Aside from the desire to create an imaginary avatar of the White Working Class Voter threatened by Barack Obama’s tax plan, there’s another big reason for the Joe the Plumber obsession among Republicans right now. Conservative gabbers are convinced that Obama’s “spread the wealth around” remark in his original encounter with Samuel J. Wurzelbacher was politically disastrous evidence that he wants to use tax rates to engineer a socialist “redistribution” of income.
Last week Hilzoy usefully went through the Obama/Joe the Imposter exchange and showed convincingly that Obama was talking about the macroeconomic benefits of more broadly distributed wealth, not advocating redistribution-via-the-tax-code. In terms of tax policy, I think it’s abundantly clear that Obama was challenging the whole conservative premise that wealth and jobs are created strictly by investors and employers, whose marginal tax rates must be kept as low as possible, so that those middle-and-lower income freeloaders may continue to passively benefit from their munificence. This does indeed represent a sharp dividing line between progressive and conservative economic philosophies, since progressives do tend to believe that the skills and work–and for that matter, the buying power–of non-capital-holders are a very big deal for the economy. And that’s the actual difference between the Obama and McCain approaches to tax policy, with Obama wanting to make income tax rates more progressive, while McCain–like all those conservative “flat tax” or “fair tax” advocates–wanting to make them less progressive.
If a majority of Americans agreed with conservatives on this fundamental issue, they would surely agree that taxes are high enough, and perhaps too high, for upper-income Americans and for corporations–you know, for the people who create all the jobs and wealth.
But if you check out the Gallup site, the most abundant source of polling on the broad outlines of tax policy, it becomes clear that the McCain-Palin campaign is really barking up the wrong tree.
As of April of this year–long before the Wall Street scandal roused particularly intense populist feelings–63% of respondents told Gallup that “upper-income people” paid too little in taxes. 9% said such people paid too much in taxes. While the term “upper-income” wasn’t defined in the poll, Obama’s definition–the top 5% of earners–couldn’t be too far off the mark. And for the record, the “too little” figure was actually a bit higher back in the Clinton years, when the top rate was very similar to where Obama would try to put it.
Another common conservative talking point on taxes, echoed by John McCain in the final presidential debate, was that corporate taxes in the United States are too high. According to Gallup in the same April 2008 poll, 6% of Americans think corporations pay too much in taxes, while 73% think they pay too little.
But let’s take this to another level. Suppose Republicans can convince people that Obama really does want to pursue a Robin Hood tax policy. Would that represent a political death sentence for the Democrat?
Here’s another question posed by Gallup: Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich? In April of 2008, 51% of Americans answered that question “yes,” while 43% said “no.” Those who think of the New Deal Era as the high tide of American “socialism” might want to note that Roper asked the identical question in 1939; 35% said “yes” while 54% said “no.”
So the bottom line is that under the most abrasive (and inaccurate) characterization of what Obama meant by “spreading the wealth around,” he would still be reflecting a majority sentiment. Once again, the McCain-Palin campaign probably ought to be talking about something else.

Byron York of National Review spent some time at a McCain rally in Northern Virginia, and came away with a very revealing look at the strange relationship between the GOP base and, well, objective reality.
Wonder why McCain and Palin are still beating the Joe the Plumber drum despite the abundant evidence that the whole “story” is a complete scam? York explains it:

In recent days, the Joe the Plumber phenomenon has taken on a deeper meaning for McCain’s audiences…. [H]e is a symbol of their belief that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes, regardless of what Obama says about hitting up only those taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year. They know Wurzelbacher doesn’t make that much, and they know they don’t make that much. And they’re not suspicious because they believe that someday they will make $250,000, and thus face higher taxes. No, they just don’t believe Obama right now. If he’s elected, they say, he’ll eventually come looking for taxpayers who make well below a quarter-million dollars, and that will include them.

York goes on to explain at some length that these base voters are angry at “the media” for “investigating” the facts about Joe the Plumber. Stands to reason, if you think about it: Who cares about “facts” when Joe was really unveiling the deeper truth that Obama wants to raise his taxes no matter what he’s saying about it?
There’s a lot of this “thinking” going at present, and McCain and Palin are clearly responding to it. “Obama’s a socialist!” we hear over and over from grassroots conservatives. He would not only raise taxes on the middle class, but would give “welfare” to deadbeats who don’t pay income taxes, through refundable tax credits. And his “socialized medicine” plan would crucify small businessmen (sic!) like Joe (sic!) the Plumber (sic!).
In reality, Obama’s tax plan would place rates pretty much where they were under the Clinton administration, when the economy created not only the most astonishing number of very wealthy people in American history, but the first mass upper middle class in human history. Refundable income tax credits for people with no income tax liability, but with payroll tax liability (the larger tax burden for a majority of working Americans) was an idea once championed by that well-known socialist Ronald Reagan, and initially pioneered by another lefty, Richard Nixon. Obama’s health care plan is based on expanding private health insurance, against the advice of a clear majority of Democratic health care wonks who favor a single-payer system. And small businesses are generally exempted from its coverage mandates.
But once you have decided that Barack Obama’s actual proposals are irrelevant to what you “know” are his “real” intentions, all these objections are just annoying distractions from truthiness. And hence the fury at the news media for “protecting” Obama with facts that are actually lies.
No wonder the McCain-Palin campaign continues to serve up half-truths and outright lies about Obama, or that the really crazy stuff–Obama’s a secret Muslim, or secret terrorist, or an agent of the Antichrist–seems to lurk right under the surface at every GOP grassroots gathering.
I did a radio show recently in which another guest–a Republican as it happened–suggested that McCain’s handlers know his candidacy is doomed, and are focused on keeping the base excited in order to put a floor under his numbers and avoid a down-ballot landslide. I was skeptical at the time, but the theory is beginning to make sense. The truthiness-gone-wild at the core of the GOP effort, which makes the smears of past Democratic candidates look like patty-cake, isn’t working among persuadable voters, and McCain doesn’t have the resources to outshout the Obama campaign with a parallel-universe story line about the candidates, even if the fundamentals of the election weren’t so damning to his case.

The long-awaited September fundraising totals for Barack Obama are finally out, and they vastly exceeded very high expectations. Could his campaign actually pull in $100 million in a single month, we all wondered as rumors swirled? Yeah, that and more: around $150 million, more than doubling the record $67 million he collected in August. The Obama campaign is now at around $600 million for the cycle, from more than three million individual donors. Following the long-established pattern of small donor domination, the average contribution to Obama among 632,000 first-time givers in September was under $100.
Add in the $50 million or so raised by the Democratic National Committee in September, and you can understand why Democrats are now heavily outspending Republicans on paid advertising, aside from hard-to-quantify but definitely superior investments in field operations.
The weird thing is that Obama’s September fundraising completely obscured what would have otherwise been an astonishing month for the Republican National Committee, which took in $66 million in September. With McCain himself limited to $84 million in public funds for the entire post-Convention period ($32 million of that was spent in September), there’s zero doubt that Obama will have a sizable advantage down the stretch.

It’s now estimated that as many as a third of America’s voters will cast ballots before election day, up from 22 percent in ’04. That’s an impressive statistic, but, for Dems especially, it may not be enough.
All indications are that the nation will have a record-setting turnout, so high is voter interest in the current presidential campaign. There will be long lines across the nation on November 4, especially in predominantly African-American precincts. One fear is that elderly voters, who just can’t stand around for a long time will go home before casting ballots. There may be an even larger group of impatient individuals among Obama supporters of all races in swing states. Bad weather could exacerbate the problem.
More to the point, there will be Republican shenanigans in swing states on election day. The safe assumption is to expect confusion, disinformation, delays, parking hassles, disappearing registration records and computer glitches. If Dems are caught by surprise at the scale of election day problems, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Consider the ACORN smear campaign and possible politicization of the FBI as tip-offs that disenfranchisement efforts on an unprecedented scale could be in in the works.
Surely, the Obama campaign and DNC have their legal teams in training already (For a good report on the legal strategy against suppression see here). But one powerful weapon we all have against voter suppression is to vote early. Every Democrat who votes early has made a contribution to reducing election day confusion. Even better, it’s harder to discount early votes, because there is more time to challenge any effort to do so. Another reason to encourage early voting is that the race always narrows in the last few days of the campaign. Banking Obama votes now, while the memory of the debates is still fresh is good strategy. Those who vote early are also freer to use their time on election day helping others get to the polls.
Yes, there are reports of long lines, even for early voting in many localities. Better to wait now, however, than add to the confusion on election day. If you get in and out quickly, you can use the hour your employer gives you to vote to help a carless co-worker get to the polls.
So putting some effort into early voting for ourselves, our families and friends is time well-spent for Dems. If we can bump up the share of early voters from a third to say 40 percent, it could make a huge difference for the better for America’s future.

Give Sarah Palin cred for good sportsmanship for showing up on SNL and taking some sharp zingers. But her remark, scripted or not, about Tina Fey’s Palin press conference skit was a little strange. “I didn’t think it was a realistic depiction of the way my press conferences would have gone.” What press conferences? We’re still waiting.
Fey has scoffed at the suggestion that she has any influence on politics (see her funny Letterman appearance, for example). But I wouldn’t be surprised if her dead-on impersonation of Palin, in combination with the on-demand availability of internet re-runs, did more to wake people up to Palin’s lack of qualifications than all journalists and the Obama campaign put together. You just can’t buy that kind of water-cooler buzz.
I tuned in to Meet the Press next morning, wondering if maybe, just maybe Palin would show. To my initial disappointment, they had former Secretary of State Colin Powell instead. But Secretary Powell delivered the most eloquent, well-reasoned political endorsement I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t seen it, click here, and if you know any sane voters still undecided, Powell’s endorsement is as good an argument for Obama as you are going to find.
I assume Tom Brokaw and staff are still negotiating with Palin’s campaign about getting her on MTP. If McCain and Palin are still lagging badly in the polls Sunday before election day, my guess is that’s when she’ll appear on the show — if ever.
Hard to say if McCain would have done better with a different VP nominee. Carly Fiorina would have been an even greater break for Dems, given her $42 million golden parachute and the breaking of the bailout story.
Two weeks out from V-day, it looks like the Palin VP nomination may be a net minus for the GOP ticket, although Republican turnout in conservative strongholds will be the best measure of that. Either way, don’t be surprised if she is back in 4 years, as a better-informed, stronger candidate for President, ready to rumble in the Republican primaries.

It’s time to cut the usual election-year BS and speak the truth.
To start with, let’s admit one thing off the bat. Even if (as almost all non-partisan observers say) few if any of the phony, “Mickey Mouse-Donald Duck” type registrations that the Acorn organization collects actually show up as fraudulent voters trying to cast illegal ballots, there is still something that feels shoddy and basically distasteful about paying temporary canvassers based on a quota for registering voters. It cheapens the dignity of the democratic process and provides an incentive for padding lists with fake registrations that have to be cleaned out or worried about later on.
In fact, if the McCain campaign and the US Department of Justice had raised complaints about this particular method of registration last winter or spring, a lot of deeply partisan democrats might not have gone out of their way to help them but would privately have admitted that they had a point.
And the McCain campaign and the DOJ had plenty of time to raise this issue. Acorn has been doing this kind of “pay for results” registration for many years now – and has been investigated by the DOJ before – and it was abundantly clear by last February-March that this year would see a massive increase in new voter registration.
But the sudden dramatic intrusion of the FBI into an election just 19 days before Election Day and just one day after the candidate of the political party currently in control of the FBI and DOJ makes new and inflammatory accusations of voting fraud against his opponent is something far more troubling. It’s a nightmare scenario for anyone who cares about the American system of government.
Let’s say it simply – America is not a one-party state. The people in the federal law enforcement and criminal justice systems are supposed to stay out of politics – not work to support the party in power. There are specific rules and long-standing institutional traditions in the DOJ against publically announcing a major political investigation during the last few days of an election campaign.
This is not just an issue for latte-sipping liberals and ACLU types. You ask average heartland of America guys – the big burly guys with the Vietnam-Vet baseball hats and “Don’t Tread on Me” or “Live Free or Die” tea shirts and they will tell you without hesitation:

“Now don’t get me wrong – I love my country – 1,000 percent. But I don’t always trust the federal government to do the right thing. I don’t like it anytime the government starts launching prosecutions that smell like they are politically motivated. This time it might be a guy like Obama who I don’t like worth a damn, but next time it could be Ron Paul or Bob Barr or even me because they don’t like the way I think. When the FBI or Department of Justice starts using the police power of the state to play partisan politics, that’s a dangerous first step toward tyranny and losing all our individual liberty and individual rights.”

If you don’t believe that Middle America is full of guys who think and feel this way, you haven’t been out there lately. You may not like what they say about gun control, but they genuinely care about the constitution and the bill of rights
Up to now McCain has used the “maverick” label to imply he would not continue the Bush Administrations partisan subversion of the DOJ and other federal agencies. But his decision to endorse the FBI investigation and link his campaign to it without a single word of concern about the dangerous violation of political neutrality the last-minute FBI investigation entails catastrophically shatters this presumption. It firmly allies him with the many remaining political appointees in the DOJ who were selected by Monica Goodling – the arrogant right-wing imitation of a classic 1950’s Soviet political commissar who purged all political opponents, demanded that DOJ employees prosecute political enemies or be dismissed and forced applicants for non-partisan jobs to answer illegal propaganda questions like “What is it about George Bush that makes you want to serve him?”
Republicans will argue that the DOJ is just doing its job or that their actions are just a normal part of “hardball” politics. Dems, however, can fairly reply “Well maybe in a third world banana republic or a 1950’s Soviet-controlled country they are, but this is America. We do it different here.”
McCain likes to argue that “I’m not George Bush”. But Dems can fairly reply “No, but the DOJ will obviously be run in exactly the same, repulsive way that it was during the Bush administration.”
In fact, it’s actually ironic. The last-minute intrusion of the FBI into the 2008 campaign actually gave John McCain the ideal opportunity to show that he really would be a different kind of Republican from George W. Bush. Instead, he used the opportunity to show that he will be exactly the same.

You have to give the Republicans credit for having a lot of raw nerve. How does a political leader who professes to have enough integrity to ask for public support get in front of national TV cameras and rail against a non-profit organization for turning in some fraudulent voter registration forms, when his/her political party is the worst purveyer of vote theft in the history of democracy?
At the 3rd presidential debate at Hofstra on Wednesday night John McCain said that ACORN was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” In Westchester Ohio, GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin told a rally “In this election, especially here in Ohio, you’re going to be asked to choose between a candidate who will not disavow a group committing voter fraud and a leader who will not tolerate it.”
This from the standard-bearers of the party that gave us the Brooks Brothers Riot and other electoral atrocities in the 2000 and 2004 elections. For a good history of Republican “ballot security” campaigns going back several decades, click here.
Since the smear ACORN campaign began, ACORN workers have experienced death threats, racist insults and their offices have been vandalized in at least two cities, according to this report by Greg Gordon of McCatchy Newspapers.
How accurate are the McCain-Palin attacks on ACORN? According to an October 16th New York Times editorial,

The group concedes that some of its hired canvassers have turned in tainted forms, although they say the ones with phony names constitute no more than 1 percent of the total turned in. The group also says it reviews all of the registration forms that come in. Before delivering the forms to elections offices, its supervisors flag any that appear to have problems.

In his ABC News web page article, “McCain Acorn Fears Overblown: Charges of Voter Fraud Are Out of Proportion to Reality, They Say,” Justin Rood explained:

But McCain’s voter fraud worries – about Acorn or anyone else – are unsupported by the facts, said experts on election fraud, who recall similar concerns being raised in several previous elections, despite a near-total absence of cases.
“There’s no evidence that any of these invalid registrations lead to any invalid votes,” said David Becker, project director of the “Make Voting Work” initiative for the Pew Charitable Trusts…Becker should know: he was a lawyer for the Bush administration until 2005, in the Justice Department’s voting rights section, which was part of the administration’s aggressive anti-vote-fraud effort.

There have been a few phony voter registration applications submitted by ACORN canvassers. But there has only been one documented case of actual voter fraud attributed to ACORN. Vote suppression, however, is a far more common form of vote theft, and it has been practiced on a massive scale by Republicans. As M.S. Bellows, Jr. put it in his HuffPo article on the topic:

…When I and other reporters pressed RNC communications director Danny Diaz and RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross to name specific instances of ACORN-registered voters who had actually cast fraudulent ballots, they could name just one: a single Ohio man who was caught yesterday trying, unsuccessfully, to cast a fraudulent ballot. Even Florida’s Republican governor says that his fellow Republicans may be exaggerating the problem.
…Voter suppression practices are the flip side of such efforts. Suppression efforts can appear innocuous, such as requiring voters to show photo I.D.s – a requirement that excludes a surprising number of poor, minority, very young and very old voters and kept several elderly nuns from voting in Indiana’s Democratic primary this year. Suppression can pose as false righteousness, such as Fox News’s 342 negative mentions of a single voter-registration group in just four days (casting the group’s efforts to register underrepresented demographics as a threat to democracy, and frightening voters registered by that group into thinking that their registrations might be unlawful), or the past Republican practice of stationing armed, uniformed “Ballot Integrity” personnel in minority polling places (again, tamping down turnout). And there is no lack of flatly illegal suppression schemes, such as vote “caging” (in which voter resident status is challenged merely because their house is in foreclosure or because a piece of direct mail was returned by the post office), robo-calls falsely telling voters their polling places have changed, and deceptive flyers (like the ones posted in Pennsylvania’s inner-city and college neighborhoods, warning of police plans to arrest voters for unpaid child support or parking tickets).
The parties argue every year over whether vote suppression or vote fraud is the greater threat to democracy, but the numbers suggest that it’s no contest: about six people are convicted each year of actually casting ballots fraudulently, while hundreds of thousands of people who are entitled to vote fail to do so because of misinformation, intimidation, deception, or bureaucratic hurdles.

Bellows also links to an illuminating interview with with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast on the sordid history of massive vote suppression by the GOP.

I had reason today to call my buddy Jim Galloway, the top political reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and he called my attention to a grim and revealing story about the ground game as it’s playing out in Georgia right now. Here’s Jim’s lede:

The chairman of the Pike County Democratic party says she found a cooked, severed mouse head in a take-out meal after a confrontation with the husband of the restaurant owner — who allegedly accused her of registering “gutter scum” for the coming Nov. 4 election.
“Without saying it, he was referring to black people in no uncertain words,” she said.

You should read the whole thing, which explains that the apparently intended consumer of the fried mouse head, the husband of the Pike County Democratic Party, is a Republican. It’s always possible that the whole thing was some sort of bizarre accident, but it’s more likely that collateral damage isn’t much of a consideration in the savage competition underway in Georgia.