newspoodle’s posterous

Ralph Reed doesn't show up for McCain fundraiser

  As Logan noted last week, Abramoff crony Ralph Reed was supposed to host a fundraiser for his pal John McCain Monday night. Well, apparently the McCain camp realized how bad that would have looked for their candidate,  and although they won't admit they explicitly told him to stay away, Reed never showed up and no mention was made of him.

WSJ:

Ralph Reed was a no-show at a fund-raiser for John McCain Monday evening, following nearly a week of considerable drama surrounding his involvement in the senator's campaign.

The Republican candidate had come under fire for associating with Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition who fell from grace after his involvement with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. McCain was one of the leaders of the investigation of Abramoff's lobbying activities that led to his imprisonment. Reed was never charged.

Kudos to the Obama campaign for jumping on this right quick:

That didn't stop the Obama campaign from issuing a "response" to the absence. "Faced with the embarrassing prospect of holding a fundraiser with one of Jack Abramoff's closest associates, the McCain campaign scrambled today scratch Ralph Reed from tonight's program," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement. "The real question isn't why Reed isn't showing up, but why a so-called reformer would invite him at all."

Newsweek's Alter: 'McCain should stop lying about his opponent'

from Crooks and Liars by Steve Benen

Two weeks ago, it seemed Newsweek's Jonathan Alter had just about had it with John McCain. The columnist said he's "misread McCain," who, it turns out, is "a surprisingly immature politician" who may not be "ready to lead." Alter's piece concluded that McCain had "mortgaged his precious personal honor."

But underlying Alter's argument is that McCain is still a good guy who's been led astray by irresponsible advisors who've led him astray. McCain's ugly campaign is "out of sync with the real guy," Alter said.

In his new column, Alter takes McCain to task for "making stuff up about Barack Obama," and this time, Alter doesn't make excuses for the Republican nominee.

As usual, news organizations are deeply afraid to say that one side is more negative than the other. Doing so sounds "unfair." It's much easier, and less controversial, to say that "both candidates" are being negative. That would be "balanced", but also untrue. […]

[O]verall, and to his credit, Obama has not engaged in anywhere near the number of falsehoods as McCain.

For about a month, McCain's campaign has been resorting to charges that are patently false. When Obama traveled abroad in July, to positive reviews, McCain decided he had to make attack ads that went far beyond the norm. In the past, plainly deceptive ads were the province of the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee or independent committees free to fling mud that didn't bear the fingerprints of candidates. But not this time. These smears come directly from the candidate.

The litany is no doubt familiar to those watching the campaign closely. McCain lied about Obama being responsible for gas prices. Then about Obama's treatment of wounded U.S. troops in Germany. And then again about Obama's tax policies.

[W]hen he resorts to these kinds of falsehoods, and casts such aspersions on his opponent's patriotism, John McCain is no longer putting his country first. If he were, he would recognize that the interests of the nation require a relatively truthful campaign. To fulfill his image of himself, McCain should stop lying about his opponent. For a man with his claims to honor and integrity, that's not too much to ask.

I think McCain has lost Jonathan Alter.

No Evidence or Even Suspicion of Criminal Activity? Let's Investigate Anyway

from Don't Tase Me, Bro! by Phil Leggiere

New Justice Dept. guidelines to let FBI to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps "without any basis for suspicion."

NY Times reports

A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps "without any basis for suspicion." The plan "might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities," the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congress overhauled the federal wiretapping law in July, for instance, and President Bush issued an executive order this month ratifying new roles for intelligence agencies. Other pending changes would also authorize greater sharing of intelligence information with the local police, a major push in the last seven years.

Tobacco CEO Tells "Truth" About Cigarette Ads [Marketing]

from Gawker by Hamilton Nolan

"The truth is that Lorillard markets its Newport brand cigarettes to adult smokers of all ethnicities," writes Lorillard CEO Martin Orlowsky to the Chicago Tribune today. "The truth is that our marketing is not disproportionately directed to African-Americans. The truth is that we do not target underage smokers. The truth is that there are twice as many Caucasian menthol cigarette smokers as there are African-American menthol cigarette smokers. I challenge those who want to prove otherwise to come forward with evidence to support their charges." Ha, well...

Lorillard doesn't have to market disproportionately to African-Americans, because the market share of menthols in the black community is already massive. Look at Orlowsky's own math:

The truth is that there are twice as many Caucasian menthol cigarette smokers as there are African-American menthol cigarette smokers.

African-Americans are about 13% of the US population. Whites are about 74%. There are roughly six times more whites than blacks in the US, but only two times more white menthol smokers. Disparity? Duh.

Targeting the youth?

Heavily-advertised Marlboro, Camel and Newport cigarettes dominated the teen smoking market between 1989 and 1996, according to a new study, which found that the percentage of teen Newport smokers doubled during those years.

Newport made its most significant inroads with the white and Hispanic teen market, say Karen Gerlach, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and colleagues. Their study appears in the American Journal of Health Behavior.

Newport cigarettes contain menthol, which may make them less harsh-tasting and easier for experimenting teens to smoke, Gerlach and colleagues say. They also suggest that expanded advertising campaigns may have helped increase the brand's popularity.

Nobody has to target underage smokers. Target 18-year-old smokers! Their kid brothers will totally pick it up.

[CAOH; letter via Multicult Classics]

Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million [Advertising]

from Gawker by Ryan Tate

In an effort to promote its poxy Windows Vista operating system, Microsoft is paying Jerry Seinfeld $10 million for an endorsement, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning. Yes, because if there's one surefire way to convince everyone Vista is cool, cutting edge and not liable to get frazzled by life's minor complications, it's hiring a 1990s sitcom star and professional kvetcher! Who, um, very visibly owned a series of Macs on his show. This is Microsoft's worst promotional concept since, well, since its last Vista campaign, the Mojave Experiment, which decisively proved that people hate Vista but will use it if they are tricked into thinking it's something else, like a stable, functional tool. Here's how Madison Avenue is responding:

"They are not seen as cool," says Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys, a New York branding firm. "Apple is cool. Can anyone even recall a Microsoft ad? No."

And they won't be able to remember this one either, because using Seinfeld humor in ads was already considered tired three years ago.

Good luck with alll that!

[WSJ]