Barack Obama and the Pre-Roe Legal Regime

As Ed Whelan argues, had Roe v. Wade been on the books in 1961, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, may well have aborted her pregnancy:

Nearly 48 years ago, a young woman, not yet 18, became pregnant in her freshman year of college. Living in a time and place in which abortion was generally illegal, she proceeded to marry the father of her child and gave birth to a son. Perhaps she would have done so irrespective of the abortion laws at the time, even if, say, she lived in a legal culture that celebrated abortion as a fundamental right. Very possibly not. (I haven’t found any statistics on the percentage of pregnant college freshmen who abort their pregnancies, but indirect indications suggest that it’s very high.)

Barack Obama may actually believe, as he stated yesterday, that Roe v. Wade “was rightly decided.” But it may be very lucky for him, as the son born of that woman, that it hadn’t been decided a dozen or so years earlier.

Thus, Obama quite possibly owes his life to the pre-Roe legal regime that prohibited the termination of pregnancy.

Read the rest of Whelan's piece, here (no matter the Illinois Senator's own position on the issue, Obama's backers might not now have "The One" as their candidate had his mother taken advantage of the very policies he now promotes).

For context, recall that "Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States."

Obama Risks Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Aliens

Via Ben Smith, here's the new ad from the National Republican Trust:

Here's the background:

The driver’s license issue emerged in September 2007, when then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer ordered New York officials to grant driver’s licenses to illegals. During the Oct. 30, 2007, Democratic primary debate at Drexel University, Sen. Hillary Clinton fumbled a question from the late Tim Russert over whether she supported Spitzer’s plan. As for Obama, he has supported driver’s licenses for illegals since his days in the Illinois Senate, and continues to maintain that training illegals to drive, and insuring them, enhances public safety.

No doubt Democrats will renounce this as pure fear-mongering (especially members of the radical left, who are either domestic terrorists themselves, terrorist cheerleaders, or terrorist enablers).

Yet, whether there is a direct relationship between support for illegrant immigrant driver's licenses and the boarding of flights to commit mass destruction (terrorists could board U.S. flights with foreign passports), Barack Obama's position puts him on the opposite side of public opinion on the issue.

Barack Obama is genuinely too radical and too risky.

The Shape of the Race, 10-16-08

I noted earlier, in my "Shape of the Race" essay from October 1, that "Republicans are getting worried and are urging McCain to go on the offensive against Obama."

Since then, with all due respect, it seems the sky is falling for a number of conservatives, who are throwing up their hands, crying, "well, darn, we should at least save the filibuster" (here and here, for example).

To be fair, I've been tempted to join in the pre-election mourning, but I can't: I simply don't believe the game's up, that the self-identified Democratic socialist Barack Obama has things all sewn up.

And, well, he doesn't, frankly.

Investor's Business Daily, widely respected as running one of the most accurate polling operations in recent elections, has Obama up by just three points in its most recent survey, 45 to 42 percent:

McCain clung to a three-point margin behind Obama entering their last debate. The race remains a virtual dead heat among Independents, with 24% still undecided. Investors are also dead- locked, while non-investors favor Obama. So far, McCain is not doing as well as Bush did in 2004 with key GOP support groups, including those who call themselves conservatives and married women.

Plus, Rasmussen has McCain within four points of Obama, 50 to 46 percent (as of 10-16):

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%. It’s the first time since September 25 that McCain’s support has reached 46%, but Obama has now enjoyed a four-to-eight point advantage for twenty-one straight days...

Finally, the race has tightened dramatically in Gallup's daily tracking poll, which just recently began reporting the findings on "likely voters," rather than "register voters" (and was thus showing larger trends for Obama), and now we see a true dead-heat, 49-47 percent!

The "traditional" likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today's results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%, this is within the poll's margin of error.

Imagine that ... a "two-point advantage..."

Keep in mind that Barack Obama also has the highest unfavorables of any presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Barack Obama just can't put John McCain away.

We'll see the full impact of last night's debate by the end of the weekend, but I'm not expecting the dynamics to change all that much. Obama's had the headway for weeks, and the while economic crisis remains the driving issue in the electorate, there's a large sense of uncertainty floating around.

Never surrender!

Graphic Credit: Gallup Poll

Daily Kos and "Joe the Racist Plumber"

Daily Kos has attacked Joe Wurzelbacher as "Joe the Racist Plumber."

Daily Kos also published Wurzelbacher's address online earlier today.

Now, here's how Markos Moulitsas defends his blog's program of poliltical demonization:

If you want a radical departure from the governments we've suffered the last several decades, we must deliver a whipping the likes Republicans haven't seen in ages.

I realize there are people uncomfortable with aggressive language and action. That's the difference between liberal weenies and movement progressives. Liberal weenies sit around thinking that "the truth" is enough for victory, and that if we simply explain to voters why Democrats are better, why, we can't possibly lose any elections! That's the crowd that wants to keep the "high ground" and doesn't want to go down in the gutters and fight the GOP where they live, lest we get a little muddied ourselves.

Movement progressives realize that we must do everything necessary allowable under the law to win because elections have consequences. This isn't about who is most pure, but about taking the fight to the enemy and aggressively embracing progressivism, offering clear contrasts between us and them, and fighting fire with fire. There's no ambiguity about where I belong.

So to my fellow movement progressives, embrace that killer instinct and let's finish the job. We've got conservatives demoralized and on the run. They are retrenching around their most important voices. So let's pick off those they've left exposed and go after their best defended leaders as well.

There you have it ... straight from the voice of the "mainstream of the Democratic Party."

I'll tell you what ... I'm not demoralized.

Note: "Today, 'progressive' is the term of choice for practically everyone who has a politics that used to be called 'radical.'"

This includes Barack Obama.

I'll be fighting the left with the GOP in power or in opposition. There's nothing worse the Markos Moulitisas and his ilk, and I'll take my stand for what's right.

Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama

All along conservatives have hammered the point that Barack Obama is fundamentally a socialist radical.

Now, with last night's debate, the question which had long seemed forgotten in the mainstream media, is back in play. Indeed, James Pethokoukis asks, "Did Barack 'Spread the Wealth' Obama Just Blow the Election?"

A while back I chatted with a University of Chicago professor who was a frequent lunch companion of Obama's. This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States. Now, I tend to quickly dismiss that kind of talk as way over the top. My working assumption is that Obama is firmly within the mainstream of Democratic politics. But if he is as free with that sort of redistributive philosophy in private as he was on the campaign trail this week, I have no doubt that U of C professor really does figure him as a radical. And after last night's debate, a few more Americans might think that way, too. McCain's best line: "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around."

And by the way, I just noticed that the IBD/TIPP poll, the most accurate in 2004, has McCain down by just 3 points. If the contest is perceived by the voters as a contest between a wealth redistributor and a wealth creator, then it could be a long night come Nov. 4. This is still a center-right country, gang. Note this Gallup poll from June:

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

There you go.

I personally have no doubts at all the Barack Obama is socialist - perhaps not a full-blown Marxist Leninist, as I've written - but he's definitely socialist in his basic orientation on the relationship between economic class and state power.

What's amazing is how so many on the Democratic Party-left refuse to identify with that ideological label, preferring the amorphous "progressive" instead. It's six in one hand and a half-dozen in the other, for practical purposes.

Thankfully, Obama has yet to close the sale, so American tradition and values still may see the light of day after November 4.

Joe Wurzelbacher Attacked by Netroots Mobs!

Here's the new McCain ad buy, featuring “Joe the Plumber”:

This is, of course, Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio "Joe Sixpack" dude, who was the initial focus of last's night's presidential debate, and who is now the target of a coordinated defamation campaign by the radical left, which includes the release of Wurzelbacher's home address at Daily Kos.

The New Editor puts the Wurzelbacher smears in perspective:

By now everyone who follows politics has heard of Joe Wurzelbacher, a guy from Toledo known now as 'Joe the Plumber,' who asked a question of Barack Obama in a campaign rope line, and was referenced numerous times in last night's debate.

Like many of us, Mr. Wurzelbacher has questions about Barack Obama's tax policy, among other things.

So what happens to Mr. Wurzelbacher for expressing his views?

Reports in the mainstream media appear claiming that he is unlicensed (even though he doesn't need one as an employee of a business or as a contractor working on a residence), and that he apparently has a tax lien filed against him.

Not to be outdone, the Daily Kos published his home address for all the world to see.

The Democratic Underground just threw whatever they could at the guy.

Better think a little longer next time if you wish to criticize a Chicago Democrat running for president (or anything else, for that matter).

You might get 'the treatment.'

Update: Atlantic Monthly smear artist Andrew Sullivan chimes in -- in what appears to be part of his full court press to be named honorary Democratic Party Chicago precinct captain -- here and here.

Update II: More from the excruciatingly slimy Sullivan, who takes issue with the fact that Joe is Wurzelbacher's middle name, not his first.

Frankly, nothing is beneath the left these days ... nothing!

Virginia GOP Mailer Hits Democrats on Appeasement

The Virginia Republican Party has sent out a mass-mailer attacking the Democratic Party for appeasing our enemies.

Talking Points Memo is up in arms about it, denouncing the "slime."

In the race's final stretch, much of the real sludge and slime that floats to the surface will be the work not of the campaigns but of under-the-radar operations run by state parties and the like.

Here, for instance, is a new mailer from the Republican Party of Virginia that has to be seen to be believed. It hits Dems -- and by extension, Obama -- for wanting to appease terrorists and rogue leaders.

But the key is the last page, which displays a man who looks like Obama but with the same dark and sinister aspect as the bad actors depicted elsewhere in the mailing. Note the words superimposed over his face (click on the images to enlarge)...

Click the link for the image, which is narrow-cut photo of Obama-like figure.

TPM's rebuttal is not only to excoriate the "sleaze," but to argue that Barack Obama's policy is essentially identical to the current administration's, which is said to now be meeting with our enemies and finalizing diplomatic agreements that in fact consolidate the status quo (with a link here).

The problem with this is that not only has the Democratic Party long demonstrated in Iraq and Iran that it's the party of surrender, but that many prominent voices on the right have repudiated the Bush administration's capituation to Pyonyang and Tehran.

A John McCain administration, in this view, would return the U.S. to a foreign policy of firmness, bolstered by victory in Iraq.

Barack Obama, in contrast, will meet with our enemies "without precondition," which is translated into making absolutely no demands on the forces of evil arrayed against the United States.

Keep in mind, the Virginia Republican Party is simply playing traditional direct-mail politics. If folks want to see sleaze, just keep your eyes on the activities of the Kos-backed Demcratic Party base in the days ahead. Barack Obama had no comeback to McCain denunciation last night of the disgusting t-shirts worn by Democrat activists attacking Sarah Palin.

The Democrats will appease out enemies, and TPM's faux outrage does nothing to rebut that fact.

Obama Plays Defense in Final Presidential Debate

I let out a hoot last night when John McCain slipped in calling Barack Obama "Senator Government." The Wall Street Journal says that was the best moment of the debate:

Whether or not last night's much-improved debate performance helps John McCain rally in the polls, at least voters finally got a clearer sense of the policy differences. For our money, the best line of the night was Mr. McCain's Freudian slip of referring to Barack Obama as "Senator Government." Neither candidate is offering policies that meet the serious economic moment. But Mr. McCain would let Americans keep more of their own income to ride out the downturn, while Mr. Obama is revealing that his default agenda is to spend money and expand the government.

Beyond this, I think Barack Obama was on defense the whole night. McCain won the debate for his aggressive stance and clearly detailed responses on the economy. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Noah Pollock that the Arizona Senator missed a chance to drive the stake:

Opportunities abounded to drive home simple, direct, and perfectly legitimate arguments against Obama: his support for federally-funded and late-term abortions, his mendacity about his tax and health care plans, his associations with America-hating radicals and anti-Semites. He repeatedly tiptoed up to the line, but never quite crossed it. The effect was to discredit such accusations. The back-and-forth about Ayers ended up absolving Obama far more than it incriminated him. If you’re going to bring up Ayers, you better be ready to say something poignant and damaging. Instead, McCain served up Obama a stellar opportunity to make himself look perfectly innocent. And that is exactly what Obama did.

I'll have more on the debate later, and both sides are going to spin their candidate as the winner.

The truth remains that Barack Obama is benefiting from the economy, and Americans are setting aside reservations about machine politics and ideological radicalism in the hope of something new.

Be careful what you wish for, as they say...

McCain Must Expose the Real Obama

Tony Blankley lays out John McCain's challenge in tonight's debate:

The essence of this election season couldn't be simpler. The American public is so appalled at the condition of the country (which it unfairly, but not implausibly blames on the despised President Bush) that with fate casting John McCain in the role of Bush's surrogate, a majority actually is considering voting for Sen. Obama. And when an electorate is intent on doing something, the last thing it wants to hear about are the facts. Moreover, the public's lack of interest in the facts is facilitated by the major American media's refusal to report them....

During the past few weeks, as I have been traveling extensively across the country, I have yet to find anyone (including a few reporters and producers at local news stations in Florida, California and New York) who has heard [all the relevant facts of Obama's opportunistically corrupt past]. The response when I recite the facts is always about the same. More or less: "Really? Wow!"

A few days ago, a senior McCain campaign aide was reported to have said that McCain would rather lose with dignity than win by questionable means. I hope that isn't Sen. McCain's view because the aide has it exactly backward. If the polls are reasonably accurate, three weeks of John McCain's campaigning is the only thing standing in the way of the American public making the most uninformed presidential decision since the invention of the telegraph.

John McCain has an unambiguous duty to the nation to force the public to at least be informed as to the nature and character of Sen. Obama. He needs to lay out all the accurate available information of Obama's prior alliances, affiliations and conduct both for the purpose of revealing Obama's character and Obama's radical policy disposition.

The Obama campaign has raised to a high art the technique of politically intimidating people from commenting honestly about Obama. They play the race card dishonestly, and almost the entire deck from which they deal is filled with race cards and threats of litigation. Real racism is appalling, but the act of falsely charging racism undercuts the very causes of equality and tolerance.

As courageous as John McCain's life has been to date, the next three weeks may be his most heroic. He must do his duty and alert the public despite the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that will be shot into his back as he does so. Once he has discharged that duty -- and arranged for sufficient lawyers to protect the ballot boxes from what is likely to be an unprecedented campaign of attempted voter fraud -- Sen. McCain may be confident that his honor will be intact. And he will be ready to serve as our 44th president.

McCain apparently still seeks to take the high road, but he needs to realize that telling the truth about Barack Obama's shady political pedigree is not "dirty politics" but smart strategy.

The credit markets are stabilizing, and polling shows that people are not desperately worried about their economic situation - this means that the market crisis may have peaked just in time for an effective GOP push-back against Barack Obama's oppositional character.

Leftists Look the Other Way on Obama's Radical Past

Tracy, a commenter at my previous post, argued:

Don't you think if there was anything under his rocks, the dirtdobbers would have found it in four years. The worst thing Obama has on his dossier is some fleeting aquaintances with some undesirables. Get a life people.

We have some time to go yet before November 4th, but for die-hard Barack Obama supporters, there is no radical revelation would shake them from their worship of "The One."

Image Credit: PA Pundits

What is Happening to this Country?

I've said it before, but the more I learn about Barack Obama the more I'm convinced he'll be an unbelievable, unending nightmare for the United States.

Melanie Phillips nails it:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

It's not just that the most radical ideologues in America have found an eager ally in Barack Obama, but that the national media and public opinion have enabled and embraced this man.

This really is change, but it's something I can't believe, or believe in.

What is happening to the country?

Obama Backer Displays John McCain in Klan Sheets

I sometimes don't know what to think.

Just days after a supporter of Barack Obama attacked Sarah Palin with a disgusting photographic t-shirt at the official campaign webpage, now an Obama backer is alleging John McCain is a bat-wielding Klansman about to lynch Senator Obama:

Ron Havens has a reputation for provocative Halloween displays that reflect his strong political views.

But even Havens was pretty sure his latest effort was over the top. That didn't stop him from setting it up in plain sight anyway.

Havens, who lives on Schuyler County Route 15 (Ridge Road) just south of Odessa, this week set up a Halloween display featuring mannequins that look like Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain.

But the Obama figure looks like he is running, and the McCain likeness is dressed in the hooded robe of the Ku Klux Klan and is carrying a baseball bat.

Havens is quick to point out he is a liberal and a big supporter of Obama, and that the scene is meant to provoke thought about the way he believes Obama has been unfairly treated by the McCain campaign.

Not only does Havens acknowledge that the display's beyond the pale, the local NAACP official refused to condemn the provocation:

Georgia Verdier, president of the Elmira-Corning Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she was concerned about the injection of race into the presidential campaign when someone called her to complain about the scene.

After viewing a photograph of Havens' display, Verdier said it seems innocuous enough, but she's still concerned it may send the wrong message.

"It looks friendly but I am concerned not so much about this display, but in general about the fear and hate that have entered the campaign," Verdier said.

Of course, the "hate and fear" is being spewed by leftists and their endless allegations of racism, but it's all "innocuous" when directed at the GOP.

This has been the nastiest campaign in memory, and it's not because of John McCain's supporters.

Nebraska’s Child Abandonment Nightmare

I'm frankly blown away at the news that a Detroit mother drove 12 hours and 700 miles in the middle of the night to abandon her 13 year-old son at a "safe-haven" hospital in Omaha, Nebraska:

A Michigan mother drove roughly 12 hours to Omaha, so she could abandon her 13-year-old son at a hospital under the state's unique safe-haven law, Nebraska officials said Monday.

The boy from the Detroit area is the second teenager from outside Nebraska and 18th child overall abandoned in the state since the law took effect in July.

"I certainly recognize and can commiserate and empathize with families across our state and across the country who are obviously struggling with parenting issues, but this is not the appropriate way of dealing with them, whether you're in Nebraska or whether you're in another state," said Todd Landry, who heads the state's Department of Health and Human Services' division of children and family services.

There was no sign the boy was in immediate danger before he was abandoned early Monday, but an investigation into the boy's situation was still continuing, Landry said.

The boy has been placed in an emergency shelter. Landry said the family doesn't appear to have ties to Nebraska and he wasn't sure if the family had sought help in Michigan first.

State officials have met with the boy's mother, Landry said but wouldn't immediately address her reasons for leaving her son. He said he believed the boy's parents were married but wasn't sure if the father agreed to the decision.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, who is Republican, issued a press release on October 7 acknowledging the dire consequences of the law and announcing the state's intent to amend the legislation:

Abandonment of an older child is potentially very devastating. Human services professionals have highlighted the difference in giving up a baby who will grow up knowing their birth family wanted a better life for them versus the impact of a parent giving up on an older child.

Nebraskans believe strongly in parental responsibility. The essential element defining any family is the knowledge that parents provide unconditional love for their children.

Here's Captain Ed's remarks on the law, from October 9:

When Nebraska passed a law that allowed panicked mothers to abandon their babies at hospitals with immunity from prosecution, many hailed it as a breakthrough in helping to keep unwanted infants alive. Now it looks more like a poster child for bad legislation.

But note this from the comments at a "women's issues" blog:

This is perhaps just another canary in the mineshaft of just how tight and tense our world - especially financially - is becoming.

If anything ... these [open-ended] laws should be universal across the country.

No doubt the writer's a Democrat, and is looking forward to a Barack Obama administration.

This is not a stretch: Recall that Obama, aka Senator Infanticide, has consistently voted against born-alive infant protection legislation, which indicates the Democratic nominee's demonstrated willingness to abandon those most in need of society's protection - not unlike the Detroit mother who abandoned her son, along with her moral responsibility, at the steps of the hospital's door.

Image Credit: ABC News

The Wright Ticket to the McCain Comeback

The Los Angeles Times reports that John McCain is looking for another comeback:

John McCain unveiled a feisty new campaign speech Monday, but the talk of change and promise of a fist-shaking fight to November failed to allay Republican concerns that the presidential race may be slipping beyond his grasp.

With 21 days to the election, there was widespread agreement that Wednesday night's third and final presidential debate would be a crucial opportunity - and perhaps the last one - for the Arizona senator to change the course of a race that appears to be moving strongly in Democrat Barack Obama's direction.

But the consensus ended there. For just about every Republican urging McCain to focus relentlessly on the economy, there was another who said McCain should continue questioning Obama's character by citing his association with William Ayers, a Vietnam-era radical. Some said the GOP nominee needed to do both, and also bring up the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's controversial former pastor; others called that a mistake and said that a mix of messages was part of McCain's problem.

It now appears that McCain will raise Obama's relationship to Ayers in tomorrow's debate.

I'm one those who've been disappointed in McCain's aversion to attacking Obama's radical ties, although I understand the reasoning: McCain's been searching for the right approach that balances toughness and the bounds of decency (for fear of being labeled "racist").

It's been a difficult process, and it may be too late in many respects, at least on Ayers and ACORN.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is another story, however. Obama was badly damaged by viral videos and revelations of his pastor's fire-and-brimstone anti-Americanism. If McCain wants to get serious about attacking the Illinois Senator's questionable associations, Wright's the ticket. Obama admitted a close friendship to his pastor, and he attended Trinity United Church for close to two decades.

Stanley Kurtz, who's done more than anyone else to reveal the extent of Barack Obama's radical associations, has a new report indicating that Obama's relationship to Wright was more significant than previously reported - that from Wright, to Ayers, and the Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama's radicalism can be seen as a set-piece of funding, planning, and indoctrination.

Can this be the October Surprise?

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

Read the whole thing.

Barack Obama's ties to anti-American pedagogists and extremist black-separatists are not insignificant.

For John McCain, in looking for a comeback, he need look no further than Barack Obama's long history of funding and empowering groups who would denounce the U.S. as an "ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization."

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times

Obama Plays Race Card as More Blacks Are Elected

The New York Times has an important article up tonight, the implications of which will be dismissed by those who insist on making allegations of racism against those who speak critically of Barack Obama.

As the Times reports, black officials in state governments across the country are steadily working their way to successful careers in politics, and the remarkable change here is that white majority constituencies are supporting them:

Political analysts say [black] electoral gains are quietly changing the political landscape, increasing the number of black lawmakers adept at crossing color lines as well as the ranks of white voters who are familiar, and increasingly comfortable, with black political leadership.

The black officials, who often serve in small- and medium-size towns, have been overshadowed by the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who if elected would be the first African-American to hold that office.

But over the last 10 years, about 200 black politicians have won positions once held by whites in legislatures and city halls in states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee.

In 2007, about 30 percent of the nation’s 622 black state legislators represented predominantly white districts, up from about 16 percent in 2001, according to data collected by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a research group based in Washington that has kept statistics on black elected officials for nearly 40 years.

Political scientists and local officials also point to an increase in the number of black mayors who represent predominantly white cities in places like Asheville, N.C., population 74,000, and Columbus, Ohio, population 748,000. According to a study conducted by Zoltan L. Hajnal, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, about 40 percent of Americans have lived in or near cities that have elected black mayors or in states with black governors.

According to the report, black office-seekers still represent primarily minority communities, but the statistics indicate a startling transformation toward color-blind political representation across large segments of the nation.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama's campaign has made systematic use of racial allegations to propel a candidacy that at one time based its appeal on post-racial transcendence.

Mark Levin has more on this, and the contrast between objective black progress and opportunistic race-baiting is just astounding:

Barack Obama's campaign has managed to paint Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin as racists. Meanwhile, how dare anyone suggest that Obama's voluntary association with a racist pastor for 20 years, and his lame defense of the association, raises character questions.

Will the lib media be upset if we quote Aristotle, whose insight seems useful in this context?

"Those, then, are friends to whom the same things are good and evil; and those who are, moreover, friendly or unfriendly to the same people; for in that case they must have the same wishes, and thus by wishing for each other what they wish for themselves, they show themselves each other's friends." (Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book II, Chapter)

We choose our own friends and associates. And this is significant in Obama's case in particular as we are trying to get a sense of who he is and what informs him. Obama is asking the nation to honor him with its highest office. Yet, during most of his adulthood, he has befriended some of the worst kind of people — many of whom detest the nation Obama seeks to lead. And when combined with Obama's own extremism on issue after issue (is there a left-wing position he does not embrace?), there can be no doubt that an Obama administration working with a Democrat majority in Congress will fundamentally alter the nation's character in ways that will be very difficult to unravel.

America's commitment to color-blind equality, a commitment ironically confirmed by Obama's own nomination as the Democratic Party nominee, is one key area of public policy that will undergo transformation.

Strangely, the wheels of progress on race relations will likely grind to a halt, as a Democratic administration - with majorities in Congress - seeks to roll back race-neutral policies in areas of civil rights, education, and voting, with the likely result being the very kind of racial backlash against which Obama and his Democratic allies now decry.

It's Obama's Difference, Not His Race...

Democratic running mate Joseph Biden is in the news today. Apparently he's warning the McCain camp against encouraging "fringe people," a reference to the "angry" mobs who are allegedly threatening to Barack Obama.

This is just a few days after Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights veteran who was beaten while demonstrating at Selma, claimed that John McCain and Sarah Palin were "playing with fire" in invoking the George Wallace legacy of racial hatred.

This really is over the top irrationalism, especially since not one Democrat was upset about the left's Trig Palin smears, or Sandra Bernard's unhinged theatrical performances attacking Sarah Palin (warning she'll be gang-raped), or ... well, you get the picture.

The fact is that, as I've found in talking to people, over and over again, including top political science experts, there's very little Jim Crow racism to be found in the voting electorate; and in fact, we might as well see a reverse-Bradley effect pushing Obama over the finish line on November 4.

What bothers people about Barack Obama is not so much his race, but his difference - especially his oppositional difference to American tradition and values.

This passage, from today's New York Times, captures the common aversion to Obama among regular folks:

Race is indisputably a backdrop against which this campaign has unfolded ... but that does not mean opposing Mr. Obama or using harsh words is racist....

“At first I was open to Obama because I thought we needed new thinking about jobs and the economy,” said Burton Reed, a Republican at the rally here. “But the more I heard about him, the more worried I became. He says he’s Christian, but I hear he’s Muslim. And he just doesn’t sound pro-U.S.A. I kind of question his devotion to this country.”

One factor for Mr. Reed and several other Republicans and independents interviewed along the bus route on Sunday was Mr. Obama’s long association and friendship with Mr. Wright. Others said they simply had a hard time relating to Mr. Obama’s background or accepting his political positions, which are widely seen as liberal.

“The bottom line is, he isn’t one of us, and I’m scared to death of him,” said Lloyd Wood, a Republican and farmer in this rural town in southeast Ohio who came to the local Wal-Mart on Sunday for a campaign visit by Ms. Palin, Mr. McCain’s running mate.

“Guns, abortion, homosexuality, religion, protecting Israel, taxes,” Mr. Wood continued. “I feel like he is totally different from where I stand, and I worry what he would do to this country. And listen, I’ve voted for black Republicans before — voted for one for governor last time — but Obama is just this very privileged kind.”

A "very privileged kind"?

That pretty much sums up the basic resistance to Obama we saw during the Democratic primaries, the type of refrain one might have heard around the time the Illinois Senator alleged that working-class Pennsylvanians were likely to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them..."

I think this is what's bothering so many people, including some of the kindest souls you'd ever be lucky enough to meet ... people without a wicked bone in their bodies.

Obama's "hope and change" is just a bit much, and now Democrats are trying to turn everday folks into KKK night-riders, which reveals just how deeply the Obama camp is willing to go in rekindling the racial tensions that have been steadily subisiding since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize in Economics

Almost a year ago to the day, I wrote:

One would hardly know it from his New York Times commentaries, but Paul Krugman's actually one of the country's great contemporary economists...

The point's certainly relevant, with this morning's announcement that Professor Krugman has won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

I've been familiar with Krugman's work since my days in graduate school in the early '90s. I even attended a lecture given by Krugman while still at UCSB.

While Krugman's Nobel was awarded for his work on "the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity," many scholars remember him especially for the impact he made in strategic trade theory. As Tyler Cowen notes:

Krugman is very well known for his work on strategic trade theory, as it is now called. Building on ideas from Dixit, Helpman, and others, he showed how increasing returns could imply a possible role for welfare-improving protectionism. Krugman, however, insisted that he did not in practice favor protectionism; it is difficult for policymakers to fine tune the relevant variables. Boeing vs. Airbus is perhaps a simple example of the argument. If a government can subsidize the home firm to be a market leader, the subsidizing country can come out ahead through the mechanism of capturing the gains from increasing returns to scale. Here are some very useful slides on the theory. Here is Dixit's excellent summary of Krugman on trade. Krugman himself has admitted that parts of the theory may be less relevant for rich-poor countries trade (America and China) rather than rich-rich trade, such as America and Japan.

Because strategic trade theory gained powerful policy relevance simultaneously with the rise of Japanese economic power in the late-1980s, Krugman's work was often used to bolster arguments in favor of trade protection.

Consequently, Krugman spent later years shoring up his free trade bona fides, and in a 1994 Foreign Affairs essay he went so far as to ague that international economic competitiveness was a "dangerous obsession" (full article available in pdf, here). Clyde Prestowitz, himself a major advocate of strategic trade, took issue with Krugman's longstanding efforts of "running away from the implications of his own findings."

These are old debates, and while Krugman still claims "I’m not a protectionist," what's even more interesting about today's news are the political circumstances surrounding the award.

Krugman, in his capacity as a New York Times columnist, is a superstar on the hardcore ideological left. Many of these nutty nihilists are now claiming political vindication in the Nobel committee's decision, for example, Matthew Yglesias:

Krugman has become known to a wide audience as a left-of-center newspaper columnist. The fact that he’s a credentialed economist has always been well-known, but the point that he’s actually a really well-regarded economist is not all that well-understood. But a Nobel Prize is something people understand. It doesn’t make his political pronouncements the word of God, of course, and there are Nobel Prize winning economists on the right as well. But it does underscore the fact that very many people who really and truly know what they’re talking about think the progressive approach to economic and social policy is the way to go.

That's one of the more simplistic things I've read in some time, considering the partisanship associated with the award, but I'll let Jules Crittenden explain some of the thinking that went into the decision of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences:

I wouldn’t want to suggest Krugman excuses terrorism or hates America. It is likely, however, that his extensive Bush-bashing, Saddam-dismissing, GWOT-mocking absurdism was a heavy thumb on the Nobel scale.

These are the same folks who awarded Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work, so go figure.

GOP Struggles to Hold the South

I noted yesterday that 2008 may see a "critical election," whereby the recent economic and political trauma creates an electoral crisis reminiscent of the Civil War and the Great Depression, resulting in a Democratic landslide that shakes the nation's political coalitions to their foundations.

It's a dramatic scenario, and not particularly likely, in light of the nature of political dealignment in the U.S. since 1968 (independent voters and split-ticketing have become common and electoral volatility has been characteristic of recent party dynamics, with neither party able to secure a long-term advantage at the national level).

Yet, this morning's Wall Street Journal indicates that for the first time since the 1960s, the GOP ticket is at risk of losing the support of Southern voters: "In Virginia, McCain Struggles To Hold the South for GOP":

Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin are scheduled to roll into Virginia on Monday in a bid to stop the Republican ticket's slide in the state and thwart what once was unthinkable: fractures in the "Solid South," the backbone of successful Republican presidential politics for four decades.

Not long ago, Virginia appeared solidly in the McCain camp. Republican strategists knew the race would be tighter there in 2008 than in past years, but were confident enough not to open a standalone state headquarters and spent sparingly on advertising while pouring resources into other states.

But in the past week, polls began showing Sen. McCain falling well behind Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama in the state. Two weeks ago, Sen. Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, held a rally in Prince William County, Va., long a conservative stronghold in a state that has voted for only one Democratic presidential nominee since 1948. The Democrats drew more than 20,000 people, many of whom waited an hour in a torrential downpour and lightning before the candidates arrived.

Fueled by demographic shifts, rising doubts about the direction of the country, perceived missteps by Sen. McCain and a voter-registration push by the Obama campaign that has helped add a net of 310,000 new, mostly younger voters, the Democratic ticket increasingly appears positioned to win Virginia and make critical inroads across the South. A CNN/Time Inc. poll released Wednesday shows Sen. Obama has opened a nine-point lead on Sen. McCain in Virginia.

The article also notes the Obama's competitive in North Carolina.

While Obama still trails in the Deep South states of Georgia and Mississippi, this year's electoral trends appear to be at least partially reversing the "secular relignment" of Southerners to the Republican column since Barry Goldwater's run for the White House in 1964.

That said, Barack Obama's lead in national polling is tighter than had been assumed, depending on the polling organization and whether one counts "registered" or "likely" voters. Jennifer Rubin, moreover, points to a number of continuing liablities that have preventing the Illinois Democrat from pulling out a double-digit lead in national surveys.

As always, much remains to be seen, and Wednesday night's debate offers one more chance for John McCain to change the dynamics of the race.

"Vanishing Point": A Car Culture Classic

A couple of weeks back, when writing about Paul Newman's passing, I relayed how I used to hang out at the local movie theater when I was a kid.

Newman's death took me back to lazy days watching movies on the neighborhood big screen, with "Butch Cassidy" being one of my favorites. One movie I'll never forget from those times is "Vanishing Point," which I always thought was so unusual that it had to be something special (and being a 10 year-old kid, I was mostly just trying to figure it all out):

It turns out the "Up to Speed" blog at the L.A. Times did an "all-time favorite car movies" roundup last week, and readers were vocal that "Vanishing Point" hadn't made the cut:

The list we posted last weekend of our 10 favorite car films generated a fair amount of commentary — most of it relating to movies that posters felt were unfairly overlooked.
Up to Speed stands by its original selections, but we also understand the subjective nature of lists, rankings and popularity contests of any sort. And with that in mind, here are the four movies that got the most mentions from our readers:

"Vanishing Point" (1971) -– If, like Spinal Tap, we had gone to 11, this movie would’ve made the cut. Along with “Two-Lane Blacktop” (which did make the list), “Vanishing Point” is the car movie as existential epic -- as one poster noted, “one man, one car, one road: no exit.” (That car, by the way, was a white 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T.) If Camus had written a script for a car movie, this would have been the result. And it has one of the coolest endings in Hollywood history...

More at the link.

Will 2008 Be a Critical Election?

The idea of a partisan realignment is a key concept in political science.

In electoral politics, a new partisan era is said to have emerged when the coaltions supporting the parties become disrupted and voters realign their allegiances, with a new party becoming the hegemonic party for decades at the presidency and congressional levels.

There's a long line of research on this, but the most compelling account of partisan realigment is found in the notion of a "critical election." In an election contest whereby the political system is facing a fundamental national crisis of catastrophic proportions, voters choose the party out of power and elevate a new, enduring partisan coalition at the levels of the presidency and Congress. The elections of 1860 and 1932 are the key examples. The Republican Party was the dominant party in American politics following Abraham Lincoln's election at the moment of national crisis precipitating the Civil War; and in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in a New Deal realignment that emerged out of the calamity of the Great Depression.

The Wikipedia page on realignments (which features an excellent review of the scholarship) singles out 1932 as classic case of partisan realigment:

Of all the realigning elections, this one musters the most agreement from political scientists and historians; it is the archetypal realigning election. FDR's admirers have argued that New Deal policies, developed in response to the crash of 1929 and the miseries of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover, represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics.

There's been little formal discussion of 2008 as a realigment around the blogosphere.

I've seen a few articles here and there, but partisan bloggers are more caught up in the scandal of the moment to reflect on the factors in this year's race that may portend a contest of epochal proportions. Folks say it's a "Democratic year," but the concatenation of events in foreign policy, and especially at home with a finanicial crisis (routinely described as the worst since the 1930s), may well result in a victory for Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on November 4 ushering in a new era of Democratic dominance lasting well into the future.

The truth about realignments, however, is that they are historical artifacts and not recurring political phenomena. The current political era is more appropriately known as a "dealignment system," in which the rise of politically independent voters and shifting electoral coalitions have resulted in neither party holding a long-term lock on both the presidency and Congress on the scale of the GOP from 1860 to 1928 or of the Democrats from 1932 to 1968.

I've contemplated the potential for a Democratic realignment for some time, but because of the success of the surge in Iraq, and the nomination of John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer, circumstances have appeared hopeful that the GOP might retain the White House. Not only that, for true dominance, should the Democrats take the presidency, the party would also need to consolidate their hold on Congress with a 60-plus filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That possibility has long seemed remote.

Until this last month, that is.

The collapse of Wall Street over the last few weeks indeed repesents the kind of catastrophic event that precipitated previous partisan realignments - in other words, the current crisis, with polls showing highest voter dissatisfaction in American history, may well be the catalyst for historic Democratic victories, including a 60-plus margin in the upper chamber of the Congress.

Stuart Rothenberg made a dramatic argument this week, laying out the possibility for a GOP bloodbath:

It’s obvious to all that the national landscape — and the presidential map — shifted dramatically in the Democrats’ favor during the financial crisis. Americans are more dissatisfied with the present and worried about the future, all of which helps Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Democratic Congressional candidates.

Obama may not be comfortably over the crucial 50 percent mark in polls, but states that McCain hoped to compete in are moving out of reach, while more traditionally Republican states have come into play for Obama. McCain needs to change that dynamic quickly to have any chance of winning.

McCain still has a month to change the focus of the race, and Obama may have peaked too soon. But public concern about the economy isn’t likely to disappear over the next month no matter how much Republicans wish it would.

So far, there is no evidence that Democratic candidates are paying a price for the public’s sour mood, or that the election will be “anti-incumbent.” It is Republican candidates who are feeling the political pain.

The outlook in Senate races continues to deteriorate for Republicans, with Democratic gains at least in the high single digits increasingly likely. Where I once wrote in this space that Democrats had a chance of reaching 60 seats in 2010 (“For Democrats, Time to Pad Senate Majority and Think 60 Seats,” Feb. 12, 2007), I now can’t rule out 60 seats for this November....

Republicans appear to be heading into a disastrous election that will usher in a very bleak period for the party. A new generation of party leaders will have to figure out how to pick up the pieces and make their party relevant after November.

On Thursday, Steven Stark laid out the hypothesis that Rothenberg's "bloodbath" may indeed result in a fundamental transformation of the party coalitions:

Over the past eight years, the reaction of the Bush administration to both 9/11 and the current financial mess has been, ironically, one that is traditionally Democratic: running huge deficits while creating vast new government interventionist bureaucracies to deal with homeland security and the credit crisis. The current administration also decided that this new era required an expensive, expansionist foreign policy, fighting "terror wars" on various fronts.

Now, the public may be in the process of deciding that, if a new era requires a more activist and expansionist government, Democrats are better equipped to handle these tasks. Voters may also decide that they are willing to accept the "risk" of a far more rapid military withdrawal from Iraq - which is, after all, the major foreign-policy difference between the McCain and Obama candidacies....

And then there's the credit crisis which has just hit; admittedly, its effects may not be known for months or even years. But if Obama is able to win big because of it, it could serve as the final crystallizing event that allows the Democratic Party to reap the benefit for years to come.

I'm not one to make predictions, and I'm not ruling out that John McCain can pull off a miraculous upset. But if trends on the economy and voter sentiment continue their current trajectory, 2008 may just well turn out to be a genuine critical election.

The key indicator, for me at least, will be what happens in the elections for the Senate, and here's how Patrick Ruffini describes things:

If you're a conservative looking at the odds, what should really scare you is not the 80 to 90 percent chance that Barack Obama is the next President. It's the very real chance that Democrats could get to 60 or tantalizingly close to it in the Senate. President Barack Obama is unfortunate. President Barack Obama with 60 votes in the Senate means a socialist America.

And that would mean a fundamental reorientation in the ideological underpinnings of the American state, not unlike that following 1932.

The Obama Thugocracy

Michael Barone presents a cold, hard look at the likely shape of American politics upon the possible accession of Barack Obama to the presidency: "The Coming Obama Thugocracy":

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals....

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Also, see the short film, "October Surprise," a devasting indictment of Obama's refusal to provide a copy of his birth certificate to Philip Berg, who has filed a lawsuit challenging Obama's citizenship eligibility to serve as president of the United States.

Assassination Politics?

Barack Obama continues to hold a sizable lead in Gallup's daily tracking numbers, but the Democrats nevertheless are reacting with abject paranoia to the recent news of angry GOP supporters at John McCain rallies.

Apparently, the McCain/Palin team is guilty of stoking "hate and fear" among the conservative base, and the visceral emotions seen at the McCain events allegedly indicates that Barack Obama is now at risk of being assassinated:

How far will McCain and Palin go to get what they want? Are they willing to incite violent behavior? The fringe of the right-wing does not need to be encouraged or supported. They simply need to be pushed to the outskirts of civilized society. Sure they can vote, but KKK members can vote too. Best not to pander to hate in a country where hate has already caused so much horror.

And here's this from the New York Times:

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Especially precious is the "Weimar" reference (Republicans are Nazis, remember), but read the whole thing for more (John McCain and Sarah Palin have apparently assumed the Jesse Helms mantle).

And the Democrats are ahead?

These assassination smears are coming precisely when Obama's held his longest sustained lead all year, and when there's even been some speculation that the Illinois Democrat might see a reverse Bradley effect working in his favor.

We've still got over three weeks of campaigning, of course, so we'll see even more unhinged rants against GOP partisans in the days ahead. Nothing surprises me any more.

Related: "Stop The Hate....Remember The Worst Times In America Are Better Than The Best Times Elsewhere!"

Our Sacred Duty as Parents

A couple of months back, precinct walkers for the Yes on 8 campaign knocked on my door. I told them that I favored the measure and I gave them my card, indicating that my department often hosts speaker forums and that faculty members invite speakers for classroom visits.

I was contacted by a representative of the campaign, and a gentleman came to discuss the Yes on 8 position in my classes. It was an interesting day, with some strong reactions among students, from both sides of the issue, but I was pleased that the kids had a chance to discuss the proposition.

In any case, I thought I'd share that story to go along with this incredibly moving video above, via Political Pistachio, featuring Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and his interview the Parker family in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. The Parker's kindergartner brought home a "diversity" booklet that featured treatments of homosexual marriages as normal. The Parkers were shaken not only by this loss of moral guidance over their kids, but also the state's reaction to their request for parental notification.

It turns out that the measure is now gaining support in public opinion, due to the increased television advertising on the Yes on 8 side (a yes vote would amend the state's constitution to authorize marriage solely between one man and one woman).

See also the Yes on 8 website, Protect Marriage.