Ringers. Voters. What's the Diff?

And here I thought all those news voters coming to the polls in less than two weeks were a sign of increased interest in Democracy in this country. Well, not according to the Republicans:

Republican Party officials in Ohio took formal steps yesterday to place thousands of recruits inside polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of voters they suspect are not eligible to cast ballots.

Party officials say their effort is necessary to guard against fraud arising from aggressive moves by the Democrats to register tens of thousands of new voters in Ohio, seen as one of the most pivotal battlegrounds in the Nov. 2 elections.

...

Republican officials said they had no intention of disrupting voting but were concerned about the possibility of fraud involving thousands of newly registered Democrats.

"The organized left's efforts to, quote unquote, register voters - I call them ringers - have created these problems," said James P. Trakas, a Republican co-chairman in Cuyahoga County.

Democracy is on the march!

Awww, Puppies!

Atrios mentions that the audience of Crossfire laughed when they showed "Wolves". I'm not sure that's the kind of response the GOP expected to get. Apparently they claim that it tested really well several months back and they have held it back until now for maximum effectiveness.

Maybe they should have tested it again?

One of the commenters related that Paul Begala's response was "Awwww, puppies!". Looking at this screen shot (courtesy Campaign Extra) I can see what he means: they could have gone with several images of wolves to get the point across. But they chose to show a bunch of "puppies" lounging around on a grassy hillside. Not exactly the most threatening image.

I agree with Campaign Extra that the DNC's "Eagle" video was released remarkably fast and that they may have had warning about "Wolves" and were prepared.

BTW, I view myself as dumb for not noticing the "boy who cried wolf" angle. Did Bush really want to remind people of the biggest knock against him?

Bears and Wolves and Eagles oh my!

Mark Schmitt (The Decembrist), compares the Reagan "Bear" ad with the latest Bush "Wolves" ad. The contrast is remarkable:

• "Bear" uses metaphor both visually and in its text. "Wolves" uses metaphor only in its images while the voice-over continues the same direct lie and distortion technique against Kerry and the Democrats.
• "Bear" is almost lyrical and dreamy in its presentation. "Wolves" is ham-handed and its appeal to fear almost trite.
• "Bear" plays to fear, but it balances it with a sense that there is a way to be safe without being afraid. "Wolves" is nothing but "be afraid".

The last point is the most interesting to me because it tells us something about the difference between Reagan and Bush: Reagan could at least argue that he had a plan for dealing with the dangers that threatened America. All Bush has is the argument that Kerry would do an even worse job than he has.

Several months back MoveOn put out a remake of the classic "Daisy" to limited effect. It just wasn't that good an ad. Now Bush is trying, once again, to harken back to the glories of the Reagan years. Like most sequels, both of these efforts fail to live up to the originals.

On the other hand, the DNC has an ad out in response to "Wolves" called "Eagle". It does a much better job of using metaphorical imagery. It never once makes reference to Bush or the Republicans, but the point of the ad is obvious to anyone who has been paying any attention to this campaign. It is weakened only by the fact that it is a "response" ad. It stands up well even if you have never seen or even heard of "Wolves".

A good question

Amen to The Gadflyer:

But why is Democratic weakness in the South more newsworthy than Republican weakness on the coasts? Yes, as Brownstein notes, �Kerry appears to have conceded 141 [Southern] electoral college votes�to Bush.� But Bush has conceded at least 143 to Kerry (California, Illinois, New York, Illinois, southern New England, Maryland and DC). Will that be the focus of his next column?

This is something that has bugged me for years. Why do we keep talking about the Democratic party's "Southern Problem" when the Republicans have an equal, if not worse problem on both coasts? Why is there this assumption in politics that the South is somehow more representative of America than the rest of the nation?

Gee, and here I thought The North won the Civil War.

Democrats rock

There had been some concerned expressed a few months back that Kerry would be at a financial disadvantage during the general election campaign. Both Bush and Kerry received about $75 million in federal funding to run those campaigns. They received the money when they officially accepted their party's nomination. But Kerry accepted his more than a month before Bush. That meant that he had to stretch the money over a longer period of time.

Looks like we needn't have worried:

Kerry finished the first half of October with a slight cash edge over Bush, though each has less than a third of his $75 million budget left. Both accepted full government financing for the general election.

Kerry had just over $24 million on hand as of mid-month, compared with $22 million left for Bush. Both spent around $14 million in the first half of October, according to their pre-election reports.

Once again proving that Democrats are better at managing money.

The same report contains financial information for the parties and other activist organizations:

The DNC spent nearly $52 million total in the first two weeks of October, while the RNC used up nearly $43 million, pre-election campaign finance reports they filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission show.

The GOP committee entered the last two weeks of the race with more than twice as much in the bank as its Democratic rival. The RNC had nearly $53 million on hand, compared with $24 million for the DNC.

Do the math and that means that DNC raised $76 million to the RNC's $106 million. Not to shabby since some were predicting a 2 or 3-to-1 money advantage to the Republicans. And, despite those advantages, they still can't put the Democrats away.

Sinclair shareholder's lawsuit (update)

Given the performance of the Sinclair stock this was almost inevitable:

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: Julie Wolk or Alex Howe, 202 822-5200 News Advisory:

Telephone News Conference at 1 p.m. EDT Today

SINCLAIR BROADCASTING SHAREHOLDERS DEMAND OFFICERS RETURN PROFITS FROM INSIDER TRADING

Officers Who Ordered Stations to Show Anti-Kerry Film Also Sold Stocks at High Mark, then Drove Values Down

DETAILS:

Famed shareholder attorney William S. Lerach will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. today to discuss insider self-dealing by officers of Sinclair Broadcasting, the Baltimore-based television chain that is forcing its affiliates to show a propaganda film that attacks presidential candidate John Kerry. He will release a set of demands aimed at making Sinclair executives disgorge millions of dollars in unjustified profits taken out of the firm when stock prices were high during the past 12 months. Yesterday the company's stock fell a further 8 percent after being down more than 50 percent from the year's beginning, as advertisers pulled back to avoid the station's self-generated political controversy. Lerach and Patrick Daniels, San Diego-based partners in Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins, the nation's most successful securities litigation firm, will discuss actions it will take against Sinclair. Lerach Coughlin is a 140-member firm with offices in nine cities that has prosecuted hundreds of shareholder class action and derivative lawsuits, recovering more than $25 billion for clients. (For more on the firm go to: http://www.lerachlaw.com)

WHO:

Bill Lerach and Patrick Daniels, attorneys for Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins LLP

WHAT:

Telephone Press Conference

WHEN:

1 p.m. EDT

Call-in at 800-362-0595. ID is "Lerach-Sinclair"

Update: Media Matters is underwriting a second shareholder lawsuit.

Jon Stewart Reconsidered

I've been re-thinking Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. I, like everyone else, applauded him for his taking the show to task. But I am concerned that we are taking the wrong message from this incident. I am also worried about Jon himself. Reviewing the video last night I was struck by how tired Jon seemed. I've noticed over the last few weeks that his "amusement" over the low state of our political discourse has evaporated. He is just so obviously disgusted by the whole thing that I worry he is headed for a major burn out.

I don't think Jon wants to be treated like some hero for saying the things he said. He just wants things to change. If all that comes out of this is that people send him "BRAVO!" notes then I think he would think he has failed.

And he would be right.

We shouldn't applaud Jon for telling the truth. We should be angry that someone telling the truth is so rare that we deem it worthy of applause.

Falllllliinnngggg Downnnnnnn!

For an entertaining time check out the Yahoo message board for SBGI (Sinclair Broadcasting). Sinclair's stock is in free-fall today. Someone made a funny suggestion: the stock may drop low enough that Air America could buy them out.

Ha!