Methinks McCain is playing political games. I just read that McCain wants to suspend campaigning and postpone Friday’s debate so he can focus on the current historic financial crisis. He’s waiting on a response from the Obama camp as to whether they’ll agree. McCain is trying to play the statesman now.

I don’t think the debate should be postponed. Campaigning – yes, debate – no. The first debate on Friday, September 26 is covering the topics of foreign policy and national security – these are McCain’s strongest areas – at least that’s what he’s been saying this election cycle – so, it’s not like he has to cram for the questions.

We have just over one month until the election – I think we can all agree that this is one of the most important elections in our lifetime. Taking a few hours to debate some important issues isn’t going to adversely affect the handling of the financial crisis.

Our country needs this debate, Mr. McCain.

If I was Obama, I would say yes to suspending the campaigning, but NO to postponing the debate.

CNN headlines: “Biden, Obama helped keep ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ alive”

Here’s the thing that irritates me about politicians – they don’t get it. All congress people (Representatives and Senators) are always trying to get money for their states – everyone does it – some better than others – if you don’t bring money home to the state, your constituents are asking what you’re doing in Washington.

Here’s my irritation – in an earlier blog I talked about the “bridge to nowhere” – you’ll note that I didn’t question the merits of the bridge, I didn’t question if the money appropriated was too much or not enough…the entire point of my post was that Sarah Palin was lying when she said that she had not supported the bridge. Rightly or wrongly, she had supported it and then lied about it later. That’s the point I’m trying to make – and I wish the candidates would pursue it- they can all throw stones regarding earmarks, pork, graft, etc. Instead of talking about the amount of dollars that might have been spent on the bridge, Joe Biden should have been talking about Palin’s honesty and integrity when answering questions about her past positions.

by Suzy Shuster, The Huffington Post

Dear Ms. Fey,

We, the people, need you.

We need you to be Sarah Palin each and every Saturday night, live from New York.

How else to explain the sudden about face of Governor Palin’s popularity in the polls just days after your brilliant spot-on impersonation on one of the highest rated Saturday Night Live’s in the show’s history? The hair, the glasses, all perfect, but truly it was the flat mid-western accent, the lip-lick, and the insipid comments which did seem like they came directly out of Palin’s mouth (“I can see Russia from my house!”) made you question whether it was real or was it Memorex.

Frighteningly, it was too real.

From the Friday before the skit on SNL aired to the following Tuesday, Palin’s approval rating dropped ten points. Coincidence? I think not. After all, people in this country are tending to be more influenced by who or what they see on entertainment television, more so than on broadcast news or in print. Americans tune into Jon Stewart for their political appetites more than ever ( and why not). So when you, Ms. Fey, don your Palin wig, you influence millions of voters more than Charles (“Charlie”) Gibson or Brian Williams, Paul Begala or that anorexic blond McCain spokeswoman ever could.

And I think its your responsibility to do so, or else we face the consequence of a woman in the White House who would strive to take away your daughter Alice’s right to choose along with every other woman’s in this country.

Most of us who read the Post are already scared out of our wits of what this woman could “accomplish,” should she reach the Vice Presidency or beyond. Abortion outlawed even in the case of incest or rape. Global warming research dismissed. Polar bears left unprotected, not to mention moose murder celebrated. But you, Ms. Fey, have the ability, with just a wink and a smirk, to change the minds of millions of casual viewers and even more casual voters, to educate them as to what this woman stands or doesn’t stand for. These viewers don’t react to a radical move like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel coming forth to question Palin’s credentials or credibility, or really care about what political pundits prognosticate on cable news shows. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, many swing-state voters get their information and cue from you, Ms. Fey, and you need to provide as much of it as one woman possibly can, before the election is upon us and it is too late.

Comedy can cure and comedy can enlighten, but it must be a constant to reach enough ears to change the hearts and minds of this country, Ms. Fey, and not a minute more can afford to be wasted. So smear on your lipstick, get that slightly crazy look on your face, sharpen your No. 2 shotgun and get to work.

When you won your three Emmy awards the other night (congrats on that, by the way) you wondered aloud:

“I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5. So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me.”

Well, I think it’s obvious. That person is you.

Save us, Tina Fey. You may be our only hope.

I just finished reading an article in the Gainesville Sun about how Sarah Palin is employing the same means to squash “troopergate” as the Republicans did in the 2000 election in Florida.

But there’s a couple of paragraphs at the end of the article that has me shaking my head. The entire article is here. But the excerpt I’m concerned about is this: (Note that Branchflower is the investigator and Colberg is the Attorney General appointed by Palin.)

When Branchflower sought to subpoena 10 employees of Palin’s administration, Colberg responded with a letter that said they had been placed in a untenable position.

“As state employees, our clients have taken an oath to uphold the Alaska Constitution,” he wrote.

Yet, he added, “our clients are also loyal employees subject to the supervision of the Governor” whom he said has stated that the subpoenas were of questionable validity.

“We respectfully ask that you withdraw the subpoenas directed to our clients and thereby relieve them from the circumstance of having to choose where their loyalties lie,” he added.

Choose where their loyalties lie? Seriously? This is a reason to dismiss the subpoenas? Because these employees would have to choose between upholding the state constitution or protecting Palin? Isn’t that why they took an oath to uphold the constitution? It’s not a choice, people. Are you kidding me?

Hmmmm.., who moves around a lot? Oh, of course, young student voters, many of whom would support Obama…yes, the trend is becoming very clear…read on…

Michigan Is Disenfranchising ‘Thousands Of Voters,’ ACLU Says

DETROIT (CN) – The Michigan Secretary of State has disenfranchised “thousands of voters” and continues to do so by striking them from the rolls “upon notice that original voter identification cards have been returned as undeliverable,” the United States Student Association Foundation and the ACLU claim in Federal Court. Plaintiffs say the state violates its own laws and federal law by the hasty disenfranchisements.

They say they notified Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land of this by letter on July 8, and she responded, on Aug. 29, that she is canceling voter registrations in the manner the plaintiffs described, “and that the onus lies with the voter to ‘correct the record.'”

Plaintiffs say the state’s purging procedure is illegal. They want it enjoined, and the people whose names were stricken from the roles illegally reinstated.Their lead counsel is Matthew Lund with Pepper Hamilton.

Read the filing

This Saturday, September 20th, please join Barack Obama in Jacksonville, where he will talk about his vision for creating the kind of change we need.

Change We Need Rally with Barack Obama

Metropolitan Park
1410 Gator Bowl Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32202

Saturday, September 20th
Doors Open: 12:30 p.m.
Program Begins: 2:30 p.m.

Not required, but you can RSVP at: RSVP Here

The event is free and open to the public. Space is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Tickets are not required. However, an RSVP is strongly encouraged.

For security reasons, do not bring bags. Please limit personal items. No signs or banners allowed.

From Courthouse News Service:

Obama Campaign Sues Over Republican Suppression Effort

DETROIT (CN) – Barack Obama’s campaign has filed a class action to try to stop the Republican Party’s effort to prevent voting by those who have lost homes to foreclosure. The complaint calls the Republican plan the “lose your home, lose your vote” vote-suppression program. (see filing here)
The suit says Michigan seeks “to strip the right to vote of individuals who reside in homes for which a notice of foreclosure has been issued.”
Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee sued the Macomb County Republican Party, the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee in Macomb County Court.

“This complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ vote-suppression program adopted by the Macomb County Republican Party, in concert with the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee, as well as unnamed Defendants who will implement the scheme at polling places in Macomb County and throughout the State,” the complaint states.

“Republican operatives have announced that they will seek to strip the right to vote of individuals who reside in homes for which a notice of foreclosure has been issued by making challenges on Election Day to each such citizen’s right to vote. This ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ program is part of a broader scheme – misnamed an ‘election integrity’ program – to harass voters and suppress the vote throughout the State of Michigan in the upcoming election on November 4.”

The three individual plaintiffs are longtime homeowners in Macomb County whose homes are in foreclosure proceedings.

Plaintiff Duane Maletski was laid off from his job making auto parts and his home entered foreclosure proceedings in late July but he still lives there legally.
Plaintiff Sharon Lopez, 61, owns her home and is buying the home next door. That home entered foreclosure after the renter, her son, broke his leg in five places, lost his job and could not work, and Lopez’s husband was laid off from his job as a welder. The interest rate on her rental home jumped from 2 percent to 10 percent and it has entered foreclosure. So her name is on the foreclosure list, though she lives in her own home, which is not in foreclosure.

Plaintiff Frances Zick lives in the home she bought from her parents 15 years ago. Its adjustable rate mortgage rate jumped to 10%, her monthly payment rose from $1,100 to $1,800 and the lender foreclosed after she got two months behind. She works, and has worked for 17 years, as a cashier in a supermarket. She still lives in the home legally, though it is in foreclosure and may be sold.

The complaint states: “The mass and systematic challenge of voters under the Defendant Republicans’ ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ scheme will impair the right to vote of Individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The presence of an address on a list of foreclosures provides no legitimate basis for challenging a voter’s eligibility to vote, and use of such foreclosure lists for mass and systematic challenges can have but one purpose: to threaten, harass, and intimidate voters whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for their candidates. The result of the mass challenges envisioned by the ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ scheme will be denial and/or abridgement of the right to vote, indeterminate and inordinate delays at polling places affecting Individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated who must suffer through a baseless challenge process, as well as others affected by the diversion of election resources compelled by the mass, baseless challenges of the ‘lose your home, lose your vote’ scheme, and the subjection of Individual Plaintiffs and similarly situated voters to potentially harassing public questioning that is unrelated to their eligibility to vote.”

Plaintiffs are represented by James Bruinsma of Grand Rapids.

The following is from D Magazine (D for Dallas). The writer is a former publisher of National Review.

My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.
By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

These are the two ads both campaigns put out regarding the financial crisis. Which is more substantive? You decide.

I was listening to the Diane Rehm show this evening and the subject was the new book “The Invisible Constitution” written by Laurence Tribe. It was a fascinating discussion – Tribe offers his opinion as to what kinds of justices Obama and McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court. Tribe taught Justice Roberts and Barack Obama at Harvard. For those of you who like to say that there’s really no difference between the candidates – this discussion will change your mind. I urge you to listen to the show and read the book.