latino community who can take credit for the passage of this legislation, regardless of what conservatives think.
• Obama’s tax proposals create incentives for the same kind of dependency that conservatives dismantled 12 years ago. Again, not even conceivable with a McCain presidency.
• Finally, Obama’s proposal to expanding the service corps is going end up looking like dropping 300,000 new ACORN-style organizers paid by the government. McCain has a service program, but is there any doubt that his would look quite different recruiting different kinds and people and deploying them differently?

Let’s be clear. If you thought that George W. Bush and Karl Rove were rigging the American political system against the left–a not unreasonable position–, Barack Obama and his allies are going to teach with you what patsies the Republicans are at this.

The Democrats have an agenda that has nothing to do with helping America. Barack Obama’s whole political career has been about paying off his constituencies. And he could end up paying them off by delivering 3-5% of a national vote in a structural and long-term sense. The best case for the GOP this year is to be able to stop this with a President McCain in the bully pulpit, regardless of all of his many failings.

While I have long thought Barack Obama to be very far left, I was struck by this story, as recounted by the New York Post:

"It’s not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Combine that with Obama’s unprecedented breathtaking new welfare proposals dressed up as tax cuts, which eviscerate the 1996 Welfare Reforms by creating cash transfers without work or training requirements.

My suspicious political lizard brain sees a pattern. Barack Obama thinks he has this election in the bag. So after months of running to the center on issues, such as it was, he is starting to talk about an agenda that is closer to his ideological heart. On November 5th, he can claim that he won on redistribution, pointing to this tax plan, these quotes, and some more speeches that he will give in the next three weeks.

And then he will have the political excuse to push it through Congress.

Isn’t someone supposed to check his dumb questions?

In this morning’s Washington Post,
EJ Dionne, in a screed against the right, asks:

Yet McCain’s own campaign is playing with powerful
extremist themes to denigrate Obama. When his running mate, Sarah
Palin, first brought up Obama’s association with 1960s radical Bill
Ayers, who has become a centerpiece of McCain’s attacks, she
accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” What other
“terrorists” was she thinking about?

How about … Bernadine
Dohrn, Bill Ayers wife? Remember her? She was on FBI’s 10 most
wanted list.

Remember, she couldn’t pass the bar because she “wouldn’t say
she’s sorry.” Sound like any unrepentant terrorists you know?

That’s who Obama was “palling around” with. I knew that in 2
seconds. why didn’t Dionne or his editors? Or were they just being
intellectually dishonest?

Conservatives won on technicalities, but Canadians rejected the
opposition

Several things to note from the Canadian elections.

The Conservatives picked up 19 seats, but only 1.1% of the vote
and the lowest turnout in Canadian history. The most significant
feature of this election was the collapse of the Liberal Party out
west and in Ontario. (they actually beat many polls in Quebec) The
socialist party, the New Democratic Party or NDP, cut into Liberal
margins, giving Conservatives a number of ridings around the
country. Furthermore, the Liberals were reduced to a regional
party, getting virtually no seats west of Ontario.

That said, this election was called before the economy in the US
and Europe melted down. Had this not happened, there would be a
clear Conservative majority.

Look for a leadership election in the Liberal Party. Look for an
extended minority government as the Liberals cannot afford (in the
financial, and also political sense) another election. The big
tests for this government will be handling the economic crisis
(which will inevitably drift into a recession because of a drop off
in US consumer activity) and his handling of the negotiations of
the next international climate agreement.