NYT, Friday:

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

[snip]

In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment [to be Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Project]. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year.

[snip]

It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.

“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. [my emphasis]

Sarah Palin, Friday:

There’s been a lot of interest in what I read lately. I was reading today a copy of The New York Times. And I was really interested to read in there about Barack Obama’s friends from Chicago. Turns out one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times, was a domestic terrorist, that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the United States Capitol’.

Sarah Palin, Today:

Several news agencies have looked into the relationship and concluded the men are not close.

Palin said she doesn’t believe it.

"Wait a minute there," she said. "You mean to tell me he doesn’t know he launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist?"

I guess she’s "reading" the NYT. It’s just that her definition of "reading" is a little different from most peoples’ definition of reading.

The problem is that Sarah Palin improperly billed the state of Alaska so she could cart her children around to events.

Both the NYT and the WSJ confirm what tax bloggers have already concluded. The Palins did not declare the $43,490 the state reimbursed them for travel costs for Todd and the kids to accompany Sarah on official trips. And they should have–certainly for the funds reimbursing travel for the kids. Here’s the WSJ:

While several tax experts have raised serious questions about whether the payments to Gov. Palin are taxable income, they said the case was clearer cut for treating the reimbursements for the children’s expenses as taxable income. "The kids are a slam dunk problem," said Robert Spierer, a partner with the accounting firm Perelson Weiner LLP in New York City. "The husband you could make an argument that he had to be there because it was required for spouses to be there."

But not the children, he said. "I don’t think I would ever claim that on my clients’ returns. I can’t think of a real strong argument for it."

[snip]

Bryan Camp, a tax professor at Texas Tech University School of Law and a former Internal Revenue Service lawyer in Washington, said the IRS would ask several questions to determine whether the travel reimbursements were reported properly.

Those questions include whether Mr. Palin and the children were employees of the state of Alaska, whether they traveling for bona fide business purposes, and whether they would have been able to deduct those travel expenses on their own tax returns for business purposes.

Because the answer to at least one and possibly more of those questions is no, "The Palins should have reported the $43,000 in family travel allowances received in 2007 as income," Mr. Camp wrote in an analysis.

See, the Palins almost certainly owe taxes on these funds (the NYT says they owe $6000). Asssuming they pay their back taxes, they can just say, "aw shucks, we didn’ know." They do that, and we’ll stop calling them tax cheats.

(Though, given that the Palins filed their taxes on September 3 this year, after Sarah was already the GOP VP nominee, I think it fair to ask how the Palins managed to make this mistake while under the watchful eye of all those GOP handlers.)

So, fine, the Palins pay their back taxes and I’ll stop calling them tax cheats.

But that doesn’t address the underlying scam here: Sarah Palin is carting her kids (and her husband) around to official events. The state of Alaska clearly doesn’t see them as part of that official business–if it did, it would have documented it properly and the Palins probably would have paid their taxes. Yet Sarah is still scamming the state for reimbursement.

That’s the story here, it seems: that Sarah has scammed Alaskans into paying for Bristol’s $6000 boondoggle to Manhattan. 

In today’s conference call, John McCain was represented by John Dowd, of Akin Gump.

You might remember Dowd. He was the guy who made sure Monica Goodling got immunity before she confessed to the way she had politicized DOJ.

But more interestingly John Dowd helped Cindy McCain avoid all legal consequences for stealing drugs from her own medical charity (in the process, Dowd attacked the whistleblower who came forward to expose Cindy’s law-breaking).

How curious, don’t you think, that John Dowd after all these years has returned to defend McCain? (Greg Sargent notes that last year, John Dowd was mourning the John McCain he used to know.)

It’s particularly curious given that McCain had already retained a lawyer back in December to fight charges that he abused power: Skadden Arps partner Bob Bennett. Back then, Bennett was arguing that the stories showing McCain had intervened for Vicki Iseman’s clients improperly were part of a smear job.

A spirited defense of McCain was already being mounted on television Thursday by Robert Bennett, who has, according to the Drudge Report, been on this case for McCain since December 2007, when the high-profile lawyer (and Democrat brother to Republican Bill) was brought on to pressure the Times to kill the story:

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Bennett still insisted overnight that the story was nothing more than a "smear campaign,"

Bennett was using precisely the same language Dowd is using today–calling the exposure of McCain’s favors for Iseman a "smear campaign."

Now that’s where we come full circle. 

It was Bob Bennett, of course, who recommended the Senate Ethics Committee investigation drop McCain (and John Glenn). But in the final report, he stated that McCain had exercised "bad judgment" for meeting with Senate regulstors about Keating’s interests. 

So what’s it say about McCain, that he had to ditch the last lawyer who was screaming "smear campaign" about his participating in influence peddling because he was precisely the lawyer that conducted what his new/old lawyer now screams was a "smear campaign," and because he was the attorney that certified that McCain had, in fact, exercised bad judgment the last time he was significantly engaged in influence peddling. Even his "smear campaign" criers come with built-in conflicts of interest!

What’s it say about the guy that he’s had to create a small sub-specialty for DC’s top lawyers to cry "smear campaign" in efforts to dismiss his repeated participation in DC’s influence peddling racket?

Update: the Obama campaign just sent out a reminder of two of the things Bennett said while he was presiding over the Senate inquiry:

Bennett: McCain Had Closest Relationship to Keating. During his opening statement of the hearings, Bennett said, “Of the five senators here before you, Senator McCain had the closest personal friendship with Charles Keating.  Their friendship pre-dated Senator McCain’s political career.  Senator McCain also was the only one who received personal as well political benefits from Charles Keating.” [Senate Ethics Committee, 11/15/90]

Bennett: McCain’s Vacations with Keating Were “Troubling Evidence.”  During the opening statement, Bennett also said, “When John McCain was a member of the House, he and his family vacationed with the Keatings at the Keating home in Cat Cay, the Bahamas… This was troubling evidence to counsel, and we investigated.” [Senate Ethics Committee, 11/15/90]

Aravosis listens to tedious McCain conference calls so you don’t have to.

Then McCain’s lawyer dropped the real bomb.

The Keating Five Investigation was "a political smear job on John [McCain]." WTF? He called Howell Heflin, who led the hearings, a "stooge" of the Democratic machine out to get poor, innocent John McCain.

This opens up the entire question of McCain’s supposed contrition. If McCain thinks he did nothing wrong, and that it was wrong for the Senate to scold him for his actions during the Keating Five Scandal, then he isn’t contrite at all, he isn’t sorry at all. He’s learned nothing. You can’t turn a new leaf when you don’t think you did anything wrong. [my emphasis]

I’d go further. As the NRO helpfully reminds us this morning (inconveniently for them, they didn’t get the memo about this latest McCain flip-flop until it was too late), McCain’s entire claim to be since about his mavericky reformer personality stems from his contrition about his mistakes with Keating.

 …his involvement in the scandal is what drove McCain to become such a relentless pain-in-the-tuchus about campaign finance reform, and arguably blind to First Amendment objections. Put aside the fact that McCain sees that his association with Keating was a mistake,…

I guess that whole maverick reform business was just a temporary, politically convenient stunt, then, if the underlying contrition was just an act. 

Let’s review the events of the last week or so for the McCain team. On Thursday, McCain precipitously withdrew from MI–the MI GOP seemed to have no warning, and his offices were already packing up and closing on Saturday. McCain then spent the weekend sequestered with his advisors in Sedona (though he did take a break on Saturday for a Happy Meal). He’s got an event in NM today (a state where Obama leads polling by greater margins than he does in MI), but the weekend retreat was notable for the way it served not just as time to retool the campaign (and, desperately, to try to count to 270) but also to prep for the debate on Tuesday. Indeed, the campaign seems to be tying their new campaign roll-out to Tuesday’s debate.

Asked at a Colorado town hall, "When are you going to take the gloves off?" the candidate grinned and replied, "How about Tuesday night?"

[snip]

A senior aide said the campaign will wait until after Tuesday’s debate to decide how and when to release new commercials, adding that McCain and his surrogates will continue to cast Obama as a big spender, a high taxer and someone who talks about working across the aisle but doesn’t deliver.

Now, that’s not entirely true–that the campaign would wait until Tuesday to roll out its new recycled smears. Sarah Palin’s been accusing Obama of palling around with terrorists since Saturday.

But it does set up a remarkable dynamic for tomorrow’s debate. After losing two debates in a row, the McCain team seems to believe it can use the next debate as an opportunity relaunch its entire campaign.

Obviously, this is the debate format McCain prefers.

Second presidential debate: all topics in town meeting format, moderated by Tom Brokaw
Tuesday, October 7, Belmont University, Nashville, TN

-Two-minute answers, followed by one-minute discussion for each question.

Or should I say preferred. McCain won New Hampshire by doing about a million town halls; and he used them a lot early in the summer. But around mid-summer (when Steve Schmidt took over the campaign, I think), McCain started vetting the attendees of these town halls. And as the WSJ points out, he has really cut back the number of town halls he is doing. In other words, McCain used to like the unscripted format of town halls, but has grown sour on them.

I’m guessing the McCain team crafted their attempt to go negative around this town hall believing they could get participants to pick up the themes they’re emphasizing in their ads: Rezko, Ayers, and (in 527 ads, though not directly) Wright. Perhaps they believed they could change the subject by seeding questions for tomorrow and then pointing back at the town hall to claim that voters were obsessed with smears of Obama.

As if could change the concerns of Americans who were losing their jobs and homes just by hoping those concerns would go away. At a time when the market has fallen below 10,000. Yup.

And how stupid of them, then, to announce they were planning on doing so. Not only could and has the Obama campaign pointed out that McCain’s got his own troubling associations: Gramm, Singlaub, and Liddy, for example–to say nothing of Sarah’s pastor problem and her own ties to separtist terrorists.

But it was a giant invitation for the Obama campaign to go where they haven’t gone (but they’ve been preparing to go) yet: to Keating. (The Obama campaign will release a documentary at noon on Keating, too.)

In other words, the McCain team invited the Obama team to point out that John McCain has a history of corruption that leads to the kind of crises we’re undergoing. Just in time for that history to become a topic in tomorrow’s debate.

Rut roh. Looks like Steve Branchflower will have a busy week, between now and when he releases his report on Friday.

Seven Alaska state employees have reversed course and agreed to testify in an abuse-of-power investigation against Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

[snip]

Lawmakers subpoenaed seven state employees to testify in the inquiry but they challenged those subpoenas. A judge rejected that challenge last week. Because of that ruling, Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg says the employees have decide to testify.

As I’m sure you’ve heard, the AK Supreme Court agreed to take the appeal of the Republicans trying to bury this. But local observers think the chance that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of a Palin cover-up is slim.

The Supreme Court only agreed to take this case due to public interest and establishing a precedent so the next time the lawmakers want to sue themselves they won’t burden the court.

What is the most absurd about this whole process of wasting time and money is the lawsuit was filed by some of the same Republican lawmakers like Fred Dyson who have long berated Alaskan judges for legislating from the bench.

The Supreme Court will toss this out and then Branchflower will put his report out.

So there seems to be a stampede of staffers attempting to look like they didn’t ignore a proper subpoena. 

Remind me–around Thursday, say, to start asking how the McPalin’s campaigns efforts to cover up these results prove their awareness there was a problem there? Thanks.

I’m sort of busy today, preparing for the special Monday Book Salon with Bart Gellman, talking about his book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. The book salon with be at 3PM ET, so prepare your questions. 

But I confess that reading the book after watching the VP Debate the other night made me laugh–rather than shudder–at Palin’s clear hopes of following in the path of Fourth Branch Dick.

IFILL: Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.

[snip]

PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That’s near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, that’s where I want you, I want you to lead. I said, I can’t wait to get and there go to work with you.

[snip]

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also. [my emphasis]

See, at first when Palin said this, I was immediately horrified by the thought of someone with the power of Dick Cheney, but the ignorance and incompetence of Sarah Palin–a sure recipe for disaster.

But that’s assuming that Palin could pull of what Dick Cheney did. And–as Gellman’s book makes clear and I’ll try to describe for Monday’s book salon–it has taken Dick Cheney way more to pull of his historic power grab than simple proclamation of a Fourth Branch.

Rather, Dick Cheney has succeeded because he is a master of bureaucracy. He knows how to manipulate the machines of our government at every level–and does so with consummate skill.

Palin, by contrast, can’t even manage to pull off personal vendettas in Alaska’s small government without leaving blood and tracks in the snow revealing her work. Sure, she’s got Cheney’s instinct for punishing disloyalty. But aside from that, she’s got none of Cheney’s skill. 

That doesn’t make her safe or in any other way a sound choice for VP. But it does make me laugh.

Via Marc Ambinder, Michigan’s Republicans are going to appeal directly to the hockey mom:

Subject: Dear Governor Palin from Chuck Yob
To:

Governor Palin,

I saw your comments on Fox News today and described in the Detroit Free Press article below.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that the decision by the McCain campaign to pull out of Michigan was the wrong decision.

We have all been wrong at times, and I think this is a decision that will be corrected in a couple of weeks.  We were ahead three points as of a week ago according to MRG, a polling firm that I trust more than any national pollster.

I talked to Michigan Republicans and McCain supporters on a conference call last night and they vowed to redouble their efforts.  Indeed, there will still be a campaign for John McCain in Michigan whether it is sanctioned by the professionals in Washington DC or not.

[snip]

I agree with what you said on Fox News today and I hereby invite you to come to Michigan immediately.  The good people of Macomb County, Northern Michigan, the Upper Peninsula, and Grand Rapids await your response.

Your Friend and Loyal Supporter of McCain-Palin 2008,

Chuck Yob
Michigan Co-Chairman
McCain-Palin 2008
Republican National Committee Member 1989-2008
Former Vice Chairman, Republican National Committee

At what point does Palin’s work cease supporting McCain’s 2008 campaign, and begin laying the groundwork for Palin’s own 2012 campaign? Because, first of all, Palin has the stamina to do far more events in a day than McCain. She can help the MI GOP raise money–something they desperately need. And in return, Palin would be building relationships she could call on in 2012.

Update: 2112 changed to 2012 throughout (I hope). That’s about the 12th time I’ve made that error. 2112 just looks right to me. 

There’s still something funky about the way McCain pulled out of MI. As I noted yesterday, Obama was focused enough on MI to schedule a Detroit rally (Sunday, with both Obamas and both Bidens), two Michelle events (yesterday), and Grand Rapids and Lansing rallies yesterday. And, as Nate points out, MI wasn’t even the best state to pull out of based on return on investment. 

That is, Michigan actually appeared to be a slightly better place to spend their marginal resources than states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin; a dollar there goes about 2.4 times as far as one spent in an average state.

Then there’s how quickly they made the decision (I know, I know, this is McCain, but still). The MI GOP had emergency meetings last night to devise a new strategy (and, apparently, Kissinger did a McCain campaign stop today).

Michigan Republicans kicked into overdrive last night.  We had a series of conference calls and meetings with activists and donors, coming up with our own plan on how to implement a "Michigan strategy" for McCain and the rest of our ticket.  

Which is going to be particularly tough for them, given that they were nearly broke in May and were surely counting on Cindy’s McCain’s money to support campaign events this year.

And as some have noted, Sarah Palin just found out this morning.

"Well, that’s not a surprise because, you know, the polls are showing we’re not doing as well there evidently as we would like to," Palin said. "But I read that this morning also. I fired off a quick email and said `Oh, come on, you know, do we have to? Do we have to call it there?’"

And perhaps weirdest of all, there’s the overall damage this decision will do to McCain’s campaign (Jack Lessenberry is MI’s favorite political curmudgeon).

For John McCain, pulling most of his campaign operations out of Michigan makes a certain kind of sense. On paper, anyway. But then, the Vietnam War made a certain amount of sense on paper.

Just not in reality. My guess is that the McCain camp’s decision will turn out to have been an appalling blunder for reasons that stretch far beyond Michigan. First of all, let’s look at what happened.

[snip]

My guess is that the stigma of having publicly conceded a major state a month before the election will far outweigh the advantage of having an extra staffer or two in Florida or being able to show a few ads in Maine or Ohio.

Closer to home, this will have a devastating effect on Republican morale. Democrats will now have a far greater chance of knocking off the two vulnerable GOP Congressmen, Joe Knollenberg in Oakland County and Tim Walberg in south central Michigan.

(As a reminder, both Knollenberg’s and Walberg’s opponents–Gary Peters and Mark Schauer, respectively, are Blue America candidates.)

So something just doesn’t make sense. Granted, the problem may lie more with my treatment of the McCain campaign as an organization that makes sound tactical decisions; this pull-out might just be one of McCain’s increasingly frequent panicked moves. That is almost certainly the most logical explanation: the absolutely abysmal management of the McCain campaign.

But I wonder whether there’s not something more. 

Part of me wonders whether there’s a connection between McCain’s hasty withdrawal and another move yesterday, that of James Carabelli’s defamation suit against the Michigan Messenger for their report that the MI GOP was going to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters’ right to vote in November (TPM reported on this today, but I first learned of it at about the same time I learned of the pull-out yesterday). 

Because that suit is just as weird, in some ways, as the withdrawal.

As of a while ago, the Center for Independent Media and Michigan Messenger still hadn’t gotten a copy of the complaint. And never–not since the MM first published the foreclosure story on September 10, has Carabelli asked for a retraction. And, as TPM reports, Carabelli won’t reveal who’s paying his legal fees. 

Matt Davis, the attorney for the plaintiff in the defamation suit filed against the Michigan Messenger was quite talkative about the particulars of the suit when TPMmuckraker called him this morning, but declined to say who was paying his legal fees.

"I don’t comment on my clients," Davis said in answer to inquiries about who was employing him, but directed us to the spokesman for the Michigan Republican party for further questions.

By all appearances (particularly given the confidence MM has in their story), this is a SLAPP suit designed to either cow MM, or the larger CIM organization, which has outlets in key swing states: Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Washington (and employes Spencer Ackerman in their DC Independent site).  But Matt Davis doesn’t want you to know who’s behind his SLAPP suit.

Honestly, I don’t know that there’s a connection. But there’s something weird in both events–and both happened to occur at the same time. 

Live hearing on CSPAN2 and HJC’s stream.

Linda Sanchez is hammering the ways in which appointing Nora Dannehy will actually ensure that this story gets covered up. 

Jeebus, Chris Cannon is still trying to claim there’s no evidence of White House awareness and involvement–even though the IG complained about non-cooperation with the White House. He’s trying to say that the Dannehy investigation will mean that Rove and Miers should not have to testify. I don’t have the patience for this today.

John Conyers sounds … old.

Glenn Fine up. Most serious allegation: that partisan political considerations did play a part in the removal of several USAs. 

"While USAs can be removed, they cannot be removed for an illegal reason."

Fine: Gaps in the investigation: Miers, Rove, and documents the WH refused to turn over. 

Chris Cannon, hitting on Iglesias for not reporting contact from Congress.

Cannon is on thin ice here–the reason Iglesias was removed was because he was incomptent.

Fine: We didn’t find that that was the reason the Department remove him.

Shorter Fine: No, you’re wrong, Congressman. 

Cannon: Couldn’t it be possible that people within DOJ said he was weak-minded.

Fine: But they didn’t. 

Fine: If it were that you had to remain political support, every prosecutorial decision would be suspect. It was unprecedented in the Department’s history to have this group removed. 

Fine: I don’t think it was the case [that these prosecutors were not being effective]. It’s not the Department’s job simply to accept complaints without investigating them. 

Linda Sanchez: Is it fair to say you couldn’t completely investigate the firing. Those witnesses were Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Monica Goodling?

Fine: Among others. 

Sanchez: I’m concerned that Nora Dannehy hasn’t been appointed special prosecutor. How can a prosecutor attack the claims of privilege at the same time that the Department is defending the White House in its privilege claims?

Fine: Not necessarily. You’d have to ask the department.

Sanchez: Under special counsel regulations, should appoint one not in DOJ, when DOJ pursuing the matter would present a conflict of interest.

Fine: A close question. 

Ut oh, Darrel Issa.

Issa notes that Rove would have to answer fully if he were pardoned. Sounds like he’s making a case for giving Rove a pre-emptive pardon.

Issa: If all we’re interested in is seeking the non-partisan truth, then a pardon is not a bad thing.

Issa: You’re saying that Lam was not removed bc of Cunningham and Foggo. And they’ve both been convicted, correct?

Um, kind of.

Issa: Just for the record I think Dusty is right now packing up and preparing to report to prison.

Um, sure, except that he’s bound to get pardoned or something, not least because his plea allows him to continue to contract with the CIA. 

Issa is trying, as Cannon did, to claim that Lam was legitimately fired. 

Issa: Well, since Lam said to me she wasn’t going to follow the Administration’s policy, she should be fired?

Fine: Only if DOJ is going to use a process. 

Again, Cannon and Issa are really panicking, trying to guard the President’s ability to arbitrarily fire people.

Fine: The DOJ has said they should use this management process.

Cannon: I think you’re inappropriate because you’re applying a management process to a political process. 

Issa is self-satisfied that he has proven that it’s not illegal to fire people arbitrarily. Nice guy, Issa. But we knew that.

Bobby Scott walking Fine through the potential crimes involved in firing. False statements, obstruction. 

Scott: With the potential crimes in question, you were not able to determine whether a crime was committed?