The clothing thing is worth a quick chuckle and a comment about "lipstick on a pitbull"... but to me, it's a non issue.

The Big 10 polls.. just... if I believed they were true, I'd say it was the mortal blow to the McCain Campaign. I don't, though. It's just way way too positive for Obama to be accurate. It's ------------------------> this far away from other polls. This has the effect of making me not believe it. If I saw other polls even halfway between the mean and this, I'd at least WANT to believe it.

BTW, here's what I thought about PA. Right now, McCain needs a game changer. Needs to take away momentum. But there's not really ways he can do that, traditionally. His opponent has like a 5-1 edge on money on hand, so can drown him out in ads. The base (the 527's) don't look to be having a Swift Boat ready at hand. He can't go negative, because, the public perceives him as already being too negative already, and Obama can drown out anything he tries.

So, his polling indicates that PA may be 3-4 points closer then what's reported. So he announces a surge, and throws everything he's got at the PA situation. IF, as his polling indicates, things start to tighten, well, you've got your story for the last two weeks, which is "McCain's surging! Captain Comeback is at it again. Can Obama hold on?".

The best advertising is the ones the media does for you.

It doesn't seem to be working yet.

I beg to differ. No pix plz. k, thx. ;)

SI

Honestly, it appears that Murtha may be the one trigger in Pennsylvania that could give McCain that boost. Not only is Murtha's political life apparantly in danger after his 'redneck' comment, it could result in a surge of Republican voters in western Pennsylvania that could put the presidential race back into play, especially given that the Obama campaign feels that PA is only a 2 point race as of a couple of days ago......

Murtha Race Tightens After 'Racist,' 'Redneck' Remarks - FOXNews.com Elections

I find this interesting also. I'd like to know if those numbers start to even out if you combine the "extremely" and "very" strong reponses......I consider myself patriotic and love my country, but I think I'd have answered those questions with the "very" strong option just because of the phrasing -- and an aversion to align myself with extremes of any sort.

The problem is, MBBF: Other than the supposedly leaked Obamapolls, no one's showing any movement at all, it's still +10 Obama, it's like the opposite of the Big 10 polls I talked about above. It's an outlier.

There's even one today, O51/M41.

Anyone else wondering what Barry's half hour commercial will feature?

Lo, the king of intellectual dishonesty speaks!

Your majesty.... :bowdown:

Despite the polls, I still think it is anybody's game. I think 2004 taught us that something in the polls isn't quite as accurate is it may have once been. I will still be on the edge of my seat on election night (and by "seat" I of course mean "bar stool").

I was hoping it would be a parade down the main street of Gotham City where he would drop $1,000,000 to the crowd in a way to spread the wealth around...wait...that was a different mad man.

Yeah, that was Bernanke going down Wall Street with $700 billion.

:D

It'd be really amusing if he started pulling at his face, slowly revealing himself to be Ross Perot.

"Okay, people, now that I've got your attention, why don't you take a look at these charts with me for a half hour."

Actually, I wish he'd come out with his wife in spangley outfits and start singing "I'm a little bit Country, I'm a little bit Rock and Roll."

They've got the same ears.

edit: Barack and Ross, that is

I shouldn't say this, but let's just say I'm in negotiations to "fully animate" my stick figure cartoons for a different subject matter, and spread to over 30 minutes....

So you assume everyone who would criticize Palin is intellectually dishonest?

The only thing that could change the results is if these heavily democrat samples that most polls are using end up overstating the democrat-republican turnout advantage. I still think that's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's enough to make a difference on election day. That said, I do expect these 8-10 point Obama leads to end up being 2-3 point margins.

Probably so. He will not win by 8 percent. But he might hit a home-run in the electoral college. Not a Reagan level home-run, but bigger than the last several.

Something interesting someone pointed out at 538...

In 2004, George W. Bush won a narrow election over John Kerry.

In 2008, John McCain is polling behind Bush's numbers in all fifty states.

I agree. I still will be surprised if Obama wins North Carolina at this point, despite the polling numbers.

Interesting strategy by Obama to point to how McCain (you know, the guy who is just like W Bush) voted against Bush's tax cut as a support of Obama's strategy. While it may give him a little cover in rolling those tax cuts back, it goes in the face of his "McCain is George Bush" message.

The point is that 2000 McCain was against the Bush tax cuts but 2008 McCain is Dubya part II.

I think that's just a short term response to the McCain's new Bush talking points. They are still airing those McCain-Bush connection ads, with McCain himself saying he voted with Bush "More than 90% of the time, more than most Republicans." As long as Obama keeps airing that clip, it will be hard for McCain to really distance himself.

That really is a very effective ad.

Zogby is using the 2004 weightings and has a +12 Obama advantage.

I check out Zogby, and wow. McCain's campaign is taking a nosedive. -2 only 4 days ago, and he's down by 12 points now.

Yup. It could happen. But this is culturally a McCain state.

If Obama wins, it will be in large part b/c McCain took NC for granted for so long.

McCain says c*nt on TV
YouTube - Did John McCain just say the "C" word on live TV?

Obviously adds nothing to the conversation but worth a laugh

Samuel Johnson, of course, described patriotism as the last resort/refuge of a scoundrel. But then I think he was referring to a politician who had lost all the arguments, had nowhere else to go and so claimed to be the patriot.

Oh, but wait ................. ;)

:D

As I've said a few times, one of the great "what ifs" in my relatively short lifetime was Ross Perot as President.

SI

Looks like the $150K clothing purchase for Palin might have run afoul of McCain-Feingold, specifically sections 313 and 323:

GovTrack: H.R. 2356 [107th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill

lol that's pretty ironic

You're another liar in the thread (by the liberal definition of that word), I'll add you to the list.

"a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

So such expense would be considered personal use if that use would have existed whether or not Palin was running for VP. But clearly, the clothes are only being purchased because she IS running for VP, so this doesn't break the rule you cited.

Desperate spin. But your guy's winning! Why you do you have to resort to lies?

But look at Section 323, which forbids a national committee of a political party from contributing things prohibited by the act. One of which is a clothing purchase.

You said you were a prosecutor, so the legal definition couldn't have escaped you.

It's not prohibited by the act.

ALL clothing purchases are not prohibited. Only those that are "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

Buying clothes for the campaign trail doesn't count, unless there's some other rule that bans that entirely.

The rule reads (2), including (A-I). So start with (2), that doesn't include her clothes purchased for campaign purposes. You can't then crowbar in (B), with is used to illustrate an non-exclusive example. If they're buying her shit to wear out on the town, we have a problem.

So now we need to find out if her kids got bags and shit!

Even though the act specifically spells out a clothing purchase, you are stating that it is not subject to the stated "limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act."?

Dola,

Even if the stuff is sold at auction after the election, it would seem that the use of the clothing would be considered a taxable benefit during the time it was used.

Molson is dead on here. In order for it to violate campaign finance reform laws, you would need to prove that Palin has a history of buying 150K of clothes outside of the campaign and she would have done this even if she was not running for office. That's why it lists things like mortgages, car payments and tuition as examples.

By your logic, any purchase of a household food item (like, say, a salt shaker) used on Obama's campaign jet would be a violation. They key to the law is being able to prove that the person would have the item even if they weren't running for office. Given Palin's pictures, 100K salary and prior wardrobe, you would have a hard time convincing a judge that she would be wearing $5000 Armani suits if she were still governor of Alaska (and the purchase has no relevance to her running as VP).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Palin wouldn't be spending big bucks like that if she wasn't running for VP. Seems like much ado about nothing. Then again, this whole clothes thing is much ado about nothing.

SI

I think Molson is right on the letter of the law, but I also don't doubt that McCain is violating the spirit of the law. Coming up with creative exploits to his own campaign finance law has been a specialty this year.

Calling someone else a "liar" seems a bit extreme when I think this is a very close call upon reading the statute. I know absolutely nothing of the legislative history of the statute (which is certainly relevant), but a textual reading means that Palin and the RNC have some explaining to do.

You are clearly correct that the statute does not per se bar clothing purchases. However, your interpretation is nonsense that if a candidate asserts a connection to the campaign (which is all that I can gather from your posts as to what you think the statute means), then there is no violation. Notably, the listing of categories in (A) - (I) includes some items which are listed in a dissimilar manner. Specifically, "(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense" distinguishes automobile purchases that serve a campaign function and those that don't. Subsections (E) and (H) are similarly drafted. Your interpretation makes the "noncampaign-related" language superfluous since you treat "(B) a clothing purchase" as meaning "(B) a noncampaign-related clothing purchase." A basic rule of statutory construction, thus, disfavors your interpretation. A more logical reading is that certain items are presumed to be noncampaign-related (like country club fees), while other items must be properly distinguished on a case-by-case basis (like travel expenses). Clothing items fall into the former category. Importantly, the statute bars conversion of campaign-related items to personal use, so if she keeps the clothes (which I address below), that is a definite no-no.

That interpretation is also favored by the likely policy goals of the statute. It is too easy to simply label clothing as "for the campaign" as long as it is worn at some point during the campaign season (not even in public). Such an exception would swallow the rule. Counting against Palin is the incredible expense of the items she purchased. Without knowing the details, there would need to be an itemized assessment of the clothing that she bought.

However, I think that Palin and the RNC might escape the confines of the statute if they stay true to their promise to donate the clothes to charity. In such case, it would seem clear that the items were only used for campaign purposes (assuming they are worn by her at some point). Still, it is not an easy or obvious interpretation. I think a court would spend some time going through what I imagine is ample legislative history.

Ultimately, I think the issue is a distraction, but the irony of her testing the bounds of McCain's most significant legislative accomplishment is pretty rich.

Are you saying that Palin has a history of buying $150K worth of clothes at a time? I think that would be pretty easy to prove that is not the case.

As for the Obama example, it apparently would fall under the statute. However (I might be mistaken, wouldn't be the first time) since he is not taking any FEC money, those parts of McCain-Feingold don't apply to his campaign.

Dola,

Thinking more about it, the salt shaker scenario wouldn't apply in any event, more than likely. I had forgotten about legal theory of "de minimis", which exempts small items from being reported or tracked due to the out of proportion administrative burden they would bring.

are we still banging on this? Sheesh. Does it really matter? (I agree more with Arlie then others on this, it's worth a laugh as I said, but anyone who seriously wants to prosecute this as a McCain-Feingold violation needs their head examined)

Did some number crunching. $150,000 could feed a family of five in the Philippines for 28 years. :eek:

I think the Palin-clothing talk should be moved to it's own forum a la werewolf.

I wonder what McCain thinks of this...

Join Rudy 2012

It's only 24 if you tip properly, you cheapskate. :)

Ugh. My personal feelings on same-sex marriage aside, this is just absolutely fucking slimy.

The people behind Proposition 8 out in California, which would eliminate the rights of gay couples to marry, are going to companies who donate to the folks who are opposed to the proposition (the company who speaks in this article supports it, over a quarter of their workers are gay), and DEMANDING that they donate at least the same amount to them or risk being published as a "Company that does not support traditional marriage"

The certified letter reads: "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.”

The letter was signed by Ron Prentice, the campaign chairman for Yes on Prop 8; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.

The people have admitted that they sent it, and they stand behind it. They call it "just trying to hold their ground in a passionate race."

Call it what it is. Blackmail. Pure and simple.
News 8 :: KFMB Stations, San Diego, California

Wow. A-holes of the world unite!

SI