John McCain's latest attempt to link Barack Obama to extremism Rashid Khalidi

John McCain's latest attempt to link Barack Obama to extremism Rashid Khalidi
WITH THE presidential campaign clock ticking down, Sen. John McCain has suddenly discovered a new boogeyman to link to Sen. Barack Obama: a sometimes controversial but widely respected Middle East scholar named Rashid Khalidi. In the past couple of days, Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have likened Mr. Khalidi, the director of a Middle East institute at Columbia University, to neo-Nazis; called him "a PLO spokesman"; and suggested that the Los Angeles Times is hiding something sinister by refusing to release a videotape of a 2003 dinner in honor of Mr. Khalidi at which Mr. Obama spoke. Mr. McCain even threw former Weatherman Bill Ayers into the mix, suggesting that the tape might reveal that Mr. Ayers -- a terrorist-turned-professor who also has been an Obama acquaintance -- was at the dinner.

For the record, Mr. Khalidi is an American born in New York who graduated from Yale a couple of years after George W. Bush. For much of his long academic career, he taught at the University of Chicago, where he and his wife became friends with Barack and Michelle Obama. In the early 1990s, he worked as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in Madrid and Washington sponsored by the first Bush administration. We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis -- or even to Mr. Ayers -- is a vile smear.

Perhaps unsurprising for a member of academia, Mr. Khalidi holds complex views. In an article published this year in the Nation magazine, he scathingly denounced Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and U.S. Middle East policy but also condemned Palestinians for failing to embrace a nonviolent strategy. He said that the two-state solution favored by the Bush administration (and Mr. Obama) was "deeply flawed" but conceded there were also "flaws in the alternatives."

If Palin becomes the McCain campaign’s scapegoat

If Palin becomes the McCain campaign’s scapegoat
"A new ethics complaint has been filed against Sarah Palin, accusing the Alaska governor of abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her," the AP reports. "The complaint alleges that the Republican vice presidential nominee used her official position as governor for personal gain, violating a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. It follows a report by The Associated Press last week that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters' commercial flights, including events where they weren't invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business. In some cases, Palin also has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls."

The Boston Globe on Palin's energy independence speech: "Despite Palin's attempt to distance McCain's energy policies from those of the Bush administration, their priorities are largely similar, especially more domestic production."

Politico’s Roger Simon asks this question: If Palin becomes the McCain campaign’s scapegoat, what does that say about McCain since he picked her? “John McCain's campaign is looking for a scapegoat. It is looking for someone to blame if McCain loses on Tuesday. And it has decided on Sarah Palin. In recent days, a McCain ‘adviser’ told Dana Bash of CNN: ‘She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.’”

”Imagine not taking advice from the geniuses at the McCain campaign. What could Palin be thinking? Also, a “top McCain adviser” told Mike Allen of Politico that Palin is ‘a whack job.’ Maybe she is. But who chose to put this ‘whack job’ on the ticket? Wasn’t it John McCain? And wasn’t it his first presidential-level decision?”

McCain and Palin Spread the Wealth

McCain and Palin Spread the Wealth
Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:


YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist. ?

McCain adviser Palin is ‘a whack job.’

McCain adviser Palin is ‘a whack job.’
The infighting within the McCain campaign has become increasingly public, with growing frustrating directed at Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Last week, CNN reported that one McCain source called Palin “a diva” who “takes no advice from anyone.” Politico’s Mike Allen reports another McCain adviser’s criticism of Palin:

***In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.”

Asked to respond to reports that she is “going rogue,” Palin declared them “absolutely, 100 percent false,” adding, “John McCain and I, and our camps, are working together to get John McCain elected.” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted Palin’s word choice: “Your camps, plural? A McCain camp and a Palin camp? That does not sound good.”

McCain The Bush Socialist Redistributing To The Rich

Redistributing To The Rich
BUSH REDISTRIBUTED TO THE WEALTHY: An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows that President Bush's economic policies have "redistributed wealth to the richest Americans and left the majority with stagnating wages and declining household incomes." Looking at the effects of the first three Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that "the percentage by which the effective tax rate was cut for high-income families was nearly twice the rate cut for those in the middle of the income spectrum." Meanwhile, the administration's failure to raise the minimum wage coupled with its poor enforcement of federal wage and hour laws, trade agreements, and union rights further undermined the economic security of middle and lower-income Americans. Data prepared by the IRS from tax returns filed during the post-9/11 recovery (2002 to 2006) reveals that household income grew by $863 billion during the period. "The 15,000 families at the top of the income scale saw their annual incomes go from about $15 million a year to nearly $30 million," accounting for more than 25 percent of all of the growth in income for the entire country. The remaining 1.7 million families in the top 1 percent of households accounted for nearly another 50 percent. But while the "top 10 percent of families accounted for 95.3 percent of the nation's income growth between 2002 and 2006," the average real income for families in the bottom 90 percent of households increased by about $300 to a little less than $30,700."

MCCAIN WOULD DOUBLE DOWN: McCain claims that "in this country, we believe in spreading opportunity." But his Bush-like economic policies would only further America's income inequality. In fact, by extending Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy and proposing $175 billion in tax breaks to America's largest corporations, McCain's regressive economic agenda would redistribute wealth to the richest Americans during a period of stagnating wages and growing economic anxiety.

Palin's Trajectory to National Prominence Powered by her Anti-Environmentalism

Palin's Trajectory to National Prominence Powered by her Anti-Environmentalism
Sarah Palin's candidacy is now widely viewed as a political liability. As a result, the substantive threat posed by her candidacy is in danger of being overlooked. But the more we find out about her, the worse she looks.

A new article in The New Yorker makes clear that Palin's trajectory to national prominence was, in fact, powered by her anti-environmental instincts. In 2007 The Weekly Standard and The National Review both ran cruises to Alaska for conservative heavyweights.

The cruises stopped in Juneau. Governor Palin had William Kristol, the Standard's Washington-based editor; Fred Barnes, the magazine's executive editor; and Michael Gerson, Bush's former chief speechwriter, over to the governor's mansion for lunch. The article then goes on to describe how Palin's rise to national prominence got its start:

According to a former Alaska official who attended the lunch, the visitors wanted to do something "touristy," so a "flight-seeing" trip was arranged. Their destination was a gold mine in Berners Bay, some forty-five miles north of Juneau. For Palin and several staff members, the state leased two helicopters from a private company, Coastal, for two and a half hours, at a cost of four thousand dollars. (The pundits paid for their own aircraft.) Palin explained that environmentalists had invoked the Clean Water Act to oppose a plan by a mining company, Coeur Alaska, to dump waste from the extraction of gold into a pristine lake in the Tongass National Forest. Palin rejected the environmentalists' claims. (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Coeur Alaska, and the dispute is now before the Supreme Court.) Barnes was dazzled by Palin's handling of the hundred or so mineworkers who gathered to meet the group. "She clearly was not intimidated by crowds -- or men!" he said. "She's got real star quality."

By the time the Weekly Standard pundits returned to the cruise ship, Paulette Simpson said, "they were very enamored of her." In July, 2007, Barnes wrote the first major national article spotlighting Palin, titled "The Most Popular Governor," for The Weekly Standard. Simpson said, "That first article was the result of having lunch." Bitney agreed: "I don't think she realized the significance until after it was all over. It got the ball rolling."

So her campaign was born because of her defiance of the Clean Water Act. But Palin has also shown a stunning disregard for other environmental values, as a recent article in The New Republic makes clear. Alaska, for example, has a birth-defect rate that's twice the national average -- and its Arctic regions end up as the final sink for persistent organic pollutants released all over the Northern Hemisphere. Palin can't do much about airborne toxics -- but when she has a chance to deal with local toxic threats, she comes down consistently against the public health. She opposed a requirement that schools give parents 48 hours notice before a school was to be sprayed with pesticides and other toxic chemicals.

And sometimes Palin's indifference to environmental protection means creating toxic risks for others. In the summer of 2007, Palin allowed oil companies to move forward with a toxic-dumping plan in Alaska's Cook Inlet, making it the only coastal fishery in the nation where toxic dumping is permitted -- putting America's food supply at risk

Former Mass. Gov. William Weld to endorse Obama

Former Mass. Gov. William Weld to endorse Obama
Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican, is endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for president, citing the senator's steady leadership, good judgment and ability to unify Democrats, Republicans and independents.

"Senator Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America's standing in the world," Weld said in a statement released Friday. "We need a president who will lead based on our common values and Senator Obama demonstrates an ability to unite and inspire.

"Throughout this campaign I've watched his steady leadership through trying times and I'm confident he is the best candidate to move our country forward," Weld said.

The Eternal Shame of McCain and Palin

The Eternal Shame of McCain and Palin

When you're working up a good head of steam, words pour out in self-righteous anger and columns almost write themselves.

This is not one of those columns.

It started out as one, because I spent most of last week in a state of horror, anger and disgust over the way presidential candidate John McCain was running his campaign.

Here's McCain, that poor, corrupt and putrid man, during the last debate: "Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies... (but) you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I've... we've always said that that's not appropriate."

Notice that last part -- "we've always said that that's not appropriate." If you're scratching your head and wondering why you've never heard McCain forcibly tell his supporters to stop shouting "Kill Obama" at rallies, it's because he never has. Never.

And here's his running mate, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, last week: "It's not negativity. It's truthfulness." And here are some of those random "truthful" quotes from people attending Palin rallies in Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"Charles Manson was a community organizer."

"I'm afraid if he wins, the blacks will take over. That's not Christian. This is a Christian nation."

"When you've got a nigra running for for president, he's not a first-stringer. He's definitely a second-stringer."

"He's related to a known terrorist."

"He must support terrorists. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck."

"The whole Muslim thing and everything. A lot of people forgot about 9/11, but..."

"I don't like the fact that he thinks white people are trash. Because we're not."

"Obama - Osama: one and the same."

"Communism!"

"Obama is a socialist."

And just in case you forgot what decade -- sorry -- what century we're in, "Get a job!"

The AP reported that, "The Secret Service is looking into a second allegation that a participant at a Republican political rally shouted 'kill him,' referring to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama."

And the official Web site of the Sacramento County Republican Party compared Obama to bin Laden and urged people to "Waterboard Barack Obama." The Republican National Committee made them take it down.

And here's McCain again, talking about Palin: "As a cold political calculation, I could not be more pleased... She has excited and energized our base, she is a direct counterpoint to the liberal feminist agenda for America, she's the best thing that could have happened to my campaign and America."

In light of all this, outrage would be too easy.

But most sane people treasure the fact that America is a nation where people of all religions, races and creeds are welcome to contribute -- the Statue of Liberty says, "give me your tired, your hungry, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to be free." It doesn't say "give me only your uneducated white bigots, thank you very much. You can keep the rest."

Jesus was a community organizer. Moses was a community organizer -- in a big way. Charles Manson? Not so much. He's just an all-round crazy guy with a swastika carved in his forehead.

Most sane Americans also know that being a Muslim is not inherently evil. When former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama on Sunday, he spoke movingly about a photo of a woman crying on the grave of her son who died in Iraq. The grave, he said, "didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David, it had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Ushad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11. And he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life."

As a woman, I'm as confused as I am repelled by McCain's contempt for the "liberal feminist agenda." What are you sneering at, Mr. Maverick Mac? I know we disagree over abortion, but what else? Equal rights? Equal pay for equal work? The right to not be raped or abused? The right to choose the way we live our lives? Women are about 51 percent of the population. What kind of a cretin are you?

McCain's last futile grasp for power is so blatantly and transparently pathetic that most Americans are turning away in disgust. For example, when Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., running for reelection, accused Obama and other members of Congress of "being anti-American," her opponent saw his contributions triple virtually overnight. Obama raised $150 million in September, while McCain has had to pull out of several states because of funding shortfalls. And the Yahoo electoral college projections, the last time I looked, had Obama with 344 to McCain's 167.

The Obamas are decent, extraordinarily bright, hardworking and gifted people. It's impossible not to respect and admire their accomplishments. They are also courageous. They know what happened to JFK and Martin Luther King. They know that the rest of the world is holding its breath. And yet they keep campaigning. Perhaps you saw that inspiring photo of Obama speaking more than 100,000 people in St. Louis last week?

True, the fact that McCain and Palin have managed to inflame anger and hatred in small pockets of this country means that the embers were there to begin with.

But we're not looking at the second coming of the Third Reich. These McCain-Palin supporters don't represent the real America that most Americans believe in. We're much better than that. It's to their eternal shame that McCain and Palin aren't.

Palin Opposes Colo. Amendment That Would Benefit Special Needs Kids

Palin Opposes Colo. Amendment That Would Benefit Special Needs Kids
Once again, Gov. Sarah Palin talks out of both sides of her mouth. On CNN today, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Drew Griffin. I heard a portion driving home. She told Griffin that as Vice-President, McCain's roles for her will be (1) government reform (2) energy independence -- her "forte as governor" she said and (3) special needs children.

In Colorado yesterday, Palin told 9News she opposes Amendment 51 on our ballot that would provide services to special needs children through a one cent sales tax increase on every $10 spent for the next two years.

Amendment 51 provides thousands of children and adults with Autism, Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and Mental Retardation with critically needed care, through a modest, phased-in sales tax of 2/10 of 1%.

Amendment 51 provides new funding for much-needed services that people with developmental disabilities and their families need now and in the future, such as constant supervision, help with daily tasks, a place to live, job training or nursing services. When fully implemented, it will raise $186 million.

Even our Republican former First Lady, Frances Owen, supports the Amendment.

If they cannot get services that will help them get into the workforce then they are relegated to staying at home and they will never prosper in their own lives," said Owens in an interview the day after Palin spoke. "So, I think it's more of a human rights issue that we're just trying to help people that can't always help themselves."

9 News reports we have a waiting list of 12,000 for these services:

The money would go to help the roughly 12,000 kids and adults in Colorado who currently are on a wait list to receive state services such as home nursing care and job training. They suffer from autism, Down syndrome and mental retardation. Palin's son has Down syndrome and she has campaigned as an advocate for special needs families.

Here's broken record Palin on why she opposes it:

"There's got to be an alternative to raising taxes....It's a matter of prioritizing the dollars that are already there in government. What I did as governor in Alaska is prioritize for a great increase in funding for students with special needs up there and I think Colorado can do that also.

"It doesn't necessarily mean increasing taxes to meet those needs. It's all a matter of prioritization."

McCain Saddam Connection

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.

Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation

Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation
Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

Fact-Checking the McCain on Ayers Allegations

Fact-Checking the McCain on Ayers Allegations

However, Ayers “was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge,” and he “never made a decision programmatically or had a vote,” Rolling said.

“He (Ayers) was at board meetings — which, by the way, were open — as a guest,” Rolling said. “That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.”

Now, was the foundation radical?

The McCain campaign cited several pieces of evidence for that allegation, including a 1995 invitation from the foundation for applications from schools “that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn.” The campaign appears to have confused two different definitions of the word “radical.” Clearly the invitation referred to “a considerable departure from the usual or traditional,” rather than “advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.”
Fact-Checking the Ayers Allegations: So Wrong, It’s “Pants on Fire” Wrong

The campaign also cited two projects the foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies.

“That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans,” said Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for McCain. “It is a subjective thing, and there are going to be people in Berkeley and Chicago who think that is totally legitimate.”

Teaching about the United Nations and African-American studies may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it’s hardly “radical” in the same way Ayers’ Vietnam-era activities were. Moreover, most of the projects the foundation funded (more on that below) were not remotely controversial.

The McCain campaign also cited an opinion piece by conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz in the Sept. 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal as evidence of the foundation’s radicalism. Kurtz wrote that Ayers was the “guiding spirit” of the foundation, and it “translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice.”

But Ayers’ views on education, though certainly reform-oriented and left-of-center, are not considered anywhere near as radical as his Vietnam-era views on war. And even if they were, there was a long list of individuals involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge whose positions provided them far more authority over its direction than Ayers’ advisory role gave him.

Let’s look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of “translating Annenberg’s conservatism into practice.”

Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism, and a host of other mainstream folks.

“The whole idea of it being radical when it was this tie of blue-chip, white-collar, CEOs and civic leaders is just ridiculous,” said the foundation’s former development director, Marianne Philbin.

The foundation gave money to groups of public schools — usually three to 10 — who partnered with some sort of outside organization to improve their students’ achievement.

In his opinion piece, Kurtz puts a sinister spin on this: “Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with ‘external partners,’ which actually got the money...CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN).”

Rollings said the foundation tried to fund the schools directly, but doing so proved to be a “bureaucratic nightmare.” But any external group that received money had to have created a program in partnership with a network of public schools.

And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation’s external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children’s Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

Had Kurtz chosen to accuse Obama of carrying water for the conservative Annenberg, he might have written: “CAC disbursed money to various business-friendly entities, such as the Museum of Science and Industry and the Commercial Club of Chicago.”
Fact-Checking the Ayers Allegations: So Wrong, It’s “Pants on Fire” Wrong

See how easy it is?

The programs the foundation funded were designed to allow individuals from the “external partners” — whether the musicians in the symphony or the business leaders in the commercial club — to help improve student achievement. They were along the lines of mentoring by artists, literacy instruction, professional development for teachers and administrators, and training for parents in everything from computer skills to helping their children with homework to advocating for their children at school.

This last activity — something suburban parents practice with zeal — is also suspect in Kurtz’s view: “CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents ‘organized’ by community groups might be viewed by school principals ‘as a political threat.’ ” That is typical of Kurtz’s essay – relatively innocuous facts cast in the worst possible light. That’s appropriate for an opinion piece, perhaps, but hardly grounds for a purportedly factual political ad accusing the group of radicalism.

We could go on and on with evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenger was a rather vanilla charitable group. For example, under the deal with Annenberg every dollar from him had to be matched by two from elsewhere. The co-funders were a host of respected, mainstream institutions, such as the National Science Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Chicago Public Schools.

In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers’ involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.

This attack is false, but it’s more than that – it’s malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there’s ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That’s Pants on Fire wrong.

McCain's Terrorist Connections, Where's the Media

The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard and Domestic Terrorist G. Gordon Liddy

And, increasingly, they uncritically quote McCain campaign attacks on Sen. Barack Obama for things McCain himself has done. When a campaign does something like this, the media often point out the hypocrisy, and the attack backfires. But those rules don't apply to John McCain. So when John and Cindy McCain attack Barack Obama for what they describe as a vote to "cut off the funds for the troops," the news media dutifully repeat the charge -- without noting that, by the same logic, McCain also voted to cut off funds for the troops: Obama voted against a funding bill that did not include a timeline for withdrawal; McCain voted against a bill that did include a timeline for withdrawal.

The funding vote has been the subject of some of McCain's nastiest attacks recently. Cindy McCain, for example, claimed Obama's "vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body" and lectured: "I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day. ... I suggest he take a day and go watch our fine young men and women deploy." You would think, then, that media reporting Cindy McCain's purported indignation would note that John McCain also voted against funding. They haven't. Indeed, some have falsely stated the opposite -- that McCain did not cast such a vote. You might even think reporters would ask the McCain campaign if Cindy McCain got a "cold chill" when her husband voted "to not fund [her] son." But there is no indication that any reporter has done so.

But the best indication that McCain has not yet truly "lost his 'base,' " as The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder put it this week, is the glaring media double standard in covering the two presidential candidates' controversial relationships.

Let's start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain's efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s -- when Barack Obama was a young child -- Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama's first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close," and Obama has denounced Ayers' actions as a member of the Weathermen.

A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers -- more than 1,800 this week alone.

Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist's office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary." He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy's bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents ("Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: "Kill the sons of bitches.") During Bill Clinton's presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.

What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07," includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

McCain even backed Liddy's son's congressional bid in 2000 -- a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy's history.

Vote Caging Republican Attacks on ACORN Unfounded

Why Media Can't See the Trees for the ACORNs
AUSTIN (October 15, 2008) -- John McCain and other Republicans making criminal allegations against the community-organizing group ACORN know exactly what they're doing. They're using alarmist allegations of "voter fraud" to fire up their conservative base and suppress the votes of some citizens who may, out of fear, stay away from the polls.

They exploit lingering unease among the poor and minorities who, with some justification, believe themselves to suffer disproportionately from unbalanced wheels of justice in America. These innocents know they don't have to commit crimes to be accused of crimes. Better to stay away from the places where the accusations might be leveled. Like the polls.

The allegations can also help cover up actual election fraud undertaken on behalf of McCain. This is the tactic Karl Rove learned so well from his right-wing predecessors: accuse your opponent of your own unethical or illegal acts.


These are a tried and true – and grossly undemocratic – tactics. And they are often accomplished with the complicity of the press.

I don't think there is a journalist covering the ACORN matter who doesn't know with a great deal of certainty that there is a substantial difference between fictionalized voter registration forms and real voter suppression and election fraud. The former are easily identified and never result in fraudulent voting. No one covering these stories believes that someone is going to show up at the polls this year and say, "My name is Mickey Mouse."

A few bad-apple, low-paid canvassers who take jobs registering voters will turn in fraudulent forms. In this case (as in most) it appears the bad registration forms were identified by ACORN and turned over to authorities in accordance with the law.

The media attention granted the right-wing attacks on ACORN begs the question: why does it seem to be a greater sin to be suspected of voter registration mistakes than to publicly engage in voter suppression efforts?

One answer to this question might be simple editorial bias. E&P's Greg Mitchell detailed the right's pioneer suppression efforts in his book, "The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics."

As reported by Mitchell, in the 1934 race for governor of California, Republicans hatched perhaps the most sophisticated voter suppression scheme undertaken up to that time in America. Taking the shrewd advice of a former New York prosecutor, Eli Whitney Debevoise, opponents of Democrat Upton Sinclair leveled wild charges of voter registration fraud. A cooperative district attorney drew up a secret list of 200,000 allegedly illegal registrants.

The Los Angeles Times advanced the suppression campaign, writing on the front page that "it would be far better for a few honest persons to lose their votes than for a hundred thousand rogues to defeat by fraud the majority will of the people." The publicity, the conspirators knew, would frighten those who were afraid they just might be on that list. Rather than risk capture (for a vague crime they had no understanding of), they'd stay away from the polls.

Ultimately, the effort ended in some embarrassment when no actual voter registration fraud was uncovered and the state's Supreme Court tossed out the accusations. But not before the goal of the publicity was met.

There is some historical symmetry in the fact that in 1982, U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, a distant cousin of El Debevoise, the suppression guru who hatched the California scheme, ordered the Republican National Committee to forever halt its voter intimidation and suppression campaigns. In the 1982 New Jersey gubernatorial contest, the RNC launched a sophisticated "voter caging" campaign. Letters were sent to voters. If they were returned for bad addresses, the GOP challenged the addressees' registration. It raised doubts among citizens about whether they were illegally registered.

A "Ballot Security Task Force," patrolled the polls, lurking beneath signs that read, "It is a crime to falsify a ballot or to violate election laws." The tactic is being used this year by state attorneys general and others. The RNC remains theoretically under Judge Devevoise's order.

When I covered politics for Texas newspapers in the 1980s, the voter intimidation efforts of the Right were well known. We covered some of them, but not with a lot of energy or insight. I'm afraid we took intimidation and suppression as just another part of the game.

But it's a fact that Karl Rove was the consultant to the incumbent Texas governor back then. So it shouldn't be a surprise that county voter registrars received a list of 29,000 alleged felons to purge from the rolls. That got some coverage when it turned out a Democratic candidate for the state house who had no criminal record was on the list. But it didn't stop the intimidation efforts. Signs reading "You Can Be Imprisoned" were posted at minority polling locations.

If media bias is not the answer to broad coverage of spurious registration fraud allegations, what is the answer?

I think it has something to do with our history. The right to vote has always been contested. In our early years, those without property couldn't vote. Neither could women, freed blacks, or slaves. It took 140 years for women to be granted the franchise. Exclusion is a tradition with deep roots in our cultural narratives and founding documents. Historically accustomed as we are to exclusion, maybe we don't judge it to be news.

Rush Limbaugh Says Angry Blacks Are In 30 Year Plot To Train Black Children as Militants

Rush Limbaugh Says Angry Blacks Are In 30 Year Plot To Train Black Children as Militants
As we are witnessing, the conservative movement is in shambles now and the only thing they can do is spew racist hatred out into the world and hope it sticks to their audience in droves. And how is the conservative right going to make sure race is all you can think of when you think of the name Obama?

How about by making the case that blacks in general are lazy, angry, and engaged in a 3 decades old plot to train black children as militants against the US? It's those scary black terrorists again. Don't think anyone would actually SAY that? Think again. Listen to it in Rush Limbaugh's own words. It's hard to cut out much of his racist diatribe so the full transcript will appear under the fold.

Limbaugh: We know that technological advancement is going along at light speed. And yet during this period of time, whether it be the last 57 years or be it the last 20 years, it seems that a majority of the black population has remained angry, frustrated, and behind. They've been left behind. They are acting like they've been left behind, and of course we've heard that this is because of racism, natural systemic institutional racism in America, that we are unfair, that this country is just horrible and rotten.

...The federal government became the father. The father didn't have to hang around in order for the kids to be okay, depending on how you define okay. But as you study more and more of this ACORN stuff, you find that it has been part of an entire movement that has been going on for two, maybe three decades, right under our noses.

Republican Attacks on ACORN Are Based on the Fear of 1.3 Million New Voters

Republican Attacks on ACORN Are Based on the Fear of 1.3 Million New Voters
Why are they after ACORN? Well, I'm sure they're going to come up with a lot of "reasons" in the coming days. But the real reason is obvious: Because ACORN, along with Project Vote, just announced that they had successfully registered 1.3 million poor people this year.

Get that? 1.3 million, including 148,000 in Pennsylvania, 152,000 in Florida, 217,000 in Michigan, and 238,000 in Ohio. No wonder the GOP is up in arms. They're scared of too many poor people preparing to vote this year.

In the last week, the right wing has tried to blame ACORN for the collapse of the globalized financial system--yeah, that's a viable argument. They got excited because they found a some possible fake registration forms in Florida, which predictably led to a bunch of whining from the party that stole an entire presidency from Al Gore by blocking vote counts, mischaracterizing voters as felons, refusing to recount entire counties, sending congressional staff down to riot and intimidate volunteer vote-counters, and topped it all off with the most partisan, badly-reasoned, illegitimate Supreme Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson. A decision so illegitimate that the partisan majority, to their eternal discredit, themselves damned by writing into their own decision that it should never be used as a precedent for any other court ruling.

This week, the right-wing is hyperventilating because apparently Democratic election officials raided an ACORN office after they found the names of some Dallas Cowboy football players among the 80,000 new registration forms that ACORN helped to get done in Nevada.

Obviously it's not right for a fake "Tony Romo" to be registered in Las Vegas, so someone was probably playing a not-very-funny joke, or trying to pad their registration numbers to get paid a little more money rather than doing the hard work in the hot Nevada sun that helping voters to register requires, or maybe a provocateur was setting up ACORN for some bad press. But remember the basic point--it's not voter fraud unless someone shows up at the voting booth on election day and tries to pass himself off as "Tony Romo." And who would try to do that? No one is going to be that stupid.

The truth is, the main voter fraud efforts going on in my lifetime--and I was born the week of the Selma march in 1965--have been repeated conservative attempts, far too many of them successful, to demonize and suppress the vote of African-Americans and Latinos in election after election, a history for which former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman actually apologized a few years ago, while promising the GOP would no longer engage in such tactics.

Did Obama Support Terrorist, No But McCain Did

Did Obama Support Terrorist, No But McCain Did
G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist's office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary." He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy's bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents ("Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: "Kill the sons of bitches.") During Bill Clinton's presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.

What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07," includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

McCain even backed Liddy's son's congressional bid in 2000 -- a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy's history.

To sum up: John McCain is "proud" of his "old friend" Gordon Liddy -- an old friend who plotted to kill one of the most respected journalists in American history, and who urged listeners to kill federal agents and advised them on how to do so. McCain campaigned for Liddy's son, and Liddy has even hosted a fundraiser for McCain at his home.

So McCain's relationship with Liddy is pretty much a direct parallel to Obama's relationship with Ayers. Except that McCain and Liddy have apparently spent time together more recently than Obama and Ayers. And Liddy's extremist activities continued well into the 1990s, at least. And Liddy says he and McCain are "old friends," while The New York Times says Obama and Ayers aren't close. And Obama has never said Ayers adheres to "the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Other than all that, it's a direct parallel.

The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama ?

The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama ?
F you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

McCain's attacks fuel dangerous hatred

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

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

Shame!

John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

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

Who Is The Real Sarah Palin

Meet Sarah Palin's radical right-wing pals
On the afternoon of Sept. 24 in downtown Palmer, Alaska, as the sun began to sink behind the snowcapped mountains that flank the picturesque Mat-Su Valley, 51-year-old Mark Chryson sat for an hour on a park bench, reveling in tales of his days as chairman of the Alaska Independence Party. The stocky, gray-haired computer technician waxed nostalgic about quixotic battles to eliminate taxes, support the "traditional family" and secede from the United States.

So long as Alaska remained under the boot of the federal government, said Chryson, the AIP had to stand on guard to stymie a New World Order. He invited a Salon reporter to see a few items inside his pickup truck that were intended for his personal protection. "This here is my attack dog," he said with a chuckle, handing the reporter an exuberant 8-pound papillon from his passenger seat. "Her name is Suzy." Then he pulled a 9-millimeter Makarov PM pistol -- once the standard-issue sidearm for Soviet cops -- out of his glove compartment. "I've got enough weaponry to raise a small army in my basement," he said, clutching the gun in his palm. "Then again, so do most Alaskans." But Chryson added a message of reassurance to residents of that faraway place some Alaskans call "the 48." "We want to go our separate ways," he said, "but we are not going to kill you."

Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin's campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.

Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution's language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as "Black Helicopter Steve," to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. "Every time I showed up her door was open," said Chryson. "And that policy continued when she became governor."

When Chryson first met Sarah Palin, however, he didn't really trust her politically. It was the early 1990s, when he was a member of a local libertarian pressure group called SAGE, or Standing Against Government Excess. (SAGE's founder, Tammy McGraw, was Palin's birth coach.) Palin was a leader in a pro-sales-tax citizens group called WOW, or Watch Over Wasilla, earning a political credential before her 1992 campaign for City Council. Though he was impressed by her interpersonal skills, Chryson greeted Palin's election warily, thinking she was too close to the Democrats on the council and too pro-tax.

But soon, Palin and Chryson discovered they could be useful to each other. Palin would be running for mayor, while Chryson was about to take over the chairmanship of the Alaska Independence Party, which at its peak in 1990 had managed to elect a governor.

The AIP was born of the vision of "Old Joe" Vogler, a hard-bitten former gold miner who hated the government of the United States almost as much as he hated wolves and environmentalists. His resentment peaked during the early 1970s when the federal government began installing Alaska's oil and gas pipeline. Fueled by raw rage -- "The United States has made a colony of Alaska," he told author John McPhee in 1977 -- Vogler declared a maverick candidacy for the governorship in 1982. Though he lost, Old Joe became a force to be reckoned with, as well as a constant source of amusement for Alaska's political class. During a gubernatorial debate in 1982, Vogler proposed using nuclear weapons to obliterate the glaciers blocking roadways to Juneau. "There's gold under there!" he exclaimed.

Vogler made another failed run for the governor's mansion in 1986. But the AIP's fortunes shifted suddenly four years later when Vogler convinced Richard Nixon's former interior secretary, Wally Hickel, to run for governor under his party's banner. Hickel coasted to victory, outflanking a moderate Republican and a centrist Democrat. An archconservative Republican running under the AIP candidate, Jack Coghill, was elected lieutenant governor.

Hickel's subsequent failure as governor to press for a vote on Alaskan independence rankled Old Joe. With sponsorship from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vogler was scheduled to present his case for Alaskan secession before the United Nations General Assembly in the late spring of 1993. But before he could, Old Joe's long, strange political career ended tragically that May when he was murdered by a fellow secessionist.

Hickel rejoined the Republican Party the year after Vogler's death and didn't run for reelection. Lt. Gov. Coghill's campaign to succeed him as the AIP candidate for governor ended in disaster; he peeled away just enough votes from the Republican, Jim Campbell, to throw the gubernatorial election to Democrat Tony Knowles.

Despite the disaster, Coghill hung on as AIP chairman for three more years. When he was asked to resign in 1997, Mark Chryson replaced him. Chryson pursued a dual policy of cozying up to secessionist and right-wing groups in Alaska and elsewhere while also attempting to replicate the AIP's success with Hickel in infiltrating the mainstream.

Unlike some radical right-wingers, Chryson doesn't put forward his ideas freighted with anger or paranoia. And in a state where defense of gun and property rights often takes on a real religious fervor, Chryson was able to present himself as a typical Alaskan.

He rose through party ranks by reducing the AIP's platform to a single page that "90 percent of Alaskans could agree with." This meant scrubbing the old platform of what Chryson called "racist language" while accommodating the state's growing Christian right movement by emphasizing the AIP's commitment to the "traditional family."

"The AIP is very family-oriented," Chryson explained. "We're for the traditional family -- daddy, mommy, kids -- because we all know that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And we don't care if Heather has two mommies. That's not a traditional family."

Chryson further streamlined the AIP's platform by softening its secessionist language. Instead of calling for immediate separation from the United States, the platform now demands a vote on independence.

Yet Chryson maintains that his party remains committed to full independence. "The Alaskan Independence Party has got links to almost every independence-minded movement in the world," Chryson exclaimed. "And Alaska is not the only place that's about separation. There's at least 30 different states that are talking about some type of separation from the United States."

This has meant rubbing shoulders and forging alliances with outright white supremacists and far-right theocrats, particularly those who dominate the proceedings at such gatherings as the North American Secessionist conventions, which AIP delegates have attended in recent years. The AIP's affiliation with neo-Confederate organizations is motivated as much by ideological affinity as by organizational convenience. Indeed, Chryson makes no secret of his sympathy for the Lost Cause. "Should the Confederate states have been allowed to separate and go their peaceful ways?" Chryson asked rhetorically. "Yes. The War of Northern Aggression, or the Civil War, or the War Between the States -- however you want to refer to it -- was not about slavery, it was about states' rights."

Another far-right organization with whom the AIP has long been aligned is Howard Phillips' militia-minded Constitution Party. The AIP has been listed as the Constitution Party's state affiliate since the late 1990s, and it has endorsed the Constitution Party's presidential candidates (Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin) in the past two elections.