If Democrats are good at anything its wailing, beating their chests, and tearing their garments (no, that isn't like "flagging the molecules"). But it's clear now the despair over Obama's supposedly doomed presidential chances was silly. The main reason? Palin is simply not the giant-killer we thought she was. Take a look at this chart (via Wonkette). Due to weeks of unrelenting vetting by the media (i.e. sustained negative press), she now has the lowest approval rating of any member of either ticket.

And this is the end-result of hiding her from the press. Can you imagine what would have happened if the McCain campaign had treated her like an adult and put her in front of reporters?

In other numbers-related news, the quant geeks over at FiveThirtyEight.com report that the possibility of a 269-269 electoral tie is climbing. The reason is relatively simple: the election is nearing but the race is still close in key states, meaning that the likelihood of one of the two candidates winning in a blowout is going down. FiveThirtyEight points to one tie scenario above all others:

...there is one specific scenario that is driving this outcome. That is the scenario wherein Barack Obama wins the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, but loses New Hampshire. Of the 320 times that our simulation ended in a tie, this particular scenario was responsible 294 times. Indeed, we presently have Obama winning precisely the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, so all that would be needed to make a tie occur is to flip New Hampshire back to McCain, and entirely reasonable possibility.

What an absolute horror show that would be.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

I enjoyed this.

Rush Limbaugh is quoted in a new Spanish-language Obama ad that ties John McCain to the nativist fringe of the Republican Party. The ad itself isn't exactly fair — McCain has showed a willingness to kowtow to that nativist fringe, but he's still probably the GOP's leading advocate for a humane approach to immigration reform. But Limbaugh doesn't believe in that humane approach, and in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published today, he isn't standing up for John McCain's record on immigration issues.

Instead, he's arguing that he isn't as big a jerk as the quotes in the Obama ad make him look. Limbaugh notes the quotes and then provides the full paragraphs from which they came, with the mistaken belief that somehow the context proves he isn't a bigot. In fact, the context just reinforces the original point. See for yourself.

Supposedly out-of-context quote:

"...stupid and unskilled Mexicans."

Supposedly exculpatory context:

"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Second supposedly out-of-context quote:

"You shut your mouth or you get out!"

Supposedly exculpatory context:

"And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail."

Turns out, the full paragraphs are just as xenophobic and hateful as the isolated quotes. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh is xenophobic and hateful. Funny how that works.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

As part of our special investigation "Mission Creep: US Military Presence Worldwide," we asked a host of military thinkers to contribute their two cents on topics relating to global Pentagon strategy. (You can access the archive here.) The following dispatch comes from Steven K. Metz, a strategic military theorist whose latest book is titled Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy.

America's Global Military Footprint Is the Lesser Evil

Throughout US history, Americans have periodically reassessed their nation's strategy. We are once again involved in this process, debating tough issues that emerged at the end of the Cold War but remained unresolved. Foremost among these is the militarization of American statecraft. Unfortunately, much of the discussion of the vital topic misleads rather than illuminates. Take the global deployment of US troops:

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

How the times are changing. At a General Motors assembly plant in Lake Orion, Michigan yesterday, Sen. John McCain gave a shout-out to none other than Franklin Roosevelt, the original big-government guy:

One of our great presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, expressed this optimism even at the height of the Great Depression. He said, and I quote, "Plenty is at our doorstep but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply." . . .My friends, that's true again today."

Indeed it is, but, of course, McCain pointing that out is like Milli Vanilli singing "Girl You Know It's True"--the love just isn't real. Take the Social Security Act, passed under FDR in 1935. McCain (before he reversed himself recently) wanted to replace it with "private savings accounts," which would have caused millions of retirees to lose their shirts this week. As recently as July, he even said that "paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America" is "an absolute disgrace"

A "great president" whose legacy is an "absolute disgrace?" I thought that was supposed to be Bush. Here's what FDR's grandson has to say:

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet