Beyond Election Day

By BOB HERBERT

Conservative commentators had a lot of fun mocking Barack Obama’s use of the phrase, “the fierce urgency of now.”

Noting that it had originated with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Senator Obama made it a cornerstone of his early campaign speeches.

Conservatives kicked the phrase around like a soccer ball. “The fierce urgency of now,” they would say, giggling. What does it mean?

Well, if your house is on fire and your family is still inside, that’s an example of the fierce urgency of now.

Something like that is the case in the United States right now as Americans go to the polls in what is probably the most important presidential election since World War II. A mind-boggling series of crises is threatening not just the short-term future but the very viability of the nation.

The economy is sinking into quicksand. The financial sector, guardian of the nation’s wealth, is leaning on the crutch of a trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout. The giant auto companies — for decades the high-powered, gas-guzzling, exhaust-spewing pride of American industry — are on life support.

As the holiday shopping season approaches, the nation is hemorrhaging jobs, the value of the family home has plunged, retirement plans are shrinking like ice cubes on a hot stove and economists are telling us the recession has only just begun.

It’s in that atmosphere that voters today will be choosing between the crisis-management skills of Senator Obama, who has enlisted Joe Biden as aide-de-camp, and those of Senator John McCain, who is riding to the rescue with Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in tow.

As important as this choice has become, the election is just a small first step. What Americans really have to decide is what kind of country they want.

Right now the United States is a country in which wealth is funneled, absurdly, from the bottom to the top. The richest 1 percent of Americans now holds close to 40 percent of all the wealth in the nation and maintains an iron grip on the levers of government power.

This is not only unfair, but self-defeating. The U.S. cannot thrive with its fabulous wealth concentrated at the top and the middle class on its knees. (No one even bothers to talk about the poor anymore.) How to correct this imbalance is one of the biggest questions facing the country.

The U.S. is also a country in which blissful ignorance is celebrated, and intellectual excellence (the key to 21st century advancement) is not just given short shrift, but is ridiculed. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are cultural icons. The average American watches television a mind-numbing 4 1/2 hours a day.

At the same time, our public school system is plagued with some of the highest dropout rates in the industrialized world. Math and science? Forget about it. Too tough for these TV watchers, or too boring, or whatever.

“When I compare our high schools with what I see when I’m traveling abroad,” said Bill Gates, “I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow.”

The point here is that as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the United States is in deep, deep trouble. Yet instead of looking for creative, 21st-century solutions to these enormous problems, too many of our so-called leaders are behaving like clowns, or worse — spouting garbage in the public sphere that hearkens back to the 1940s and ’50s.

Thoughtful, well-educated men and women are denounced as elites, and thus the enemies of ordinary Americans. Attempts to restore a semblance of fiscal sanity to a government that has been looted with an efficiency that would have been envied by the mob, are derided as subversive — the work of socialists, Marxists, Communists.

In 2008!

In North Carolina, Senator Elizabeth Dole, a conservative Republican, is in a tough fight for re-election against a Democratic state senator, Kay Hagan. So Ms. Dole ran a television ad that showed a close-up of Ms. Hagan’s face while the voice of a different woman asserts, “There is no God!”

Americans have to decide if they want a country that tolerates this kind of debased, backward behavior. Or if they want a country that aspires to true greatness — a country that stands for more than the mere rhetoric of equality, freedom, opportunity and justice.

That decision will require more than casting a vote in one presidential election. It will require a great deal of reflective thought and hard work by a committed citizenry. The great promise of America hinges on a government that works, openly and honestly, for the broad interests of the American people, as opposed to the narrow benefit of the favored, wealthy few.

By all means, vote today. But that is just the first step toward meaningful change.

CBS News Report on Voter Purging and Supression

Some voters 'purged' from voter rolls

By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Bronstein
CNN Special Investigations Unit

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- College senior Kyla Berry was looking forward to voting in her first presidential election, even carrying her voter registration card in her wallet.

"Vote suppression is real. It does sometimes happen," said Daniel P. Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University.

But about two weeks ago, Berry got disturbing news from local election officials.

"This office has received notification from the state of Georgia indicating that you are not a citizen of the United States and therefore, not eligible to vote," a letter from the Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections said.

But Berry is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston, Massachusetts. She has a passport and a birth certificate to prove it. Watch some of the concerns of voting experts »

The letter, which was dated October 2, gave her a week from the time it was dated to prove her citizenship. There was a problem, though -- the letter was postmarked October 9.

"It was the most bizarre thing. I immediately called my mother and asked her to send me my birth certificate, and then I was like, 'It's too late, apparently,' " Berry said.

Berry is one of more than 50,000 registered Georgia voters who have been "flagged" because of a computer mismatch in their personal identification information. At least 4,500 of those people are having their citizenship questioned and the burden is on them to prove eligibility to vote.

Experts say lists of people with mismatches are often systematically cut, or "purged," from voter rolls.

It's a scenario that's being repeated all across the country, with cases like Berry's raising fears of potential vote suppression in crucial swing states.

"What most people don't know is that every year, elections officials strike millions of names from the voter rolls using processes that are secret, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation," said Wendy Weiser, an elections expert with New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

"That means that lots and lots of eligible voters could get knocked off the voter rolls without any notice and, in many cases, without any opportunity to correct it before Election Day."

Weiser acknowledged that "purging done well and with proper accountability" is necessary to remove people who have died or moved out of state.

"But the problem is it's not necessary to do inaccurate purges that catch up thousands of eligible voters without any notice or any opportunity to fix it before Election Day and really without any public scrutiny at all," she said.

Such allegations have flared up across the United States during this election cycle, most notably in Ohio, where a recent lawsuit has already gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There, the state Republican Party sued Ohio's Democratic secretary of state in an effort to make her generate a list of people who had mismatched information. But Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said generating such a list would create numerous problems too close to the election and possibly disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

The Supreme Court last week ruled against the GOP on appeal of a lower court order directing Brunner to prepare the list.

In Florida, election officials found that 75 percent of about 20,000 voter registration applications from a three-week period in September were mismatched due to typographical and administrative errors. Florida's Republican secretary of state ordered the computer match system implemented in early September.

In Wisconsin, Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen sued the state's election board after it voted against a proposal to implement a "no-match" policy. The board conducted an audit of its voter rolls and found a 22 percent match failure rate -- including for four of the six members of the board.

The Brennan Center has also documented cases across the country of possible illegal purging, impediments to college student voting and difficulties accessing voter registration.

A lawsuit has been filed over Georgia's mismatch system, and the state is also under fire for requesting Social Security records for verification checks on about 2 million voters -- more requests than any other state.

One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit says Georgia is violating a federal law that prohibits widespread voter purges within 90 days of the election, arguing that the letters were sent out too close to the election date.

"They are systematically using these lists and matching them and using those matches to send these letters out to voters," said McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project in Georgia.

"It's not, you know, an individualized notion of people maybe not being citizens or not being residents. They're using a systematic purging procedure that's expressly prohibited by federal laws."

Asked if he believed that eligible voters were purged in Georgia, McDonald said, "If people who are properly eligible, are getting improperly challenged and purged, the answer would be 'Yes,' " he said.

Elise Shore, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said letters like those sent to Berry appear to violate two federal laws against voter purging within 90 days of the election.

"People are being targeted, and people are being told they are non-citizens, including both naturalized citizens and U.S.-born citizens," said Shore, another plaintiff in the Georgia lawsuit. "They're being told they're not eligible to vote, based on information in a database that hasn't been checked and approved by the Department of Justice, and that we know has flaws in it."

Georgia's Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican who began working on purging voter rolls since she was elected in 2006, said that won't happen. If there are errors, she said, there is still plenty of time to resolve the problems. iReport.com: Are you voting early?

Handel says she is not worried the verification process will prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot.

"In this state and all states, there's a process to ensure that a voter who comes in -- even if there's a question about their status -- that they will vote either provisional or challenge ballot, which is a paper ballot," she said.

"So then the voter has ample opportunity to clarify any issues or address them," Handel added. "And I think that's a really important process."

Handel denied the efforts to verify the vote are suppression.

"This is about ensuring the integrity of our elections," he said. "It is imperative to have checks and balances on the front end, during the processes and on the back end. That's what the verification process is about."

So someone like Kyla Berry will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot when she votes, but it's up to county election officials whether those ballots would actually count.

Berry says she will try to vote, but she's not confident it will count.

"I know this happens, but I cannot believe it's happening to me," she said. "If I weren't allowed to vote, I would just feel like that would be ... like the worst thing ever -- a travesty."

Arizona Paper Endorses Barack Obama for president

Arizona Daily Star Opinion, Tucson, AZ

We see America the way Barack Obama sees America.

Our future requires a steady, intelligent and, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, a "transformational" leader to guide us into a new era. Obama brings deep intellectual curiosity, equanimity and discipline.

The ground under America is moving. A generational change is under way with or without Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., or Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The core concerns are more about the future than the past, be it eight years ago or one day ago. They are about the moment and the movement to engage Americans in ways not seen before, especially against a backdrop of economic strife unmatched since the Great Depression.

McCain is correct that it's time to stand up. "Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history," he said at the Republican National Convention.

However, the ways of the past, which we believe McCain understands, will not work in this new America. The future requires new tools and new expertise. A premium must be placed on more than just love of country. We must re-embrace American ideals and lead the world on a stronger path to prosperity and peace.

The time is now and the leader is Barack Obama. The Star endorses Obama for president of the United States.

Like a race car driver going into a turn, a leader must see not only what confronts our nation today but envision where we come out on the other side. Obama sees how the United States is connected to other nations through our economic, immigration, national security and energy policies. No one can thrive alone.

Obama sees a foreign policy where force is but one tool. He envisions countries collaborating to confront bad actors and shared challenges such as global warming, poverty, terrorism, disease and religious extremism.

Obama sees a health-care system in which children can go to the doctor and families aren't forced into bankruptcy by medical bills. He experienced the same hardships many American families face. While his mother was dying of cancer, she battled her insurance company for care.

He embraces the strength of the free market, but sees that, in the United States today, the market doesn't meet people's health-care needs. He knows the heavy toll that inequitable public policies take on people's lives. We agree with Obama that health care should be as affordable and accessible to as many people as possible.

Obama sees an economy creating jobs through innovation, helping families stay in their homes and lifting the middle class and small businesses. He would reduce taxes for the majority of Americans and not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.

Obama sees education as an investment in America's prosperity, political system and national security. He would expand early childhood education and protect funding for public schools. A college education is out of reach for many Americans. He would help make it more affordable through tuition tax credits.

He's proved himself with his nuanced understanding of complicated issues. His vision is not built on rhetoric. He offers substantive, detailed policies and the acumen to make these changes a reality.

He demonstrates leadership by surrounding himself with smart people who will strengthen his administration. For vice president Obama chose Joseph Biden, a U.S. senator with 35 years of experience, a foreign policy expert qualified to be president.

Obama made a responsible, pragmatic and intelligent choice that shows us he puts the nation above party politics.

This moment in history requires courage to change. Our nation must find a way to restore the confidence that our government is of the people, by the people, for the people -- all of our people.

We share Obama's vision of America. And we share his urgency.

Voting Machines in Six West Virginia Counties Report Vote Flipping on ES&S Machines

Also from Black Box Voting Forums:

SUMMARY: Jackson, Putnam, Berkeley, Ohio, Monongalia and Greenbrier, all using ES&S iVotronic voting machines, now have voters reporting that when they voted for one candididate the machine lit up a different one. (Don't be too quick to accept the calibration excuse. A Tennessee machine flipped voter choice to a candidate five lines down, ruling out calibration as the real reason.)

Voting machine complaints continue
Voters encouraged to review ballots before confirming

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - A few voters from different counties continue to experience problems with electronic machines during early voting.

Eleven early voters from three counties - Jackson, Putnam and Berkeley - previously reported having problems with voting machines to the Charleston Gazette. At least five more voters in three other counties - Ohio, Monongalia and Greenbrier - recently reported similar problems.

A Wheeling Intelligencer editorial noted, "A few people who have cast ballots last week at the Ohio County early voting station in the City-County Building have reported difficulties.

"When they tried to select specific candidates on the touch-screen machine, votes instead were reported for their choices' opponents."

The Ohio County newspaper's Wednesday editorial added, "Voting machines taken to every polling place in every county should be recalibrated after they are moved - then tested to ensure they are functioning properly."

The Morgantown Dominion Post reported Melissa Turner, an early voter in Morgantown, was trying to vote for Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, when the machine switched her vote.

Monongalia County Clerk Carye L. Blaney told The Charleston Gazette, "I don't think it is serious. I don't think it is a problem with the machine.

"Everyone touches the machine differently. The machine, by design, is sensitive. If you touch it with a finger, you may put pressure above the line where the candidate is, or below.

"But the machines clearly show you who you voted for. It puts a large green check mark next to the candidate.

"Melissa Turner was trying to press the machine with her thumb. We have purchased a stylus-pointed device that has a narrow tip that you can use to make your selection.

"Some counties use the eraser end of a pencil. They are both narrow, easier to touch and easier for the screen [on voting machines] to identify," Blaney said on Thursday.

S.E. Dalton, an early voter in Greenbrier County, stated, "I too had my presidential vote changed from Obama to McCain when I cast my vote in Greenbrier County. As soon as it happened, I stated to the attendant, 'I didn't vote for him.' She handed me a pencil and instructed me to use the eraser to touch the screen as, 'It is very sensitive.'"

In an e-mail, Dalton wrote he uses a wide variety of computer technology and programs every day.

"I can tell you that in no way was the unauthorized vote change a result of user error," Dalton wrote. "Voters must use great caution when casting their votes if the election results are to truly reflect the decisions of the voters of West Virginia."

West Virginia's electronic voting machines are all made by Election Systems & Software, or ES&S, based in Omaha, Neb.

Wood County Clerk Jamie Six believes problems are caused when county officials do not calibrate and align voting machines properly.

Charleston Gazette - Oct. 27, 2008 By Paul J. Nyden

http://wvgazette.com/News/200810270020

Voting Irregularities: ES&S Machines in West Virginia Registering Obama Votes Incorrectly For Green Party Candidate

Vote Flipping From Obama to McKinney (Green Party Candidate)

Some voting irregularities being registered through Black Box Voting. Notably, so far the incorrect vote registrations appear to be depriving Obama of votes.

Black Box Voting Forums; Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 7:28 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: This was the ES&S iVotronic, same voting machine caught flipping votes in two West Virginia counties. Votes peeled off to the other major party candidate, or to any smaller party candidate have the same effect: Disenfranchisement for the voter and political disadvantage for the candidate the voter was trying to vote for. You can find all counties with iVotronics by skimming through the state sections at Black Box Voting. If you will vote on a DRE, bring a cell phone camera and start capturing the screen, discreetly, BEFORE you see any votes flip. Prove it, this is important.

Sent by e-mail to Black Box Voting, from David Earnhardt, producer of the film UNCOUNTED - Oct. 20 2008

Vote Flipping in Davidson County, Tennessee

" My wife, Patricia Earnhardt, had an early voting experience here in Nashville, Tennessee, where she saw her vote momentarily flip from Barack Obama to Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. She voted on a ouch-screen paperless machine. Here is her story:

"A poll worker directed me to a touch screen voting machine & instructedme how t o use it. I touched "Obama" for president & nothing lit up. I
touched 2 or 3 more times & still nothing lit up. I called the poll worker back over to tell him I was having a problem. He said I just needed to touch it more lightly. I tried it 2 or 3 more times more lightly with the poll worker watching & still nothing lit up. The poll worker then touched it for me twice — nothing lit up. The third time he touched the Obama button, the Cynthia McKinney space lit up! The McKinney button was located five rows below the Obama button. The poll worker just kind of laughed and cancelled the vote. He hit the Obama button again & it finally lit up. I continued on to cast the rest of my votes. After completing the process & reviewing my votes, I went to the VOTE page, hit the VOTE button & nothing happened. Again after several tries, I called the poll worker over & he finally got the machine to register my votes. Hurray — I voted! — or did I? I left the polling place feeling uncertain." Patricia Earnhardt -
Friday, Oct. 17 - Howard School Building - Nashville, Tennessee

David Earnhardt: I also had similar problems with the machine I was voting on that same day, although no vote flipping. I would touch the screen numerous times before I could get my various candidate choices to light up. It was strange and very frustrating. When I finally got through my slate of candidate choices, I could not get the VOTE button to light up when I touched it. I finally called over a poll worker and he told me that I needed to touch lightly. I touched the VOTE button more lightly, but was only able to get it to work after several more failed attempts.

From Another Black Box Voting forum Poster: For anyone who must vote on a touch screen, bring a new pencil with an unused eraser to the polling place. Tap the screen with the eraser, not your finger. If you tap the screen with the head of the eraser, you will avoid many of the problems associated with touch screens. First, the eraser head is much smaller than your finger tip. A large (or, may I say "fat?) finger might inadertently touch the area assigned to more than one candidate. A close relative of mine has huge fingers. There is no way he would be able to touch a voting area smaller than his massive fingertip. Next, the eraser avoids the problems that may be caused by a long fingernail that could drag into the next candidate space. By lifting the pencil in a deliberate motion rather than dragging it, this problem is avoided altogether. Finally, moving the eraser straight down and back up away from the screen helps reduce the problem of parallax, where the voter doesn't realize the effect of looking at a screen from an angle.

Former Reagan chief of staff endorses Obama

by Alex Koppelman, Salon, Friday, Oct. 31, 2008

Sometimes, earlier this year, the Republican primaries seemed to be a contest where the winner would be determined based on which candidate could use the words "Ronald Reagan" most often. It's hard to imagine there'll be much mention of the former president and conservative icon today, though. That would bring up a recent event that's decidedly less comfortable for the GOP: Former Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein has endorsed Barack Obama.

Duberstein told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that he'll be voting for the Democratic nominee on Tuesday. He cited Colin Powell's endorsement as one factor, saying, "Well, let's put it this way -- I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."

On MSNBC, he added a little insult to injury -- literally. Referring to John McCain's choice of running mate, Duberstein said, "What most Americans, I think, realize, is that you don't offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald's, you're interviewed three times before you're given a job." Watch the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMwGPpcKQ4

Will Mr. Burly vote for Obama?

The thought of replacing the Current Occupant with the Angry Old Man of the Desert and Whoopee the Ice Queen is miserable in the extreme.

By Garrison Keillor

Oct. 29, 2008 I was messing around in Tulsa, Okla., last week and got talking with a big burly man with a McCain-Palin pin on his blue blazer who told me he was descended from yellow-dog Democrats who thought the sun rose and set over FDR and Republicans were people who wore spats and top hats and sailed off Newport. So I told him that my Republican ancestors believed that only lazy people were unemployed in the '30s. He said, "So each of us is heading back to where the other one is coming from." He found that rather amusing. I said, "If that's so, I hope you're ready to be good and poor and endure some hard Minnesota winters."

"Poor, yes. Good, I'm not so sure about. Winter, no. No way."

He's proud of Tulsa, which survived the exodus of Big Oil and got into telecommunications and aeronautics, proud of its Art Deco buildings from the '20s, its art museums and ballet. "Outsiders hear Tulsa and they think Dust Bowl and Oral Roberts," he says, "but that's not who we are. This town is all about change."

I did not bother to tell him that change is exactly what the country is bursting to achieve in less than a week. Of course he knows all about it. Oklahoma seems safely red, but these days who knows? Obama looks more and more steadfast as the moment nears. The country longs for a president who can talk and think at the same time. We've been locked up with the Current Occupant for way too long and the thought of replacing him with the Angry Old Man of the Desert and Whoopee the Ice Queen is miserable in the extreme.

Most of my Republican friends are people who are not ashamed of having worked hard and done well in school, and their party's frantic appeal to anti-intellectualism is nothing they care to sign up for. Time to nip that sucker in the bud. The party needs to reform itself around some coherent philosophy of governance and vision of the future and for that, it must take a trip to the wilderness. They are quietly supporting the skinny guy this time around. They might tell a pollster otherwise but that's what they will do. Call it the Palin Effect.

Even Mr. Burly of Tulsa expressed sorrow over McCain's campaign, the jerkiness and desperation of it, and admiration for Barack's steadiness, his cool, his straightforward articulation and the old-fashioned story of his rise in the world. I thought about that the next day, flying to Philly and walking over to Independence Hall and riding the train to Lancaster through the little towns of old brick row houses, the red and golden trees, the trim farmyards and the fields of tan stubble, a state McCain has scrapped hard for even as he sank in the polls. I suppose he looks at that classic Rockwell landscape and those hardy German Lutheran faces and thinks those are his people and how can they possibly go for a Harvard Law graduate from the South Side of Chicago whose last name is Obama, for crying out loud?

They can and they will. Colin Powell was right when he called the guy a transformational candidate. We walk through the door and we close it behind us and the simplicity of it is dazzling. That's how it happens. You walk aboard a plane and glance into the cockpit and there's a woman in the left-hand seat, and who these days would even think this worthy of comment? You see Latino men and women moving up whose grandparents picked row crops for a living. In Tulsa, in 1921, there was a big race riot following the arrest of a young black man who was alleged to have touched a white woman on the arm. Fighting in the streets, neighborhoods torched, the National Guard called in -- and this story seems medieval to us, a dark age almost beyond our ken. That culture is gone, gone, gone, and on Tuesday we bury it by the simple democratic process of voting for the best man even though his father was African.

In America, a man is not held responsible for choosing his parents, only for his own life and conduct. This man promises to take us into a new era where we aren't defined by our differences, Short vs. Tall, Pale vs. Freckled, and can take a deep breath and do what's best for the country.

(Garrison Keillor is the author of a new Lake Wobegon novel, "Liberty," published by Viking.)

© 2008 by Garrison Keillor. All rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Measure Those Drapes: Our Presidential Candidates SHOULD Have Their Cabinets Selected

By now, both candidates should be deep into preparations for the responsibilities one of them is about to take on.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A16, Washington Post editorial

WE WRITE today in praise of drape-measuring. Early preparation for a presidential transition is essential to a successful launch of any presidency, and this transition will be more challenging -- more perilous -- than any in decades. It will be the first transfer of government since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, presenting America's enemies with a tempting moment of potential vulnerability. It arrives in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars. Any new president must scramble to produce a budget shortly after taking office; this president also will have to assume management of the $700 billion (and counting) financial bailout.

The candidates are understandably reluctant to discuss the transition for fear of appearing presumptuous. Indeed, Sen. John McCain has been deriding Sen. Barack Obama for "measuring the drapes" in the Oval Office. The fact of the matter, however, is that both candidates have engaged in transition planning, Mr. Obama in what appears to be a more systematic and detailed way than Mr. McCain. This is grounds for praise, not carping. As Clay Johnson, who launched George W. Bush's transition planning in spring 2000, wrote in a recent article for Public Administration Review, "It is irresponsible for anybody who could be president not to prepare to govern effectively from day one." Exhibit A in how not to handle the transition is Bill Clinton, whose dawdling on filling his Cabinet and naming his White House staff contributed to the early stumbles of his presidency.

Mr. Johnson and other transition experts believe the new president should announce his chief of staff within a few days of the election and, by Thanksgiving, name his key White House, economic, national security and foreign policy officials. That will be a daunting task; no recent president-elect has followed so ambitious a timetable. As Patricia McGinnis of the Council for Excellence in Government testified last month, of the 400 Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions that require Senate confirmation, "No more than 25 . . . have ever been confirmed within three months of any new Administration and only half within six months." Having Cabinet secretaries in place does not help much if they are home alone at their departments without confirmed deputies to assist them.

There are grounds for hope that the process will be speedier this time. A 2004 law gives candidates the opportunity to submit the names of transition planners for quick security clearances, "completed by the day after the election, to the extent practicable." In addition, the president-elect may submit, the day after the election, "the names of prospective nominees for high-level security positions for the cabinet and sub-cabinet." The Bush administration appears committed to assisting in a smooth transition at a difficult time; President Bush recently signed an executive order creating a Presidential Transition Coordinating Council to oversee the handoff.

The Senate has a responsibility to act swiftly and without partisan considerations. The Sept. 11 commission recommended that it change its rules to require a vote to confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days of their nomination at the start of a new administration; lawmakers chose not to adopt that recommendation, but they should live up to its spirit in dealing with economic as well as national security positions. A report by the Congressional Research Service found that the longest lag, however, has involved getting nominations to the Senate in the first place; of 31 positions in the Bush administration that would have been subject to the 30-day deadline, 22 were confirmed within that span, four were holdovers from the Clinton administration and just five took longer than the allotted time. Yet it took an average of 65 days for Mr. Bush to submit his nominations, and even longer, 90 days, for Mr. Clinton. Getting background checks done quickly is critical. But the country will be better off if the winner of next week's election has a firm idea now of whom he would like in key positions.

Sorry, I Can’t Find Your Name - the Republican Party's Attempt at Voter Purges

I'm posting this before the editorial... a line FROM the editorial. If you find your name has been wrongfully purged from the voter rolls on election day, or that someone is trying to keep you from voting, call 1-866-OUR-VOTE. Do not let anyone steal your vote or this election. These sorts of practices are NOT America. America is a country where all are encouraged to vote, and where your vote is sacred. It is third world countries, dictatorships, communist dictatorships, and other such places that deny their citizens the right to vote. I hope the Republican Party understands this and the future backlash these purges will incur... backlashes that may be more than they can control in the future.

Compete honorably, and win or lose like a champion. But do not change the rights this country was founded on.

NY TIMES EDITORIAL

Before Mississippi’s March presidential primary, one county election official improperly removed more than 8,000 voters from the eligible-voter rolls, including a Republican Congressional candidate. Fortunately, the secretary of state’s office learned of the purge in time and restored the voters.

It’s disturbing that a single official (who acted after mailings to voters were returned) could come so close to disenfranchising thousands of voters. But voting rolls, which are maintained by local election officials, are one of the weakest links in American democracy and problems are growing.

Some of these problems are no doubt the result of honest mistakes, but in far too many cases they appear to be driven by partisanship. While there are almost no examples in recent memory of serious fraud at the polls, Republicans have been pressing for sweeping voter purges in many states. They have also fought to make it harder to enroll new voters. Voting experts say there could be serious problems at the polls on Nov. 4.

When voters die or move to a new address, or when duplicate registrations are found, a purge is necessary to uphold the integrity of the rolls. New registrations must also be properly screened so only eligible voters get added. The trouble is that these tasks generally occur in secret, with no chance for voters or their advocates to observe or protest when mistakes are made.

A number of states — including the battleground state of Florida — have adopted no match, no vote rules. Voters can be removed from the rolls if their names do not match a second list, such as a Social Security or driver’s license database. But (like the U.S. mail) lists of this kind are notoriously mistake-filled, and one typo can cause a no match. In Ohio, Republicans recently sued the secretary of state, demanding that she provide local officials with a dubious match list. As many as 200,000 new voters could have been blocked from casting ballots. The Supreme Court rejected the suit, but Republicans are still looking for ways to use the list on Election Day.

Congress and the states need to develop clear and accurate rules for purges and new-voter verification that ensure that eligible voters remain on the rolls — and make it much harder for partisans to game the system. These rules should be public, and voters who are disqualified should be notified and given ample time before Election Day to reverse the decision.

For this election, voters need to be prepared to fight for their right to cast a ballot. They should try to confirm before Nov. 4 that they are on the rolls — something that in many states can be done on a secretary of state or board of elections Web site. If their state permits it, they should vote early. Any voter who finds that their name has disappeared from the rolls will then have time to challenge mistakes.

If voters find on Election Day that their names are not on the rolls, they should contact a voters’ rights group like Election Protection, at 1-866-OUR-VOTE, or a political campaign, which can advocate for them. They should not, except as a last resort, cast a provisional ballot, since it is less likely to be counted.

There is a desperate need for reform of the way voting rolls are kept. Until then, election officials, voting rights advocates and voters must do everything they can to ensure that all eligible voters are allowed to vote.

Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama: Meet the Press

Bluegrass Legend Ralph Stanley's Message for Obama

Country and Bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley knows that Virginia -- and the rest of the country -- just can't afford four more years of the same.

Ralph recorded a special message to show his support for Barack Obama.

Pastor Muthee gives Sarah Palin some help With Witches

Is this how our future Vice President (possibly President) will deal with the economy? Russia? Choosing Supreme Court Justices? (.. fill in the blank) Now HERE'S the real definition of Voodoo Economics

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

Will these cards work for those 3 AM phone calls?

Who You Callin’ a Maverick? TheOriginal Texas Mavericks Disown John McCain

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

There’s that word again: maverick. In Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him “the consummate maverick.”

But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch — and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.

Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.

This Maverick’s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.

Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

Considering the family’s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

Palin Defends Claim On Ayers as Not Racially Tinged

From NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger
LONG BEACH, Calif. – Sarah Palin told reporters Sunday that “the Associated Press is wrong” for saying her recent remarks tying Barack Obama to William Ayers are “racially tinged.”

“The comments are about an association that has been known but hasn’t been talked about,” Palin said before boarding a plane to San Francisco. “I think it’s fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy’s living room.”

Palin said Saturday that Obama was “palling around with terrorists” because of his association with Ayers, a founder of the 1960s terrorist group Weather Underground. The New York Times reported Saturday that Obama and Ayers served together on several charity boards in Chicago and Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois, held a fundraiser for Obama’s first race for state Senate. But the article also said the two men are not particularly close.

The AP said Sunday that Palin’s recent comments were “unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subject that John McCain himself may come to regret.” The article said Palin’s charge about Obama’s relationship with Ayers “was exaggerated at best if not outright false.”

Palin made the comments three times Saturday, as part of a new effort by the McCain campaign to move the focus towards Obama’s character.

“It’s important for Americans to know,” Palin said on the tarmac Sunday. “It’s really important for Americans to start knowing who the real Barack Obama is.”

McCain finds his own radical friend

Chicagotribune.com, Steve Chapman, May 4, 2008

Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology -- and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "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."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "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.

"He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility.

McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.------------------------------E-mail: schapman@tribune.com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

FactChecking Biden-Palin Debate

A good check of the facts from factcheck.org. However, one major point. Palin did not answer many... possibly any of the questions, so there was less to fact check on Palin's unchallenged "stump speech". The "liberally biased media" should be a bit ashamed for not pressing her to answer questions and allowing her to give a speech during media time. Looks like the GOP's "working the refs" worked. Perhaps the Republican Party owes PBS advertising fees. Brokaw's up next.

Oh... and how about that "imperial vice presidency she proposed? Anyone covering that?

From Factcheck.org October 3, 2008

The candidates were not 100 percent accurate. To say the least.

Summary

Biden and Palin debated, and both mangled some facts.

Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.

Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.

Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn't address taxes at that income level.

Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the government of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.

Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.For full details on these misstatements, and on additional factual disputes and dubious claims, please read on to the Analysis section.


Analysis http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html for full analysis

Palin Trips Up on Troop LevelsPalin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said "and with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq."The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But even then, there still would be 6,000 more troops in Iraq than there were when the surge began.

Palin's False Tax ClaimsPalin repeated a false claim about Barack Obama's tax proposal:

Palin: Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000.

Palin's Small Business BalderdashPalin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time:
Palin: But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

As we reported June 23, it's simply untrue that "millions" of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama's proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as "small business owners" even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

Defense DisagreementsBiden and Palin got into a tussle about military recommendations in Afghanistan:
Biden: The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge – the surge principles used in Iraq will not – well, let me say this again now – our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.Palin: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one, and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan.Point Biden. To start, Palin got newly appointed Gen. David D. McKiernan's name wrong when she called him McClellan. And, more important, Gen. McKiernan clearly did say that surge principles would not work in Afghanistan.

As the Washington Post reported:
Washington Post: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.However, it is worth noting that McKiernan also said that Afghanistan would need an infusion of American troops "as quickly as possible."

McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.
Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

Bias in Debate Moderators? How About Tom Brokaw?

FROM MEDIA MATTERS, Sept. 30, 2008

On Sunday's Meet the Press, NBC's Tom Brokaw allowed McCain strategist Steve Schmidt to falsely claim that John McCain had called for Don Rumsfeld to be fired. That's an old lie that the McCain campaign had abandoned long ago -- but Brokaw let Schmidt get away with bringing it back.

Even worse, Brokaw ended the segment by announcing -- "in fairness to everybody here" -- that the "latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll" found that John McCain "continues" to lead Barack Obama on the question of who is "best-equipped to be commander in chief."

Yesterday, Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars pointed out that the numbers Brokaw read did not, in fact, appear in the "latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll."

Now MoveOn says they contacted NBC -- and "it turns out Brokaw was referring to a poll taken weeks ago--right after the Republican convention and well before Friday's big national security debate. And in each of NBC's last two polls, Americans chose Obama over McCain."

MoveOn thinks Brokaw should apologize.

That's a good first step. He might also want to figure out a way to reassure the public that he'll do a better -- and more fair -- job when he moderates the October 7 presidential debate.

He probably won't spend much time doing that, though -- his days are apparently pretty full acting as NBC's liaison to the McCain campaign. In that role, Brokaw works to assure the McCain camp that "Mr. McCain could still get a fair shake from NBC News."

After Brokaw's performance on Sunday, NBC should be scrambling to assure the Obama campaign of the same thing.

Tom Brokaw Acting as Liason With McCain Campaign

From Huffington Post

Tuesday's New York Times features a profile of Tom Brokaw ahead of the October 7 presidential debate being hosted by the veteran NBC newsman. The Times reveals that Brokaw has "played a pivotal role out of public view, both within NBC and in its dealings with the campaign of John McCain in particular."

Mr. Brokaw said that over the summer he had "advocated" within the executive suite of NBC News to modify the anchor duties of the MSNBC hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on election night and on nights when there were presidential debates. Their expressions of strong political opinions from the MSNBC anchor desk has run counter to the more traditional role Mr. Brokaw played on "NBC Nightly News" for more than two decades. NBC said earlier this month that the two hosts would mostly relinquish their anchor duties to Mr. Gregory, while being present as analysts.

"Keith is an articulate guy who writes well and doesn't make his arguments in a 'So's your old mother' kind of way," Mr. Brokaw said. "The mistake was to think he could fill both roles. The other mistake was to think he wouldn't be tempted to use the anchor position to engage in commentary. That's who he is."
Brokaw said he has also conducted some "shuttle diplomacy in recent weeks" between NBC and the McCain campaign.

His mission, he said, was to assure the candidate's aides that -- despite some negative on-air commentary by Mr. Olbermann in particular -- Mr. McCain could still get a fair shake from NBC News. Mr. Brokaw said he had been told by a senior McCain aide, whom he did not name, that the campaign had been reluctant to accept an NBC representative as one of the moderators of the three presidential debates -- until his name was invoked.

"One of the things I was told by this person was that they were so irritated, they said, 'If it's an NBC moderator, for any of these debates, we won't go,' " Mr. Brokaw said. "My name came up, and they said, 'Oh, hell, we have to do it, because it's going to be Brokaw.' "