On a Monday teleconference call, former Drug Enforcement Agency administrators and directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy voiced a strong reminder to the U.S. Department of Justice that even if voters in Colorado, Oregon and Washington pass ballot measures to legalize marijuana use for adults and tax its sale, the legalization of marijuana still violates federal law and the passage of these measures could trigger a "Constitutional showdown."

The goal of the call was clearly to put more pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to make a public statement in opposition to these measures. With less than 30 days before Election Day, the DOJ has yet to announce its enforcement intentions regarding the ballot measures that, if passed, could end marijuana prohibition in each state.

"Next month in Colorado, Oregon and Washington states, voters will vote on legalizing marijuana," Peter Bensinger, the moderater of the call and former administrator of DEA during Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations, began the call. "Federal law, the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions say that this cannot be done because federal law preempts state law."

Bensinger added: "And there is a bigger danger that touches every one of us -- legalizing marijuana threatens public health and safety. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, drug driving arrests, accidents, and drug overdose deaths have skyrocketed. Drug treatment admissions are up and the number of teens using this gateway drug is up dramatically."

Bensinger was joined by a host of speakers including Bill Bennet and John Walters, former directors of the While House Office of National Drug Control Policy; Chief Richard Beary of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); Dr. Robert L. DuPont, founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and who was also representing the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) and several others.

In response to the drug warriors calling out Holder again to take a strong public stance against these marijuana legalization measures, Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group behind Colorado's Amendment 64 said to The Huffington Post:

We believe anything claimed by participants on the call today needs to be taken with many grains of salt. These people have made a living off marijuana prohibition and the laws that keep this relatively benign substance illegal. The nation wastes billions of taxpayer dollars annually on the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and people like Bill Bennett and John Walters are among the biggest cheerleaders for wasting billions more. The call today should be taken as seriously as an event by former coal industry CEOs opposing legislation curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. They are stuck in a certain mindset and no level of evidence demonstrating the weakness of their position will change their views.

This is an election about Colorado law and whether the people of Colorado believe that we should continue wasting law enforcement resources to maintain the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Our nation was founded upon the idea that states would be free to determine their own policies on matters not delegated to the federal government. The Controlled Substance Act itself acknowledges that Congress never intended to have the federal government fully 'occupy the field' of marijuana policy. We hope the Obama administration respects these state-based policy debates. If Amendment 64 is adopted by the people of Colorado, there will be sufficient time before any new businesses are established for state and federal officials to discuss the implications.

Today's call elaborated on a September letter that nine former DEA heads sent to Holder strongly urging him to oppose Amendment 64 in Colorado, Initiative 502 in Washington and Measure 80 in Oregon. "To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives," the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.

A month before the 2010 election in California, Holder vowed to "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana laws and warned that the government would not look the other way and allow a state marijuana market to emerge. California's Proposition 19 was narrowly defeated in 2010 and the pressure is on Holder again to voice opposition to these 2012 measures.

When pressed by a reporter during a Q & A following the call if the group was at all surprised that Holder had not yet made a statement about the measures, former drug czar John Walters replied, "I think it's shocking. All you have to do is say things that this administration has already said. It would help enormously and I think it would defeat these measures."

Both Colorado and Washington's pot ballot measures are quite popular with voters, according to recent polling and have been backed by an increasingly diverse group across a range of ideological perspectives.

In Colorado, if marijuana is legalized it would be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco. It would give state and local governments the ability to control and tax the sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults age 21 and older. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. An economist whose study was funded by a pro-pot group projects as much as a $60 million boost by 2017.

Amendment 64 has received support from both Democrats and Republicans in Colorado, the NAACP, former cops and other members of the law enforcement community as well as more than 300 Colorado physicians andmore than 100 professors from around the nation. The measure appears to be popular among Colorado voters with several recent state polls showing wide support.

In Washington, a 25 percent excise tax would be in place if the state passes Initiative 502, which state revenue experts say could generate as much as $1.9 billion over the next five years, The Seattle Times reported. If passed, the initiative would allow adults 21 and older to buy up limited amounts of marijuana or marijuana-infused food products and would create state-licensed growers and retailers.

The Associated Press reports that if Washington's I-502 passes:

• Public use or display of marijuana would be barred.
• No marijuana facilities could be located near schools, day cares, parks or libraries.
• Employers would still be able to fire workers who test positive for pot.
• It would remain illegal to privately grow marijuana for recreational use, though medical patients could still grow their own or designate someone to grow it for them.
• It would be illegal to drive with more than 5 nanograms of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis, per milliliter of blood, if the driver is over 21; for those under 21, there would be a zero tolerance policy.

This is the second time that Colorado voters will decide on pot legislation -- state voters considered and rejected a similar recreational pot legalization initiative in 2006.

* Obama delivers pizza to volunteers in swing state office

* Romney campaign: Obama can change his style, not record

By Jeff Mason

WILLIAMSBURG, Va., Oct 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday his debate preparation was "going great" and aides said the Democrat would be more aggressive in his next face off with Mitt Romney after their last encounter gave the Republican challenger a boost.

Since that first debate in Denver on Oct. 3, polls indicate Romney has erased Obama's lead heading into the Nov. 6 election. Obama and Romney debate again on Tuesday at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The third and final presidential debate will take place on Oct. 22 in Florida.

Obama is spending the days ahead of the second debate at a resort in Williamsburg, Virginia, a battleground state that both candidates want to win in order to be victorious on Nov. 6.

During a quick stop at a local campaign office, where he delivered pizzas to volunteers and called supporters by phone, Obama ha d a n enthusiastic ta ke on hi s practice sessions.

"It is going great," Obama told reporters.

Before his debate in Denver, Obama held a similar "debate camp" in the swing state of Nevada. During a visit to a campaign office there, he called the practice sessions "a drag."

That attitude may have shown through on stage. His performance was widely panned as passive, and Romney's energetic showing gave his campaign a significant lift.

"The president is his own harshest critic and he knows Mitt Romney had a better night at the first debate," campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Sunday.

"The American people should expect to see a much more energized President Obama making a passionate case for why he is a better choice for the middle class."

Obama started debate preparation around 10 a.m. on Sunday before breaking for the campaign office stop. H e joked with volunteers that he was able to use the traditional landline phones because he had them at home.

"We actually still have old style phones...at the White House," he said.


SHOWDOWN

On Sunday 's t alk shows , Obama's advisers said he was preparing for a stepped-up performance, but the Romney team sounded unimpressed.

"Well, the president can change his style. He can change his tactics. He can't change his record. And he can't change his policies. And that's what this election is about," Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie told CNN.

"I think the race is very close. I think the wind is at Governor Romney's back, and there's clearly momentum. You can see it on the trail, you can see it in the data," Gillespie said in a separate appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

In contrast to Obama's listless debate performance, Vice President Joe Biden was far more assertive in his debate on Thursday night with Romney's running mate Paul Ryan in Danville, Kentucky.

The next presidential debate is a "town hall" format, allowing audience members to pose questions. CNN anchor Candy Crowley will moderate the debate.

Former White House communications director Anita Dunn, a longtime Obama adviser, was playing the role of Crowley in the president's mock sessions, a campaign aide said.

Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrod told the "Fox News Sunday" program the president would be aggressive in making his case on T uesday.

"But the other thing he's going to certainly do - I mean, we saw Governor Romney sort of serially walk away from his own proposals - certainly the president is going to be willing to challenge him on it as we saw the vice president challenge Paul Ryan," Axelrod said.

Dennis Bass, Washington Post
By January 2014, the states and the District must either establish their own health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), combine with other states to form a regional exchange or have the federal government set up an exchange for them.The District has opted for the first option, and this month it moved ahead with a model unlike anything pursued by any state in the nation, with the exception of Vermont: On Oct. 3, the D.C. Health Exchange Authority’s executive board unanimously approved a plan that would abolish the marketplace as we know it for firms with 50...

Ari Berman, The Nation
In recent weeks, in states from Florida to Ohio to New Hampshire, courts have blocked new laws passed by Republicans that restrict the right to vote for young, minority, elderly, disabled and low-income voters. A major exception to that trend had been Pennsylvania, where GOP House majority leader Mike Turzai famously predicted that the state's voter ID law was "going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." But on October 2, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, a Republican, thwarted Turzai's hopes by ruling that voters in...

Marie Corfield, a Democratic candidate for the New Jersey Assembly who rocketed to fame on the back of a YouTube video of her clashing with Gov. Chris Christie (R), received the most votes in a grassroots program to pick top Democratic state legislative candidates nationally.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee announced Thursday that Corfield was one of 60 candidates the group was backing nationally and one of 10 chosen through a grassroots vote of party activists across the country. Corfield is challenging Assemblywoman Donna Simon (R-Readington) in a special election for a seat vacated by the November 2011 death of Assemblyman Pete Biondi (R-Hillsborough).

Corfield, an art teacher, became a viral sensation with a video of her questioning Christie at a 2010 town hall meeting on education spending cuts. During the exchange, Corfield asked Christie about those cuts, which she said were hurting public education. Christie disputed that and said his prior "lambasting" was directed at the teachers union, not the teachers. Corfield responded, "We are not drug mules. And that came from you. And now I'm going back to work.

Earlier that year, Christie had accused the New Jersey Education Association of treating students like "drug mules to carry information back to the classroom" about their parents' voting plans in the annual school board elections.

The Washington-based Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee suggested that Corfield's clash with Christie helped her win the grassroots backing. Spokesman Dan Roth said that most of her support came from within New Jersey.

"She stood up to Christie," he said.

According to Roth, all 60 candidates -- the 10 grassroots picks and the 50 selected by committee staff -- will receive various types of backing from the committee, depending on state campaign finance laws. Among other grassroots picks were Aaron Gill, a Democratic challenger for a New Hampshire House seat, and Colorado state Sen. Linda Newell.

Corfield described herself as "thrilled and honored" to have received the most grassroots votes. She told HuffPost that she had reached out to activists through Facebook and Twitter to tell them about the grassroots program.

The Simon-Corfield race is considered the most competitive of three New Jersey legislative races this year. Simon, a former Readington committeewoman, was appointed to the seat by Republican leaders following Biondi's death a year ago. The appointment extends through this year's election. Corfield previously lost a 2011 race for one of the two seats in the district, which includes parts of Hunterden, Mercer, Middlesex and Somerset Counties.

Simon's campaign and the New Jersey Republican Party did not return messages for comment about Corfield's designation.

But Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick (R-Westfield) told HuffPost that he is confident Simon will win in November. "Donna Simon is working hard, and she's a terrific legislator," he said.

Bramnick has his own take on how the Christie confrontation likely boosted Corfield in the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee's process. "Democrats are worried about Chris Christie, and that’s why they gave her attention," he said. “They know Chris Christie is a superstar."

Corfield too believes her encounter with Christie helped her in the grassroots ballot.

"One of the things that has been so frustrating for all of us in the Democratic Party in this state is our governor leads by intimidation and not diplomacy," she said. "That is not the hallmark of a strong leader. We have been fighting against that. We are fighting against bullying instead of real leadership."

More than 800,000 people have already voted in the 2012 general election. A clearer picture of the potential 2012 electorate is emerging in some states where election officials are providing information on who has voted.

Early voting -- both mail and in-person -- is on pace to exceed 2008 levels, when about 30 percent of all votes nationally were cast prior to Election Day. The 2008 levels may be exceeded even further in states such as Iowa and Ohio, where early voting has been brisk. As a corollary, with no collapse in early voting, there is no indication so far that overall turnout, both early and Election Day, will be substantially lower than 2008.

In two states where party registration of early voters is available -- Maine and North Carolina -- slightly more registered Democrats have requested ballots as of a comparable date in 2008. Conversely, fewer registered Republicans have requested ballots. In Iowa, both registered Democrats and Republicans are voting above their 2008 levels, with a greater increase among Democrats.

Ohio presents a more complex picture. Early voting is up quite a bit over the 2008 level. This is likely because election officials sent absentee ballot applications to every registered voter. Ohio does not have party registration, so county-level data provides a better picture of the partisan implications. While levels are somewhat higher in rural counties, they are up in urban counties, too. In-person early voting is a preferred choice of urbanites, so the differences observed so far may narrow as in-person early voting continues. While the Obama campaign has been concerned about the limitation of in-person early voting during the weekend in Ohio, there is little indication so far that this has negatively influenced in-person voting. Still, the heaviest period of in-person voting in 2008 was the weekend prior to the election, so caution should be taken when projecting out from this lighter period of early in-person voting.

A more detailed state-by-state analysis follows.

IOWA

Iowa sticks out as a sore thumb in early voting. Already, more than 200,000 people have voted in Iowa, a much larger share of the potential 2012 electorate than any other state.

The number of registered Democrats who have voted is about twice that of registered Republicans, 53 percent to 28 percent, with the remainder unaffiliated. Bet let's not be so fast in calling Iowa for Obama. In 2008, Democrats outpaced Republicans 47 percent to 29 percent among early voters. Among the nearly 400,000 ballot requests in 2012, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a narrower margin: 48 percent to 30 percent. Republicans have been steadily making up ground among the votes cast and the ballot requests.

Romney needs more Republicans to vote early or needs Election Day to be vastly different, since Obama won the state by nine percentage points in 2008. An early vote electorate that looks like 2008 would therefore pose a difficult uphill climb for Romney. If these early vote numbers fail to firm up further for Romney, Iowa may be the first state where the campaign will have to make a tough strategic decision as to whether or not to continue expending resources.

MAINE and NORTH CAROLINA

Maine and North Carolina provide detailed individual records of registered voters who have requested a ballot and the disposition of the ballot. Using this information it is possible to make a comparison of the number of ballot requested in 2012 to the same point in time as in 2008 (adjusting for the fact that the election was held two days earlier in 2008).

In these states the number of registered Democrats requesting ballots has increased from 2008, while the number of registered Republicans decreased. In North Carolina, the number registered Democrats increased by 695 over 2008, while registered Republicans decreased by 2,521. In Maine, the registered Democrats increased by 427, while registered Republicans decreased by 1,922.

These are just small deviations, so there is ample time for Republicans to catch up. However, these statistics do not square with surveys that find that Democrats are less engaged than Republicans in this election. This is critical since engagement is often a factor in who is a likely voter.

OHIO

Republicans have crowed that the number of Ohio-registered Republicans voting early has increased from 2008. The problem with this assertion is that Ohio does not have party registration. "Party" in Ohio is a record of the last party primary a voter participated in. Naturally, with only a contested 2012 Republican presidential primary, the number of "registered Republicans" in the state increased. Because party statistics are so deeply confounded in Ohio, I prefer to examine patterns of early voting across counties.

A significant change in Ohio is that election officials mailed an absentee ballot application to every registered voter. This appears to have stimulated interest in mail balloting.

In Hamilton County, home of Cincinnati, it is possible to make an apples-to-apples comparison at the same point in time to the 2008 election by examining data provided by the county election officials. The number of ballot applications is currently at 84,999 compared to 60,005 in 2008. A 42 percent increase.

Compare Hamilton to a rural county like Defiance. So far, there are 3,021 ballot applications in 2008, compared with 1,935 applications in 2008. A 56 percent increase.

Where urban counties may make up ground in the coming weeks is among in-person early voting, which is more prevalent in urban areas. Of course, another much-reported Ohio change is the cancellation of weekend early voting hours. However, so far this has not resulted in a lower volume of early voting compared to 2008 in some of the larger counties. In Cuyahoga, the number of in-person early voters in 2008 was 8,400 while in 2012 the number is 10,440 -- despite no weekend or Columbus Day voting. Still, I would caution that the heaviest volume of early voting is yet to come the week before Election Day. The change in the early voting law may thus depress some votes, but perhaps with so many people voting by mail, the effect will be offset by increased mail balloting which will also reduce Election Day congestion at the polling places.

More state-by-state early vote statistics available here.
Follow me on Twitter: @ElectProject

Sean Trende, RCP
The possibility that Mitt Romney could win the popular vote while Barack Obama wins the vote in the Electoral College has been discussed throughout this campaign. In recent days, we've seen pieces from Nate Silver, Nate Cohn, Harry Enten and RCP's Scott Conroy discussing the issue. Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina has even referenced the potential discrepancy, urging reporters to look at the state polls rather than the national surveys.How likely is this, really? History suggests "not very," unless the race is extremely close. This is because the Electoral...

Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy

While electoral politics tends to suck the oxygen out of the room (and apparently out of many people's brains) in these last few weeks before an election, a number of U.S. citizens committed to ending the wars took to the streets this week. Demonstrations in at least 38 cities in the U.S. as well as in some foreign countries -- most notably Code Pink's courageous peace march in Pakistan -- are marking the 11th year anniversary of the longest war in U.S. history.

Veteran Michael Prysner accurately described the heartbreak of the current situation in Afghanistan as a "lost war and pointless mission" that is now sacrificing "life and limb for (nothing but) a slow-motion retreat" for politicians and generals to save face. The broader situation throughout the Middle East appears bleaker still inasmuch as the original congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that began the war on Afghanistan has been expansively interpreted to now encompass covert "special forces operations", cyber warfare, and drone bombing in at least five other countries. Additionally the recent National Defense Authorization Act even allows indefinite detentions of American citizens.

Naturally, more than a few of us have begun to lose hope in any American politician getting the country out of the wars, quagmires and messes created by other politicians. However, by recalling Lord Acton's immutable principle as well as Eisenhower's warning about the corrosive impact of the Military Industrial Complex, we see that the lower levels of city and state governments are inherently more reachable and less subject to corruption than the higher and more powerful levels of federal government. The notion that more real hope exists at the grassroots, civil society and city council level is being borne out.

Ask yourself and then your city council: "What mostly trickles down: prosperity or austerity?" This week residents of my city (Apple Valley), as in other Minnesota cities and local governing bodies, will ask our city council the following questions:

1) Can we spend trillions on war without cutting essential services on the local level?
2) Tell us about "Community Development Block Grants." Has our city seen cuts?
3) What are the ramifications? How much does the federal government spend on war and how much on local communities in the US?
4) How many local tax dollars have been spent to fund recent wars and an escalating Pentagon budget while local needs go unmet?

At the same time, we will also ask our City Council to consider putting the following draft resolution on their formal agenda:

City councils prove receptive

Undoubtedly there are some mayors and city councilpersons who might want to shrug off the responsibility of connecting these dots despite the fact that their cities and city residents are the ones paying the price of these costly national wars. But it shouldn't be necessary to bring our tents or camping gear to make city officials seriously think about this. Already several major cities around the country including Los Angeles, CA, Philadelphia, PA and Hartford, CT have signed on. The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar resolution in June of 2011. Also, the "Women Legislators' Lobby," including 36 MN women legislators, signed a letter calling for "responsible cuts in military spending."

Yesterday, October 10, 2012, the Saint Paul City Council voted unanimously to pass the resolution calling for a reduction and redirection of military spending back to local communities! The St. Paul City Council joined a statewide week of action during the 11 year anniversary of the Afghan War. This resolution was brought forward by the Minnesota Arms Spending AlternativesProject (MN ASAP). MN ASAP is a non-partisan citizen-based initiative using a simple resolution process to build political support to shift federal spending priorities from war to meeting essential needs. MN ASAP's goal is to build sufficient political power and influence statewide from representatives at all levels of government and from non-governmental organizations and civic groups to effectively demand a shift in priorities from war spending to meeting essential needs.

The group Minnesota Arms Spending Alternatives Project (MN ASAP) is approaching city councils around the state, asking them to connect the dots between federal military spending and cuts to local city council budgets, i.e. Community Development Block Grants, which come from the Federal Discretionary Budget.

Activists around Minnesota -- in St. Paul, Minneapolis, Eagan, Apple Valley, Mounds View, Circle Pines, Lakeville, and Duluth (so far) -- have been pursuing their council members via email, phone calls, office visits, or by speaking during the public hearing sessions (open microphone sessions). In Minneapolis, a majority of council members have individually endorsed the resolution and it is hoped an official vote will soon be scheduled there. Also noteworthy is the personal endorsement of our resolution by Rep. Keith Ellison who urges the Minneapolis City Council to debate and vote in favor of our resolution.

(Co-written with Nathan J. Ness, Director of MN ASAP)

Telecom Riot Act of 2012: Investigate the Broadband Scandal

Literally 20 years ago, during the 1992 presidential campaign, vice president Al Gore laid out a wondrous new fiber optic broadband future for America. Called the Information Superhighway, the plan was simple -- everyone with a copper wire in their home or office would have it replaced with a new shiny fiber optic one, capable of at least 45 Mbps in both directions, then the standard speed for broadband -- and almost 100 percent of the U.S. would be done around the year 2010.

While there was talk of this being done by the government, literally every local phone company in America said -- Wait, we'll do it. We'll wire every state's business and residential customers, every school, library and even every hospital and government agency.

But there was a catch. Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink went to every state and convinced regulators that in order to build these networks, the state would have to change the existing laws to give the companies billions of dollars for new construction. Known as 'alternative regulations,' the state legislatures and Public Utility Commissions 'deregulated' the companies, which allowed the companies to charge customers extra pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters on most services. For example, call waiting or call forwarding cost less than a penny to offer, but the company could charge $3.00-5.00 per service extra. The companies were also allowed to take massive write-offs, with the claims that these old wires would be replaced with shiny new wires -- fiber optic wires.

By the end of 2012, I estimate that America was overcharged $360 billion: over $3000 per household for upgrades to the utilities, the public switched telephone networks, (PSTN) -- upgrades to critical, essential infrastructure that never happened. (As noted previously, audits would be required to get a precise accounting because of the massive manipulation of the data and cross-subsidization of the phone company affiliates. For details see our free ebook or report.)

This failure to properly uprade the PSTN or collecting monies for phantom networks is not historical but ongoing. In New York, Verizon went back to the state to get rate increases in 2009 for fiber optic investments while in New Jersey, in March 2012, the Board of Public Utilities, issued a show cause order, asking why Verizon failed to honor their commitments to upgrade 100 percent of the state by 2010 -- with 45 mbps in both directions.

And America is 17th, or 29th, or 33rd in the world in broadband, depending on which research organization you subscribe to. Countries, such as Hong Kong, are offering speeds of 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps) for 24 dollars, while other countries from South Korea or Japan are making 100 Mbps services standard.

Adding insult to injury, the FCC's National Broadband Plan has allowed the phone companies to get even more subsidies -- read: new taxes and fees --- placed on phone bills. There's been no investigation of the monies already being collected in state after state from the various de-regulations and rate increases.

And this failure to build out the networks has had and will continue to harm the economy. Former New York Times and Reuters reporter, David Cay Johnston, expounded on our findings in his new book, The Fine Print, pointing out that our statistics may in fact be underestimating the monies collected. More importantly, he concluded that since America has only a "two lane highway instead of the information superhighway, America's economy will lack momentum." He added:

"The hard truth about the digital age is that the future of American jobs, and how well they pay, will be determined in good part by whether America climbs back from twenty-ninth place in Internet speed or continues to slip further behind countries like South Korea, with their lower wage scales and superior Internet."

Of course there are those who will tell everyone that 'wireless' is really the next step to America's broadband and Internet future. This arguments gets squashed quickly when one asks the following question -- where's the cable competition?

Wireless can't deliver the high speeds and has 'bandwidth caps' and therefore can't be used for cable competition much less being competitive with the rest of the world's broadband countries' current speeds. As noted previously, it would cost $780 a month just to watch cable using Verizon's wireless 'Cantenna,' the device they are pushing in areas that they are abandoning.

And in this election cycle, while jobs and economic growth are supposed to be the key triggers for this election, the Internet and broadband get nothing more than a passing mention, a footnote more than a headline.

It's time for readers to ask their politicians a few questions.

1) How much money was collected and given to the phone companies in state after state, as well as through the National Broadband plan, for broadband upgrades -- that didn't happen?

NOTE: AT&T and Verizon combined have only 8.6 million households (at the 2nd Quarter, 2012) with U-Verse and FiOS, respectively -- out of 120 million -- about 7 percent. Verizon and AT&T both announced that they are not expanding their deployments, leaving at least 50 percent of their territories without at least another option for wired broadband-Internet or cable competition. Worse, AT&T's U-verse travels over the old copper wiring so it can never compete with other broadband nations -- and is harming 22 states.

2) Why haven't you, dear politician, called for returning competition on these wires so that customers can have lower prices for America's communications services?

NOTE: As outlined in the previous article, there is no serious competition to lower prices of wired services. AT&T-California's phone service is up 100 percent, and every service, from cable to wireless has caveats that cost America's customers billions more annually. If there was actual competition, the prices would be going down, not up.

3) Infrastructure without Real Internet Freedom? While both the Democrats and Republicans call for "Internet freedom", how can we have Internet freedom if there's no choice of Internet or broadband providers? Doesn't VOIP require broadband and if 50 percent of the U.S. isn't upgraded, how does that help Internet freedom?

AT&T and Verizon have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of the politicians and media. Internet freedom should mean a customer should have a choice of Internet providers and broadband providers. But today, that doesn't exist, as the cable and phone companies have tied both products and customers are forced to buy their bundled service.

If 50 percent of the U.S. can't get a wired broadband connection, then they can't use VOIP. Moreover, since the companies are selling bundles, then buying a stand alone VOIP service like Skype or Vonage is extra money because bundles usually include phone service, which is the only way the customer gets the discounts on the other services.

4) Did Verizon and AT&T confiscate publicly-funded assets, as in charging customers for wireless and other services?

Finally, as I wrote in the first Huffington Post article, AT&T and Verizon have been dismantling the Public Switched Telephone Networks -- the utilities. The companies have not only manipulated the data presented to the public on everything from access lines to profits, but have been able to use funds that were supposed to be used to upgrade the PSTN to create other products and services that they then claim are private property. Even Verizon's FiOS has been moving the construction budgets to fund their cable service, even though they did not properly upgrade the public networks.

It also appears that the companies have been able to cross-subsidize their wireless companies' development. AT&T stated it has been goosing the revenues and profits of the wireless divisions, at the expense of the wireline division. Verizon, it appears, is paying 1/2 of what the wireless competitors are paying for access to the networks and are even getting the wireline company to divert construction budgets for wireless towers.

All of this means that customers may have been funding products and services, diverting billions that should have been used to upgrade the public utility, but instead are being used to help the incumbents' other products -- products that customers may never want, use, or even get.

In short, the Republican and Democratic parties should be investigating the caretakers of America's essential infrastructure, not kowtow to their whims. America should start thinking of how to either compel these companies to live up to their commitments or America should take steps to remove their controls over the wireline networks.

We are not asking for anything that we didn't already pay for.

Earlier this week when Ohio's Secretary of State John Husted said he'd appeal a court ruling that would reinstate early voting on the last three days before Election Day, the announcement threw an already chaotic run-up to the elections into further confusion. Local election officials said they don't know how to inform their poll workers or voters. Ministers have stalled their Souls to the Polls campaigns. And Husted has raised the ante in the latest round between the state's Democrats and Republicans over expanding or limiting voter access.

"The problem is we have no clue what's going on," said Tim Burke, a Democrat and chairman of the Hamilton County Board of Elections in Cincinnati. "I am absolutely convinced that this is part of an overall strategy."

President Barack Obama's campaign and Democrats had sued Husted, the state's election chief, and Ohio's attorney general for eliminating early voting for most residents in the last three days before the Tuesday election.

Last week the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling and sided with the Obama campaign, allowing expanded early voting in those final days before the election. On Tuesday Husted announced that he'd ask the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether or not federal courts can override election laws set by the state legislature. Husted called the ruling "an unprecedented intrusion" into how states run elections.

The Supreme Court has not yet said whether it will hear the case.

Husted said the appeals court's ruling would affect how elections are run in all 50 states.

"This ruling not only doesn't make legal sense, it doesn't make practical sense," Husted, a Republican, said in a statement.

Last year Republican legislators pushed through a law that restricted early voting on those final few days before the election, and Democrats challenged the law in court, claiming it was unconstitutional because it only limited early in-person voting for some voters, while others, including active members of the military and their families, could still vote on those days.

Opponents of the law say the move is part of a push to suppress likely Democratic voters, including African Americans and Latinos, who in 2008 turned out in record numbers and disproportionately took advantage of early and weekend voting.

Over the summer there was further uproar in several of the state's urban counties, where Republican election board members pushed through rules that cut voting hours in those counties, where the populations have large minority and Democratic voting blocs. Meanwhile, election boards in rural counties, with Republican majorities, expanded their voting hours. In cases where Republicans were not the majority on the boards, their votes forced ties for which Husted held the decisive vote.

In 2008 about 93,000 voters in Ohio cast their ballots on the final three days before Election Day. In Hamilton County, Burke said that almost 1,500 people voted on the Saturday before the election and another 1,600 voted the Monday immediately preceding Election Day. (The county's board of elections was closed on Sunday.)

While African Americans of voting age made up only 28 percent of the population of Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, 56 percent of early voters were black, according to the Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates.

Four years ago, Burke said, the line of early voters snaked from the board of elections office down a few flights of stairs, out of the building and around several blocks.

"All you had to do is look at that line and who was in it and you can understand why [Republicans] don't want to see that duplicated again," Burke said. "The line was very heavily African American. I'm not going to say this is racial. I think this targets voters they suspect of being Democrats."

"God forbid we would be open on Sunday," he added, "The black ministers would fill up their buses and bring people to vote."

Not long after Husted's announcement on Tuesday -- incidentally, the last day to register to vote in Hamilton County and elsewhere in Ohio -- ministers brought busloads of churchgoers from all over Cincinnati and the county to register and vote, for a day filled with events and speakers, even providing a meal before the trip.

Pastor Rousseau O'Neil of Rockdale Baptist Church joined his church members and nearly a thousand others from all over the city to cast their ballots. Everyone was full of excitement and energy, he said. But for Rousseau, beneath all of the enthusiasm was a simmering anger over what he described as political gamesmanship at the cost of voting rights.

"What's going on here is the most political thing you ever heard of," said Rousseau. "Four years ago we went down in droves ... This voter suppression issue, to this extent -- No, we didn't expect this. It was by design to throw us off balance to keep us down, literally."

The political antics, the pastor said, hark back to the days of Jim Crow-style voter disenfranchisement.

"To see this revisited not even a generation later, but almost in the same time frame, it's unimaginable," he said.

Meanwhile, ColorOfChange.org has launched a petition drive that has so far collected about 66,000 signatures calling for the preservation of the early voting days.

The group has led protests, letter-writing campaigns and phone bank drives.

"All of these attempts are part of a coordinated attempt to keep certain folks from the polls," said Rashad Robinson, director of the organization. "It's import for all of us to be vigilant and all of us to stand up and for the courts to act the way that they have in these situations, and to do what the court is supposed to do: stand up for what's right."

State Republicans have said the elimination of early voting would lessen the burden of election workers in the lead-up to the election.

But Caleb Faux, a Democrat and member of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said that the new laws, their repeal, the extension and simultaneous expansion of voting hours in various counties has cast a cloud over the entire elections process.

"I think what we have is confusion, and I personally think that confusion is intentional," said Faux, who is also the executive director of the Hamilton County Democratic Party. "At this point we have no idea what to tell people."

By taking the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, Faux said Husted has "dragged out any finality on this issue even longer and added to the confusion."

"I think it exposes a clear political motivation," said Faux.

Husted's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

North Carolina state Senate candidate Deb Butler (D) released a new ad attacking incumbent Republican state Sen. Thom Goolsby, featuring Butler wielding a transvaginal probe against Goolsby's record on women's health issues.

"He wouldn't dare show you this, but this is Thom Goolsby’s contribution to women’s health,” Butler says, while holding the probe. "A medically unnecessary, invasive procedure that is now required by state law."

“He promised us his first priority would be jobs," she continues. "But instead he’s following you into the doctor’s office.”

Last year, Goolsby voted for a bill that required women seeking an abortion to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound and undergo a 24-hour waiting period before receiving services. The state senator read from the Declaration of Independence to defend his position and called the bill "necessary, so when [women] take this drastic step and deal with one of God’s creations, they know what they’re doing.”

Women's health has played a key role in this year's elections, including the presidential race, with Democrats trying to portray their Republican opponents as regressive and dismissive of women's health issues such as abortion and contraception.

The hot-button topic in our current election cycle is the economy. Basically, finances seem to be the sole focus of nearly every campaign. And why not? With unemployment rates hovering in the 8 percent range, our nation's financial situation is a major issue. But almost as many Americans suffer from a serious mental illness as are unemployed, and there are many more people dealing with addiction than are unemployed. Even in an economy-driven election -- perhaps especially in an economy-driven election -- politicians should be paying attention to these facts. After all, whether it is a debilitating mental illness such as bipolar disorder or a mind-addling addiction to prescription medications, these issues cost our nation serious money. And the amount increases when the problems are left untreated or passed off to the criminal justice system.

The simple fact is that just about everyone knows someone -- a loved one, a friend, a co-worker -- with a mental health or addiction issue. Nevertheless, politicians routinely ignore the need to treat these populations. Perhaps this neglect stems from the fact that addiction and mental illness have historically been viewed as moral failings as opposed to treatable illnesses. Alcoholics were seen as hopeless bums and a drain on society, drug addicts were degenerate criminals to be feared and thrown in jail, and the mentally ill were unfortunate creatures best hidden away in locked rooms or placed in asylums "for their own good." Sadly, even though the medical and scientific communities now possess considerable evidence indicating these once-upon-a-time "facts" have little, if anything, to do with the reality of alcoholism, drug addiction and mental illness, our socio-political system continues to wallow in the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil dark ages. Rather than dealing with these problems head on, we choose to either ignore them or use the judicial system to sweep them under the rug.

This unhelpful attitude has, over the last several decades, led to a bevy of unfortunate, expensive and wildly unsuccessful federal, state and local policies focused on interdiction and punishment rather than treatment. And in most respects these moth-eaten "contain and control" strategies persist despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence clearly demonstrating their abysmal inadequacy. Consider, for instance, the tried and truly failed idea that we can "arrest" our way to a drug-free America. Today, there are more than seven million Americans under the supervision of the criminal justice system, with a large percentage of that number in on drug offenses. Yet more people than ever are dying drug-related deaths. However many people we lock up, the ravages of addiction continue unabated.

If we look at the matter objectively, we see clearly that the war on drugs is over, and everybody lost. So why do we continue to address the "addiction problem" primarily through the criminal justice system? Rather than dumping countless billions into a quagmire of policies that we know don't work, couldn't we refocus our efforts and funnel these same resources into improving our treatment methodologies and making that treatment affordable, accessible and without stigma?

One common argument against the above idea is that federal and state governments should not be throwing their limited financial resources at a tiny segment of the population when so many larger, more pressing issues (i.e., the economy) need to be addressed. Of course, this argument fails to recognize that arresting and incarcerating drug users, oftentimes repeatedly, without addressing their underlying issues costs, over time, significantly more money than helping those individuals identify and overcome their problems through proper treatment. And the financial costs don't end with arrest and incarceration! The number of work-days lost to addiction is incalculable, costing employers millions, perhaps even billions. And what about the healthcare system? Medical expenses for an untreated alcoholic are triple those of a nonalcoholic.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, addicted and/or mentally ill people are hardly a "tiny segment" of the U.S. population. It is thought that approximately 12 percent of Americans suffer from alcohol or drug addiction, and approximately 5 percent suffer from a serious mental illness. (A "serious mental illness" is an emotional or psychological disorder resulting in a functional impairment that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.) And these numbers take into account only the individuals directly affected by the disorder. We should also consider the millions of children, spouses, parents and friends who are indirectly affected.

Nevertheless, most jurisdictions determinedly perpetuate policies of interdiction, arrest and incarceration -- probably because seeming "soft on crime" is a good way to lose votes. Thus, resources for dealing with addiction and mental illness have become highly politicized, with policies that sound good to the voting population winning out despite their well-documented lack of success.
Happily, not all is doom and gloom on the political front. Earlier this year, in April, the Obama administration released its thoughtful, informed, and progressive 2012 National Drug Control Strategy, building nicely on the president's initial Drug Control Strategy introduced in 2010. Basically, the administration's policy is grounded in three research-based premises that are now widely accepted in the addiction treatment community:

1) Drug addiction is not a moral failing; rather, it is a preventable and treatable chronic brain disease.

2) People can and do recover from addiction.

3) Criminal justice reforms are needed if we truly want to stop the cycle of drug use, crime, incarceration, release, more drug use, and re-arrest.

In part, the president's policy focuses on the two most current drug-related challenges: the prescription drug epidemic, and the millions of people who need substance abuse treatment but do not receive it. If it is followed through -- and that's still a big if -- the new approach will respond to the aforementioned two challenges by diverting nonviolent drug offenders into treatment, and expanding overall access to treatment. For instance, the Affordable Care Act will force insurers to cover drug addiction treatment as they would any other chronic disease. Overall, the new policy is a revolutionary and long-overdue shift in the federal approach.

Unfortunately, addiction and mental illness have (as usual) been placed on a back burner in the current presidential election, with state and local races following suit. Campaign speeches and advertisements are focused on the economy, while the ongoing issue of treating rather than ignoring and/or incarcerating a large, constantly growing and needful segment of our population remains unaddressed. Until this attitude of political neglect changes, we're likely stuck with the current jumble of antiquated laws that do more harm than good. Thus, the individual suffering of millions of people -- not to mention their friends and families -- will continue, as will the unwarranted funding of numerous failed drug control strategies. Yes, the new National Drug Control Policy is a significant step in the right direction, but at the moment it's a lone beacon of light that most politicians are choosing to ignore in favor of "vote grabbing" topics.

David Sack, M.D., is board certified in addiction psychiatry and addiction medicine. As CEO of Elements Behavioral Health he oversees a network of addiction treatment centers that include Promises, The Ranch, The Recovery Place, and The Sexual Recovery Institute.

TIME magazine has an interesting set of articles this week asking which of the presidential candidates, if any, "is telling the truth."

First off, what a sad commentary on the state of our politics -- of our country -- that such a question even needs to be asked.

But wait: It gets "better."

One of the articles in TIME discards any pretense of searching for honesty in our presidential candidates by asking, "Who Lies More?"

In TIME's "Who Lies More? Yet Another Contest," we find the results of an analysis of what each campaign claims are the other campaign's worst deceptions. The "verdicts" rendered by TIME on the campaigns' claims include "false," "untrue," "highly misleading," "misleading," "deceptive," "distortion," "speculative" and, lo-and-behold, one "true" verdict, although even this one lonely "true" is a qualified one: "The statement is true, but Obama shouldn't take sole credit for the trend."

There are almost as many shades of not telling the truth as there are shades of gray in that famous book -- not a great testament to our politics and politicians.

TIME's summary of its findings:

Compared with the Obama campaign's, the Romney operation's misstatements are frequently more brazen. But sometimes the most effective lie is the one that is closest to the truth, and Obama's team has often outdone Romney's in the dark art of subtle distortion. On both sides, the dishonesty is "about as bad as I've seen," says veteran journalist Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org.

TIME's Alex Altman adds:

The lying game unfolds on many levels. Campaigns obfuscate, twist the truth and exaggerate. They exploit complexity. Most of all, they look for details -- real or unreal -- that validate our suspicions. There was no Obama "apology tour," but the canard flourished because some voters are wary about his sense of American exceptionalism. If you read the whole paragraph, the President's "You didn't build that" riff seems a lot more reasonable, but context fell victim to a perception that Obama disdains free enterprise. Bain was never the beneficiary of a taxpayer bailout, and yet 75 percent of Americans believe the contrary, partly because Democrats have cast Romney as the kind of plutocrat for whom the rules are rigged.

But back to the "contest."

TIME lists 10 claims made by each campaign, followed by TIME's "Reality" check and finally by its verdict as to the truthfulness of the campaign's claims.

Here are a couple of examples. To make it "fair," I picked instances where the verdict on both was "misleading":

Obama Campaign

"After a decade of decline, this country has created over half a million new manufacturing jobs."

Reality: The U.S. has lost about a million manufacturing jobs since 2009 but regained more than half that number in the comeback

Verdict: Without context, Obama's number is misleading

Romney Campaign

"Romney's plan? Reverse Obama's defense cuts, strengthen our military, create over 700,000 jobs for Florida."

Reality: The cuts are part of a 2011 debt-reduction deal agreed to by the White House and congressional Republicans, including Paul Ryan

Verdict: Blaming Obama alone for the cuts is misleading

I did some tabulating of the "verdicts" for each campaign and came up with the following disappointing results:

Obama Campaign Claims/Romney Campaign Claims

• False 1 / 3
• Untrue 3 / 1
• Untrue and Deceptive 1
• Highly Misleading 1
• Misleading 5
• Distortion 1
• Speculative 1
• "Relies on Gimmicks" 1
• "Qualified True" 1

Setting aside the four verdicts that range from "distortion" to "qualified true," we are left with a whopping 16 verdicts (or 80 percent) falling between "misleading" and just plain "false." Not a very flattering statement about the two men running for the highest office in the land.

A large number of articles, analyses and fact-checking pieces have already been published on this issue since the Oct. 3 presidential debate.

However, neither the TIMEs' recent article nor any of the hundreds already published are expected to change many minds because, as TIME's Managing Editor, Richard Stengel, suggests, "Voters see candidates they support as truth tellers; they regard candidates they oppose as shadier."

As for the fact-checkers, the truth squads and the honest pundits trying to catch the liars and their lies, TIME suggests the analogy of the liars usually remaining one step ahead of the cops: "It's like the campaigns are driving 100 miles an hour on a highway with a posted speed limit of 60, but the patrol cars all have flats."

I would add to that their getting away with their lies, inaccuracies and deceptions just seems to embolden these "drivers" to drive even faster, to tell even bigger lies and to be even more in-your-face about it as they approach the finish line. Just witness the arrogant declaration by Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

In its cover story, TIME provides an insightful discussion of the reasons why politicians lie and, more important, why voters let them get away with it. It is a very worthwhile read, although in the conclusion TIME does not offer much hope for the truth winning out in the 2012 elections:

But when the final book is written on this campaign, one-sided deception will still have played a central role. As it stands, the very notions of fact and truth are employed in American politics as much to distort as to reveal. And until the voting public demands something else, not just from the politicians they oppose but also from the ones they support, there is little reason to suspect that will change.

I for one demand that the side making the most "false" statements and accusations -- of course that is always the "other side" -- ratchet up the rhetoric at least to the level of "slightly misleading."

It would also be nice if we left Big Bird out of all this.

In all seriousness, however, as long as we the voters continue to see our candidates as "truth tellers," no matter how big or bald-faced their lies are, what incentive do they -- or any politician -- have to tell the truth?

Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for "rebellious children."

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

According to the Arkansas Times, Fuqua wrote:

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

In the same book, Fuqua advocated for expelling Muslims from the U.S., saying it would solve what he described as the "Muslim problem." Fuqua, who has been backed by the state GOP and is seeking a comeback, has found himself under attack by Republicans since his comments surfaced at the same time it was reported that state Rep. Jon Hubbard (R-Jonesboro) endorsed slavery in his book. Fuqua told the Associated Press that he was surprised by the reaction to his writings on Muslims.

"I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people," Fuqua said to AP.

Fuqua declined to answer questions from The Huffington Post.

"I'm not going to talk to you," he said before hanging up.

On his campaign blog, Fuqua highlights his service on the Children and Families Committee while a member of the Arkansas Legislature in 1997. He also describes liberals and Muslims as the "anti-Christ" and says he believes they are conspiring to create a "bloody revolution."

"There is a strange alliance between the liberal left and the Muslim religion. It may be that since both are the enemies of Christianity, that they both believe that, my enemy's enemy is my friend," Fuqua writes. "However there are several similarities between the two. Both are antichrist in that they both deny that Jesus is God in the flesh of man, and the savior of mankind. They both also hold that their cause should take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution."

What if a presidential election came down to the strangest county in the weirdest state in America? For better or worse, that's Miami-Dade, whose vote Nov. 6 will go a long way in determining who wins America's biggest swing state.

Michael Barone, DC Examiner
Wednesday night's presidential debate in which Mitt Romney shellacked Barack Obama attracted the biggest audience since the debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan seven days before the 1980 election.About 70 million Americans watched, a little more than half the 131 million voter turnout in 2008. That's an estimate, because the ratings companies don't count those watching on C-SPAN, PBS or the Internet.Did the debates matter? The first state polls, conducted by Rasmussen and We Ask America on Thursday night, suggest the answer is yes.Rasmussen reported that Romney was...

WASHINGTON -- Days after Mitt Romney backed off his claim, made during a secretly recorded fundraiser, that 47 percent of Americans depend on the government and see themselves as victims, the Republican presidential nominee is set to soften another controversial remark he made that night.

In a heavily hyped foreign policy address at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday, Romney plans to declare his commitment to the notion of "a Democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel." According to advance excerpts of his remarks provided by the campaign, he will also knock President Barack Obama for failing to make progress on a two-state solution, instead abdicating responsibility to international institutions like the United Nations.

"In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new president will bring the chance to begin anew," Romney will say.

Romney is hardly the first political figure to criticize Obama for inaction on the Israel-Palestine conflict. A number of Middle East observers have expressed their frustration with the hand the president has played on this front. But the idea that Romney is eager to forge ahead with the two-state solution in a way Obama failed to do contradicts his own words.

At the private fundraiser last May, Romney characterized the peace process as a hopeless endeavor.

"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can,'" Romney said, in comments that depressed longtime peace negotiators.

"I got a call from a former secretary of state," he added. "I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it."

The Romney campaign insisted that the remarks were simply a description of the status quo, as well as a reflection of the candidate's belief that the rising influence of Hamas makes it impossible for a peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis to ever take hold. In comments that weren't contained in the first portion of the video to be released, Romney was more specific about what he thought it would take to reach an agreement, arguing that a show of brute "American strength, American resolve" could end up convincing "the Palestinians" that "they want peace more than we’re trying to force peace on them."

"Then it’s worth having the discussion," he added. "So until then, it’s just wistful thinking."

The latter line doesn't close the door on the peace process, as the first portion of the video suggests. But it does imply that Romney is deeply skeptical about its prospects.

If Romney hews to his prepared remarks on Monday, he'll be presenting himself as someone committed to that arduous process, rather than someone who thinks it is futile. It's another indication that, as the presidential campaign enters its final month, the Republican nominee is betting that he must soften his edges to win over voters.

Wallis & Benson, Reuters
Venezuelans lined up for hours in searing tropical heat on Sunday to vote in the biggest electoral test yet to President Hugo Chavez's socialist rule from a young rival tapping into discontent over crime and cronyism.Henrique Capriles, a centrist state governor, narrowed the gap with Chavez in final polls thanks to an energetic campaign that generated widespread enthusiasm. It has given the opposition its best chance in 14 years to unseat the popular president and take the reins of South America's leading oil exporter.

Brett LoGiurato, Biz Insider
Polls that track both national and swing state voting have shown nothing but bad news for the president over the last couple of days. A potential silver lining for Obama: Most of these polls don't measure the potential bounce-back he could have received from good news on Friday — that the 7.8 percent unemployment rate is the lowest mark since he took office.

In politics, there inevitably comes the dreaded time when politics and politicking run into reality. It is the point at which you can no longer appease two opposing parties and a decision must be made that chooses one party's interests over the other. I imagine politicians hate this moment because it shows their true character, for better or worse.

This time has come for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and for President Obama. Governor Cuomo has tried to walk the line between natural gas interests, who want to open the state to fracking, and anti-fracking advocates who want to keep New York free from the practice. Earlier this year, Cuomo extended the state's moratorium on fracking in order to study its health impacts. Then, word leaked out that Cuomo was considering allowing limited fracking in the state and now, it seems the whole rule-making process may have to start over due to the Department of Environmental Conservation missing a deadline.

What Cuomo is coming up against is the uncomfortable reality that there is no middle ground on fracking. As soon as he allows any fracking in the state, all the negative environmental and economic consequences that accompany the practice will be realized. The thing about pollution is that it refuses to remain stationary. Pollutants in ground water systems tend to migrate to other areas, causing an impact zone that reaches beyond the immediate area. Worse, limiting it to a certain part of the state dooms those residents to bear the burdens of fracking so that the rest of us can reap the benefits.

As for the other side, they won't be satisfied with drilling only in the Marcellus Shale for long. The Energy Information Agency estimates that there is about a six-year supply of gas in the Marcellus. Once that starts to be depleted, the natural gas industry will want to explore other areas of the state. Trying to limit fracking to one area of the state is like trying to stop poison ivy from spreading by scratching it.

President Obama faces a similar crossroads with the Keystone XL permit. In January, the White House rejected TransCanada's permit application, in part due to the massive outpouring of opposition from anti-pipeline advocates that included 10,000 people surrounding the White House calling on the president to stop the project. Yet, just a few months later, the White House backed TransCanada's plan to build the southern portion of the pipeline. Given that the northern section is already built, it's not hard to see how building the southern portion makes the entire pipeline a done deal. Currently, advocates are using non-violent tactics to stop pipeline construction.

Like fracking, tar sands mining is an environmental and economic step backward. It is incredibly environmentally damaging, doesn't create many jobs, let alone good jobs, and does little to put us on the path to energy independence, as there is no guarantee that the oil will stay in the U.S. once it is refined. Neither of these energy sources helps us move to a stable, clean energy future. They are not strong economic engines, as most of the profits from oil and gas mining are concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals. And, they do nothing to help stave off the impending climate crisis. If anything, they will make it worse.

So, as decision time looms, on whose side will the governor and president stand? Will either have the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby and put us on the path to a true clean energy future? Or, will they capitulate to the monied interests and leave the rest of us behind?

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Mitt Romney said Massachusetts schools are ranked 1st in the nation

Republican Mitt Romney declared his love for "great schools" during the first presidential debate. Did he go overboard in calling his home state’s schools the best in all the land? Romney’s comments came in response to a dig from President Barack Obama, who said Romney "doesn’t think we need more teachers" while Obama wants to hire 100,000 for math and science. "Well, first, I love great schools," Romney replied. "Massachusetts, our schools are ranked No. 1 of all 50 states. And the key to great schools, great teachers. So I reject the ...

>> More

Richard Baehr, AT
New swing state polls are out today from Rasmussen and We Ask America,  all taken yesterday after the first Presidential debate. In Rasmusssen surveys, Romney is up 1in Virginia (he had been down 1) , up 2 in Floria (he has been down 2) and down 1 in Ohio (same as before)We Ask America has Romney up 3 in Virginia (last survey had Obama up 3),  up 1 in Ohio (first survey in this cycle for the state), and up 3 in Florida (last survey had Obama up 3).    The average of the surveys from the two polls in each of the three most critical swing states puts...