McCain, Thune Play Jack Bauer, Torch 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th Amendments

Is Bob Ellis trying to lure me in? Yesterday I grumbled about President Obama's continued abuse of the Fourth Amendment and wondered why the conservative shouters haven't added that point to their charge that the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Comes now Sam Kephart, granted a guest column on Bob Ellis's Tea Party blog, to decry Fourth Amendment abuses advocated by, of all people, sponsoring Senator John McCain and co-sponsor Senator John Thune. Kephart alerts us to S. 3081, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act.

...S.3081 lacks clear definitions for the operational terms “material support,” “The potential intelligence value of the individual,” and the all-inclusive phrase “Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.” It’s Catch-22 with no way out.

Under this law as currently written, any U. S. citizen who is a war protester, publicly exhibits anti-government sentiments, is a Tea Party activist, or a political opponent of a given Administration could fall (or be made to fall) under one or more of its ill-defined and ambiguous conditions.

If the Feds believe you are committing a “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities,” you can be hauled off and held indefinitely in military custody with neither legal recourse nor due process. Your Constitutional rights to free speech and personal liberties would disappear with the stroke of a hidden pen [Sam Kephart, "S. 3081 and John Thune: National Security Trumps Essential Liberty," Dakota Voice, 2010.10.18].

McCain and Thune's legislation even goes so far as to prohibit the Justice Department from expending any funds to conduct trials for such "belligerents" in the regular judicial system. In other words, if you cheese off Uncle Sam, your judicial rights disappear. No warrants, no grand jury, no speedy and public trial, no jury of your peers. The government can throw you in a hole for as long as it deems "hostilities" to be in effect... which in the age of the global war on terror is forever.

S. 3081 was introduced on March 4 this year and hasn't moved from the Judiciary Committee since. Let's hope it stays that way. And let's hope we hear more from conservatives like Kephart who want to hold Senator Thune and the rest of Congress accountable for protecting all of our Constitutional freedoms from fear.

---------------------
p.s.: This isn't the first time Kephart has said things I dig. It's good to see Bob Ellis associates with at least one guy who can talk sense.

Tea Party Promises Exactly What I Hoped: Dem Wins!

Teabaggers, 9-12ers, tricorner hatters, whatever the heck we're supposed to call this seething mass of predictable socialism criers, keep doing what you're doing. If you do, we'll see more Democrats win in November.

Case in point: the Arizona U.S. Senate race. Four-term Senator John McCain, is forsaking his maverickiness to cling to his seat. He holds an 11-point lead over talk-show challenger J.D. Hayworth (that's PPP's read; an Arizona outfit finds McCain with a 26-point lead). McCain's approval numbers in his own state are worse than President Obama's numbers nationwide. What's saving McCain so far? Hayworth's favorable ratings are worse. Plus, while Hayworth leads among conservatives, McCain leads overwhelmingly among moderates.

McCain also polls strongly against the Democratic challenger Rodney Glassman. But if the Teabaggers can push Hayworth over the top in the primary, Glassman has his best shot of winning in November.

Unseat a four-term senator, depose the most recent GOP presidential nominee... and replace him with a Democrat. Maybe all this conservative foment really is astroturf... secretly funded by socialists! Ah, if only we liberals were that tricky... and that rich!

John McCain Highlights Tea Bag Nuttery

Teabaggers are a motley lot. The very Brownian movement includes a lot of people bouncing around in their own world of conspiracy theories (though some organizers are getting smarter and booting freakshow artists like Orly Taitz), half-digested Austrian economics, Christian persecution complex, ill-informed economic angst, and just plain old rage and hatred, if not outright racism. Out of these varied motivations, the Teabaggers have yet to prioritize a civil and productive discussion of policy. For the most part, they are content to ape the hyperbolic patriotic slogans and silly insults shoveled to them by clever Astroturfers and sales-driven entertainers.

Teabaggers just aren't focused on practical policy. But don't take my word for it. Take John McCain's (hat tip to PP):



I'll admit, I'm bothered at the apparent trend toward political ads that look like SNL spoofs. But McCain simply does here what Jon Stewart does so well: using the candidate's own words to show the candidate's lack of focus on real problems.

Wurzelbacher Bails on McCain to Sell Books

I used her, she used me,
But neither one cared --
We were getting our share....

[Bob Seger, "Night Moves," 1976]

And you think it's funny watching liberals beat up on the guy who won? Check out Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (misleadingly known as Joe the Plumber) throwing John McCain under the bus in a vain attempt to recapture some scraps of media attention to promote the book written for him by aspiring novelist Thomas Tabback (oh darn—it worked!).

Wurzelbacher tells Glenn Beck he was "appalled" by McCain's support of the bailout. Of course, he didn't stop campaigning for McCain right then and there because he needed the publici—er, he felt McCain was the lesser of two evils.

But knowing "Sarah Palin" continues to get more Google hits than "John McCain," Wurzelbacher maintains that the Alaska governor is "the real deal."

Time for a new nickname, SJW: try "Joe the Media Gigolo."

Given his own classy silence over the past month, it appears John McCain has likely recovered too much of his dignity and honor in defeat to bother responding to such betrayal. But oh, how nice it would be if the right campaign staffer could let slip the internal memo that would finally prove the October surprise I never quite could: that Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher was a plant, connected to the Keating scandal and bought and paid for by the McCain campaign.

Obama and McCain Meet, Substantive Discussion Ensues

President-Elect Barack Obama met with his erstwhile opponent, Senator John McCain, this afternoon. The two men spoke privately for an hour and a half... probably a longer and more substantive conversation than any McCain had with his erstwhile running mate.

chuck ritter, line 1...

Obama Wins Lake County (Illinois and South Dakota!)

Barack Obama beat John McCain in 17 of South Dakota's 66 counties. Among them: Lake County, my home turf, where Obama beat McCain by 40 votes, 3033 to 2993. This in a county that went 60-40 for Clinton just five months ago. Good work, neighbors!

Which Obama, Which McCain?

At the bottom of Dr. Blanchard's shamanism on the U.S. Senate races (the NSU swami says seven new Senate seats for Dems; your DSU diviner says nine, just to be contrary ;-) ), the good professor notes Stuart J. Taylor's question on the Presidential race: "Which Obama will America get, the ultra-liberal ideologue (Obama over his entire previous career) or the pragmatic reformer (Obama since he began running for President)?"

A good question, the answer to which will likely be the latter. Obama has always lived between groups, and the campaign has reinforced for him that that existence is what brings him success, is where he belongs. If ultra-liberal ideology won elections, we'd be pulling the lever for Kucinich on Tuesday. Obama has inspired idealism, but it is a practical idealism that we can produce practical reform, not just words.

Blanchard/Taylor's question is also interesting in that we could ask a nearly identical question about McCain: "Which McCain would America get, the ultra-conservative ideologue (McCain since he began running for President in 2007) or the pragmatic reformer (McCain over his entire previous career?" Where Obama has chosen pragmatism, McCain has chosen ideology... the wrong ideology, for a majority of Americans (not just the "un-American" ones). That's why Obama is winning.

Internal Johnson Poll: McCain 45, Obama 40

...and Joel who?

Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic gets hold of an internal poll from Senator Tim Johnson's campaign (papers do just float about in funny ways, don't they?). You can read the full document here (Word format). Highlights from the 613 likely South Dakota voters surveyed Monday and Tuesday of this week:

• McCain leads Obama 45% to 40%. (Bush beat Kerry in SD in 2004 60% to 38%.)
  
• The sample included 41% self-identifying Republicans, 35% Democrats, and 24% Independents. Should boost McCain's numbers.
  
• The sample could be said to skew older (though that depends on your definition of old): 41% over 55, 32% under 40. Should boost McCain's numbers
• The sample skewed educated: 44% college graduates, 27% with only HS diploma or less. Should boost Obama's numbers.

Laugh line of the poll: Joel Dykstra has a lower favorability rating in South Dakota than Barack Obama... and one week before the election, 42% of respondents still say they have never heard of Dykstra. (3% say they've never heard of Senator Tim Johnson... who are you people?)

The GOP presidential nominee winning South Dakota by 5 points, against a black Democrat who came in second in the South Dakota primary. The GOP Senate candidate still unknown to 2 out of 5 likely South Dakota voters. If there's any truth to Johnson's numbers, heads are gonna roll at GOP campaign headquarters....

Socialism: Not a Voting Issue

I've said it before, I'll say it again: We are all socialists. We are all redistributionists. We all believe in sharing the wealth.

If you still don't believe that, if you believe that you can't vote for anyone who espouses tax policies that it comforts you to call socialism, well, you can't use that belief to choose McCain-Palin over Obama-Biden. McCain and Palin both believe in taxing the rich and redistributing wealth, just like those other guys.

Hendrik Hertzberg highlights the sheer nuttiness of the McCain-Palin adoption of "Socialism!" as the last-gasp battle cry of the 2008 campaign by pointing to the words and deeds of McCain and Palin themselves:

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked [McCain] why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

And as for Palin...

Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs” [emphasis mine; Hendrik Hertzberg, "Like, Socialism," The New Yorker, 2008.11.03].

As I've said before, a voting issue is "a fact, policy, or moral position (or a set of several such things) that distinguishes one candidate or position from another and thus can justify, singly or in concert with other issues, voting for one candidate or position over the other." Sharing the wealth is simply not a voting issue. At every turn—experience; guns; impressive oratory; palling around with bad dudes, whacky pastors, and folks who hate America; and now socialism—McCain and Palin have negated even the silliest arguments they could make against Obama and Biden by their own beliefs and policies. There is no honest reason left in the GOP rhetorical ammo bag to vote for McCain-Palin over Obama-Biden.

South Dakota Gets Press on Abortion, Pressler Defection

More of South Dakota in the national press:

• NPR's Morning Edition today covers the retread abortion ban.
• So does the Los Angeles Times.
• Politico.com gives this amazing quote from former Senator Larry Pressler, on why he cast his early ballot for Barack Obama: "We have to be a moderate party. We can't be for all these foreign military adventures. We have to stop spending so much money. My God, the deficit is so high! The Republican Party I knew in the 1970s is just all gone" [emphasis mine].
• AOL newsblogger David Knowles puts South Dakota alongside Arizona as "Red States in Play." GOP slipping in South Dakota and its nominee's Western home state—yikes.

McCain-Palin: "No Chemistry... Negative Vibe... Know They're Losing"

The McCain-Palin ticket knows their victory and their partnership isn't meant to be, say Chuck Todd and Brian Williams (courtesy TPM's Josh Marshall):



"...on the verge of pulling a Bulworth." Oh, if only....

John McCain's Favorite Living Hero...

Politico.com posts Roger Simon's assessment of Colin Powell's Sunday endorsement of Barack Obama. He notes that our man Tom Brokaw had the good sense to keep his mouth shut and let the ex-general explain his reasoning clearly and fully for seven uninterrupted minutes of network airtime. Simon then recalls his experience on the Straight Talk Express in 1999, when a rather different John McCain was running for President:

The scene is the Straight Talk Express, the old Straight Talk Express, in 1999 — the one stuffed with reporters asking John McCain question after question and getting answer after answer, hour after hour. McCain is enjoying himself, even when the reporters, having exhausted all serious topics, turn goofy and play “favorites” with him, asking him his favorite tree (cottonwood), favorite breakfast cereal (Raisin Bran) and favorite toothpaste (Colgate).

And then there is this exchange that I recorded for history:

Favorite word, a reporter asks.

“Principle,” McCain says.

Favorite dead hero.

“Uh, Julius Caesar,” McCain says.

Favorite dead hero within the last 2,000 years.

“OK, off the top of my head, Lincoln,” McCain says. “Although the more I read and study, the more intrigued I am by Teddy Roosevelt.”

Favorite living hero.

“Colin Powell,” McCain says instantly. “Served his country. A wonderful man.”

[Roger Simon, "Powell Drops the Hammer on McCain," Politico.com, 2008.10.21]

Uff da.

Conservative South Dakota Blogger Abandons McCain

That blogger emeritus Professor Jon Schaff would deem Senator Barack Obama unworthy of your vote is no surprise. That Schaff, a pillar of South Dakota conservatism online, would level the same criticism against Senator John McCain is at least somewhat surprising. In a reprint of his Aberdeen American News commentary, Schaff criticizes McCain's futile focus on earmarks ("a tiny fraction of government spending"), his lazy advocacy of an across-the-board spending freeze, his lack of specifics on reforming Social Security and Medicare, and his "idealistic belief that nations can be made democratic by force coupled with wishful thinking."

Schaff uses no gentler words to describe Obama's plans. Actually, in places Schaff cleverly uses identical words to lambaste Obama and McCain.

I agree with Schaff's criticism of Obama's and McCain's responses on spending cuts. Both candidates have failed to "cowboy up" and say what we have to give up to pay our debts. We need some fiscal tough love... even if the Rove/Plouffe playbooks say tough love doesn't win you elections.

I disagree with Schaff's contention that Obama's foreign policy will be based on naïveté and eloquence. Even if you totally discount Obama's good sense, it's hard to imagine the other folks in the room—Biden, Lugar, Jones, Powell—recommending Obama do nothing but go make a speech at the U.N. to tackle the world's problems.

But what I find most significant is this very salient example of a committed South Dakota conservative apparently abandoning the Republican candidate (and doing so, unlike many of the other conservatives I've cited here, without mentioning Palin):

Both candidates advocate taxing and spending policies sure to drive our public debt even higher. Both candidates are making us a deal. Indulge ourselves now and let future generations pay for it. I haven't met the person who doesn't like being given stuff and letting someone else pay for it. The fact that we will accept this deal says as much about us as it does about the politicians.

But we don't have to agree to this. Perhaps this is an election to vote “none of the above” [Jon Schaff, "None of the Above," South Dakota Politics, 2008.10.20]

This may excite the Jackrabbit and my other third-party friends, although it is unclear whether Schaff is urging us to go for Nader or Barr or to simply mark no one on the Presidential portion of the ballot. Schaff has spoken previously against the notion of bolting from the Republican Party for the sake of moral consistency. He warned his fellow conservatives last year that forming a third party in response to the nomination of Giuliani would have done nothing but ensure a Clinton victory (seems so long ago now, doesn't it?):

I suppose such social conservatives will call this a moral victory. They will take pride, right after their fall, for remaining consistent in their views. Like Tom Tancredo they will pat themselves on the back for not voting for the "lesser of two evils" and ignore the fact that they helped elect the greater of two evils. Acting like children crying over not being able to get exactly what they want, they will get exactly what they don't want.

As a friend of mine likes to say, in one sense a moral victory is a kind of victory. In another more important sense, a moral victory is a defeat [Jon Schaff, "Social Conservatives, Presidential Politics, and Moral Victories," South Dakota Politics, 2007.10.12].

Obama is still my second choice; I miss the straight talk and on-the-sleeve idealism of Dennis Kucinich. Still, I don't feel I'm stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. I actually believe Obama can do greater good than McCain. Even though my dad has already canceled my vote with his absentee ballot, I still want to vote for the man who can change the status quo and will ask us to help. Maybe my own vote is just a different flavor of moral victory, but I want to vote for the best man on the ballot, and in 2008, that's Barack Obama.

If conservatives want to move en masse to support Bob Barr, I can live with that. (Plus, Barr's VP has better education and business experience than McCain's sidekick.) But "None of the above"? Not an option. Not at this point. If you want none of the above, start circulating your petitions... for 2012.

South Dakota Leaning? Show Me That Ouija Board

NBC moves South Dakota from its "Likely McCain" to "Leaning McCain" column, meaning we have shifted from red to pink. NBC notes its map is not poll-driven; evidently they have other ways of divining the mood of the electorate.

But whatever they're using—polls, chats with Dave Kranz and Stacy Steinhagen, Ouija board—I want to see it to believe it. Heck, I'll be happy just to see Obama beat the 60-40 spread Clinton beat him by here in Lake County.

Of course, applying the famous Schaff methodology, Obama signs do outnumber McCain signs here in Madison. Maybe, just maybe...

But seriously, does anyone see McCain's support eroding in South Dakota?

Bailin' on Palin: Peggy Noonan Hears Thoughtless Babble from GOP VP

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is still the big news (and the by-turns hilarious and pathetic repudiations by diehard conservatives of Powell's moral authority and significance are already flowing). But the list of Republicans declaring their loss of faith in the McCain-Palin ticket keeps getting longer. Wall Street Journal columnist and Reagan advisor Peggy Noonan already revealed her disdain for the Palin pick on an unexpectedly open mic back during the convention; now she puts it in writing:

But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for?

...it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just... says things.

...No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism [emphasis mine; Peggy Noonan, "Palin's Failin'," Wall Street Journal, 2008.10.17].

"...must address America in its entirety..." Hmm. Sounds a lot like something a great statesman said yesterday. A President must speak to America—all of America. Not just Joe Sixpack and Gooney McBuckshot.

When I can rely entirely on the statements of Republicans to justify my vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the McCain campaign doesn't stand a chance.

Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama

Former general and Secretary of State Colin Powell has just endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.



Powell says:

• Obama is a "transformational figure."
• Obama can handle our economic troubles better than Senator John McCain can.
• Obama will improve America's standing around the world.
• Obama's rhetorical skills are actually a good qualification for a President, not a liability (but Rebecca's readers already know that!).
  
• McCain's campaign has been too negative.
• Governor Sarah Palin is not ready to be President.

Says Powell of both candidates: "Both of them are distinguished Americans, who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good President."

Powell sees the last several weeks, especially the ecconomic crisis, as a "final exam," and he was put off by McCain's apparent uncertainty in how to respond to the crisis. He also says that Palin's performance over the last several weeks has shown her not to be ready for the job and has thus called into question McCain's judgment. Powell feels Obama has shown "intellectual vigor" and chosen a VP who is ready to take the reins on day one. While McCain has shown a "narrower and narrower" approach, Obama also offers a "more inclusive broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people." Powell sees the Bill Ayers situation as irrelevant to the problems that really matter and wonders why the McCain campaign would focus on him when McCain himself says Ayers is just a "washed-up terrorist." Powell says McCain's focus on Ayers is "inappropriate." Powell also is uncomfortable with the potential for a further rightward shift on the Supreme Court.

Powell is also offended that the GOP has been pushing the lie that Obama is a Muslim:

The correct answer is he is not a Muslim, he is a Christian... but the really right answer is, What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be President? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing things in America.

So, anyone want to call Colin Powell an unpatriotic socialist? The comment line is open....

Bill Ayers, Meet G. Gordon Liddy

Hat tip to, of all people, David Letterman....

Voting issue: a fact, policy, or moral position (or a set of several such things) that distinguishes one candidate or position from another and thus can justify, singly or in concert with other issues, voting for one candidate or position over the other.

A number of my commenters have been treating Senator Barack Obama's association with William Ayers as a voting issue, a reason to vote against Obama and for Senator John McCain. Last night, that voting issue was negated by David Letterman, who reminded America of Senator McCain's own relationship with convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy:

"Did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?" Letterman asked about Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy.

McCain said he knew him. Then, after a commercial break, McCain said, "I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison ... I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."

"You understand the same case could be made of your relationship with him as is being made with William Ayers?" Letterman said.

McCain said he has been completely open about his relationship with Liddy [David Bauder, "McCain Tries to Make Peace with Letterman," AP via Yahoo News, 2008.10.16].

McCain's association with Liddy isn't news. The Chicago Tribune covered it back in May, when the Clinton campaign was roadtesting the McCain campaign's tactics. Let's compare:

• Bill Ayers participated in bombing a statue, the New York Police headquarters, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon. G. Gordon Liddy participated in a White house plot to subvert the Constitution.
• Ayers has never been convicted or served prison time. Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wire-tapping, was senteced to 20 years, and served 5.5 until President Carter commuted his sentence.
• Ayers is now a professor of education. Liddy is a conservative talk radio host.
  
• Ayers has said "we didn't do enough" to stop the Vietnam War, a statement interpreted by some to mean he thinks he should have set off more bombs in the early 1970s. In 1994, after the feds stormed the branch Davidian compound in Waco, Liddy said on his radio program, [sorry, rough language coming] "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." (And as for Liddy on Hitler....)
  
• Ayers and his wife hosted a campaign event at his house for Obama in 1995. Liddy hosted a campaign event for McCain in 1998.
• Ayers donated $200 to Obama in 2001. Liddy has given at least $5,000 to McCain over the years, including $1,000 this year.
• Senator Obama has called Ayers' terrorist acts "despicable" and condemned them. Senator McCain appeared on Liddy's radio show last November and said, "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family.... It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

I'm not going to bother with quantifying the sins of Ayers and Liddy. And please note, I offer no defense of Ayers here. Go ahead, assume the worst of both men, and you can say, as does Chapman, that each man "back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology -- and... has never shown remorse or admitted error."

It's simple: if you think Ayers is a voting issue, then you must think Liddy is a voting issue. Have fun voting for Barr or Nader.

McCain: Mothers' "Health" Just a Buzz Word

Did you catch that last night, ladies? In response to Bob Schieffer's question about abortion and the Supreme Court (Bob! I'm disappointed! Another nine minutes wasted not talking about how to solve the real problems facing the country...), John McCain referred to mothers' "health" in quote marks. He even did the winky finger quote-mark gesture to indicate how little meaning the phrase "mother's health" will have for him in guiding his policies as President. In McCain's mind, your "health" is just a cover phrase stretched to mean whatever bad women want it to mean.

Yikes. Yikes yikes yikes. Now John McCain is starting to sound like Joel Dykstra.

McCain and Palin Disagree on Wright Tactics -- WWJD?

It's church night for the kids. Let's make a teachable moment out of the election:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and several top campaign officials see a sharp attack on Wright as the best — and perhaps last — chance to rattle Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill. ) and force voters to rethink their support of him. But McCain continues to overrule them, fearing a Wright attack would smack of desperation and racism, the officials said [Mike Allen, "McCain, Advisers Divided over Wright," Politico.com, 2008.10.15].

I find it ironic that it's Sarah Palin, the overtly Christian candidate with all the Focus on the Family cred, who wants to go for the personal attacks, while it's John McCain, a scriptural novice who keeps his religion quiet and is an "indifferent churchgoer," who has the honor to resist at least a little of the win-at-all-costs strategy.

Discuss.

John McCain, Meet Joel Dykstra... at the Losers' Party!

("He"? both of 'em!)

"Poll: Dykstra within striking distance of Johnson"

—Pat Powers, 2008.10.09, describing the 54%-36% gap between Senator Tim Johnson and hapless GOP challenger Joel Dykstra.

"well within striking distance"

—Steve Schmidt, McCain's chief strategist, 2008.10.13, describing where McCain's campaign currently stands against Obama's.

"...and the Lions are within striking distance of winning the Super Bowl"

—CA Heidelberger, 2008.10.09, commenting on Dakota War College.