Waldo’s Virginia Political Blogroll

A totally biased and unreasonable list of blogs that I think you might enjoy reading.

  • Home

Webb endorses Perriello at Veterans’ Rally

Posted by cvllelaw in October 12th 2008  

At a veterans’ rally on Friday, Senator Jim Webb enthusiastically endorsed Tom Perriello for the Fifth District House seat.  There were probably about 80 people there.  Charlottesville City Councilor David Brown got things started, introducing retired Army General Jim Kelly, who has been campaigning for Obama.  Kelly clearly didn’t remember that the purpose of the rally was to talk about Tom, but that’s OK — he introduced retired Captain, now DC lawyer, Jim Morin of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who clearly knew enough about Tom to provide a ringing endorsement.  Captain Morin, a 2001 West Point graduate and veteran of one tour in Afghanistan and one tour in Iraq, said, in essence, “If Washington had been listening to Tom Perriello, we’d be in a lot better shape over there.”

Senator Webb was running late, and Tom started to take some questions; he had just started to answer the big one — “What should we be doing in Afghanistan?” — when Webb arrived.  Jim talked a bit about dealing with veteran’s issues on Capitol Hill, and then introduced Tom, noting that there is a world of difference between legislators who have been to a country as a part of a Congressional delegation and those who have been there without the red carpet treatment.  He noted that those who have been to a country with a Congressional delegation never have a realistic sense of what is going on; only those — like Tom — who have been to a country like Afghanistan under circumstances where they could actually talk to people and see the conditions under which they live are able to appreciate the situation.  He told the audience that Congress would be a better place if Tom Perriello were there to bring his real world experience to the conversation.

Tom gave one of the best speeches I have heard him give.  It was his stump speech, amplified on the topic of veterans and the GI Bill for the 21st Century.  Jim Webb has always emphasized, and Tom agrees, that we should look on the GI Bill only partly as another form of compensation for those who have served; it is at least as important to look on the money that we spend to send these veterans to college as an investment in the future.  After World War II, thousands, and eventually millions, of veterans went to college.  They had grown up, they had fought for their country, they had a determination to use the education that many of them would not have had at age 18.  And the entire country took a leap forward with them.  The same needs to happen now.  And Jim Webb was essential to making this happen.

It was a nice event.  If it hadn’t been at such a difficult time — 12 noon on Friday — the crowd might have been better to hear some impressive people addressing important issues.

Continue reading " Webb endorses Perriello at Veterans’ Rally "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

October 12, 2000 — USS Cole bombed

Posted by cvllelaw in October 12th 2008  

On October 12, 2000, the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was the target of a suicide attack while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed.

On October 12, 2000, the Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop.  Cole completed mooring at 09:30.  Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time, a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-60-foot gash in the ship’s port side.   CIA analysts concluded that the blast had been caused by explosives molded into a shaped charge against the hull of the boat.  The boat had come so close that the attackers (trying to appear friendly) aboard the boat and the sailors on the Coleexchanged greetings before the blast.  Apparently the sailors on board the Cole believed that the boat was just a garbage service boat, or that it was involved with the mooring of the Cole for refueling.  

Even if the sailors had suspected something was amiss, the destroyer’s rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, prohibited its guards from firing upon the small boat as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole’s captain or another officer.  

The blast hit the ship’s galley, where crew were lining up for lunch.  The crew fought flooding in the engineering spaces and had the damage under control by the evening. Divers inspected the hull and determined the keel was not damaged.

Seventeen sailors were killed and thirty nine others were injured in the blast.  

Trying to prosecute the bombers has been something of a farce.

The day after the attack, a planeload of armed FBI agents arrived in Aden. But they quickly ran into resistance from Yemeni officials, who didn’t like the idea of foreigners operating on their soil and telling them what to do.

American FBI agents were met at the airport by Yemen Special forces soldiers, with each soldier pointing an AK-47 at the plane.  Speakers in the Yemeni Parliament called for jihad against America.  After some delay Yemenis produced a closed circuit video from a harborside security camera, but with the crucial moment of the explosion deleted.  There were so many perceived threats that the agents often slept in their clothes and with their weapons at their sides.  At one point the hotel where the agents stayed was surrounded with men in traditional dress, some in jeeps, all carrying guns.  Finally the agents abandoned their hotel to stay at a Navy vessel in the Bay of Aden, but even that was not safe. After being granted permission from the Yemeni government to fly back to shore, their helicopter “was painted by an SA-7 missile” [tracked with the missile's radar, the last step before being shot down] and “had to take evasive maneuvers”.

The Cole bombing represented an enormous political embarrassment for Yemen, which had lobbied the U.S. Navy to use the port of Aden as a refueling stop. As the poorest country in the Arab world, Yemen was also unprepared for some of the FBI’s demands.

“This is a country that didn’t even have fingerprint powder, and now they’re dealing with the most sophisticated law enforcement agency in the world,” said Barbara K. Bodine, the U.S. ambassador to Yemen at the time. “DNA is a complete fantasy to them.”

Bodine had to mediate between the FBI and Yemeni authorities, a task made more difficult by the fact that the FBI was dealing with a bureaucracy and a culture that the did not understand.  The FBI was used to getting what it wanted, immediately; the Yemenis tended to look at this as just one more blip in a 4,000-year history of violence.  The FBI and some White House officials thought that Bodine was too sympathetic toward the Yemenis. The FBI special agent in charge was forced to return to New York after butting heads too many times with the ambassador.

Amid the friction, U.S. and Yemeni investigators soon identified the ringleader of the attack as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national of Yemeni descent who served as al-Qaeda’s operations chief in the Arabian Peninsula.

President Clinton declared, “If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable”.  He vowed to hunt down the plotters, and promised, “Justice will prevail.”  

In March 2002, President Bush said his administration was cooperating with Yemen to prevent it from becoming “a haven for terrorists.” He added: “Every terrorist must be made to live as an international fugitive with no place to settle or organize, no place to hide, no governments to hide behind and not even a safe place to sleep.”

Shortly after the bombing, Yemeni authorities insisted to the FBI that Nashiri had fled the country before the Cole bombing; in fact, he was holed up in Taizz, a city about 90 miles northwest of Aden.  Nashiri spent several months in Taizz, where he received high-level protection from the government.  Nashiri eventually left Yemen to prepare other attacks on U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf.  He was captured in the United Arab Emirates in November 2002 and handed over to the CIA; he was held in the CIA’s secret network of overseas prisons until he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006.

At some point in his captivity, Nashiri confessed to being the mastermind of the Cole attack, but at a hearing in Guantanamo last year, he said that he had confessed only because he had been tortured.

Another al-Qaeda leader, Tawfiq bin Attash, who also played an organizing role in the Sept. 11 hijackings, was arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, in May 2003; he also supposedly confessed last year to overseeing the Cole plot.  In a separate appearance before a Guantanamo tribunal, he said he had helped buy the explosives and the motorboat.  He also said he had recruited operatives for the plot but was in Afghanistan at the time of the attack.

Bin Attash and Nashiri were both named unindicted co-conspirators in the Justice Department’s investigation into the Cole attack. A decision was made not to indict them because pending criminal charges could have forced the CIA or the Pentagon to give up custody of the men, U.S. officials said in interviews.

Meanwhile, the Yemeni courts conducted their own trial.  In 2004, the trial court condemned Jamal al-Badawi, the organizer, to death, although his sentence was reduced on appeal to 15 years in prison. Four other conspirators were given prison sentences ranging from five to 10 years.

The convicts were sent to a maximum security prison in Sanaa, the capital. They didn’t stay there long.

On Feb. 3, 2006, prison officials announced that 23 al-Qaeda members, including most of the Cole defendants, had vanished. They escaped by digging a tunnel that snaked 300 feet to a nearby mosque.

It was Badawi’s second successful jailbreak. Three years earlier, he had wormed out of another maximum security prison in Aden; Yemeni officials said he had picked a hole through the bathroom wall.

Badawi surrendered about 20 months after his second escape. But Yemeni authorities cut him a deal. They said they would let him remain free if he would help them search for the other al-Qaeda fugitives.

The arrangement was kept secret until Yemeni newspapers reported shortly afterward that Badawi had been spotted at his home in Aden.

U.S. officials said they were stunned. After his first escape, Badawi had been indicted in U.S. District Court in New York for the Cole killings, and the United States had posted a $5 million bounty for his capture. But U.S. officials couldn’t get their hands on him. “This was someone who was implicated in the Cole bombing,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at the time. “He needs to be in jail.”

Yemeni officials insist that the Yemeni trials were fair, but that the government had turned lenient because the Cole defendants had participated in a “dialogue and reconciliation program” designed to de-radicalize al-Qaeda members.  The judge who oversees the program claimed that 98 percent of graduates have remained nonviolent. Asked about two Cole suspects who escaped and went to Iraq to become suicide bombers, he shrugged. “Iraq was not part of the dialogue program,” he said.

Yemen’s interior minister, Rashad al-Alimi, said the deal-cutting was necessary because al-Qaeda has rebuilt its networks in Yemen and is targeting the government.

“Our battle with al-Qaeda is a long one,” he said. “It isn’t our battle only. Our tragedy — and what makes things worse — is that al-Qaeda is united. And our coalition is divided, even though we have a common enemy.”

U.S. officials withheld $20 million in aid to Yemen and canceled a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yemeni officials said they quickly put Badawi back behind bars. But reports persist that his incarceration remains a day-to-day affair.  In December, 2007, a Yemeni newspaper reported that Badawi had again been seen roaming free in public. One source close to the Cole investigation said there is evidence that Badawi is allowed to come and go, despite the periodic requests by U.S. officials to inspect his prison cell.  Badawi and other al-Qaeda members have a long relationship with Yemen’s intelligence agencies and were recruited in the past to target political opponents, so it seems most likely that Yemeni authorities have no intention of really punishing them.  They are not subject to being extradited because the Yemeni constitution prohibits extraditing Yemeni citizens.

By May 2008, all defendants convicted in the attack had escaped from prison or been freed by Yemeni officials.  At least two went on to commit suicide attacks in Iraq.  However, on June 30, 2008, Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, legal advisor to the U.S. Military tribunal system, announced that charges had been filed against Nashiri, who is still being held at Guantanamo.  According to the Pentagon, the charges have been defined as “organizing and directing” the bombing of the USS Cole.  The Pentagon will seek the death penalty.

Soon after the explosion, the Navy contracted with the owners of the privately owned MV Blue Marlin to transport the Cole back to the U.S. to be repaired.  The Blue Marlin is a huge semi-submersible ship with a 500-foot deck; it came alongside the Cole, filled its hold with water to sink below the Cole, maneuvered until it was directly beneath the Cole, and then expelled the water from the hold, lifting the Blue Marlin and the Cole until the Cole was completely out of the water.  The Blue Marlin then sailed back to Pascagoula, Mississippi, where the Cole was fully repaired.

On January 19, 2001, The U.S. Navy completed and released its investigation of the incident, concluding that Cole’s commanding officer Commander Kirk Lippold “acted reasonably in adjusting his force protection posture based on his assessment of the situation that presented itself” when Cole arrived in Aden to refuel. The investigation also concluded that “the commanding officer of Cole did not have the specific intelligence, focused training, appropriate equipment or on-scene security support to effectively prevent or deter such a determined, preplanned assault on his ship” and recommended significant changes in Navy procedures. In spite of this finding, Lippold was subsequently denied promotion and retired at the same rank of commander in 2007.

Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have been criticized for failing to respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole before September 11, 2001. The 9-11 Commission Report cites one source who said in February 2001, “[bin Laden] complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked [in response to the Cole]… Bin Ladin wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger.”

Evidence of al-Qaeda’s involvement was inconclusive for months after the attack. The staff of the 9-11 Commission found that al-Qaeda’s direction of the bombing was under investigation but “increasingly clear” on November 11, 2000. It was an “unproven assumption” in late November. By December 21 the CIA had made a “preliminary judgment” that “al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack,” with no “definitive conclusion.”

Accounts thereafter are varied and somewhat contradictory.

Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the Commission that when the administration took office on January 20, 2001, “We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al-Qaeda… We received, I think, on January 25th the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear.”

Newsweek reported that on the following day, “six days after Bush took office,” the FBI “believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda.”  The Washington Post reported that, on February 9, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden’s responsibility “without hedge.”

These conclusions are contrasted by testimony of key figures before the 9/11 Commission, summarized in the 9/11 Commission Report — http://www.9-11commission.gov/… . Former CIA Director George Tenet testified (page 196) that he “believed he laid out what was knowable early in the investigation, and that this evidence never really changed until after 9/11.”  The report suggests (pages 201 - 202) that the official assessment was similarly vague until at least March 2001:

On January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the “preliminary judgment” that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack… in March 2001, the CIA’s briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA’s “preliminary judgment” that a “strong circumstantial case” could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack “conclusive information on external command and control” of the attack.

According to Condoleezza Rice, when President Bush took office 3 months after the attack, it was his decision that there would be no military attack in response to the Cole bombing.  She said he “made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was ‘tired of swatting flies.’”  He supposedly had some broader strategy in mind, though we never saw it.

On March 14, 2007, U. S. District Court Judge Robert Doumar, in Norfolk, ruled that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing.  The ruling was issued in response to a lawsuit filed against the Sudanese government by relatives of the victims, who claim that Al-Qaeda could not have carried out the attacks without the support of Sudanese officials.  The judge stated “There is substantial evidence in this case presented by the expert testimony that the government of Sudan induced the particular bombing of the Cole by virtue of prior actions of the government of Sudan.”  On July 25, 2007, Doumar ordered the Sudanese government to pay $8 million to the families of the 17 sailors who died. He calculated the amount they should receive by multiplying the salary of the sailors by the number of years they would have continued to work.  Judge Doumar awarded the families compensation under the Death on the High Seas Act, which permits payouts for economic losses but not for mental suffering.  The lawyer for the families announced that they would appeal the denial of non-economic damages, and Sudan’s Justice Minister announced that Sudan would appeal the ruling granting damages at all.  (Yemen could not be sued because, unlike Sudan, it is not listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department.)

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24…

http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/co…

Continue reading " October 12, 2000 — USS Cole bombed "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Today’s news stories

Posted by cvllelaw in October 12th 2008  

Washington Post endorses Mark Warner — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Daily Progress looks at poverty in Charlottesville — http://www.dailyprogress.com/c…

Charlottesville and Albemarle continue to agonize over water, dams and pipelines — http://www.dailyprogress.com/c…

Bobby May is canned by McCain for racist rants, but not by Virgil Goode — http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/…

Paulson is finally coming around to a Democratic view of the bailout problem (supporting taking stock in the banks) — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Paulson keeps changing things — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Friedman on the post-binge world — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

It’s all the fault of George Bailey — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Obama is learning about energy, McCain isn’t — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Alaska’s unique Constitution; democracy at 70 below — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Concern in GOP over McCain’s campaign — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

McCain embraces opposites — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Obama’s ground game strategy exposed — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Obama’s Fairfax ground game featured — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Bill Clinton is part of the Obama campaign in Southwest Virginia — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Palin doesn’t mention Bill Ayers all day — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…

After the McCain campaign made it a big deal last week — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Palin has unleashed ugly vigilantism — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

As race sneaks into the campaign — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Palin denies abusing her authority — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…

Veterans stumping for Obama in Roanoke today — http://www.roanoke.com/politic…

And Bill Clinton will be in Roanoke today also — http://www.roanoke.com/politic…

Virgil Goode speaks against bailout at Martinsville Chamber of Commerce — http://www.martinsvillebulleti…

Continue reading " Today’s news stories "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Sarah Palin booed at the hockey game

Posted by cvllelaw in October 12th 2008  

Introduced as “America’s best-known hockey mom,” Sarah Palin went out to drop the ceremonial first puck at the home opener of Philadelphia Flyers.  It had all been arranged by Flyers’ owner Ed Snider, who is a GOP backer and heavy contributor to John McCain’s presidential campaign.  So what was the crowd’s response?  They booed.

It wasn’t very friendly outside the arena, either.  

Carrying signs that read “Get the Puck Outta Here,” “Pro-Woman, Anti-Palin” and “McCain, Palin 1908!”, they didn’t exactly personify the bruising, physical Broad Street Bullies — the nickname given to the Flyers’ players of the early ’70s who won back-to-back Stanley Cups — but the anti-Palin crowd had plenty of vitriol to spew for the self-proclaimed hockey mom.

“I have two daughters who are Ivy-League educated. When we’re given an opportunity to have a woman run for vice president of the United States, the woman we get is Sarah Palin,” fumed Anne Bennis-Hartman, 53, of South Jersey. “I came to protest because of my own sense of outrage. This is such a shame for other smart women who aspire to have political careers.”

Cars honked in support of the protestors, with some motorists leaning out their windows and shouting, “Go Obama!” After awhile, the protestors began a chant that mimicked the “Let’s go Flyers, let’s go!” cheer with the substituted words, “Go home Palin, go home!”

A few miles south, a man handed out Sarah Palin hockey trading cards near the SEPTA subway entrance. On the card was a photo of Palin winking on the front with a burst that said, “Rookie Right Winger” and a banner above her name that read, “The Alaska Disasta.” The message on the back of the card read, “Pucked Up!”

Palin stayed for the first two periods of the game, then was escorted by a phalanx of Secret Service and stadium security into a silver Chevy Suburban SUV near one of the basement exits. Palin, who was holding her infant son Trig, thanked several security guards then slipped into the vehicle which sped off, followed by a second SUV.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new…

Continue reading " Sarah Palin booed at the hockey game "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Another poll shows 5th District race getting close

Posted by cvllelaw in October 11th 2008  

The Tom Perriello campaign today released a summary of the results of a poll conducted for the campaign by the Benenson Strategy Group, showing that Virgil Goode’s lead in the Fifth District race over Tom Perriello is down to 48% to 40%.  (Based on 400 interviews, with an error or 4.9%.)  Here is the Perriello campaign press release:

Momentum for the Perriello campaign continues to grow as a new poll released today shows Perriello within single digits of Rep. Virgil Goode, the closest margin any challenger has achieved against Goode. The race now stands at Goode 48 - Perriello 40 in a head-to-head ballot. This is the first poll of the race that has shown Rep. Goode under the 50% mark.

“We are gaining in this race because for too long, citizens of the fifth district have seen jobs shipped overseas, costs for gas and healthcare going through the roof, and now an economic meltdown that threatens their retirement security and small businesses. There’s only one person in this race who’s offering the solutions and leadership needed for this crisis and that’s Tom Perriello,” said Jessica Barba, communications director for the Perriello campaign.

A complete polling memo is attached.

I don’t know how to take a .pdf file and put it on the web, so you’ll have to take my word for the detail that follows unless the Perriello campaign puts it on the web.

The memo that was released contains only a little of the detail, but the important points are:

*  They have compared the results of their July poll to the results from this week — an apples to apples comparison.  It is always perilous to compare the results of one poll to the results of another poll, because there may be differing methodologies that make comparisons impossible.

*  In July, Tom’s name recognition was 29%. Now it’s 73%.

*  In July, Virgil led by 56% to 31%; in October, it’s 48% to 40%.

*  In July, Virgil had a net favorability rating of 40% — those who have a favorable view of him, minus those with an unfavorable view (64% to 24%).  In October, it’s 55% to 31%.

*  For the second straight poll, less than half (49%) of those polled think that Virgil Goode is doing an excellent or good job.

*  The number of people who say that they view Tom Perriello favorably is up by 25%, despite the fact that Virgil Goode has been running nothing but negative ads in the past month.

The Benenson Strategy Group counts among its clients Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Rick Boucher and Don MacEachin, among Virginia clients.  They also worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2006.

Generally, internal polls have to be taken with a pound of salt.  But there are a few indicia of reliability:

1.  Are the poll results reported on the letterhead of the polling outfit?  If so, it is more likely that the results are being reported truthfully than if the campaign just says, “We’ve got a poll, but you can’t see it.”  Here, the Perriello campaign has e-mailed a .pdf version of the report to its press distribution list.  It’s on the Benenson letterhead.

2.  Are the results generally consistent with other commercially available polls?  Here, the Benenson results, both in July and in October, were generally consistent with the only other survey that has been taken, by Survey USA.  Survey USA showed the race narrowing from 64%-30% in August to 55%-42% in October.  Survey USA shows Virgil Goode about 7% or 8% higher than Berenson does, in both polls.  Survey USA shows Tom Perriello at about the same level as Berenson does, in both polls.

3.  Does the polling outfit have credibility?  Benenson has credibility.

So — more good news for the Perriello campaign.

Continue reading " Another poll shows 5th District race getting close "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Obama’s support may be underestimated by 3-4% in some states

Posted by cvllelaw in October 11th 2008  

What some are calling the “reverse Bradley effect” may be at work in some states, particularly those that are general Republican-leaning.

The “Bradley effect” — or, as we here in Virginia prefer to call it, the “Wilder effect” — is the claimed tendency of white voters to respond to polls in a politically correct manner — to say they would support a black candidate when in fact they would not.  This effect was pronounced in 1989, when Doug Wilder was up by between 7% and 10% in the polls during the weekend before his gubernatorial election, and wound up winning by less than 1/2% of the vote.  Or in 1982, when L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley lost narrowly to George Deukmejian, after seeming to be in the lead going into Tuesday.

Some political scientists doubt that this “effect” is any more pronounced than any of a number of other reasons why poll respondents may answer a poll falsely.  Personally, I believe that there are some races in which the Bradley effect may be real, but it does not seem to be so in every race involving candidates of different ethnicities.

In any event, some researchers, looking at the polling data from the 2008 Clinton/Obama primaries, have concluded that Obama actually polled BETTER than the polls would have predicted, and they surmise a reverse Bradley effect.  http://www.physorg.com/news142…

Their premise is that, particularly in states where racial prejudice or Republican leanings are stronger, the “politically correct” answer may be to say that you favor the Republican, or the white candidate.  So in some polls in the spring, Hillary Clinton may have seemed to be doing better, and Barack Obama’s unexpected strength in places like North Dakota may have come from the fact that some who were going to vote for Obama may have been reluctant to say so.  (I have to say, though, that the amount that some attribute to either the direct or the reverse Bradley effect is still probably less than the difference made by a solid GOTV effort on the ground.)

And we have to separate out two different pieces to the Bradley effect.  The first is the tendency of voters to lie to pollsters to make themselves sound more open-minded than they really are.  The second is the fact that sometimes, people get into the voting booth and for whatever reason they just can’t bring themselves to pull the lever, or to punch the chad, for the candidate that they had said that they favored.

This year, Barack Obama is not running as a black man; he is running as a man who happens to be black.  He is not overtly making the same appeal to history that Doug Wilder did.  He is not trying to build a sense of “vote for the black guy because it’s their time”.  That means that if a white person votes for Obama, he or she is doing so because he’s brilliant, because he’s a great speaker, because he’s got better substantive plans, because he was against the war.  In a race like this one, the Bradley effect — which has as its premise that whites are supposed to vote, or say they’ll vote, for a black candidate because he’s black — should be playing little effect.

On the other hand, the peer pressure, real or perceived, remains.  In a Democratic area, the peer pressure is to vote for, and to say you’ll vote for, the Democrat; in a Republican area, the peer pressure is to vote for, and to say you’ll vote for, the Republican.   So in a Democratic area, in 2008, there might be more pressure to say you’ll vote for Obama, while in a Republican area in 2008, there might be more pressure to say you’ll vote for McCain.  Which gets to the second, more subconscious piece of the Bradley effect — the person who told the pollster that she’d vote for McCain because it seemed like the correct response finds that she just can’t pull the lever for McCain.

All of which is to say, in places like West Virginia and North Dakota, where the margin for McCain is showing to be 3% to 5%, there may be some merit to the notion that Obama’s support is understated by about that much, and the race may be much closer than that.

Continue reading " Obama’s support may be underestimated by 3-4% in some states "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Today’s news stories

Posted by cvllelaw in October 11th 2008  

State social services agencies will lose $86.5 million — http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…

Alaska probe concludes Palin abused her authority — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

And here’s the link to the report — http://media.washingtonpost.co…

As she goes back to typical running mate role — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Bush seems “burdened, but confident” — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Rich nations try for coordinated solution to credit crisis — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

As NYT urges them to do — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Eugene Robinson asks candidates to talk substantively about the meltdown — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

And Dana Milbank notes that the market is ignoring President Bush — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

McCain tries to moderate the hate while stirring it up — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

But so far hasn’t talked about Reverend Wright — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

And he needs to forcefully repudiate the hate — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

McCain’s chilling dance with the dark side — http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

Harold Ford, Jr., on getting smeared by Republicans — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Bobby May, fired by McCain, is big supplier to Virgil Goode — http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/…

Negative ads are good — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Marc Fisher on McCain/Warner voters — http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

SCC gives OK to 500 kV line in western Prince William County — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Virginia Republicans plan resurgence by getting MORE conservative — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Even evangelical Colorado Springs isn’t good news for McCain — http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/…

Bob Herbert on how the GOP’s mask has slipped — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Gail Collins looks back at the good old days — in August — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Zogby warns that it ain’t over yet — http://opinionator.blogs.nytim…

The facts about ACORN and Obama — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Connecticut Supreme Court OKs gay marriage — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

And NYT approves — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

On the road in Virginia — http://campaignstops.blogs.nyt…

Democratic Party is party of lawyers?  – http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…

Continue reading " Today’s news stories "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

October 11, 1976 — Gerge Washington made General of the Army

Posted by cvllelaw in October 11th 2008  

Apparently having concluded that all of the important issues had been solved, and that simply adjourning and going home would expose them to ridicule, Congress passed, and on October 11, 1976, President Gerald Ford signed, Public Law 94-479:


GEORGE WASHINGTON-GENERAL OF THE ARMIES-APPOINTMENT

Joint resolution to provide for the appointment of George Washington to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States.

Whereas Lieutenant General George Washington of Virginia commanded our armies throughout and to the successful termination of our Revolutionary War;

Whereas Lieutenant General George Washington presided over the convention that formulated our Constitution;

Whereas Lieutenant General George Washington twice served as President of the United States of America; and

Whereas it is considered fitting and proper that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That

(a) for purposes of subsection (b) of this section only, the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present.

(b) The President is authorized and requested to appoint George Washington posthumously to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States, such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976.

   Approved October 11, 1976.

The Department of the Army must have thought that it was a joke; they didn’t get around to implementing the bill until March 13, 1978, when Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander issued an order giving Washington the posthumous promotion.

The Army has a long history of caring about this.

During the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress appointed General Officers to lead the Continental Army.  With the exception of George Washington, the General Officers at that point were Brigadier Generals or Major Generals. Their insignia was one or two stars worn on a golden epaulet.

During the Revolution, George Washington was the highest ranking officer of the Continental Army, and he held the title of “General and Commander in Chief” of the Continental Army. He wore three stars on his epaulets.  After the Revolutionary War, the tiny United States Army at first had no active duty general officers. When general officer ranks were recreated, the highest rank was Major General. The senior Major General on the Army rolls was referred to as the Commanding General of the United States Army.

In the year before his death, Washington was appointed by President John Adams to the rank of Lieutenant General during the Quasi-War with France, just to show the French that we were resolute in our disputes with France.  Washington never exercised active authority under his new rank.  

However, Congress didn’t like Adams’ action; on March 3, 1799, Congress provided “that a Commander of the United States shall be appointed and commissioned by the style of General of the Armies of the United States and the present office and title of Lieutenant General shall thereafter be abolished.” The proposed senior general officer rank was not bestowed, however.  When George Washington died, he was listed as a lieutenant general on the rolls of the United States Army.

The position of Lieutenant General was abolished at the start of the 20th century and replaced with that of Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Three-star Lieutenant Generals and four star Generals were reauthorized temporarily during World War I.  On September 3, 1919 Pub.L. 66-45 granted General John J. Pershing the rank of “General of the Armies” in recognition of his performance as the commander of the American Expeditionary Force. After the war, in 1920, the Lieutenant Generals and Generals reverted to their permanent ranks of Major General, except for Pershing.  Pershing retired from the United States Army on September 13, 1924, and retained his rank of General of the Armies of the United States until his death in 1948.  Pershing wore four gold stars during his tenure as General of the Armies. Four-star Generals were reauthorized in 1929, and five-star Generals of the Army were created in 1944. Pershing was deemed senior to both of those ranks, but it remains unclear whether General of the Armies was considered a five- or six-star rank.

General Pershing was offered the option to create his own insignia for the position General of the Armies. He chose to continue to wear the four stars of a General, but in gold, instead of the four silver stars used by a regular general. Army Regulations 600-35, Personnel: The Prescribed Uniform, October 12, 1921, and all subsequent editions during General Pershing’s lifetime, made no mention of insignia for General of the Armies but prescribed that generals would wear four stars.

On December 14, 1944, when the rank of General of the Army was established, Army Regulations 600-35 were changed to prescribe that Generals of the Army would wear five silver stars. General Pershing continued to wear only four gold stars, but he remained preeminent among all Army personnel until his death in 1948.

In 1945, the Institute of Heraldry prepared a conjectural insignia which would have incorporated a sixth star into the five-star design of General of the Army. As no proposal to appoint a new General of the Armies was ever firmly developed, the United States Army has never officially approved a six-star general insignia.

During World War II the U. S. Army established the five-star rank of General of the Army. By order of seniority, it was decided that General Pershing (still living when the rank of General of the Army was created in 1944) would be senior to all the newly appointed General of the Army officers. The then Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson was asked whether Pershing was therefore a six-star general. Stimson stated:

It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. I have advised Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action.

Official Army regulations do not presently declare General of the Armies as a six-star rank; however, some military historians have interpreted General Pershing’s seniority to five-star generals to mean that General of the Armies is a six-star rank.  However, it could alternatively be said that General of the Armies is a five-star rank, and Pershing’s seniority is merely a result of the fact that he achieved his rank earlier than the other five-star generals.

However, it has been speculated that if the United States ever created a six-star rank, it might be called General of the Armies. This almost occurred with Douglas MacArthur.

In 1945 as part of the preparation for Operation Downfall (the planned invasion of Japan) a proposal was discussed in the War Department to appoint Douglas MacArthur to the rank of General of the Armies.  Japan surrendered before the proposal was acted on.  

The matter was raised again in 1955, when the United States Congress considered a bill authorizing President Dwight Eisenhower to promote MacArthur to General of the Armies, in recognition of his many years of service. At that time, the Army Judge Advocate General warned that, should MacArthur accept promotion to the new rank, he would lose a large amount of retirement pay and benefits associated with the much more firmly established rank of five-star General of the Army, which he still held. The Army General Staff was also concerned that George C. Marshall was senior to MacArthur and that, should MacArthur be made a General of the Armies, a similar measure would have to be passed promoting Marshall as well. Because of the various complications, MacArthur declined promotion and the bill to promote him was dropped.

After World War II, which saw the introduction of U.S. “5-star” officers who outranked Washington, both Congress and the President revisited the issue of Washington’s rank.  To maintain George Washington’s proper position as the first Commanding General of the United States Army, PL 94-479 was enacted, ensuring that no United States military officer will ever outrank George Washington.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/…

Continue reading " October 11, 1976 — Gerge Washington made General of the Army "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Frank Schaeffer calls on McCain to rein in the hate

Posted by cvllelaw in October 10th 2008  

Frank Schaeffer, along with his father Francis Schaeffer, were among the founders of the Religious Right. In the 1970s and 1980s, they crisscrossed the country, denouncing America’s sins.  And they became darlings of the Republican Party, praised by Jack Kemp, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the Bush family.  Frank’s father wrote an America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto.  It sailed under the radar of the major media, but sold more than a million copies.  Schaeffer worked for John McCain in 2000, and McCain wrote an endorsement of one of Schaeffer’s books.  He is the author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.

So when Schaeffer prints an op-ed piece in today’s Baltimore Sun condemning the McCain campaign for stirring up hatred against Barack Obama, this is not some left-wing whacko speaking.

It is worth reading the entire article — http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne… — but here are some highlights:

John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as “not one of us,” I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.

At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, “Kill him!” At one of your rallies, someone called out, “Terrorist!” Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.

. . . .

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.

. . . .

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.

John McCain, you’re walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out “Terrorist” or “Kill him,” history will hold you responsible for all that follows. . . .

I don’t know whether John McCain read the Sun, but today McCain at last made at least a lukewarm defense of Obama.  

McCain changed his tone Friday when supporters at a town hall pressed him to be rougher on Obama. A voter said, “The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight.” Another said Obama would lead the U.S. into socialism. Another said he did not want his unborn child raised in a country led by Obama.

“If you want a fight, we will fight,” McCain said. “But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments.” When people booed, he cut them off.

“I don’t mean that has to reduce your ferocity,” he said. “I just mean to say you have to be respectful.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…

McCain was doing a town hall meeting, and he handed the microphone to a woman who said:  ”I don’t trust Obama.  I have read about him. He’s an Arab.”

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and took back the microphone:

No, ma’am. He’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.  I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.

And the crowd — HIS crowd — booed him.

McCain’s words were good, but he didn’t deliver them very persuasively.  He looked down at the floor.  He didn’t look directly at the woman who had called Obama an Arab.  But I’ll give him credit for finally recognizing that he and his campaign have set in motion an ominous storm.

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind:

Hosea 6:7.

Continue reading " Frank Schaeffer calls on McCain to rein in the hate "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Alaska panel finds Sarah Palin abused her authority in Troopergate

Posted by cvllelaw in October 10th 2008  

The Alaska legislative panel — the bipartisan Alaska panel — looking into the “Troopergate” scandal has concluded that she abused her authority when she fired Walt Monegan for refusing to fire her brother-in-law.  Read the article on AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…

Continue reading " Alaska panel finds Sarah Palin abused her authority in Troopergate "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Today’s news stories

Posted by cvllelaw in October 10th 2008  

Brooks identifies Republican war on ideas — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Tim Kaine imposes massive budget cuts — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…

http://www.roanoke.com/politic…

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…

Corrections Department to lose 330 jobs, 6 units — http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…

UVA to lose 7% of budget — http://www.dailyprogress.com/c…

Daily Progress calls for a televised debate in the Fifth — http://www.dailyprogress.com/c…

Plan B — pick some winners and flood them with cash — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Paul Krugman agrees, says we should have done it a month ago — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

NYT editorial board agrees — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Looking for a global solution — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Nonfinancial sectors of the economy should do OK — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Does this mean the end of American capitalism as we know it? — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Or Plan C — a direct stimulus package — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Wells Fargo will buy Wachovia, Citibank will sue — http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/…

How Obama can win in Appalachia — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

E.J. Dionne compares this to Hoover v. Roosevelt — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

More Troopergate calls from Palin to police officials — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

While the Alaska legislature report is due out today — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…

Alaska hired a PR firm to get more attention for Sarah Palin — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

For McCain/Palin, it’s all Ayers all the time — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

While Obama attacks McCain on economic plan — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Transition planning begins — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Palin and her radical right-wing mentors — http://www.salon.com/news/feat…

Obama’s fictitious donors — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Whitt Clement talks about economic progress in Danville — http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/…

But Danville has real problems with providing health care to the poor — http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/…

Bill Clinton to campaign for Obama in Roanoke on Sunday — http://www.roanoke.com/politic…

Continue reading " Today’s news stories "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Sarah Palin to do SNL on October 25

Posted by cvllelaw in October 10th 2008  

So says the Huffington Post — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

It’s always much harder to be brutal to someone face to face.  Will they pull their punches?  

I can’t help but remember the line from Bull Durham — “The world was made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.”

Perhaps we’ll find out whether Sarah Palin has any awareness of how wildly out of her depth she is in this Presidential race.

Continue reading " Sarah Palin to do SNL on October 25 "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

October 10, 1973 — Spiro Agnew resigns as VP

Posted by cvllelaw in October 10th 2008  

Spiro Theodore Agnew, Vice President under President Richard Nixon, resigned on October 10, 1973, and pled no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967.  His resignation was one condition of the plea agreement. Ten years after leaving office, in January 1983, Agnew paid the state of Maryland nearly $270,000 as a result of a civil suit that stemmed from the bribery allegations.

Agnew, raised as a Democrat, switched parties and became a Republican.  In 1960, he made his first elective run for office as a candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court, finishing last in a five-person contest.

In 1962 Agnew ran for election as Baltimore County Executive, seeking office in a predominantly Democratic county that had seen no Republican elected to that position in the twentieth century.  Running as a reformer and Republican outsider, he took advantage of a bitter split in the Democratic Party and was elected. Agnew backed and signed an ordinance outlawing discrimination in some public accommodations, among the first laws of this kind in the United States.

Agnew ran for the position of Governor of Maryland in 1966. In this overwhelmingly Democratic state, he was elected after the Democratic nominee, George P. Mahoney, a Baltimore paving contractor and perennial candidate running on an anti-integration platform, narrowly won the Democratic gubernatorial primary out of a crowded slate of eight candidates.  Coming on the heels of the recently-passed federal Fair Housing Act of 1965, Mahoney’s campaign embraced the slogan “your home is your castle”. Many Democrats opposed to segregation then crossed party lines to give Agnew the governorship by 82,000 votes.

As governor, Agnew worked with the Democratic legislature to pass tax and judicial reforms, as well as tough anti-pollution laws. Projecting an image of racial moderation, Agnew signed the state’s first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law. However, during the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in the Spring of 1968, Agnew angered many African-American leaders by lecturing them about their constituents in stating, “I call on you to publicly repudiate all black racists. This, so far, you have been unwilling to do.”

Agnew’s moderate image, immigrant (Greek) background and success in a traditionally Democratic state made him an attractive running mate for Nixon in 1968. In line with what would later be called Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” Agnew was selected as a candidate for being sufficiently from the South to attract Southern moderate voters, yet not as identified with the Deep South, which could have turned off Northern centrists come election time.

His vice presidency was the highest-ranking United States political office ever reached by either a Greek-American citizen or a Marylander. Agnew’s nomination was supported by many conservatives within the Republican Party and by Nixon. But a small band of delegates started shouting “Spiro Who?” and tried to place George Romney’s name in nomination. Nixon’s wishes prevailed, and Agnew went from his first election as County Executive to Vice President in six years - one of the fastest rises in U.S. political history.

Agnew was known for his tough criticisms of political opponents, especially journalists and anti-Vietnam War activists. He was known for attacking his opponents with unusual, often alliterative epithets, some of which were coined by White House speech-writers William Safire and Pat Buchanan, including “nattering nabobs of negativism” (written by Safire), “pusillanimous pussyfooters”, and “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”.  He once described a group of opponents as “an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

In short, Agnew was Nixon’s “hatchet man” when defending the administration on the Vietnam War.  Agnew was chosen to make several powerful speeches in which he spoke out against anti-war protesters and media portrayal of the Vietnam War, labeling them “Franco Un-American”. Agnew toned down his rhetoric and dropped most of the alliterations after the 1972 election, with a view to running for president himself in 1976.

Nixon realized that in picking Agnew he had chosen someone who was not a particularly well qualified pick, but he found him useful nontheless.  When John Ehrlichman, the President’s counsel and assistant, asked him why he kept Agnew on the ticket in the 1972 election, Nixon replied that “No assassin in his right mind would kill me.”

On October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned and then pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to criminal charges of tax evasion and money laundering, part of a negotiated resolution to a scheme wherein he accepted $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as governor of Maryland. The bribes were paid to Agnew by some members of the construction industry to get their projects approved. When Agnew moved from Annapolis, Maryland to Washington, D.C., he continued to demand payments. Angered, the construction men turned government’s witnesses. Agnew was fined $10,000 and put on three years’ probation. The $10,000 fine only covered the taxes and interest due on what was “unreported income” from 1967. The plea bargain was later mocked as the “greatest deal since the Lord spared Isaac on the mountaintop”, by former Maryland Attorney General Stephen Sachs.  Students of Professor John Banzhaf from The George Washington University Law School, collectively known as Banzhaf’s Bandits, found four residents of the state of Maryland willing to put their names on a case and sought to have Agnew repay the state $268,482 - the amount he was known to have taken in bribes. After two unsuccessful appeals, Agnew finally gave up and paid $268,482 to the state in early 1983.

As a result of his nolo contendere plea, Agnew was later disbarred by the State of Maryland.

His resignation triggered the first use of the 25th Amendment, as the vacancy prompted the appointment and confirmation of Gerald Ford, the House Minority Leader, as his successor. It remains one of only two times that the amendment has been employed to fill a Vice Presidential vacancy. The second time was when Ford, after becoming President upon Nixon’s resignation, chose Nelson Rockefeller (originally Agnew’s mentor in the moderate wing of the Republican Party) to succeed him as Vice President.

In 1976, he briefly re-entered the public spotlight and engendered controversy with anti-Zionist statements that called for the United States to withdraw its support for the state of Israel, citing Israel’s allegedly bad treatment of Christians, as well as what Gerald Ford publicly criticized as “unsavory remarks about Jews.”

In 1980, Agnew published a memoir in which he implied that Nixon and Alexander Haig had planned to assassinate him if he refused to resign the Vice-Presidency, and that Haig told him “to go quietly… or else.”  

Agnew died suddenly on September 17, 1996, at the age of 77 in Berlin, Maryland, only a few hours after being hospitalized and diagnosed with an advanced, yet to that point undetected, form of leukemia.    

Continue reading " October 10, 1973 — Spiro Agnew resigns as VP "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Obama will buy 1/2 hour of primetime on NBC and CBS

Posted by cvllelaw in October 9th 2008  

Entertainment news website “the Live Feed” reports that Barack Obama has purchased a half-hour of primetime television on CBS and NBC.  Apparently ABC and Fox are possibilities, and some cable stations also.  Fox is not sure; Game Six of the World Series might be played that night, and they might not want to cut into that broadcast and those pre-sold commercials.

The Obama campaign is producing a nationwide pitch to voters that will air on at least NBC and CBS, to run Wednesday, Oct. 29, at 8 p.m. — less than a week before the general election.

The direct purchase of such a large block of national airtime right before an election used to be more commonplace before campaigns began to focus their endgame strategies exclusively on battleground states.

The special is a smart move for the Obama campaign, said Larry Sabato, a political analyst and director of the Center of Politics at the University of Virginia.

“Obama’s theme is not just change but unity, so he’s appealing to the whole nation rather than a handful of tossup states,” Sabato said. “He wants to win the popular vote by a good margin, which will enable him to govern.”

And he’s got the cash for it, Sabato said.

“This is another indication, if there needs to be any more, that Barack Obama’s got more money than [available] television time to buy,” said Evan Tracey, COO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va.

McCain doesn’t have the money to keep up.

The story reports that the broadcast will push CBS comedy “The New Adventures of Old Christine” to 8:30 p.m. and pre-empt “Gary Unmarried.”  (What?  Never heard of it.)  NBC typically airs the hourlong “Knight Rider” in the slot, and will likely throw in a comedy repeat at 8:30 p.m.  My guess is that Obama would draw more viewers than CBS’s regular programming.

This year has seen the first time in many years that presidential campaigns have bought national broadcast TV advertisements. In recent years, much of the billions of dollars in political advertising spent has gone to local TV stations in battleground states.  While some money has gone to national cable channels, the thinking has always been that it would be more prudent to target battleground states’ voters instead of addressing the entire nation, including states that reliably vote for one party over another.  So what’s different this year?  Apparently unlimited money, and Obama is looking to make a closing argument to undecided voters.  He doesn’t want to win, he wants to win big.

 

Continue reading " Obama will buy 1/2 hour of primetime on NBC and CBS "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

October 9, 1635 — Roger Williams banished from Massachusetts

Posted by cvllelaw in October 9th 2008  

On October 9, 1635, theologian Roger Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his religion.  He and his wife moved to what came to be known as the colony of Rhode Island, named for the principal island in Narragansett Bay. He is credited for originating either the first or second Baptist church established in America, which he is known to have left soon afterwards, exclaiming, “God is too large to be housed under one roof.”

Williams was born in 1603 in England; he graduated from Cambridge and then became chaplain to a rich family.  Some time before the end of 1630, Williams decided that he could not serve in the very restrictive Church of England, and decided to emigrate to New England in search of the liberty of conscience denied him at home.

In 1630, Roger and Mary Williams set sail for Boston.  Arriving on February 5, 1631, he was almost immediately invited to replace the pastor, who was returning to England.  However, part of what Williams had found so stifling about the Church in England — and what he was seeking to be rid of — was the binding of church and state.  In England at the time, and in the Colonies, civil magistrates could punish religious offenses such as idolatry, blasphemy and breaking the Sabbath.  Williams referred to the Church under such an arrangement as “an unseparated church.”  He would not serve an “unseparated church.”  Instead, he asserted that the magistrate may not punish any sort of “breach of the first table [of the Ten Commandments],” such as idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, false worship, and blasphemy and that every individual should be free to follow his own convictions in religious matters.

The first idea — that the magistrate should not punish religious infractions — meant that the civil authority should not be the same as the ecclesiastical authority. The second idea — that people should have freedom of opinion on religious matters — he called “soul-liberty.” It is one of the foundations for the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Williams’ use of the phrase “wall of separation” in describing his preferred relationship between religion and other matters is credited as the first use of that phrase, and potentially Thomas Jefferson’s source in later speaking of the wall of separation between church and state.

The first Pilgrim colony at Plymouth was made up of Separatists; they specifically came to the New World in search of religious liberty.  After they established the colony at Plymouth, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was formed, and the second and subsequent waves of settlers — who settled around Boston — were unseparated Puritans.  But the Salem church, though through its interaction with the Plymouth colonists, had also adopted Separatist sentiments, and it invited Williams to become its teacher.  Leaders of the Boston colony protested to Governor Endicott, who blocked Williams’ move.  The Plymouth colony then received Williams gladly, where he remained for about two years.

Toward the close of his ministry at Plymouth, Williams’s views began to place him in conflict with other members of the colony. The people of Plymouth quickly became frustrated with his use of sermons to expound his personal opinions, such as those concerning the treatment of Native Americans, and he left to go back to Salem.

In the summer of 1633, Williams arrived in Salem and became unofficial assistant to Pastor Skelton. In August, 1634, (Skelton having died), he became acting pastor.  Almost immediately he became embroiled in controversies with the Massachusetts authorities; in a few months, he was exiled from Salem after being brought before the Salem Court for spreading “diverse, new, and dangerous opinions” that questioned the Church. The law exiling Williams was not repealed until 1936 when Bill 488 was passed by the Massachusetts House.

He was formally fired as pastor of the church about May, 1635, because he insisted on preaching about and working for the following heretical beliefs:  

  1. He regarded the Church of England as apostate, and any kind of fellowship with it as grievous sin. He accordingly renounced communion not only with this church but with all who would not join with him in repudiating it.

  2. He denounced the charter of the Massachusetts Company because it falsely represented the king of England as a Christian, and assumed that he had the right to give to his own subjects the land of the natives.  He drew up a letter addressed to the King expressing his dissatisfaction with the charter and sought to secure for it the endorsement of prominent colonists. In this letter he is said to have charged King James I with blasphemy for calling Europe “Christendom.”

  3. He was opposed to the “citizens’ oath,” which magistrates sought to force upon the colonists to be assured of their loyalty. Williams maintained that it was Christ’s sole prerogative to have his office established by oath, and that unregenerate men ought not in any case to be invited to perform any religious act. In opposing the oath Williams gained so much popular support that the measure had to be abandoned.

  4. In a dispute between the Massachusetts Bay court and the Salem colony regarding the possession of a piece of land (Marblehead) claimed by the latter, the court offered to accede to the claims of Salem on condition that the Salem church make amends for its insolent conduct in installing Williams as pastor in defiance of the court and ministers. This demand involved the removal of the pastor. Williams regarded this proposal as an outrageous attempt at bribery and had the Salem church send to the other Massachusetts churches a denunciation of the proceeding and demand that the churches exclude the magistrates from membership. This act was sharply resented by magistrates and churches, and such pressure was brought to bear upon the Salem church as led a majority to consent to the removal of their pastor. He never entered the chapel again, but held religious services in his own house with his faithful adherents.

When he was about to be deported back to England, Roger fled southwest out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was befriended by local Indians and eventually settled at the headwaters of what is now Narragansett Bay, after he learned that his first settlement on the east bank of the Seekonk River was within the boundaries of the Plymouth Colony. Roger purchased land from the Narragansett Chiefs, Canonicus and Miantonomi and named his settlement Providence in thanks to God. The original deed remains in the Archives of the City of Providence.

Having secured land from the natives, he established a settlement with twelve “loving friends and neighbors” (several settlers had joined him from Massachusetts since the beginning of spring). Williams’s settlement was based on a principle of equality. It was provided that “such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us” from time to time should become members of their commonwealth. Obedience to the majority was promised by all, but “only in civil things.” In 1640, another agreement was signed by thirty-nine freemen, expressing their determination “still to hold forth liberty of conscience.” Thus a government unique in its day was created — a government expressly providing for religious liberty and a separation between civil and ecclesiastical authority (church and state).

In 1637, some followers of Anne Hutchinson visited Williams to seek his guidance in moving away from Massachusetts. Like Williams, this group was in trouble with the Puritan theocrats. He advised them to purchase land on Aquidneck Island from the Native Americans. They settled in what is now the town of Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

About March 1639, Williams was baptized, and immediately proceeded to baptize others.  Thus was constituted a Baptist church which still survives as the First Baptist Church in America. At about the same time, John Clarke established a Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island.  There is much debate over the centuries as to whether the Providence or Newport church deserved the place of ‘first’ Baptist congregation in America; there is no evidence to resolve the issue.  Therefore, both Roger Williams and John Clarke are variously credited as being the founder of the Baptist faith in America.

Roger Williams was only briefly a part of the Baptist faith. Williams remained with the little church in Providence only a few months.  He assumed the attitude of a “Seeker” or “Come-outer,” always deeply religious and active in the propagation of Christian truth, yet not feeling satisfied that any body of Christians had all of the marks of the true Church. He continued on friendly terms with the Baptists, being in agreement with them in their rejection of infant baptism as in most other matters.

In 1647, the colony on Rhode Island was united with Providence under a single government, and liberty of conscience was again proclaimed. The area became a safe haven for people who were persecuted for their beliefs — Baptists, Quakers, Jews, and others went there to follow their consciences in peace and safety.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…

Continue reading " October 9, 1635 — Roger Williams banished from Massachusetts "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Today’s news stories

Posted by cvllelaw in October 9th 2008  

Treasury considering taking stock in banks — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Heading for a soft landing — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Broder says both candidates are running from realities — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

George Will asks McCain if this is as good as his campaign is going to get? — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Perriello closes gap on Goode — http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/…

Kaine announces first round of budget cuts — http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/…

WaPo does long story on Obama’s legislative record in Illinois, his growth — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Dan Balz says McCain needs momentum — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Mortgage experts have doubts about McCain’s plan to buy mortgages — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

So does WaPo — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Greenspan, advocate of derivatives, doesn’t look so smart now — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

GOP facing tough battle for Congress — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

No matter who wins, we’re coming home from Iraq — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

NYT is concerned about voting software glitches — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Obama and Dems advertising on MTV — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…

Efforts to purge voters in swing states may be illegal — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Obama deals with economic uncertainty — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

McCain fires up crowd with attacks on Obama — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Fallout from “That One” — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10…

Why hasn’t economy turned around since we passed the bailout bill last week? — http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Continue reading " Today’s news stories "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Obama’s national lead is building

Posted by cvllelaw in October 8th 2008  

And I’m not just talking about the polls that show him up 8%.  

One of the more interesting measures of how well Obama is doing is to look at the lead that he has in the states that will put him over the top.  I like to look at the projections at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com .  If you rank every state based on the margin by which Obama is projected to win that state, and then have a cumulative total of those electoral votes, you find some interesting details.

1.  Obama is projected to win in states that total 375 Electoral Votes.  

2.  If you look at the states that people are calling the “swing” states — Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia and Montana — places where as of October 1 no candidate had more than a 6% lead — you find that Obama’s projected margins since then are rising in 9 of the 11.  Only in West Virginia and Montana — both of which were already leaning to McCain — has McCain picked up a little ground.  In the other 9, the trend is to Obama.

3.  For McCain to climb that ladder to get to 270 Electoral Votes himself, he needs to capture 9 states where he is presently projected to lose, and the state that would put him over the top — Virginia — is a place where he is trailing by 7.3%.  He has to win 3 states —  Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire — where he is presently projected to lose by than 6 points.

Continue reading " Obama’s national lead is building "

Comments Off
under: Contributors
Digg it Add to del.icio.us Stumble it add to technorati

Perriello cuts Goode’s lead by 2/3rds

Posted by cvllelaw in October 8th 2008  

From the Tom Perriello campaign:

A new poll shows that support is surging for Tom Perriello and waning for Rep. Virgil Goode one month away from the election. The poll by Survey USA, conducted for WDBJ7, shows that the race now stands at Goode 55% and Perriello at 42%, representing a net gain of more than 20 points for Perriello since this poll was last conducted in August. There was a 23% swing of independent voters in Perriello’s favor.

“The reason we are gaining support is because Tom Perriello is offering real solutions on the economy, gas prices, and health care, when all we’ve seen from Congressman Goode is lies, false attacks, and ducking debates,” said Jessica Barba, Perriello’s communications director. “Rep. Goode has begun to air extremely negative and offensive ads that have drawn condemnation from the public and the media, with the Roanoke Times even calling for Goode to drop it. Congressman Goode is losing voters, and we are on the path to victory.”

Rep. Goode’s lead has been more than cut in half since Perriello began airing commercials, forcing Goode to respond with negative attack ads. Goode canceled a televised debate on NBC-29 and WSET on October 7, after his campaign manager had confirmed his participation. He is refusing to do televised debates. The Perriello television commercials focus on the campaign’s commitment to serving local charities in the community as well as Perriello’s refusal to accept corporate donations.

In the August poll, Tom was trailing 64% to 30%; now it is 55% to 42%.  http://www.surveyusa.com/clien…

I have looked at the internal details.  What is impressive about the poll results is that they are beginning to resemble poll results from other competitive races.  

The August poll was a typical poll you get with an incumbent and an unknown challenger.  Virgil was getting 32% of the liberal vote, 27% of the Democratic vote, 50% of the pro-choice vote, 35% of the African-American vote, and 64% of the under-35 vote.  

The October poll is much more typical of a race with an incumbent and a surging challenger.  Liberals are coming home; Tom leads there, 79% to 16%.  Democrats are coming home; Tom now leads there, 85% to 13%.  Pro-choice voters are going to Tom by 64% to 33%.  African-Americans are coming home; Tom leads there, 75% to 18%.  And Tom is now winning the under-35 vote, 51% to 45%

If the “coming home” process continues, those numbers will continue to get better for Tom.  There will always be a category of people who identify themselves as Democrats in surveys who will support Virgil because they remember him when he was a Democrat, but the 16% of the liberals who still say they’ll vote for Virgil, or the 18% of African-Americans who still say they’ll vote for Virgil, will definitely shrink.

My guess is that there is another 4% to come off of Virgil’s numbers and to be added to Tom’s numbers, just from liberals and African-Americans a