The current abortion debate is so distorted, it is framed as though abortion is against the law, and that we need only to sort out the legal exceptions.  Pro-choice advocates should emphasize that the "exceptions" question is irrelevant: we must stop being seduced by hysterical arguments about rape, incest, and the life of the pregnant woman. 

We already handle the horror of rape and incest miserably in our society.  The quest to improve our response to such crises should be given the attention it deserves, completely outside the discussion of abortion.  Any woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest should have immediate access to a safe abortion.  That is true now and should remain true, end of discussion. 

Questions of medically necessary abortions are also beside the point.  When an egregiously stupid politician seeks political advantage by saying ignorant things about women's health, he should lose votes because he is egregiously stupid.  When he has a national audience, creating the potential for his ignorant remarks to misinform the public, it's good for experts to step in: hence the statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to clarify that there are indeed cases in which an abortion is necessary to safeguard the health of the pregnant woman.  But a medically necessary abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy based on criteria that she determines. 

Oddly enough, Paul Ryan had it almost right.  As long as abortion is legal, how someone becomes pregnant is beside the point.

It is the legal status of abortion that Republicans hope to change.  Every time we let them lure us into exhaustive public arguments about what the exceptions would be if abortion were illegal, we help create space in the collective consciousness for the idea that some abortions are okay, some are not, and the difference will be determined by the state.  Unless they succeed in changing the law, the question of exceptions is moot.  Our only response should be, "What difference does it make?  Abortion is legal."

On October 2nd, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson informed Governor Tom Corbett and Secretary of State Carol Aichele that they could not implement strict, new Voter ID requirements until after the federal election next month. 

Earlier, in July, Judge Simpson had upheld the ID requirements, signed into law in March.  This ruling was immediately appealed to the State Supreme Court by the group of plaintiffs opposing it; a group which includes attorneys for the ACLU, the NAACP, and registered voters who had been unable to produce documents necessary to obtain the ID.

The State Supreme Court then sent the case back to Simpson with explicit instructions to determine whether any voters would be disenfranchised by the law.  Simpson held a new hearing, in which the DOS asserted that, despite a multitude of unanticipated glitches, they were bending over backwards to ease the process of obtaining ID.  They assured the judge that all eligible voters could obtain the necessary ID by Election Day. 

However, the plaintiff group easily demonstrated, with witness after witness, that there were so many hurdles and snafus occurring in the process that there was no chance that every voter needing ID could get it by Election Day.  Judge Simpson duly found that the law would indeed cause voter disenfranchisement, and he enjoined its implementation until at least after this election. 

The rub: he allowed the state, since they intend to go forward implementing the law for future elections, the latitude to ask for but not require government-issued photo ID for this election.  Simpson also allowed that the state’s voter outreach materials could be designed to reflect the eventual need for proper ID.

The situation going forward from this slightly complicated decision announced on October 2nd would have been ripe for confusion even if Pennsylvania State officials had any intention of acting in good faith.  Pennsylvania State officials did not have any intention of acting in good faith.

Following the decision, official state voter education efforts have ranged in approach from what could be generously described as ineffective and confusing, to deliberately misleading.  Ultimately it has become clear that there is a conscious effort to discourage voters without proper ID from coming to the polls, by implying that without ID they will be denied a ballot.

I posted previously about the first signs that the PA DOS would not go out of its way to reassure voters that they would not be tripped up at the polls on Election Day if they didn't have the right identification.  The official Pennsylvania voter education website, votespa.com, had pulled out the stops when it was time to inform voters they would have to show ID.  Once ordered to drop the requirement, they made subtle changes to small-font wording in graphics that retained the overall message that voters would have to show ID to vote.  As of this writing, the confusing homepage graphics remain.

Since then, the disinformation tactics have grown egregiously worse, including mailings, ads, and robo-calls still telling voters that they must produce ID to vote. 

These dirty tricks by top Pennsylvania officials, public servants, expressly charged with facilitating fair elections for the furtherance of democracy, shock the conscience.  Corrupting the central process of the democratic system, the vote, is not only morally wrong, it is pragmatically stupid.  Apparently these political leaders cannot imagine a time in which their own views and policies would be so popular that they would be eager to see the highest levels of voter participation possible, and would want to be able to rely on a sturdy, credible election process.

As various transparent attempts at suppression have come to light, the same (irrepressible) plaintiff group has assembled proof that the disenfranchisement forbade by the State Supreme Court, and ruled against by Judge Simpson, is occurring now.

On Friday the group filed a petition against the State to appear before Judge Simpson asking that he intervene again and shut down these increasingly aggressive and devious efforts to reduce turnout among - let's be clear - likely Obama voters.

Some of the text from the ACLU press release on Friday:

Judge Asked to Order Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to Stop
Misleading Voters About the Need for ID on Election Day
False and Misleading Information May Lead to Some Voters Staying Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  October 19, 2012

HARRISBURG, PA - The legal team challenging Pennsylvania’s voter ID law filed a petition today asking Judge Robert Simpson to order the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to stop disseminating false information about the need for photo ID on Election Day and to make it to clear to the public that ID will not be required to vote in the November 6 election. This request comes in the wake of several recent mailings by both governmental and non-governmental entities that contained outdated information about the law and have added to voter confusion.

In their petition, (the plaintiffs) argue that unless this misinformation is corrected, some eligible voters will stay home on Election Day because they mistakenly believe they need ID to vote in this election…(T)he Commonwealth has circulated misinformation about the voter ID law to voters. Last week, thousands of Pennsylvania seniors received a mailing…that included a Dept. of State card about the voter ID law. The card incorrectly states: "Voters are required to show photo ID on Election Day.”

(C)ounsel has received dozens of complaints (about) radio and TV ads that still say voters need photo ID to vote.  As recently as October 11, some PennDOT locations were still displaying outdated posters and information telling people they need ID to vote.  In their motion, petitioners argue that the Commonwealth has failed to clearly inform the public that the voter ID law will not be in effect for the November 2012 election.  Rather than creating ads that clearly state this information, the Commonwealth instead chose to continue with its “Show It” campaign and merely add the phrase “if you have it” in small print to note that ID would not be required.  These minimal changes to the “Show It” campaign are not enough to combat previous efforts by the Commonwealth to publicize the law, including multiple press releases, press conferences, and a postcard mailing in September to all registered voters.

The petitioners are asking the Commonwealth Court to issue an order requiring that the Commonwealth send notices with correct information to anyone who received false information from the state since October 2 about the law; immediately cease running any ads that still tell voters they must have photo ID to vote; re-word robocalls scheduled for the run-up to the election; issue a clarifying press release to all media outlets; and direct Secretary Carol Aichele to hold a press conference announcing that photo ID is not required to vote this Election Day.

 Sara Mullen
Associate Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania

(For the full text of the press release, and the petition itself, which contains illuminating examples of the State's sneak attack, go to the Pennsylvania ACLU website.)

Judge Simpson is a Republican, and has not by any means rolled over to the plaintiffs on this issue.  It took several rounds of hearings and appeals before he agreed to grant the injunction, and that was only a reprieve to the law for this election.  But he did ask discerning questions during the hearings that indicated a concern that voters not be shut out of the democratic process.  His hesitation to strike down the law altogether appeared to be based on a confidence in the State that they were motivated by legitimate concerns about the security of the ballot, and committed to protecting the rights of eligible voters. 

At some point he must surely begin to feel offended by their failure to live up to that confidence.  Simpson is no partisan zealot.  He comes across as professional and fair-minded.  And he is human.  So it must begin to feel like a slap in the face to find that his trust in the Republican leaders of the Commonwealth has been flouted in this way.

I was ten years old when George McGovern ran for President.  He was my first political hero. 

This was partly because my friends and I thought he was really cute.  But it was also because of what he stood for, and what kind of man he was.


I was fortunate to grow up in a politically-active, socially-aware family;  stalwart Democrats.  We were all-in for the "McGovern for President" campaign.  Even at that age I was tuned in to the issues and loved the excitement of being involved.  My siblings and I would pile in our station wagon and accompany our parents to rallies.  We spent some Saturday afternoons passing out leaflets in shopping centers and neighborhoods. 

McGovern was a national leader that I could look up to in real-time, not from a history book.  His personality conveyed both depth and accessibility.  McGovern exuded integrity, compassion, intelligence.  As I kid, I was impressed with how confident he seemed in speaking out against war and for poor people.

And again, my classmates and I couldn't believe how much cuter he was than Nixon.  I can't emphasize that enough.

So all of this added up to making him a hero to me.

McGovern was a fervent anti-war activist, and a decorated Army combat veteran.  I always thought of that as an unimpeachable combination.  As wide-eyed as he was portrayed to be, Senator McGovern came to his views on war from personal experience in the trenches. 

Like a lot of peacemakers and complex social thinkers, McGovern was un-flashy and under-appreciated.  He was done the same disservice as was eventually done to a string of very liberal Democratic Presidential candidates who came after him; Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis - serious, intelligent, caring, public servants who were successfully branded as laughingstocks - Don Quixotes, weak-minded, bleeding-heart doves.  McGovern took the brunt of a powerful wave of scorn for leftist thought that created a real stigma around the word "liberal".

I will leave it to political scientists with more knowledge than me to explain the perfect storm of world and national; social and economic events that allowed that stigma to take root.  But even then, even as a young, white, mid-Western, middle-class schoolgirl, I knew it was wrong.  And I knew that my hero, Senator George McGovern, suffered for it; but that he kept his head up in the face of it, and continued to articulate the bedrock liberal values I have today.  Back then we called it being for peace, for women's lib, and for equal rights for black people.  We called it being against pollution, against religious judgement, and against police brutality.  But most of the time we just called it "being Democrats".

I'm glad George McGovern stayed actively interested in politics and public service long enough to see a return of liberal pride.  He had a chance to see his old colleague Ted Kennedy earn his rightful place as a vaunted Democratic leader.  He got to see many advances in the fight for equal rights for women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBT Americans.  He got to support Hilary Clinton as a fiercely competitive presidential primary candidate, and then Barack Obama as a successful nominee.

I imagine he had concerns about rising threats to voting rights, choice, and our already fragile safety net.  I'm sure he was disturbed by the ongoing attempt to demonize run-of-the-mill liberal theory as Socialism.  I can imagine he saw the bristling, blustering conservative approach to foreign policy as chillingly ominous.

But hopefully he also felt - looking at those of us who have taken up causes he helped define in the modern era - that he was leaving the country in good hands.

19 days till
Election Day!
How can I help
reelect the President?
It's Reader's Day - I want to know how YOU have involved yourself in the election process!

You don't need to tell me who you are, just tell me what you're doing this year to be involved: are you volunteering?  Donating money?  Hashing the election out on facebook, or around the dinner table? 

How do those discussions go? 
Have you ever changed someone's mind? 

Anonymous comments welcome! 

Are you in Red country, or Blue?  Have you found the dialogue contentious among the people you know?  How informed about the issues do you find your family and friends?

Have you volunteered this time around? 
What do you suggest for those who want to get involved? 
Does it take a lot of time? 
Do you have to go door-to-door or make phone calls, trying to sell people on your candidate; or are there other roles one can play?

What about cash contributions?  Campaign finance is a big issue this year, with Citizen's United in full swing.  Have stories about the millions being tossed around affected your own giving? 

Let me hear how you personally have created a feeling of connection to the process of reelecting our Prez!

There was a big victory for voter access in Pennsylvania this month, but you wouldn't know it by looking at the official State voter-information website. 

This picture is on the current homepage of the Pennsylvania Department of State voter information page, votesPA.com. 

As of this writing, when voters go to the site for polling-place hours, registration status, and what to bring on Election Day; they see the same vivid VOTER ID graphic now as they did before the Voter ID law was struck down.  When the law was being put in place, the State filled the better part of the homepage with the attention-grabbing bulletin shown above.

Then on October 2, Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said that because of its potential to disenfranchise voters, the law could not be implemented for the 2012 Presidential Election.  No ID required!  Everybody votes!

It is hard to tell from the website that anything has changed.

Before the court decision, the wording on the votesPA homepage read: "Voters will be required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

After the decision, the wording was changed to read: "Voters will be asked, but not required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

(Emphasis mine!)

When voters click to go to the more detailed page for additional guidance, they see almost exactly the same information they saw before the law was blocked.  The big red banner headline that before, said "Photo ID Required for November 2012 Election," now says "Photo ID Requested for November 2012 Election."  (Again, emphasis mine.)  The page contains the same admonishment that "All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current."  It contains the same list of strict, specific forms of acceptable government-issued photo ID.  It has a link to the same complex set of FAQ's, walking voters through the different forms of ID, and the steps one must take to obtain a secure PennDOT ID, including the requirement of a birth certificate with a raised seal.   

It is left to the voter without ID to surmise, "All this means I can vote this year!"  Using these directions, this voter is just as likely now, as before the ruling, to conclude that they may as well stay home.  

Pennsylvania voters without ID have been chastised repeatedly by government officials for complaining about having to learn the new rules and jump through hoops to vote.  Now when these voters proactively seek out information in order to be prepared, they are treated to a slick trick by the State.     

Like a lot of my friends, I rode an emotional roller coaster yesterday, from the lead-up to the first Presidential Debate, through the debate itself, to the public evaluation of it afterwards.  But for me, while my highs seemed to match those of my friends, my lows went down a whole different track.  It took me some hours to figure out why. 

The great sports announcer Howard Cosell, a huge fan of boxing for years, famously came to hate the sport for the inhumane toll it took on the bodies and minds of its heroes.  This reaction I’m having to the debate last night is not a Cosell-like awakening to the viciousness of politics – I love politics, and there are plenty of people in government whom I admire for their ability to rise above it as blood sport.  I saw this debate as reasonably robust, but nothing dramatic.  This is more specific: this is a Cosell-like aversion to boxing, and an assertion that a debate is not a boxing match.     

I’ve had as much fun as the next Democrat in the last few days, anticipating the first big match up, simultaneously groaning about and reveling in the counting down, hyping up, handicapping, and ubiquitous use of sports metaphors.  The buildup made me realize how high the stakes of this race feel to a lot of us.  It’s taken on a feeling of more than an election.  It’s personal.  Barack Obama has become a representative of our core beliefs about this country, and the contrast in the two major schools of thought about how to run it is sharply delineated.  It’s the Intervention Team against the Bootstraps Team.  The Diplomats versus the Generals.  Labor versus Management. 

In our most thoughtful moments, many of us are committed to the ideal of balance.  We believe there is critical value in sensible regulation and judicious federal investment, as well as individual initiative and the free market.  But most of us also feel our core principles – our political orientation – to be so firmly rooted in one of those sides over the other that this election has come to feel like a battle between right and wrong. 

My brain tends to read political debates as a collection of arguments with strengths and weaknesses, rather than as a contest that ends with a clear winner.  We have a series of debates and a whole season of appearances and interviews to evaluate candidates, and the final score is tallied by virtue of the vote on Election Day.  I always bristle a little at declarations of clean-cut victory or defeat after debates.  As the one last night ended, I thought it was a really good example of that various-strengths-and-weaknesses combination.  So I was especially thrown by the degree of clarity with which some claimed to view the outcome. 

When Mitt Romney and Barack Obama walked on stage and shook hands, I saw a moment of real warmth.  They shook hands longer than required, smiled broadly, and spoke more than a couple of words.  I was moved by that, thinking something about our country that would still be true even if that moment I witnessed was more manners than feeling: we ought to cherish the nature of the society we have built.  Even in our incessant conflict, we are civilized.  We spar, but with ideas.  Every day we watch citizens in other regions brutalized by thugs for their commitment to fragile democracies, paying in blood for the chance to advance ideas.   Last night, we watched a face-off of the two lead representatives of our diametrically opposed parties.  They vie for our most coveted and powerful political position, yet we have managed to protect it from being taken by force.  The candidates greeted each other graciously, and proceeded to advance their appeals with words.  Such moments provide fleeting reminders that we have created something strong and beautiful here, and no matter what happens in November, we’ll be okay. 

Governor Romney was more self-assured than usual; less awkward and defensive.  His thoughts seemed clear, and he was willing to commit to a point of view, at least for the setting of that debate.  He was assertive and convincing, and if I were impartial, and less at odds with what he said, I’m sure I would have thought he acquitted himself well.

On the other hand, each time the President spoke, I heard a depth of understanding that can only come with direct experience in grappling specifically with the problems at hand: that’s the inherent advantage of the incumbent.  Obama also funneled that understanding into lay terms effectively.  He conveyed an exposure to the inner workings of the Oval Office, conviction about the way forward, and a connection to the average American’s concerns.

Romney conveyed no less conviction, and if his understanding of the job description of President is more theoretical, he didn’t sound ignorant.  For the first time in his campaign I saw some passion – a more energetic expression of the desire to contribute.  But in the context of his candidacy as a whole, I remain convinced that he doesn't have any grasp of what the country needs.  And even if I had been out of the loop for a year and had only this debate to measure him by, as a liberal Democrat my approach to problem-solving is so different from his that I wouldn’t have any interest in giving him a shot as president.  In other words, while he presented himself better than usual, there were no surprises in his proposals.  He did an adequate job of describing an approach I happen to disagree with fervently.

I haven’t been out of the loop, though, and have observed him for many months.  I can only attribute his enthusiasm last night to the fact that he is a goal-oriented, driven professional.  Importantly, like so many Americans these days I know enough about the issues to observe that he was making false claims, contradicting his own assertions, dodging questions about specifics, and painting a picture of mistakes and failures on the President's part that don’t match the facts.    

If we are to evaluate debate performance partly on the basis of facial expression, I read Obama as quietly offended by the latter phenomena.  It is no secret that I am a partisan for the president.  I was in his corner early on, I was his apologist during the roughest months of his first term, and I have only grown more sympathetic to the challenges he faces, and ever more confident in his ability to meet them.  So it was with a feeling of almost affectionate allegiance that I wanted him to react powerfully to Romney, who was staking a claim to a superior grasp of our country’s problems and a greater ability to solve them.  I stood uncomfortably in Obama’s shoes, imagining what it was like to be doing a hard job well, pushing forward, seeing steady results, and having an outsider publicly attack your work from every angle, suggesting you have no idea what you’re doing.  It must be even more frustrating when such attacks are made with bluster, and without integrity or merit. 

But this is what a president signs up for.  You get eight years, in two increments, and at the halfway point you have to put yourself out there and take on all comers.  As a country, we require that you face each other – incumbent and challenger - on equal footing.  We ask you to stand on a stage both literal and figurative, and by turns defer to each others right to speak.  We have no royalty here.

In that respect I think it’s absolutely right and laudable that when the President gathered his thoughts to respond to the Governor, we heard less fire and more practical disagreement with Governor Romney’s positions.  He didn’t counter Romney’s excesses of self-assurance.  What he did do was point out false claims, and - as time allowed - reiterate his own positions. 

I was aghast later to hear condemnation for Obama’s "inability to realize he was on the ropes” and “refusal to come back swinging.”  Certainly, he should get feedback from his team about how to be more nimble in his responses next time.  He’ll need to practice how to counter the briskly-paced inaccuracies and deceptively-appealing presentation of this new iteration of Romney the candidate.  He should quit writing so much and keep his face turned up.  But the last thing we need to see is a fight. 

Barack Obama is not a boxer.  I personally don’t want a boxer as a president, and in 2008, neither did a majority of Americans.  Either that is still the case, or we lose this one.  But the solution is not to ask for a whole new version of Barack Obama.  Yes, he’s going to have to step it up somehow if this race gets closer.  No, he doesn’t get to coast.  He has to be persuasive.  But I think we can count on him to do all that.  The man is clearly competitive by nature, and in no short supply of healthy ego.  He is creative, good-humored, and determined.  Interestingly, Obama has been dubbed everything from the consummate politician to a poor debater; from a great orator to “too professorial.”  We‘d benefit from realizing he is a little bit of each of those, and trust that his competence, energy and commitment will shine through.

What I would hate most is for us to allow our political optimism to rise and fall on observations of the process from a distance, as though we are sports fans.  It jars me to hear the passion of the ringside coupled with some remove.  The expectation of vicarious victory without participation, as though this is all in the hands of a favorite boxer.  That’s where, to me, the rhetoric of fighting is out of place. 

The President is our representative, and serves at the pleasure of the electorate.  We need him to advocate for us.  But we will do him, ourselves, and the country a grave disservice if we fall into the trap of 2008: “You are our hope – go forth and make this happen.  We will be the fans and the analysts.”  How many of those railing against a weak performance by the president last night are also the ones who said this year, “Look, I’ll probably vote for him again, but I’m not going to volunteer like last time.  I’ll give him another shot, but not my time and money.  The magic isn’t there this time.  I may not like Romney, but I’m not about to go out and register voters, or sit in a metal chair and make phone calls for Obama.  He hasn’t earned it.” 

If we’re going to see this as a sport, let’s at least shut down the boxing ring and make it a team sport. 

Using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I created the chart above.  It shows the unemployment rate as reported each month for the month before.  March, 2009 numbers reflect the first full month the President was in office.

When Bill Clinton turned the keys to the White House over to George W. Bush, he left behind a budget surplus.  By the time GW left office, the economy was a disaster.  Obama and his team came in to a mess we hadn't seen in decades.  They pushed through the stimulus plan - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - immediately.  Within months, roughly $800 billion dollars began to roll out to the states.  Tax cuts were arranged and jobs were created in record time.  In October, ten months into the Obama presidency, the unemployment rate peaked at 10%, then finally started to go down.

As you can see from the chart, it was a bumpy road.  Every time the rate went up by .10% point, there was a chorus of cries about "Obama's failed policies."  When it went down, it wasn't fast enough.  But as you can also see, as the "failed policies" had more and more time to take effect, improvements gathered momentum.  The team acted to stabilize the housing market, address crises in Detroit and on Wall Street, and invest in small business. 

And private sector jobs were also added, which takes us to the chart below.

This one was produced by the Obama Campaign, but the numbers are also straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Just the facts.  Again, the President has been accused of failed policies every single month he has been in office, when every single month he has made improvements.  Immediately upon taking office, this administration started us back on the right path.  For the first many months it was a matter of stopping the bleeding. 

Then, between February and March of 2010, we turned a huge corner, going from losing jobs to finally adding jobs to the positive.  That day should have been celebrated with popping corks across the country.  Do you remember it?  Do you remember Obama getting credit for a miraculous achievement?  Far from it - he was scoffed at for using the word "recovery" in a speech.  If you can draw a better picture of a recovery than the ones in these charts, send it my way.

When I study these charts, not only do I conclude that it is flatly not true that Obama has not reversed the economic disaster we were in, it is even clear that the charge of "not fast enough" is absurd.  The change has been dramatic.  See for yourself.

For the most recent version of the jobs chart, with an interactive application you don't want to miss, go to Obama For America's jobs page.

To check my numbers, see the tables on this page at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.