Biden On The Obama-Biden “Still” Ad

Sorry about the lack of updating.  Jewish Republican Girl has been out of town.  Pics from the September 22 Stop Iran Rally in NYC will hopefully be posted later today.

In the meantime, even Joe Biden admitted that the Obama-Biden TV ad which mocks John McCain’s inability to use a computer due to his war injuries was terrible.  From ABC News’ jake Tapper’s Political Punch blog (bold added by me):

In an interview that aired on CBS, Sen. Barack Obama’s running mate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., distanced himself from an Obama-Biden TV ad.

Katie Couric asked Biden about the “tone of the campaign” adding that “you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free, making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer.”

Couric was apparently referring to the fact that an Obama-Biden TV ad tried to make fun of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for being so out of touch he doesn’t use a computer — though as ABC News reported,  the real reason McCain doesn’t use a computer is because of his war wounds. Small tasks make his shoulders ache, so he tries to avoid any repetitive exercise.

“I thought that was terrible by the way,” Biden said of the ad.

“Why’d you do it then?” asked Couric.

“I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it,” Biden said, “and I don’t think Barack, you know, I just think…I don’t think there was anything intentional about that, they were trying to make another point.”

Later on, Biden remembered his lines and issued a statement predictably blaming McCain.  Also from Jake Tapper’s blog:

UPDATE: Biden issued a statement tonight, saying, “I was asked about an ad I’d never seen, reacting merely to press reports.  As I said right then, I knew there was nothing intentionally personal in the criticism of Sen. McCain’s views, which look backwards not forwards, and are out of touch with the new economic challenges we face today. Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that, given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.”

I have to say, from telling North Carolina voters to vote for a black candidate, to his claim that patriotism = higher taxes, to his admission that his own campaign’s ad was “terrible”, Biden is an endless source of comic relief this year.  I’ve heard the rumors that Obama camp will replace Biden with Hillary Clinton in October.  I don’t know how much truth is in this rumor nor would an Obama VP switch change my vote, but I’d miss Biden’s memorable quotes.

Palin Disinvited to Stop Iran Rally

First Hillary Clinton canceled her invitation to speak at a NY rally to stop Iran from getting nukes because having a prominent Democratic woman speak alongside a prominent Republican woman, Sarah Palin, is “partisan”.

Then the National Jewish Democratic Council(NJDC) called to have Sarah Palin removed from the speakers’ list, the justification being that this protest “is too important to be tainted by partisanship” (hat tip: Opinion Journal):

WASHINGTON, DC – Marc R. Stanley, Chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), released the following statement:

Monday’s protest against Ahmadinejad is too important to be tainted by partisanship. Unfortunately, the campaign of Senator John McCain is much more interested in scoring political points than insuring there is bipartisan solidarity around the anti- Ahmadinejad efforts. Therefore, we call upon the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to withdraw the invitation to Governor Sarah Palin and we applaud Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to not attend the rally after the attendance of Palin was announced.

By withdrawing Palin’s invitation, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations will be able to return the focus to America’s outrage towards the genocidal musings and nuclear ambitions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The NJDC is obviously a partisan group and Clinton admittedly has a conflict of interest if she attends (although I still think it’s bullshit).  But for the NJDC to “applaud” Clinton’s decision not to attend because Palin was going seems a contradiction of priorities.  Wouldn’t the NJDC want to have a strong showing of Democratic players at the anti-Ahmadinejad rally?  And the second sentence is complete bullshit:

Unfortunately, the campaign of Senator John McCain is much more interested in scoring political points than insuring there is bipartisan solidarity around the anti- Ahmadinejad efforts.

There WAS bipartisan solidarity until Clinton decided she couldn’t show up.  Why should Palin base her decision on whether or not to come on Clinton, or Obama for that matter?  It’s the Obama camp here that’s playing politics and not sending a strong message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and this argument to disinvite Palin is the stupidest I’ve ever heard.

Unfortunately however, it worked.  From the Jerusalem Post (bold added by me):

Organizers of an anti-Iran rally next week have dropped Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin from the event, days after Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton pulled out.

The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now said Thursday that it would put on a rally without “American political personalities” and Palin won’t be there.

The move angered Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who accused Democratic rivals of having his running mate disinvited. All Americans should agree on the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.

“Governor Palin was pleased to accept an invitation to address this rally and show her resolve on this grave national security issue,” McCain said in a statement. He blamed “Democratic partisans” and Barack Obama’s campaign for pressing organizers to dump Palin.

A number of American Jewish organizers are staging the rally in New York City against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They had announced earlier this week that the event would feature both Clinton and Palin.

Clinton aides fumed over what they saw as a slight by organizers, because they had no idea until told by reporters that Palin was supposed to attend as well.

The New York senator had agreed weeks ago to attend the rally, but abruptly backed out late Tuesday, as soon as she learned of the pairing. Clinton, whose historic bid for the presidency came up short, has sought to avoid a public face-off with Palin. A Clinton-Palin double billing at such an event would have been awkward.

Casey Sanders, a spokeswoman for rally organizers, had no explanation for why Palin shouldn’t be there or who decided that.

The Republican ticket of John McCain and Palin is working hard to win over disappointed Clinton supporters, particularly women voters. And Obama, who beat Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been trying to assure Jewish voters that he is firmly committed to Israel’s security.

McCain’s campaign did not explain why it thinks Democrats and the Obama camp were behind the rescinded invitation.

The Palin camp criticized Clinton for backing out, saying all parties should rally together in opposition to the threat posed by a nuclear Iran.

Pathetic.  Really pathetic on the part of both the Obama and Clinton camps.  If a Clinton-Palin face-off would have been too “awkward”, they should have at least sent Joe Biden to the rally instead and show bipartisan solidarity with the two VP nominees.  But they didn’t.  They turned a bipartisan event into a partisan one, then into a “nonpartisan” event.  Their actions say a lot about Obama’s supposed commitment to Israel’s security.  Obama is not firmly committed to Israel’s security.  Obama is firmly committed to getting himself elected.

And even more outrageous, the LA Times blog manages to twist this whole incident into a McCain camp plot:

John McCain’s campaign also felt compelled to issue a comment that includes casting aspersions at Barack Obama. As has become de rigueur for the GOP camp, it questioned his motives in apparently resisting a push from McCain that he show up in lieu of Clinton. Here’s that part of the statement:

Gov. Palin was pleased to accept an invitation to address this rally and show her resolve on this grave national security issue, regrettably that invitation has since been withdrawn under pressure from Democratic partisans.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with Republicans, Democrats and independents alike to oppose Ahmadinejad’s goal of a nuclear armed Iran. Sen. Obama’s campaign had the opportunity to join us. Sen. Obama chose politics rather than the national interest.

[UPDATE: An Obama spokesman, Tommy Vietor, responded with an e-mail that said in part: "This is another dishonorable lie from John McCain. The Obama campaign had planned to send a surrogate to the rally." Vietor also scolded McCain for refusing "to stand up to his allies in Congress " who this week blocked an Obama bill aimed at helping states and private pension funds divest from companies that invest in Iran.]

Yeah sure.  It’s all McCain’s fault.  Obviously.

Well, unlike Ms. Clinton, I will be at the September 22 rally to Stop Iran from getting nukes.  The partisan imp in me almost considered not going so as to punish the event organizers for denying me the opportunity to hear Gov. Sarah Palin.  But unlike certain others, I’m still going because I think the threat of nuclear Iran is above partisan politics.

Biden on Patriotism

Democrat VP nominee Sen. Joe Biden redefines patriotism:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Really, paying more taxes is patriotic?  This call to “help get America out of the rut” coming from a candidate whose party threw the American flags away at their “green” convention?

Let’s at least start by proper handling and disposing of the American flag.  Then Biden can try to make his case about higher-taxes-as-patriotic-duty.

Ms. Clinton’s “Bipartisanship”

Remember the Hillary Clinton who touted her experience of reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans?  I wonder what happened to her.  From the ABC News Political Radar Blog (bold added by me):

Sen. Hillary Clinton has decided to skip a pro-Israel rally in New York next week because Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was also scheduled to appear. (AP Photo/newscom.com)

No Joint Clinton-Palin Appearance at New York Rally

ABC News’ Imtiyaz Delawala and Teddy Davis Report: In the case of the 2008 presidential election, life does not always imitate the art of well-received Saturday Night Live skit, especially where a joint appearance of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are concerned.

Clinton backed out of a protest scheduled for Monday in New York against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s attendance at the opening of the UN General Assembly after learning that organizers also invited the Republican vice presidential nominee without informing her.

Organized by American Jewish groups, the “Rally to Stop Iran Now” sent out a media advisory billing the joint appearance in their headline: “SEN. HILLARY CLINTON AND GOV. SARAH PALIN AT “RALLY TO STOP IRAN NOW,” AT UNITED NATIONS, MONDAY, SEPT. 22nd, 11:45 A.M.”

The rally will feature Palin as well as Speaker of Israel’s Knesset Dalia Itzik and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel.

Clinton aides were described as “furious” after learning from reporters — not rally organizers — of the plan to have Clinton and Palin appear together.

“Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event,” said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines in a statement to reporters. “Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending.”

Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt released a statement on Clinton’s canceled appearance saying, “Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics. She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat.”

Clinton’s spokesman had no direct response to the argument made by Schmitt.

I do not understand how an event in which a prominent Democrat woman and a prominent Republican woman are both invited to speak is a “partisan” event.  I can understand how Clinton might potentially be upset by not knowing the full speakers list.  But if she assumed no Republicans (or perhaps, no prominent Republican women, aka Sarah Palin) would be speaking, did she think that meant the event was “bipartisan”?  How did the event become “partisan” by having representatives of both parties speak?

Clinton’s canceled appearance is a bad move on all fronts.  It’s a bad move for Clinton herself, because the event is organized by a number of American Jewish groups, and Jews represent an important constituency in her state of New York.  Clinton also misses out on the major career opportunity of appearing on the same program as Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, an opportunity you’d really have to be a fool to pass up.  It’s a bad message to send to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that only half the country is concerned about nuclear Iran.  And it’s a bad move for Barack Obama, whom Clinton is campaigning for, because her actions will reflect on him and make him look partisan and petty (so much for all his talk about being a unifier and bringing the country together).

Unless Clinton, like Obama, thinks John McCain is a greater threat than Iran.  After all, Iran is a tiny threat…

Student Told Rosary Is Gang Symbol

A Texas high school forbid a student to wear a rosary because it is considered a gang symbol.  From MyFox Dallas (bold added by me):

SEAGOVILLE  –  A Dallas-area high school student says she’s been forbidden from wearing her rosary to school because it’s considered a gang symbol.

Tabitha Ruiz says her silver and ruby beaded rosary is a gift from her mother that she’s worn ever since she was a child. She had it around her neck last week at Seagoville High School when a security guard stopped her at the door.

“I went to school, walked through the metal detectors and they told me to take it off,” said the teenager. “I asked them why and they said because it’s gang-related.”

Ruiz said school officials told her to hide the rosary or take it off, and she did, before calling her mother.

On Monday, she wore the prayer beads again, only to be told again to take them off again. Her mother is furious.

“If we back down to everything the gangs are doing, the gangs win,” said Taire Ferguson. “Why should we take away her choice to express her religious beliefs because gangs are doing it? It’s not right.”

Tabitha and her mother both say they’ve never heard of a rosary being a gang symbol, but police have.

“Lately they’ve been seen wearing religious jewelry such as the rosary worn by gang members, so it is a factor,” said Sr. Cpl Kevin Janse of the Dallas Police Department.

Although rosaries are not specifically banned by name in the district’s dress code, a DISD spokesman did say, “It’s up to the principal’s discretion. We chose to err on the side of caution.”

That’s no consolation for Tabitha or her mother, who says she’ll take the district to court to fight for her daughter’s religious rights if necessary.

The quote from Sr. Cpl Kevin Janse is priceless.  Gang members wear rosaries, thus rosaries are gang symbols.  Gang members also wear jeans.  Does this mean that jeans are also gang symbols?  Should the school forbid students from wearing jeans?

This incident sounds suspiciously like the infamous 2004 headscarf ban in France, which Human Rights Watch blasted as “an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice.”  Of course, the French government defended the ban against conspicuous religious symbols, which took effect September 2, 2004, as two French reporters were being held captive by Iraqi militants.  In the words of BBC correspondent, Caroline Wyatt, “Nobody in France wants to be seen siding with the kidnappers.“

“Transformative”

Speaking in North Carolina, Democrat VP Nominee Joe Biden tells voters why they should vote for his running mate:

Charlotte, N.C. — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden, campaigning in Charlotte, said Sunday that choosing a black candidate would be a “transformative event in American politics and internationally.”

His running mate, Barack Obama, seeks to be the first black president in the United States. Biden said Obama’s policies make his presidency even more transformative.

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it sound like Biden is telling North Carolina voters to pick Obama simply because he’s black?  It’s nice to know that Obama’s running mate thinks that Obama’s main qualification for president is his skin color.

Former Peace Now Member Admits Oslo Was A Failure

September 13, 2008 marked the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords.  From the Jerusalem Post (bold added by me):

“As a philosophy professor at the University of Haifa and an active member of Peace Now, [Yuval Steinitz] recalled that he went out that night with friends to celebrate the dawning of a new era for Israel.

But after two years, as the Palestinians armed themselves in the West Bank and suicide bombers began blowing themselves up in Israel, a disillusioned Steinitz came to the conclusion that instead of fostering peace, the accords that had held so much promise were actually leading Israel on a path to its demise.

“Oslo could have been right. I gave it a chance, but then I had to be a skeptic and reexamine my position. Then I felt that what we did was a terrible mistake,” said Steinitz.

“I realized that, to my frustration, we were giving up land for war and terror and incitement,” he said.

As the Palestinians continued with their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, he worried that “instead of a demilitarized Palestinian state we might end up with a militarized Palestinian state in the center of the country.”

Terror attacks on Israelis were at their highest following the signing of the Oslo Accords.  It’s time that someone has finally admitted that the Oslo Accords, and the idea of giving up land for peace with a partner who was not committed to peace, was a mistake.

Unfortunately, not everyone has learned this lesson.  The Annapolis Conference continues the principles of the Oslo Accords.  And there are some, like Foreign Minister Uri Savir, who think they will work.  From another Jerusalem Post article:

But Savir said the negotiations now taking place between the government and the West Bank Palestinians, as part of the Annapolis process begun in November 2007, were an extension of what began on September 13, 1993.

“It is either the continuation of Oslo or nothing,” he said.

“At the Annapolis Conference everything that was said was based on Oslo. That it took longer than we had hoped is a fact of life, but it is still the same process, even if there are some who would like to define it differently,” he said.

The JPost article goes on to describe Savir’s take on the US presidential elections:

He believes the peace process would be better served by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama than his Republican rival John McCain.

Obama, Savir said, would put more emphasis on foreign policy and an active American diplomacy. He would also make the United States more popular overseas and thus he could serve as a better broker for the process, Savir added.

Many of Obama’s foreign policy advisers helped US president Bill Clinton and knew the issues very well, Savir said.

Yet another reason not to vote for Barack Obama.  He would continue the ineffective land for peace deals that led to more attacks in Israel.  We saw the same thing happen after the 2005 Gaza Withdrawal.

Obama Gets Tough

Barack Obama is getting tough.  The Washington Times reports that Obama is warning voters about John McCain’s campaign tactics:

MANCHESTER, N.H. | Sen. Barack Obama told voters not to fall for Republican attempts to “distort my record,” keeping up his attacks on Sen. John McCain, whose campaign criticized the Democrat for talking politics during a hurricane.

During a rally that was scaled back as Hurricane Ike swamped Texas, the Democratic presidential nominee said Republicans “will try to undermine your trust in what the Democrats are trying to do,” but warned voters in the blue-leaning swing state that “the times are too serious for those strategies to work.”

“If we don’t [start] the changes that we need starting right now, then our children may not have the same kind of America that we want them to have,” Mr. Obama said.

It’s nice to know that Barack Obama understands the real threats to our country.  Iran is a tiny threat.  The real threat is John McCain and those distorting campaign ads.

To show how tough they are, the Obama camp has put out a new ad slamming John McCain for not knowing how to use a computer:

There are a few problems with this ad:

1) John McCain certainly isn’t the only senior citizen who isn’t computer-savvy.  Although the Obama campaign claims that the ad is intended to mock McCain’s computer illiteracy, not his age, the images of the 80’s memorabilia could be used to mock anyone old enough to be politically active in that era.  Insulting senior citizens is not a good strategy, because unlike the youth, the seniors are the ones who are far more likely to cast a vote.

2) There’s a very good reason why McCain can’t use the computer – his war injuries.  According to a March 4, 2000 Boston Globe article, McCain’s war injuries make it impossible for him to perform a number of everyday tasks (bold added by me):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan – Ted Williams is his hero – but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Who criticizes a veteran for having lost the use of his motor skills after being tortured as a POW? Is Obama camp is saying here is that physical disability makes one unfit for office, or did they simply not do their research?  Obama spokesperson defends the ad saying that the internet is a vital part of our society:

“Our economy wouldn’t survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats,” Pfeiffer said. “It’s extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail.”

Yeah, but to blast McCain for lacking the motor skills to use a keyboard?  That’s like saying that Governor David Patterson (D-NY), who is blind and can’t drive or read, can’t understand the concerns that New Yorkers have over transportation or education and is thus unfit to be governor.

This ad fits in with the Obama camp pattern of complete insensitivity towards physical disability.  Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden asked wheelchaired-bound Missouri State Senator Chuck Graham (D-19) to stand up during a campaign appearance, and South Carolina Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler blasted GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin for not aborting Trig Palin, who has Downs Syndrome.  Really, can you get anymore insensitive?

3) Finally, the ability to use a computer is not a pre-requisite for the job of President.  The President has hundreds of employees to do things like write emails and answer fan mail.  Even Senators have employees to do these things.   The odds of McCain actually needing to write an email himself are incredibly low, and the McCain camp has proven to be internet-savvy enough to rapidly put together clever ads on YouTube; in fact, even Barack Obama himself is concerned about McCain camp’s ability to upload YouTube ads (see above).

The most important pre-requisite for the job of President isn’t tech-savviness, but judgment.  The President has to make executive decisions.  Other duties, like sending emails or writing speeches, can easily be delegated to someone else.  The one thing that can’t is the executive power, the decision making.

It’s nice that Obama is so hip that he can send out SMS text messages with his VP nominee pick (although I’m sure some other underling on his staff sent out the text messages).  But the fact that Obama’s VP pick was the man who wanted to break up Iraq, a plan that was univerally opposed by Iraqi leaders, leaves me with serious questions about his (Obama’s, but also Biden’s) judgment.

UK Courts: Vandalism for Climate Change Awareness

UK Courts have set a bizarre precedent: It is okay to break the law to prevent climate change.

On September 10, the Maidstone Crown Court found six Greenpeace activists charged with £35,000 worth of criminal damage by vandalizing property at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power plant not guilty under the “lawful excuse” defense.  As explained in The Independent’s article on the trial, “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 allows “damage to be caused to to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.”

Lawful excuse makes sense in situations of indisputable, immediate danger.  If a house is burning or a car is on fire or the driver is unconscious, and one has no other option but to damage the property in order to save the owners or stop the fire.

But can anyone seriously believe the threat of global warming is so indisputable, and more importantly, so immediate that these Greenpeace activists had no other option but to paint the smokestacks of the power plant?  I can’t even read the first sentence of the The Independent article with a straight face:

“The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday.”

Even more insulting, NASA scientist Professor James Henson, also the leading scientist on climate change, testified as an expert witness in this trial.  Setting aside for now the ethical questions of what a US taxpayer-funded government scientist is doing promoting these absurd verdicts in the UK, I’m happy to know that the threat of global warming is so great that it justifies burning all the jet fuel to fly a US scientist across the Atlantic and back for this trial.  I hope the six Greenpeace vandals used low VOC paint for their “work”.

The precedent that’s been set by this verdict is absolutely ridiculous.  If the threat of global warming is so great as to supercede the laws of property, anyone can go spray paint his neighbor’s SUV if he deems it too gas-guzzling.  Heck, maybe he should just kill his neighbor to prevent him from ever enlarging his carbon footprint with that SUV.  At this rate, the court might even find it a public service.

Greenpeace is celebrating with glee over this verdict:

I wonder when someone will vandalize the Greenpeace ship…

Hat tip: Watts Up With That?

Election 2008 Electoral Fun

The Boston Globe offers a neat little tool to test your Election Day predictions.  From the Globe:

Small changes in a group’s turnout and party preference can cause huge changes in the Electoral College results. To gauge these effects for yourself, based on what you expect at the polls on Nov. 4, adjust the target on the different grids to control how each group votes and which candidate can hit 270 electoral votes. Moving the target up-and-down changes the turnout level. Moving it left-to-right shifts the voting preference to either Democrat or Republican.

You can test out your own scenarios and play with the what if’s.  The data is based on census and exit poll results.  The Boston Globe explains their methodology:

Methodology

The map allows users to manipulate turnout and voting patterns to predict the results of the 2008 election. Using 2004 exit polls, the map establishes a baseline for demographic behavior. Combining this information with data from the Census Bureau and other sources, users are also able to predict what would happen if turnout increased or decreased in these groups.

The Census doesn’t collect data for religion. However, using a combination of data from Pew (which recorded voting patterns from 2004) and the CUNY American Religious Identification Survey we can establish a similar snapshot.

2006 levels are based upon exit polls for House of Representatives voting.

There is one significant limitation to the map. Each voter falls within multiple demographic groups (gender, race, religion), but we don’t have enough data to link the results. This allows the user to create paradoxical results; like what would happen if 100% of blacks voted for Democrats, but 100% of men voted Republican (what does that mean for black men?).

This is not an ironclad data analysis application, but a tool meant to examine the effect these groups have on the electoral map.

The Interactive Map can be found here.  Have fun!