The administration's decision today to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips's injunction against continuing the disastrous 17-year-old DADT policy found in 10 U.S.C. § 654 - a policy she previously had ruled to be unconstitutional - is, we were told by the President's press secretary, part of a necessary process to dump it.

Chiming in for the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that allowing the injunction to stand would mean a sudden end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which would have "enormous consequences for our troops."

"I feel very strongly that this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress, and that it is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training."

Gates said the Pentagon needs until Dec. 1 to resolve questions such as whether heterosexual troops would be required to share housing with gays and whether the military would be required to provide benefits for same-sex partners of service members.

When will this nonsense cease?

As the Toledo Blade editorial board quite rightly put it this morning:

The military has had years to prepare. Public sentiment against the policy has grown steadily. Most Americans now oppose "don't ask, don't tell." But politicians refused to change the policy because they feared angering a vocal anti-gay minority. And military brass kept their collective heads in the sand, expecting that equality for gays in the military was always going to be in the future, never in the present. ...

...[J]ust as there continue to be a few racists and misogynists wearing the uniforms of America's Armed Services, there will always be a few homophobic service members as well. That's not a rationale for continuing to punish the victims, as the current policy does. The better policy is for the military to weed out the bigots.

And the better policy for the White House is to do the right thing, to defend constitutional rights, even when it's inconvenient.

Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin stated in a press release:

With all due respect Mister Secretary, implementing repeal of DADT is not difficult and you should stop saying that it is. Indeed, there were no reports of enormous consequences for the troops yesterday after the ban was suspended. There were no reports of problems today.

As you well know, gays and lesbians are serving honorably and openly today alongside their straight peers. For this reason, and as the RAND Corporation found in 1993, the lifting of a gay ban is not difficult if leaders insist that troops work together. A protracted process involving "a lot of training" is not needed.

Eight months ago, the Palm Center reported on the experiences of five of the 25 countries that allow gays and lesbians to participate openly in their militaries.  In its 152-page white paper, Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer, the authors stated, among other things:

[R]esearch concludes unequivocally that such policy changes are most successful when
implemented quickly. Such research is summarized in the 1993 Rand study, which Secretary Gates has asked to be updated. According to that report, the two most important factors in a personnel policy transition of this nature are decisive leadership and a single code of conduct for all personnel. Rand found that a successful new policy must be “decided upon and implemented as quickly as possible” to avoid anxiety and uncertainty in the field.  It stated that “fast and pervasive change will signal commitment to the [new] policy,” while “incremental changes would likely be viewed as experimental” and weaken compliance. It also concluded that “any waiting period permits restraining forces to consolidate,” and that “phased-in implementation might allow enemies of the new policy to intentionally create problems to prove the policy unworkable.” Finally, it recommended that any new policy be implemented and communicated “as simply as possible” to avoid piling on confusing changes incrementally that would force service members to endure new rules every few months instead of having to adjust only once.⁵⁰

New reports have also indicated that the study groups would address whether separate facilities, such as barracks and showers, would be needed in order to lift the ban.⁵¹ Yet Rand cautioned against instituting separate facilities for minority groups, citing the resentment and damaging focus on gender distinctions that have resulted from different standards for men and women.⁵²

Getting rid of this policy of inequality has been delayed and delayed for no good reason other than kow-towing to bigots. Gates now argues for more delay. Instead of appealing the district court's ruling, the President should tell his appointee Gates - and the generals and admirals - that time's up. More foot-dragging serves no purpose other than to persuade many gay and lesbian Americans and their allies that the administration is less than serious about getting rid of this heinous, career-busting policy.

As part of a campaign called Grassroots SEO, this is the second article in a series on how you can make slight alterations to what you are already doing online so that search engines will help your desired content reach more people. The first article, “Clicks Matter,” was posted on Tuesday.

To stay in touch with the campaign, sign up to receive email alerts on Grassroots SEO tips.

***

Earlier in the week, we discussed how you can click on certain articles when you conduct keyword searches in order to help your preferred content reach more people. Now, let’s talk about a second power search engines not only grant you, but encourage you to use, in order to help your desired content reach more people. It’s called anchor text..

What is Anchor Text?
“Anchor text” is the text that is embedded in any hyperlink you post online. For example, the anchor text in David Harmer wants to abolish public schools is “David Harmer wants to abolish public schools.” As another example, the anchor text in Jerry McNerney for Congress is “Jerry McNerney for Congress.”

In the same vein, the anchor text in “click here to learn about David Harmer’s position on public schools,” is “click here.” And, the anchor text in “visit Jerry McNerney’s campaign website at http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/” is “http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/.”

How do I create Anchor Text?
Wikipedia provides a quick, useful descriptive of what anchor text is, and how to generate anchor text in your own hyperlinks. It’s actually kind of tricky for me to show you how to do it while I am using Daily Kos’s html editor, so check out the Wikipedia link to learn more.

How important is Anchor Text?
Hugely important. In fact, it might be the most important way you interact with search engines, whether you are a blogger or a commenter. The words you include in your anchor text will impact every keyword search on those words in Google and other major search engines.

How do I use Anchor Text?
Your anchor text needs to two things:

1. Be descriptive of the URL to which it is linking, and

2. Be phrased like a keyword search that other people would actually use

Other than that, it is up to you. So, whether you are blogging or simply posting a comment in a message board, don’t use non-descriptive anchor text like “click here” or “http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/.” Instead, use descriptive anchor text like “David Harmer on public schools” or “Jerry McNerney for Congress.”

Anchor text like “click here” will only impact searches on words like “click,” “here” or click here.” There is even a Wikipedia article on why “click here” is terrible anchor text. It isn’t relevant to the URL you are linking, or keyword searches others will perform on the topic you are discussing.

By contrast, anchor text that includes words like David Harmer or Jerry McNerney is both descriptive of what you are discussing, and will impact searches people make on keywords like “David Harmer and “Jerry McNerney.” Since you are writing about Jerry McNerney or David Harmer, then use anchor text that actually mention Jerry McNerney or David Harmer. Further, since you want to reach other people who are searching for information on David Harmer or Jerry McNerney, then use anchor text which other people will actually use in their keyword searches on David Harmer or Jerry McNerney.

Really, it’s quite simple. And very powerful. If only a few hundred online progressives start using it properly, the impact will be immense.

Bloggers, take note
If you have a blog, these tips about anchor text apply to all the hyperlinks on your website. For example, take care on the content tags you use--make sure they are visible, make sure there are not too many of them, and make sure they are descriptive.

Proper use of anchor text especially goes for your blogroll. Because your blogroll is embedded in the template of your website, the hyperlinks in your blogroll will update in search engines every time you post a front-page article on your blog. So, pay close attention to the anchor text you use in those hyperlinks. Whatever anchor text you use there will reach a lot of people, so make sure it offers an accurate description of both the URL to which it links, and what you want people to see.

Do search engines want you paying attention to Anchor Text?
Descriptive use of anchor text is not only approved of by Google and other search engines, but they actively encourage you to do it.  For example, on pages 16 and 17 of Google’s approved SEO guide (PDF), they make identical points to what I just wrote:

Now, I should note that back in 2006, I encouraged progressive bloggers to use the power of their blogrolls in a coordinated fashion. Even though it had a huge impact--reaching over 700,000 people in 50 key congressional districts, according to the Google ads we ran at the time--I am not encouraging people to do that this time around.

Why not? For one thing, coordinated blogrolling activism like that is not approved of by Google, and I don’t want to get anyone in trouble. (Mind you, it was perfectly legal, but Google is the power here, not the law). For another thing, it wouldn’t work anymore, as sudden upshots in the number of identical anchor texts linking to identical URLs are now ignored by Google.

Conclusion
If we use anchor text in combination with the other SEO tips in this campaign, such as the Grassroots SEO tips about searching and clicking, it is going to have a much, much bigger impact than a one-off “blogroll bomb” ever would. As such, rather than just spamming up blogrolls with identical hyperlinks with identical anchor texts in the service of a single, short-term campaign, it’s time that progressives online make a conscious effort to always be using anchor text properly on every topic we discuss.

Descriptive anchor text is something we must do ourselves, and it’s also something we must remind our sisters and brothers to do when we se them falling short. When you see someone not using anchor text properly, post a comment letting them know. Then, show them how to use anchor text in the proper, Google-approved fashion presented above.

The bottom line is this: you would not be posting content online unless you wanted other people to see that content. So, when you are posting content, use short, descriptive anchor text whenever you use a hyperlink. Encourage other progressives do exactly the same, too.  It makes a huge difference in getting our message out.

Coming up next in Grassroots SEO: Social Networks.

They are insane:

Republicans plan January takedowns of Obama’s ‘czars’

Republicans will have President Barack Obama’s czars and his use of regulatory powers to circumvent congressional inaction on issues such as cap and trade in GOP crosshairs if the party takes control in January.

Since taking office, Obama has named 33 czars without Senate confirmation and congressional oversight, and together they hold power over everything from the environment and bank bailouts to the auto industry. The president’s practice of naming czars has garnered criticism from members of his own party, such as the late West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, who called it unconstitutional.

“When the Republicans are in charge, you will see the oversight subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee active on a whole host of fronts,” said Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, who would chair the subcommittee if the Republicans take control of Congress. “How are these [czars] funded? So whether it be the authorizing committees and appropriations committees in terms of deleting the funds for those, I think you could go after it in one of two different ways.

So what's so crazy about the GOP plan? Well, the basic problem is that it's rooted in Glenn Beck's delusional conspiracy theory that our nation has been overtaken by a secret cabal that aims to impose a a Fascist-Communist dictatorship on the United States of America.

What Beck (and now Republicans) call "czars" are really just presidential aides and advisers, many of whom have been confirmed by the Senate. There's nothing new about them and they've existed since the founding of the Republic. In fact, far from being a threat to our democracy, these are people who are working to preserve our Constitution and strengthen our nation. They are serving us and they are accountable to us -- not the other way around.

But Republicans know they need to scare the shit out of their base to win this election, so they've decided to sell Beck's conspiracy theory to the electorate. The problem with that cynical political strategy is that they can't just sell the conspiracy -- they've also go to to promise to do something about it. And so they are now running up and down the country vowing to eliminate a threat which doesn't exist.

They are so desperate for power that they've allowed the loonies to take over the party. It's not that I've ever been a fan of the GOP, but this is worse than it's ever been, at least in my lifetime. They've collectively lost their minds.

The Hon. Virginia Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, and the administration and Defense Department are apparently complying with the order.  The Pentagon's statement:

Earlier today, the Staff Judge Advocate Generals from the Military Services, in consultation with the OSD Office of General Counsel, sent to their Service Staff Judge Advocate counterparts in the field an e-mail informing them of the ruling by Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California, issuing an injunction barring the enforcement or application of 10 USC 654, commonly known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. The e-mail noted that the US Government is contemplating whether to appeal and to seek a stay of the injunction.

The Department of Defense will of course obey the law, and the e-mail noted that, in the meantime, the Department will abide by the terms in the court's ruling, effective as of the time and date of the ruling.

They will, unfortunately, appeal, and the Justice Department has filed its request seeking a stay of the injunction, asking the Court to let the Working Group complete its review of DADT by December 1 to figure out how to implement a repeal "in an orderly and comprehensive way."  

As for whether this injunction ought to be appealed at all, I'll cover that in a subsequent story.

The Village yawns and the traditional media continues to be cowed by the power of the Chamber of Commerce, reprinting with apparently no independent investigation whatever the Chamber tells them, all to further the meme that the corporate buy-out of our democracy isn't a big deal.

By doing so, they're missing a real story, one that should be shaping this election. Should be, that is, if you listen to the actual voters. Greg Sargent has a new poll conducted by MoveOn, which demonstrates just how much the public cares about knowing who it is that's trying to buy our government.

The poll finds that two thirds of registered voters, or 66 percent, are aware that outside groups are behind some of the ads they're seeing. This makes sense, since the issue has dominated the media amid the battle over the huge ad onslaught against Dems funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's groups.

What's more, an overwhelming 84 percent say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads. And crucially, the poll also found that the issue is resonant when linked to the economy. A majority, 53 percent, are less likely to think a candidate who is backed by "anonymous groups" can be trusted to "improve economic conditions" for them or their families. People don't believe these groups are looking out for their interests.

Here are other key findings from the poll, which was provided to me by a MoveOn official:

* An overwhelming 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.

* Fifty-six percent of voters overall (including 53% of Independents) are less likely to vote for a candidate if they know the ads supporting that candidate are paid for anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.

* Forty-seven percent of all voters are more likely to support a candidate who insists that voters have a right to know who is paying for ads, with only 9% of total voters saying they are less likely to support a candidate who holds that position.

* Almost two out of three voters (63%) do not believe that the anonymous groups running ads hold the voters best interest in mind. This belief is held by 65% of Independent and 70% of Democratic voters.

* A straight majority of total voters (53%) are less likely to trust a candidate to improve economic conditions if that candidate is supported by anonymous groups.

The issues poll similarly among voters in two key states surveyed, Colorado and Illinois.

That's entirely consistent with other recent polling showing massive (80%) opposition to Citizens United and a strong desire (72%) to see Congress limit what corporations and unions can spend on elections.

The poll was conducted by SurveyUSA. 1,037 likely voters nationally were interviewed plus 600 statewide in Colorado and
Illinois.

Now we know who to blame for Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and, of course, Christine O'Donnell:

Armey: Toomey Triggered 'Conception' of Tea Party

Former Rep. Dick Armey (R.,Tex.), whose Freedom Works organization has helped the Tea Party grow, said Tuesday in Philadelphia that the movement was conceived the moment President George W. Bush endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter (then-R, now D) over Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary.

Conservatives have long been angered by that endorsement, viewing it as a triumph of political maneuvering over principle. Specter went on to defeat Toomey by 17,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast.

To put it another way: If Pennsylvania voters want to send a message that they approve of the Sarah Palin and Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell taking over the GOP, they should vote for Pat Toomey. If they want to validate the rise to power of lunatics like Sharron Angle and Joe Miller, they should vote for Pat Toomey. But if they want reasonable and constructive (not to mention, sane) leadership in Congress, they should vote for Joe Sestak.

Help Joe Sestak shut out the tea party in Pennsylvania -- send $5 or $10 his way today and America will thank you tomorrow!

• There are 19 days until the November 2 elections. Early voting is now taking place in Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Virginia allows early absentee voting under certain circumstances -- check here and see if you qualify.
• Nate has some good news for us, in a bad news cycle: the forecast for Senate and Governor races has moved slightly in the Democrats' direction the past week. Still bleak, but a little less so.
• ProgressFlorida has a voters guide for you Florida residents.
• Check it out:

  

  That's over $111,000 and 2,000 contributors in the last 23 hours.

  It's been a tough fundraising year, and we started with a goal of 500 contributors afraid to be too aggressive. Well, we've just upped the goal to 2,500, because this is it. Time's almost up. If you're going to help progressives survive this year's cataclysm, the time to engage is now. At this point, your procrastination is the GOP's biggest ally.

• Glenn Beck's long history of violent rhetoric.
• Republicans are such strong macho manly men, that they get the vapors at the thought of openly speaking their mind. Don't you know, people might be mean to them!
• Pat Sajak is not very bright.

  Have you read Wheel Of Fortune host Pat Sajak's blog post for National Review Online today? Because if you have, you might be saying: "I'd like to buy a W, T, and an F please, Pat."

  That's because Sajak asks that question that's been on no one's mind: "Should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly?"

  In what appears to be his first post, Sajak pointed out today that no one in his family, or even his "kids' teachers or the guys who rotate my tires" is allowed to appear on his show, because there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. "In nearly all private and public endeavors," he continues, "there are occasions in which it's only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted."

  So, he asks, what about those state employees who have a greater stake in a vote's outcome than the rest of us?

  "I'm not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote, but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great," Sajak writes.

  So the only people who should be allowed to vote are those who wouldn't directly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted. Soldiers? No. They would benefit by having government that doesn't send them off to illegal wars. Republicans? No, they would directly benefit from tax cuts. Industry execs? No, they would directly benefit from regulatory and taxation matters.

  In other words, if only those who aren't directly impacted by government are allowed to vote, that leaves pretty much ... no one. Fantastic logic, Pat!

• AK-Sen: Scott McAdams is really growing as a candidate, running a fantastic campaign!
• KY-Sen: Do the teabaggers still see Rand Paul as principled?

  Kentucky's Republican nominee for Senate, Rand Paul, is running away from his past support for abolishing the federal income tax in favor of a national sales tax, according to reports on the ground in the Bluegrass State.

  The move is the latest walkback from the past for Paul, who started out the campaign as some kind of libertarian-tea party hybrid, unafraid to talk on national television about things like the problems he saw in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since winning the nomination, however, Paul has headed in pretty much a straight line toward establishment Republican policies when it comes to his campaign rhetoric. The national sales tax shift appears to be part of that trend.

  Some conservatives have long called for the abolition of the 16th Amendment -- which created the income tax -- and the creation of a national sales tax as high as 25 cents on the dollar in its place.

• David Frum says he's not wrong about GOP's need to modernize, despite their looming gains in a few weeks.

  Obviously, it's not impossible that I am, indeed, totally wrong. Or that the Tea Party is right, and America is ready to embrace a fusion of libertarian economics, cultural resentment, and coded racial messaging. Perhaps it's possible to balance the budget while leaving Medicare as is, cutting taxes, and fighting two wars [...]

  If 2010 proves that Republicans can win big among rich whites aged 65 and over, well, we knew that already.

  But that won't fix the problem of the dwindling appeal of Republicans to the under-55s, to those who make less than $100,000, to non-whites, non-churchgoers, women, and the unmarried. And all those voters will be coming out to play two years from now — and in larger and larger numbers in the elections to come.

MSNBC's First Read today is all about Scott McAdams.

It very well could be that Alaska's three-way Senate contest is more of a contest than Florida's three-way. Consider: Scott McAdams (D) has raised a significant amount of money by Alaska standards ($685,000 in the past quarter) and his ads are compelling (the Hulk tie and the Inouye endorsement were interesting tributes to Ted Stevens); Joe Miller (R) hasn't been running a very good race (see: his press conference announcing that he wouldn't take questions about his past); and there is uncertainty (anecdotally from folks in the Anchorage business community) that Lisa Murkowski can't win a write-in campaign. In fact, the McAdams fundraising surge (again, by Alaska standards) may be evidence that some in Anchorage biz community are their hedging bets. Bottom line: Don't be surprised if we begin to see a McAdams surge, or if we begin to see some outside groups jump and, well, muck around.

McAdams has had some really impressive fundraising, even more so than the NBC folks recognize. From a press release the McAdams camp sent out last night:

The Scott McAdams for U.S. Senate campaign raised more than $685,000 in donations during the most recent Federal Elections Commission reporting period.  Statistics for the report are below:  

   * Total amount raised August 5, 2010 – September 30, 2010:   $685,000
   * Total number of donations:  Over 5,000
   * Total number of people who donated $200 or less:  4,600 (90%)
   * Total number of Alaskan who donated:  Over 2,000
   * Total amount raised by Alaskans:  $352,000 (53%)

Since the September 30 FEC deadline, McAdams has raised an additional $185,000 for a total of $850,000 to date.

Those are very good numbers for support from where it counts the most--in Alaska from actual voters. Murkowski doesn't really need to fundraise, she's got $1.2 million banked, but is also getting massive help from a federal contractor Super PAC. Miller's been mum about what he's raised since the primary, but he's got the GOP establishment and K Street behind him, which he might need now that his campaign has declared that he's not the tea party candidate.

McAdams is campaigning hard, doing telephone townhalls and meetings across the state. Yesterday he was in Fairbanks, making his case.

With about $850,000 raised since the primary, McAdams said he’s funding a constant travel schedule and a statewide TV ad campaign that will be seen by the average Alaskan 12 times before Election Day.

“A Democrat in Alaska has to work twice as hard to win,” McAdams said. “We’re working three times as hard.”

The national media is noticing that, it seems, and McAdams is getting great local press every day he's out there on the trail. Help him continue to get the word out about the positive direction he promises for Alaska with  $10, $15 or whatever you can kick in.

Scott McAdams for Senate

This exchange from last night's Delaware Senate debate pretty much sums up Christine O'Donnell's candidacy:

The short (and only slightly fictionalized) version:

WOLF: Do you believe in evolution?

O'DONNELL: What I believe is irrelevant, but schools should be allowed to teach that creationism is equally valid.

WOLF: Can you please help me pick up my jaw that has just dropped to the floor?

O'DONNELL: Well, Chris Coons is a Marxist. He said so himself!

COONS: What is this crazy teahadist talking about? I made a sarcastic joke in an article for a student newspaper and now she thinks I'm a Stalinist? What a lunatic!

O'DONNELL: But Glenn Beck told me that you were a Marxist revolutionary with the Tides Foundation.

COONS: Yeah, okay. Try actually reading the article next time and maybe you'd figure out you can't always trust the conspiracy theories. I mean, you're so whacked out I bet you also believe that when I went to Kenya I was the midwife during the birth of Barack Obama.

O'DONNELLL: You were? What a stunning thing to say. I'm so glad you can finally admit that. Hold on while I Twitter your confession to Orly.

Full transcript below the fold.

This morning the Philadelphia talent agent who booked the actors for the infamous "hicky" ad run by the NRSC accused them of covering up their involvement in the ad by placing the blame for the "hicky" language used in the casting documents on her. When the scandal broke, the NRSC blamed her, as the subcontractor for the ad for the casting directions. This morning the agent and her attorney released an e-mail from the NRSC’s production company, Jamestown Associates to her that "contains the disputed language, including the call for 'hicky' looks."

So the NRSC, and their direct vendor Jamestown Associates, has been forced to come clean, providing a statement to Greg Sargent.

"This morning, the NRSC learned that our vendor Jamestown Associates was responsible for the offensive language surrounding our independent expenditure ad in West Virginia. When originally confronted last week, they flatly denied having anything to do with the unacceptable language and we took them at their word . Upon learning these facts this morning, the NRSC immediately fired Jamestown Associates."
.....

"Because we did not know the truth, we have made incorrect statements over the last eight days, and we regret doing so. The NRSC unequivocally denounces the offensive language that Jamestown Associates used in producing this ad. We apologize to any West Virginia voter who may have been offended by this firm's actions, and we extend our apologies to Kathy Wickline and all those who were misled as a result of Jamestown Associates' actions. The NRSC will have no further dealings, now or ever, with Jamestown Associates, but they were our vendor and we take responsibility for this unfortunate matter."

So now you know, West Virginians, DC Republicans think you're hicks, or at least the ones at Jamestown Associates do. The loss of the NRSC as a client will undoubtedly sting a little bit for Jamestown. But they'll always have the Chamber of Commerce and they're going to be spending even more in attack ads. They won't get squeamish about anything.

I wish we had enough money to run 20 polls a week, but alas, this shit costs money. So we're doing one statewide race (see other thread), and one House race. Here are the options for this week:

AZ-03

Ben Quayle, idiot son of the idiot vice president, is trying to take this seat held by retiring conservative stalwart John Shaedegg. Among other things, he helped start the trash gossip site TheDirty.com, before pretending to be all about "family values". Dems have a great candidate. Great enough to be competitive against a true dolt in this conservative district?

NE-02

We nearly beat incumbent Rep. Lee Terry in this congressional district won by Obama in 2008. We have a great Democratic candidate. Is this a real race?

PA-06

O2B candidate Manan Trivedi's race against incumbent GOPer Jim Gerlach. It'd be nice to check up on Trivedi's progress.

KS-04

Democrat Raj Goyle is another in a new wave of Indian-American making their mark on electoral politics, facing Republican asshole Mike Pomeop, last seen linking to racist blog that proclaimed Obama was an "evil muslim communist USURPER".

So we have far more polling targets than polls we can afford to conduct. Given we're internally stumped on where to go next, we'll give you the call.

AZ-Gov

After weeks of Ras polls showing a Republican blowout by incumbent Republican Jan Brewer, a poll this week suggested it was a much closer race. It would be nice to get another opinion on the matter.

We'd also check in on the Senate race, and could ask a question or two about SB 1070 and immigration.

SC-Gov

Republican Nikki Haley has been getting hammered over ethics violations, and a race that seemed to be an easy Republican hold might actually be competitive. Would be nice to have some numbers one way or another.

We could even take a look at the Senate race for shits and giggles.

OR-Gov

Republican Chris Dudley led in a flood of Rasmussen polls and SUSA. But now, even Rasmussen has Democratic nominee Kitzhaber charging back strongly. Would be nice to have a non-Ras look at the race.

Vote below for which state you want to see polled. We'll also poll a House race. Look for a subsequent poll to chose that target.

The Republican former mayor of Fairbanks confirms what had been informed speculation that Miller's use of borough resources for political purposes nearly caused him to be fired from his position as a borough attorney. Former Mayor Jim Whitaker also called Miller a liar, in more polite terms.

Whitaker said Miller’s actions violated the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s ethics policy but did not result in a termination because the borough needed Miller to continue working on its lawsuit about how much to tax the trans-Alaska pipeline system. Miller eventually resigned from borough employment on Sept. 1, 2009.

“I’m speaking now because this occurred on my watch as mayor, because I know the truth, and because I have an obligation to tell the truth,” Whitaker said in an interview with the Daily News-Miner.

He said that, as a former mayor, he would prefer not to be involved in “the political melee.”

“I also felt it was appropriate to give Mr. Miller enough time to come forward himself,” Whitaker said. “It’s clear with his statements of the other day, he’s not going to do that. Referring to the truth as innuendo and lies is not truthful.”

Miller was reportedly using colleagues' computers to cast proxy votes to oust the GOP state chair in a party coup plan Sarah Palin cooked up. The incident has resulted in plenty of back and forth between Miller and the borough, which has been asked to release Miller's employment records. They say they can only do so with a release from Miller. Miller says they have to release him from attorney-client privilege (which the borough denies is necessary) and so he won't authorize the release until he gets that from them. That's the stalemate that's existed since June, until Whitaker finally decided enough was enough.

In case you're curious about what did end Miller's employment with the borough, it was a reportedly a dispute over time off. The staff had a large workload, and two attorneys were out--one because of her pregnancy and one recovering from a heart attack. Miller's request for leave to go elk hunting was denied, and he listed that as a factor in his resignation.

Gawd, what a winner this guy is. Luckily, Alaska voters have a much better choice. You can help Scott McAdams get the word out about the positive direction he promises for Alaska with  $10, $15 or whatever you can kick in.

Greg Sargent reports that in an interview with Lars Larson, Sharron Angle has semi-explained where she got the cockamamie idea that Sharia Law had come to America:

LARSON: Now did you say though that Sharia law was in place in Dearborn right now?

ANGLE: I had read that in one place, that they have started using some Sharia law there. That's what I had read.

Of course, whatever Angle "read" (no doubt on FoxNews.com) was utterly false as Mayor John O'Reilly told her in a letter.

But while it's bad enough that Republicans nominated this lunatic who believes every crazy conspiracy theory she "reads," her quasi-apologia only addresses half the story, because she didn't just say that Sharia Law had spread to Dearborn. She also said it had spread to Frankford, Texas. The only problem with that: Frankford doesn't exist.

These are some fascinating numbers from Pew:

There's a huge difference when cell phones are included in the sample -- on average about a 4 point net swing towards Democrats. Given that most pollsters don't contact cell phones -- doing so is quite expensive -- Democrats could easily outperform their polling average based on the cell phone bias alone. The reason, according to Pew, is that one in four American households is cell-phone only and that voters who live in these households are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Also worth noting: while Pew still shows the GOP with a 7 point lead among likely voters even when including cellphone results, those numbers are from late August and early September when the GOP was at its peak.

A week ago, I posted the results of multiple polls showing Linda McMahon's fav/unfav numbers and they were brutal. it's caught up with her, even with the R-friendly Q-poll out today (and as a Connecticut based poll with media-friendly outreach, this poll tends to set state narrative. Too many reporters have been too lazy to look at the Big Picture.)

Quinnipiac, Oct 7-11 (Sept 28), MoE +/- 2.9

Blumenthal 54 (49)
McMahon    43 (46)

In a nutshell, women and independents in CT (the largest registration group) are coming home. From the Q-poll data:

"Fueled by a surge in support from women, Democrats and independents, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has his best poll numbers since the start of the fall campaign."...

Independent voters shift from 49 - 44 percent for McMahon September 28 to 49 - 44 percent for Blumenthal today. Women back Blumenthal 63 - 32 percent while men back McMahon 52 - 46 percent. ...

"Linda McMahon may have peaked too soon and her advertising saturation could be causing ‘McMahon fatigue.’"

That gender gap remains key for Democrats all over the country, but in CT, Linda's 'oh, wrestler deaths from steroid abuse and employer exploitation on my watch as CEO are no big deal, it's just soap opera' schtick isn't playing well. And that's true even after the media-savvy McMahon could do no better than a draw in the debates with Blumenthal, who hammered her on her WWE experience and minimum wage gaffe. She hit him on his Vietnam statement and job creation, but Blumenthal's likability and trust factor trumped the Vietnam misstatements, and McMahon's CEO tenure at WWE loses her cred on what it actually means to be a businessman. In fact, the NY Times, which broke the story on Blumenthal's Vietnam misstatements, endorsed him today:

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat, has led the way in attacking the tobacco plague, helped clean the region’s environment and supported hundreds of individuals treated unfairly by their health insurance companies, utilities or banks...

We have larger concerns with the Republican, Linda McMahon. She made her name and lots of money by running World Wrestling Entertainment, a noisy, demeaning business. Her policy positions, when you can discern them, are remixes of failed trickle-down ideas.

She has aligned herself with groups that oppose the minimum wage — even though she now says she would not cut this meager safety net. She essentially expects voters to take it on faith that she will do as well in government as she did in spectacle wrestling.

She is ready to spend as much as $50 million of her own money to win the race, but she does not seem ready to take on the issues of war, the economy, public welfare and justice in Washington.  

It's politics, and anything can happen, but going into the homestretch, McMahon and the Chamber and the rest of the Republicans look to be behind with a candidate that people don't like, who is running against someone they do. The only liberal thing about McMahon is her spending, and that won't be enough to win. More from the Q-poll:

With only three weeks left in the campaign, McMahon is down by 11 points with only 3 percent undecided. Even if she won all the undecided, she still would fall short. This has been a very unusual election year, however, so anything is possible."

Likely voters approve 69 - 26 percent of the job Blumenthal is doing as attorney general and say 57 - 38 percent they have a favorable opinion of him.

McMahon gets a split 46 - 46 percent favorability.

So, cheer up, Democrats. Some voters will come home. It's happening in Connecticut.

Dick Blumenthal's campaign page.

Last month, following Charlie Bass' victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary, I wrote that, while in the House, Bass "liked to talk about his commitment to the environment, highlighting his pellet stove." What we didn't know until today is that bolstering his faux moderate image was not the only angle he was working there, as a Nashua Telegraph story by Kevin Landrigan reveals.

Instead, Bass at a minimum used his office to benefit members of his family, and appears to have personally profited as well.

In 2005, Bass wrote and worked hard to pass legislation providing rebates on alternative energy systems, including pellet stoves, but the rebates weren't funded in the Bush budget. In March, 2006, Bass set up a meeting between Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman and Steven Walker, the president of New England Wood Pellet, to discuss the prospects for funding the rebate. Walker happens to be married to Bass' niece, and the rebate was "ideally suited" (PDF) to benefit his company.

Bass not only denies having set up a meeting between his family member and Secretary Bodman, he denies ever having discussed biomass -- which, bear in mind, he legislated rebates to support -- with Secretary Bodman. (He didn't do it! He was dead at the time!) But at the time of the meeting, New England Wood Pellet publicly credited him with setting it up. And Bass does remember being with Bodman on the day in question. It's just that one meeting that makes him look bad that he doesn't recall.

Meanwhile, if his financial disclosure forms are to be believed, in January and November 2006, Bass bought between $500,000 and $1,000,000 worth of privately held stock in New England Wood Pellet -- stock now worth between $1 and $5 million. Then, shortly after leaving office, he joined the company's board of directors.

Bass now insists he bought the stock in November 2006 and January 2007, after he had been defeated by Paul Hodes. He claims he just made a mistake on his disclosure forms (lot of that going around among New Hampshire Republicans). We'll see whether he can produce the paperwork to prove that. And let's say he can. That just means he waited until he left Congress to collect his reward.

This is the kind of influence-peddling, nepotism, and evasion of responsibility we can expect from Bass should he be returned to Congress; or, as Dean Barker writes, "exhibit A on the sleazy nature of revolving door Washington politics."

Meanwhile, Annie Kuster is showing real momentum -- both the New York Times and Real Clear Politics moved the race from lean Republican to toss-up yesterday on the heels of the poll from The Hill putting Bass up by just three points. But she needs our help to counter the independent expenditure ads targeting her. Please give $10 to make sure Charlie Bass doesn't get any more chances to profit off elected office.

Ann McLane Kuster for Congress
Contribute to Ann McLane Kuster

President Obama on Monday reiterated his call for a new stimulus plan that would create jobs, improve our crumbling national infrastructure, and boost the still struggling economy. As reported by McClatchy:

His plan calls for rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads — "enough to circle the world six times" — laying and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, restoring 150 miles of airport runways and advancing a new air-traffic control system.

Obama said that America's crumbling infrastructure weakens our economy and leaves the nation trailing foreign competitors in investment, including China, Russia and Europe. By embarking soon on the infrastructure buildup, he said, "we will create good, middle-class jobs right now."

Obama's push comes with the nation's overall unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent. Voters are upset about the economy and job losses, but they're also unhappy about federal budget deficits and the skyrocketing national debt. The deficit for fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, was $1.3 trillion, the second highest since World War II, according to an estimate last week from the Congressional Budget Office. The highest came the preceding year, at $1.4 trillion.

What McClatchy didn't mention was that the August deficit was down from August 2010, with rising tax revenues making the difference. In other words, Keynesianism works. Deficit spending in a deep recession can end up paying for itself, thanks to the resultant economic boost. Which is part of the point.

As previously noted, private industry is not hiring, and will not resume doing so any time soon. Only the government can do it. And as Meteor Blades wrote, when the president first announced this plan:

Like so much else that plagues the U.S. economy, decay of the U.S. infrastructure has been building for decades. That's in part because policymakers at the local, state and federal levels have been more interested in building new stuff than in keeping the old stuff in good repair. It's also a product of the magical thinking known as out-of-sight, out-of-mind, or in budget-writers' parlance, deferred maintenance.

Bridges don't fall down when the first rivet rusts through. Roads don't become unusable when the first pothole appears. A rotting rail bed merely slows trains down; it doesn't stop freight or passengers from moving altogether. But deterioration from deferred maintenance is cumulative. What starts out as an easily fixed, relatively cheap repair becomes a gigantic, hugely expensive rebuild, often sparked by a killer catastrophe that spurs a duh moment for the media and many citizens, who inquire: how could this have happened? There is, obviously, the short-sightedness of politicians and other civic leaders, but the anti-tax attitude that has permeated so much of the populace plays a large part. Examples of this myopia abound. Americans shudder at that poor education so many of our children receive, but the desire to get them out of schools that can only be described as ramshackle frequently collides with the attitude that no taxes should be raised to change the situation.

This is the right policy, and given the inevitable Republican obstructionism it should be an easy political win. If Congress were to vote on it. Which Congress has yet to do.