NORTON META TAG

29 October 2010

A Secret Tea Party Donor Revealed from MOJO 28OKT10

GRASSROOTS fiscal responsibility, eh? How about hypocrisy, lies, manipulation and deception? How about voluntary stupidity and ignorance fueled by prejudice and racism? Mix together with a hefty dose of hate and threatened, implied violence and voila! Tea Party!
Movement leaders are jetting across the country in a donated plane to rally the tea party troops. Meet the deep-pocketed GOP donor who owns "Patriot One.

If tea party leaders jet around the country in a plane donated by a big GOP contributor, are they still "grassroots" activists? It's a question some local tea partiers would like to put to the leaders of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation's largest tea party umbrella groups, which claims to represent 15 million people. Over the past week, national coordinators Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin have been "flying for freedom" and "landing for liberty" across the country in a private jet they've dubbed "Patriot One" to help rally the tea party troops before the election. Along for the ride is an Atlanta filmmaker who's documenting the trip in videos posted on the group's national website. Like this one:


The videos, which show the tea party leaders traveling in the style of Wall Street investment bankers, are hardly a humble display of the usual tea party thrifty pluck. Instead, they show Martin and Meckler (wearing an oversized cowboy hat) getting on and off the jet, taking off in the jet, landing in the jet, even providing narration from inside the cockpit. "Patriot One: The Movie" has angered some tea party activists, especially because Meckler and Martin have not told their members who donated the sleek plane.
On Tuesday, William Temple, a Georgia minister and Revolutionary War re-enactor who is a regular at tea party events, took to the Daily Caller to compare the jet-set Tea Party Patriots leadership to Nancy Pelosi and her alleged misuse of US Air Force resources. He writes:
So what is with Tea Party Patriot's junket 'round the nation? Have Tea Party contributions been so forthcoming that they are financing this massive airlift campaign in the skies from sea to shinning sea, culminating on the west lawn of the nation's Capitol on November 2? And it is a massive airlift of Pelosi proportions! More than 30 flights: starting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on October 21, with two to four flights daily, while accompanied by a "gotcha" film crew to document Jenny Beth and Mark Meckler's every arrival and departure with on-the-spot interviews as they hob nob with Tea Party Patriot local organizers. (Haven't seen Mark in the videos yet?) The films are then shamelessly posted on the Tea Party Patriots website, and emailed nationally (using their national bank of emails), always with the proverbial admonition reminding the brain-dead that the Tea Parties are for "fiscal responsibility, constitutionally-limited government, and free markets." (Huzzah for fiscal responsibility!) …
Temple posed a simple question: Who's paying for the plane? We at Mother Jones thought he deserved an answer. Using publicly available flight-tracking information on the Internet and the schedule posted on the Tea Party Patriots website, we were able to determine the owner of "Patriot One." As Temple suggested, he is not exactly what you'd call a "grassroots" donor. His name is Raymon F. Thompson, and he's the founder and former CEO of Semitool, a semiconductor company he recently sold for $364 million.
On Wednesday, the tea party tour went from Flagstaff, Arizona, to Mesquite, Nevada, and then to Harrison, Arkansas. There's only one private jet that's followed that unique itinerary. It's a 1982 Dassault Falcon 10, a French-made plane that seats four or eight people and looks just like the one featured in the videos on TPP's website. Not only that, it just happens to match the tail number of the plane Meckler and Martin have featured in some of their video. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, that jet is registered to Eagle III, a private company in Kalispell, Montana, a hotbed of tea party and other right-wing activity, including, in the past, armed militia groups. According to Montana corporation records, Eagle III belongs to Thompson.
The jet has an interesting history. Before Thompson sold it, his firm Semitool was paying several million dollars a year to Eagle III and other aircraft companies Thompson controlled to lease the jet and a hanger. Essentially Semitool was paying Thompson millions to provide him with the already deluxe perk of having a private jet. Some commentators found the deal a little egregious—the kind of corporate shenanigans you'd think tea partiers might frown upon. Thompson had to give up the leases before the sale of his company went through. (The details were provided in Securities and Exchange Commission filings.) Thompson has since retired and bought a diner in Kalispell, where he declined Wednesday to take my call.
He hasn't retired from politics, though. Thompson and his wife have been major donors to the Republican Party for more than 15 years. Together, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, they have given more than $130,000 to federal Republican committees and candidates, including $4,800 this year to tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Thompson is also active in Montana politics, where he has supported one of the tea party's most radical candidates, Derek Skees, who's running for a seat in the Montana house. Skees, who showed up at a Memorial Day parade this summer wearing a jacket emblazoned with a Confederate flag, and has been connected to anti-Semitic and militia activity, is a tea party purist. He has advocated nullifying federal health care laws, refusing federal stimulus money, and shutting down many of the state's school districts and giving kids vouchers to help cut the budget by letting the private sector fill the gap.
Thompson is also a contributor to the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank where Tea Party Patriots board member and former congressman Ernest Istook is a "distinguished fellow." Last week, in conjunction with Heritage, Thompson and his wife hosted a big GOP confab for Sen. John Thune (R-SD) whom they've supported for years. (Thune is exploring a presidential run.)
Donating a jet to the Tea Party Patriots seems in keeping with Thompson's politics. It's also very generous. According to an online air chartering website, hiring a jet just to fly from Mesquite to Boone County, Arkansas, as member of the Tea Party Patriots did on Wednesday, can cost anywhere from $17,638 to more than $30,000 for a flight lasting less than three hours. If they'd had to pay for the charter, just for the nine flights in three days we tracked, the bill could have easily topped $150,000—twice that for the entire 30-city tour which culminates on Election Day.
That's quite a tab for a grassroots organization, especially one co-led by a man who recently complained that another tea party operation, Tea Party Express, is not grassroots enough because it's run by a GOP consulting firm. "They try to portray themselves as some sort of grass-roots movement, but they are a classic example of what those on the left would call Astroturf," Meckler said of the Tea Party Express in an AP story last month. "They are fake, they're not from the grassroots. These are longtime Republican political activists with their own agenda."
Thompson, of course, probably also has his own agenda in lending his jet to Tea Party Patriots. And his connection to the jet might also be a clue to the source of a recent windfall the group, which it has used to fund its local get-out-the-vote efforts. Last month, TPP held a press conference to announce it had received a $1 million donation, but then refused to identify the donor. Given Thompson's generosity with his private jet, tea party activists could be forgiven for wondering if he's also the secret million-dollar man.Tea Party Patriots cofounders Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth aboard Patriot One.Tea Party Patriots cofounders Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth aboard Patriot One.
Photos from the Tea Party Patriots' National Tour Youtube page.

28 October 2010

TAKE ACTION: A VOTE FOR REVOLUTION FOODS IS A VOTE FOR CHILD NUTRITION, VOTE BY SUNDAY 31OKT10

YOUTOPIA WILL ALSO REWARD A $15000.00 GRANT TO A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROFIT COMPANY.....I CAST MY 3 VOTES FOR REVOLUTION FOODS FOR THEIR WORK IN PROVIDING HEALTHY FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION TO KIDS IN SCHOOL. PLEASE GO TO THE WEBSITE AND VOTE FOR THEM, THEY ARE IN 3RD PLACE! Click the link or header of this post and follow the instructions to vote!
http://youtopia2010.uservoice.com/forums/81545-socially-responsible-for-profit


Turning the school lunch experience into a teachable moment

Revolution Foods - Profit - www.revfoods.com
At Revolution Foods, we believe every child's education should include healthy eating and learning about nutritious food. Our vision is to turn the school lunch experience into a robust teachable moment. We would like to work with Free Range to design effective ways to educate students about the real-time benefits of the food they are consuming (e.g. innovative food labels) and also design ways to reinforce those messages through the appropriate digital medium (web, SMS, etc.). During the 2009-2010 school year, Revolution Foods served over 6.8M meals. That's a lot of teachable moments!

TAKE ACTION: A Vote for Earthjustice is a Vote for Clean Air VOTE BY SUNDAY 31OKT10

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO VOTE FOR EARTHJUSTICE AND HELP THEM WIN A $15000.00 GRANT FROM FREE RANGE STUDIO'S YOUTOPIA GRANT CONTEST! Click the vote buttom and follow the instructions, right now they are in 1st place!

Earthjustice. Because the earth needs a good lawyer.
Youtopia logo.
Thank you for all you've done in the past to shout out for clean air! Earthjustice is preparing for a busy year of work to reduce air pollution, and here's how you can continue to help these efforts: Vote for us in the Youtopia contest!
We're participating in Free Range Studio's Youtopia 2010 Grant contest, and we need your votes! The contest winner will receive a $15,000 grant from Free Range towards making their project a reality. Here's our project proposal:
Dodging Pollution: An Underdog Story
Some of the worst air polluters have dodged controls for decades, pumping dirty air that makes playing outside a dangerous game for kids across the U.S.
Though 2011 brings unprecedented opportunities to clean up these polluters, only public pressure can counteract the polluter lobby's influence.
A humorous video can help: in a dodgeball game between kids and pollution, large men dressed as mercury, soot, and other pollutants hurl dodgeballs labeled with diseases (e.g. asthma ) while kids counter with balls marked "health" and "clean air". The message: join the kids' team to ensure dirty industries don't dodge clean air rules again.
Sound good to you? Then cast your votes (you get three of them) for Earthjustice! Your votes can help Earthjustice advance to the next round of the contest. Vote online today—all votes must be received by Sunday, October 31!
How to Vote for Earthjustice—and for Clean Air:
Step 2: Click on the "vote" button on the upper left.
Step 3: Cast your votes! You have three votes—you can choose to give all three to Earthjustice (click on the "3 votes" button), or you can give us one or two and give the remaining votes to other contest entrants.
Bonus: Leave a comment, and tell Youtopia why we all need clean air!
Vote today!
Thank you, and don't forget to bring your friends to the Youtopia voting booth—forward this email to your friends, or share on Facebook and Twitter!
Sincerely,
Earthjustice
Because the earth needs a good lawyer
Vote today!

Another Wiretap Expansion Proposal, Facebook Privacy Breach and More from the ACLU 23OKT10

UPDATES on DADT, FBI surveillance, voting rights, illegal deportation, the Pledge of Allegiance, former A.G. john ashcroft and illegal detentionand the Supreme Court case, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 
ACLU Online

In This Issue

What's Next for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

Planning to Vote on November 2? Know Your Rights!

Supreme Court Will Hear ACLU Case Against Former Attorney General Ashcroft

Expanded Wiretapping Capabilities = Potential For Abuse

The Best Person for the Job...Fired for Being Gay.

Jailtime for Refusing the Pledge: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast

Mentally Disabled American Citizen Deported to Mexico

Facebook Application Privacy Breach Exposed

Jailtime for Refusing the Pledge: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast

A lawyer in Mississippi has been thrown in jail for refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance.

>> Listen to the podcast.

Mentally Disabled American Citizen Deported to Mexico

The ACLU filed lawsuits in federal courts in Georgia and North Carolina last week on behalf of Mark Lyttle, a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent with mental disabilities. He was wrongfully deported to Mexico and forced to endure over four months of living in the streets, shelters and prisons of Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

Lyttle's brush with immigration officials began when he was about to be released from a North Carolina jail where he was serving a short sentence for touching a worker's backside in a halfway house that serves individuals with mental disabilities. Even though they had plenty of evidence that he was a U.S. citizen—including his Social Security number and the names of his parents—corrections officials turned him over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an undocumented immigrant.

Although ICE knew of Lyttle's long and documented history of mental illness and noted he did not comprehend the investigation of his status, he was not offered legal assistance and was deported to Mexico.

"What happened to Mark Lyttle is unconscionable," said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Our Constitution and our laws demand fair treatment for people with mental disabilities in any court, including immigration courts. Pushing Mr. Lyttle through proceedings that he clearly couldn't understand and then deporting him was not only inhumane but a gross violation of his due process rights."

So, how could this have happened? The answer, as reported by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch in a report issued this July, is that both ICE and the Department of Justice have failed to implement meaningful safeguards for people with mental disabilities facing possible deportation from the United States.

>> Learn more about this case.

back to top

Facebook Application Privacy Breach Exposed

This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the most popular Facebook apps consistently share information about you and your friends with advertisers and other third parties, no matter what your privacy settings are. This isn't the first time a significant and ongoing privacy invasion and violation of Facebook's own rules has been uncovered. Facebook needs to stop addressing this problem with secret "policy enforcement" and start putting choices and control back where it belongs: in your hands.

To its credit, Facebook has taken some steps to address this but has yet to offer a complete solution. That is why we have continued to push Facebook to improve its privacy controls and address the "app gap." Unfortunately, Facebook's response to the ACLU's Open Letter was to claim that it "heard these concerns" but had already done what needed to be done.

As the recent breach clearly shows, there is definitely still more to be done. In order to make sure that personal information about you is only accessed by people and developers you trust, Facebook must give you complete and meaningful control over which apps can access your information and what information these apps access.

>> Take action: Sign the petition to Facebook demanding better control over your personal information.

back to top

Help fund us with just a click. Vote now at CREDO

Send to a friend
Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.
October 23, 2010

What's Next for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"



The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is in the news a lot these days. And it seems as if this discriminatory and unconstitutional policy is teetering—ready to fall.

As you know, the courts keep striking serious blows against DADT. Recently, the ACLU won a major victory when a judge ordered the reinstatement of an Air Force Major wrongfully discharged under DADT. And a federal court in California, in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, ordered an end to enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

But, our elected leaders—starting with the President—have to stop avoiding efforts to end DADT and, instead, start seizing them.

It is time for President Obama to lead by putting a decisive end to DADT

>> Take action: Tell President Obama to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

back to top

Planning to Vote on November 2? Know Your Rights!



With Election Day right around the corner, we have some important tools to help people exercise their fundamental right to vote. You never know what might happen at the polls—that's why voters must be as informed as possible.

We're working hard to ensure that all voters' rights are protected and that every vote is counted on November 2. Here are some things to keep in mind:
  1. Check your voter registration status.
  2. Locate your polling place and note the hours of operation.
  3. Plan ahead, particularly if you require some form of assistance.
  4. Vote early or absentee if possible. If you plan to vote at the polls, go early in the day to avoid the last-minute rush.
  5. Bring a valid form of identification, even if it's not required.
  6. Wear comfortable and adequate clothing in case of long lines or inclement weather. Do not wear candidate-specific clothing.
  7. Take your time and read all instructions carefully. Ask for help if you need it.
  8. Be wary of rumors and false information that may be designed to discourage you from voting.
  9. Report any voting problems or irregularities to state officials and/or call the ACLU's voter protection hotline at 877-523-2792.
  10. Don't forget to vote! Remind your friends and family, too.
>> ACLU affiliates are also distributing voter education materials around the country that inform voters of their rights on Election Day and how to avoid problems when casting a ballot. Learn more.

back to top

Supreme Court Will Hear ACLU Case Against Former Attorney General Ashcroft



The Supreme Court has agreed to hear al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ACLU's case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of Abdullah al-Kidd.
>> Learn more about al-Kidd v. Ashcroft.

>> Learn more about other Supreme Court cases the ACLU is involved with this term.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ACLU's case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of Abdullah al-Kidd, a Kansas-born U.S. citizen who was wrongly arrested and detained as a material witness in 2003.

The federal material witness statute allows law enforcement to detain a witness whose testimony prosecutors believe is material at a criminal trial if it believes that witness won't testify voluntarily. Al-Kidd was arrested and detained ostensibly so he'd testify as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar al-Hussayen, who attended the same university as al-Kidd and was charged with visa fraud.

During his 16-day detention, al-Kidd was moved to three separate federal detention facilities in three different states—and was sometimes held naked and shackled hand-and-foot. After he was released, al-Kidd's travel was restricted to only four states, and he had to surrender his passport and report to probation officers.

But al-Kidd was never asked to testify against al-Hussayen. And al-Kidd himself was never charged with a crime. So, why was he being treated like a criminal?

Prior to 9/11, the material witness law was used sparingly to ensure witnesses would be available to testify in criminal cases. After 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft retooled the law into an investigative detention statute, allowing the government to arrest and detain individuals for whom they lacked probable cause to charge with a crime. Our lawsuit charges that this Ashcroft policy violates fundamental constitutional principles and that al-Kidd was a victim of that policy. The district and appellate courts agreed.

>> Learn more about al-Kidd v. Ashcroft.

>> Learn more about other Supreme Court cases the ACLU is involved with this term.

back to top

Expanded Wiretapping Capabilities = Potential For Abuse



According to a report in The New York Times this week, the Obama administration will be submitting proposals to Congress next year seeking to expand its wiretapping capacity by overhauling the law requiring telecommunications companies to ensure their networks can be wiretapped.

The administration claims that Congress must rework the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)—which compels telecommunications and broadband companies to ensure their services are wiretap-ready—in order to keep up with technological changes in the companies' services. The administration is also asking that the government's power to enforce compliance by companies with the law be strengthened. However, the government's authority under CALEA to lawfully collect information from telecommunications and broadband companies is currently sufficient, as is its ability to enforce penalties for noncompliance.

Does this sound familiar? In 2007 and 2008, in an analogous situation, the Bush administration pushed to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by claiming technological changes had made it more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor foreign communications. The former administration successfully used the opportunity, under the guise of a technical fix, to radically expand the government's power to monitor Americans' international communications through passage of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in July 2008. The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the FAA in federal court.

>> Take action: Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.

back to top

The Best Person for the Job...Fired for Being Gay.



The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Andre Cooley, a corrections officer for the Forrest County Sherriff’s Department who was fired when his supervisors discovered that he was gay.
>> Watch the video to learn more.
Andre Cooley, a corrections officer with an exemplary record for the Forrest County Sherriff's Department in Mississippi, was fired when his supervisors discovered that he was gay. The ACLU filed a lawsuit this week on his behalf.

This past June, while at home and off-duty, Cooley called 911 after his boyfriend became physically violent. When police officers arrived at the house in response to the emergency call, Andre's boyfriend "outed" him to one of his superiors. The next day, the Staff Sergeant of Jail Operations informed Andre that he was being permanently terminated. Andre asked the staff sergeant if he was being fired because he was gay, and the staff sergeant responded, "Yes."

"Andre's sexual orientation has no bearing on his ability to perform the job of a corrections officer," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "It is well established that a public employer cannot fire an employee based on irrational fears and prejudices against gay people. But Andre's case is also a reminder that people in Mississippi who work for private companies are left almost entirely unprotected from anti-gay discrimination. There is currently no state or federal law protecting against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would make it illegal to discriminate against an employee for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. President Obama has said he will sign ENDA if it passes Congress, but even though ENDA was first introduced over 16 years ago and has broad support in both the Senate and the House, it still has not passed Congress.

>> Take action: Urge Congress to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

back to top

Join us on...
facebook twitter YouTube
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
Lisa Sock and Joe McLaughlin,
Editors

Privacy Statement
This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.

Click here to forward this message.

FRANK WOLF SO SCARED HIS CAMPAIGN IS RESORTING TO LIES ABOUT JEFF BARNETT 28OKT10

FRANK WOLF is running scared and so just sent a mass mailing to voters in Virginia's 10th congressional district lying about Jeff Barnett's position on taxes. Hey Frank, as a person of faith have you ever heard of the 9th Commandment? You know.....you shall not bear false witness??? So the best thing to do with this campaign propaganda is write refused, return to sender and drop it in a mail box (so Wolf's campaign has to pay the return postage) and see below from Jefff Barnett's campaign to donate your time or money to fight this last minute deceptive propaganda campaign by Wolf.

.
 
Dear Craig,

Frank Wolf is worried.

Yesterday afternoon, thousands of people across the district opened their mailboxes to discover a piece of campaign literature that contained a rather fanciful conception of economic reality. Frank Wolf accused me of supporting tax increases on all Virginians - even though I've been a firm proponent of the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts that the majority of Americans received this year, thanks to Democratic leadership. For the record, those are tax cuts Mr. Wolf voted against. 
We're under attack - will you help us fight back against the Republican smear campaign?
Mr. Wolf also seems to think that rolling back tax breaks for the top 2% - those who make more than $250,000 - would be a "tax increase for many Virginians." Perhaps Mr. Wolf runs in circles where most people make more than $250,000, but that's not how we live in the 10th District. Here in Virginia, most people don't make that much money. Wolf's comments betray a profound ignorance of the reality his constituents face, and his attacks on me are dishonest. I'm dedicated to keeping taxes low for working professionals in Virginia, but Frank Wolf is desperately trying to convince people otherwise.

We're working hard to talk to voters and counteract this deception, but we need you're help to reach people in time. Can you contribute to help us strengthen our field team?
We're also taking the fight to the opinion pages: click here to write a letter to the editor of your local paper!  

There are just five days left to win this election. I'm working every hour, fighting for every vote. It's great to have you by my side.
Sincerely, 

Jeff Barnett


 P.S. If you can't make it to your polling place November 2nd, click here to find your in-person absentee voting location and make sure you vote by Saturday at 5:00 PM!
Take Action!            Contribute!




Paid for by Jeff Barnett for Congress


P.O. Box 941
McLean, VA 22101

New Alaska Poll -- Democrat Scott McAdams Surges Past Embattled Joe Miller 28OKT10

I'M not counting chickens yet........but this is SWEET!!!!!!!!!!



A new poll conducted by Hays Research confirms what we already intuitively know. Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller's candidacy is in big trouble.
The percentage of Alaskans who feel either "somewhat negative" or "very negative" about Miller has skyrocketed in recent weeks to an astronomical 68 percent. Only 8 percent feel "somewhat negative" and the remainder, a jaw-dropping 60 percent, feel "very negative" about Miller as a candidate.
A series of gaffes, inconsistencies, and controversial statements to the press, in addition to the arrest of a journalist by Miller security guards have come one on top of another, causing a trend that can only be described as a campaign death spiral. Miller's hardcore supporters who view him "very favorably" have held in there, showing a decrease of only 3 percent since Oct. 6, but his "somewhat favorable" rating went from 20 percent to 9 percent in that time. Miller's "somewhat unfavorable" rating dipped from 13 percent to 8 percent, underscoring the voter stampede toward "very unfavorable" which skyrocketed from 38 percent to 60 percent in less than three weeks.


If there could be even worse news for the Miller camp it's that this devastating poll occurred before the headline "Miller's employee records reveal numerous lies" appeared on newsstands on the front page of today's Anchorage Daily News, which quotes a damning email in which Miller admits he repeatedly lied about his misuse of Borough computers for political purposes while he was a part-time lawyer for the Borough in 2008.
This all begs the question, if Miller is hemorrhaging voters, where are they going? The numbers seem to bear out the anti-incumbency sentiment, and voter frustration with the "establishment," because Miller's supporters seem to be jumping ship mostly for McAdams.
Hays asked the question (replicating the experience of the voter going in to the booth in which they will not see the name of write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski on the ballot), "If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Joe Miller, Scott McAdams, Frederick Haase, Tim Carter, Ted Gianoutsos, or another candidate you have to write in, for whom would you vote, or are you undecided?
The result? Scott McAdams surging ahead of Joe Miller with 29 percent, Joe Miller with 23 percent, and the write-in candidate (most of which are presumably Lisa Murkowski) with a small gain bringing her to 34 percent, and undecided voters still at 13 percent. This is the first time that McAdams has polled better than Miller, and he did it by six points, comfortably outside the margin of error of 4.8 percent -- a watershed moment for the McAdams campaign.

Just for fun, I took the information from the Hays poll and added trend lines, projecting them out to Nov. 2, Election Day.

According to the basic trend lines, Joe Miller continues the plunge, and McAdams and Murkowski meet at the summit.
So what does this all mean?
First, for everyone who is terrified of Joe Miller, take heart. With a 68 percent disapproval rating, and his trend line looking like the flight of the Hindenberg even before the latest scandal hit the news, the chances of him actually pulling it off and winning this election are slim. And that's a good thing for anyone in Alaska who was holding their nose and voting for Murkowski based on fear of Miller and not based on their values. Alaskans who felt forced to vote for Murkowski because they believed it was the only way to save the state from Joe Miller, you're off the hook. You no longer have to vote for someone who has voted against the best interest of Alaska, and with party leadership more than 90 percent of the time. You no longer have to vote for someone who has been bankrolled by corporations and outside interests. You no longer have to vote for someone who will pretty much vote the same way as Miller anyway. In other words, you no longer have to vote for Miller Lite.
It also means that Lisa Murkowski's newest slogan, "A Vote for McAdams is a Vote for Miller," has just been neutered by the numbers.
More good news for McAdams "poll watchers" is that no poll can take into account the looming threat of legal challenges by both political parties to write-in votes, the inevitable voter error, or the unsuccessful history of write-in candidacies. But despite the fact that this type of race is notoriously difficult to poll, there is no doubt, considering the trend over time, that this race is looking more and more like McAdams' campaign slogan -- it IS "about Alaska."
So, if you are an Alaskan voter who has found it increasingly impossible to put your state in the hands of the Tea Party candidate, or leave your state in the hands of the corporate "party line" candidate, you're not the only one.
After several successful debates, a consistent positive message about what is best for Alaska, and a pledge to never accept one dollar from corporate PACs, Scott McAdams is in the middle of a grassroots surge, gaining an unbelievable 13 percent since Oct. 6, with no signs of stopping. If there's one thing that Joe Miller got right, it's his mantra, "If you want to change D.C., you've got to change the people that are there." Alaskans seem to agree with the sentiment, but they no longer believe that Joe Miller is the kind of change they want.
.pdf of Miller +/-
.pdf of Senate Head to Head

White House And Bill Kristol: Despite Not Being In 'Pledge', GOP Will Privatize Social Security 27SEP10 from HUFFPOST

THE republican's plan to privatize Social Security as outlined by Rep paul ryan r WI will spell economic disaster for those on SS now and will destroy the program for future generations. The control of the House after Novembers elections will start the process, one which the gop, tea-baggers and corporate America will do their best to hide from the American public with their massive campaign of lies, deception and propaganda, one the American electorate seems to be swallowing hook, line and sinker...... This from HuffPost
The decision by GOP leadership to largely punt on the question of entitlement reform in their 21-page outline for governance raises an interesting electoral question. If Republicans aren't explicitly calling for Social Security's privatization, can the Democrats realistically campaign as if they are?
The subject was brought up on a conference call with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer and, not surprisingly, Pfeiffer was quick to answer.
"It is in [Rep.] Paul Ryan's plan," he said. "The leadership in Congress, who is seeking to return [to] the majority, is the same leadership who pushed this before. And if the Republicans want to come out and take that off the table, we are certainly open to that. But they have pointedly refused to do that."
Pfeiffer's argument isn't without some basis. The onus does rest on Republicans to detail their plans for entitlement reform. And so long as they punt on the matter, the evidence the voting public should go on is what remains out there -- not only Ryan's roadmap but the various statements from Republican candidates supporting privatization if not Social Security's elimination altogether.
But in terms of a strict political calculus, Pfeiffer ignored a far more potent charge. Even though GOP leadership left out substantive reforms to Social Security in their 'Pledge', some of the top voices in the party assume it as a fait accompli that there would be a push for privatization should Republicans regain congressional power.
As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said on "Fox News Sunday" this past weekend:
There are not gonna be earmarks next year. They can't get all their caucus to agree to it now, but if Republicans take the House, there will be such sentiment of the Tea Party nation that they will not, in my view, do earmarks. They will really cut discretionary spending. Paul Ryan will lay down the budget on April 1st, 2011, as chairman of the Budget Committee, that will address entitlements. They're being reasonable; they're being bold in a reasonable way.

Tell the EPA to keep dangerous smog out of the air we breathe from NRDC 25OKT10

CLICK the header to join the NRDC's fight for cleaner air!


Tell the EPA to keep dangerous smog out of the air we breathe


Take Action

Take Action Now

Millions of Americans live in areas where smog pollution from power plants, factories and vehicles renders the air unhealthy to breathe. Smog (also referred to as ground-level ozone pollution) can cause asthma attacks, hospitalizations and premature deaths. Children, the elderly and people with lung disease are most adversely affected by high concentrations of ozone.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to soon issue tighter standards on smog. The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has unanimously recommended that the standards be tightened to adequately protect public health. According to the EPA's own analysis, stronger standards could prevent as many as 12,000 premature deaths, 58,000 asthma attacks, 21,000 hospital and emergency room visits and 5,300 non-fatal heart attacks every year.

Unsurprisingly, however, polluters and their allies are pushing back hard, arguing that the standard shouldn't be strengthened.
What to do
Send a message urging EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley to protect our health by strengthening smog standards.
Take Action Now

The Chamber's Foreign Oil Money 25OKT10 from MOJO

As we reported earlier, European companies are using political action committees to spend quite a bit on lawmakers who have blocked climate legislation in the Senate. But as Wonk Room reported over the weekend, foreign oil and gas interests have also directed quite a bit of cash to the US Chamber of Commerce, which is running a $75 million campaign focused on ousting congressional Democrats.
Wonk Room notes that a number of foreign oil and gas companies pay their member dues to the Chamber of Commerce’s 501c(6) account, which is the same account that funds its political ads. Those ads have included attacks on Democratic incumbents for supporting the House cap-and-trade bill (a.k.a. the "job-killing energy tax")—folks like Joe Sestak (D-Penn.), a House member currently running for Senate, and Reps. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and Betsy Markey (D-Colo.). Among the groups paying into this electoral war chest, and the interests they represent:
– Avantha Group, India (at least $7,500 in annual member dues): power plants
– The Bahrain Petroleum Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil campany
– Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil company
– Essar Group, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas, coal power
– GMR, Bangalore, India ($15,000): coal power, mining
– Hinduja Group, London, UK ($15,000): the Gulf Oil group
– Jindal Power, New Delhi, India ($15,000): coal power
– Lahmeyer International, Frankfurt, Germany ($7,500): power plant engineering
– Punj Lloyd, Gurgaon, India ($15,000): offshore pipelines
– Reliance Industries, Mumbai, India ($15,000): oil and gas, petrochemicals
– SNC Lavalin, Montreal, Canada ($7,500): mining, power plant, and oil & gas engineering
– Tata Group, Mumbai, India ($15,000): power plants, oil & gas
– Walchandnagar Industries, Mumbai, India ($7,500): power plant, oil & gas engineering
– Welspun, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas exploration
The Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Citizens United has allowed the Chamber and other interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections without disclosing their donors. Democrats have latched onto the idea that the decision has also allowed groups like the Chamber to funnel foreign money into our elections, unbeknowst to the average citizen. The Chamber says it has accounting methods in place to separate the money and ensure that these funds from other countries aren't being spent on US elections, and as my colleague Nick Baumann pointed out earlier this month, the amount of domestic money pouring through the Chamber is probably a bigger concern anyway than the relatively small total from foreign corporations. But the money flowing into the Chamber's coffers from overseas is worth pointing out, as these oil and gas interests clearly have good reason to want to sway debate over climate and energy in the US.
Advertisement

TRUTH-O-METER SAYS FALSE; Michael Steele says Obama's claims hypocritical: that his presidential campaign was asked to disclose donors and refused from POLITIFACT 24OKT10

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Steele

"When President, then candidate, Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it."

Michael Steele on Sunday, October 24th, 2010 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Michael Steele says Obama's claims hypocritical: that his presidential campaign was asked to disclose donors and refused

For weeks, Democratic leaders have been complaining about the tens of millions of dollars being poured into attack ads against the party's candidates. The ads have been funded by independent groups  -- like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS -- that have no legal requirement (or inclination) to disclose their donors. President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say those groups have allowed anonymous special interest groups, perhaps even foreign corporations, undo influence on this election, threatening our very democracy.

Asked about it on NBC's Meet the Press on Oct. 23, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called the Democrats' charge hypocritical.

"When President, then candidate, Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it. So don't give me this high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou attitude about special interests flooding the political marketplace."

We've fact-checked several Democrats' claims about attack ads aimed at their candidates being financed by secret foreign donors.

Here, we're checking the counter-claim from Steele, that during the 2008 presidential campaign, "Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it."

Despite the context of the conversation, Steele was not contending that the Obama campaign was asked to disclose donors to independent groups funding attack ads. That's a somewhat new phenomenon this election cycle. Trade groups and other 501 (c) groups were always allowed to keep donors anonymous. But the Supreme Court's Citizen United case upped the stakes with a ruling that allows corporations to contribute unlimited amounts to independent efforts to support or oppose a candidate.

What Steele was talking about is different.

We contacted the RNC for details about Steele's claim and were pointed toward an Associated Press investigation that found the Obama campaign had not properly safeguarded against illegal foreign donations in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. Candidates can, of course, accept foreign donations from American citizens living overseas, and they are supposed to return any money donated by foreign nationals. But the AP investigation found "clear evidence that the campaigns of both Obama and John McCain took money first and asked questions later. Shining a light on a weakness in the nation's campaign finance laws, the review turned up a smattering of illegal foreign donations to Obama as well as missing details in federal paperwork the law requires from Obama and McCain."

The issue was particularly striking, the story noted, as Obama was getting two-thirds of his contributions via the Internet. Online donors were asked to check a box certifying they were U.S. citizens. Although the Federal Elections Commission instructs campaigns to seek a donor's current U.S. passport when accepting money from an overseas address, many donors contacted by the AP said they were not asked to produce one before making their donation.

In one case highlighted in the story, the Obama campaign accepted a $500 donation from a Canadian man who wrote "I am not an American citizen!" on his contribution.

The Federal Elections Commission requires that "treasurers of political committees exercise best efforts to obtain, maintain and report the complete identification of each contributor whose contributions aggregate more than $200 per calendar year."

The Obama campaign maintained it was complying with the law and that it met the "best efforts" standard with extensive "back-end review" of donations. That means the campaign accepted money and later checked to make sure the donations were proper. And campaign officials say that when they discovered illegal contributions from foreign nationals, the money was returned.

The RNC raised another issue to underpin Steele's accusation. It cited an Oct. 29, 2008, story in the Washington Post that called out the Obama campaign for "allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity."

According to the story, revelations about questionable donations from individuals using fake names "prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor."

The story did not quantify how much the Obama campaign received in prepaid credit cards.

The Washington Post claim, though, wasn't that the Obama campaign refused to disclose the donors. It's that the campaign, by accepting donations via prepaid credit cards, made it impossible to verify whether the person was an American citizen or had exceeded donation limits.

"You don't know," said Doug Heye, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "The rhetoric from the Obama campaign (about campaign finance disclosure) never matched the reality."

In October 2008, the RNC asked the Federal Election Commission to look into every donation, large and small, made to the Obama campaign.

According to the complaint, "The RNC believes that" the Obama campaign "has (1) accepted prohibited foreign national contributions and (2) knowingly done so through its failure to reasonably investigate questionable contributions originating abroad."

Heye said the FEC has not yet responded to the complaint.

Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said "the Obama campaign required donors to check a box confirming that they were U.S. citizens or green-card holders and refunded any contribution that came from any foreign national or other prohibited source." Woodhouse said the charge by Steele was "a lie – and is just smokescreen by the RNC to distract from the secret money being spent by its allies like the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove."

Contributions from foreign nationals and people using fake names inevitably slip into campaigns accepting donations from hundreds of thousands of people, said Dave Levinthal of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. It's incumbent on campaigns to make a good faith effort to identify those bad donations and return them.

Levinthal said he didn't remember the issue of illegal contributions being a "a huge, overriding issue" in the 2008 presidential campaign.

In fact, an analysis of campaign contributions by the Center for Responsive Politics found that the Obama campaign scored slightly higher than McCain's when it came to full disclosure of donors. The center found the Obama campaign fully disclosed 90 percent of the donations to the campaign, as opposed to 87 percent for the McCain campaign. The report found no information about the donor's employer and/or occupation listed for 6 percent of the Obama campaign's contributions, as opposed to 9 percent for McCain.

We think Steele's comment is misleading in the context of responding to Democrats' complaints about tens of millions of dollars anonymously making their way into this election via independent groups like Crosssroads GPS. Steele's comments aren't directly related to that issue.

The RNC says Steele was referring to the fact that the Obama campaign accepted donations from prepaid credit cards, which makes it almost impossible to verify the donor. It may be a legitimate campaign finance issue, but it's not the same as saying that the Obama campaign was asked during the 2008 presidential campaign to reveal its donors and refused (as Steele alleged). The campaign readily provided the names of large donors as required by law. And there's no evidence that contributions from prepaid credit cards were anywhere near the huge sums being spent by independent groups in this election.

As for accepting money from foreign nationals, that's an issue all campaigns deal with (though more so for Obama, who got a lot of money from Americans overseas). Again, it's not that the Obama campaign was asked for names of foreign donors and refused. The campaign had names, and in most cases assurances from the donors, that they were American citizens. The allegation in the Washington Post story was that the campaign's vetting of foreign donations was not stringent enough up front. There was no issue of the Obama campaign willfully refusing to disclose the names of foreign donors. In fact, it was the disclosure of those names that allowed AP reporters to discover some of the donations were improper.

And so we rate Steele's comment False.