Powell endorses Obama as 'transformational'

Mike Allen, Jonathan Martin Mike Allen, Jonathan Martin Sun Oct 19, 9:55 am ET

Retired General Colin L. Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties on Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC's "Meet the Press" and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP.

Powell said the election of Obama would "electrify the world."

"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."

As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."

Powell, once considered likely to be the nation's first African-American presidential nominee, said his decision was not about race.

Moderator Tom Brokaw said: "There will be some ... who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American supporting another African-American because of race."

Powell, who last year gave Republican John McCain's campaign the maximum $2,300, replied: "If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this."

"I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president," Powell continued, speaking live in the studio. "And should that happen, all Americans should be proud — not just African-American, but all Americans — that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrify the country, but electrify the world."

Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said the two men spoke for 10 minutes at 10 a.m., and that the candidate thanked Powell for his endorsement and said "he looked forward to taking advantage of his advice in the next two weeks and hopefully over the next four years."

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the campaign had not been told of the endorsement: "We didn’t know until General Powell spoke on 'Meet The Press' ."

Powell, making his 30th appearance on "Meet the Press," said he does not plan to campaign for Obama. He led into his endorsement by saying: "We've got two individuals — either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now — which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time.

"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

Powell said that he is "troubled" by the direction of the Republican Party, and said he began to doubt McCain when he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

"Not just small towns have values," he said, responding to one of Palin's signature lines.

"She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired," he said. "But at the same, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."

The endorsement is likely to help the Illinois senator convince skeptical centrists that he is ready to handle the challenges of commander in chief, and undercuts McCain argument that he is better qualified on national-security issues.

The Arizona senator, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," sought to minimize the endorsement by noting his support from other former secretaries of state and retired military flag officers.

"This doesn’t come as a surprise," McCain said. "But I'm also very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state ... and I'm proud to have the endorsement of well over 200 retired generals and admirals. I respect and continue to respect and admire Secretary Powell."

While McCain only reiterated his respect for Powell when asked about the move, others in the GOP were more candid.

One prominent conservative who knows both McCain and Powell said that for all the secretary of state's criticism of McCain and his praise of Obama, the move had less to do with the two candidates for president than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

"Powell cares a lot about his reputation with Washington elites and he thinks he was badly damaged by his relationship with the Bush administration," said this Republican. "So this is a way to make up for what he regarded as not being treated well by the Bush administration, not being given the due deferenece he thinks he deserves."

And that Powell would make his decision known in the closing weeks of the election, as it becomes increasingly clear that Obama is the favorite, reflects a calculated political move, says this source.

"Let's be honest – do we think Powell would be doing this if Obama had been trailing six or seven points in the polls?" the source asked, deeming Powell's endorsement "a Profile in Conventional Wisdom."

A friend of the former secretary of state sharply dismissed the idea that Powell's move had anything to do with making up for his service in the Bush years.

"Anybody who is making the argument about 'rehabiliation' was not listening to what he had say today," said the friend, suggesting Powell clear that he was unhappy with the state of the party. "It's absolute horseshit."

Rush Limbaugh suggested Powell's move was very much related to Obama's status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with.

"I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making HIM a 4-star and Secretary of State AND appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."

But others in the party were less dismissive, acknowledging the heft of the respected retired four-star general and the popularity he enjoys across the country.

"The Powell endorsement is a big deal," said Scott Reed, Bob Dole's campaign manager in 1996 and a close friend of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. "It has been bantered about since August, and shows both Powell and Obama know how to make an impact in the closing days of a tight campaign."

"What that just did in one sound bite -- and I assume that sound bite will end up in an ad -- is it eliminated the experience factor," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, in an appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "How are you going to say the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the former National Security Adviser, former Secretary of State was taken in?"

Powell, 71, also used his Meet the Press appearance to criticize McCain and his campaign for invoking the former domestic terrorist William Ayers.

"Sen. McCain says he a washed-up old terrorist—then why does he keep talking about him?" Powell asked.

"They're trying to connect [Obama] to some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that's inappropriate," Powell said. "Now I understand what politics is all about — I know how you can go after one another. And that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."

Powell said he has "heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion [that Obama's] a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists."

"This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point," Powell said. "We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."

Powell, a four-star Army general, was national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when George H.W. Bush was president; and was President George W. Bush’s first secretary of State.

Powell has consulted with both Obama and McCain, and the general’s camp had indicated in the past that he would not endorse.

Powell said that as he watched McCain, the Republican “was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day, there was a different approach to the problem, and that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had."

Powell said a big job of the new president will be “conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.”

“I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward … restoring a sense of purpose,” he said.

"This Powell endorsement is the nail in the coffin," said one Republican official, speaking anonymously to offer candid thoughts about the party's nominee. "Not just because of him, but the indictment he laid out of the McCain campaign."

From Clarence Thomas to Palin

Palin and Thomas are both casualties of an effort to create a country that measures diversity only in terms of appearance.

Dahlia Lithwick
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Oct 6, 2008

When it comes to the perils of affirmative action, there's nobody as eloquent as Justice Clarence Thomas. In both his legal writing and his autobiography, Thomas rails against affirmative action, not simply because it constitutes "reverse discrimination" but because of the crushing stigma it affixes to the "beneficiaries" (a word Thomas puts in quotation marks). In his autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son," he concedes he was admitted to Yale Law School in part because of his race, but goes on to describe the humiliation of postgraduation interviews with "one high-priced lawyer after another" in which he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated." He told ABC News that "once it is assumed that everything you do achieve is because of your race, there is no way out … it is irrebuttable and it is proved to be true. In everything now that someone like me does, there's a backwash into your whole life … because of race."

One can dispute whether Thomas's impression of a "backwash" is reasonable, but nobody can argue that his most personal, passionate legal writing vibrates with this shame and anger. In a sharp dissent in a 2003 case allowing race to be used as an admissions factor at Michigan Law School, Thomas described affirmative action as "a cruel farce" under which "all blacks are tarred as undeserving." In an earlier case he wrote that such programs "stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority."

Critics have scoffed at Thomas's tendency to view affirmative action exclusively through the narrow lens of his own life, but it's clear the "badge of inferiority" has tainted a lifetime of achievement. He will never forgive America for the chances he was given or for how small it made him feel. I can't help but wonder what Thomas would say to vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who is now suffering the same stigma of affirmative action, and who shows signs of the same defensiveness and outrage that have marred Thomas's career.

Like Thomas, Palin has been blasted for inexperience, and she has fought back with claims that she is being judged not on her merits but on her gender, just as he felt he was inevitably being judged on his race. While it's possible to assert that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person in America for the vice presidency, only approximately nine people have done so with a straight face. Palin was chosen not because she was the second-best person to run America, but to promote diversity on the ticket, even the political playing field, and to shatter (in her words) some glass ceilings. When she was selected, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes enthused: "As a 44-year-old woman, Mrs. Palin brings desperately needed diversity to the Republican ticket." That's a noble goal, but one most conservatives have disparaged for decades. The most savage bits of Thomas's Michigan Law School dissent warn against fetishizing "diversity" as an "aesthetic" concern of "elites." Thomas hates the notion of flinging the first minority you can lay hold of at a glass ceiling. The McCain campaign elevated it to priority one.

It's not just that the world mistrusts the abilities of the recipient of affirmative action, but that he learns to mistrust the world. Thomas's experience at Yale Law School taught him to doubt anyone who sought to help him, especially those "who offered you a helping hand so long as you were careful to agree with them, but slapped you down if you started acting as if you didn't know your place." Palin has also become a recipient of the know-your-place treatment, as she enters—at this writing—her 29th day of a near media blackout. Palin has been allowed to speak to three television reporters. No press conferences. Just photo ops in fabulous shoes, all of which smells of empty tokenism. Thomas would say that in its most toxic formulation, affirmative action demands its beneficiaries be seen and not heard, and that is precisely what Palin is experiencing. Where Clarence Thomas excoriated liberals for promoting token blacks so America might become a Benetton commercial, John McCain has mastered the fine art of turning women into campaign accessories: flag pins with nice calves.

Liberals inclined to blindly support affirmative action would do well to contemplate the lessons of Palin and Thomas. Although the former exudes self-confidence and the latter seems crippled by self-doubt, both are frozen in a defensive crouch, casualties of an effort to create an America in which diversity is measured solely in terms of appearance. As a result of this simplistic sorting process, Thomas has learned to neatly divide the entire world into angels and demons. Palin casts everyone as either a supporter or a "hater." Thomas thinks that anyone who opposes him is a racist. Palin sees anyone who doubts her as sexist. There is much that is laudable about affirmative action, but its tendency to divide people in often crude ways is not. It can lead to "beneficiaries" who also see the world in crude ways, and to even cruder ways of talking about the very real gender and race disparities that continue to plague America.

Lithwick is a NEWSWEEK contributing editor and senior writer for Slate. A version of this column also appears on slate.com.

How to Cure This Sick System

Fact and Comment

How to Cure This Sick System

Steve Forbes 10.06.08, 12:00 AM ET


Not even during the Great Depression did we witness what is now unfolding--a sizable number of big financial institutions going under. What enabled their taking on so much debt and so many questionable assets was, primarily, the easy-money policy of the Federal Reserve. Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke created massive amounts of excess liquidity. If the dollar had been kept stable relative to gold, as it was between the end of WWII and the late 1960s, the scale of the bingeing in recent years would have been impossible.

The first prescription for a cure is to formally strengthen the dollar and announce it publicly. A year ago August the price of gold was more than $650 per ounce. In late 2003 it had breached $400. The Fed should declare that its goal for gold is around $500 to $550. That would stabilize the buck--and stability is essential if animal spirits and risk taking are to revive.

Also of immediate urgency is for regulators to suspend any mark-to-market rules for long-term assets. Short-term assets should not be given arbitrary values unless there are actual losses. The mark-to-market mania of regulators and accountants is utterly destructive. It is like fighting a fire with gasoline.

Think of the mark-to-market madness this way: You buy a house for $350,000 and take out a $250,000 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Your income is more than adequate to make the monthly payments. But under mark-to-market rules the bank could call up and say that if your house had to be sold immediately, it would fetch maybe $200,000 in such a distressed sale. The bank would then tell you that you owe $250,000 on a house worth only $200,000 and to please fork over the $50,000 immediately or else lose the house.

Absurd? Obviously. But that's what, in effect, is happening today. Thus institutions with long-term assets are having to drastically reprice them downward. And so the crisis feeds on itself.
The SEC should immediately reverse its foolish decision to get rid of the so-called uptick rule in short-selling. That would provide a small road bump to the short-selling that's helping to destroy financial institutions.

At the same time the SEC should promulgate an emergency rule (which we thought was already the rule): No naked short-selling. That is, you have to own or borrow shares in a company before you can short it. The rules should make clear that short-sellers must have ample documentation proving they truly possess the shares at the time of the short sale. Otherwise, each violation will result in heavy fines. That wouldn't be a road bump but a wall of Everest-like proportions.

Regulators should also be told to instruct banks to keep their solvent customers solvent. The last thing the economy needs right now is for the banking system to seize up.
The federal government should also consider setting up a new Resolution Trust Corp., which was devised during the savings and loan crisis nearly 20 years ago as a dumping ground for bad S&L assets. Today's bad assets could then be liquidated in an orderly way. And, finally, the financial industry should be encouraged to create new exchanges for exotic instruments. This would result in the standardization of these things, which would mean more transparency.

These steps would quickly revive financial markets. Already mortgage rates are coming down. It won't be long before American homeowners start an avalanche of refinancings, which would be an enormous boon to confidence and the economy.

What Makes Our Ever Changing 400 List Possible

Prophet of Innovation--by Thomas K. McCraw (Harvard University Press, $35). An excellent, thorough and smoothly written biography of Joseph Schumpeter, the greatest economist of the 20th century. Too bad most politicos--and economists--don't fully grasp his insights.

Born in 1883 in a province of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire that is now part of the Czech Republic, Schumpeter recognized at a young age that the critical factor in economic progress was the entrepreneur, the innovator. To him it was the risk taker who brought about new products and services and more efficient ways of making and doing things. A free-market, capitalist economy, he emphasized, meant constant change, often disruptive and disorienting to traditional ways of doing things. Competition wasn't just the jousting of existing firms that had similar products but also encompassed the threat that came from a truly new product, new technology or new type of organization.

Schumpeter made the distinction between an inventor and an innovator: The innovator takes an idea or product and figures out how to produce it efficiently and profitably. His term describing one process, "creative destruction," has become a catchphrase of our own era.

Schumpeter's perceptions here were profound, although most of his time's economists--and politicians--downplayed or ignored them. Today, though, things seem different. Even Demo-crats occasionally pay lip service to the risk takers' and entrepreneurs' importance to economic growth. Yet Democratic policies, such as raising the cost of capital and reducing its availability, would devastate them. Similarly, while economists doff their caps to Schumpeter, their professional research downplays innovation because it is impossible to quantify and not conducive to mathematical models. So the appreciation of this genius is still superficial.

One drawback is that Schumpeter was not a "feel-good" economist like Keynes, whose apostles believed that properly manipulating government fiscal and monetary tools would generate perpetual prosperity, with nary a bust or a bout of irrational exuberance. Innovation, however, is not a smooth process but comes in fits and starts. That's why, Schumpeter pointed out, a healthy economy is subject to cycles of boom and bust.

In the early 1980s, for example, personal computers became the hot new product. Then came the inevitable shakeout. Many companies, such as Atari, Commodore and Osborne, bit the dust.

But PCs became more powerful. Innovators learned to network PCs, enabling them to easily replace expensive mainframe computers with the significantly cheaper and more versatile PCs.

In the early 20th century the automobile went through similar booms and busts: Before World War I there were more than 300 auto manufacturers in the U.S. Another vivid testimony to innovation's disruption and destruction is today's fast-shrinking newspaper industry, a victim of the Internet.

Schumpeter recognized that a dynamic economy creates wide inequality. A successful entrepreneur, his investors and even some of his employees (think Microsoft) will get rich.

However, this is not the kind of static inequality one sees in semifeudalistic, oligarchic economies that exist in South America and elsewhere, where the same handful of people are wealthy and everyone else struggles. A truly capitalist economy will see the players change repeatedly. Facts back up Schumpeter's insight. IRS data show that 75% of the very top income earners in the mid-1990s are no longer in that category.

Growing up in a turbulent part of Europe made Schumpeter realize that life did not follow a smooth-running, gentle path. In contrast, Britons such as John Maynard Keynes tended to see the economy in more static terms. Even American economists tended toward a rather static view of the world. Harvard's late, once renowned John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book in the 1960s whose thesis was that major corporations such as Ford Motor Co. were the epitome of economic development and lived by their own laws rather than those of the marketplace. Today once formidable giants, such as Ford and General Motors, are struggling just to stay alive financially.

Schumpeter was a genius at dissecting the ideologies and prejudices of other economists. Karl Marx, for example, also observed the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial capitalism. But he mistakenly concluded that this kind of change would inevitably, inexorably impoverish the workers. Instead--as Schumpeter laid out time and time again--an entrepreneurial economy means more people earning more and enjoying a higher standard of living. Adam Smith celebrated the importance of free trade, low taxes, property rights, the enforcement of contracts in enabling people to get richer. But he had very little appreciation of the crucial role individual entrepreneurs and innovators play in the process.

Schumpeter acknowledged that governments would have to play a role--one hopes a constructive one--in creating conditions in which creative destruction could play out. In the U.S., for instance, farm subsidies helped ameliorate the political backlash when technology and manufacturing sharply reduced employment in the agricultural sector. A century ago one in 4
Americans made his or her living in agriculture; today it's fewer than one in 75.

What made Schumpeter especially insightful was that he was truly a multidisciplinary individual. He was well versed in politics, sociology and history. By the time he finished his secondary education he had mastered six languages. He would look upon the bulk of today's economists, with their obsession with numbers and regression analysis, as hideously narrow-minded and suffering from academic constipation.

As he grew older, Schumpeter became pessimistic about democratic capitalism. He observed that the sons and daughters of successful entrepreneurs often became leftists or outright socialists. His own varied life undoubtedly added to his gloomy outlook. He had moved numerous times and seen convulsions aplenty. World War I broke up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, creating, among other things, the state of Austria--what wags dubbed "a bureaucracy without an empire." After the war Schumpeter served briefly as its finance minister. It was a disastrous experience. Knowing the right things to do does not automatically make them politically possible.

He lasted less than a year in the job. Only when inflationary conditions worsened did subsequent ministers adopt some of his policies. The rise of Nazism in Germany--Schumpeter taught there until the early 1930s, at which time he accepted an offer from Harvard--was a personally vivid example of how a great nation can self-destruct and threaten civilization itself.

Schumpeter would certainly take a dim view of what many politicians in America are offering up these days. But the actual history of Britain and the U.S., after his death in 1950, might have lightened the darkness of his long-term outlook. As long as a society remains free, entrepreneurs can prevent ossification. The U.S.' great comeback under President Ronald Reagan is one vivid example, as is Britain's under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Once taxes were cut and structural reforms made, Britain morphed from the sick man of Europe into Europe's most dynamic large economy. Schumpeter would also have been astonished by the fall of the Soviet Union.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Affirmative action and the bar exam

A California professor studying affirmative action should have access to law school performance statistics.

September 17, 2008

Americans have been debating the fairness and efficacy of racial preferences in college and graduate school admissions for more than 30 years. Now a UCLA professor is seeking to test his hypothesis that affirmative action programs actually hurt the career prospects of minority law school graduates. But he has been hampered in his research by the indefensible failure of the State Bar of California to provide the statistics he needs.

The professor, Richard H. Sander, has requested data about the performance of white and minority law school graduates on the bar examination, along with information about the schools they attended and their grades. In resisting his request, bar officials cite the need to protect the privacy of test takers and to honor an agreement that test material will remain confidential. At the same time, some defenders of affirmative action have argued against releasing the data because they think Sander's project could have only one purpose: to discredit the idea of racial preferences.

The privacy and legal arguments strike us as spurious, a view shared by the executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, which has joined Sander and his colleagues in asking the state Supreme Court to order the release of the information. Sander has promised that no individual student would be identified by the statistics, which would break down performance by law school.

It's also unfair to accuse Sander of seeking to dismantle racial preferences. True, his hypothesis is that affirmative action students are disserved because they derive less benefit from an elite law school than students who meet the usual admission standards. This is the "mismatch" theory, which suggests that students who are weaker than their classmates will often do better academically -- and on the bar exam -- if they attend a less-competitive school.

The mismatch theory may be mistaken. But suppose it were found to be valid? That wouldn't necessarily lead to the abolition of racial preferences. Another result might be the strengthening of mentorship and other programs to help less-well-prepared students achieve at higher levels.

An additional objection to Sander's project is that good marks on the bar exam don't guarantee success in the practice of law. Perhaps so. If the exam does a poor job of measuring the credentials of lawyers, it ought to be revised. But that has no bearing on Sander's request.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carefully tailored affirmative action programs didn't violate the Constitution. California, when it approved Proposition 209 in 1996, exercised its right under that decision to outlaw racial preferences in public educational institutions. The debate over affirmative action continues.

Regardless of what we think of Sander's hypothesis, he should be given the data he seeks. Defenders of affirmative action should not fear a serious examination of how well it's working.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler

Andrew Romano

The current Real Clear Politics electoral map reflects the latest polls; it is not a prediction of the outcome

One week ago today, I launched Stumper's general-election coverage with an in-depth look at where the "Race for the White House" stood in the wake of the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions. While the national polls had swung about 9 points in John McCain's direction since the Democrats left Denver, the Real Clear Politics electoral map still tilted every so slightly toward Barack Obama, 273 to 265. But the Illinois senator's slim lead was hardly set in stone--as I noted at the time. "No battleground state polls have been released since the second day of the Republican Convention," I wrote. "If the national surveys are right and McCain has in fact received a 5-point post-St. Paul bounce, that enthusiasm will almost certainly trickle down." I promised to revisit the map once the dust had settled.

Well, now it has. And what it shows is ... drumroll, please ... more of the same. According to Real Clear Politics, this week's map, posted above, is identical to last week's. Obama is still leading 273 electoral votes to 265.

Does that mean that Obama has emerged unscathed? Hardly. The Democratic nominee may have managed to maintain his razor-thin eight-vote margin--but he's done it by the skin of his teeth. Even if McCain has yet to flip a state, a closer look at the latest battleground polling reveals that the Arizonan's gains have, in fact, trickled down. They've had two effects. First, a handful of red states that Obama once hoped to win now seem either out of reach or more favorable to McCain, whether temporarily or permanently. And second, McCain is suddenly within striking distance in a group of Blue States where Obama until recently enjoyed a comfortable lead. The result: a campaign that once boasted about redrawing the electoral map by targeting an unprecedented 18 battlegrounds has been forced to focus on a more familiar swath of states--and even play defense in places it had hoped to win easily. In the last week, the Red States have gotten redder--and the Blue States have gotten purpler.

Take Montana and Georgia. In 2004, George W. Bush won the former by 20.5 percent and the later by 16.6 percent. But after clinching the Democratic nomination in early June, Obama put both states on his target list and deployed hundreds of volunteers and staffers to Atlanta and Helena to open field offices and register voters. He had reason for optimism. In early July, Rasmussen showed Obama ahead in Montana by 5 points; at the same time, an Insider Advantage poll put him a mere 2 points behind McCain in Georgia. But the latest surveys from those same firms tell a different story. According to an Insider Advantage sounding released last Thursday, McCain now leads 56-38 in the Peach State--an 18-point gulf. Meanwhile, the first postconvention poll by Rasmussen gives the Republican an 11-point advantage in the Treasure State, 53-42. Real Clear Politics has McCain ahead by an average of 13.4 percent in the former and 9.0 percent in the latter. Which means they may be out of reach.

The news for Obama in the key Bush states of Ohio and Florida isn't any better. In late July, the battle for the Sunshine State was tied at about 45 percent on average, and after Denver, Obama trailed by as little as 2.6 percent. But in the post-St. Paul period, McCain's Florida numbers have skyrocketed. Since last Monday, four surveys have hit the wires, with PPP (McCain +5), Quinnipiac (+7) and Insider Advantage (+8) all showing a growing lead for McCain; only FOX News still puts Obama within striking distance. According to the RCP average, McCain now boasts his largest edge (5 percent) since late June. The McCainward shift in the Buckeye State looks much the same. Of the six polls released since St. Paul, five show the Arizonan ahead--boosting him to his biggest RCP lead in this crucial, close-run battleground (2.5 percent) since mid-May. Even Virginia, a Bush state where Obama had held McCain to a tie for much of the cycle, seems to have drifted right. There, McCain now leads by 2.6 percent, 49.3 to 46.7--the largest margin for either candidate since May. The Republican nominee has also edged ahead in the latest polls out of New Mexico and Nevada--both Red in 2004, both leaning toward Obama before St. Paul.

But the most troubling developments for the Dems are probably in two states Kerry won in 2004: Pennsylvania and Minnesota. At the end of July, Obama led in the Keystone State by a whopping nine points, 51.7 percent to 41.7 percent; at the start of September he was ahead by a healthy five, 47.4 to 42.4. The three polls released since St. Paul, however, show McCain closing fast. In the Quinnipiac survey, McCain trails by a measly three points after lagging by seven in mid-August; Strategic Vision and Rasmussen put him within two. Overall, Obama's average lead in Pennsylvania--2.3 percent--is his smallest since capturing the nomination. And while a CNN/Gallup poll released between the conventions gave Obama a 12-point lead in Minnesota, the two soundings out since the GOP left the state earlier this month suggest that McCain is either tied with Obama at 45 percent (Star Tribune) or trailing by a statistically insignificant 2-percent margin (Survey USA). Couple that with the surprising 46 Obama-43 McCain result in the latest Wisconsin survey, and the Rust Belt and upper Midwest are starting to look too close for Chicago's comfort.

It's not all doom and gloom for Obama. So far this month, he's seems to have solidified his narrow margin in Michigan and New Hampshire (states McCain is hoping to flip) while expanding his edges in the Bush states of Iowa and Colorado, where he now leads by 9.7 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. If he wins these states in November--along with Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Mexico--he wins the White House. New Democratic registrations and Chicago's sophisticated field operation will surely help. But what the last week of polling has shown beyond any doubt is that McCain's successful convention and shocking choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate have shifted the map ever so slightly to the right, transforming a landscape that favored Obama into a landscape that favors, well, no one. For the next six weeks, then, expect Obama and Joe Biden to play defense (Pennsylvania, Michigan) as well as offense (Colorado, Virginia, Nevada) while focusing much of their attention on the king of all swing states: Ohio. But don't expect the final map to look all that different from 2004.

UPDATE, Sept. 16: Prof. Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin agrees with our analysis:

Among the strong Republican states, McCain has gained more than 8 points over Obama since shortly before the conventions, turning a 14 point lead into a 22.5 point margin, a huge gain. Among the strong Democratic states, the effect of the conventions is a tiny 2 point move in McCain's direction, from an Obama lead of 12 points before to 10 points now. But the rest of the states, rated lean or toss up, have also shown movement. These swing states had a 1.5 point Obama lead before the conventions, and that has now turned into a 3 point McCain lead, a 4.5 point shift.

www.ruffcommunications.com

If You Like Michigan's Economy, You'll Love Obama's

OPINION

If You Like Michigan's Economy, You'll Love Obama's
By PHIL GRAMM and MIKE SOLONSeptember 13, 2008; Page A13

Despite the federal government's growing economic dominance, individual states still exercise substantial freedom in pursuing their own economic fortune -- or misfortune. As a result, the states provide a laboratory for testing various policies.

In this election year, the experience of the states gives us some ability to look at the economic policies of the two presidential candidates in action. If a program is not playing in Peoria, it probably won't work elsewhere. Americans have voted with their feet by moving to states with greater opportunities, but federal adoption of failed state programs would take away our ability to walk away from bad government.

Growth in jobs, income and population are proof that a state is prospering. But figuring out why one state does well while another struggles requires in-depth analysis. In an effort to explain differences in performance, think tanks have generated state-based economic freedom indices modeled on the World Economic Freedom Index published by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation.

A TAX TO GRIND

Personal-income growth suffers when states adopt a tax-and-spend approach to fiscal policy. (Read more.)

The Competitiveness Index created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) identifies "16 policy variables that have a proven impact on the migration of capital -- both investment capital and human capital -- into and out of states." Its analysis shows that "generally speaking, states that spend less, especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less, particularly on productive activities such as working or investing, experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more."

Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful.

The rewards for success were huge. Texas gained 1.7 million net new jobs, Florida gained 1.4 million and Arizona gained 600,000. While the U.S. average job growth percentage was 9.9%, Texas, Florida and Arizona had job growth of 18.5%, 21.4% and 28.9%, respectively.

Remarkably, a third of all the jobs in the U.S. in the last 10 years were created in these three states. While the population of the three highest-performing states grew twice as fast as the national average, per-capita real income still grew by $6,563 or 21.4% in Texas, Florida and Arizona. That's a $26,252 increase for a typical family of four.

By comparison, Illinois gained only 122,000 jobs, Ohio lost 62,900 and Michigan lost 318,000.

Population growth in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois was only 4.2%, a third the national average, and real income per capita rose by only $3,466, just 58% of the national average. Workers in the three least successful states had to contend with a quarter-million fewer jobs rather than taking their pick of the 3.7 million new jobs that were available in the three fastest-growing states.

In Michigan, the average family of four had to make ends meet without an extra $8,672 had their state matched the real income growth of the three most successful states. Families in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois struggled not because they didn't work hard enough, long enough or smart enough. They struggled because too many of their elected leaders represented special interests rather than their interests.

What explains this relative performance over the last 10 years? The simple answer is that governance, taxes and regulatory policy matter. The playing field among the states was not flat.

Business conditions were better in the successful states than in the lagging ones. Capital and labor gravitated to where the burdens were smaller and the opportunities greater.

It costs state taxpayers far less to succeed than to fail. In the three most successful states, state spending averaged $5,519 per capita. In the three least successful states, state spending averaged $6,484 per capita. Per capita taxes were $7,063 versus $8,342.

There also appears to be a clear difference between union interests and the worker interests. Texas, Florida and Arizona are right-to-work states, while Michigan, Ohio and Illinois are not.

Michigan, Ohio and Illinois impose significantly higher minimum wages than Texas, Florida and Arizona. Yet with all the proclaimed benefits of unionism and higher minimum wages, Texas, Florida and Arizona workers saw their real income grow more than twice as fast as workers in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.

Incredibly, the business climate in Michigan is now so unfavorable that it has overwhelmed the considerable comparative advantage in auto production that Michigan spent a century building up. No one should let Michigan politicians blame their problems solely on the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.

So what do the state laboratories tell us about the potential success of the economic programs presented by Barack Obama and John McCain?

Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers:

In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.

In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.

Mr. Obama would spend all the savings from walking out of Iraq to expand the government. Mr. McCain would reserve all the savings from our success in Iraq to shrink the deficit, as part of a credible and internally consistent program to balance the budget by the end of his first term. Mr.
Obama's program offers no hope, or even a promise, of ever achieving a balanced budget.

Mr. Obama would stimulate the economy by increasing federal spending. Mr. McCain would stimulate the economy by cutting the corporate tax rate. Mr. Obama would expand unionism by denying workers the right to a secret ballot on the decision to form a union, and would dramatically increase the minimum wage. Mr. Obama would also expand the role of government in the economy, and stop reforms in areas like tort abuse.

The states have already tested the McCain and Obama programs, and the results are clear. We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate.

Mr. Gramm is a former Republican senator from Texas. Mr. Solon founded the consulting firm Capitol Legistics.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

www.ruffcommunications.com

September 12, 2008

Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive

Democrats’ double-digit lead on the “generic ballot” slips to 3 points

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.

As is true for the current structure of voting preferences for president, Democratic voters are nearly uniform in their support for the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts (92%), Republican voters are nearly uniform in their support for the Republican candidate (94%), and independents are closely split, with 44% backing the Democrat and 40% the Republican.

The new results come from a Sept. 5-7 survey conducted immediately after the Republican National Convention and mirror the resulting enhanced position of the Republican Party seen in several other indicators. These range from John McCain's improved standing against Barack Obama in the presidential race to improved favorability ratings of the Republicans, to Republican gains in party identification. The sustainability of all of these findings is an open question that polling will answer over the next few weeks.

The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup's "likely voter" model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.

If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Gallup's long-term "generic ballot" trend shows, the Democrats held a sizable lead on this measure from the time they won back control of Congress in the fall of 2006 through last month. If the current closer positioning of the parties holds, the structure of congressional preferences will be similar to most of the period from 1994 through 2005, when Republicans won and maintained control of Congress.

Congressional Approval Also Troubling for Democrats

With only 18% of Americans in August saying they approve of the job Congress is doing, similar to the average 20% approval rating for Congress all year, the Democrats in Congress have additional cause for concern. This scant level of approval could signal that voters are in the mood for change, disproportionately hurting Democratic incumbents.

The last time the yearly average for approval of Congress approached this low a level was in 2006, when the Republicans lost majority control of Congress after 12 years in power. The previous occasion was in 1994, when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats. In both of these midterm election years, the average congressional approval score was 25%. However, with an 18% approval rating for Congress in 1992, the Democrats succeeded in holding their majority in Congress. That was a presidential year in which the Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, won.

The issues raised by today's low approval ratings of Congress are reinforced by recent Gallup Poll findings that relatively few voters generally believe "most members" of Congress deserve re-election. That figure was only 36% in July, much lower than the 51% or better reading found in recent election years when the party of the sitting majority in Congress maintained power.

Bottom Line

The new USA Today/Gallup measurement of generic ballot preferences for Congress casts some doubt on the previously assumed inevitability of the Democrats' maintaining control of Congress.

Until now, the dark shadow cast by George W. Bush's widespread unpopularity has suppressed Republican Party identification nationwide, as well as voters' willingness to support the Republican candidate running for Congress in their district.

Now that the symbolic leadership of the party is shifting away from Bush and toward the suddenly popular Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, things may be changing. This shrinks Bush's shadow over the Republicans, revealing more of the Democrats' own shadow stemming from high disapproval of Congress. The key question is how much of this is temporary because of the tremendous bounce in support for the Republicans on many dimensions coming right off of their convention. The degree to which the Republican bounce is sustained, rather than dissipates, in the weeks ahead will determine whether the 2008 race for Congress could in fact be highly competitive, rather than a Democratic sweep.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,022 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 5-7, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 959 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Results for likely voters are based on the subsample of 823 survey respondents deemed most likely to vote in the November 2008 general election, according to a series of questions measuring current voting intentions and past voting behavior. For results based on the total sample of likely voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. The "likely voter" model assumes a turnout of 60% of national adults. The likely voter sample is weighted to match this assumption, so the weighted sample size is 613.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.

www.ruffcommunications.com

ECONOMIC FORECASTING SURVEY

Economic Woes Seen
Greeting President

By PHIL IZZO and KELLY EVANS
September 11, 2008 9:00 p.m.; Page A13

The next U.S. president will be confronted with slow growth, high unemployment and an economy teetering toward recession, say 51 private economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.

If they are correct, pumping up the economy will the first challenge facing either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain. That is likely to place tax cuts and government spending high on Washington's agenda, and push back costly measures such as reforming health care and fighting global warming.

The Wall Street Journal's latest monthly survey paints a gloomy picture of the outlook through the first half of 2009. The economy is on course to post four straight quarters of annualized economic growth below 2%, the longest stretch of subpar growth since the 2001 recession.

The respondents saw a 60% chance of an outright recession, expect the economy to shed 19,000 jobs a month for a year, and say the jobless rate, which jumped in August to 6.1%, will keep rising, to 6.4% by midyear, passing the 6.3% seen after the last recession.

The worst stretch will be the next few months, the economists say, coming as elections shift into high gear. Annualized growth in the gross domestic product is projected at 0.7% in the fourth quarter. A few months ago, forecasters thought the economy would be growing at a much faster clip by then.

By inauguration day, Jan. 20, the situation won't have improved much, they say. Growth in the first quarter is projected at a 1.3% annual rate.

CHARTS AND FULL RESULTS

See and download forecasts for growth, unemployment, housing and more. Plus, views on another stimulus package, a consumption slowdown, where the economy will be on election day. Survey conducted Sept. 5-8.

MORE

• Real Time Econ: Will Winning in 2012, Be Harder Than 2008?

"Rapidly rising unemployment, rebates behind us, falling house prices, falling stock prices, general loss of confidence and much tighter credit conditions. None of it looks good," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics.

Not all the news is bad. Inflation is expected to moderate. Economists forecast oil prices to be down to about $102 a barrel by the end of this year, and below $100 a barrel by June, potentially helping to take pressure off stretched households.

Even so, consumers are likely to be hurting. They have been stung not only by rising food and energy prices, but also by a deteriorating job market, tighter credit and falling home prices.

Yvette Perera, 39 years old, of Vallejo, Calif., was laid off in January from her job handling help-wanted ads for a small local paper, and has since been unable to find work. Her unemployment benefits end Nov. 1. "I'm looking for anything," she said. "Anything." On supermarket runs, she tries to limit herself to spending $40.

Sen. McCain has proposed cutting corporate taxes to 25% from 35%, and retaining all the Bush tax cuts on individuals, figuring that would give a boost to business. Sen. Obama would increase tax rates for those making more than $250,000 and use the proceeds for tax cuts aimed at moderate-income workers. Helping them would pump up the economy through consumer spending, his advisers argue.

ABOUT THE SURVEY

The Wall Street Journal surveys a group of 56 economists throughout the year. Broad surveys on more than 10 major economic indicators are conducted every month. Once a year, economists are ranked on how well their forecasts have fared. For prior installments of the surveys, see: WSJ.com/Economists.

On average, the survey respondents expect a 0.1% contraction in consumer spending during the third quarter. It would mark the first such retrenchment by consumers in 17 years. Consumers kept spending during the last recession, to the surprise of many economists. The respondents expect 0.1% growth in consumer spending in the fourth quarter as the holiday shopping season kicks into gear.

Retailers posted weak August same-store sales -- sales at stores open at least a year -- amid a disappointing back-to-school season. On Friday, the Commerce Department is set to release official retail sales numbers for August. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expect an anemic monthly advance.

Nearly one-third of economists surveyed said the consumer retrenchment may not be reversed for years, a problem that could quickly rise to the top of the next president's agenda.

The Federal Reserve already has cut interest rates sharply, meaning any future stimulus might need to be driven by the White House. But choosing a fiscal-policy course will be tricky. A rising budget deficit could constrain the next administration. Meantime, tax rebates proved to be only a fleeting help.

Two-thirds of economists said a second stimulus package, currently being debated in Congress and supported by Sen. Obama, isn't the right move. Most support extending or making permanent President George W. Bush's tax cuts, as does Sen. McCain.

Among the economists who support a new stimulus, none said it should primarily be based on rebates to individuals, as Sen. Obama would do. His $115 billion plan includes $65 billion in rebates and $50 billion split between aid to state and local governments, and infrastructure spending. He would pay for the rebates by taxing oil-company profits. Sen. McCain has said he is open to a stimulus plan, but hasn't committed to any specific proposal.

Thirteen percent of the economists who support a stimulus plan said it should include infrastructure spending, which some argue carries more bang for the buck, while 2% said it should focus on extending unemployment insurance and food stamps. Nineteen percent said it should include some mix of rebates, infrastructure spending and benefits.

"You can't afford to bail out the financial system and the real economy at the same time," said Mr. Ashworth.

Write to Phil Izzo at philip.izzo@wsj.com and Kelly Evans at kelly.evans@wsj.com

www.ruffcommunications.com

Friday, September 12, 2008

Democratic Illinois gov defends Palin's experience

CHICAGO Gov. Rod Blagojevich backs Illinois' Barack Obama, but he said Thursday that it is a mistake for fellow Democrats to discount GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's experience as Alaska governor.

The executive job of governor is like the presidency because the officeholder has to make decisions, Blagojevich said. Lawmakers do different things like "debate and...pass their bills back and forth," he said.

Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, was a state senator before being elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois.

"But governors make decisions, and I think it's a tactical mistake for the Democrats to question Gov. Palin's experience when she's been a governor of a state," Blagojevich said on WGN-AM's "Spike O'Dell Show."

Palin has also been the mayor of a small town in Alaska. Her running mate, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, has never served as a governor. He has spent two decades as a U.S. Senator.

Obama's campaign did not comment on Blagojevich's statements. But during a recent interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Obama ducked when asked whether he believed Palin had enough experience to be president.

"I'll let Gov. Palin answer that," Obama said with a smile. "I'm sure she'll be appearing on your show."

Blagojevich said to help Obama win, Democrats should focus on why President Bush's policies need to change.

"I'm for Obama, and I think Barack Obama is gonna do great things for America, and he's gonna change things," Blagojevich said. AP

www.ruffcommunications.com

Black Voters Fret Over Obama

Close Election Spurs
Nervousness, Anger;
A Boon to Turnout?

By GARY FIELDS and JONATHAN KAUFMAN
September 12, 2008; Page A8

An anxious murmur is rising among black voters as the presidential race tightens: What if Barack Obama loses?

Black talk-show hosts and black-themed Web sites are being flooded with callers and bloggers reflecting a nervousness -- and anger -- over the campaign. Bev Smith, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, devoted her entire three-hour show Monday night to the question: "If Obama doesn't win, what will you think?"

"My audience is upset," she said in an interview. "Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots -- that is how despondent they would be."

Warren Ballentine, another nationally syndicated talk-show host, said: "Once Sarah Palin was picked and African-Americans saw the Republicans ignited again, they got worried. We are scared now."

The worries aren't universal. New York Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat, acknowledged the concerns about race. "I am hearing those jitters," he said. But he said many Democratic candidates have lost the presidential race in recent decades and "they were white candidates. African-Americans need to remember that."

Black nervousness could help Sen. Obama, the first African-American to head a major-party ticket, by boosting black turnout in November. One caller to Ms. Smith's show Monday said she was so worried that she planned to go to her church to begin working on a voter-registration drive.

If Sen. Obama loses, "African-Americans could be disappointed to the point of not engaging in the process anymore," or consider forming a third political party, said Richard McIntire, communications director for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Initially skeptical of Sen. Obama's bid, a majority of blacks supported Sen. Hillary Clinton before the primaries began. They began to flock to Sen. Obama's camp following his win in Iowa. The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows 88% of blacks backing Sens. Obama and Joe Biden. Black voter registration has surged.

"There is so much about this campaign that people are taking very personally," said Lynette Clemetson, managing editor of Theroot.com, a Web site that she said attracts African-American professionals in their 30s and 40s. "A large part of this hope surrounding Obama is generational -- that he can crack through what some have long considered basic barriers. If he wins, it's the 'Hallelujah Chorus.'"

But the racial undertone of the campaign has some blacks -- and some whites -- unable to envision the Illinois senator losing the election without racism playing a role.

"If he loses, it will shake the very ground that we stand on mentally as far as what we need to be to succeed," said Robert Gordon, a 48-year-old engineering surveyor from Dallas. "From day one, we've been told to be a certain way, to be neat, intellectual, speak clearly. He is the symbol of what we were told to be by our parents and by society as a whole. If this doesn't work, what does that do to our psyche? What do I tell my sons?"

Twyla Griffin, who works for a health-care company outside Detroit, said she was feeling optimistic about the country's racial progress as she watched Sen. Obama's nomination-acceptance speech on television two weeks ago. But with excitement surging over Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential nominee and polls showing the race to be close, she said she now finds herself asking: "Can people bring themselves to go into a voting booth and pull the lever for a black man?"

Melvin Thomas, a professor at North Carolina State University and past president of the Association of Black Sociologists, said black response to the election likely will depend on "how African-Americans will see a vote against Mr. Obama. What does the racial distribution of that vote look like? If the answer for African-Americans to the question of why Obama lost is race, an Obama loss will have the potential to deepen the racial cut."

Don Moses, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, said while he supports Sen. Obama, attributing a loss to race would be an oversimplification and unfair to voters who have legitimate concerns about the candidate. Those concerns include his age and shorter resume, as well as his alienation of "some strong members of the old guard in the Democratic Party," Mr. Moses said. Concluding that the election may be decided by race also would ignore the reasons some might have to support Sen. John McCain, including his military history, he said.

"I would hope if Obama is not elected, black America will not lose sight of the lessons learned and move forward," he said.

Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com and Jonathan Kaufman at jonathan.kaufman@wsj.com

www.ruffcommunications.com

OPINION

Obama Can't Win
Against Palin

By KARL ROVE
September 11, 2008; Page A13

Of all the advantages Gov. Sarah Palin has brought to the GOP ticket, the most important may be that she has gotten into Barack Obama's head. How else to explain Sen. Obama's decision to go one-on-one against "Sarah Barracuda," captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs?

It's a matchup he'll lose. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he's running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president.

AP

Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent's running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states.

Adlai Stevenson spent the fall of 1952 bashing Dwight Eisenhower's running mate, Richard Nixon, calling him "the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, and then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation." The Republican ticket carried 39 of 48 states.

If Mr. Obama keeps attacking Mrs. Palin, he could suffer the fate of his Democratic predecessors. These assaults highlight his own tissue-thin résumé, waste precious time better spent reassuring voters he is up for the job, and diminish him -- not her.

Consider Mr. Obama's response to CNN's Anderson Cooper, who asked him about Republican claims that Mrs. Palin beats him on executive experience. Mr. Obama responded by comparing Wasilla's 50 city workers with his campaign's 2,500 employees and dismissed its budget of about $12 million a year by saying "we have a budget of about three times that just for the month." He claimed his campaign "made clear" his "ability to manage large systems and to execute."

Of course, this ignores the fact that Mrs. Palin is now governor. She manages an $11 billion operating budget, a $1.7 billion capital expenditure budget, and nearly 29,000 full- and part-time state employees. In two years as governor, she's vetoed over $499 million from Alaska's capital budget -- more money than Mr. Obama is likely to spend on his entire campaign.

And Mr. Obama is not running his campaign's day-to-day operation. His manager, David Plouffe, assisted by others, makes the decisions about the $335 million the campaign has spent. Even if Mr. Obama is his own campaign manager, does that qualify him for president?

A debate between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Palin over executive experience also isn't smart politics for Democrats. As Mr. Obama talks down Mrs. Palin's record, voters may start comparing backgrounds. He won't come off well.

ABOUT KARL ROVE

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Then there was Mr. Obama's blast Saturday about Mrs. Palin's record on earmarks. He went at her personally, saying, "you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person."

It's true. Mrs. Palin did seek earmarks as Wasilla's mayor. But as governor, she ratcheted down the state's requests for federal dollars, telling the legislature last year Alaska "cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks." Her budget chief directed state agencies to reduce earmark requests to only "the most compelling needs" with "a strong national purpose," explaining to reporters "we really want to skinny it down."

Mr. Obama has again started a debate he can't win. As senator, he has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks, ratcheting up his requests each year he's been in the Senate. If voters dislike earmarks -- and they do -- they may conclude Mrs. Palin cut them, while Mr. Obama grabs for more each year.

Mr. Obama may also pay a price for his "lipstick on a pig" comment. The last time the word "lipstick" showed up in this campaign was during Mrs. Palin's memorable ad-lib in her acceptance speech. Mr. Obama says he didn't mean to aim the comment at Mrs. Palin, but he deserves all the negative flashback he gets from the snarky aside.

Sen. Joe Biden has now joined the attack on Mrs. Palin, saying this week that her views on issues show she's "obviously a backwards step for women." This is a mistake. Mr. Obama is already finding it difficult to win over independent women and Hillary Clinton voters. If it looks like he's going out of his way to attack Mrs. Palin, these voters may conclude it's because he has a problem with strong women.

In Denver two weeks ago, Mr. Obama said, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." That's what he's trying to do, only the object of his painting is Sarah Palin, not John McCain.

In Mrs. Palin, Mr. Obama faces a political phenomenon who has altered the election's dynamics. Americans have rarely seen someone who immediately connects with large numbers of voters at such a visceral level. Mrs. Palin may be the first vice presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson to change an election's outcome. If Mr. Obama keeps attacking her, the odds of Gov. Palin becoming Vice President Palin increase significantly.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Black Star Brings T.I. to Prologue, Charles Houston and Winnie Mandela Alternative High Schools in Chicago

Black Star Brings T.I. to Prologue, Charles Houston and Winnie Mandela Alternative High Schools in Chicago

Rapper T.I. surprises North Side students
by Kathy Chaney

In town to promote his upcoming album, "Paper Trail," southern rapper T.I. surprised an auditorium full of students Thursday at a North Side high school.


The Atlanta-born rapper/actor, whose name is Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., told more than 100 students at Prologue Early College High School on North Cleaver Street to think before they act and not make the same mistakes he's made.

While on his quest to become a well-known lyricist, T.I., also known as the "Rubberband Man," said he's gotten into his share of trouble on the streets and most recently was tangled in legal woes stemming from federal firearm charges.

When asked by a few students if he thought about the bad things he did before he did them, he replied, "Yes, and I did it anyway. That's what you call being dumb."


He told them to not follow in his footsteps and abandon the notion that music influences what you do. Entertainment is just that--entertainment, he told them, it's not reality. What he and others rap is a reality for them, but entertainment for others, he said.

Wearing a "Respect My Vote" T-shirt from his new clothing line, AKOO (A King Of Oneself), T.I. said, "Don't get it twisted. Find out who you are what you like to do. Don't follow behind anyone else. And if you do find yourself getting in trouble, don't blame me and my music for it. I'm in enough trouble. I don't need any help," he said in a joking but serious manner.

T.I. told them that there is nothing wrong with listening to "so-called" gangster rap, but there should be a balance in what you listen to.

"If you think some of my music is negative, then why can't you also listen to Kanye (West), Common and Lupe (Fiasco)? They are all positive and very good.
Listen to them to get some inspiration," he said.

After speaking at Prologue, he went to Chicago State University for a "barbecue on the yard."

T.I. has appeared in the films ATL and "American Gangster." His new album is scheduled to be released Sept. 30 on his label, Grand Hustle Records.

______
Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender.

For more information about joining the efforts of The Black Star Project, please call 773.285.9600.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Community Organizers Applauded as Great Patriots and Great Assets to America

Community Organizers Applauded as Great Patriots and Great Assets to America
THE HUFFINGTON POST

MONROE ANDERSON

Palin, GOP find community challenges a real hoot

At the expense of Barack Obama, community groups and their organizers were a running joke in St. Paul last week at the Republican National Convention.

Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani and much of the rest of the GOP apparently believe that small town mayoring is oh-so-important while community organizing is a real thigh-slapper.


Like much of what goes on among American conservatives, I suspect the marginalizing of the community organizing is just one more coded race reference. And, like much what goes on among the Republicans, George W. Bush and the Palin McCain campaign, it's obvious that this is another topsy-turvy twist on reality.

To assure that the community organizers are removed from the GOP's one-liner lists and moved back into the important things-to-do column, the AfroSpear, a collective of black bloggers across America, has called for a day of blogging in support of community organizing. I'm just one of dozens. This is my contribution.

Small town government, of course, does call for responsibilities. But, like volunteer fire departments, in many small towns, running it is only a part-time job--or should be. Community organizing in Chicago, on the other hand, is a full-time challenge that impacts lives of American citizens by the tens of thousands.

No one knows this to be true more than Phillip Jackson. At one time Jackson was the head of the Chicago Housing Authority. One of the housing projects he was in charge of, Robert Taylor Homes, was where 100,000 of Chicago poorest residents called home. When Jackson left the CHA in the mid-1990s, he founded The Black Star Project, a community group with a daunting task: to improve the quality of life in Black and Latino communities of Chicago and nationwide by eliminating the racial academic achievement gap.

Jackson boasts that The Black Star Project successfully spearheaded the Million Father March 2008 that "took place in 475 cities with about 600.000 men taking children to school--because of communities organizers in these cities."

If Palin, McCain, Giuliani and the gang think Jackson's mission is a laughing matter, then they've got another think coming. Although he's just one of a countless number of dedicated, patriotic citizens trying to improve the lot of the less fortunate in one great American city, his message is worth exploring.

Here's the latest of what Jackson, a community organizer, has had to say in his latest commentary:


Without High School Diplomas,
Young Black Men in America Are Expendable!


By Phillip Jackson, Executive Director of The Black Star Project

Less than fifty percent of young Black men graduated from high school in the United States during the 2005-2006 school year, according to a new report commissioned by the Schott Foundation for Public Education.

Dropping out of high school sentences young Black males to menial jobs, street-corner hustling, illicit activities, fathering children out of wedlock, drugs, gangs, crime, prison, violence, death and worse - these young Black men are literally being prepared to destroy the Black communities in which they live.

Inability to achieve becomes hopelessness. Hopelessness becomes despair. Despair becomes destruction.

Dropping out of school annihilates the concept of family in the Black community because young Black men without high school degrees seldom become good providers for their families and strong anchors for their communities. The fabric of the Black community becomes unwoven.

This is an unnatural disaster and a national disgrace with little-to-no effective response from the U.S. government or the Black community where this destruction is taking place.

The media and many foundations ignore this problem. The United States responds to catastrophes in China, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Sudan, Georgia and other parts of the world, but the media and our government will not constructively respond to the genocide of young Black men that is happening here in the United States. Young Black men in America have become expendable!

The poor quality of education for young Black men is an impending national catastrophe for the United States with international ramifications. The rest of the world sees the hypocrisy of the "rhetoric of concern" in the United States verses the lack of difference-making action. Why aren't we outraged? Why won't we do something?

Before information on the educational status of Black males in America was available, the question could have been, "Why don't we know this?" Now that we know, the question becomes "Why don't we care?"

Please see the estimated graduation rates for Black males in the lowest 28 districts in the United States with Black male enrollments of 8,000 or more during the 2005-2006 school year versus White male graduation rates in those cities and the 2003-2004 Black male graduation rates:

Black Male Black White Black Male
District Enrollment Male Male Gap 2003-04
Indianapolis, IN 11,539 19% 19% 0% 21%
Detroit, MI 59,807 20% 17% -3% 31%
Norfolk, VA 12,672 27% 44% 17% 30%
Rochester, NY 11,270 29% 36% 7% 32%
Pinellas County, FL 11,319 30% 50% 20% 21%
Richmond County, GA 12,091 31% 43% 12% 30%
Baltimore City, MD 38,966 31% 37% 6% 31%
Buffalo, NY 10,666 31% 50% 19% 33%
Milwaukee, WI 26,818 32% 46% 14% 34%
New York City, NY 159,555 32% 57% 24% 26%
Chatham County, GA 11,218 32% 42% 10% 25%
Palm Beach County, FL 26,259 33% 0% 26% 29%
Birmingham, AL 14,956 33% 21% -12% 38%
Charleston County, SC 11,489 34% 66% 32% 44%
Dade County, FL 51,188 34% 55% 21% 31%
Atlanta, GA 21,722 34% 58% 24% 35%
Cleveland, OH 20,894 34% 35% 1% 33%
St. Louis, MO 16,705 35% 38% 3% 37%
Memphis, TN 52,720 35% 64% 29% N/A
Clayton County, GA 19,605 36% 26% -10% 33%
Orange County, FL 25,367 37% 58% 21% 27%
Chicago, IL 102,185 37% 62% 25% 35%
Nashville-Davidson, TN 17,792 38% 60% 22% N/A
Broward County, FL 52,537 38% 55% 17% 36%
Jackson City, MS 15,736 38% 42% 4% 44%
Minneapolis, MN 8,044 38% 76% 38% N/A
Cincinnati, OH 12,834 38% 49% 11% 25%
Duval County, FL 28,608 38% 55% 17% 26%

Please consider these simple goals that can lead to solutions for fixing the problems of young Black men:

Short term
1) Teach all Black boys to read at grade level by the third grade and to embrace education.
2) Provide strong, positive Black male role models for Black boys.
3) Create a stable home environment for Black boys that includes contact with their fathers.
4) Ensure that Black boys have a strong spiritual base.
5) Control negative media influences on Black boys.
6) Teach Black boys to respect all girls and women.

Long term
1) Invest as much money in educating Black boys as in locking up Black men.
2) Help connect Black boys to a positive vision of them in the future.
3) Create high expectations and help Black boys live into those high expectations.
4) Build a positive peer culture for Black boys.
5) Teach Black boys self-discipline, cultural awareness and racial history.
6) Teach Black boys and the communities in which they live to embrace education and life-long learning.

Let's compare Palin's mayoral goals and accomplishments with Jackson's and then can decide who deserves the last laugh.

Monroe Anderson is an award-winning journalist who penned op-ed columns for both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Check out his blog at monroeanderson.typepad.com

www.ruffcommunications.com