Perhaps CNN will take note and boot him? After all, it seems the cable newsers will allow nearly anybody on air if it’ll boost ratings.

But once ratings drop, well, sayonara.From New York Observer:

Mr. Dobbs’ first began reporting on Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories on the night of Wednesday, July 15. In the roughly two weeks since then, from July 15 through July 28, Mr. Dobbs’ 7 p.m. show on CNN has averaged 653,000 total viewers and 157,000 in the 25-54 demo. [...]

Mr. Dobbs’ ratings over the past two weeks, during the height of the “birthers” controversy, are also down significantly compared to his overall numbers during the second quarter of 2009 when he averaged 769,000 total viewers and 222,000 in the 25-54 demo.

Is Dobbs’ credibility forever tainted by this birthers nonsense?

Not surprisingly, Walter Olson is angry. He zones in on one particularly offensive paragraph of the editorial and destroys it.

Well, I’m pretty angry myself. So I think it’s worth doing a full fisking of this stinking heap of ignorance. The editorial starts:

The American International Toy Fair in New York City this week has offered the newest and most tantalizing playthings in the world: walking plastic bugs, 3-D coloring sets, even Barbie, now 50 and wearing a golden outfit for the occasion. Yet one question hovered over the fair and its glittering new gizmos. Can the federal government assure consumers that the toys are safe?

Knowing a little bit about the Toy Fair, I can assure you, loyal readers, that the actual question hanging over the Fair was “Does anyone have any idea how you are going to comply with this law when it goes completely into effect without going out of business?”

As many parents, and ultimately manufacturers, learned the hard way, the Bush administration did not make the safety of toys and other products a priority. That led to the recall of millions of toys — some because of lead paint, others because of hazards such as small and powerful magnets that children swallowed. The Obama administration now has an opportunity to fill that regulatory gap by appointing new leadership for the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

So the problem here is that the Bush Administration failed to enforce existing safety laws, thereby leading to the recall of millions of toys? Now, I’m no fan of the Bush Administration, but this seems a little silly. How does the Times think that these toys were recalled? Isn’t the remedy for a prohibited product getting on the market to recall it and to penalize the importer? And isn’t that precisely what happened? And how many injuries were reported as a result of these products getting recalled? The answer is one (sadly it was a death) – except that the product that caused that death was perfectly legal under the then-existing standards, and is actually still legal under the new CPSIA standards since it was made for an adult.

Perhaps the Times is saying that the CPSC should have caught the products before they entered the stream of commerce, if only it had different priorities. This most likely is unrealistic to expect a tiny government agency to accomplish. But one thing is for certain, passing a law that creates unprecedented levels of paperwork for that tiny agency to review is a pretty good way to ensure that the agency will spend an even greater percentage of its resources looking for paperwork errors rather than actual safety hazards.

Last year, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, giving new authority and resources to a shockingly understaffed agency. The law has been described, accurately, as providing the safety net that consumers assumed they already had.

Unfortunately, the commission has yet to implement important aspects of the new law.

Really? So, Congress passes a law that provides unprecedented authority – and responsibility – to a “shockingly understaffed agency” and expects them to implement the entire law within six months – and the Times is shocked, SHOCKED, when the agency is unable to do so within that time frame. But perhaps I’m being unfair to the Times – after all, the law provides the agency with “new resources” as well. One problem – the agency didn’t actually get new resources until several months later, and the “new resources” are added incrementally over the course of six years. So the idea that CPSIA’s problems are merely a result of a lazy CPSC is patently false…..and that all says nothing about the fact that CPSC regulations, like all regulations, are subject to a sixty day notice and comment period before they can be implemented.

The delay has caused confusion and allowed opponents to foment needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises like libraries, resale shops and handmade toy businesses.

This is the most offensive paragraph. For a full explanation of why, see Walter Olson’s post. But simply put, the idea that any business would threaten to close and/or actually throw out thousands of dollars of inventory upon which they rely to make a living merely because of “needless fears” fomented by shadowy opponents is utterly absurd. Indeed, the guidance that the CPSC has issued on this point, far from being overly soft on product safety, specifically recommends that businesses owners discard many of these products.

The law provides ways to address such concerns without undercutting its new and vitally important protections against lead or other toxic substances in children’s products. Even so, the commission decided last month to delay for a year any real enforcement of the law, which was supposed to have taken effect on Feb. 10.

First of all, the law DID take effect on February 10 – what was stayed for a year was the enforcement of two or three specific elements of the law, including the certification and testing requirements. The lower lead limits and ban on phthalates – even for products intended for use by children with no realistic chance of ingesting the substances – still apply, with extremely stiff penalties for violations. Also – the new law deputizes State Attorneys General; while the CPSC has requested the states hold off on enforcement of the testing and certification requirements, there’s no guarantee they will do so.

As for the alleged “ways of address[ing] such concerns,” proponents of the law never seem to specify what, exactly, these ways are. To be sure, the law allows the CPSC to exempt some products from the lower lead requirements – but this allowance only applies, so far as I’m aware, to the lower lead requirements (and certification thereof). In addition, the CPSC may only exempt “specific product[s] or material[s]” “after notice and a hearing….on the basis of the best available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence….” In other words, it’s not as if the CPSC is allowed to just categorically exempt any products for which this law would be an undue and unnecessary burden.

President Obama must quickly replace the commission’s acting chairwoman, Nancy Nord, who opposed adding new resources and authority to her agency. He should then choose the kind of enlightened leadership that every parent and toy lover needs and that will give consumer safety the priority it deserves.

Because the idea that Congress may have just put forward a poorly drafted law with no consideration of how it would affect small business is just too simple.

Cross-posted at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

It was reported after the election ended that the link between Obama and Ayers was first introduced on the campaign trail prematurely by Palin, and then McCain was forced to join in. But the blogs were talking about them long before that.

One meme even emerged that Ayers wrote Obama’s first book, and even though I didn’t realize it at the time I first wrote about it, I’m pained to admit that the guy who invented that nonsense is from Kansas City, MO and is the executive editor of a fairly well known magazine here called Ingram’s. Ugh.

In any event, here’s what Ayers has to say about his super best buddy Barack…

The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.

President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.

Not that this is any surprise to those of us who were paying attention, and not that this will put all the weird conspiracy theories to rest either, but Republicans would do well to shame the “Obama truther” crowd into silence. Otherwise they risk having them run the show in the downtime between now and 2012.

I welcome the day when the “liberal media” meme dies once and for all. Because it’s not only inaccurate, it has been used as a clumsy bludgeon by lazy Republican hacks since the early days of Reagan when folks like Limbaugh first went on the air and started claiming it as if it were fact.

In any event, well said Mr. Smith.

The date of the broadcast is January 18, 2001. It’s in Real Player format, which is a pain, but if you want to listen to the whole thing you can.

The key section is here…where Obama argues against the courts redistributing wealth…

“Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn’t structured that way.

Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order … changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.”

Yep. The claim isn’t even accurate. They’re simply trying to push a false meme out there thinking that nobody will listen to this audio.

Read the transcript of all Obama’s remarks here.

Well, get ready, because you’re about to…

First off, I think Biden answered the way you should when somebody asks questions with such a heavy editorial slant. I mean that was laughably transparent. Karl Marx? Is she serious with that?

But second…I think what we’re seeing here are two memes forming that we’ll hear a lot about in the years to come.

Meme One: America Is Becoming A Socialist Society
It really seems like Republicans are now trying to characterize the progressive taxation system we’ve had for the past 70 years as “socialist.” And, to be fair, it does redistribute wealth and that’s sort of the point. But folks…what’s the alternative? A flat tax?

Well, if you that’s what you’re thinking, I’d like to share some realities about the flat tax proposals that have been put forth in recent history. All the ones I’ve seen provide for a “primary exemption” which would make a certain amount of income completely free from tax. And then anything above that would be taxed at the flat rate.

Long story short, it’s still a progressive taxation system because there are tiers. So there would be a large swatch of people who would pay absolutely ZERO taxes. How is that any fairer than our current system? The net effect is it would raise taxes on the already shrinking middle class and be a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich.

But mark my words, this is the boogeyman that Republicans will be trotting out the next four years. They’ll accuse Obama of stripping America of its freedoms and turning it into a socialist society for things like hiking the highest tax rate 3%.

What’s more, I think this flat tax idea will catch on with the Republican base. After all, Huckabee ran on that platform this year and he did rather well for himself with pretty much no money. And since Republicans will need a “big idea” in 2012 to provide a compelling reason for people to vote for them again (unless Obama is completely made of fail), the flat tax seems like the best thing they’ve got.

Meme Two: America Is Losing Its Superpower Status
The only other thing that Republicans can usually run on besides taxes is national defense, and they’ve been quite effective at it in recent years. So I anticipate that we’ll hearing a lot of chatter in the coming years about how our position in the world as a super power is coming to an end because of Obama’s foreign policy.

Why will they be able to make the point? Well, first off they’ll just say it whether or not it’s valid. But second, I bet Obama’s cuts military spending back to 3% of the GDP, where it was at in 2000. Reason? We can’t afford it since it currently totals just under $1 trillion a year when accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Now, there could be a genuine foreign policy blunder Obama makes and that would be an obvious thing to point out, but look for some of the right-wing politicos to try and paint nearly anything that doesn’t seem like a absolute, clear win as a failure. Particularly when we’re considering Pakistan, Iran and Russia. Because those three seem like they’re going to be thorns in our side for years to come.

We shall see…

Additionally, we criticize both campaigns on their respective weaknesses and offer some unsolicited advice for improvement.

And much more…

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us (mail at 2008central dot net) questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Then, on the far right hand side you see the familiar “DEVELOPING” line…

So, let me take these one by one…

The Gallup poll has narrowed, but that’s only because Obama got a bump after the debate that pushed the spread to something unsustainable. Now he’s back down to his pre-debate level, and that’s still 50%. What’s more, for McCain to go from 41% to 43% is hardly a “comeback” or even the start of one. Sure, it’s the right direction, but come on…

Turning to Zogby’s numbers, well, you can simply ignore them since their polling has been absolutely awful this year. Better luck in 2012 John.

That brings us to Rasmussen, and one would think that a 5% spread would be good news for McCain. Well, not really.

Here’s a snapshot of their polling for the last 20 days…

Note that on Oct 9th and 10th the spread was +5 as well.

Finally, I’d like to point to a comparison study Pollster did today about which of these dailies is most reliable.

The red dot is where the average of a poll falls in relation to the average of all the polls. The closer to the middle, the better. Note that Rasmussen is pretty much dead on, with Hotline and Gallup being the next two most accurate.

Also, that thin blue line that bisects the red dot shows the volatility of a poll’s numbers, so if a poll jumps suddenly from a 5 point spread to a 9 point spread that’s usually odd behavior. And you’ll note that while Rasmussen’s is very small and shows less volatility from day to day, Zogby’s is massive. No surprise there..

Long story short, don’t believe the Drudge spin on this one. Because the numbers prove that Obama’s lead remains steady and as anybody who follows politics will tell you, a candidate polling at 50% or better this late in the race is almost a shoo-in to win.

Giving credit where credit is due, McCain is finally addressing the tone of some of his recent gatherings and trying to tell the crowds that Obama is not a scary guy.

The only problem? The mob doesn’t care.

From Politico:

“I am enthusiastic and encouraged by the enthusiasm and I think it’s really good,” McCain said. “We have to fight and i will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful.

“I dont mean that you have to lose your ferocity. I just mean you have to be respectful.”

A moment later, another woman stood up and urged McCain to speak up so voters “really have an understanding of who the candidates are.”

“There’s a difference between rhetoric and record,” McCain said, adding that Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. “He has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate, even more liberal than Bernie Sanders.”

Once again, McCain repeated, “I want all of you to tell your neighbors about the difference between rhetoric and record, but let’s do it respectfully.”

Later in the event, man in the audience stood up and told McCain he’s “scared” of an Obama presidency and who he’d select for the Supreme Court.

“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,” McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted “Come on, John!”

The question now: did McCain’s “palling around with terrorists” message create a monster meme he simply can’t contain? Because it honestly sounds like his supporters feel that Obama is dangerous. And as I’ve stated before, that’s a really bad thing to be suggesting about the first viable African-American presidential candidate.

More as it develops…

McCain continues to try and sell the idea that Obama’s a celebrity who will raise everybody’s taxes…

Who wins?

Well, remember John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it” moment? Sure you do. It painted him as the beltway insider who was wishy-washy about the Iraq war. And that, along with the swiftboating, was enough to send Kerry packing. I think it’s clear that Obama thinks that this could be McCain’s moment with regards to the economy, and he’s hitting him hard on it. And while I agree with Alan’s basic premise that being rich doesn’t mean somebody is out of touch, not knowing how many houses you own does send a signal to Americans that you may not understand what they’re going through to hold onto their ONE house.

On the other hand, McCain continues to use the “celebrity” meme to push the lie that Obama will raise taxes on most Americans. Now, this blog and nearly every single news organization has thoroughly debunked that notion. Still, McCain’s camp doesn’t seem to have a problem with flat out lying to people, so that is what it is. Also, McCain’s camp tries to paint Obama as a rich celebrity, and I think that’s going to bite them in the ass given that McCain is worth about 30 times what Obama is and has been a political celebrity for much longer as well.

But is the ad effective? Possibly. But I think McCain’s less substantive ads that compared Obama with celebrities that Americans hate (Paris Hilton, Britney Spears) were effective simply because they were lacking substance. Once McCain starts getting into areas where he tries to tie the economy back to the celebrity thing, this campaign starts to get muddy.

In the end, both ads lack the type of substance we deserve, and I wish we’d see better from both candidates. But McCain would do well to stop lying to voters because it’ll burn him later on.

From Politico:

LAS CRUCES, N.M. — John McCain stated unequivocally in an interview with Politico on Wednesday that he would not pledge to serve only a single four-year term, rejecting a suggestion that some allies believe would allay questions about his age and underscore his nonpartisan message of putting country first.

“No,” McCain said flatly, “I’m not considering it.”

As McCain had stated before, anybody who agreed to such a pledge would essentially be a lame duck on day one.

So that’s that!

First, let me once again point out that McCain is just plain lying that Obama will increase taxes on people earning more than $42,000. If you haven’t been in the loop on that meme yet, McCain said it in a previous ad because Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire in 2011 and Obama will let them expire. But he would replace those with middle class tax cuts of his own. Under Obama’s plan, taxes would only increase for those making over $250K a year. So yes, once again, McCain is lying.

But to the more troubling pattern emerging in McCain’s ads…what is he trying to suggest by having women talk about Obama as if they’re attracted to him? This is starting to feel like very close to what the RNC did to Harold Ford Jr. back in 2006.

If you don’t remember it, here ya go…

And please, don’t pretend like the McCain camp doesn’t know what they’re doing by injecting the “dreamy” meme into this campaign, as if this is all just some innocent joke and liberals just don’t have a good enough sense of humor to “get it.” This is very underhanded, divisive stuff they’re starting to peddle, and to see McCain go here this soon in the campaign is just plain sad.

Because as the Wall Street Journal reports, Obama’s fitness may only reinforce the stereotype that he’s an elitist…

The candidate has been criticized by opponents for appearing elitist or out of touch with average Americans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in July shows Sen. Obama still lags behind Republican John McCain among white men and suburban women who say they can’t relate to his background or perceived values.

“He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.

And the media isn’t helping…

But too much time in the gym can cause problems, as Sen. Obama learned last month after he made three stops to local Chicago gyms in one day, for a total of 188 minutes. The marathon workout session sparked a widely circulated Associated Press article titled “Obama Becomes a Gym Rat.” In it, the reporter wrote, “Sometimes it’s hard to tell if Barack Obama is running for president of the United States or Mr. Universe.”

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether the media is actually reporting the news or merely creating it.

However…I will say that a friend of mine commented a couple months ago that the weight Obama has gained on the campaign trail really solidified that he could be acceptable to him as a viable candidate. At the time I didn’t think much of it, but here we are today with an article in the Wall Street Journal.

So is this what we’re facing? A country that’s so insecure with how they look that they need to make sure anybody who runs that country shares their same bad habits? Do they fear that Obama will ask them to cut out the soda and chips so we can drive health care costs down?

And sure, this could simply be yet another manufactured media meme that most voters would never pay attention to, but one never knows what goes on in the average voter’s mind.

In any event, here’s how the last two Presidents measure up to the candidates.

Moving on…

But just in case he doesn’t, the media is reminding him…

From Washington Post: For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

From FactCheck.org: McCain’s facts are literally true, but his insinuation — that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time — is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier — without cameras or press — both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine…

From NY Times: Mr. McCain repeatedly said Mr. Obama “would rather lose a war to win a political campaign” and that he “does not understand” what is at stake in Iraq. He also accused Mr. Obama of canceling a visit to wounded American troops in a German military hospital because news cameras were not allowed. That’s a false account of what occurred — and Mr. McCain ignored Mr. Obama’s unheralded visit to a combat hospital in Baghdad.

Ultimately, this ad makes him look petty and angry. Hell, even Mike Huckabee is noticing this…(from an apperance on Hannity & Colmes):

HUCKABEE: Well, I think he missed an opportunity. Instead of having some fun with it and showing sort of a buoyant ‘hey, do what you’ve got to do, let Obama go play basketball, I’m solving problems.’ Do it with tongue and cheek.

Frankly, I thought he looked more like Bob Dole in the last days of the 1996 campaign saying ‘look at the record, look at the record,’ and there was some anger and sense of frustration there.

He shouldn’t show that. He needs to show that nothing is getting to him, it’s rolling off his back, and I think he missed an opportunity to do that last week.

And so it goes…

What else am I to make of stories like this one, where older Jewish voters think he’s in league with al Qaeda?

Because of a dispute over moving the date of the state’s primary, Obama and the other Democratic candidates did not campaign in Florida. But in his absence, novel and exotic rumors about Obama have flourished. Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race.

Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Wright is the godfather of Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Michelle Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

He might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Farrakhan.)

And as I’ve mentioned in the past, my own grandfather has bought into this nonsense, and it’s taken multiple talks with him to get through to him.

What’s more, older voters often tend to trust their friends much more than other sources, and once you get that rumor mill cranking, there’s not much you can do to stop it.

But here’s an additional thing I know about older folks…they watch that awful show Judge Judy…A LOT. So it’s almost as if Obama needs to make multiple commercials where he speaks directly into the camera, debunks each one of these rumors and run those constantly on Judge Judy and any other “judge” show that plays during the early evening hours.

Or he can just ignore this noise and hope for the best.

I’d go with the Judge Judy strategy…

In fact, here’s a blog that completely ripped off my post from that day.

Oh, and here’s the scene…

Quite fitting, no?

This has become a mini-firestorm…

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

After reading this, people are saying Obama is elitist, condescending, etc. Yeah, okay…if you read this as him saying he’s better than voters you could have a point. But he’s clearly not. He’s explaining how the American experience has gotten steadily worse because of the bitter partisan battles we’ve been fighting throughout the last three decades.

Folks, consumer confidence is at an all time low. Prices for the basic goods are climbing every month. Our dollar is consistently dropping in value. People are losing their homes. More and more manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas. Does anybody really believe that voters aren’t bitter? That they somehow feel that the people in D.C. really care about how they’re doing? And as a result, does anybody really believe that there’s not a fair amount of working-class Americans who allow wedge issues to define their vote because they think that’s the only thing they can control?

But hey, I’ll let the guy respond for himself…

My guess is that the Obama camp hopes Clinton and McCain keep pushing this “bitter” meme and try to define him with it, because it’ll make him the Howard Beale of 2008.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

“Yoo and torture” – 102

“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73

“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16

“Obama and bowling” — 1,043

“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

“Obama and patriotism” – 1,607

“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079

It really can’t be said enough…for all that you do…thank you media!

Here’s a comment that was posted from a random visitor to the site…

Neither myself,my family nor my friends care who now endorses Obama. He lied about being in the church when the hateful statements were made by Mr. Wright. It was a basic simple thing that showes he can’t tell the truth and he didn’t remove himself or disown this hate fullman.The youth have a problem with concentration. They love rallys, but it’s the people my age who vote. No one knows what the situation will be in November, but don’t bet the house that the young people will stay interested that long.

Now the blogger I quoted has since said that what he meant was that Obama admitted he was in Church when similar statements were made. As most of you know, Obama didn’t admit anything of the sort, but as you can see…some voters don’t even care to make this distinction. They’re simply repeating the meme that Obama “lied about being in the church when the hateful statements were made by Mr. Wright.”

We’re obviously all guilty of doing this from time to time, but just consider this a heads up…because it does matter.