vulgarlad

Final Gallup poll: Obama 53%, McCain 42%...an 11-point margin (among likely voters). Split the undecideds equally and it becomes 55/44, Obama. Give McCain ALL of the undecideds, and it's still Obama by 51%.

Final Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: Obama 51%, McCain McCain 43%. McCain's support among white men & hispanics is significantly lower than that of Dubya's in 2004.

Time magazine's GOP kiss-ass, Mark Halperin: For McCain, the Numbers Aren't Adding Up

********** ********** ********** ********** **********

Of course, none of this matters if you don't get out & vote. Need some additional motivation (above & beyond putting an end to 8 years worth of fascist GOP rule) to do so?

-Starbucks is giving out free coffee to people who vote.

-Ben & Jerry's is giving out free ice cream to people who vote.

-Krispy Kreme is giving out free donuts to people who vote.

-Baltimore folks...you can stop by Todd Conner's Pub for a free beer if you vote!

-Seattle people...I've heard that Cupcake Royale is giving out free cupcakes...but I haven't been able to confirm that yet (confirmed! free cupcakes!)

-some Chick-fil-A establishments are giving away free chicken sandwiches. Then again, their food sucks & they're run by creepy uber-zealot christians...so maybe avoid this one...or keep going back and get so many free sandwiches that you bankrupt them. mwahahahaha!

and the best one of all...

-Babeland is giving out free sex toys. Help save the United States AND get off...it's a win-win situation!

Politico

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.

Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment on Monday, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.

Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.

A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.

What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.

The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”

It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”

September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).

Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.

The entries also show two purchases at Pacifier, a top-notch baby store, suggesting $196 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.

An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.

Marc Ambinder

McCain-Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt on this Politico story

With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.

There is already an attempt to blame the media -- as in, the liberal media would have looked askance at Palin if she wasn't clad in Neiman Marcus, but this won't wash. Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.

This sort of spending is without precedent -- the closest approximation for any campaign I've ever covered is make-up expenses for television interviews and commercial shoots -- , and Schmitt's weakly defensive response tonight indicates that the campaign is deeply embarrassed by it and has nothing to say in their defense. Spokespeople have clammed up, a sure sign that they're trying to figure out who authorized the expenses and who knew about them. Did Palin wear all of the clothing? Where is it kept?

The Democrats are going to have a lot more fun with this than is prudent, but the heat for this story will come from Republicans who cannot understand how their party would do something this stupid ... particularly (and, it must be said, viewed etroactively) during the collapse of the financial system and the probable beginning of a recession.

This is from Pat in Ohio. She says, "Mika, I'm a woman and for Sarah Palin to say she's an average everyday woman like me while she's wearing $12,000 suits is utter nonesense and pure B.S. And for you to sit there and say there is nothing wrong with the campaign spending $150,000 on wardrobe for three months is truly offensive. What, they couldn't spend $300 for a nice suit? Maybe you need to come down to earth and realize that the majority of women don't make $150,000 a year and we resent it when you tell us our $300 suits aren't professional enough."

MSNBC

The 2002 campaign finance law that bears McCain's name specifically barred any funds that "are donated for the purpose of supporting the activities of a federal or state office holder" from being used for personal expenses including clothing. (emphasis mine)

The Atlantic on the person responsible for doing Palin's shopping

Larson is the Karl Rove protégé who’s a principal in the robocalling firm of FLS Connect (the “FLS” stands for Tony Feather, Jeff Larson, and Tom Syndhorst, all veteran Republican political operatives). Larson’s firm is the same one that launched the scurrilous robocalls against John McCain in 2000, and that McCain has now hired to make robocalls connecting Barack Obama to Bill Ayers. He’s also well known in Minnesota for leasing his basement apartment at a steeply discounted rate to embattled Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Evidently, Larson also has quite the eye for women’s fashion.

The group purposefully and successfully avoided injuring anyone, not just civilians but armed enforcers of the government. Its war against property by definition means that the WUO was not a terrorist organization — it was, indeed, one deeply opposed to the tactic of terrorism.

Voters are turning against the Republican Party because on the whole, they get the impression that Republicans simply don't care about the economic problems of common people. Given the Republicans' tendency to give massive subsidies to large corporations who shouldn't need them, they're right. This bailout bill, representing some $700 billion of taxpayers' money, represents the single largest corporate subsidy in history, and contains no provisions to enforce Congressional oversight of that money. Simply put, voting for this bill as a Democrat will undercut the single most important frame working in Democrats' favor this election.

David Sirota has a thorough summary of many of the atrocious problems with this horrid piece of legislation here: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/100700/the_fiscally_insane_bailout_bill_might_not_pass_--_here%27s_5_reasons_it_shouldn%27t I thoroughly agree with him on every point, perhaps the most important of these being that there are a wide variety of economists (including one letter signed by over two hundred of them) arguing that the plan very well may actually *worsen* the economy. I certainly agree with the general consensus that the current financial crisis demonstrates that the market on its own is ill equipped to deal with failures, and that government intervention is needed in cases such as this. Unfortunately, government intervention does not always improve matters, and what is being proposed here would not only create a moral hazard by removing incentive for bankers to avoid carrying out risky transaction, but it also fails to supply any adequate regulation to prevent the problems that created this crisis from reoccurring in the future. I would strongly urge the Congress to take into account the opinions of economists who predicted this crisis long before its inevitability was accepted in the mainstream - see Dean Baker and Brad DeLong here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/dean-baker-on-t.html) and here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/time-not-for-a.html), and Nouriel Roubini here (http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253801/the_us_and_global_financial_crisis_is_becoming_much_more_severe_in_spite_of_the_treasury_rescue_plan_the_risk_of_a_total_systemic_meltdown_is_now_as_high_as_ever).

I certainly agree that our economy is in a state of crisis, but acting swiftly is not necessarily the best course of action, especially if it means all options have not been thoroughly debated. The plan currently being voted on in Congress is nothing more than socialism for the rich - and we've had nearly three decades of that as it is. Economic history clearly demonstrates that "trickle-down economics" does not, in any meaningful sense, happen; the Gini coefficient of the United States - one of the most reliable indicators of the gap between rich and poor - has consistently increased the more trickle-down economics has been applied. The best way to protect America's economy is to shore up the lower and middle classes, something that this plan does not, in any meaningful sense, do. I urge you, for the sake of your elected position, to vote it down. If you do not, odds are that you will see a substantial primary challenge from someone who would have.

Voters, including in Florida (which, according to a recent poll, trends Obama by eight points, a staggering margin for a state that went solidly Republican in 2004), have been turning against the Republican Party because on the whole, they get the impression that Republicans simply don't care about the economic problems of common people. This may not necessarily be true, but voting in favor of this bailout is likely only to reinforce the popular perception that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to give massive subsidies to large corporations who, they feel, shouldn't need them. This bailout bill, representing some $700 billion of taxpayers' money, will represent the single largest corporate subsidy in history, and contains no provisions to enforce Congressional oversight of that money. Simply put, voting for this bill as a Republican will reinforce the single most devastating frame being employed against Republicans right now, and almost guarantees an incumbent to be thrown out of office.

David Sirota has a thorough summary of many of the problems with the piece of legislation currently being considered by Congress here: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/100700/the_fiscally_insane_bailout_bill_might_not_pass_--_here%27s_5_reasons_it_shouldn%27t I think his assessments are mostly accurate, perhaps the most important of these being that there are a wide variety of economists (including one letter signed by over two hundred of them) arguing that the plan very well may actually *worsen* the economy. I certainly agree with the general consensus that the market is currently broken and is grievously in need of economic stimulation. Unfortunately, government intervention, as Republicans have been saying for decades, does not always improve matters; what is being proposed here would not only create a moral hazard by removing incentive for bankers to avoid carrying out risky transactions, but it also fails to supply any adequate regulation to prevent the problems that created this crisis from reoccurring in the future. I would strongly urge the Congress to take into account the opinions of economists who predicted this crisis long before its inevitability was accepted in the mainstream - see Dean Baker and Brad DeLong here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/dean-baker-on-t.html) and here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/time-not-for-a.html), and Nouriel Roubini here (http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253801/the_us_and_global_financial_crisis_is_becoming_much_more_severe_in_spite_of_the_treasury_rescue_plan_the_risk_of_a_total_systemic_meltdown_is_now_as_high_as_ever).

I certainly agree that our economy is in a state of crisis, but acting swiftly is not necessarily the best course of action, especially if it means all options have not been thoroughly debated. The plan currently being voted on in Congress is overwhelmingly opposed by the general public and is likely to be perceived as nothing more than socialism for the rich - and the perception seems to be growing that we've had nearly three decades of that as it is. Certainly, the Gini coefficient of the United States - one of the most reliable indicators of the gap between rich and poor - has increased substantially in the past three decades, which supplies substantial grounds for attacks on Republicans; if you vote for this bill, it will only reinforce populist sentiments that Republicans do not care about the problems of common people. This plan does not, in any meaningful sense, shore up the middle and lower classes, nor does it provide a framework for fixing the shattered regulations that, in an overwhelming majority of people's view, enabled the crisis to happen in the first place. I urge you, for the sake of your elected position, to vote this bill down and argue in favor of something more populist. If you do not, odds are that, come the next election, you will find yourself out of a job.

1. Over two hundred economists have written that the proposal could actually make the economy worse
2. It adds a tax cut which the House already rejected because it gave too much back to the people who caused this crisis
3. There are no enforcement provisions for the so-called oversight groups meant to monitor the Treasury's use of taxpayer funds
4. There are no provisions for punishing government officials or corporate executives who embezzle money
5. There are no provisions anywhere in the entire bill to force banks and lenders to rewrite mortgages to avoid foreclosures
6. There are no provisions forcing the beneficiaries of this bill to repay taxpayers after the economy stabilisies
7. It proposes restoring the 'mark to market' rules which made it so easy for Enron, Halliburton and other companies to cook their books