Are we all happy about this? If not, why not? Because it doesn't fit our paradigm? Going deeper, Zakaria posits that Tunisia succeeded where Egypt failed not because Tunisia's Islamists were better, but because Tunisia was more modern, literate globalized, urban and better-educated, with stronger civic groups and labor unions:
"And so, there was relative parity between Islamists and their opponents. Tunisia's Islamic parties shared power, in other words, not because it was better than the Muslim Brotherhood [in Egypt] but because it had to. Tunisia had more of the preconditions that have historically helped strengthen democracy than did Egypt."
Can Arab countries be real democracies? Well, one of them, Tunisia just did well on a big test.
More than twenty years ago, the scholar Samuel Huntington established his famous "two turnover test" for fledgling democracies. He argued that a country can only be said to be a consolidated democracy when there have been TWO peaceful transitions of power.
Tunisia passed Huntington's test after last weekend's election, when – for the second time – a ruling establishment agreed to hand over power. Tunisia's relative success is in marked contrast to the abysmal failure of Egypt, the Arab world’s largest and once most influential country.
As in Tunisia, Egyptians also overthrew a dictator three years ago...but after Egypt's brief experiment with democracy, in which the Muslim Brotherhood was elected and then abused its authority, today the country is ruled by a repressive dictatorship.
As I wrote before, the U.S. should leave the hard work of national liberation to those nations who would be liberated. What I meant was, we cannot "gift" the fruits of a struggle like that to a nation that has never known what real liberty and self-governance are about. They won't accept it; they won't make the most of it. I said this in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it could apply in some ways to today's war -- yes, it's a war for liberation -- in Ukraine. And Ukraine is the key to Europe. For more than two months protesters in Kyiv, Ukraine waited in the ice and snow for some compromise, some negotiations with the corrupt, Russian-ass-licking government of President Viktor Yanukovych about an Association Agreement with the EU that he had promised and negotiated toward and then a week before signing in Vilnius... reneged on. (Read here: "Myths about the Association Agreement – setting the facts straight" from the European Union Delegation in Ukraine.) Meanwhile, the so-called political "opposition" representing the pro-EU protesters, a troika of party leaders, failed to achieve any results; they only shouted speeches and slogans to the crowds freezing and standing stalwart on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square). After the Kyiv police attempted to clear Maidan and beat several protesters and journalists without punishment, and after Ukraine's Verhovna Rada (national parliament) passed a series of unconstitutional laws on January 16 to outlaw protests and free assembly, free speech in the media, free use of automobiles, restrictions on social media, allowed police to search homes without a warrant, put new burdens on NGOs, etc., the protesters had had enough. The protesters literally chased off the "Big 3" and went after the Cabinet of Ministers (the highest government executive body) and the Rada.
(Left to right) Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Tyahnybok and Arseniy Yatsenyuk
From there it turned into armed conflict on the main streets of Kyiv. As of today, that conflict has spread to at least 12 other regions (oblasts) of Ukraine, where protesters have seized government buildings and are declaring their separation from Yanukovych's central government.
So far, 12 oblasts of Ukraine plus the Kyiv City Administration have been seized by the people.
Starting in November 2013, the opposition has somewhat naively called for the U.S. and EU to impose sanctions on Ukraine and revoke visas and freeze bank accounts of government officials. They haven't realized that international sanctions take months if not years to put in place; and the West does not go freezing accounts willy-nilly. Anyway, sanctions have never ousted a corrupt or dictatorial regime from power; it's usually the average citizens who suffer. The protesters -- we can call them freedom fighters now -- are a small, active minority. (But aren't all successful revolutions carried out by an active minority?) In trying to overturn the last election, let's be honest, they are acting un-democratically. But in terms of recognizing Ukraine's democracy is broken, and neither the corrupt courts nor the State-controlled media can stop violations of Ukraine's constitution by the ruling Party of Regions, they are acting in the true best interests of liberty and democracy. This is a hard truth to swallow, especially for outsiders who cling to the norms and values of the West, revere the sanctity of fair elections, and oppose violent means to achieve political ends.
What I know, and what you should know, is that Ukraine's government has been employing violence for years now against its citizens. Armed groups of thugs backed by government officials routinely raid successful businesses, forcing owners to sell out at firesale prices. Citizens are regularly arrested and held without charges by police, where they are beaten and intimidated, sometimes dying in custody, or leaving as vegetables. Land is simply taken from its owners and new land titles drawn up for cronies. Corrupt officials selectively enforce the law. Bureaucrats demand tributes for the most trifling government services. Its parliament and executive posts, down to the smallest district, are filled by those willing to pay for the job. An investigation by the police of a real crime, a decision by a judge, a slot in a preschool, a bed in a hospital, a univesity diploma -- are all contingent upon bribes, and it's not hard to find out the asking price. [See my Update below to see what I mean, in a Ukrainian business leader's own words - J]. And all this has gotten worse since Ukaine's peaceful "Orange Revolution" in 2004. Ukraine is smeared with corruption from end to end: from pro-European West to the pro-Russian East, North to South, from the hospital where children are born to the cemetery where they are buried, and everything in between. What's worse, everybody admits it. The ruling Party of Regions' supporters, the politically apathetic, the so-called opposition parties -- everybody. There is not even a pretense of disagreement on the sad facts of life in Ukraine. It is a country that is coming to a screeching halt due to bad governance and corruption. Ukraine's economy has been in and out of recession since the 2008 financial crisis. Its state finances are an ongoing IMF-bailout basket case. Foreign direct investment is drying up. Ukrainian enterpreneurs are closing their businesses, and those who can are moving their assets and families abroad. This is what the freedom fighters have recognized: Ukraine is too far gone for elections to fix -- elections that would probably be rigged anyhow. Moreover, the opposition parties are only marginally better than the ruling party, controlled by competing clans of oligarchs. The sickness in Ukraine goes deep, down to the roots. That is why the freedom fighters want to tear up the the system and start over. As I said, Westerners don't like to tell others to use violence to solve their problems. ("Do as I say, not as I do.") But so far -- violent opposition is working. Finally President Yanukovych has called for negotiations. Personally I'm doubtful those negotiations will lead to anything that will please the protesters. But we'll see. For now, the only lesson is that violence is the only language this two-time convicted thug of a president understands and respects.
Protester Mikhail Gavrilyuk: stripped, beaten and humiliated by 'Berkut' special police in Kyiv
As somebody who loves Ukraine and admires the bravery of those fighting for liberty, I am conflicted. But I know that, realistically, the U.S. or EU will not agree to come and save them; and morally, it is not the place of outsiders (including Vladimir Putin's Russia!) to decide Ukraine's fate. We can offer moral support. We can tell them their struggle is just. We can remind them that many of our countries were born in the blood of revolution. Maybe further armed conflict and bloodshed are inevitable, I don't know yet. Nevertheless, we Americans especially should not be so quick to scold those brave Ukrainians risking their lives to secure their compatriots' inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Glory to Ukraine! To the heroes glory!
UPDATE (26.01.2014): Last night the opposition rejected President Yanukovych's power-sharing offer with Arseniy Yatsenyuk (as new PM) and Vitali Klitschko (as new deputy PM). Not only that, protesters in Kyiv seized Ukrainian House (former House of Lenin) on European Square, located strategically between Maidan and Grushevskogo street where most of the clashes are taking place: "Ukraine opposition turns down president's power-sharing offer." UPDATE (26.01.2014): Anne Applebaum, who's supposed to be an expert on Eastern Europe and the former USSR, seems slow on the uptake in her latest WaPo op-ed, "Ukraine shows the ‘color revolution’ model is dead." See what I mean:
... once Ukrainians realize that the ideal of the color revolution is dead and the West has no tools to revive it, there may be consequences. If peaceful demonstrations don’t work, after all, some may logically conclude that it’s time to use violence. Ukrainians have indeed constructed violent resistance movements more than once in the past century.
First of all, nobody in Ukraine's opposition ever believed the U.S.-Russian construct about colored revolutions financed and organized by outsiders. (I was there for the Orange Revolution and I know the colored revolution theory is hooey: nobody "trained" or paid hundreds of thousands of people to stand out in the freezing cold for weeks and start loving each other and their country, just like nobody is pulling their strings now.) So there is nothing for Ukrainians to "realize;" only the Anne Applebaums of the Western media and diplomatic corps. Indeed, the hardcore protesters on Maidan realized weeks ago that violence must be met with violence, so Applebaum's fretting is moot. Maybe Applebaum is pretending violence hasn't happend because it so offends her Western sensibilities, and because the escalating conflict -- now a burgeoning revolution -- rejects America's conceit that it somehow has a handle on events in that part of the world?... Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. UPDATE (26.01.2014): Lately, I'm reading about quickly unfolding events in Ukraine so you don't have to. This op-ed on a Ukrainian news site really struck a chord. I think it tells those not familiar with Ukraine most everything they need to know about why these protests are happening -- indeed, why conflict with the corrupt government has been years in the making. It's by a banker who says he manages 1,000 employees in the southern "pro-Russian" port city of Odessa. Here's my translation of part of his article, "Why I go to Maidan and Grushevskogo:"
1. In the first place for my family. I want my children to grow up in Ukraine and not "Little Russia" [historically, a condescending, imperialist Russian term for Ukraine - J]'; I want them to be told at school about European, not post-Soviet, values; I want them to go to university for knowledge and new contacts, and not for teachers/bribe-takers to issue them grades; I want my children to work in any international organization in any country, and not dream to be state bureaucrats. I do it for the future.
2. Second, for my country. It is my inner conviction that the current regime is criminal. We are not a monarchy, and I, as a citizen of this country, want to have the right, the instruments and the opportunity to change the government in this country. Anybody who takes away these instruments from me and my fellow citizens, anybody who limits our freedom, is my enemy. I am ready to fight this enemy by all means available.
3. Finally, for myself. I do not want to be afraid. I am a cultured adult, and on the inside I'm disgusted to think that I should be afraid to go to a public hospital, afraid to contact the police, afraid to go to court. It's disgusting to think about bribery and "Untouchables" in my favorite city. About the Range Rovers of police chiefs, and Mezhigorie [President Yanukovych's palatial presidential residence -- "lawfully" leased to him at taxpayers' expense - J].
UPDATE 1 (28.01.2014): From CNN: "Ukraine's parliament scraps anti-protest laws, Prime Minister resigns," and President Yanukovych accepted PM Azarov's resignation. UPDATE 2 (30.01.2014): The U.S. is considering financial sanctions against members of President Yanukovych's government, and does not rule out sanctions against leaders of Maidan, if they can be shown to be involved in violent action by activists: (Reuters): "Exclusive: U.S. readies financial sanctions against Ukraine: congressional aides". UPDATE 3 (30.01.2014): Good article in Al Jazeera on the militancy of the protesters by the Kyiv Post's long-time editor Brian Bonner: "Ukraine front-line fighters dig in for escalating battle with government". Is it OK to call them revolutionaries yet??.... UPDATE 4 (20.02.2014): Ukraine's revolution is still going, now looking more like a civil war. Western regions like Lutsk, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Zhytomyr, Cherkassy and Ternopil are in open revolt, forcing pro-government officials to resign, burning Interior Ministry and Security Service (KGB) buildings, burning buses emptied of "titushki" (hired thugs) headed for Kyiv, etc., etc.. For its part, Berkut and Interior Ministry troops are using live ammunition, snipers, stun grenades and deadly force on the streets of Kyiv. Dozens of people have been killed and hundreds wounded. Today President Yanukovich and the opposition leaders agreed to a "truce," but the looks on Kyiv's streets don't seem peaceful. The truth is that nobody is in control of the situation. The U.S. has imposed visa bans and the Congress and Senate are writing bills to impose targeted sanctions on Ukraine. (Reuters): "Ukraine president agrees to truce with opponents as U.S. imposes visa bans." UPDATE (22.02.2014): Too much happening! Yesterday President Yanukovych and the opposition agreed on an interim government, and a return to the 2004 constitution. Today, the Verhovna Rada (parliament) voted on a new speaker, voted Yanukovych out of office (!), voted for new presidential elections in May, voted on a new Interior Minister (the old one has fled), voted no-confidence on the Prosecutor General (who has fled), and voted to free opposition leader Yulia Tymoschenko from jail. President Yanukovych says he's not leaving, called the protests a Nazi coup. He was in Kharkiv today, where pro-Russian deputies from the East and South gathered to strategize and show their strength. Meanwhile, his palatial mansion with infamous "golden toilet" has been taken over by pro-Maidan forces; it was like a state park, with families touring the grounds in the hundreds. (CNN): "Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych says he's not leaving." Notably, hardcore activists have not left Maidan, have not taken down their barricades, and are continuing to "guard" many administrative buildings! UPDATE (23.02.2014): Here's a pretty comprehensive update of the last few days from the New York Times: "Archrival Is Freed as Ukraine Leader Flees." Pretty ominous quote ending the article:
“Nobody wants to end up owning all the problems that Ukraine faces,” said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, “the country is bankrupt, it has a terrible, broken system of government and insane levels of corruption.”
The big question for many and yours truly, what will the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol do now? A delegation of about 100 deputies and officials from Crimea attended a meeting Saturday in Kharkiv with Party of Regions and Communist Party members, where they declared they would take control locally of ensuring the constitutional order. Over the past few weeks, the speaker of Crimea's supreme council (parliament) Konstantinov has been making noises about independence for Crimea, and/or joining Russia. Today the Verhovna Rada (parliament) of Ukraine is asking the new Interior Minister what he's going to do about burgeoning separatism. So the threat of civil war is not over. Mostly it depends on the resolve of Crimea's (former) ruling Party of Regions members to risk the wrath of Kyiv.... But their political power is on the line, and they may be willing to risk anything to hold onto power, especially if Russia will throw in with the South and East of Ukraine. UPDATE (25.02.2014): The Western media is not picking up on it yet, but the rumor is that President Yanukovych, who is now a wanted man, is hiding in Sevastopol under the protection of the Russian Naval Fleet. On Sunday the mayor of Sevastopol resigned and the people tried to nominate a Russian citizen (!) as their new mayor. If Russia is going to make trouble in Ukraine -- the bad, bad kind, Georgia-style -- it will probably start in Sevastopol, where its fleet is based, where many residents are Russian citizens and/or very pro-Russian....
Republicans can dish out the election monitoring all over the world but it looks like they can't take it.
And dumbass Republican Rep. Connie Mack can't even keep the UN and OSCE straight: he mistakenly blamed the former for the latter's election monitoring plans in the U.S. this November.
I'll say it again: America is totally qualified to run the world, no sweat.
The Tea Parties have done their job: they helped win an election and scared the herd of "RINOs" back to the far right, purging the GOP of any free-thinkers or moderates. And if the GOP takes the presidency in 2012, you can stick a fork in them immediately: their anger will turn to joy; and anger not joy is their fuel. In any case they will fade, fade, fade away.
Why Tea Party candidates won't win any elections next year: because mainstream Republicans now spout the same ideas.
By David Weigel
August 24, 2011 | Slate
Jamie Radtke was supposed to be the Tea Party's next giant-killer. She'd put together the biggest movement convention ever, a two-day gathering in Richmond, Va., under the banner of her Virginia Tea Party Patriots. When George Allen took the stage, subliminally begging the grassroots to support his comeback bid for Senate, the irony was just too sweet: Radtke used to work for this guy, and now he was kowtowing to her.
And so, two days after Christmas 2010, Radtke announced her Senate campaign. It was national news for reporters looking for the next Christine O'Donnell, the next Joe Miller, the next Sharron Angle. When three freshmen senators launched the Tea Party Caucus in January 2011, she scored an invite to speak at the meeting. Rand Paul talked for five minutes. She talked for seven. In short order she started appearing, and talking, at all sorts of Tea Party events in Washington. She raised more than $250,000—not much, only one-tenth as much as Allen, but not fringe candidate money.
So, how's the giant-killing quest going? Terribly. Earlier this month, a Public Policy Polling survey gave Allen a 68 percent-to-6 percent lead over Radtke, with the rest of the vote split among more marginal candidates. Tea Party activists in the state say they've been focused on this year's state elections, and anyway, she's not unifying the movement.
On Wednesday, the Radtke campaign euthanized its old win-over-the-tastemakers strategy by attacking RedState blogger Erick Erickson and claiming that he hadn't done enough to promote her. Not so, said Erickson: He endorsed her, and then she proceeded to induce comas whenever she talked to activists, and then she screwed him over.
And that's one measure of how the next round of Tea Party challenges is going. Another: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who actually tied Sen. Orrin Hatch in some polls of Utah Republicans, just announced he was taking a pass on the campaign. Another: Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, whom Erickson says is now the ripest Tea Party target for 2012, is waiting to see whether a conservative state senator will jump into his primary, split up the conservative vote, and help him win. Another? Sure, why not. Sen. Olympia Snowe may be beatable in Maine, but she's only got to beat a fractured field of nobodies.
Are we witnessing the end of the Tea Party's electoral rebellion? Did the GOP civil war reach Appomattox, and nobody noticed? Those questions assume that the Tea Party's goal was to purge Republicans in primaries. That was just one of the movement's goals, and we're finding out that, yes, it may have run its course.
In 2010, when they wanted to take out Republicans, the Tea Party had relatively easy pickings. Their three biggest victories were in Delaware, Alaska, and Utah. Delaware and Alaska are, respectively, the 45th and 47th most populous states. Only 57,582 Republicans voted in the Christine O'Donnell-Mike Castle primary; only 109,750 voted in the Joe Miller-Lisa Murkowski primary. Utah nominates all candidates at party conventions, which put Sen. Bob Bennett's fate at the hands of 3,500-odd Republicans. Compare that to the stakes in Indiana. In 2010, when Dan Coats lucked out and beat a split conservative field for the GOP's Senate nod, he won more than 217,225 out of 550,000 votes.
So: It's hard winning elections. It's even harder because the Republican "establishment," insofar as such a thing still exists, consists of fairly smart people who know what happened last time. When Bob Bennett's slayer, Mike Lee, arrived in the Senate, Hatch started copying his homework and showing up at every Lee presser. He kept up his outreach to Utah's Tea Party leaders, like classic car dealer David Kirkham. He used his powerful position as ranking member of the finance committee to add credibility to Tea Party arguments about the debt, like the idea that the administration was fibbing about the impact of passing the Aug. 2 deadline without raising the debt limit.
Yet when Chaffetz passed on the race, those Tea Partiers Hatch had been courting were still shocked. "It was quite surprising," Kirkham says. "He'll still be vigorously challenged. We're looking for someone who's been more reliably conservative, but we had been working really hard to work with Hatch."
This was a victory that looked like a loss. The Tea Party, the Club for Growth—the whole movement has succeeded in driving Republicans further to the right. Nuking a few moderates in primaries was only part of that—a great story for the horse-race media, but not something that would keep up as the GOP was purified. Think about the Tea Party as repeating (and perfecting) the strategy liberals used in 2006 and after, when online activists and unions banded together to beat Joe Lieberman in his U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut.
Lieberman ended up returning to the Senate. Liberals would oust only a couple more Democrats, like Maryland's Rep. Al Wynn, in the next election cycle. But the Lieberman challenge drew a neon line in front of the party's candidates: Oppose the Iraq War, oppose the surge, or you go nowhere. The party's presidential candidates obeyed. Its next presidential nominee won the primaries in a squeaker in part because he, alone among the frontrunners, had always opposed the Iraq War.
Republicans seem to have figured this out. It's increasingly likely that no incumbent Republican will lose a primary to a Tea Partier in 2012. The movement can consolidate its gains. Safe districts and the fear of primaries do more to keep Republicans straight than the occasional wins.
But some activists still like to think about bloodying up the party some more. Virginia activists, while bearish on Radtke, are bemused and annoyed that Allen has his own prefab Tea Party group to make it look like he's gotten right with them. It's possible that Lugar could go down—even if the primary is split, even if his main challenger, Richard Mourdock, keeps pulling in weak numbers. "That would all make it more difficult," says George Ethridge of the Corydon Tea Party, "but Mourdock can beat Lugar."
What about Utah, where a likely coup just turned into a frantic search for a self-funding candidate with great hair? Kirkham hasn't talked to Hatch recently, but he wants to keep putting the fear in him.
"He scored a touchdown, but he shouldn't be dancing in the end zone," he says. "The game is still on."
Voting on a Tuesday is an anachronism. Here's why:
The reason we vote on Tuesday makes perfect sense — at least it did in 1845.To understand the decision Congress made that year, let's imagine ourselves as members of early agrarian American society. Saturday was for farming, Sunday was the Lord's day, Monday was required for travel to the county seat where the polling places were, Tuesday you voted, Wednesday you returned home, and Thursday it was back to work.
Voting should be easy and pain-free. It shouldn't be a chore. People shouldn't have to miss work, or stand in line for 8 hours (as some people are doing already in early-voting states). We are the world's oldest democracy. We should be able to get voting and elections right. Indeed, elections are the "blessed sacrament" of democracy; if you're compelled to miss voting, then you're missing out on what it means to be a free American.
For that matter, registering to vote should be made as easy and painless as possible, with more than one way to register. For example, whenever you get any kind of government ID, you should be automatically registered to vote.
Barack Obama's call for voters to take off work to volunteer for his campaign on Election Day drew swift recriminations from John McCain's campaign.
But it also might help rekindle a debate over whether Election Day should be made a national holiday or moved to the weekend as a way to boost voter participation.
The non-profit group Why Tuesday? -- which advocates making Election Day "more convenient" for voters -- highlighted Obama's statement on its Web site Tuesday, claiming Obama was calling for a "pseudo Election Day holiday."
While the group's managing director Barnett Zitron clarified that's not quite what Obama appeared to be saying, he told FOXNews.com that Obama's announcement certainly lends legitimacy to the call for an Election Day holiday.
"There's supposed to be record turnout this year. All stats point to that. ... There is a consensus out there that people would like voting to be more convenient," Zitron said, pointing to the fact that more than 30 states have adopted some sort of early voting.
Zitron said there's no "silver bullet" for election problems, but he and other advocates of adjusting Election Day argue that the U.S. needs to do something to improve its relatively low turnout.
On the campaign trail, Obama has been encouraging voters to go to the polls for early voting. The Democratic nominee took that a step further when he released a new 30-second spot on his Web site urging voters to "talk to your boss" or professor and then take the day off from work or school to volunteer for his campaign on Election Day.
Neither Obama's nor McCain's campaigns would comment on whether the nominees actually support holding Election Day on a holiday or weekend.
A study from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance shows that the United States ranks 139th out of 172 democratic countries when it comes to voter turnout over the past 60 years.
Why Tuesday? co-founder Norman Ornstein and Democratic New York Rep. Steve Israel noted last week in a New York Timesop-ed that the U.S. doesn't come close to the top nations for voter turnout "despite all the money and the news media hysteria," and they argue that the current system "penalizes" single parents and people with two jobs.
They called for Congress to back a weekend voting measure -- which Israel, along with Democratic Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, has introduced. The bill calls for Election Day to be held on the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November.
"Moving Election Day to the weekend means more convenience and less expense," they wrote in The New York Times.
That measure, along with another from Michigan Rep. John Conyers calling for an Election Day national holiday, has not gained steam in Congress.
But Israel's press office told FOXNews.com that Israel plans to re-introduce the weekend voting bill in the next Congress.
And a spokesman for Conyers said the Michigan congressman would probably take up the push for a national holiday again next year. "I don't think his interest has waned," the spokesman said.
According to the National Association of Secretaries of State, nine U.S. states have already designated Election Day a state holiday. And a number of countries in western Europe and elsewhere hold their elections on holidays or weekends.
However, other research conducted at the federal level has shored up the view of skeptics who say changing up Election Day, or making it a holiday, would have no positive effect on turnout.
Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University, is one of those skeptics.
"Somebody will probably introduce something (proposing to make Election Day a holiday). I hope it fails," he said.
Gans said congressional research has shown that among democracies where voting is voluntary, turnout is slightly lower for those that have elections on weekends or holidays.
"The problem with participation in this country isn't procedural. It's motivational," he said. "Outside of elections like this, people will go fishing and not voting."
Gans also argued against early voting, saying it permits large swaths of voters to potentially make their decisions under drastically different circumstances.
Instead, he said state officials should move toward widening the window when people can vote on Election Day.
John McCain apparently has similar concerns. In an interview from December 2007 posted on the Why Tuesday? site, he said he'll support "whatever gets people out (to vote)" -- but that when it comes to a national holiday, "I'm not sure that people wouldn't just go fishing or on vacation."
Kay Stimson, communications director at the National Association of Secretaries of State, also said research for the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, which she worked on, showed little evidence that holding elections on holidays or weekends actually boosts turnout.
"Some people believe it's not really going to give people any more time or motivation to go to the polls -- it'll just give them motivation to take time off," she said.
She also said there have been questions over whether absentee ballots could be accepted on an Election Day holiday, since mail service would be halted on such a day off.
Obama was not specifically calling for an election holiday in his latest announcement.
The "Take the Day" campaign suggests voters sign up to go to battleground states or work in phone banks closer to home on Nov. 4, when they would normally be at work or in class.
"We can't win this election unless every Obama supporter gets out and votes on November 4th. To do that, we need a massive team of volunteers helping us. Can you take next Tuesday off from work, join the final push, and make sure that everyone who supports Barack turns out to vote?" asks the Web page hosting the Obama ad.
McCain's campaign, though, scolded Obama for encouraging voters to skip work on his behalf.
"Apparently Barack Obama believes that you can't 'make history' by doing your job, or going to school, or caring for your kids. Apparently Barack Obama thinks the only way Americans can make history is by voting, and working, for Barack Obama," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a statement to FOXNews.com. "It's the arrogance of a man who believes Americans either support his candidacy or cling bitterly to guns and religion out of fear and xenophobia."
