Ron Paul on the bailout plan

Patriotism, Civil Religion, and Citizenship

Different takes on religion and the United States

• Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.
• Truman's letter to the Pope
• Lee v. Weisman

We can see visual evidence of the "civil religion" in many places:

• Winthrop's "City on a Hill"
• The Great Seal of the United States
• The Liberty Bell
• The national motto, "In God We Trust"
• The Pledge of Allegiance (see old method of salute)
• Early Thanksgiving Proclamations
• And note where Americans volunteer

In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. A Newsweek poll then asked a national sample if the Pledge should contain the phrase. Eighty-seven percent said yes and 9 percent said no.

• Note requirements for naturalization.
• Ponder the official citizenship oath.

Bailout plan fails in House vote of 228 to 205

Bush's proposed $700 billion bailout plan failed in the House today. The current state of the economy has government officials scrambling for a quick fix to stop the economy from plunging even further into a recession. The proposal would essentially give the Treasury a large hand in the economic future of the United States and control over taxpayer money. Although, as an article in the Guardian pointed out, the money used in this bailout plan will not be taxpayer money it will be foreign money that the US will borrow in exchange for treasury bonds. Borrowing $700 billion for a plan that may or may not stimulate the economy has serious ramifications, such as reducing the strength of the already weak dollar.

I would like to see more long run approach to the crisis because if America, already $9.8 trillion in debt, borrows $700 billion more neither presidential candidate can fulfill their promises come January. Both candidates need to tailor their platforms to address the possibility of limited funding for their promises of tax cuts and national health care programs.

But I am glad to see that Obama and McCain are addressing the issue and focusing on the solution.

Response to Samuel Huntington

My high school is one of the 50 most liberal in the country, and I've found Chapter 7 of "Who Are We?" to be a breath of fresh air. I feel like the American Politics course I took in high school was taught primarily through the lens of multiculturalism and statistical discrimination. I deliberately used the passive voice in that last sentence.

I committed the grammatical error of confusing "federal" and "national" in my paper, which Huntington pointed out in one of the footnotes.

Is there any evidence of Americanization of religions/denominations other than Catholicism?

Post-Debate Spin War

In the debate last night, John McCain had the opportunity to assert himself as a strong Commander in Chief and display his foreign policy experience.  Barack Obama had the opportunity to ease the concerns of the tumultuous economy for the middle class.  During the economic segment of the debate, McCain focused too much on spending and earmarks, while Obama effectively addressed the concerns of the middle class.  After shifting to foreign policy, McCain cornered Obama on the question about meeting foreign leaders without pre-conditions, painting him as naive and lacking judgment.  Although neither John McCain nor Barack Obama left the debate as a clear winner, some interesting sound bites did emerge from the debates.  McCain's dismissive body language towards Obama left some voters feeling negative towards him which may not have a large impact in the polls, but will be something to watch for in the next debate. Obama (arguably) faulted by agreeing with McCain a total of eleven times.  The McCain campaign released this ad during the debate.  I wonder how Senator McCain approved the message if he hadn't seen it?

How partisanship may destroy the economy

if the economy does end up dying, this should be in the eulogy. this is why I HATE politicians.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13918.html

Free Sarah Palin

Hat tip to Democracy in America. Campbell Brown, you are a sexist pig! How dare you criticize Sarah Palin.

Religion, Politics, and Patriotism

From AFP: "Republican John McCain said Wednesday he was suspending his White House campaign and asked to put off Friday's presidential debate so he could return to Washington to help tackle the US financial crisis."

Congratulations to Kevin, for proposing this move before either candidate.

-------------------------------

Poll on human origins.

See here for data on willingness to vote for members of various groups. Also see Harris on the same subject.

You can get comparative data on religious belief and practice from:

• The Harris Poll
• Pew Global (scroll to p. 33 and 41)
• Gallup

Martin Luther King on the Social Gospel:



Obama on patriotism:

1.5% Chance of Electoral College Tie

See this Economist blog post on the subject. There is a question of which Congress gets the tiebreaking vote - the outgoing or incoming Congress, and other fun hypothetical questions.

The Bradley Effect

Whenever someone runs for office who isn't white, male, Christian, and straight, there are always questions of whether people lie to pollsters about whether they will actually vote for the candidate. Specifically questions have been raised this election cycle that people are lying to pollsters that they will vote for Obama in November, but when they get in the ballot booth their prejudice will come out and Obama will underperform by two to three percentage points. This is known as the Bradley Effect. Baseball whiz and political blogger Nate Silver discusses the Bradley Effect at fivethirtyeight.com, and finds evidence that it may actually work in reverse - people may understate their propensity to vote for a black candidate. The last example was Harold Ford Jr. vs. Bob Corker in 2006, and Harold Ford Jr. (a Penn grad, and African American) outperformed the latest polling data in the final election count.

Transition

From the NY Times:

Though they hate to discuss it, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are quietly planning what to do in the frenetic 77-day period from the presidential election to Inauguration Day, so they will be ready to take up the reins of government.

Click here for the rest of the article.

There is even a transition blog.

McCain and Obama should act like Senators

Historically, presidential candidates from the legislature face criticism for having no executive experience, and it's been really hard for candidates to get elected from the Senate.

Currently the Treasury is asking the Senate for 700 billion dollars. That's $700,000,000,000, more than the cost of the Iraq War, and about 80% of the size of the federal discretionary budget. Don't you think this would be a great time for the candidates to, you know, lead the Senate? Get in front of some cameras, cast a vote, rally your fellow Senators, etc.

Who's Winning the Change Message?

John McCain approves this message

Cozying up with Tocqueville on a Saturday night

Do we now suffer under the tyranny of two majorities? Is that even possible?

I am finding Tocqueville chock full of insight but a difficult and slow read. I think Tocqueville overstates the case for everyone accepting a majority's passed judgment.

Also, I have not read all of the Federalist Papers, but it seemed to me that the authors didn't worry too much about the slow expansion of bureaucracy and government programs.

Tocqueville and American Civic Culture

Who was Tocqueville?

• Short biography
• Reasons for coming to America
• Itinerary
• Map of his travels, along with journal entries

He wrote: "The religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me on arrival in the United States." (p. 295 of Lawrence-Mayer ed.) See here for relevant data.

In June 2006, Barack Obama gave an important speech on religion in politics. See prepared text here.

Constitution and Federalist, Continued

Here are excerpts from a bill of rights. What do you think?

• Citizens ... have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.
• Citizens ... have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.
• Citizens ... have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees...
• Citizens ... have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language...
• Women ... are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.
• Equality of rights of citizens ... irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.
• [C]itizens are guaranteed by law:
• freedom of speech;
  freedom of the press;
  freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
  reedom of street processions and demonstrations.

Ron Chernow's biography undercuts the notion that Alexander Hamilton was a well-born defender of privilege. Here is a passage summing up what the born-out-of-wedlock Hamilton and his brother faced in their youth:

Let us pause briefly to tally the grim catalog of disasters that had befallen these two boys between 1765 and 1769: their father had vanished, their mother had died, their cousin and supposed protector had committed bloody suicide, and their aunt, uncle, and grandmother had all died. James, 16, and Alexander, 14, were now left alone, largely friendless and penniless. At every step in their rootless, topsy-turvy existence, they had been surrounded by failed, broken, embittered people. Their short lives had been shadowed by a stupefying sequence of bankruptcies, marital separations, deaths, scandals, and disinheritance. Such repeated shocks must have
stripped Alexander Hamilton of any sense that life was fair, that he existed in a benign universe, or that he could ever count on help from anyone. That this abominable childhood produced such a strong, productive, self-reliant human being -- that this fatherless adolescent could have ended up a founding father of a country he had not yet even seen -- seems little short of miraculous.

• Federalist 10
• Federalist 31
• Federalist 47
• Federalist 48
• Federalist 51

Here's an article I found on the Real Clear Politics Blog:

September 16, 2008
Rove Speaks
Posted by TOM BEVAN

CLAREMONT, CA - I'm here at Claremont McKenna College where I'll be giving a talk tonight on politics and new media at the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum. Last night Karl Rove was the guest of honor, speaking about the election and offering an intimate view of what a day in the life inside the White House looks like for the President of the United States.

I won't recap everything he said, but there is one thing worth mentioning. Much has been made of Rove's remark last week on Fox News Sunday about the McCain camp going over the line in terms of its negative advertising, a claim that the Obama camp and its supporters have been trumpeting all week - even going so far as to use it in a fund raising appeal from David Plouffe yesterday.

The subject of McCain's ad knocking Obama over sex education came up during the question and answer portion of the proceedings last night, and Rove responded by saying - and I'm paraphrasing here - that in his opinion the McCain camp had erred by not being specific enough in its claim.

The bill, Rove pointed out (and which you can see from Byron York's analysis here this morning), did in fact include specific language that kindergarteners be taught about sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. Rove said that he felt the McCain campaign got "too cute" in using the phrase "comprehensive sex education" which opened the door to enough ambiguity for counter charges to be hurled back at McCain. Better to just let the exact language in the bill speak for itself, Rove said.

Rove went on to say that he thought the Obama campaign was making a serious mistake in using this to try and cast McCain as a dishonorable liar, because the label is fundamentally at odds with the core of McCain's public image. By spending so much effort trying to make this charge stick, Rove said, the Obama campaign was wasting valuable time that would be better spent offering voters a reason to vote for Obama rather than a reason to vote against McCain.

Both Sides Seeking to Be What Women Want

By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: September 14, 2008

For evidence of how intensely the presidential candidates are battling over women, consider their investment in Oprah Winfrey. After the news programs, “Oprah” is the chief recipient of campaign advertisements this year, with Senator John McCain buying more commercial spots on the program in the last month than Senator Barack Obama — even though Ms. Winfrey herself is backing Mr. Obama.

The Obama team is using Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, campaigning Sunday in Ohio, to reach working-class women.

Gov. Sarah Palin, prominent on signs at a rally in Pennslvania last week, has affected competition for support from women.

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is teaming stars from soap operas and “Sex and the City” with congresswomen in contested states. Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, is sending tailored mailings on taxes to women who drive minivans, watch “The Biggest Loser” or “Lost” and know their way to the nearest big-box store.

And both campaigns are trying to highlight the issues they think will draw more support from women, with Mr. Obama emphasizing pay equity and abortion rights and Mr. McCain playing up his “maverick” image and raising questions of respect.

The fierce, and complicated, competition for the female vote has been escalated by Mr. McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Even before the Palin selection, Mr. Obama was moving to shore up support from women, especially those who had supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

Now Obama campaign officials are stepping up their efforts, and both campaigns are recalibrating pitches to women to navigate cultural forces and policy positions that can give them an advantage.

In particular, they are competing for working-class white women, the group that could be especially pivotal in the states likely to decide the election.

For Mr. Obama, the push for women means emphasizing that he is running against Mr. McCain, not Ms. Palin, and drawing attention to Mr. McCain’s record on issues that particularly resonate with women: his opposition to abortion rights, his votes against expanded health insurance for children and pay equity legislation, and his support for private investment accounts for Social Security, of concern among white women over 50, a group Mr. Obama has had trouble winning over.

This week, Obama events have a theme, “Women for the Change We Need,” as the campaign tries to connect with women in conference calls, rallies and registration drives.

The campaign will also begin increasing advertising on television programs watched by women — besides “Oprah,” some of the biggest investments for the campaigns have been during “Dr. Phil,” “Live With Regis and Kelly” and “The Ellen DeGeneres Show.”

Each campaign is also beginning to put more spots on Lifetime, and a McCain media buyer recently lamented that the Food Network did not accept political advertising.

Mr. McCain will continue to campaign this week with Ms. Palin, with a rally on Tuesday in Ohio, an important state for working-class women. The two are expected to be together frequently in the seven remaining weeks of the campaign.

Beyond that, the McCain campaign’s strategy is to emphasize personality, capitalizing on the booming celebrity of Ms. Palin, highlighting Mr. McCain’s story as a war hero, showcasing their families, and trying to keep alive the anger about sexism that many women felt during Mr. Obama’s primary campaign against Mrs. Clinton.

Democrats have relied heavily on women in recent presidential elections — so much so that McCain strategists say they believe that to win they need to run even among women over all, and lead among white women.

Women have voted in greater proportions than men for almost three decades — in 2004, nearly nine million more women voted than men, 67.3 million to 58.5 million. But the hard-fought candidacy of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain’s selection of Ms. Palin as the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket have put new cultural and ideological elements more fully into play.

“It’s because there were these women who supported Hillary Clinton, some of whom so visibly said they might not support Obama or might sit it out or vote for John McCain,” said Susan Carroll, a senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers who has written extensively on the gender gap in voting. “That really called attention to the fact that women were going to be critically important.”

Mr. McCain’s strategists do not expect to win more than a small fraction of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters. But they do see blocs of women they think they can win.

Democrats have been accused of taking women for granted, in part because they have been able to count on them: More women have voted Democratic in the last four presidential cycles. More men have voted Republican in all but two of the last nine, the exceptions being 1976, when Jimm Carter was the Democratic candidate, and 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

But white women have voted Republican in all but two of the last nine presidential elections. In 1992, they were evenly divided between the first President Bush and Mr. Clinton; in 1996, they voted for Mr. Clinton, 48 percent to 43 percent. And while unmarried women have consistently given their majority to Democrats, married women gave President Bush the majority in 2004.

“It’s about how much Democrats can maximize the gender difference and how much the Republicans can hold it down,” Ms. Carroll said.

The Constitution

In response to Kevin's questions:

• An essay on anonymity.
• Drafts of the Constitution.
• A brief history of Blackstone and common law.

Contrast the US Constitution with the Confederate Constitution.

A Temporary Solution To Exacerbate Future Problems

After 76 days of gridlock, the California legislature has settled on a budget deal now awaiting for Schwarzenegger's approval. The Democrats sacrificed their proposals for increased government spending and higher taxes on the wealthy, allowing the Republicans to successfully cut a significant number of social programs. The Democrats, however, salvaged funds for education and some for health care. Despite these gains, according to Mike Zapler of The Mercury News,

"The proposal would also suspend for two years businesses' ability to deduct past net operating losses from their state tax bill.

Although leaders said their agreement does not borrow money from local governments and transportation, it is expected to tap several hundred million dollars from redevelopment agencies around the state. San Jose officials have warned that doing so could jeopardize projects such as the planned expansion of the McEnery Convention Center.

The agreement is also expected to propose essentially borrowing billions of dollars in future years from an expanded lottery."

The new budget deal seems to delay California's financial burden, hitting the economy when "economists have little hope that revenue is on the rebound," M&C reported.

Mike Zapler continued,

"Legislative leaders acknowledged the agreement was far from ideal but said the budget delay was inflicting real pain. The impasse caused billions of dollars to be withheld from schools, nursing homes and other institutions that rely on state funds.

"'I would've liked to have resolved the problem," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, said. "But the votes were not there. "... It was time to end this. I wish it would've ended differently.'"

Context questions about the reading

Federalist: Why were all of the authors (Publius as well as Brutus and Cato) anonymous? Did the newspapers know who the authors were? Why did readers give so much weight to their words?

What parts of the rough draft were omitted from the Constitution? Did the writers ever express later regret about omitting/including articles of the Constitution?

Was the common law developed concurrently or previously? Did each state have its own common law or was there new federal influence in this law as well?

Students of Government?

We’re reading, studying, internalizing all this material – the brilliance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; the vitality of the Federalist Papers; the antagonism of Alexander Stephens; the wisdom of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln – we are, or at least are well on the way toward becoming, true students of our country, our government, our politics.  I find myself reflecting on the importance of these works and on the importance of understanding them and wondering about some of today’s political figures.

We know Barack Obama has a faculty for this history and these concepts and their current ramifications – he was a constitutional law professor, after all.  And John McCain has demonstrated a thorough understanding of these as well.  The same can easily be said of Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, or Bob Barr, among many others.

But as I was reading, I asked: Can it be said of our current president?  Or of Sarah Palin, for that matter?  I would imagine the answer is “no” (or at least “not really”).

This isn’t an arbitrary or perfunctory attack on these leaders or on any others; it is not a typical “Bush is an idiot” rant and not even a matter of intelligence.  It is a question of their familiarity with and understanding of the documents, ideals, and convictions central to the establishment and development of American independence, government, and conventions.

(This is also, it should be noted, not a question rooted in partisan discontent.  I feel similarly about a number of political figures, including Democrats like Representatives Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.)

Rather, it is a question – or two, really:

1) Do our political leaders have a facility with the important conflicts and questions of American history that produced those institutions, practices, and principles we still rely on in our politics today?

and

2) Does it matter?/Is it necessary or even important to their abilities as leaders in American government?

Campaign Video: Essential Viewing

Hockey Mom lacks understanding of the Bush Doctrine?

Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson raises questions about her foreign policy understanding and the Bush Doctrine.  Gibson asked her whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine, in which she replied, "In what respect, Charlie?"  Foreign affairs experts claim that as many as seven distinct Bush Doctrines exist which means her confusion may be understandable. Referring to Gibson’s question on preemptive attacks, Palin later responded, “If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."  James Fallows argues that Palin “has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues.”  This issue will not serve as ammunition for Obama and Biden if Palin manages to hold her ground in the future Vice Presidential debates.

Stealing His Thunder

Charles Krauthammer's op-ed column in today's Washington Post provides an interesting and plausible explanation for why many Obama supporters detest Sarah Palin; she stole Obama's celebrity status. To summarize, Krauthammer argues that Obama used only his "magical powers" - his speeches, chants, and uplifting rhetoric - to awe America. Nonetheless, the dwindling appeal of Obama's celebrity led to his giving a "deliberately pedestrian" acceptance speech in Denver. Because the campaign was "entirely driven by personality," Obama is now left with an insubstantial platform and a message that no longer energizes his supporters. 

To put it bluntly, Krauthammer's assertion is both extreme and absurd. For proof, talk to a young Obama supporter who admits disenchantment with the candidate's rhetoric, but continues phonebanking and canvassing. Talk to a former Clinton supporter who never liked Obama's personality, but knows that Roe v. Wade is teetering on a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Or talk to anyone that still believes in Obama's unifying message of change. 

The crowded stadium speeches and artistic "hope" posters may no longer characterize the Obama campaign, but is that a problem? As strong-willed and opinionated government students, have we not all been praying for the candidates' views on issues to overshadow their cults of personality? This is an opportune moment for Obama to exploit the platform differences between himself and McCain. No longer shrouded in his celebrity status, Obama can now bring more substance and less flair to his words.

Perhaps that is a lesson Sarah Palin should learn. As for now, however, she is "pulling an Obama."

Alaskan Oil

Here's an interesting article on the deal that Sarah Palin brokered with North Slope natural gas drillers(?) to create a new pipeline that would stretch through the Yukon territory and connect with the existing pipeline in Northern British Columbia. Fairly one-sided, but one could hardly expect anything else given the source. In any case, it does raise some questions about Palin's executive abilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html?hp

Falsehoods

The Washington Post has an excellent front page article about the false accusations and statements the presidential campaigns are making about themselves and about each other. "Untrue accusations and rumors have started to swirl at a pace so quick that they become regarded as fact before they can be disproved," writes Jonathan Weisman. The important thing is for the connection to be made in the voter's mind, even if the connection is false. Humans are good at recalling facts, but not too great at remembering where we heard them. Furthermore, most voters don't bother to fact-check things they hear.

Principles of the American Political Order

Now on to more serious things...

From the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

On Monday , we briefly discussed how the Declaration hardly sprang all at once from Jefferson's pen. It went through drafts. You may find his rough draft at http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html. A key passage did not make it to the final version:

[The King] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s [sic] most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

The invaluable Snopes.com corrects myths about the signers' fate. Their real story is compelling enough. No embellishment is necessary.

Palin Email

This email letter was written by a woman who lives in the same town as Sarah Palin and basically just summarizes the real Sarah Palin who she personally knows. While the author clearly does not support Palin, she does present an accurate appraisal of Palin's previous experience and actions. She acknowledges Palin's positive traits while still calling her out on all the things she has done that aren't so great. Its a pretty interesting read if you are curious about the truth behind all the talk that has been going on about her lately.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/The_antiPalin_email.html

When in the course of human events...

The Declaration (hyperlink versions)

Lincoln-Douglas Galesburg debate (forward to 1:01:30)

The Declaration shows up in today's LA Times.

Sarah Palin drawing big viewer numbers

Nielsen announced yesterday that Sarah Palin's speech drew 37 million viewers, just 1.1 million shy of Obama's numbers last week in Denver. McCain then topped Obama by 500,000 viewers with a speech that most people felt was bland. This is fantastic news for the Republicans, who have been struggling to find ways to get media attention. Clearly a big reason Palin was picked was her news value and it's paying off so far - she's been all over the headlines, and is newer on the national scene than Obama.

Nielsen's blog is fascinating, you should take a look.

CMCers on the GOP Convention

You can get very different takes on the GOP convention from a couple of CMC alums who were there.

Clifton Yin was a McCain delegate. See his blog.

Adam Kokesh was a McCain heckler. See the account of his removal from the hall. Here is video:



Earlier, Adam spoke to fellow Ron Paul supporters: