Blanked Out

I just got back from the Voting with a Mouse: How Bloggers Altered the Political Landscape event at the Humphrey Center.

The forum began with a Power Point from David Carr of the New York times. Karr used to write for various publications and alterative weeklies here in Minnesota.

Following the presentation Joe Bodell of MNCR, Michael Brodkorb of MDE, Eric Black of the Strib/Big Question and Carr held an interesting and informative panel.

The panel spent a large amount of time debating whether or not blogs worsen the partisan divides in society or merely reflect the fault lines that already exist.

Carr and Black argued that since blogs allow the reader to only associate with others that confirm and reinforce his own biases, blogs exacerbate partisan differences. The worry here was that the blogosphere would merely become the electronic equivalent of talk radio.

Despite their own partisan differences, Bodell and Brodkorb united in opposition to this argument. While conceding that individual blogs may amplify voices in the ideological extremities the blogosphere in total does reflect society.

I’ll post more discussion and some of my own impressions tomorrow in Part 2. Teaser: Part 3 is entitled “The End of Privacy”.

Enter Karl Rove:

His plan is three-pronged: to reenergize any conservatives who may be flagging; to make sure the GOP’s carefully constructed campaign apparatus is functioning at peak efficiency; and to put the resources of the federal government to use for political gain.

(…)
But the success of the get-out-the-vote effort depends on putting a reliable army of volunteers into the field, and some worry about the sour mood among Republicans this year. Rove and Mehlman have tried to ensure quality control by recruiting experienced operatives to supervise key state operations.

(…)

In a twist that resembled an Amway sales meeting more than a political strategy session, they offered those who signed up on the spot a chance to win an iPod and other prizes. 

MN Publius reported the MN GOP is also offering an Apple iPod and other gifts for GOTV volunteers.

This is why no matter what the polls say, you should help get out the vote with the candidate you support.

A little background: I’ve been without cable for years. Furthermore, I can count on a single hand the number of times I’ve watched local television channels in the past four years.

With several important local races looming, I decided to hook up basic cable in order to watch the local news. I was prepared for the multitudes of political ads.

Or at least, so I thought.

I had no idea of the onslaught that awaited me. The tsunami of constant bombardment - accusation, rebuttal, redirect - the never ending drone of the voice overs. I consider myself an avid consumer of political information. If this was too much even for me, how does the normal voter react to the flood? Especially considering the vast majority of the ads are negative. Keith Ellison knows exactly how they react:

“I’m more convinced than ever that negative campaigning is wrong, and it shouldn’t be done, and I’m proud that I haven’t done it. It’s inherently a voter suppression tactic. If I smear you, your voters aren’t going to vote for me, they’re just not going to vote. We should be trying to bring people into the electorate, not drive them away.

Most of you have noticed that my blogging frequency has fallen.  I hate to say it, but in the waning days of the election the apathy has gotten to me.  I instead have been focusing on my career and my aspirations to enter a graduate program.

My political memory is frighteningly short.  It is highlighted by the distraction of the Lewinsky scandal, the perversion of the 2000 Presidential Election, Wellstone’s death and the 2002 electoral bloodbaths and the soul-crushing disappointment of Bush’s re-election in 2004. Last year was a good year, on a local level.  And 2006?  You can’t blame me if I’m a little jaded on the political process.

There are not many bright spots, politically speaking.  

Even at the cusp of a historical political re-alignment I am suspicious of the capacity for real change.  We should all remember that November 7th isn’t the end - it is the beginning of a possibility for real change. Well, the apathy ends today.  None of us who simultaneously see the flaws of our government with its awesome potential for good can pass up the possibility for change.

The confirmation comes none too soon. (emphasis added)

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.

(…)

“Given the response I’ve been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility” although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. “My focus is on ‘06. … After November 7, I’ll sit down and consider it.”

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

MN Publius has a good rundown of the response Obama has been getting from the Minnesota grassroots.

In my personal experience there is no other candidate who would get more support from the Minnesota grassroots than Obama. Russ Feingold, our friendly neighborhood Senator, comes very close.

Obama’s previous statements that he would not run in ‘08 is a non-issue. To be honest, the fact that he’s won a Grammy will be more of a problem to some people.

While politicians should never rule out running for higher office, Mark Warner’s drop from the list of contenders changed the presidential landscape considerably and shifted the ‘08 spotlight to Obama.

Warner dropped out for the same reasons that would have made him a great President. Even though this was his best chance and an opportunity that would probably never come again, he realized his heart wasn’t in it 100%.

Only that kind of maturity can save us from the amateur hour that is the Bush Administration.

Obama agrees:

On Sunday, Obama dismissed notions that he might not be ready to run for president because of his limited experience in national politics. He agreed the job requires a “certain soberness and seriousness” and “can’t be something you pursue on the basis of vanity and ambition.”

Amen! The fact of the matter is that Obama has two very young children. An Oval Office run would bring stress that the rest of us can’t even dream of - the only person who knows if Obama has what it takes to be President is Obama himself.

The rest of us can only hope.

Below the fold is a list of wonkish links to 2008 prescience.

(more…)

MNCR hits upon the true concern surrounding the candidacy of Michelle Bachmann:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…..” Do you really think Michele Bachmann would pay attention to that?

Really?

Voters need not theorize on the answer. While most blogs and MSM devoting space to the “church endorsement” controversy, another video of Bachmann that provides important context to the debate is being overlooked:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/v/Damah0KH-Co[/video]

Bachmann is at most endorsing intelligent design and at least putting intelligent design (ID) at equal footing with evolution. Teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005). Bachmann again on ID: (emphasis added)

Q5: Should “Intelligent Design” be taught (along with Darwinian Theory) in the p science curriculum in public schools?

Bachmann: “We need to trust teachers and the local school boards in what they want to teach. The federal government has no business in moving toward censorship. Bachmann stated that Darwinian theory was by no means ironclad, and to be able to question its tenets (i.e., the secondary law of thermodynamics, the fossil record) is a move toward academic freedom. She stated that it should be up to faculty, students and parents to draw their own conclusions.

Bachmann is trying to use scientific terms to justify her untenable position - not unlike how ID pretends to be science but merely puts on the outer appearance of science.

The court decision left no room for debate in this regard - teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the Constitution.

I have no issue with those who believe in creationism over evolution. In fact, I even agree with Bachmann up to a point. Students should “draw their own conclusions” in the inherent battle between science and faith. Creationism should be taught in schools - in World Religions class. Teaching ID in Biology would destroy both faith and science.

Remember, ID is not an incorrect theory - it’s not a theory at all. There can’t be any debate between ID and evolution because they live in different epistemologies. No one can prove or disprove ID because it makes no claims on who the “designer” is or how they designed all life on Earth.

This is a bipartisan issue, in four directions. Secularists should be against ID because of the harm it does to scientific principles. Theists need to be against ID because it erodes the very concept of faith (belief without physical proof). Both Republicans and Democrats should be against ID (and the politicians that enable it) because it betrays a willingness to support irrational and anti-Constitutional policy.

Hat tips to Dump Bachmann and Pharyngula for source links.

This is a great idea and I’m glad the Strib blogs are expanding. I think it was an especially good idea to give Kersten the next blog, for the following reasons.

1. The blog helps reveal Kersten’s bias in her columns. Bias isn’t a bad thing - everyone has one. The issue was it wasn’t always clear to a layman reader what Kersten’s bias was - I doubt many readers got as far as to read Kersten’s full bio (hidden below the Read More link) that reveals her past work for the Center for the American Experiment. In comparison, the blog’s outgoing links are a who’s who of conservative news magazines, core knowledge education links (i.e. ED Hirsch inspired curriculum), anti-gay marriage sites and conservative blogs. Kersten’s bias is now crystal clear.
2. The blog is a better outlet for Kersten’s research. Earlier this cycle there was a bit of confusion surrounding Kersten’s contribution to a Strib article on Keith Ellison’s past. Many readers thought that the wall between News and Opinion should be stronger. With a blog, Kersten can post her articles directly to the readership without jeopardizing the supposed “non-bias” of the news.
3. Kersten’s promise of a communication “exchange”. One of the strongest features of blogs over other types of media is the inherent exchange of opinion not only between readers, but between the readers and the author. As the population’s trust in traditional media falls, blogs can serve as a way to reconnect journalists and opinion-makers back to readers.It’s important that we move away from the current reaction - “You’re just a pinko/fascist newspaper so I’m going to dismiss everything you publish” to “I disagree with your position, but I know where you’re coming from.” Kersten has promised that: “Sometimes, I’ll update my columns with interesting new facts, or add insights from reader emails I get (with permission, of course).” We’ll see if she keeps her promise.

It’s called “Think Again”.  I’ll have more on this later.  In the meantime, check out what Kersten has listed as “Great Minnesota Blogs”:

• Power Line
• Captain’s Quarters
• SCSU Scholars
• Shot in the Dark
• Lileks

What happened to MDE?

The Washington Post has published a trio of damning articles on the state of affairs in Iraq. Baghdad itself has become a large graveyard: 110 bodies were found last week while sectarian violence continues unabated.

Meanwhile, a new study funded by MIT and performed by Johns Hopkins puts the estimated number of excess deaths as a result of the war at a heart stopping 655,000. (The exact number is anywhere between 392,979 and 942,636). Even the low number exceeds the number killed by the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

Bush immediately said that the methodology used has been “pretty well discredited”. No one went on the record discrediting the methodology. The closest they came was a quote from Michael E. O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institute. O’Hanlon’s impressive analyst credentials and connection to the Project for the New American Century notwithstanding, he is not a biostatistician.

If you disagree with using samples to extrapolate general statistics you better start rejecting all health statistics about the U.S. If you disagree with the particular method (cluster surveys) then you should also reject statistics coming from “discredited” sources such as the U.S. government. Interview with Les Roberts, co-author of the study: (some emphasis added)

LES ROBERTS: You know, I don’t want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do.

When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.

So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results.

In context, these shocking statistics come almost simultaneously with the decision allowing Iraq to create autonomous regions of control. In U.S. history, the compromise between state and federal power was brokered to stabilize the fledgling country. Although the U.S. compromise eventually broke down and led to civil war, there was not an open conflict already between the two sides. Meanwhile, in Iraq: (emphasis added)

Parliament on Wednesday approved a controversial law that will allow Iraq to be carved into a federation of autonomous regions, after Sunni Arabs and some Shiite Muslims stormed out of the session in protest.

A Shiite politician from the Moqtada Al-Sadr block has it right:

Nasaar al-Rubaie, a lawmaker from the Sadr bloc, said: “The present conditions are not conducive to establishing regions, because we lack a strong central government that can overrule the regions.” In fact, he added, “the central authority is actually weakening instead of being solidified and strengthened.”

Even though the Shiites would be the biggest beneficiary of such regions (the Kurds having already created their de facto autonomous region) the Sadr aligned Shiites correctly realize that absent any meaningful central authority, a confederation of states is no different than a group of sovereign nation-states. Given the current political situation the passing of this legislation will do nothing but to increase the level of violence in Iraq.

The Star Tribune has published an article detailing a 1995 charge for domestic violence against 5th CD candidate Alan Fine. My primary concern regarding the recent Strib article on Fine’s record is that partisans are rendering judgment on Fine based not on the strength of the available factual evidence (which is scant to nonexistent) but based on their own political affiliations.

In general, some Democrats seem to have already tried Fine in the court of public opinion and found him to be guilty. Further, this vehemence against Fine is magnified by the Republican attempts to unfairly tar Rep. Keith Ellison by using the tea leaves of 911 and court records to “prove” him to be an unsuitable candidate.

Meanwhile Republicans have not only refused to denounce Fine but leading conservative blog Powerline has gone so far as to attack the Strib for even reporting the story.

Blanked-Out takes no position either way regarding any of the claims in the Star Tribune article. Still, partisan passion has distorted the perspective of others. Below are recommendations to all sides.

Democrats

Democrats need to recognize that if they objected to the smear campaign of “insinuation” against Ellison on principle, as this blog does, they must also object to the current accusations leveled against Fine. As noted above the truth of the matter is unclear - Fine tells one story while Wexler and her father Thomas Wexler tell an entirely story. There is currently no available evidence to support either side. Criticism of either the Wexlers or Fine should be withheld.

Ellison has wisely stayed out of the story and has shown an incredible ability to keep his side of the campaign focused on the issues that are important to voters in the 5th district.

Republicans

Republicans have to recognize that while Fine was running a unique if quixotic campaign before the primary, it was his injection of “character” into the campaign and his attacks on Ellison that opened him up to the Star Tribune’s line of inquiry, if not their method of inquiry. Fine is a political newcomer, but should have understood the heavy burden of inquiry that would fall upon his family.

Republican blogs who added their voices to the anti-Ellison echo chamber should now look to the responsible and thorough reporting of Abdi Aynte at the Minnesota Monitor for an example of A-class reporting. Blanked-Out took note of Aynte’s skills back in August - Aynte has not disappointed.

Star Tribune

No one knows the facts regarding Fine’s family except Fine and Wexler, his ex-wife. By releasing the 911 and court records, especially the expunged records, the Star Tribune brings a private family quarrel into the public light and unfairly tarnishes the character of both Fine and Wexler.

The Star Tribune does not need to account for the timing of the article. Research and editorial concerns alone could account for the publication date. By casting aspirations on a journalist or blogger for “sitting on a story” you make a criticism that can never be answered to the satisfaction of the accuser.

However, the writers of the article do need to explain why the timeline and circumstances outlined in the article are contradicted by Fine’s campaign. According to the article, the journalists claim they obtained the expunged record sometime around August 25th of this year. Fine’s campaign disputed these facts in a campaign press release and via an interview with the Minnesota Monitor:

Mr. Fine presented these documents voluntarily to the Star Tribune upon their request on July 10, 2006 in an extensive interview with Erik Black (sic) at the request of the editorial staff of the Star Tribune regarding this issue,” he said.

Fine contradicts the method, date and reporter of the story. Eric Black is not credited as a contributor to the story. The Star Tribune should address this apparent contradiction.

UPDATE: The Star Tribune stands by their timeline and defends the timing of the article.

DISCLAIMER: Pre-primary I volunteered with Keith Ellison’s campaign.