The Plum Line

* Aqua Buddha shakes up Kentucky race: Read of the morning: Josh Green, on the ground in Kentucky, reports that Kentucky voters and radio stations just can't stop talking about Aqua Buddha, with many wondering why Rand Paul won't just man up and cop to his college pranks.

Paul will decide today whether he'll hold a final debate with Jack Conway -- a decision that will have nothing to do with what the polls say and everything to do with his sense of whether his personal honor was violated by Conway's Aqua Buddha ad.

Key takeway: Whatever you think of the ad, the bottom line is that Conway's only hope was to do something to shake up the race in a dramatic way. His ad has clearly done that. Was a Conway victory -- which is still admittedly a tough climb -- something anyone even imagined was possible as recently as last week?

* Push for repeal of health law is a complete bust: A new Associated Press poll finds that only 37 percent support complete repeal. The law, however, remains unpopular, with 52 percent opposed, versus only 41 percent who support it.

* Percent who want the health law expanded as big as those who want repeal: The internals of the above poll show, crucially, that 36 percent -- nearly the same amount who want repeal -- want the law changed to do more to the health care system. It's funny, though perhaps understandable, how the Tea Partyers chanting for repeal got so much more attention than those invisible souls who want an expanded law.

* Dems stirring, but enthusiasm gap remains: The new Pew poll finds the number of Dems who are giving a lot of thought to the election is rising (about time!), but the steroidal enthusiasm among Republicans has widened their lead in the Congressional ballot matchup among likely voters to 10 points.

* Time to wake up, Democrats: One other important number from the Pew poll: Fewer Dems (49 percent) say they're giving a lot of thought to the election than at the same time in 2006 (59 percent), suggesting that having a bogeyman from the opposite party in the White House is a crucial motivator of voters.

* No equivalence between undisclosed spending on right and left, part 973: Don't miss this fascinating New York Times graphic chart showing clearly that all the top groups who don't disclose any of their donors are spending on behalf of Republicans.

* History lesson of the day: Michael Gerson explains why Christine O'Donnell and other self-imagined "constitutional conservative" Tea Partyers are in fact "unmotivated by any strong, developed views of the Constitution."

* Firing of Juan Williams was unconstitutional: Speaking of which, Sarah Palin appears to believe that the Constitution requires NPR to keep Juan Williams gainfully employed.

* No surrender from Sestak: Adam Serwer salutes Joe Sestak for not turning tail and running every time Republicans say "boo" on civil liberties and terrorism.

* Darrell Issa swears he won't bury the White House in subpoenas and investigations: His version of making nice;

"I can continue to be the annoyer in chief if the White House doesn't want to work with us."

* Quote of the day: Prominent Tea Partyer Kelly Khuri: "Some people say I'm extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too."

* And leave Sharron Angle alooooooone! Via Mike Allen, some amusing video of Angle brushing off a local reporter with a loud "SHHHHH!"

What else is happening?

* Thinkin' ahead: House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner is already taking steps to bring the unruly Tea Party caucus set to arrive in D.C. into the fold.

* Anne Kornblut has Obama's homestretch campaign schedule: He's hitting Philadelphia, Bridgeport, Chicago, and Cleveland over the final campaign weekend.

* Michael Crowley gently skewers the false equivalences between anonymous spending on left and right.

* Steve Benen makes a point that keeps getting overlooked: Dems are right to hammer the secret cash funding elections because it's, you know, an important issue that deserves public attention.

* Eugene Robinson says Juan Williams got a raw deal, and posts video of the full exchange.

* Distinction-without-a-difference of the day: NPR tries to justify the firing by claiming that Williams isn't supposed to offer his opinions, just his analysis. Whatever you think of what Williams said, that's just bogus.

* Glenn Greenwald makes the full case against Williams, as only he can.

* Fox News gives Williams a very soft $2 million landing.

* Brian Montopoli informs Sarah Palin and other opportunists calling for the defunding of NPR that less than 10 percent of its budget comes from public funding.

* Brutal new ad targeting Colorado Tea Party Senate candidate Ken Buck on the "high heels" crack and other such gender sensitivity.

* Liberals continue targeting Grassley: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America have raised $25,000 in just one day to run this new ad painting Grassley as, well, a clown. Libs are gung ho for lefty challenger Roxanne Conlin.

* Dems can finally breathe easy in one blue state as the Cook Political Report moves the Connecticut Senate race from Toss Up to Leans Democratic. That this is such welcome news is another sign of how rough Dems have it this year.

* But: The AP reports that early voting is showing surpising turnout for ... Democrats.

What else is happening?

Juan Williams, on Fox News this afternoon, hit back at NPR for firing him over his claim that he gets "worried" and "nervous" when he sees people in Muslim garb:

WILLIAMS: Wednesday afternoon, I got a message on my cell phone from Ellen Weiss, who is the head of news at NPR, asking me to call. When I called back, she said, "What did you say, what did you mean to say?"

And I said, "I said what I meant to say, which is that it's an honest experience that went on in an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb who identify themselves as first and foremost as Muslims, I do a double take. I have a moment of anxiety or fear given what happened on 9/11. That's just a reality." And she went on to say, "Well that crosses the line." And I said, "What line is that?"

And she went on to somehow suggest that I had made a bigoted statement. And I said, "that's not a bigoted statement. In fact, in the course of this conversation with Bill O'Reilly, I said that we have as Americans an obligation to protect constitutional rights of everyone in the country and to make sure we don't have any outbreak of bigotry but that there's a reality."

You cannot ignore what happened on 9/11 and you cannot ignore the connection to Islamic radicalism and you can't ignore the fact that what has been recently said in court with regard to this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war on America.

Put me down as someone who wasn't comfortable with Williams' firing over this. When the news broke I saw no reason why he shouldn't have had a chance to clarify. But now he has, and he's failed to acknowledge what was problematic about his initial remarks.

The most charitable interpretation of those initial remarks, I think, is that he meant to say that the reflexive fear folks may have of those in Muslim garb, while defensible, should not be allowed to justify anti-Muslim bigotry writ large. In other words, he may have meant to say something like: It's understandable that people, me included, have an instinctual fear of Muslims in airports, given what happened on 9/11, but that should not allow us to give way to concerted, institutionalized bigotry.

The problem, though, is that in his initial comments he didn't clarify that the instinctual feeling itself is irrational and ungrounded, and something folks need to battle against internally whenever it rears its head. And in his subsequent comments on Fox today, Williams again conspicuously failed to make that point.

Maybe Williams does think those feelings are unacceptably irrational and need to be wrestled with, and perhaps someone should ask him more directly if he thinks that. But until he clearly states it to be the case, there's no reason to assume he thinks we should battle those feelings and work to delegitimize them.

UPDATE, 6:31 p.m.: A reader points out that Williams actually did say outright elsewhere in the initial segment with O'Reilly that we should not allow our fear of those in Muslim garb to result in bigoted treatment of Muslims. That's right, but I think it's largely irrelevant. My point was that even the crux of the offending comments themselves, the ones everyone is indicting Williams for, can be charitably interpreted this way -- but that this still isn't enough.

Williams needed to say more than just that our anti-Muslim instincts can't translate into mistreatment of Muslims. He needed to clarify that anti-Muslim feelings need to be battled against, by saying something like: "It's wrong for us to feel this way, even if it's understandable."

This has to be one of the most audacious mailers ever. The 60 Plus Association, a shadowy conservative group that's spending big money this cycle, has dropped a new mail piece in Virginia targeting Dem Rep. Gerry Connolly with a rather creative reading of economic history.

The mail piece -- which was sent over by a reader -- features black and white photos of Depression-era bread lines and Hoovervilles, and warns that Dem policies are on the verge of creating "Obamavilles":

The mail piece warns that Dems are poised to pass more of their economic policies during the "lame duck" session -- more stimulus, more spending -- and asks voters to call Connolly's office in protest:

What's particularly interesting about this mailer is that the "Hooverville," of course, was a symbol of government inaction in the face of the poverty and widespread misery of the Great Depression. But the 60 Plus Association, which is devoted to free enterprise and less taxation, is warning that "Obamavilles" will result if we don't roll back government.

Separately, you all will be encountering more and more of this kind of stuff in your states and districts as we enter the final stretch of the midterms. Please let me know what you're seeing out there.

UPDATE, 2:18 p.m.: As a commenter notes, it looks like this group's agenda is heavily focused on preventing the high end Bush tax cuts from expiring. The mailer warns of tax increases to come during the lame duck session -- tax increases that presumably will create Obamavilles.

Obama, in an interview with National Journal, again refuses to say that he would exercise his veto power if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts, because he's hopeful that after the elections we're going to see a new spirit of bipartisan cooperation take hold:

"I think it's premature to talk about vetoes because maybe I'm a congenital optimist, but I feel as if, post-election, regardless of how it plays out, the most important message that will be sent by the American people is, we want people in Washington to act like grown-ups, cooperate, and start trying to solve problems instead of scoring political points," Obama said.

The president sounded a cautionary note for his fellow Democrats: "And it is going to be important for Democrats to have a proper and appropriate sense of humility about what we can accomplish in the absence of Republican cooperation. I think it's going to be important for Republicans to recognize that the American people aren't simply looking for them to stand on the sidelines, they're going to have to roll up their sleeves and get to work."

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to accomplish, given that the Dems' central message in the final stretch of the midterms is that the GOP wants nothing more than a revival of Bush policies, and that Dems are the last line of defense against that happening. Then there's the lack of enthusiasm among rank and file Dems, who want nothing more than to see a bit of fight in their leaders. And the fact that the best hope for Dems is for voters to see a sharp contrast between the two parties.

Then again, Obama got elected president and I didn't, so he surely knows what he's doing.

Adam Serwer is a staff writer for The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

Recently journalists like Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas have been fired or forced to resign for remarks they made about Jews, exposing a rather glaring double-standard in the media regarding similar or equivalent statements about Muslims. The last few weeks have offered further examples, with media figures like FOX's Bill O'Reilly and Brian Kilmeade trumpeting the idea that Muslims everywhere bear collective responsibility for 9/11, and saying things like "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

I'm sympathetic to Glenn Greenwald's argument that generally speaking, it's a bad idea to fire people for remarks like these without an actual pattern of behavior, unless the instance is really egregious -- but if there's going to be a high standard of sensitivity it should be applied equally. When I initially heard about Juan Williams being fired for his remarks about Muslims on the O'Reilly Factor, I thought NPR had jumped the gun. But going back and watching the video, I think too much focus has been put on this half of the statement:

I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Jeffery Goldberg writes that "The first quotation reflects the views, I'm guessing, of the vast majority of people who fly in this country." That really doesn't matter as to whether or not the above remarks qualify as prejudice -- assuming people might be terrorists because they are wearing "Muslim garb" is the textbook definition of prejudice. Prejudice doesn't cease to be prejudice because it is widely held. Whether or not Williams "is a bigot" is beside the point, this is a bigoted statement.

That said, because it's a feeling that's so widely shared, it's a topic worthy of public discussion. Everyone at some point succumbs to their prejudices -- if reasonable people couldn't possess them then prejudice wouldn't be a problem. Had Williams phrased his statement differently, or made it under different circumstances, the conversation might have been constructive. The problem is that it's clear from the context that Williams wasn't merely confessing his own personal fears, he was reassuring O'Reilly that he was right to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. This is how he prefaced his remarks:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

The thing is, the idea that one should be afraid of anyone who "looks Muslim" isn't reality, it's silliness. He wasn't speaking some brave truth or making a personal confession, he was suggesting there's nothing wrong with looking at Muslims that way.

That's a genuine problem, especially for a news outlet as studiously neutral as NPR, which has gone so far as to bar reporters from attending the march being held by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. FOX News' treatment of Muslims also can't really be called news coverage -- given the sheer volume of falsehoods about Muslims and Islam it's injected into the national discourse, it's really more accurately described as a politically motivated smear campaign. Given NPR's previously expressed discomfort with Williams' affiliation with FOX, it's not surprising that they would feel that Williams had finally crossed a line. Indeed many of Williams's conservative defenders are objecting because they believe Williams was correct to look at complete strangers as potential terrorists just because they're Muslims, not because it's wrong to fire people for impolitic statements.

That said, like Conor Friedersdorf, I think firing people for things like this tends to chill the public discourse. Misconceptions should be discussed publicly rather than driven underground where they can fester and remain unchallenged. The problem is that on FOX, they are both widely expressed and unchallenged. That isn't promoting honesty, it's enabling Islamophobic hysteria.

UPDATE 12:56 p.m: Mediaite has a transcript of an interview with Williams about his firing. Again, I didn't like Williams' statement, but this is the kind of thing you should be able to say on TV without getting fired. 

As promised, MSNBC's First Read gang releases its NBC/WSJ polling showing that voters do care about the secret cash funding attack ads, despite all the assertions you keep hearing to the contrary:

So how has the White House/Democratic campaign against the GOP-leaning outside groups that have been spending so much on TV ads this midterm cycle fared? Per our poll, 74% say it's a concern that outside groups have their own agenda and care only about electing or defeating candidates based on their own issues; 72% say it's a concern that these groups don't have to disclose who's contributing to them; 71% say it's a concern that the candidates who are helped by these groups could be beholden to their interests; and 68% say they're concerned these groups are funded by unions or large corporations.

First Read's Mark Murray adds this caveat: "Despite these concerns, our pollsters say that the White House/Dem campaign against these outside groups hasn't changed the overall dynamics of this election."

And yet he notes that it seems clear that the Dem campaign may have shifted underlying attitudes:

That said, there has been this shift in our poll: 45% of registered voters say Democrats in Congress are more concerned about the interests of average Americas, versus 41% who think they're more concerned about large corporations. That's a change from May when 52% thought congressional Dems were more concerned about large corporations and 35% said they were more concerned about average Americans. By comparison, 68% in our current poll say Republicans in Congress are more concerned about large corporations, which is essentially unchanged from May. And 53% say President Obama is more concerned about the interests of average Americans, versus 31% who think he's more concerned about large corporations.

Again: No one ever expected this attack line to produce an immediate and dramatic turnaround in Dem fortunes. And it very well may be that the above shifts in public attitudes aren't enough to substantially limit Dem losses in an environment where the economy trumps all.

But every little bit helps, and it's very clear that the Dem attacks on secret money are resonating to some degree. Large majorities say they're concerned about the secret cash and worry that candidates benefiting from the ads will be beholden to the special interests spending it. And larger numbers now say Dems are more interested in looking out for the interests of average Americans, while a big majority says Republicans are more concerned about corporations. Separately, as I noted yesterday, this campaign against the secret cash very likely helped fuel Dem fundraising.

Put it this way: If we can't cite the above polling as a clear sign that Dems are right to be pursuing this line, I'm not sure there's anything we could ever cite that people would accept as evidence supporting that notion.

* Yes, voters do care about the secret cash funding anti-Dem attack ads: I'm told some new national polling will come out this morning making this overwhelmingly clear, at least to people who think it makes sense to base their assessments of public opinion partly on what polls say. Here's a teaser:

* Labor readies final push: The SEIU is going up in Nevada with a very tough new spot that just may be making a play for the female vote: It argues that Sharron Angle's policies, or lack of them, will harm women at ever stage of their life, from childhood to old age:

The ad, which will air in Reno through November 1st and is part of a final wave of SEIU spots to be unleashed in coming days, reflects a sense among Democrats that women are particularly receptive to the message that Angle is dangerous, extreme, and temperamentally unfit for the Senate.

* National Dems sticking by Perriello: The DCCC is providing new air cover for embattled Rep. Tom Perriello of Virginia, a sign, notes Alex Burns, that Dems are sticking by Perriello even though he was supposed to be one of the Dem incumbents most likely to get washed out by the GOP "wave."

Key point: This race is a must-watch as a referendum on whether a Dem can win in a difficult district even as he aggressively defends the Obama/Dem agenda. If he does hang on, it could persuade future Dems that sticking up for what you believe in, rather than skittisly turning tail every time Republicans say "boo," can work even in tough races.

* Karl Rove's group denounces the negative ads it specializes in: Crossroads GPS, the group co-founded by Karl Rove, goes up with a new spot in Nevada that asks whether voters are "tired of all these negative ads," which is amusing, since Crossroads has run multiple negative ads full of debunked distortions and exaggerations against Dems across the country.

* Who says Rove's groups are funded only by anonymous donors? American Crossroads gets a whopping $7 million cash infusion from the Texas millionaire who helped fund the Swift Boat Vets, singlehandedly chipping in nearly half the group's fundraising over the last 43 days.

* Left keeps up secret money push: MoveOn today will unleash some 28 ads in multiple Senate and House races across the country hammering Republicans for benefiting from corporate front groups, including this one targeting Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk.

* More signs Joe Sestak is closing fast: The new Quinnipiac poll finds he's crept within two points of Pat Toomey among likely voters, 48-46, the lastest of several polls showing the race tightening dramatically.

* Keith Olbermann vouches for my sanity: An excellent Countown segment offering a bracing fact-check of the multiple falsehoods and distortions in the Chamber/Rove ad onslaught against Dems.

And get this: Olbermann actually pointed to what polls say in discussing whether voters care about the secret cash funding those ads!

* And Juan Williams is out at NPR: How will the right react to the termination of Juan Williams for saying he gets "worried" and "nervous" about people on airplanes dressed in Muslim-style garb? Glenn Greenwald predicts an "orgy of self-pity and self-martyrdom."

What else is happening?

* Keep an eye on the money in the final stretch. Chris Cillizza reports that Dems are sinking roughly $1 million each into the Nevada, Colorado and Pennsylvania Senate races, and he has the rundown on which vulnerable House Dems are getting a new cash infusion.

* Media Matters gets its first real-life check from George Soros, after receiving years of phantom Soros checks that only existed in the fevered conservative imagination.

* And Duncan Black gives it up for conservatives who, it turns out, were dead right about Soros and Media Matters all along.

* Darrell Issa's grand plan: If the GOP takes back the House, he'll use his subpoena and investigative power to move America "back to the center right where it exists."

* Rand Paul plans to decide in the next two days whether he will debate Jack Conway again after the Aqua Buddha ad, a decision that will be made entirely based on his own sense of personal honor and will have nothing whatsoever to do with the campaign's internal polls.

* And: Paul leads by five in a new Kentucky poll.

* "Around here": The DSCC keeps up the assault on John Raese, the wealthy GOP Senate candidate in West Virginia, with an ad subtly alluding to his out-of-state links.

* But: Rasmussen has Raese up by seven, which, if true, would be a bit of a reversal of Dem Joe Manchin's "hicky"-fueled momentum.

* Jonathan Capehart doesn't think Thanksgiving at the Clarence Thomas household would be a particularly happy affair.

* Millions of Americans grind their teeth in suspense as Rick Santorum edges closer to announcing whether he'll run for president.

* She's a rock star!!! Gallup finds that only 40 percent of Republicans say a Sarah Palin endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, versus 49 percent who couldn't give a hoot what she says.

Also: Only 19 percent of independents would be positively swayed by a Palin endorsement, versus 35 percent who would be turned off by one.

* And this has to be one of the funniest Fox chyrons ever:

What else is happening?

It's almost too obvious to point it out, but ya think maybe the Dem efforts to highlight all the secret cash helping Republicans may have helped Dems with ... their fundraising?

The DNC is set to report today that they raised just over $17 million in September, its highest monthly total ever, giving the DNC a total of $13.2 million in cash on hand at the end of the month, a Dem official says.

What's more, in the first 13 days of October, the DNC pulled in $11.1 million, putting it on track for another record-breaking month. The DNC has been pounding away at the secret money issue for much of those 13 days, sending out multiple fundraising emails in recent days highlighting the Rove/Chamber of Commerce ad onslaught against Democrats.

I don't know if it can be conclusively proven that the secret money attack is responsible for the DNC's fundraising successes. But it seems safe to assume the specter of secret corporate and foreign money rigging our elections just may have played some kind of role. This Dem attack line was always partly about fundraising, and on that front it seems like it may be working.

So even if this strategy has yet to produce an immediate and dramatic turnaround in the polls -- which was always an unreasonable thing to expect in the first place -- Dems are absolutely right to keep it up.

UPDATE, 4:51 p.m.: Of that $17 million in September, over 90 percent came in donations of under $200, a Dem official says, a figure Dems will surely contrast with the huge amounts of corporate money being raised on the right.