Political facts you NEVER imagined

According to a new study of personality and politics:

• Right-wingers hoard cleaning supplies, calendars, postage stamps, and laundry products.
• Liberals have cluttered offices, colorful bedrooms, lots of CDs, and eclectic taste in music and movies.

These differences map out regionally just like our red-blue voting map. Also:

• Conservatives are traditional, self-disciplined, rule-following, organized, dependable, and responsible. They're religious, indifferent to inequality, and happy.
• Liberals are creative, curious, intellectual, and tolerant. They think too much, worry about other people, and their happiness consequently plunges during hard times.
  

I almost hate to say it, but it sounds like we need both kinds.

UPDATE: But not until we get way past this election.

Protecting yer yard sign

I've been hearing reports of yard-sign theft from the good Democratic front lawns and highway triangles of Lincoln County, so I was pleased to see this handy advice from our friends at the Hancock County Democratic Committee:

Sign theft and vandalism continues to be a problem in some areas. District Attorney Michael Povich has issued a statement regarding this, which you can download from the HCDC homepage, or use this link.

The statute:

23 MRSA §1917-A. Unlawful removal of political signs

1. A person who takes, defaces or disturbs a lawfully placed sign bearing political messages relating to a general election, primary election or referendum commits a civil violation for which a forfeiture of up to $250 may be adjudged.

Hope that's helpful.

UPDATE: Then there's this solution, from New Mexico.

Democrats, please write 100 times: People do not vote on issues.

I've said this before, haven't I? Dems keep nominating cortex candidates while Republicans go all lizard-brain. Except that this time we didn't, even if it was by the skin of our teeth. And by choosing Obama over Clinton, we finally have a candidate who communicates emotion, not policy. Obama is our Reagan, according to George Lakoff.

And here's why it matters so much. Democrats, can we please learn this lesson once and for all and not backslide next time with a Hillary or Kerry or Gore or Dukakis?

First of all, 98 percent of our reason is unconscious; it's what our brain is doing when we're busy being conscious.

Second, it turns out that you can't be rational without being emotional; emotional is necessary for rationality.

In politics, this means that people don't vote on issues. Lakoff again:

Ronald Reagan learned from all of this that people vote not on the basis of positions on issues and on programs but on five things. Namely, values, communication and connection, trust, authenticity (do you tell the truth), and identity (do you identify with the candidate). Obama understood that, and ran his campaign that way. Clinton ran on the basis of positions on issues, and bored people, basically. She didn't run on those five things. Now, Obama had the positions on issues and all the experts, but that's not how he ran his operation against Clinton.

Note please: Obama had the policies; he just didn't run on them.

Lakoff mentions other interesting things like "mirror neurons," and why we feel comfortable when we see Obama and why McCain makes us tense. But the take-home message is, thank God we nominated Obama.

Conservatism has been meth-head for 50 years

...if not longer. Ilyka cures us of any latent William F. Buckley nostalgia. Conservatism as ushered in with the founding of the National Review is little more than a euphemism for white supremacy:

I am telling you, leftybeans, you have all had amnesia. Every single piece of drivel you find in The Corner, every lulzy post at Bacon o’Playdough, every Goldsteinian meltdown and Instapunditious I-just-link, I-don’t-endorse oily oozy blob of propaganda, every Confederate Yankee conspiracy theory, every Patterician investigation of IP addresses and other ridiculous internet minutiae, springs from this half-a-century-ago source.

And that source is based upon one single, easily attacked premise: That white men in America are losing out on the American dream, and “those people”–be they queer, black, women, transgendered, latin@, disabled, or OMG all six at the same time!–are to blame for it. Thus must we stand athwart their lives and their bodies and yell, or beat into them, our message to STOP. Because what is history but the story of people?

And conservatism won't be dead with this election, she writes, "it's resting."

h/t Atrios.

Fake Americans head McCain's donor list

Check out the top ten zip codes of his donors:

1. 10021 - New York, N.Y.
2. 85253 - Paradise Valley, Ariz.
3. 10022 - New York, N.Y.
4. 06830 - Greenwich, Conn.
5. 92660 - Newport Beach, Calif.
6. 22101 - McLean, Va.
7. 75205 - Dallas, Texas
8. 77024 - Houston, Texas
9. 78209 - San Antonio, Texas
10. 63124 - St. Louis, Mo.

Can the netroots save democracy?

Huffpo on the netroots and the end of Rovian politics:

• Traditional media might call out a lie once and then move on to the next shiny thing. Bloggers are obsessive and, being everywhere, will follow a story into every last corner, forever.
• The internet makes easier to disseminate character smears but harder to make them stick.
• Instead of relying on 30-second campaign ads and TV sound bites, voters now - by the millions - watch full-length speeches and YouTube videos posted by a wide range of people. They're getting much fuller, rounder pictures of their candidates, and it's harder to scare them.
  

Let's hope.

Matt Taibbi does not suffer fools gladly

And therefore, when National Review's Byron York tries to pin the credit crisis on Democrats, minorities, and the Community Reinvestment Act, Taibbi hands him his head:

Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.

h/t Washington Monthly.

Next time you hear "liberal media"

...you can point out that we're down to five and they all want those McCain tax cuts:

The multinational corporations that run the mainstream media — GE (NBC), Time Warner (CNN), Walt Disney (ABC), News Corporation (FOX), and Viacom (CBS) — stand to benefit hugely under a McCain presidency. The centerpiece of Sen. McCain’s economic plan — actually, the whole plan — is large tax cuts for corporations. It would deliver $1.44 billion in tax cuts to the five largest media companies, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Friends of the Earth Action Endorses Tom Allen for Senate

From FoE Action's press release:

Allen called a consistent supporter of clean air, clean water and clean energy; Collins has frequently sided with Bush and special interests

Friends of the Earth Action today endorsed Congressman Tom Allen for Senate, saying there is a significant difference between his consistent support for environmental protection and fair trade and incumbent Senator Susan Collins’ frequent votes against these principles.

“Maine residents deserve an A voter in the Senate, not someone who scores a C- through her career but then gets green the year before an election,” said Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth Action. “Far too often, Susan Collins has sided with special interests and George Bush—and against the health of the planet. Tom Allen is a strong supporter of clean air, clean water, clean energy and fair trade. He has earned our endorsement.”

According to the League of Conservation Voters, Allen has a 92 percent pro-environment lifetime voting record, but Collins has a lifetime record of only 69 percent, Blackwelder said.

Allen’s track record includes opposition to the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill of 2005 with its billions for Big Oil, which Collins supported. Allen has been a leader on clean energy and is an original cosponsor of the Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590), one of the best bills yet offered on climate change in the House of Representatives. Allen is also a recognized leader on ocean pollution issues, writing successful legislation to create a comprehensive ocean observing system and to monitor ocean acidification.

Allen is also a strong supporter of fair trade, Blackwelder said:

“There are big differences between Allen and Collins on a central issue for Friends of the Earth Action—global trade agreements. Unjust agreements have led to a race to the bottom in environmental and workplace standards, causing outsourcing to businesses that tolerate sweatshops, and facilitating natural resource exploitation. Allen has consistently opposed these bad trade deals. Collins has not.”

Collins supported the Peru free trade agreement as well as “fast-track” negotiating authority for the president, which Friends of the Earth Action opposed. She has been ambiguous about how she will vote on the deeply flawed Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Allen on the other hand has pledged to “put a stop to trade deals that benefit the multinational corporations at the expense of Maine workers” and has consistently voted against bad agreements.

Collins and Allen also differ on strongly on judicial nominations, with Collins voting to confirm all of President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees.

“The future of the Supreme Court is one of the most crucial issues for those of us focused on clean air, clean water and the climate crisis,” said Friends of the Earth Action board member and Maine resident Michael Herz. “Unfortunately Susan Collins voted to confirm both of George Bush’s right-wing Supreme Court nominees, jeopardizing numerous environmental protections.”

Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito, both of whom Collins voted to confirm, have already sided against the environment in major decisions including Mass v. EPA, Rapanos v. United States and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker.

Collins also voted to confirm Gale Norton as Bush’s Secretary of Interior. Norton has turned out to be one of the most anti-environment secretaries in our nation’s history.

Finally, Collins and Allen differ significantly on the Iraq war, which Friends of the Earth Action strongly opposed. Collins voted for the war and has supported the disastrous Iraq policies of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Allen was one of only 133 House members to oppose using military force in Iraq.

“In all of these areas, Tom Allen has been an advocate for the health of Maine’s people and the planet,” Herz said. “We are proud to support his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.”

No. Blank. Check. For. Crooks.

On the economic bailout front, don't miss:

• Bernie's Bailout Manifesto, in which Sen. Bernard Sanders states the four principles that ought to be applied to any bailout; and
  
• Yes, There Are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress, in which an anonymous lawmaker expresses his true feelings about the most selfish people on the face of the planet.

As one commenter put it,

HAND OVER THE $700 BILLION AMERICA, IN UNMARKED BILLS, AND NONE OF YOU BETTER GET ANY IDEAS AND TRY TO FOLLOW US, NEITHER, OR THE ECONOMY GETS IT

Listen up, Dems: here's why people vote Republican

They live in a different moral universe. And we need to take it seriously.

Republicans have different gut feelings than we do, because they use a different mix of the morality spectrum. That's the thesis of a piece called "What Makes People Vote Republican?" It's overly long, but a must-read for anyone working in the fields of persuasion or reconciliation:

Not everyone who votes Republican has been 'duped'. Conservative ideals appeal to some because they reflect heartfelt visions of a 'good society.'

The author is a Penn-trained psychologist who has studied morality in the special subculture of politics and come to two conclusions. First, and this is not news, gut feelings trump reason:

[W]hen gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. [...]

These obviously post-hoc rationalizations illustrate the philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them." This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

Second, morality differs across cultures, including cultures like R and D:

[M]orality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. It turns out that human societies have found several radically different approaches to suppressing selfishness [...].

He goes on to explore five different kinds of morality:

• harm/care
• fairness/repricocity
• ingroup/loyalty
• authority/respect
• purity/sanctity
  

You can see where this is going. Put together, these values function in our lives almost like the sliders on a stereo equalizer. Conservatives use a mix that is distinctively different from that of liberals; therefore, our messages don't "sound right" to each other. A story that makes beautiful music to us may sound thin and incomplete to people we are trying to persuade.

I can't excerpt it further. Go read. And you can test yourself at YourMorals.org.

Former National Review publisher speaks out on McCain, Obama

Friends, relatives, countrymen… if you know and love any Republicans (or are one), I beg you to read this piece by Wick Allison, former editor of the National Review. It’s an extraordinary repudiation of the conservative movement as it stands today, along with a thoughtful look at Obama. Then send it on:

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher [...]

[T]oday it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth. This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse. [...]

I held my breath and sent the piece to my entire family and some RW friends, along with a pre-emptive apology and a request for humble bipartisan outreach. Because of this segment:

I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

hat tip kos.

UPDATE: And if you're wondering what makes people vote Republican in the first place, head over here.

This is your nation on white privilege

I hadn't heard of Tim Wise, author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, until a recent email. He's thought-provoking, to say the least. Excerpts:

• White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
• White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
• White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
• White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
  
• White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
• White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

Emphasis and formatting added. Read the whole thing here.

Count the lies

The DNC is tracking lies over at McCainpedia.

Life vs. death: how can a wingnut tell?

An entirely fresh take on the cell-war debates, from a doctor in the family:

If McCain and Palin believe that life starts at conception when there is but one cell, how do they define death? When someone is dead and their heart stops and they stop breathing and their brain stops working, there are still trillions of functioning cells that are very much alive and carrying out their individual routines, even when they run out of oxygen. And some of these cells are those beloved, protected progenitor cells like stem cells. So is death when all those cells finally die and we are just a big pile of goo? I mean if they are going to use microbiology and biochemistry to define life then the same rule should apply for death! You can't use a strict definition for one and an "arbitrary" one for the other.

Anyway, thought educated minds should be informed!

I'm going to start using this argument wherever I can, because at least it might make people stop and blink. (And wouldn't it be great if voters cared about things like logic and being informed?)