A Seether kind of day

When things in my life get crazy, I turn to music. This election season the band you'll hear most often coming from my room is Seether -- I liked them before but lately the lyrics have some meaning to me. "Fake it" is one of my top five favorites, as well as recently discovering their version of "Careless Whisper" -- They have some of their videos on their website -- www.seether.com. Songs like "Breakdown" another top five favorite of mine...

Time's top viral campaign videos...

If you have some time, you might want to take a look at the Best viral campaign ads of 2010. I viewed all 29, didn't think all of them were that great, but I did agree a few were noteworthy:

Chuck Grassley

Dale Peterson, I wish he would have won too

Carly Fiorina's Demon Sheep of course made the list

John Hickenlooper's video is one I saw before and loved same with Mike Weinstein

Alan Grayson...has guts :-)

Report on Tea Party released

With all of the discussion this election cycle about the Tea Party, some of you may be interested in reading the report that was released today -- it can be downloaded and read at www.teapartynationalism.com.

A selection of some of the information contained in the report from the section on "Tea Parties - Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Militia Impulse":

Tea Party leaders have bristled at any mention of the racism, Christian nationalism and white supremacy that is a part of their movement. In several notable instances, people of color have been prominently put forward as speakers or entertainers at Tea Party rallies, as if to say: look, this is a racially diverse movement that wants to add more color to its ranks. Prominent among these few individuals has been Lloyd Marcus, previously mentioned in this report as a paid consultant of Tea Party Express.

Nevertheless, Confederate battle flags, signs that read “America is a Christian nation,” and racist caricatures of President Obama have been an undeniable presence at Tea Party events in both local communities and in Washington, D.C. The venom (and spittle) directed at African-American Congressmen during the health care debate carried an unmistakably racist message. It is not the contention of this report that all Tea Partiers are consciously racist. The evidence presented, however, speaks for itself.

Health care reform legislation had been a flashpoint for Tea Party protests, beginning with a concerted effort to shout down Congressional Democrats at their “town hall” meetings during August 2009. The following November, at a Tea Party protest aimed at health care legislation, ten people were arrested for unlawful entry when they tried to force their way into the offices of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. As the bill moved closer to passage in March 2010, strident voices called for violence. One 1990s-era militiaman from Alabama, Mike Vanderboegh, urged whoever was reading his blog to break the windows of Democrats. “Break them NOW...Break them with rocks...”[233] In the aftermath of this call, the office windows of several members of the House of Representatives were shattered with bricks.

Both polling data and observable evidence point to the fact that Tea Party attendees and their supporters are mostly white. Significantly, these white Tea Partiers show noticeably different attitudes than those of white people generally, particularly in regards to racially charged issues. Tea Partiers are more likely than white people generally to believe that “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people: 52% to 39%.[244]

A striking difference over positive attitudes towards black people showed up in a multi-state poll, conducted in March 2010, by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. Of those who strongly disapproved of the Tea Party, 55% agreed with the statement that black people were “VERY hard working.” Of those who strongly approved of the Tea Party, only 18% agreed with the statement that black people were “VERY hard working.” This 24-point difference pointed at Tea Party supporters as more likely to have negative feelings about the work ethic of black people. In fact, 68% of the Tea party “approvers” believed that if only they would try harder, then black people would be as well off as white people. That number fell by almost half, to 35%, when the “disapprovers” answered it.[245]

Further, almost three-quarters of Tea Party supporters (73%), told pollsters that government programs aimed at providing a social safety net for poor people actually encourages them to remain poor.[246] In fact, more than a bit of anecdotal evidence shows hostility and resentment towards the poor and the programs designed to help them. Hence, the signs such as one at an early St. Louis Tea Party that read: “Honk if I am paying your mortgage.” Not every Tea party supporter exhibited such feelings, certainly, but enough of it showed up in opinion polls to give credence to the description of Tea Parties as mean-spirited.

I recommend reading the entire report, "Who is an American? Tea Parties, Nativism, and the Birthers" is also an interesting chapter, one part:

The Revolutionary War-era costumes, the yellow “Don’t tread on me” Gadsden flags from the same era, the earnest recitals of the pledge of allegiance, the over-stated veneration of the Constitution, and the defense of “American exceptionalism” in a world turned towards transnational economies and global institutions: all are signs of the over-arching nationalism that helps define the Tea Party movement.

It is a form of American nationalism, however, that does not include all Americans, and separates itself from those it regards as insufficiently “real Americans.” Consider in this regard, a recent Tea Party Nation Newsletter article entitled, “Real Americans Did Not Sue Arizona.” Or the hand-drawn sign at a Tea Party rally that was obviously earnestly felt. “I am a arrogant American, unlike our President, I am proud of my country, our freedom, our generosity, no apology from me.”

Cross posted from Glass City Jungle

With the Iott "Nazi" issue a national media story...

Since the election for the ninth congressional district is one that I've focused quite a bit on my local political blog, for those of you looking for coverage on that story. I recommend some of the blog posts on Glass City Jungle and a piece for the Toledo Free Press that I contributed to.

Iott participated in Nazi re-enactments reports the Atlantic – UPDATED

Iott participation in military re-enactments raising questions

Cantor "would absolutely repudiate" Iott

Military re-enactments focus of Iott & Kaptur releases

And I recommend watching where it all started, on Bill Maher. The below link has video of the clip where Josuha Green, senior editor of the Atlantic shares the photos of Iott dressed in a German SS Wiking uniform.

Link to video.

Some of those on the Maher site slammed P. J. O'Rourke's performance on the show, I have to say the former Toledoan had some moments were he was funny. The Maher crew was also creative with their suggested campaign slogans for Iott. "Today Toledo -- tomorrow the world" was funny.

It's been interesting to watch, I personally don't believe Rich Iott is a Nazi, but I think his campaign could have handled what they knew was coming better and that if he wanted to be involved in re-enactments (which I'm fine with) he might have considered a different unit to pretend about. His comments complimenting the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking and Hitler's Germany as far as their power, easily became campaign fodder.

:-)

Larry Sabato & the Crystal Ball

The predictions are out:

2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition. It has simply been a question of degree. Several scenarios were possible, depending in large measure on whether, or how quickly, the deeply troubled American economy recovered from the Great Recession. Had Democratic hopes on economic revitalization materialized, it is easy to see how the party could have used its superior financial resources, combined with the tendency of Republicans in some districts and states to nominate ideological fringe candidates, to keep losses to the low 30s in the House and a handful in the Senate.

Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. This is a "net" number since the GOP will probably lose several of its own congressional districts in Delaware, Hawaii, and Louisiana. This estimate, which may be raised or lowered by Election Day, is based on a careful district-by-district analysis, plus electoral modeling based on trends in President Obama's Gallup job approval rating and the Democratic-versus-Republican congressional generic ballot (discussed later in this essay). If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today.

In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.

It is however not predicted at this point that Ohio's gubernatorial race will change parties...

Progressives tired of Democratic failures

The following came in via e-mail as a fundraising request, but I think it's important that what is being said be pointed out.

Democrats: Epic Fai


Lisa -

That's right, I said it -- Insider Democrats scored another epic fail.

I mean, just take a look at this headline in yesterday's New York Times -- "Plan to Aid 9/11 Victims Is Rejected in House."

Here's the best part -- the vote was 255-159 in favor of the bill. Now, I wasn't a math major, but 255 was bigger than 159 last I checked.

So, what happened? Democrats brought up the bill under special rules requiring two-thirds support to pass. So even though the bill had clear majority support, it still failed.

This isn't the sort of bold progressive leadership I fought for in 2006 and 2008. I worked to elect Democrats to get stuff done, but they keep letting Republicans trip them up with parliamentary tricks. I'm sick of it.

That's why here at DFA we don't support just any Democrat, we support Better Democrats. We support Democrats with backbone, who are willing to lead on the tough issues and get stuff done -- Democrats like Howard Dean and Alan Grayson. But we can't do it alone. We rely on small contributions from supporters across the country to get our work done. Contribute today to support our mission.

Help elect Democrats with backbone, leaders who know that 255 is bigger than 159 -- Contribute $10 right now.

Progressive legislation has been killed or watered down over and over again. The public option -- killed. Climate change legislation -- killed. Wall Street reform -- watered down. Now, Democrats are letting Republicans kill bills to help 9/11 victims.

In 2006, Insider Democrats told us to sit down and be quiet -- we needed to retake the Congress, even if it meant we weren't electing the most progressive candidates.

In 2008, Insider Democrats told us to sit down and be quiet -- we needed to retake the White House and get 60 votes in the Senate, even if it meant we weren't electing the most progressive candidates.

Well, now it's 2010 and it's time they learned DFA members aren't going to sit down and be quiet. We're not going to support candidates just because they have a "D" next to their name.

But if we're going to fire up progressives and elect a real, progressive majority then we need to start today. So here's the plan: We're going to put staff on the ground in critical states where our progressive primary challengers won, like Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Elaine Marshall in North Carolina. And we're going to work to elect progressives like Beth Krom in so-called "red" districts, just like we did with Alan Grayson in 2008.

I don't want to see headlines like that one in the New York Times again. I want to wake up on the day after Election Day and see "Progressives Win" in big, bold letters. Contribute today to help make it happen.

-Arshad

Arshad Hasan, Executive Director
Democracy for America

Tea Party is a party opposed to the idea of parties

While I recommend reading this article What is the Tea Party in USA Today, one part especially caught my attention:

Even so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized political power.

"It's a party opposed to the idea of parties," says Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian whose book about the movement, The Whites of Their Eyes, is scheduled to be published in October. The Tea Party reminds her more of a religious revival than a political movement. She compares it to the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s, a religious resurgence that helped fuel temperance and abolitionism.

What emerges from the polls and interviews is a deeply engaged, highly skeptical group of people — even toward others in their ranks.

If those in support of the Tea Party mentality were to gain enough governmental control, I can believe their extreme conservative positions could have an impact on our nation. While it would not be temperance and abolitionism that would be the result, it's easy to predict illegal immigrants would be a target, affirmative action would be eliminated/diminished and safety net programs for the poor would be gutted.

Personally, what I find most interesting when it comes to some of the online debate encounters I have had with some Tea Party supporters is their level of anger and how easily they express hatred towards liberals and elected officials. That's not to say I have not had reasoned debates with members of the Tea Party, but it is much more rare than with those of other political philosophy. The disdain and the lack of respect expressed does not bode well for our nation as it at times easily surpasses those on the left who took issue with President Bush and Republican office holders.

Economic discontent remains the biggest threat

While not being a fan of David Plouffe or David Axelrod, I can't disagree with their comments in this Washington Post article, Democrats shaping battle plan against Republicans for November. Especially this:

"We'd better act as a party as if the House and the Senate and every major governor's race is at stake and in danger, because they could be."

Plouffe and other Democratic strategists say Obama will play an important role in making the case that the Republican Party is one of obstruction and indifference. But they think the outcome in November will depend as much on the skill of candidates in mobilizing potential supporters who are now disinclined to vote.

Economic discontent remains the biggest threat to the Democrats' political prospects this fall. The issue has become more acute with growing fears that the economy has lost steam in recent weeks. Friday's unemployment report will provide more evidence.

"I think that as long as the economy is struggling, the economy is going to be a decisive issue," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said. "The question is whether people believe at the end of the day [that] turning backward to the policies that got us into the disaster is really the answer. That's a debate we're going to have."

I don't agree that the fear of Republicans taking control will motivate the Democratic base to create victories, it may motivate the base. It will rely more on the quality and skill of the candidates because it will most likely be the voter who is not affiliated closely with either party that is the deciding factor in many of these elections.

We actually don't live in a democracy...

A friend posted a link to this site on Facebook yesterday, Oligarchy USA "And you thought you lived in a Democracy" was the title/sub title.

My first instinct was of course to point out we don't live in a Democracy so anyone who thought they were, demonstrated how little they knew about our government in the first place. I did state the first part but not the second part.

It is however harder to argue that there is not some validity to no longer calling us a Republic but calling ourselves an Oligarchy. In theory we are supposed to elect representation, but in most cases we really have no choices. Political power games or money determines the winner more often than having elections based on who is really the best candidate.

Historically our founding fathers feared a true Democracy, which is why our government was set up as a Republic. That was supposed to save us, yet our founding fathers also did not support political parties or the concept of career politicians. We pride ourselves on "one person - one vote" but we don't elect presidents by a one person one vote system. It's the electoral college that has that power, which is contradictory to how we elect every other office.

We have a primary system but in most cases, there are no primary opponents. In 2008 it was reported that over 250 million adults over the age of 18 live in the United States; 131,257,328 voted in the 2008 presidential election, 208,323,000 have been reported as eligible to vote. This has been stated was the highest voter turnout in our nation's history with a little over 63% turnout.

What would Clinton do?

Bill of course, not Hillary...The Politico piece is one I highly recommend, Clinton years hold clues for Obama even though I doubt from the sounds of it that the Obama administration will heed that advice. I especially agreed with:

The people around Obama are romantics. They dream of Obama as a transformational figure, looming large on history’s stage. They see Clinton as at best a transitional figure, whose poll-tested pragmatism and incremental policies loom small.

And:

The staff of a winning presidential candidate is a cult. When the candidate wins, the cult usually follows him to the West Wing. That happened with Clinton, and it has happened even more with Obama.

But Clinton discovered he needed good advice more than he needed a cult. He came to feel boxed in by those he called “these kids who got me elected” — aides who sat for flattering media profiles and who fancied themselves the indispensable keepers of the campaign faith.

Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance loved by some hated by others...

I'm not really sure at this point who's going to benefit most from the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, beyond having a pretty good idea that it's not going to help us as Citizens to see the corporations have even more power than they already have when it comes to influencing politics. That said I'm not sure it's quite the doom scenario some believe or the benefit to Libertarians some believe.

What's interesting though is reading the reaction. You have Grayson: Court's Campaign Finance Decision "Worst Since Dred Scott" which I admit caught my attention as a headline. Comparing campaign finance to slaves and their children not being allowed to be US citizens is quite the comparison to make.

Then however, you have those that feel that The Supreme Court got it right. I recommend reading both pieces, see how you feel after reading them...

So many are shocked Brown won, calling it an "epic upset" Umm okay...

The signs were there for anyone paying attention that Brown was going to win. See the below post as an example and even the earlier comments from Axelrod...

Meanwhile, in an interview with reporters today, White House senior adviser David Axelrod noted there were "local issues at play" in Massachusetts and complimented Brown's team for running "a very clever campaign."

He said Mr. Obama did all he could for Coakley.

"The White House did everything we were asked to do," Axelrod said, the Baltimore Sun reports. "I think if we had been asked earlier, we would have responded earlier."

Now the typical, "OMG this proves Obama is a failure!" Which is not really the issue, no matter how many times they would have trotted Obama out to Mass, if you run a bad campaign? You usually lose. It's that simple...

So for all of those calling this an "epic upset" -- I'm not sure which campaign they were watching. The "epic upset" would have been if Martha Coakley won...

Running a bad campaign usually means you lose...

After reading this column in the Boston Globe, I wondered what happened to reality? Reality in politics as hard as it may want to be to accept, is if you run a bad campaign, unless the person or persons you happen to be running against run a worse campaign than you? You don't win.

Unfortunately in this nation style means more than substance, charisma more than character and hype more than heart...If a republican does the "unthinkable" and wins the former seat of Ted Kennedy it's because more voters picked him. Right, wrong or indifferent...Fair or unfair...

There have been many candidates I've known in being a political blogger that should have won. They were the better candidate, the better person, but? Voters went for another candidate and it's not much consolation when the complaints later begin to say, "I didn't vote for him/her" -- The only way this will ever end is for voters to wake up, stop falling for campaign hype no matter the party and take an honest look at what that candidate CAN ACTUALLY DO and what they stand for...

Ted Kennedy's widow used for political purposes...

Two e-mails designed to help Coakley fundraise that I've gotten, I'm certain e-mails like this are being sent out by Democratic Senators and candidates and others through out the US, another example. I'm not suggesting Vicki Kennedy is a victim, but she is allowing herself and the memory of her husband to be used to solicit funding because it works. Just as candidates have their spouses, children, even their pets write e-mails looking for financial contributions...

From: Vicki Kennedy
Subject: A message from Victoria Reggie Kennedy

Dear Lee,

Throughout my husband Ted's life, you were always there for him, for me and for the entire Kennedy family. We are tremendously grateful for your friendship and support in the past, and we ask you to stand with us now to support Martha Coakley in the crucial race to fill Ted's remaining term.

This Tuesday, January 19 everything is on the line. The people of Massachusetts will decide who will be their next Senator, and we need Martha Coakley.

The importance of having a voice and a vote that you can count on in Washington has never been more evident than during this ongoing health care debate. And we're going to need every vote again.

Ted fought for national health care reform for 40 years. He believed that every American deserved their chance at the American dream, but that as long as an illness or preexisting condition could bankrupt an American family, that great goal could never become a reality. We need Martha Coakley to continue our shared fight for national health reform, to reduce costs for businesses and families and increase coverage in Massachusetts and throughout this country. This race will be very close and we need you to get us to victory.

We have just 4 days to do the hard work of electing Martha Coakley so that we can continue the agenda that Ted made the fight of his life — reforming health care, ensuring equality and justice for all, protecting our seniors, and rebuilding our economy to allow everyone to prosper. That fight for working families cannot stop — not now, not when so much is at stake for Massachusetts and America. And that's why I'm asking you to ensure that we are victorious this Tuesday.

Stand with me and support Martha Coakley by making a contribution of $35, $50, or whatever you can do today. My husband fought all his life to keep moving this nation forward -- now we must make it the fight of ours.

We need to do everything it takes to ensure our shared fight continues. I am asking you personally to do one more thing for Martha Coakley.

We cannot do this without you.

With gratitude,

Vicki Kennedy

P.S. I know together we can keep fighting for our shared vision of the future. Please go online today to www.marthacoakley.com to make a difference.



Dear Sherrod,

Throughout my husband Ted's life, you were always there for him, for me and for the entire Kennedy family. We are tremendously grateful for your friendship and support in the past, and we ask you to stand with us now to support Martha Coakley in the crucial race to fill Ted's remaining term.

This Tuesday, January 19 everything is on the line. The people of Massachusetts will decide who will be their next Senator, and we need Martha Coakley.

The importance of having a voice and a vote that you can count on in Washington has never been more evident than during this ongoing health care debate. And we're going to need every vote again.

Ted fought for national health care reform for 40 years. He believed that every American deserved their chance at the American dream, but that as long as an illness or preexisting condition could bankrupt an American family, that great goal could never become a reality. We need Martha Coakley to continue our shared fight for national health reform, to reduce costs for businesses and families and increase coverage in Massachusetts and throughout this country. This race will be very close and we need you to get us to victory.

We have just 6 days to do the hard work of electing Martha Coakley so that we can continue the agenda that Ted made the fight of his life - reforming health care, ensuring equality and justice for all, protecting our seniors, and rebuilding our economy to allow everyone to prosper. That fight for working families cannot stop - not now, not when so much is at stake for Massachusetts and America. And that's why I'm asking you to ensure that we are victorious this Tuesday.

Stand with me and support Martha Coakley by making a contribution of $35, $50, or whatever you can do today. My husband fought all his life to keep moving this nation forward -- now we must make it the fight of ours.

Kennedy - Contribute

We need to do everything it takes to ensure our shared fight continues. I am asking you personally to do one more thing for Martha Coakley. We cannot do this without you.

With gratitude,

Victoria Reggie Kennedy

Vicki Kennedy

P.S. I know together we can keep fighting for our shared vision of the future. Please go online today to www.marthacoakley.com to make a difference.

Yushchenko seen as the Barack Obama of his day?

Maybe part of the reason some in the Ukraine are disillusioned stems from the title, they believed the election hype rather than reality. Politicians are not saviors, most times they lie and their promises are because voters have shown time and time again it's whoever tells them what they want to hear the most? Wins.

Of course they throw in an occasional "life is going to be hard" type spiel lest to immediately identify they are promising more than what can be delivered. In Ukraine, the Death of the Orange Revolution Time writes about the disappointment, yet when all you do is elect someone that you think is going to fix things for you then you don't hold them accountable when they don't or can't? Waiting for the next election isn't a solution...

But no matter who's elected, voters have little reason to believe the election will bring about any real change. Across the country, Ukrainians are brimming with anger at the failure of their leaders to tackle the country's chronic corruption or bring about much-needed economic or judicial reforms. "We should line them all up against a wall," says Andriy, a taxi driver in the eastern town of Dnipropetrovsk who only gave his first name. "They promise everything, but give us nothing." Judging by the current climate, many Ukrainians may not be voting for a particular candidate so much as voting against another. One candidate hoping to tap into this widespread dissatisfaction recently changed his name to Vasyl Protyvsikh, or Vasyl "Against All."

You get the government you vote for...

Does Medina support succession? She says no...

I don't normally cross post material from my smaller "Libertarian Common Sense" where I focus on media/history related to Libertarian philosophies which has always been an interest of mine since some of my family members were and are Libertarians. Yet this piece on Debra Medina I feel is an interesting one, not just because of the Libertarian aspect, but because it appears the media is trying to brand her as supporting succession and that is something she and her followers have repeatedly stated is not accurate.

As I started reading, Medina adds fire, uncertainty in Texas governor's race in the Dallas news, I came across this, emphasis mine:

AUSTIN, Texas — The Republican race for governor has mostly been a heavyweight showdown, with the senior U.S. senator from Texas trying to knock out the state's longest serving governor.

But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry aren't the only Republicans in the race. Fiery GOP activist and gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, who has strong libertarian views and does not rule out seceding from the union, could affect the contest, even if she loses, as experts anticipate.

In doing some further research, that's created some controversy:



That said, she's also being questioned for accepting the support of Larry Kilgore and if you read the comments in the Dallas news article, some believe that makes her "a contemptible, traitorous coward" as well as it being stated on that same link that:

I originally did not intend or re-commenting on this article, but I must do so to correct some very untrue statements made by the previous commentors 'Patrick' and 'MedinasAWingnut' - Debra Medina does NOT and has NEVER endorsed the succession of Texas from the Union.

Listen to any interview of hers - or even just visit her website - and you will find the truth about this.

What she DOES support is Nullification and Interposition - the right of a state's legislature to 'nullify' unconstitutional Federal law and the right of the executive branch (the Governor) to 'interpose' on the enforcement of said Federal laws, respectively.

This is NOT succession! And any so called 'conservatives' who disagree with such Jeffersonian endorsed rights - in my opinion - are hardly conservative.

I hope I've cleared this up. I also hope that people would either stop lying about a candidate's positions, or at the very least, do some research before they spout such ridiculous nonsense. Thank you!

Liberty in Texas,
Anthony J. Reed

The history of the question of nullification versus succession is one that has happened before, during the Civil War...Medina's website makes it clear what she is advocating for, so it's interesting that the media continues to link her with the term succession...

A little over two weeks till the local elections are over

I'm actually looking forward to this particular election cycle being over, it's been a challenge for me to try to still post here and my other smaller blogs. Last time was easier because I wasn't also working, it's not to say I don't love my job as a fact checker for the Toledo Free Press, I do, but I've had to come to the reality that there is only so much time in each day and that I have not been able to cover all of the things here I would have liked to.

Once the election craziness has finished, we should go back to more of our normal pattern.

:-)

In Iran, questions of election rigging....

A variety of articles I recommend on this story. CNN:

Khamenei praised the large voter turnout at Friday's election, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with more than 62 percent of the vote, and said the result showed Iranians value "resistance against oppressors," the agency reported.

But clashes between police, supporters of the president and protesters opposing Ahmadinejad, dominated the capital Sunday.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi, an opposition candidate many analysts believed could unseat Ahmadinejad, allege the vote was rigged.

Hundreds of regular and riot police were on the streets as civil unrest continued for the second straight day.

But it was non-uniformed activists, on foot and on motorcycles, who appeared to be behind the most violent incidents.

Al Jazeera:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's incumbent president, has defended his disputed re-election at a public rally in Tehran, insisting that the vote was not "distorted" as claimed by his rivals.

The speech was delivered amid reports of arrests of several reformist politicians who supported Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main challenger, and a formal appeal by Mousavi for the cancellation of Friday's vote.

Supporters of the conservative Ahmadinejad, waving Iranian flags and his portraits filled the capital's Vali Asr Street on Sunday to listen to his speech after the authorities declared that he had won a second four-year term by a huge margin over Mousavi.

What makes this interesting is the voter turnout which Mousavi supporters point out would have created millions of votes being counted within a few hours. They are claiming that the results were switched, appearing to believe that it was really Mousavi who had the over 62% majority.

Time is reporting the Iranian regime has cracked.

Even some of the most astute Iran-watchers are taken aback. "I don't think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence,” says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretenses. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wasn't ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose."

Political campaigning, go for local or go for price...

I often get asked advice when it comes to campaign 101 basics. It may seem like a simple decision, but the reality is depending on what you are running for and what promises you have made, at times you can create controversy over your decision of who to have print your campaign material. From custom bumper stickers to t-shirts, if you don't do some careful decision making it can be a problem. Something as simple as being a candidate who promotes a green message who doesn't use campaign material that is considered "green" can be an issue raised by your opponents.

Then there is the issue of cost, many times going with a local printer will cost your campaign more money. Thanks to the internet there are a variety of companies out there that can save you hundreds of dollars on campaign material.

You also need to be aware of traditions in your area, it does not mean that you necessarily have to follow them, but you should be prepared to explain when you don't. Take my area as an example, wearing a name tag with your name and the office you are seeking is one of those "must do" moments. If you are a candidate out in public without one? Chances are someone is going to ask you, "Where is your name tag?" Which is why I warn new candidates, buy more than one...wear it...

I also really recommend using door hangers, which companies like PSPrint Online Printing have easy to use templates for. If you are planning on doing a traditional door to door campaign, you will knock on doors where no one is home, having something as simple as a door hanger lets people know you stopped by without having to hear complaints about a brochure or a flyer blowing off their porch or making the mistake of using a mail box, which is against the law. One campaign locally that became an issue and you as a candidate want to be able to focus on the reasons why you should be elected.

Another one bites the dust...Richardson pulls name from consideration for Commerce

I guess it could be said with the recent questions concerning Bill Richardson and a financial group that it's probably a good thing that he was not selected as Secretary of State though I'm not positive as to the final outcome of what has happened. All that is clear at this point is that Richardson has pulled his name out of the running for Commerce Secretary.

It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time. I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.

Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.

So, for now, I will remain in the job I love, Governor of New Mexico, and will continue to work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future.

The google search on this issue turns up posts on sites such as Michelle Malkin that stated:

Corrupt Bill Richardson says adios to being Commerce Secretary

I always hesitate when it comes to making such accusations, the pay to play problem is a huge one, one that coming from Ohio, the land of the Noe saga, I know better than anyone. Richardson has not been found guilty of any wrong doing at this point, it's to me rather hypocritical to be labeling Richardson as corrupt by some of those who felt Sarah Palin should not be judged in "troopergate" until that investigation was complete...

Then again, part of the political game of tit for tat always seems to forget about the golden rule of life many of us strive for.