the ad man cometh

The Utah Democratic Party is starting its last minute push to win some seats in the state legislature, by using all of the scandals by Republican members to paint all Republican legislators as part of the problem:

"Bribery, intimidation and corruption," the stern-voiced narrator says, backed by menacing music. "These are the words of spy novels. Now they're being used by the local media to describe Utah's legislative leaders."
It cites the Legislature's failure to enact campaign finance reform, restrict gifts and consider a bill establishing an independent ethics commission.
"It makes you wonder, are Utah's legislative leaders simply out of touch or do they have something to hide?" the ad says to the sound of a door slamming. It then says Democrats are an alternative.
The party's pollster said that support for ethics reform among Utah voters is the highest the pollster has seen anywhere in the country, [Party Chair Wayne] Holland said.

As usual, SL County GOP Chair James "Pay-Day Lender" Evans is spinning furiously, calling the ads (Dems have flyers and TV targeted at other seats too) "laughable." Evans, the same guy who tried to take down now-Sheriff Winder by using a highly edited collection of "gaffes"--which were actually Winder describing what not to do--should know about laughable campaign tactics.

The ads come after two prosecutors recommended a grand jury inquiry into the conduct of former Rep. Mark Walker and state treasurer candidate Richard Ellis and the House Ethics Committee dismissed dueling complaints against Republican Rep. Greg Hughes and Democratic Rep. Phil Riesen.

These prosecutors consist one Dem and one Repub, and don't hail from places where Ellis or Walker have their political power base. This makes me believe that maybe there really is something to the charges of ethics violations against Hughes and Curtis and Bramble and...well you get the idea. The Dems are using the media and the ethics process to go after this pols, but given the past evidence of ethical misconduct by these pols' peers, shouldn't the Dems do this?

failing to achieve false equivalance

State Rep. Greg Hughes, who may not be holding onto his seat come November, filed a retaliatory ethics complaint against the guy who leaked the story Hughes' ethics troubles to the news media. The idea was to discredit one of his critics (he has also claimed that the former state rep. who testified that he offered her campaign contributions in exchange for voting for the voucher bill is making it up to get back into politics). So far, so bad for Hughes.

A complaint of ethical misconduct against Rep. Phil Riesen was dismissed Wednesday, as the House Ethics Committee determined the complaint did not allege a violation worth considering.
[...]
The vote to not proceed and hear testimony on the complaint came down on a 4-to-4 vote, with the four Democrats on the committee voting not to hear testimony.

And if Hughes got a slap on the wrist for what he might have done, why should Reisen face a stiffer penalty? For tattling on his colleague? That's what the Republican members of the committee were mad about, and it shows how out of touch they are with reality.

Hughes is threatening to sue Reisen civilly for defamation. The trouble for him is that public figures can be slandered and defamed for lots of things with little or no basis in fact, unless the speaker acts with "actual malice" - knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth - is alleged and proved by the public figure. So good luck with that.

Sarah Palin 2012

No, I am not endorsing. Rather, I noticed that Palin has decided to start running for the GOP nomination for president now. She is actively disagreeing with John McCain on Gay Marriage and overall campaign tactics. John Edwards vented his strategy disagreement more quietly--as a source in a news story for instance--while Palin is happy voice her suggested alternatives to the media while the cameras are "rolling" so to speak.

It is almost as if she positioning herself to run next time already, believing McCain will lose badly. But I don't think GOP primary voters are dumb enough to nominate her.

Change IS coming to Utah, part deux

In 2006, the Democratic wave lapped at the Wasatch Mountains. This year, the wave of voter enthusiasm is back...and it isn't because people are excited to pull the lever for McCain/Palin or any of the legislators up on Utah's Capitol Hill.

Would-be voters arrived by the thousands, filling out registrations in their front seats while the Clerk's Office moved its operation outdoors to accommodate the last-day crush.
"We have always known it was going to be a high-turnout year," Deputy Clerk Jason Yocom said as prospective voters
Darren Dufield of Salt Lake City fills out a voter's registration form on his motorcycle as he joins the long line of people seeking to sign up to vote Monday at the Salt Lake County Government Center. (Scott Sommerdorf/The Salt Lake Tribune)
jammed roads in and around the government complex near 2100 South and State Street.
Salt Lake County is bracing for big numbers at the polls. The Clerk's Office has registered more than 35,500 new voters since last November, pushing the election rolls past 517,000 people. And that's not counting Monday's registrations.
Similar trends have cropped up elsewhere along the Wasatch Front.
Close to 2,000 people clogged the Utah County Clerk's Office on Monday - so many that phones went unanswered and voice mail maxed out, even with 30 temporary workers on hand.
The county had 181,000 registered voters in February and likely will reach 250,000 after Monday's forms are processed, according to Clerk-Auditor Bryan Thompson. That's a jump of 69,000 voters.
What's striking, Thompson added, is the number of new voters between 18 and 24 years old. Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University turned in a combined 4,600 registrations from campus campaigns.
And, in Davis County, the clerk reports 25,000 more registered voters this year than Election Day 2004.
"We've got lines in the hallway," said Clerk-Auditor Steve Rawlings. "We've never had this much interest in an election in the [18] years that I've been with the county."
Bumper-to-bumper registrations continued through the day in Salt Lake County, where the Clerk's Office projected more than 5,000 voter registrations Monday alone - a single-day surge that officials handled in fast-food fashion with a parking lot drive-through.

I am not saying that Obama has a shot at Utah or that Dems will make big pick ups this year state-wide. But there should be some surprises. One of the most interesting vote locally for me will be the Sevier County coal plant, which the Utah Supreme Court just allowed by striking down a law as unconstitutional.

Will the good people of Sevier County vote with their pocketbooks to create jobs building and operating the coal-fired electricity plant? Or will they vote with their lungs?

Don't get too cocky Utah Democrats

When I saw this bit of news, I wondered who decided this would be a good idea?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is coming to Utah to campaign for the Democratic Party. The New York Democrat, who made a run for the party's presidential nomination, is scheduled to appear Saturday at a pre-election rally in West Valley City.

Sure, it is in West Valley, a Democratic strong hold, and sure the crowd should be one that loves HRC--but this is really tempting fate.

There is a reason Obama won the state's primary, and it isn't just because he had staff and good volunteers in the state. It is because Utahns never really liked the Clintons. Bill came in third place Utah in 1992, and the confirmation of his philandering in 1998 didn't help him or Hillary here, unlike in other states.

My first year of law school, I went to a student social event held in someone's condo rec center in Bountiful and we played Apples to Apples, a fun game that I recommend.

Anyway, the game has one person put down an adjective and the other players but down nouns they think "best fit" that adjective in the mind of the person who put down the adjective. Someone put down "evil," and a student chose "Hillary Clinton" as the best fit for this party game. Everyone but my Wellesley alum wife and I agreed that it was a pretty good choice (we bit our tongues of course).

The point is, Dems in Utah have the chance at a pretty good year. There are a number of legislative seats that could go their way, partly because of vouchers/ethics and partly because Obama looks lose by a much smaller margin than Kerry did. Don't blow it by inviting a national Democrat which certain segments of Utah's population loathe unconditionally. Of all the national Democratic figures to invite to Utah, she would be the last one I would suggest. Is Chris Dodd, with his Utahn wife, too busy?

political phrases that need to die

After watching the (thankfully) last presidential debate between Obama and McCain, we heard some old tropes and some new ones that deserve a quick axe from our political discourse. In no particular order they are:

1. Litmus test As in, I will not use Roe as a litmus test for my appointees to the US Supreme Court. Both candidates lie about this, and it is only due to the Georgetown Cocktail circuit that they have to maintain this fiction that Democrats won't appoint pro-Choice judges and Republicans won't appoint pro-Life judges. Give me a break. This is especially disheartening since there is an article about John McCain privately pledging to social conservatives that he would do just that the last time he ran for president (when he was running much more as a moderate Republican). I think the American people can handle the truth on this one.


2. "How are you going to pay for that?" This is another Beltway Bloviator hang up. The Sunday talk show hosts and their wannabes still believe it is 1990 or something when the Concord Coalition had a point about balancing budgets and fiscal conservatism. But here in 2008, we are on the brink of a global recession with our financial systems in as bad a shape as they were in 1929. And in order to prevent it from becoming the Second Great Depression, we need to listen to the economist who helped get us all out of the last one: Maynard Keynes. FDR taxed the rich heavily, engaged in deficit spending on infrastructure in the 1930s and tanks bombs and airplanes in the 1940s and as a result, we came out of World War II with a global economic boom and with America as the number one economic power. Obama hinted at his support of Keynesian economics last night, but had to be oblique because the gasbags are obsessed with the gotcha question of balancing the budget and squaring a campaign's plans with basic math. All of us who know the basics of the legislative process know that whatever passes out of the 111th Congress will be drastically different than Obama's campaign literature. So get over yourselves moderators, that was the second time that question was asked, and the second time the candidates chose not to answer it.


3. Main Street The linguist Geoffrey Nunberg shows that even when the term first debuted (1928), the phrase was nostalgic to a time long gone. America is an overwhelming urban and suburban country. Most people do not live in small towns/cities. The idea of "Main Street" is evocative of 19th Century America, a time when women couldn't vote (but could be raped by their husbands), blacks were enslaved, Native Americans were slaughtered, and children worked in factories. Personally, it is not a time I look back at with much fondness.


4. Joe the Plumber/Soccer Mom/Hockey Mom/Joe Six-pack/NASCAR Dad I could really write a bit on each one of these, but they all are essentially the same thing: making voters into demographicial stereotypes. You never hear politicians or pundits say, "I'm a middle aged upper income male." Or "my policies make sense to unmarried women." But somehow it is OK tell suburbities they are just cliches. Last night's repeated reference to "Joe the Plumber" was annoying even to the pundits. Turns out too, that the real Joe is a tax deadbeat and might be related to John McCain's old friend Charles Keating. So much for your average blue collar small businessman.


5. Kitchen table as family budgetary HQ They are called Kitchen Table Issues, Joe Biden talks about families sitting around their kitchen table discussing how they are going to make ends meet. I don't know about you, but I pay bills online/at a desk, and discuss my family's finances with my wife any place and time. In fact, the only place we haven't done budgetary stuff is at the kitchen table. That's reserved for EATING FOOD.


6. Thanking the moderator and the venue for hosting a debate in opening and closing statements Is this just buying time to remember your talking points? Why waste a minute or two thanking this folks publicly when you only have about 45 minutes at best to describe all of your policies each time? I am sure the host and moderator appreciate it, but it would be no less polite and gracious to thank them privately before and after the debate. Americans don't need to hear you thanking them, they need to hear what you will do as president, governor, senator, congressman, etc. This thanking ritual is an invitation for viewers to tune out the rest of your statement. Someone please have the guts to drop it next time.


7. strict constructionists and legislating from the bench These phrases are code ones for conservatives to mean "overturn Roe v. Wade" and "put them gays in their place." When the Supreme Court reads into an amendment designed to prevent former Confederate states from excluding newly-freed blacks from basic civil rights to mean that giant corporations--such State Farm and Exxon--cannot get punitive damages assessed against them in excess of a 9:1 ratio, these so-called strict constructionists don't say a peep. If your policy ideas are so great, you should not need to hide behind euphemisms that only your followers understand.

Oh, and this freeze frame to me summed up last night's debate:

my generation is talkin' to your generation

(The "You talkin' to me?' scene from Taxi Driver)

Zach Exley, an "original cast member" of MoveOn.org who I had the pleasure of meeting in 2003 at a Kerry Meetup in DC, has a must-read piece about the nature of Obama's ground game. It really is mind-blowing, and explains why even if McCain does well in tonight's debate, it won't be enough for him to turn it around in several swing states. A) Obama has votes in the bank, tens of thousands of them (right now he is leading in early voting in places like Georgia, for instance) B) He has more people more excited and ready to go to the mat for him than McCain.

The energy comes most strongly from Teens to Thirty-somethings--the age group that supports Obama the strongest. Not only are they organizing their campuses, co-workers, and neighborhoods, but they also using their powers of persuasion to go after their parents and grandparents who might otherwise be reluctant to vote for Obama. For example, swing state Sens. Klobuchar (MN), Casey (PA), and McCaskill (MO) all endorsed Obama in the primaries over their colleague Sen. Clinton at their children's urging.

This isn't something new for the general election, although it is much more intensive. For example, this Columbus Day Weekend, young Jews traveled (or should I say schlepped?) to Florida to convince their grandparents to support Obama. Sarah Silverman's now viral video was a bit dirty, but funny way to galvanize the effort.

Go to the site and watch the CNN and CBS stories on two young Jewish men who talked their grandparents (and some of their friends in the complex) into supporting Obama...sometimes, they had to resort to the "I'll marry a nice Jewish girl if do" card. The videos are hilarious, it is hard to believe there are some elderly people in Florida that really do seem to fit the stereotype. Another is a campaign from MoveOn.org parodying the anti-drugs ads to urge my generation to talk their parents out of voting for McCain.

While both use humor to accomplish the goal, this is the generation whose primary news program is the Daily Show and Colbert Report. The Obama-Biden effort however, is deadly serious about changing minds and it is scaring the crap out of young conservative activists.

Even my son has gotten into the act of trying to convince his parents (thanks to loyal reader Jamie):

Why?

[Rep. Sheryl] Allen, R-Bountiful, has called [Rep. Greg] Hughes' offer to former Rep. Susan Lawrence, R-Holladay, a bribe, but did not join in filing an ethics complaint against Hughes.

Isn't a bribe something that requires an ethics investigation?

Here's another thing I don't get:

Hughes has filed a complaint against [Rep. Phil] Riesen [R-Holiday], claiming he abused his official position by leaking the ethics complaint to the news media.

Yeah it is abuse of power to inform the public that one of your colleagues allegedly attempted to bribe another colleague in exchange for voting in favor of a bill. Given how the ethics committee has operated in the past (even the Treasurer's race investigation this year was slow walked), forcing the issue by leaking to the media wasn't a bad idea.

Hughes has a good attorney representing him and the entire Utah GOP party establishment behind him. The public, however, might be another story. Where is a poll on his reelection when we need it?

protect the integrity of the election

If you are an attorney, a law student, a paralegal and you want to make sure nefarious individuals are not able to subvert this election, you can volunteer and not take sides.

The nonpartisan Election Protection 2008 coalition is seeking legal volunteers to staff Election Protection Hotlines and to work as mobile volunteers on the ground across the country. Call 1-866-Our-Vote or go to www.866OurVote.org Those with legal training can volunteer here. Those without can volunteer by clicking here. Fill out the forms and help out. This election is too important to leave it to people leaving flyers that you can vote on the wrong day, voting machines hackers, tire slashers, sign stealers, and those who bribe homeless people with cigarettes.

Bill Who? sends me mail

Bill Who? Dew sent me a piece of campaign advertising (great targeting of mail Bill, I am sure the Avenues is a voter rich target for culturally based attacks) that pretended to be a newspaper "Congressional Times" it called itself...in New York Times style font. The "cover story" was that a month ago, Mitt Romney endorsed Dew. There's a shocker. Too bad Mttt's kid was too chicken to run against Matheson, then we might have had a real news story when he endorsed his own son.


Anyway on the back there are a series of votes where Dew claims Matheson voted against "Utah Values" and that were Dew in Congress, he would have voted the other way.

A review by The Salt Lake Tribune of the votes Dew cites, though, show the Republican's allegations are in many ways misleading.
Dew's mailer - which cites the wrong dates for two congressional votes - uses several protest votes offered by House Republicans to cast Matheson as against "Utah values."

When cornered with this fact, Dew spokeswoman has a retort on the ready.

"Just because a vote is procedural doesn't mean it is inconsequential," said campaign spokeswoman Tiffany Gunnerson. "These votes tied the hands of the House Republicans trying to bring tax cuts and energy drilling to the floor by any means possible. Voters deserve to know that Bill Dew would have helped these efforts while Jim Matheson did not."

In other words, voter should know that a Republican would vote with his party on procedural party gimmick moves, while a Democrat didn't.

The mailer could have been a lot shorter if he had just had his face next to an equals sign next to a GOP logo and Matheson's face next to a equals sign next to a Democrats logo. Because that is all he is saying, not how Matheson stands on the issues. Afterall, Matheson voted the way Dew claims he wishes Jim had on things like drilling.

a monologue about gay marriage

As you might have learned from the comments on my previous post, the Sutherland Institute is hosting an event to scare the crap out of social conservatives and guilt them into phone banking, donating, or door knocking in California on behalf of their ill-fated Prop 8 to ban now-existing gay marriages in the Golden State. This proposition has nothing to do with Utah as we already passed our anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment four years ago, unless you hate gays so much that you are a-feared that them gays will have their California marriages recognized in Utah. Which somehow will lead Utah's divorce rate even higher.

The speakers are all those in favor of Prop 8, although they are sure than a few anti-Prop 8 audience members will try to shout rhetorical questions at them. Kind of like how Sean Hanity shows are really informative and provide equal platform to those who disagree with Mr. Hanity.

Back when I first started law school, my student group hosted a debate about Utah's gay marriage ban, which was I believe at the time on the ballot. We managed to get the guy who argued in favor of the scoutmaster in the Supreme Court case of gay scoutmaster versus the Boy Scouts of America. On the other side, we got some clown from the Sutherland Institute. I say clown because he was not even in the same league as the gay scoutmaster attorney. To be fair, he was taking up the reins for some BYU professor that chickened out at the last minute. Nevertheless, I started to feel sorry for the guy, even though I totally disagreed with his "arguments." As hosts of the event, we felt bad that we couldn't get a fair debate going because the pro-gay marriage side was apparently intimidated by this super lawyer.

It seems the Sutherland Institute learned the wrong lesson from our event and is content to present their same case but in a completely one-sided fashion. But if you want to hear what you believe or shout at the Sutherland Institute folks and get some Avenues hippies to clap with you, feel free to attend.

moderate the moderators

So I watched the debate, and my overall impression was that Tom Brokaw got in the way and the candidates played it safe (but again, Obama won). Another thing that I noticed was McCain's odd body language.

The debate was supposed to a "town hall meeting." The normal definition is that the people get to ask whatever questions they want, but the candidates get to call on them. There will be crazy people and booing and cheering. Here, Brokaw got to pick out the questions that the voters had writen, they didn't get to ask follow ups. But Brokaw got to ask "follow ups."

Rather than hone in on the candidate's non-answers, he asked whatever the heck he wanted that was vaguely related to the question that he picked from. Brokaw would complain that the candidates were not keeping to the time limits, but his questions themselves took at least half that much time, including stupid name dropping. Go back into retirement Tom. I used to love Brokaw, and his was the nightly news program I would watch. Now, I can't stand him.

Moderators need to move the discussion, get the candidates to answer the questions and engage with the issues. Jim Lehrer did that. Brokaw covered no new ground, and spent most of his time oscillating between complaining about the rules which he himself ignored and bloviating in his questions.

There is a lot of really bad things happening at the same time...the stock market is collapsing, we are losing two wars, health care costs are exploding, the climate is radically changing, food prices are exploding. And the candidates want to talk about sternly worded letters they wrote to some administrative official. They are both Senators and leaders of the their party. Why aren't they taking any bold stances on anything? One of these Senators will be president in 3 months, when are they going to step up to the plate?

Back to the debate, though. John McCain looked really old when standing near Obama and he got a little too close for comfort for those in the audience. You could see how awkward the guy felt whom McCain touched. After the debate was over, Obama stayed in the hall and talked to voters. McCain bugged out. Obama tried to shake hands with McCain, but John instead had Cindy shake Obama's hand for him. Odd behavior, and as weird as his referring to Obama as "that one." It seems pretty obvious that McCain has a personal dislike of Obama...but it shouldn't be. One of these days, I have to write a post about how incompetent the McCain campaign team has been. It really is quite stunning. Anyway, have a good night.

why i love the fall

If you are a long-time reader, you have read my complaints about the summer, and I love this Slate article about how terrible August is.

But for the same reasons that I dislike the summer and especially August, I love the fall. Let me count the ways:

1. Cool temps=great clothing options and no worries about sweating too much or sunburns.


2. School's back. Yes, I really am a nerd at heart. I miss going to school now, it is my second straight fall without school and fourth fall in my life without school since age 7. Should I get another degree?


3. Campaigns are in full swing. Lawn signs abound, the public finally starts paying attention to the election. Door knocking, literature drops, and GOTV begin in earnest. With my current job, I will miss out on being involved by a week. But still, it is fun to watch.


4. Harvest time! Is there a better time to eat fruits and veggies in the Northern Hempisphere? I think not. My favorite fall dish: butternut squash soup. I puree it myself and add some kick to it.


5. Great Holidays. Christmas is nice and all, but Thanksgiving is hands-down the best American holiday. There is no real commercialization other than the sales the day after, which are really "hey your relatives are in town, ask them what they want for Christmas and get it now" sales. Oh and good movies come out that weekend. Other than the annoying travel stresses, it is great. Who can top a holiday about family, friends, and neighborliness, which is combined with lots of great food and football?


6. Which brings me to sports. The baseball playoffs are in full swing (I am a member of the Red Sox Nation since 1998, but have always disliked the Yankees), NFL football and college football has started, basketball starts (as does Hockey) and it is still warm enough to sit outside and watch the game without fear of frostbite.


7. The foliage. Even though I turn 30 on Easter next year, I still love to kick up my feet when piles of leaves have fallen onto the sidewalks. Raking isn't that bad, and I remember jumping into the piles of leaves and stomping on the bags of leaves (to help pack more in) was a blast. I am sure my little one will enjoy that as well in the years to come. Also, before they fall, the leaves are pretty to look at. While New England still has the best ones to enjoy (which is partly why I went out there for college), you can drive up the canyons right now and see some leaves changing colors.

All in all, fall is great. Enjoy tonight's townhall-style debate (as close to the real thing as a "mexican-style" restaurant is) with this bingo game. If you chose to turn it into a drinking game, drink responsibly.

how to lose a debate and alienate people, part deux

So, now that a few days have passed (and the SNL skit has run), we can better digest the VP debate and predict what to expect from the second McCain-Obama debate on Tuesday. Let's go back to my criteria, and then I will add two more that I recalled during the debate.

1. Jargon: For Joe Biden, it was a struggle not to sound like the chairman of the foreign relations committee. For Sarah Palin, the goal was to sound like some one who knew what the foreign relations committee did. For the most part, Biden sounded like a normal, educated person. Palin, in an effort to sound educated, rattled off the names of people she met at the UN the other day and those that were on her cue cards. It was a rare time that her sentences had a coherent thought. Biden spent his time explaining (without condescension) the 2005 Bankruptcy bill, the 2005 Engery Bil, how McCain's vote and Obama's vote were equally "against the troops" and how McCain is no maverick/different than Bush. Advantage: Biden



2. Talking about unpopular things: Palin went back to the old "But the Surge is working!!" crap, but did not dwell on it as long as McCain did, showing that it is his obsession, not the Republican Party's. Biden had to spent time explaining how his position on the war was different from McCain's and the same as Obama's. Advantage: Palin.


3. Look them in the eye and tell them that they were wrong: Palin had her "oh no Joe, there you go again!" line and a couple factually inaccurate ways of attacking Obama and Biden. Biden smartly (more on this later) did not directly attack Palin, rather he praised her when she "supported" something McCain opposed, like a windfall profits tax on oil companies or same-sex couple property rights. Instead, he looked into the camera and attacked McCain, which is a VP candidate's job. Given that Biden's attacks were crisper and more factually based, Advantage: Biden.


4. Gimmickry: Calling yourself a "Maverick" and referring to middle class voters as "Soccer Moms" and "Joe Sick-Pack" makes people wonder how regular-guy/gal you really are. Given her dearth of knowledge of public policy and current events (despite her claim that she reads all of the world's newspapers) might make her seem average, but then her ability to drop G's like they were dollar bills and other repeated folksyisms lend an aire of phoniness. My contrast, Biden gets a softball thanks to Palin (who must not have been briefed on Joe's personal tragedy) to choke up and talk about being a single dad worried about his children surviving. Her response to this signature moment? Recite her drinking game words. Advantage: Biden


5. Moderator's pet peeves: At least ten times, Palin opted to explicitly not answer the Gwen Iffil's question and to go to her talking points. While Ifill was powerless (given the debate format) to call Palin on it, she sure was pissed. “Blew me off i think is the technical term,” Ifill said today on Meet the Press. Answering questions is not an odd pet peeve, it is the point of the debate. Otherwise, it is just a cue card recall competition...oh wait. Advantage: Biden


6. Hold your tongue judiciously: Joe Biden's preppers proudest moment, I learned today, was when Palin confused the name of the general in charge of the war in Afghanistan with the worst Civil War general for the union. Why? Because you could tell that this error irked Joe, but said nothing about it. The old Biden would have given a 10 minute lecture about the subject and come off like a blowhard know-it-all. Thursday night's Biden let Palin hang herself with her own rope. Advantage: Biden


7. Treat her like a lady: [New point number 1] When a male politician debates a female one, it is a rare moment of a double standard in favor of the female. Instead of worrying about what the woman is wearing, viewers worry about the aggressive body language of the male towards the female. Rep. Rick Lazio blew his shot at an open senate seat by (among other things violating Hillary Clinton's personal space during a debate. While males can call each other by their first names to convey collegiality--like Biden or Obama and McCain--but to not call a female politician by her title is seen as condescending/demeaning given the history of males doing just that with a malicious intent. Especially for Joe Biden, a man known for his gaffes and arrogant reputation, he had to call Sarah Palin "Governor Palin" and not Sarah, while she could call him "Joe." Only once did I hear Biden not call her Governor Palin, and then he immediately corrected himself. Advantage: Biden


8. win the SNL primary: In 2000, Al Gore was mocked for his excessively loud sighing in the first debate, then for his overly mellow behavior in the second (they joked he was on horse tranquilizers). In the meantime, George W. Bush got close enough to "win" the electoral college. John McCain didn't pick Sarah Palin because or despite the fact she looks like Tina Fey, but this similarity has resulted in a lasting caricature of her as an idiot who is has trouble even parroting her lines. Fey's latest take down of the debate showed how empty the word "maverick" has become. They made fun of Obama for being a Chicago politician (and therefore must want to help his corrupt friends back home), and Biden for his love of John McCain but their mockery of McCain and Palin has been much harsher. These days, it is impossible to separate Fey's impression of Palin from Palin herself. Her actual debate performance actually dragged down the ticket among undecideds, even if Republicans were less depressed after the debate. This shows that my analysis is not as biased as you might think: Biden did much better than Palin did.Advanatage: Biden

This leads me to my point about the principals as well, McCain might be boxed in by SNL as Gore was in 2000. It will be interesting to see how McCain will adjust after an 0-2 performance from the ticket thus far in the debates and Obama being up by about 8.5 points (with significant leads in OH, FL, VA, and within striking distance in NC and MO). Will be be less aggressive/more friendly, seeing how people reacted to his "What Senator Obama doesn't understand..."? Will he be even more aggressive, given his campaign (and therefore Palin) has decided to talk about William Ayers? Will Obama bring up Charles Keating like he went tit for tat against Hillary Clinton during the primaries? I will get the popcorn ready, you bring the butter.

good for Jim

I watched the local news last night, and they spent all this time telling us what Rep. Rob Bishop thought of the bailout bill, and that Rep. Cannon voted with Wall Street, since "the voters can't hurt him any more" as Rod Decker put it. But they failed to mention that Rep. Matheson voted against the bill too.

After the Senate bowed before Mr. 22% and Goldman Sachs CEO Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson last night to the tune of 75-24, the House gets to vote on an even crappier version of the Paulson bill. Thanks, Obama and McCain!

But for our Blue Dog, this bill don't hunt.

"I don't believe this bill is the right medicine to cure the disease," Matheson said. "The Senate version is even worse. It's larded up with more debt and doesn't include long-term reform language that would prevent this kind of crisis from happening again."
[...]
But Matheson says: "Economists aren't able to say that this bill is actually going to solve the credit freeze problem."
He's not convinced the plan will function as designed or that taxpayers will receive an appropriate return on their investment.

He predicts that Congress will have to take further actions to respond to the financial crisis.
"I am certain this isn't the end of the difficulties we face," he said. "Congress will have to return in January to deal with this again."

Probably true, so why did our next president vote for this bill and hamstring their administration with cleaning up yet another Bush mess? And why did the Senate force the issue by voting on this bill last night? I don't get it.

Could Hill be the next Winder?

Remember two years ago, it seemed like the Salt Lake County Sheriff's race was a snoozer, with the incumbent sporting a big lead? And then it came out that the sheriff regularly played golf during the day, and his excuse was that they could always reach him via his cell?

Next thing you knew, we had a new sheriff in town by large margin.

Now, the Salt Lake City Weekly did some investigative journalism the big boys were afraid to do, and found AG Mark Shurtleff gave one of the local ambulance chaser law firms a big case (with big fees) shortly after said firm hired his daughter and gave him lots of campaign contributions.

Hill questioned the attorney general's ethics, both in his receipt of hefty campaign donations from payday lenders, and in his inability to investigate bribery allegations against former GOP state treasurer candidate and former state Rep. Mark Walker.
"That was due largely to the fact that he had endorsed [Walker], hosted a fundraiser for him and made a large contribution to his campaign - creating an obvious conflict of interest," Hill said.
Hill added allegations in the recent City Weekly story to that list.
"My opponent steered lucrative legal contracts to Siegfried & Jensen shortly after the firm hired his daughter as a paralegal," Hill said. "He entered these contracts without a formal competitive bidding process."
Since 2000, Siegfried & Jensen has fed Shurtleff's campaign fund close to $60,000. Shurtleff said his daughter, Ambra Gardner, worked for the firm for about six months.
The bid process - for lead attorneys to recoup state Medicaid funds from the manufacturers of Vioxx and Zyprexa - was less than formal, acknowledged Shurtleff.

It is as if these incumbents have no clue about the term "appearance of impropriety" or "image problem." Like I have said before, this is not the year to be an incumbent and running for reelection. The voters in Utah and all over the country are in a (justifiably) rotten mood, and there will be surprising upsets.

how to lose a debate and alienate people

Despite John McCain's attempt to call it a tie, poll after poll after focus group (even on FOX News) says he lost Friday's debate and Obama won. While some of the reasons apply specifically to the unique dynamics of 2008 presidential campaign, there are some general rules of thumb that can be extrapolated that Palin and Biden, as well as any state or local politician should heed from McCain's mistakes.

1. Avoid jargon. To rebut Obama's claim that he was a leader on the issue of Nuclear Proliferation, McCain talked about he was an original co-sponsor of Nunn-Lugar. As a international relations major in college, and a political junkie with internship experience with a Congressman, I knew exactly what he was talking about. But I doubt most of the people watching had a clue. McCain also railed on Obama for not holding hearings in his sub-committee, when Obama explained that really Joe Biden is the committee chair and he held the necessary hearings, McCain said something like "well, I always held hearings when I was chair of my sub-committees."
   
   Both instances gave Obama the perfect opportunity to showcase why being in the Senate for decades is detrimental to one's ambitions for higher office. He said the sub-committee thing was "Senate inside baseball" and summarized the substance of bills he was touting as his ability to do big things, not the names of them. While McCain's points might have been valid, they came off poorly. Obama came off as a good explainer of his vision and why McCain's is myopic (comparing the $18 billion a year spent on earmarks to the $10 a month spent on the war in Iraq), and McCain came off as a guy whose been in DC for 26 years.


2. Never belabor your support for unpopular positions. During the debate, CNN had a graphic underneath the feed from Mississippi of the dials it gave to its Cleveland, Ohio focus group, color coded for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. McCain's numbers tanked the most (they went down a lot) among all three groups when he went on and on about the war in Iraq and how leaving would be declaring "defeat." For over two years now, something like 60% of the country has decided that the war was a mistake and that we should start getting out. So the debate over Iraq is now how to best get out, not whether we should get out at all.
   
   Obama skillfully beat back McCain "but the Surge worked!" retort by saying it was a tactic that was necessary to prevent further catastrophe of a war that was unnecessary and poorly done, a war that McCain cheerleaded for years until he complained about Rumsfeld's incompetence. Rather than addressing the merits of this point, McCain went back to the "What Senator Obama doesn't understand..." well and kept rambling about tactics versus strategy and mentioning General Petraeus as if just evoking his name would destroy Obama's argument. McCain should have focused on his (belated) calls for Rumsfeld's resignation and other harsh words he had for the Bush Administration's prosecution of the Iraq war.


3. Look your opponent in the eye and tell them they are wrong. Media commenters and those in the blogosphere noticed that McCain avoided eye contact with Obama. Instead, he uttered profanities under his breath. This reminded me of Al Gore's sighs and Bush's winking in the 2000 and 2004 debates. Body language is more important than substance in these debates for undecideds, especially when the topic is something "boring" or "wonky" like foreign policy. Obama projected confidence with his positions and self, while McCain seemed desperate and nervous.


4. Keep gimmicks to a minimum. John McCain attempted to "shake up the race" twice, once by picking someone as qualified for the Vice Presidency as SL County Mayor Peter Corroon, and next by claiming to be suspending his campaign and attempting to cancel/postpone the debates. The public (and SNL) saw through these attempts as stunts, and not serious efforts to do anything. When comedians can parody your attempts to change the dynamics of the campaign, you know you have gone too far. You can only debate a cardboard cutout/plant so many times.


5. Ignore the moderator's pet peeves, gently. NBC's Tim Russert was obsessed with Social Security's solvency. ABC's Charlie Gibson is obsessed with the capital gains tax. PBS's Jim Lehrer on Friday was obsessed with the candidate talking to each other and not rhetorically to him. Obama was admonished for saying "Jim" like Senators say "Mr. President" in their speeches (referring to the Senator sitting in the chair (the President Pro Tempore of the Senate), not the President of the US). So Obama semi-mockingly repeated his sentence replacing "Jim" with "John" and everyone laughed at how silly the pet peeve was. This simultaneously satisfied Lehrer, made Lehrer stop talking about it, and made the media aware of McCain's lack of eye contact.


6. Don't try to have the last say on every point. This is one of the toughest ones to do, since it is a debater's natural instinct to attempt to correct the record/the opponent and stick it to them one last time. But overdoing it makes you seem like a insecure jerk, not an alpha dog. A couple times Obama attempted to respond a second or third time on a topic and was interrupted again by McCain or Lehrer. Obama merely smiled and said something like "well let's move on." While some Democrats were annoyed with this apparent passivity, Obama had countered that with prior instances of asserting himself against McCain earlier in the debate. This way, Obama appeared gracious and eager to address other topics, without looking like a complete doormat. And by contrast, McCain appeared to be a guy that couldn't let go and had to make the same point yet another way. Gore suffered from this problem in the first debate in 2000 as well.

That's about all I can think of at this point. Of course, it is easier said than done. But if you remember nothing else VP wannabes, just because your goal is to be the President of the U.S. Senate, you shouldn't sound like you are the president of the Senate.

Bennett's gone Washington

Not that he ever was a man of the people--a millionaire son of a Senator who was tangentially involved in the Watergate Scandal (so much so that at least one author wondered if Bennett was Deep Throat)--is hardly like most Utahns.

But this week he and the traditional media thought he was the "go-to" Republican Senator for the Wall Street bailout bill. Funny thing happened though....John McCain's had a temper tantrum and instead of being himself the go-to Senator, he helped enable House Republicans from bailing on the deal, and now it is DOA. And now WaMu just went under (and was swallowed up my Chase) and the market tumbled down even more.

How out of touch is Bennett that he didn't see the popular revolt against this bill coming? Liberals and Conservatives are screaming bloody murder about it, as are non-ideologues who won small businesses. Mom and Pop businesses don't get bailed out. I guess they don't give enough campaign contributions to people like Bennett to notice. And yes Sen. Bennett this includes us Uthans too, we don't like it.

multi-tasking and masking

I don't get it. First McCain plays the bold maverick who cancels a $5 million debate at the last minute to "suspend" his campaign so that he can focus on the Masters of the Universe Wall Street Welfare Act of 2008.

Yet McCain still has yet to read Sec. Paulson's now thankfully defunct power grab bailout plan. And both Republicans and Democrats who have been working on their version of the bill have implicitly and explicitly stated that they don't need or want McCain around the negotiations.

And nothing really has been suspended in McCain's campaigning for the presidency. His ads are still running in the 15 battleground states. McCain surrogates are still on TV and online forums attacking Obama and praising their guy. So was this all bluster and stunt? Can McCain not handle debate prep on foreign policy and reading a 4 page bill/calling his colleagues to find out the latest on the bill?

I don't think so. If you noticed, in McCain's proposal to scrap tomorrow's foreign policy debate, he proposed rescheduling that debate for the night of the VP debate between Palin and Biden and having those two debate at some other undetermined time. Given the fact that Palin has been terrible in TV interviews unless the "reporter" is a right-wing activist, and Palin has been secluded from scrutiny for weeks now, this is a pretty transparent effort to scrap the VP debate altogether.

All and all, I doubt this move will actually make McCain look mavericky, but rather it will make McCain look frightened and Obama cool and collected. In a word, presidential.

forced equivalants

Traditional Journalists working for print, radio, and TV sources still seem to believe that being "objective" and "balanced" means to parrot what "both sides" of the story and let the reader/listener/viewer decide where the truth lies. But one if one is saying up is down? The response has been to repeat that too. Or less bad, what if one candidate is doing something bad, but in order to seem "fair," the press use that candidate's trumped up "but he's just as bad as me" research against the other candidate?

Well both have happened in the last eight years, and yesterday I saw a classic example of the latter. McCain hired as his White House transition guy someone who "earned more than a quarter of a million dollars this year representing Freddie Mac, one of the companies McCain blames for the nation's financial crisis." And this guy wasn't just a lobbyist for them once upon a time, he was "registered to lobby for Freddie Mac from 2000 through this month." "McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations"...let that sink in for a minute. Most experts think lack of regulation is at least one of the causes for this financial mess. And most recent college grads don't make $30,000 a year, I didn't make more than $30,000 until after law school, five years out of college.

But on CNN, they only talked about Rick Davis (they said $35,000 a month) and then compared this to Obama having Jim Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO in the 1990s, who headed Obama's VP search committee for a few months. And then also mentioned another former Fannie CEO who the McCain campaign in a TV ad claims Obama got advice from because some articles called him an Obama adviser, something anyone claims who wants to seem close to a candidate.

Oh and the Obama campaign claims that "26 McCain advisers and fund-raisers who have lobbied for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac." Let's see 26 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign versus two ex-CEOs, one of whom met Obama once for like 5 minutes. In what world are these two the same thing?