Monday, September 29, 2008

Bailout Bill Failure

Once again, I'm pressed for time, so I can't go into too much detail regarding the House of Representatives failure today to pass the bailout bill. I can tell you that both Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner are both morons.

On the topic of the presidential candidates and this issue, this was an interesting start to the day. From Politico:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition - hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.

The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain's campaign's difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy.

Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines.

"I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now," McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. "Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation."

McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs-up.

Mark Ambinder of The Atlantic makes it clear that if McCain wanted at least some of the credit for passage of a bailout with his "campaign suspension" stunt from last week, he deserves that share of the blame today since it failed to pass. On that front, McCain first blamed Obama after the bill failed to pass, then said that this was not a time for "finger pointing." Perhaps he switched gears because lots and lots of fingers started to point squarly at him? On that front, check out this from Greg Sargent at TPM and this from Joe Klein at Time Magazine. I'd run from that, too.

29 September 2008

Addition: McCain has zigged again and has joined some Republicans in blaming Pelosi's pre-vote speech for the failure of the bill. The speech was idiotic, to be sure, but just how many excuses can McCain make in a single day? The count continues.

1 October 2008 Addition: Here is a great recap of the misstatements and lies told by McCain in the aftermath of the bailout failure.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Shotgun Politics

Could the next stunt of the McCain campaign be the wedding of Palin's pregnant daughter? At this point, I'm not sure that I'd put anything past McCain.

28 September 2008

Palin: The Katie Couric Interview

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was interviewed by CBS news anchor Katie Couric this past week. You can see parts one and two on YouTube (cut) or parts one and two on the CBS news web site (full length and with transcripts).

This weekend, Saturday Night Live made this interview the focus of its opening skit. (This SNL skit isn't as funny as was the Palin opener two weeks ago, but it is still very much worth a watch.) Sadly, in parts it was pretty much exactly like the real interview... and was all the funnier as a result.

28 September 2008


Saturday, September 27, 2008

1st Presidential Debate

I'm short on time today and will therefore point you in the direction of some solid takes on last night's debate. The first is by James Fallows of The Atlantic. The second is by Josh Marshall at TPM. Finally, check out this piece by Arianna Huffington.

27 September 2008

Addition: This is a good, moment-to-moment "recap" of the debate written as it was happening. It has since been cleaned up, with links and video added. It is nicely done.

28 September 2008 Addition: Here is the debate in full. The McClatchy news organization also has an interesting article on the first debate that deals with misstatements on foreign affairs.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Gambit of Desperation

On Wednesday, John McCain indicated that he was going to suspend his campaign -- or at least his campaigning -- for president while her returned to Washington to help secure a deal on a bailout for Wall Street. (That he instead remained in New York for two campaign stops, one with a rich backer and the other with Katie Couric, will only help prove my later point.) He also called for the suspension of the first presidential debate scheduled for this coming Friday the 26th. McCain says that this is an appropriate response to the crisis. It's not, as Barack Obama appropriately made clear.

"This is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said. "What I've told the leadership in Congress is that if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere, anytime. What I think is important is that we don't suddenly infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics."
President Bush also called for McCain and Obama to come to the White House on Thurday to be part of a meeting on the issue. This is the wrong move. Having the presidential candidates -- who ultimately are only two senators with no committee authority on the matter -- will only politicize the issues involved, not solve them. McCain is playing politics, not putting "country first." At least I certainly hope that it's only politics because as Barack Obama also said, we've got to have a president who can handle more than one thing at a time. If John McCain really isn't up to that, he isn't fit to be president. Of course, if he's playing political chicken with $700 billion of taxpayer money, then he's not fit to be president anyway.

As for the request to delay the first presidential debate, I can see two political avenues here. The first is simply that McCain himself isn't ready to debate Obama and fears the outcome. While plausible -- and it indeed may play a role in the campaign's decision -- I think number two is more likely. Number two involves McCain's number two, as it were, Sarah Palin. I think the real reason for this move is to get the only vice presidential debate canceled.

There are four scheduled debates -- three between Obama and McCain and one between Biden and Palin -- in only 19 days. If the first doesn't happen -- and both Obama and the Commission on Presidential Debates says that it will -- then to fit it in later will be very tight. I think McCain will push to have it be placed in the slot of the original VP debate, saying that it is the more important of the two and letting the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Palin off the hook completely. It probably won't work because the game of chicken with Obama didn't work. Obama, to use a Palin favorite, didn't blink and said the campaign and the debates go on. With the Commission on Presidential Debates seeming to hold firm on the first debate, I think that it will hold firm on the VP debate as well. (I certainly hope so!) And since McCain really doesn't want Obama to debate an empty chair -- essentially a two-hour commercial for Obama's competence -- he'll be at the first debate regardless of what is going on in DC.

On that front, by all accounts, the relevant Congressional committees have a deal well in hand. They have modified the original proposal extensively, are finally growing a pair and dictating terms to the White House, and could give two turds what Obama and McCain have to say about it.

McCain's stunt is just that, a political stunt. I hope that America sees it for what it is and eats his lunch.

25 September 2008

Addition: Yep, it's started. From CNN:

McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.
.

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC

As I've mentioned before, I'm a huge fan of Rachel Maddow. For some time now, she's had a radio show on Air America, weeknights from 6:00-9:00 PM Eastern. Now, she has her own television show on MSNBC, weeknights from 9:00-10:00 PM Eastern. And, yes, she does seem to stay busy!

The American Prospect has a great article on Maddow out today by Sam Boyd. I found it quite interesting and if you are also a fan, you may as well. If you are not a fan of Maddow's, please do check her out.

24 September 2008

McCain's Big Week

John McCain has had quite a week... and it's only Wednesday.

  • Sunday: Says that he supports the bailout of Wall Street advocated by the Bush Administration.
  • Monday: Says that he has strong reservations about the bailout as proposed by the Bush Administration.
  • Tuesday: Admits that he has not read the bailout plan proposed by the Bush Administration.
  • Wednesday Morning: Says that he's suspending his campaign to focus on the financial crisis and will immediately leave New York to head to Washington.
  • Wednesday Afternoon: Remains in New York, first to meet with British aristocrat Lady Lynn de Rothschild and to tape an interview with Katie Couric. Plans to remain in New York on Thursday for Bill Clinton's Global Initiative event.
  • Wednesday Night: Is mocked by David Letterman after McCain lied to Letterman about having to cancel his plans to appear on the late-night show to return to DC.

John McCain may actually be insane.

24 September 2008

25 September 2008 Addition: I just watched the David Letterman video again. Man, he really let's McCain have it.

Second Addition: There are now multiple video clips of Letterman at that link, including the "Top 10 List," which has McCain as its topic. Make sure you watch all of the clips. The original, nine-minute clip was the one I saw first.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

George Will on McCain: Not Fit

George Will has joined a growing number of conservative -- big "C" and little "c" -- thinkers who don't believe that John McCain has what it takes to be president. Will takes on McCain's temperment, indicitive of how he both views the world and responds to it. It is an interesting read.

23 September 2008

McCain Hiding Palin

You may have heard that the McCain campaign tried to ban reporters from Palin's meetings at the UN today with world leaders. The campaign only wanted photos of the event, with no pesky questions from the press. Thankfully, the press balked at this and a pool reporter was let in to monitor the events... still with no questions. (The press apparently only grew one ball, not the standard issue two.)

Palin still hasn't done a press conference and has done only two interviews. McCain does an interview a day and both Obama and Biden do two in an average hour.

Enough!

CNN's Campbell Brown -- who I'm really starting to admire -- seems to agree. She gave McCain what-for on his "sexist hiding of Palin" from the world. Take a look.

23 September 2008

Sunday, September 21, 2008

SNL and McCain

This week, Saturday Night Live turned from McCain's running mate to the Arizona Senator himself for its opening skit. Once again, it was spot-on.

If you missed last week's show, you can see the Palin/Clinton skit here. BTW, Tina Fey will be returning to SNL next week and many weeks thereafter to reprise her role as the Alaskan governor.

21 September 2008

Alaska Isn't Pleased

This L.A. Times article about the erosion of Sarah Palin's political capital at home in Alaska is very interesting.

12 September 2008

Registered to Vote?

We are getting down to the wire in almost all states to be registered to vote for the November election. If you don't know whether you are registered or not, you can find out at the official Barack Obama campaign site, found here.

At that same link, you can also request an absentee ballot to vote by mail. I strongly recommend that you vote by mail. It is the method of voting recommended by the Obama campaign. The reasons for this were outlined in my 6 September 2008 blog post titled, "Important: Voting By Mail." My wife and I will be voting in this fashion and I hope that you will as well.

Vote Obama!

Note, you can find the post Important: Voting By Mail at this link through the end of September. At that point, it will be archived along with all posts written in September and a new URL will be assigned to it.

21 September 2008

The Financial Bailout

Although I believe that the purchase of the debt that faltering companies have stupidly incurred will indeed help the liquidity problems of the financial markets -- and help stabilize the American economy -- it's looking more and more like the plan is a bum rap for US taxpayers. I've seen no signs that taking the bad debt from these companies will come with any strings... none at all. It is a "get out of jail free" card and that's it. And you and I are paying for it. No thanks.

This may be necessary, but it needs to be packaged with two things. First, the debt itself needs to be purchased at prices reasonably close to its actual value. The government shouldn't get slagged on this. Second, it must come with heavy, transformative regulation of Wall Street. The problems we are encountering had their foundations placed under Ronald Reagan, their walls framed under Bush One, and their roofs built under Bill Clinton. Bush Two and John McCain's own Phil Gramm knocked the whole house of cards down right on our heads. We can't simply let Wall Street start fresh or I guarantee that we'll be having this conversation once again in a decade or two, perhaps less. We need deep reforms, tight controls, and draconain penalties to guard the financial sectors of the Amerian economic system... or else.

21 September 2008

Update: Credo Action has an on-line petition going to tell Congress not to give away the store on this issue. You can find its statement of principles, as well as sign it, here.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Arrrrrr...

Yep, it's that time again. Talk Like a Pirate Day is upon us. So wherever you are today and whatever you may be doing, remember to shiver me timbers!

19 September 2008

It's...

I can't believe that I wrote an entire post earlier today dealing with both the McCain campaign and the country of Spain and never once uttered, "No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Yes, I've turned in my Monty Python Fan Club card and apologize to Graham Chapman, God rest his soul.

18 September 2008

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Spanish-American War, 2008 Style

There are a lot of ways to go with a story like this. I could go for jokes. I could say that maybe it was just a "senior moment." I'm frankly at a loss. I'm sure that Saturday Night Live will come up with something, however. I have faith.

From Josh Marshall at TPM, quoted in full:

Well, we've heard the interview now. And John McCain either doesn't know who the Prime Minister of Spain is, thinks Spain is a country in Latin America, or possibly both.

In case, you haven't seen our updates from last night, yesterday John McCain was interviewed on the Florida affiliate of Spanish radio network Union Radio. And in the interview McCain appeared not to know who the Prime Minister of Spain was and assumed he was some anti-American leftist leader from South America.

After the interviewer presses him a couple times on the point and tries to focus him on the fact that Prime Minister Zapatero isn't from Mexico and isn't a drug lord either McCain comes back at her saying, "All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the Hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."

Then there's a moment of awkward pause before she says. "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."

McCain: "What about me, what?

Interviewer: "Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?"

McCain: "I am wiling to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for humans rights, democracy and freedom. And I will stand up to those who do not."

At this point, the interviewer gets tongue-tied presumably because she can't get over McCain not knowing what Spain is.

It would appear that the Spanish media is split into two factions as a result of McCain's ignorance. Half think it was a calculated insult to Spain, half think McCain is just a moron. I think both halves are selling him short. McCain is most definitely an insulting moron.

One listener to the interview had this to say, in part:

After listening to the interview, however, I agree with the characterization that McCain was unaware of our relations with Spain, or even the country's geographical and political position. When asked about meeting with Zapatero and the country's relationship with the U.S., McCain ignored the question and went into some boilerplate about America's friends and enemies and analyzing relations (think Palin and the Bush Doctrine). Then, he tried to transition his answer into more friendly territory, discussing President Calderon's government in Mexico. He never really addressed Spain, but pushed right into commenting about Mexico. The interviewer actually tried to redirect him several times (again, think Charlie Gibson and Palin), until she actually stated that she wasn't talking about Latin America anymore, but rather Europe. For whatever reason, McCain responded to this question by repeating what he said before about analyzing America's relationships with our friends and enemies.
Feel free to listen and make up your own mind.

How this will play out in the American press will be of great interest. First, McCain is supposed to be a foreign affairs expert -- and least we keep hearing that he is, in spite of gaff after gaff -- and not knowing even the name of the leader of an allied NATO nation is a bit scary. Second, it may raise age-related questions.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "hell, I didn't know who Zapatero was either." Guess what, neither did I. However, I'm not running for president, nor was I doing an interview with a Spanish language media outlet. Had I been doing either of those things, I'd have boned up on things I didn't know on topics that such a report might want to cover. It is only common sense. This isn't play time. It's serious business for serious people. John McCain's fifteen minutes are up.

18 September 2008

Addition: So, after a full day of trying to get to the bottom of this Spain flap, here is a pretty good summation of where we stand.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Why the Race is Close

This is why the presidential race is close. Sad, but true.

17 September 2008

Trooper-Gate Meltdown

Josh Marshall over at TPM has written a great piece, Natural Born Liars, about just what bullshit it is that the Trooper-Gate investigation is being held hostage, not simply by Sarah Palin, but by the McCain campaign itself. It is truly unprecidented.

Presidential candidates usually have to wait until they're elected to start obstructing investigations into their own wrong-doing. But ready on day one as he is, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting a jump on this front too. I'm not sure I've ever seen an instance of a president, let alone a presidential candidate, quite this nakedly doing everything in his power to shutdown an investigation. And look closely -- Palin herself has at this point entirely turned the obstruction over to the McCain campaign. They're even the ones who make the announcements. (I won't get into the battery of lawyers plumbers up in Alaska getting all the small fry to clam up and digging up dirt on all Palin's accusers.)

Meanwhile, the claim that the Obama camp has 'tainted' the trooper-gate investigation is truly risible. This investigation was well underway and already looking bad for Palin and her husband well before John McCain picked her as his running mate. (We know: we were already covering it.) What I do not think that many people know is that this investigation up in Alaska has actually been authorized and is being run by Republicans. They make up a majority in the state senate. The committee member overseeing the investigation happens to be a Democrat. But at any moment of their choosing, they could pull him off the case, overrule his decisions, or shut the investigation down entirely.

Palin's response to this -- to the question of how Obama could have tainted the investigation which is under the control of Alaska Republicans -- is to claim that there are actually a lot of Republicans in Alaska who oppose her. And that's true. But observing that a sizable number of officeholders of your own party think you're probably a crook too does not amount to an affirmative defense. Really, it doesn't.

The fall back defense, when claims about Obama's 'taint' fall flat, is that Palin's someone who 'shakes things up'. That's what she's done in Alaska and that's what she's going to do in Washington.

But a pattern of crony hiring and politicized firings of public officials all followed up by stonewalling and obstruction of justice really would not amount to 'shaking things up' in Washington. After eight years of President Bush, that's more like steady as she goes.

Quoted in full.

17 September 2008

"Keating Five" Revisited

Joseph Romm over at The Huffington Post believes that the Obama campaign would be well served by reminding voters that John McCain started his senate career as a crook, especially given the fact that 83 of his campaign advisers are Wall Street lobbyists. I mean, can that really be a good thing given the fact that Wall Street is in chaos and its spilling over to Main Street more and more? I think not. Older voters will especially remember the financial hardships brought about by the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s. Romm is on to something. Take a look. (It probides a nice background on the issue to boot.)

17 September 2008

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Trooper-Gate Refusal

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now refusing to testify in the Trooper-Gate ethics scandal currently unfolding in her home state. This is in spite of the fact that she previously agreed to cooperate fully in the investigation. Subpoenas have been issued for many Alaskan officials, plus Palin's husband in the matter. Note that the announcement came not from the office of the governor, nor from her own spokesperson, but from the McCain campaign spokesman. Very telling.

Palin may just be more Bush and is McCain!

16 September 2008

17 September 2008 Addition: In a post titled Smoke and Mirrors, the following appeared at TPM:

TPM Reader TR sees the forest for the trees in Trooper-Gate:

Let's assume for a minute that Palin, McCain and all of their collective cronies are right about the trooper-gate investigation being 100% a partisan witch hunt, notwithstanding the original vote. So freakin' what? In the US, congress and state legislatures are tasked with investigating actions of the executive offices. The executives can then present evidence to defend themselves, and their evidence can include displays of outright partisanship if they find it. They cannot legally, however, just ignore the legislative bodies. They are legally required to cooperate. This is theoretically what makes us different from countries like North Korea, Musharraf's Pakistan, Zimbabwe, etc.

On a second point, how is McCain's campaign legally able to insert itself into an issue that is solely about Alaska? The investigation has nothing to do with anything outside of Alaska and it predates Palin's VP candidacy, so it seems to me like some kind of obstruction or interference from a legal point of view.

Remember, the game here is to delay, delay, delay until after the election.
.

New Yorker Campaign Humor

George Saunders at The New Yorker has a humor piece that covers pigs, elites, and even the French. Very funny.

16 September 2008

Secretaries of State Speak "for Obama"

Five former Secretaries of State -- three of whom are Republicans -- spoke out today in favor of direct talks with Iran as part of an engagement strategy of containing the state's nuclear program. This is also the Obama plan. McCain, of course, favors no talks, but does enjoy singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran." And yes, folks will vote for him anyway.

15 September 2008

Wall Street: Rome Burns

From Josh Marshall at TPM:

Let me get this straight. John McCain's top economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm, is the guy who authored the deregulation law that most agree is the ultimate cause of today's financial meltdown. Tomorrow's and probably next week's too. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch, which swirled into brokerage oblivion today, is one of McCain's top economic advisors too. And now McCain says he's going to clean up the mess by putting in tighter regulations and oversight even though he's always supported lax oversight and his top economics guy is the one who loosened the rules in the first place.

15 September 2008

Monday, September 15, 2008

McCain as Morally Unfit

Over the weekend, TPM reader BK noted the following:
It seems to me that the lying and exaggerating that has been done by the mccain campaign either from his lips or with his approval has a moral dimension that is not being discussed. No one is questioning McCains physical courage. But lying is an immoral act, one that you cannot get "forced into" by acts of others.

If there is a sustainable link between McCain, Palin, Bush and Cheney, it is their willingness to lie to get what they want. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war they wished to wage and they have been deceptive about many of their other policies. And the way an Administration runs takes its direction from the top. Is there really any doubt that if McCain and Palin are willing to lie about themselves and their opponents in an effort to get elected that they will continue to lie to the American public about there plans and policies.

Campaigns offer a direct view into how a candidate will run a large complex organization. McCains true colors,,,,,his true moral convictions....are being demonstrated for all of us to see. We have seen this ends based strategy before and we know it never turns out well for us.

Indeed, Josh Marshall later noted that whether or not the press allows McCain to get away with his lies will be the singular story of the presidential campaign.

As I noted below, the big press story of the campaign is shaping up to be how reporters are and will react to McCain's deliberate strategy of full-court-press lying. The corrupt, though normal, approach is for reporters to try to dig up whatever Obama exaggerations they can find to try to balance the coverage. If that doesn't work, then they will try to hang the charges on Democrats -- i.e., "what Democrats are calling 'lies'" etc. And of course using the dictionary term -- "lies" -- for repeated and intentional misstatements of fact is almost always forbidden.

But the lying is so extreme in this case that a few reporters are beginning to actually report the story accurately.

So keep an eye out for examples in both categories -- egregious refusals to identify McCain's lies properly and instances where reporters actually decide not to mince words and accurately report the story before them. If you find them, send them in and we'll start keeping a list.

And TPM's Marshall noted this earlier, which is also directly on-point:

Of all the shortcomings of the establishment press today, none is more central to the corruption of the profession than the decision to prioritize balance over accuracy. That corruption is visibly on display in the current coverage of the McCain campaign's policy of deliberate lies. And you won't find a better example than Cathleen Decker's piece in yesterday's LA Times.

Read into the article and you'll see numerous instances of McCain's repeated use of false claims and lies and one instance Decker is able to dig up of an Obama campaign claim that arguably leaves out some information.

But the conclusion and packaging of the article is that both candidates deceive equally and that they do so because it works. (There was another example, though not quite as egregious, by Jonathan Weismann last week in the Post.)

We hear a lot about the steep and perhaps terminal decline of the business model underlying daily print newspapers. But this corruption in the basic conception of the craft -- which is actually related to the economic decline -- gets discussed much less.

This is what gives liars a clear strategic advantage over non-liars. And it's an open question whether McCain's level of dishonesty turns out to be so great that it overwhelms reporters' unwillingness to report accurately on it.

Interestingly, McCain would face harsh consequences for his actions were he still serving in the Navy. It seems that the Navy takes a very dim view of its officers having no honor. And the military, it seems, is taking note of McCain's conduct.

Hell, even Karl Rove -- yes, Karl Rove! -- thinks that McCain is going too sleazy. And Fox News may even push back from time to time.

The Obama campaign is starting to push back on this issue, not just with rally rhetoric, but with ads. This will hopefully not only bring the message directly to the people, but keep it front and center in the mind of the press as well. We shall see if they do their job.

15 September 2008

SNL: Palin & Hillary

Last night, Saturday Night Live opened its show with a skit featuring Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. It was priceless! Seriously, it captured both political figures so perfectly. Since the start of the Republic, some of our best political commentary has come in the form of comedy. This typifies that indeed. Enjoy.

The official version of the video can be found here on the SNL web site. This version has better video and better audio.

14 September 2008


Saturday, September 13, 2008

"The View" of McCain

John McCain appeared on The View yesterday and it may very well have been his toughest interview to date. I shit you not. Take a look.

13 September 2008

15 September 2008 Addition: The View held a follow-up session on their McCain interview this morning.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Palin Interview, Day 1

Sarah Palin's first interview since being named to the Republican ticket -- which would be LOL funny if it was not so sad -- began yesterday with ABC's Charles Gibson. This part covered two topics, foreign affairs and energy policy. On neither point did Palin shine and McCain should feel the heat for his poor choice as a result.

Regarding foreign policy, she gave two disastrous answers. First, she didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was. Second, her reasoning as to Georgia joining NATO was, at best, unsupported by the realities of the situation.

It was clear both from her reaction and her response that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. After Gibson "defined" it for her, she gave some pat, soft-around-the-edges response that really said little. But here is the kicker, the definition Gibson gave of the doctrine wasn't quite correct in its strict terminology. Gibson defined the doctrine as the US having the right to preemptive action against a foreign power -- or within the borders of a foreign power -- when the US knows it is about to be attacked. This isn't correct, however. The Bush Doctrine makes clear that the US has the right to wage preemptive WAR on a foreign nation to protect its interests. The former has long been recognized by the US and other countries. The latter is a vast expansion in US policy of the proper role of the military. Had Palin known what the doctrine was, she surely would have caught Gibson's misstatement. Hell, I did and I'm just some shmoe sitting in his living room watching it on TV.

"Is this really that important?" you might be asking. Absolutely. First, the Bush Doctrine is the cornerstone of American foreign policy under the Bush Administration. It is the doctrine under which Palin's own son went to war yesterday, under which 4,000-plus Americans have been sent to die in Iraq, and under which tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. It's a big deal.

It also tells us a lot about Palin herself. Foreign affairs, and the war in Iraq specifically, have been so off of her radar as to be unaware of a policy point of this magnitude. This is unforgivable as a state governor. It is unconsciounable as a candidate for vice president. What is more, in spite of this lack of interest and lack of knowledge, she still feels like she can adequately make pronouncements on these issues. This is fine for some drunk schmuck in a bar who can do no harm playing arm chair general. It isn't okay for someone to act thusly when they are one heartbeat away from the presidency.

For a great article as to why this issue of the Bush Doctrine matters, see James Fallows' piece today at The Atlantic web site. To paraphrase one of Fallows' observations: Palin not knowing about the Bush Doctrine is like a fan of the NFL not knowing anything about the New England Patriots of the past decade.

Regarding her ideas on NATO and Georgia, at the very least it can certainly be said that she does not know how the process of joining NATO works. Here, she said that Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO immediately. This means, and she admitted as much, that our reciprocal obligations under the treaty would be valid right now. In essence, the US would be obligated to defend Georgia against Russia militarily -- e.g. war -- right now. Does anyone seriously think we should go to war with Russia over Georgia? Does anyone think that we could do this given the pitiful state of our military after Bush's bog-down in Iraq? What is more, Palin doesn't seem to understand that, logistically speaking, these countries simply cannot join NATO immediately.

There's a bit more on Georgia and Ukraine and NATO. What Obama and Biden favor is for NATO to offer these two countries accession to the "Membership Action Plan" (or MAP), a process set up in the late 1990s to help aspirant countries prepare for possible membership in the Alliance. MAP isn't a promise of membership, and the last members to join NATO were in MAP for nearly a decade. It would take at least as long for Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO, not least since one of the criterion for membership is that there are no territorial disputes involving the country that is requesting membership... A lot of mumbo jumbo on NATO accession procedures, this. But here's the kicker: What Palin said is that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members now. Not even Bush is arguing that. (He, too, favors MAP.) McCain was with Bush on this until recently and, I assume, if asked still is. Palin didn't know the distinction, and is suggesting that these countries get into NATO tomorrow. She may not realize that this is a decision that NATO members need to make collectively, all 27 of them, which won't happen, given that MAP was denied the countries just a few months ago...
As an aside on the topic of foreign policy, Palin was asked if she'd ever met a foreign head of state.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.

She may be correct when looking back over the course of hundreds of years, when travel was much different than it is today. In the modern era, however, every vice presidential candidate for either major ticket over the past 32 years had met with a foreign head of state prior to becoming a candidate... until Palin.

On the front of energy policy, here she seemed to reverse course -- or at least soften her stance -- on global warming. Previously, Palin had maintained that the phenomenon was entirely environmentally created... that it was purely a cyclical effect. Man, in other words, has nothing to do with it in her mind. Last night, she told Gibson that regardless of why it is happening, steps should be taken against it. Gibson pressed her that the destinction did matter in terms of approaching a solution, but she stuck to her line. This leaves open the door that it could be man made -- or increased in its severity by man -- thereby being a change in her stance. This is pure politics and certainly not the major, fully-discrediting gaff of her foreign policy coverage above.

The interview will continue tonight on ABC World News Tonight and then on 20/20 thereafter.

12 September 2008

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Elitism? Yes Please!

There has been a definite shift in the type of individual that Americans want occupying the Oval Office since the founding of the country. I'm not talking about changes in political parties or the fact that women and African-Americans are now being considered for the presidency. This shift really has taken place since the advent of television and has grown more and more dominent as that form of entertainment has solidified its own dominence in our culture.

Historically, we wanted GREAT MEN to lead us. We wanted men apart from the every day, who were well educated, and who aspired to be better than what passed for everyday life in our country. Hell, we wanted men who seemingly fulfilled those aspirations and who were thought better than the citizens whom they served.

What do we want now? Let me put it this way: One of the most-heard refrains from the 2000 election, later repeated in 2004, was that folks liked George Bush more as a candidate "because they'd rather grab a beer with him" than with his opponent. Our politics has degenerated into the question of who is more like us.

But why on earth do we want to see ourselves in the White House? By most measures, I'm a pretty smart, well-educated fellow and let me tell you what... I want someone vastly smarter and better educated than am I at the head of my government. I want someone who is far more worldly, who has seen a great deal more than I have. I want a "man of action," but who will think things through thoroughly before he acts. Exactly when in our society did having an education become a proverbial "four letter word?" When did having a background far outside the norm become something to ridicule rather than something to trumpet?

The conservative commentator George Will recently wrote an opinion piece in Newsweek that touched on this subject. One part in particular sums our situation up nicely, doing so by outlining past circumstances as a counterpoint.

Charges of "elitism" are hardy perennials, but surely Americans can accept two axioms. The first is: The central principle of republican government is representation, under which the people do not decide issues, they decide who shall decide. The second is: Elections decide not whether elites shall rule but which elites shall rule.

Robert Alphonso Taft (1889–1953), the son of President William Howard Taft, became known as "Mr. Republican" during his 14 years as a U.S. senator from Ohio. He was a conservative representing a state whose electorate included many farmers and blue-collar industrial workers, and opponents charged that he was out of touch with such ordinary people. In 1947 a reporter asked Mrs. Taft, "Do you think of your husband as a common man?" Aghast, she replied:

"Oh, no, no! The senator is very uncommon. He was first in his class at Yale and first in his class at the Harvard Law School. We wouldn't permit Ohio to be represented in the Senate by just a common man."

In 1950, Taft was re-elected in a landslide.

Indeed so. Why should our nation as a whole settle for any less?

11 September 2008

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

McCain's "Trojan Moose"

Arianna Huffington, God bless her, has written what may be the best political piece since McCain named Palin to his ticket. Her basic point is that Palin is a smoke screen for the Republican candidate, who knows that he can't win on either the issues or his record. Thus, he has to change the subject. Everyone thought he was crazy picking Sarah Palin, both on the right and on the left. (Not the religious right, of course, but they are believers in her policies, which makes them nuttier than Mad Hatters anyway.) However, with Rove at his back, McCain was crazy like a fox. What is more, it is working. The focus is Sarah Palin. It should be John McCain. Sure, Palin should be a topic to be covered -- and it most certainly goes to McCain's lack of judgment not just that she was chosen as his running mate, but how she was chosen -- but the focus should be at the top of the ticket.

Huffington called Palin a "trojan moose," which is spot on. From The Huffington Post, quoted in full:

Did Sarah Palin wrongfully push to have her ex-brother-in law fired? Was she really against the "Bridge to Nowhere?" Did she really sell Alaska's plane on eBay, or just list it on eBay? Did she actually have any substantial duties commanding the Alaska National Guard?

The correct answer to all these questions is: who cares? Which isn't to say these aren't valid questions, or that Palin and the McCain camp aren't playing it fast, loose, and coy with each of them. The point is that Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.

Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain.

Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.

Just look at the problem John McCain faced. George Bush has a disastrous record, and the country knows it. John McCain -- the current one, not the one who vanished eight years ago -- has no major disagreements with George Bush (and I'm sorry, wanting to fire Donald Rumsfeld a bit sooner doesn't qualify) and wants to continue his incredibly unpopular policies for another four years. The solution? Enter Sarah Palin, a Trojan Moose carrying four more years of disaster.

And the plan has worked beautifully. Just look at what's being discussed just 57 days before the election. Is it the highest unemployment rate in five years? The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The suicide bombing yesterday in Iraq that killed six people and wounded 54 -- in the same market where last month a bomb killed 28 people and wounded 72? That the political reconciliation that was supposedly the point of "the surge" is nowhere near happening? That Iraq's Shiite government is now rounding up the American-backed Sunni leaders of the Awakening? That the reason 8,000 soldiers may be leaving Iraq soon is so more can be deployed to Afghanistan where the Taliban is steadily retaking the country?

No. We're talking about whether Sarah Palin was or was not a good mayor, whether she was or was not a good mother, whether her skirts are too short and her zingers too sarcastic.

Contrary to what we're hearing 24/7 in the media, the next few weeks are not a test of Sarah Palin. The next few weeks are a test of Barack Obama.

He needs to dramatically redirect this election back to a discussion over the issues that really matter -- the issues that will impact the future of this country. A presidential campaign is a battle and this is the time for Obama to show some commander-in-chief skills. I'm not talking about calling Palin out for lying about his record and demeaning community organizing. I'm talking about grabbing the political debate by the throat. The country is already angry about what's happened over the last seven-plus years -- he shouldn't be afraid to give voice to that anger. Obama has spent years adopting a non-threatening persona; but he can't let his fear that appearing like an "angry Black man" (a stereotype not-too-subtly fueled by Fox News) will turn off swing voters keep him from channeling the disgust and outrage felt by so many voters --swing and otherwise.

McCain's team, in an effort to distract, is going to keep doing what they're doing -- diverting voters and the media with a tantalizing combination of personal trivia and small lies. It doesn't matter if they're caught in them -- in fact, all the better. Because they know there is no way in hell they can win if this election is about the big truth of the Bush years.

McCain's real running mate is George Bush and the failed policies of the Republican Party. Even if they are dressed up in a skirt, lipstick, and Tina Fey glasses.

I've fallen into this trap. Let's hope that Obama proves smarter than I. Hit Caribou Barbie, but make sure the ultimate punch goes to McCain.

10 September 2008

Andrew Sullivan on McCain

There is a new op-ed titled "McCain's Integrity" by Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic that is noteworthy, both because he is a respected columnist and because he has been a long-time defender of John McCain. The Arizona Senator, it would seem, can longer count on Sullivan's support. Quoted in full...

For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?

So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.

And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.

He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.

And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.

10 September 2008

Freeze on Personal Credit

Last January, I wrote a post regarding the ways one can take steps to protect their own credit records and help stop identity theft. Since then, some states have updated their laws to make it easier to quickly remove the freezes on your own credit reports that help keep you safe, thus making it far less of a pain to have these freezes in place while going about getting a mortgage or shopping for an automobile. You can read about some of these updates here.

10 September 2008

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

"Alaskonomics"

Michael Kinsley of Time magazine has a great article detailing the economic myths surrounding Alaska and Sarah Palin.

Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

...

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.

Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.

The entire thing is eye-opening.

9 September 2008

Probing Palin's Finances

Has Sarah Palin -- tight-fisted fiscal conservative that she is, of course! -- been billing the State of Alaska for nights that she spent in her own home and for travel by her children and husband? It looks that way. From The Washington Post:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.

...

She wrote some form of "Lodging -- own residence" or "Lodging -- Wasilla residence" more than 30 times at the same time she took a per diem, according to the reports. In two dozen undated amendments to the reports, the governor deleted the reference to staying in her home but still charged the per diem.

Palin charged the state a per diem for working on Nov. 22, 2007 -- Thanksgiving Day. The reason given, according to the expense report, was the Great Alaska Shootout, an annual NCAA college basketball tournament held in Anchorage.

In separate filings, the state was billed about $25,000 for Palin's daughters' expenses and $19,000 for her husband's.

Flights topped the list for the most expensive items, and the daughter whose bill was the highest was Piper, 7, whose flights cost nearly $11,000, while Willow, 14, claimed about $6,000 and Bristol, 17, accounted for about $3,400.

One event was in New York City in October 2007, when Bristol accompanied the governor to Newsweek's third annual Women and Leadership Conference, toured the New York Stock Exchange and met local officials and business executives. The state paid for three nights in a $707-a-day hotel room. Garnero said the governor's office has the authority to approve hotel stays above $300.

Asked Monday about the official policy on charging for children's travel expenses, Garnero said: "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that."

...

In the past, per diem claims by Alaska state officials have carried political risks. In 1988, the head of the state Commerce Department was pilloried for collecting a per diem charge of $50 while staying in his Anchorage home, according to local news accounts. The commissioner, the late Tony Smith, resigned amid a series of controversies.

"It was quite the little scandal," said Tony Knowles, the Democratic governor from 1994 to 2000. "I gave a direction to all my commissioners if they were ever in their house, whether it was Juneau or elsewhere, they were not to get a per diem because, clearly, it is and it looks like a scam -- you pay yourself to live at home," he said.

Knowles, whose children were school-age at the start of his first term, said that his wife sometimes accompanied him to conferences overseas but that he could "count on one hand" the number of times his children accompanied him.

"And the policy was not to reimburse for family travel on commercial airlines, because there is no direct public benefit to schlepping kids around the state," he said. The rules were articulated by Mike Nizich, then director of administrative services in the governor's office, said Knowles and an aide to another former governor, Walter Hickel.

Nizich is now Palin's chief of staff. He did not return a phone call seeking comment. The rules governing family travel on state-owned aircraft appear less clear. Knowles said he operated under the understanding that immediate family could accompany the governor without charge.

But during the Murkowski years, that practice was questioned, and the state attorney general's office produced an opinion saying laws then in effect required reimbursement for spousal travel.


Links in the above quoted text have been removed. They were simply links to sites such as that of the New York Stock Exchange and not relevant to the point of the article.

9 September 2008

"Bridge to Nowhere" - The Final Word

This article at TPM is the final word on why Palin's infamous Bridge to Nowhere finally got canned. It's been explained elsewhere -- even elsewhere here -- but this is nice and tight. And it makes perfectly clear that it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin being against pork barrel spending. As Greg Sargent and Erik Kleefeld make clear:

It's bogus to say that Palin turned on the project because the costs ballooned. The real reason she came around to opposing it was not that the overall costs went up -- the project was always a boondoggle, and costs were always going up -- but that one particular element of the project's cost ballooned: The portion that Alaska would have to pay, instead of getting the money through federal pork.

In her statement finally ending the project, Palin explicitly lamented that fact. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329-million short of full funding for the bridge project," Palin said at the time, "and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."

As for the claim that Palin drove a stake into the project's heart, the project was practically dead already by the time Palin officially shut it down, as the non-partisan CQ's PolitiFact section pointed out. She shut it down after it became clear that Congress would no longer fund it -- meaning that Alaska would have to use its own $329 million to build it, thus leaving Palin no other choice but to shut it down.

Bottom line: Palin did not tell Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on the bridge. It was Congress who cut off the money to Alaska. Oh, and she didn't Say No To Pork, either -- when Congress wouldn't spend that money on the Bridge, Congress did allow her to keep it for other projects. And she did.
As one responder to the article points out, the Obama campaign should stop pointing out that "she was for it before she was against it." Rather, she was for it "until she had to pay for it." Indeed so.

9 September 2008

Addition: TPM now has a nice video out recounting the facts as well.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Obama's "Should Be" Ads

While I think Obama and his team have consistently been underestimated for the campaigns that they have run, both in the primaries and now in the general, I'd like to see them start hitting McCain a little harder. Here are some good ideas for ads. Plus, there is a good ad in a senate race that is the type that I'd like to see.

8 September 2008

Addition: It looks like Obama is hitting back, especially on the misconception that Palin was against the so-called Bridge to Nowhere. He has a new ad that points out that she was for the bridge project, although it doesn't mention that she ultimately kept the money the federal government sent here even after the project was killed. (She just spent it on other pork projects.)

With Obama's money on hand, I'd be cranking out new ads by the dozens and define this race state by state. With Palin still not speaking to the press, Obama should be seeking to define her to the nation. Next, go after the fact that she brought home not just big earmark pork for Wasilla as its mayor, but has the highest per-capita pork level for Alaska as its governor. Yep, she's a maverick all right. No?

Addition Two: Here is a third-party compilation that starts to do what I spoke of, although I'd like to see it with more polish.

GOP Convention, Days 3 & 4

I've finally found some time to write about the final two days of the GOP convention. Since its relatively far in our rear view mirror now, I'll be moderately brief and often let others speak for me... as it were.

The nights opened with speeches by McCain's former opponents for the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. The only thing that really needs to be said about these two is that a big part of their speeches were focused on mocking so-called East Coast Elites. If any two people typify this class, it's Giuliani and Romney.

Day three had the big arrival of Sarah Palin. Finally, the Republicans we all know and love were back... the kind that profess to love America, but who clearly hate Americans. Gotta love it. She did her speech proud, but this really wasn't a surprise to me considering her background as a sportscaster. Most politicians have difficulty at first using a teleprompter and the television background was good training for her. What did surprise me a bit was that it was so sarcastic in tone, especially the final fifth or so. I wasn't surprised by the attacks. That is standard GOP presidential election tactics 101. However, it is a bit risky to introduce someone to the public stage with a speech that could have been written by a catty 13 year-old girl. Of course, since it was written by George Bush's former speech writer, it amounts to the same thing. It has played well to the red meat part of the GOP base, but how it will play to independents is still unknown.

Here are some of the responses to Palin's speech, which I think are worth noting. First, there is Obama himself. Another good one is that of Hillary Clinton campaign veteran Howard Wolfson. Glenn Greewald over at salon.com wrote a great article titled The GOP's Cheerful Viciousness that is most certainly worth reading. ABC had a video response as well. Hell, even Condoleeza Rice refused to say anything more positive about Palin than that she gave a good speech. (And Jon Stewart's take on Palin in general was priceless.)

McCain's speech on the final night was much more of a tried-and-true Republican acceptance by the nominee. It could have been given almost verbatim -- and pretty much was; start at 4.5 minutes in for specifics, but it's all sadly funny -- by George Bush in either 2000 or 2004. McCain is not considered an accomplished public speaker. He is stiff and has difficulty, even after decades in Congress, using a teleprompter. It showed here. He was really only at ease in the final minutes of the speech, which focused on his war record. Regarding that, I now hope that we can put the idea behind us as false that John McCain has any reticence about using his time in Vietnam for political gain. It seems to me that the only one diminishing McCain's service -- and the hardship he endured -- in Vietnam is McCain himself via the grandstanding done by both his campaign and himself. Surely, his actions there should speak for themselves.

Reactions to the speech came from the Obama campaign and lots and lots of press and political pundits. I think that the most telling thing about the speech is that the McCain campaign has now abandoned all pretense that their strategy of making the campaign about either "experience" or the surge in Iraq was working. It failed just like Hillary Clinton's did for the same reasons. This election is about "change," whatever that means, and McCain struggled to grab some of the change mantle. The question of whether or not his campaign can be successful at this is questionable. After all, seven of the nice justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents, Congress has been controlled by Republicans for six of the last seven years, and Republicans have been in the White House -- with an almost universally despised president -- for seven of the last eight years. While I'll never underestimate the ability of the American people to vote against their own self interest -- just look at the 2004 election! -- this seems a particularly hard sell in the current climate. I mean, McCain proclaimed that the US has "to catch up to history," while he himself can't use e-mail or log into his own web site! Get real.

Most of what Palin and McCain had to say was, of course, either a distortion of the truth or outright lying. Again, this is to be expected. What is somewhat surprising is that, with a few exceptions, the media has been cowed and is letting them get away with it cleanly. And if the media won't step up, I hope the Obama campaign will hit back harder than it has thus far. (There are further fact-checking articles being written about the second day of the GOP convention now as well.)

One of the biggest surprises on these nights was again the miscues of the GOP on stagecraft. As I mentioned in my post about day two of the GOP convention, Republicans have long been masters of setting the right tone in this sort of environment. I'd say that they are adept at using the trappings of patriotism to hide their actual callousness regarding the country and its people, but that's just me. I'll note two examples of "getting it wrong."

  • First, you had Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina proclaiming that we are achieving victory in Iraq... as the large screen behind him displayed the photo of a military cemetery and soldiers' graves. Morbid indeed, but telling.
  • Second, you had John McCain himself propped up in front of the same screen, talking with what appeared to be a photo of a large luxury mansion behind him. At first, I thought this odd simply because it recalls the fact that the McCains own at least seven luxury homes... and there is no reason to want to remind Americans of that. It turns out that the mansion wasn't a home at all, but rather a photo of Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Of course, it was supposed to be Walter Reed Army Medical Center, but the campaign blew it. (This is quite in line with just how poor McCain has been on voting in support of veteran care.) What is even more humorous is that the campaign later claimed that it intended to use the photo of the school even though it had previously owned up the the mistake. It gets better still, with the school telling the McCain campaign to stop using photos of it because school officials don't agree with McCain's positions on education.

Finally, and most importantly here, is the thing that made me the most angry during the GOP convention. (And they set that bar high.) In a video leading up to McCain's speech, footage from 9/11 was used. It included the planes hitting the towers, the towers collapsing, and the Pentagon on fire. The events of September 11 are often spoken of in policy terms. No doubt they play a role in our politics. However, with a few exceptions in small-stage political races, the footage of the calamities themselves has never been so used. The Republicans violated this unspoken rule, doing so on an international stage, and did so for callous political self-interest. The party and McCain himself should be vilified for this. Indeed, this tells you all that you need to know about the man and his party.

McCain got a nice bounce from the convention and erased much of that which Obama received the week before. Much of this likely came from shoring up Republican voters, which shouldn't be discounted just because these voters should already have been in the fold. A great deal of Obama's bounce was likely similar in nature. Still, this is where the playing field will be set. We have two more phases. The point from now until the debates, where advertising will dominate, and the debates themselves. Whether Palin will be effective in the debates or in -- real -- press interviews is anyone guess. However, she'll be an effective attack dog, which is the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate. She isn't qualified for the job -- even discounting her levels of experience, taking only her views into account -- but she'll likely help McCain in getting the one that he wants.

8 September 2008

Wasilla Resident on Palin

I was forwarded a letter to the editor that was posted on the Washington Post web site by a resident of Wasilla, Alaska, the hometown of Sarah Palin. The writer is a woman named "Anne" and the letter can be found here. Once you click the link, scroll up to the top of the message board. A caveat: This is not the direct link to whe Post. As such, this letter might not be authentic or if authentic, true in its original content. Of course, it could be 100% authentic and accurate. It's worth seeing, but as always, make up your own minds.

8 September 2008

10 September 2008 Addition: It would appear that this letter is genuine. It was written by a Wasilla resident named Anne Kilkenny, who has since done interviews about her letter with many news organizations. Indeed, she's become something of a phenomenon after her letter went viral on the Internet.

Clean Water Act

Over the past two years, the Bush Administration has used its executive powers to weaken parts of the Clean Water Act. These changes have been made to directly enrich corporate interests who make more money when they can legally pollute our waterways. Of course, this has directly lead to a decrease in the health of the ecosystems fed by these streams, rivers, lakes, and ocean currents... as well as making these water sources more toxic to our own health.

Now, Congress is taking up legislation to return the original protections to the Clean Water Act once again. You can make your voice of support heard here via the League of Conservation Voters.

8 September 2008

Palin's Softball Interview

Yesterday, I noted how Palin has been hiding from the press. Now, it would appear that ABC has bagged the first interview with her, set for later this week. However, there is ample reason to believe that instead of being an actually, hard-hitting interview on her candidacy, it will be little more an a "McCain for President" ad. Here is why.

8 September 2008

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Mobile Phone "Do Not Call" Registry

The law has been changed such that telemarketers can now call your mobile phones for solicitations. This will eat your minutes and cost you money. (How they think this is a good marketing plan, I have no idea, but I bet calls will be made nonetheless.) You can register your mobile phone numbers with the national Do Not Call Registry, to take your mobile number off marketing lists.

7 September 2008

10 September 2008 Update: It would seem that mobile numbers are not being released to telemarketers as I was originally lead to believe. (See information here.) You can register your mobile number, however, if you wish.

Palin's "Training Wheels"

From Josh Marshall at TPM, quoted in full:

There's a lot of complaining that the McCain campaign won't allow anyone to interview Sarah Palin. And for the major news outlets that would be in line for such an interview there's a logic to keeping up the drumbeat. But McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is right: It's their campaign to run. They can do it how they want. Everyone else should just shut up, stop complaining and call the reality for what it is.

Davis says Palin won't give any interviews until she feels "comfortable" giving one. And this morning he added that she wouldn't give any "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

Sarah Palin could be the President of the United States in four and a half months. We tend to think of this as an abstraction; but it's true. And yet today she's so unprepared and knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the country that she can't even give a softball interview.

That's really all we need to know. Yes, she's off being prepped at some undisclosed location. And I've little doubt that by the time her debate rolls around she'll be sufficiently pumped full of slogans and bromides to make a show of it. But now, this moment, is the one that tells us all we need to know.

As is so often the case, Palin is the incarnation of the Republican slurs. The darling of the hard-right; she gives stem-winding speeches. She pushes all their buttons. But she's such a lightweight, they can't risk letting her answer a few questions. Not even on Fox. They know she's not ready and probably never will be. But they think the politics might work for them.


Video is available at the link.

As an alternative to head-in-the-sand Sarah Palin, here is Joe Biden on Meet the Press this morning.

8 September 2008 Addition: Good follow-up can be found here on this issue.

7 September 2008

Palin's Budget

From the Wall Street Journal's Michael M. Phillips.

The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.

The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.

"It's too bad that the city of Wasilla didn't do their homework and secure the land before they began construction," said Kathy Wells, a longtime activist here. "She was not your ceremonial mayor; she was in charge of running the city. So it was her job to make sure things were done correctly

Also, Will Thomas had this nice little piece over at TPM.

There are plenty of issues in the career of Sarah Palin that deserve a hefty amount of scrutiny, so I'm only going to give this one a few seconds.

The McCain camp is reveling in her sale of the governor's jet on eBay. McCain himself said yesterday, "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor, and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!"

Someone should really tell McCain to be more careful with his words:

In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006.

Palin, so far as I can tell, has precisely said she auctioned the plane on eBay, without confirming whether or not it actually sold. Just a friendly reminder that details can be pesky things.

And, of course, there is the point that Palin sold the jet to a campaign donor for less than its price. No doubt, the donor was pleased.

7 September 2008

Vetting Palin... & McCain

Frank Rich has a great op-ed in the New York Times today. I very much recommend it.

6 September 2008

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Important: Voting By Mail

The Obama campaign is urging its followers to vote by mail in the coming election. There are two principle reasons for this.

  • First, it eliminates the chance that forces unforeseen -- weather, car trouble, illness, whatever -- will prevent you from voting on election day.
  • Second, the campaign has put together a truly amazing system for tracking your mailed ballot to insure that it is counted fairly. The Obama campaign wants to prevent a repeat of the troubles in Florida from the 2000 campaign.

How they suggest you do this is not to go through your local county clerk's office, but rather through your closest Obama for President campaign headquarters. At these campaign offices, they will have the correct document available to request a ballot by mail. You can then either leave the filled-out document with the campaign and they will deliver it to your county clerk or you can drop it off yourself. Either way, the campaign will put you into their system. What this does is allow them to then take the following steps.

  • 1. They will follow up with your county clerk to make sure that your request for a ballot by mail was received and is in the county system.
  • 2. They will follow up with your county clerk at the proper time to make sure that a ballot was mailed to you.
  • 3. They will follow up with you to make sure that you received the ballot.
  • 4. They will follow up with your county clerk to make sure that your cast ballot was received by the clerk's office and has been recorded in the system.

As I said, the Obama campaign is taking no chances. They feel confident that regardless of where you live, this is the best way for you as a citizen to have your vote fairly counted in the upcoming election.

To find the Obama campaign office nearest to you, visit the official Obama campaign site on the web, click on your state, and then click on "find your local office." This will bring up a map of your state with local office listings. (My "your state" link above takes you to that page.)

If you live in Santa Fe County here in New Mexico, the local Obama for President office is near the Smith's grocery store at:

720 Saint Michaels Drive, Suite 2-N, 87505

I urge you to follow the campaign's recommendations and vote by mail this year, and to do so as early in the process as you feel comfortable.

6 September 2008

Addition: The campaign has similar systems set up for Americans living abroad, including those serving in the military. If you know of anyone in these circumstances, please let them know. Indeed, feel free to pass this information along to anyone. Thank you.

21 September 2008 Addition: In Santa Fe, you can call 505-827-3600 to request an absentee ballot. You can also check your registration status, register to vote and request an absentee ballot on the official Obama campaign site, found here.