Multi Medium

Wanker Of The Day

John McCain, with honorable mention for CBS:

Keith Olbermann led his broadcast tonight with Spencer Ackerman’s report on John McCain’s most recent gaffe: in an interview with Katie Couric, McCain claimed “the surge” was responsible for the “Anbar Awakening” — which actually began in September, 2006, months before the surge was even announced.

The strange thing, as Keith notes, is that CBS edited the gaffe out of its broadcast. Fortunately, they posted a transcript — and video — online.

Once again, John McCain reveals the depth of his foreign policy expertise, and the media demonstrates its clear liberal bias…

But wait, there’s more - John McCain also demonstrates the depth of his commitment to the environment:

And I’d like to mention offshore drilling if I could. My friends, we have to drill offshore. We have to do it! Oil executives say within a couple years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?

Well, if the oil executives are in favor, that pretty much settles it, right?  I mean, who could possibly be more trustworthy on the subject of offshore drilling?

Add comment July 23rd, 2008 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Week

Okay, so he’s not nearly as bad as Michael “Autistic kids are whiny brats” Savage, but Ron Fournier is still pretty heinous:

Last week, we learned that while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman… they discovered that top political aide Karl Rove had exchanged emails with the Associated Press’ Ron Fournier on the day the news of Tillman’s death broke.

In one email, Rove asked, “How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?” Fournier responded: “The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.”

(…)

Fournier, now the wire service’s D.C. bureau chief, shrugged off the embarrassing revelation, conceding only: “I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence.”

Of course, Fournier wasn’t simply being breezy. “Have a great weekend” — that’s “breezy.”

(…)

The Fournier revelation came as no surprise to anyone who has read his recent campaign work, which has routinely been caustic and dismissive of Democratic contenders. In two “Analysis” pieces and a column, Fournier questioned whether John Edwards was a “phony,” announced the Clintons suffered from “utter self-absorption,” and claimed that Barack Obama was “bordering on arrogance.” That’s the right of a pundit. But at the same time, Fournier avoided raising any doubts about Sen. John McCain, and in fact rushed to his aid in print during the senator’s time of campaign need.

(…)

Just in case this isn’t perfectly obvious, just in case people might be wondering if it’s common for objective political reporters to email partisan operatives off the record and behind the scenes, urging them to “keep up the fight,” the answer is a resounding no. Because it violates the basic journalistic guideline of maintaining neutrality. Especially at the AP, that kind of correspondence should be considered breathtakingly inappropriate.

Think about it: That year, Rove was engineering the president’s re-election — a campaign Fournier was covering as an AP reporter — and Fournier urged Rove to “keep up the fight”? Even if that phrase was not written in connection with the campaign, that kind of communication is just wrong. If Fournier could produce emails from 2004 in which he urged top Democratic strategists to “keep up the fight,” it would certainly remove doubts about his relationship with Rove, but I suspect Fournier cannot.

(…)

But let’s dig a little deeper: In his attempt to dismiss the Rove correspondence, Fournier said that the exchange came “in the course of following an important and compelling story” while he was an AP political reporter. Meaning Fournier was just doing his job.

Yet according to a search of Nexis, Fournier didn’t write any bylined articles about Pat Tillman’s death in April 2004. Or ever, for that matter. That means Fournier wasn’t reaching out as a reporter to Rove for information, quotes, or context about the sad Tillman story. Fournier didn’t need Rove to be a “source” for the Tillman story because Fournier wasn’t covering the Tillman story.

Instead, Fournier seemed to be using the Tillman story as an opportunity to initiate contact with Rove and let him know that Fournier was on his side, and to urge Rove to “keep up the fight.”

But wait, there’s more!  This is what separates a Wanker Of The Week from a mere Wanker Of The Day:

Warning Clinton during the primaries about the dangers of having a candidate’s character questioned by the press, Fournier noted that Al Gore got unfairly tagged during the 2000 presidential campaign for having claimed to have invented the Internet. Fournier patiently set the record straight, noting that Gore “never said he invented the Internet,” that “his mistake was to place himself more centrally than warranted at the creation of the technology,” and that “such nuance was lost on people who voted against him in 2000.”

Silly voters. But how on earth did they come to the false conclusion that Gore ever claimed to have invented the Internet? Answer: By reading Ron Fournier.

• “He [Gore] claimed credit for inventing the Internet, and comics had a punch line for months.” [November 13, 1999]
• “Gore, who once claimed to have invented the Internet, e-mailed Bush and said Democrats won’t air TV ads purchased with unlimited, unregulated donations called ’soft money’ unless Republicans do so first.” [March 15, 2000]

Awesome.  Ron Phonier is a wanker on so many levels.

Add comment July 22nd, 2008 at 09:22pm Posted by Eli

My Pipple!

They make me so proud:

Among the most high-profile Jews in Congress, Lieberman is viewed far more unfavorably than the presumptive Democratic nominee, according to a new poll. Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably.

The findings were released as part of a recent survey of American Jews by the new progressive pro-Israel group J Street. They seem to upturn some of this year’s conventional political wisdom.

Obama, who is set to travel to Israel this week, is often described in the press as facing significant obstacles to winning Jewish support, in part because of false claims that he is a Muslim. Lieberman, meanwhile, is regularly quoted disparaging Obama’s credentials on topics considered dear to the Jewish voter’s heart: toughness on Iran and support for the Jewish state. Asked recently whether he should be questioning Obama’s commitment to Israel, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee responded, “why wouldn’t I do that?”

Lieberman does score better among the 900 Jewish voters polled than other major political and religious figures. President Bush is viewed unfavorably by 74 percent of Jews, compared to 22 percent who see him in a positive light. McCain, meanwhile, is viewed favorably by just 34 percent of Jews, while 57 said they had a negative perception….

(…)

…As Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent noted in a review of the J Street poll, Jews are “liberal as hell.”

“Seventy-four percent of us view Bush unfavorably and 83 percent of us disapprove of his job performance,” Ackerman wrote. “While 76 percent of the country as a whole says the U.S. is on the wrong track, an astonishing 90 percent of American Jews say the same. Only 21 percent of us approve of the Iraq war and only 29 percent think Bush is good for Israel, and those are clearly the shmucks that kissed ass in Hebrew school and snitched when the rest of us used the synagogue phone booth and cloakroom to make out.”

Now I’m all verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. Here’s a topic: Joe Lieberman is neither moderate nor a Democrat. Discuss.

Joe Lieberman does not speak for me.

Add comment July 22nd, 2008 at 11:33am Posted by Eli

Not Entirely Sure What The Chait Is Going For…

He seems to be saying that yeah, McCain may be just as evil as Dubya, but at least he wouldn’t be an outright criminal if he were president:

The best aspect of a McCain presidency is that, while it would probably follow the policies of George W. Bush, it would put an end to the politics of Karl Rove. I went back and reread Michael Lewis’s 1997 New York Times Magazine profile of McCain, which gushed (persuasively) over McCain long before McCain- gushing had become a media cliché. You can see in it that, even before his first presidential campaign made him persona non grata in the GOP, McCain really was a highly bipartisan figure. The article cites McCain working unusually closely with Democrats, and quotes Democrats lavishing praise on him. He impugns his own party’s leadership as corrupt. He jokingly refers to his younger political self as a “freshman right-wing Nazi.” Conservative ideologues, as a rule, do not liken conservatism to national socialism.

Liberals tend to view the press’s love affair with McCain as a wildly unfair act of bias. They have a point. On the other hand, they should take some heart in the fact that McCain obviously cherishes the approval of the mainstream (and even liberal) media. His accessibility to the press and public is something small-d democrats should cheer. McCain has conducted interviews with very liberal publications like Grist. He’s promised to undertake an American version of “Prime Minister’s Questions,” whereby members of Congress could spar with him.

Does McCain spin and dissemble? Of course. But the current administration’s practices go far beyond mere spin. In Bush’s Washington, critics are enemies to be dismissed rather than engaged. A McCain presidency would promise to dismantle the whole Rovian method that has torn open such a deep wound in the national psyche.

Beneath his wildly fluctuating ideological positions, McCain is an establishmentarian Republican. Unlike Bush, he cares about elite opinion. He is comfortable sharing power in the traditional postwar style rather than monopolizing it. He might not be another Teddy Roosevelt, but right now another Gerald Ford doesn’t look so bad.

Sure, another Gerald Ford might not be so bad.  BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.

What we really need is another FDR, but that ain’t happening.

Add comment July 21st, 2008 at 07:54pm Posted by Eli

Stupid Or Evil?

It’s always so hard to tell with Republicans:

It is becoming increasingly clear that it is really one or the other; either John McCain is addled and confused in the face of trying to keep up with all that he must as a candidate for the most powerful position in the world, or he is a dishonorable cad that will blithely pass out confidential information and place important people’s lives in danger to serve his own vain powerlust.

The last time there was an insinuation made that McCain was confused and couldn’t keep things straight, there was much consternation and soiling of undergarments by the McCain camp and across the board covering of his butt by the mainstream media. (See here and here). But these are not occasional incidents with McCain. Sunni or Shia? Sudan or Somalia? He is for immigration reform or against it? Does Czeckloslavakia still exist or not (Um, no Senator, it ceased existence over 15 years ago, and you’ve been there since then more than once). And then there is this painful example of cognitive dysfunction.

Yesterday John McCain went all in with his chips of mental incompetence. From Reuters:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain commented on Friday on the unannounced timing of a high-security trip by Barack Obama to Iraq, saying he believed his Democratic rival was going this weekend.
…
“I believe that either today or tomorrow — and I’m not privy to his schedule — Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators” who make up a congressional delegation, McCain said at a Republican fund-raiser.

John McCain must have a far different definition of “high security” and “Senatorial courtesy” than has been known and understood throughout the history of this country. Apparently McCain not only doesn’t care about Obama’s safety, but has a similar disregard for the health and well being for the other fellow Congressional members with Obama on the trip, their staffers and the secret service personnel that have to protect all of them. As Teddy Partridge noted, this isn’t quite on the level of outing a covert CIA spy, but it is sure in the ballpark. For a comparison, consider how when Bush travels to Iraq they often don’t even tell the press, much less publicize the specific dates he will be going; pretty much the same for even lesser Bush Administration officials. McCain’s trips are kept secret as to most details for security reasons.

(…)

Irrespective of McCain’s motivation for callously leaking the details of Obama’s trip into the war zone, or the leaking source of his information, it was a foolish, ignorant and pathetically selfish act. Is McCain such an addled septuagenarian that he can’t help but make these fundamental errors? Does McCain not have the mental faculties remaining after all these years to keep even the most basic things straight? Perhaps he is just no longer up to the task.

Because it is either that or he is such a dishonorable vindictive cad that he did this intentionally. Which one is it Senator McCain, the citizens of this country deserve an answer once and for all. Either way, he is patently unfit for the job he is applying for, President of the United States.

You know, it could always be both…

Add comment July 19th, 2008 at 07:53pm Posted by Eli

More Of The Comedy Stylings Of Senator John McCain

Think Progress has a golden oldie for those of you who are getting a little tired of jokes about killing Iranians:

The blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion pulls out a 1986 Tucson Citizen article recounting a joke about rape told by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Speaking to the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington, DC, McCain allegedly said:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

You know, I’m actually not entirely sure whether that even qualifies as a joke.  It’s certainly more clever than “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt,” but probably not quite as clever as “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?  Because her father is Janet Reno.”

So, um, any Hillary supporters who were taken in by McCain’s outreach after Obama clinched the nomination?  You, ah, might want to rethink that.

Add comment July 15th, 2008 at 07:44pm Posted by Eli

$4.11 Changed Everything!

Well, it looks like the Republican “Lease Drill Everywhere!” plan is gaining some traction:

Now, polling is beginning to show that a rising share of the public is ready to drill, drill, drill — threatening to destroy precious and unique wildlife areas like the Arctic refuge and create more oil spills along the Gulf coasts. Worse, drilling is a distraction from real changes like massive investments in wind and solar power.

In February, Pew asked the public in a poll whether they favor drilling in the Arctic refuge. At that time 42 percent favored and 50 percent opposed. Now, in July, 50 percent favor drilling and only 43 percent oppose. That’s a 12-point change since the February survey and a 28-point swing since a March 2002 Gallup poll (where 35 percent favored and 56 percent opposed).

The shift is something to be concerned about — progressives are losing ground with the public on drilling. These are alarming gains in sympathy for the plans of Big Oil.

This change isn’t because the idea has gotten better — Arctic drilling might cut gas prices by a mere 4 cents a decade from now. It is because of a sophisticated communications campaign by the oil companies and the Republican Party that is mostly met with silence by the other side — by our side.

I think it’s not just the communications campaign - it’s the fear and desperation of the American public as gas prices cross the $4 threshold and keep climbing with no relief in sight.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the way Republicans have exploited (and fomented) fear and hysteria about terrorism to sell a series of terrible policies (warrantless wiretapping, invasion of Iraq, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.) on the grounds that they would keep us safe from the Scary Terrorists.  Of course, none of these policies did any such thing, and most of them made the underlying problem even worse.  But they sure did make Bush and his cronies a lot more powerful and a lot more rich.

And now, here we are again, with an American people up in arms about gas prices and begging for someone to do something, anything.  And that’s exactly what the Republicans are offering: Bold, decisive action.  So what if it won’t provide any actual relief - it’s better than no action at all, right?  And conservation and alternative energy strategies are sooo boring and lame.  Real red-blooded Americans drill and exploit and take, just like real red-blooded Americans kill and torture and spy and… detain indefinitely without recourse to legal counsel.

I expect the “Drill Everywhere” strategy will work out about as well as the Iraqupation - maybe even worse, since it’s our own country we’ll be destroying.

2 comments July 14th, 2008 at 08:08pm Posted by Eli

More Willful Stupidity

Okay, this is really complicated, so please try to follow along with me here:

Saying that McCain’s military service does not qualify him for the presidency is not the same as saying that it disqualifies him from the presidency.  Nor is it the same as saying that his military service is bogus in any way.

Also, as McCain Source points out, McCain himself agrees with Clark.

But no, saying that getting shot down and taken prisoner and tortured for five years doesn’t qualify you to be president is the same as saying that Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam and shot himself to get a Purple Heart.  Awesome.

Add comment July 1st, 2008 at 08:59am Posted by Eli

Lieberman Looks Back To The Future

Shorter Joe Lieberman:

When the terrorists hit us in 2009, we need to have a president who is willing to seize unprecedented unconstitutional powers for his own and his party’s gain, and John McCain is that man.

That is what “keeping us safe” has become code for, isn’t it?

4 comments June 30th, 2008 at 09:05am Posted by Eli

Richard Cohen, Conventional Wisdom Machine

Ya gotta love Broderella’s Padawan apprentice, Richard Cohen - his ability to uncritically regurgitate conventional wisdom/Republican talking points is truly impressive:

In some recent magazine articles, I and certain of my colleagues have been accused of being soft on McCain, forgiving him his flips, his flops and his mostly conservative ideology. I do not plead guilty to this charge, because, over the years, the man’s imperfections have not escaped my keen eye. But, for the record, let’s recapitulate: McCain has either reversed himself or significantly amended his positions on immigration, tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign spending (as it applies to use of his wife’s corporate airplane) and, most recently, offshore drilling. In the more distant past, he has denounced then embraced certain ministers of medieval views and changed his mind about the Confederate flag, which flies by state sanction in South Carolina only, I suspect, to provide Republican candidates with a chance to choose tradition over common decency. There, I’ve said it all.

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama — and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It’s not just that he’s been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It’s also — and more important — that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This — not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express — is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.

Wow.  So Cohen lists a whole bunch of McCain’s flip-flops that show him to be completely devoid of honor or principles, and then proceeds to rave about McCain’s honor and principles and how we know that there are some lines he will not cross.  I suppose that may be true - for instance, he would probably not feed his wife and daughters to hungry sharks to pick up sympathy votes - but the lines that he has been willing to cross, like war, torture, habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, depriving servicemen of education and leave time, are all bad enough that they should disqualify him from the presidency.

As for Cohen’s statement about Obama not taking positions that challenge his base… has he been paying any attention at all?  Did he not notice Obama coming out in favor of the FISA compromise that his base absolutely despises?  I can go along with the “or otherwise threaten him politically” part, but I would add the word “knowingly” in there somewhere.  I think his cave-in on FISA does hurt him politically with his base - it’s sucked a lot of enthusiasm out of all but his most die-hard supporters - but I don’t think that was part of his calculation.  So it may have pissed off his base, but it sure as hell was not an act of political courage - quite the opposite, in fact.

Still, as shameless and spineless a triangulator as Obama may be, McCain has repeatedly shown himself to be far, far worse and far, far more dangerous.  And Cohen is a dishonest ass for pretending otherwise.

(h/t bmaz)

1 comment June 24th, 2008 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

The More Things Change…

Over three years ago, I was urging Democrats to lay some groundwork to ensure that Republicans couldn’t turn a terrorist attack or other disaster (this was several months before Katrina) into an undeserved political windfall:

Another thing that the Democrats must keep in mind is the very high probability that Republican policies will lead to a financial or terrorist-inflicted disaster. An electoral scandal and constitutional crisis is also a possibility: I believe there are limits to just how large a margin election “gaming” and fraud can cover up without leaving behind a gun too smoky for the media to ignore. What happens if that threshold is exceeded, at least to the point where the election outcome is severely in doubt? What mechanisms do we have for resolving such a situation?

In theory, Democrats should be able to capitalize on any of these negative outcomes, as they can all be laid clearly at the doorstep of the Republicans. In reality, they would be pilloried by the Republicans and the media for opportunistically “politicizing” a national tragedy.

Therefore, what I’m advocating is that the Democrats get out in front and periodically raise a big stink (and for the love of God, don’t capitulate!) about the various ways that the 100% Republican-controlled government has made us vulnerable…

(…)

[M]y point is that the Democrats need to be vocal about these issues in advance, so that everyone knows where they stand before the unthinkable occurs. It’s very easy to denounce terrorist attacks or stock market crashes after they happen, and both sides of the aisle will be doing exactly that. But the Democrats will be on the record as having warned of disaster, while the Republicans will be on record as steamrolling and shouting them down. This will give the Democrats standing and credibility to point the finger of blame after the fact.

(…)

Am I rooting for catastrophe? Of course not. I think it is highly probable, if not inevitable, but I desperately hope to be proven wrong.

What I am rooting for is that the Democrats will not let the Republicans get away with saying, “Well, these things happen, no-one could have seen it coming, we must all pull together now and do whatever we say,” as they did after 9/11. They must be held accountable for their willful refusal to protect America from harm.

Well, here we are three years later, and (as I predicted in that same post), the Democrats haven’t really gotten that message across, much to RJ Eskow’s dismay (and mine):

I’ve been privately warning Democrats for some time that Obama and the party need emergency preparedness plans. Major events between now and November could change the course of the election - especially a U.S. strike on Iran, or a terror attack against Americans at home or abroad.

We’re not seeing any signs of such plans. Not that we should -except that one outcome would be to explain now why Americans are much less safe as the result of GOP policies.

If it seems crass to weigh political considerations in the face of war or tragedy, remember that the future safety of civilians here and elsewhere will be greatly affected by this election. And they - the Republicans - are certainly thinking politically. When McCain’s chief political advisor, lobbyist Charlie Black, said yesterday that a terror attack “would be a big advantage for him, his biggest mistake was excessive honesty. That’s one of the few imaginable scenarios that could lead to a McCain victory in November.

(…)

So what should Obama and the Democrats be doing about these two possibilities? Some of their planning should be invisible - for the speeches that Obama might gave, the surrogates (military and otherwise) that would appear on Democrats’ behalf. But we should be seeing some groundwork being laid now, and we’re not.  So, what should be happening?

[Main bullet points only - check out Eskow's post for the meat behind them]

Guanatanamo and Abu Ghraib should be described as Bush-created “terrorist factories.”

Democrats should explain that torture is un-American, that it breeds terrorists — and that it doesn’t help catch bad guys.

If we surrender our freedoms, the terrorists win.

…Democrats owe it to themselves - and more importantly, to the nation - to start telling the real story immediately. There should be no equivocation and no calculation.

Their motto should be: Hope for the best, plan for the worst, and do what’s right in the meantime.

I still believe that something terrible is going to happen, that the Republicans’ criminal mismanagement of, well, everything, has made it inevitable.  Indeed, some pretty terrible things have already happened, like Katrina and the subprime meltdown.  But when the next terrible thing happens, if Democrats haven’t already shown (or, better yet, tried to fix) how the Republicans have left us vulnerable, they will be unable to fight off the Republicans’ this-is-why-you-need-a-strong-daddy narrative.

(h/t Elliott)

Add comment June 23rd, 2008 at 09:56pm Posted by Eli

Don’t Hold Your Breath, Russ.

I love Russ Feingold.  He’s one of the few congresscritters out there that I have any faith in to consistently do the right thing, and he’s not afraid to call out politicians of either party when they thumb their noses at the Constitution.  Alas, I don’t think he’s going to get much satisfaction here:

Many Americans rightly expect that the new president will abide by the law. But we can’t take that for granted. Americans deserve a guarantee from the next president that the abuses we’ve witnessed over the past eight years won’t happen again. The 44th president of the United States, whoever he is, must renounce the Bush administration’s abuses of executive power and make clear that his administration will uphold the rule of law.

It’s possible that they might say it, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that either McCain or Obama will mean it.  McCain has consistently supported the Bush administration’s stance on both carte blanche wiretapping and the abolition of habeas corpus, while Obama just came out in favor of the latest FISA “compromise” which gives the telecoms retroactive immunity if they can jump over a matchbox, offering only a vague assurance that he will “work” to remove it from the Senate version.

It appears that President Bush has pulled off the unthinkable: By portraying the Constitution as the terrorist’s best friend, he has turned it into just as much of an enemy as al Qaeda - for both parties.  I guess the Constitution hates us for our freedoms.

Add comment June 22nd, 2008 at 12:32pm Posted by Eli

Obama Cleaning Up In The All-Important Novelty Cola Demographic

Fortunately for Obama, it appears that novelty cola drinkers don’t care about FISA either.

They really turn out in droves, too.

Add comment June 20th, 2008 at 07:01am Posted by Eli

Raise Your Hand If You’re Surprised…

…That Americans find it easier to relate to Michelle Obama than to a beauty queen beer heiress known for stealing drugs and recipes.

Yeah, I know - shocking, isn’t it?  I think all the bad blood the Republicans stirred up against Theresa Heinz Kerry is boomeranging back on them.

1 comment June 19th, 2008 at 11:21am Posted by Eli

Go Wes, Young Man?

Wes Clark shreds McCain’s credibility on national security.

I gotta say, the more I think about it, the more I like Wes Clark for Obama’s running mate, or at least a high-profile surrogate for national security.  McCain is using his service and his uniform to enhance his credibility on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy/national security in general, but the reality is that he doesn’t have any better understanding of it than Dubya.  As Clark says, McCain’s approach is simply “force, force, and more force” - and we’ve seen how well that’s worked in Iraq.

Putting Clark on the ticket, or at least on the Obama campaign, reminds me of the great scene in Annie Hall, where Woody Allen brings Marshall McLuhan out from behind a sign to shut up a pontificating know-it-all.  After all these years of hearing Republicans tell us that Democrats (and especially Obama, who McCain is portraying as young and green and maybe even some kind of draft dodger, even though he was 12 when Vietnam ended) don’t understand military matters, I would love to see Obama pull Wes Clark out to say, “Excuse me - I’m the military, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

(h/t looseheadprop)

2 comments June 19th, 2008 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

Lizzie Bumiller Can’t Quite Bring Herself To Admit That McCain Is Just Like Bush

She gets a lot closer than I ever would have thought possible, though.  She even notes some of his flip-flops, especially on tax cuts, where McCain is actually now worse than Dubya.

The differences, according to Bumiller, are McCain’s opposition to global warming (which is pretty much a cosmetic sham), his opposition to torture (ditto), and the fact that he’s now moved to the right of Bush on immigration.

She also throws in this little gem:

Yet while it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick.

Actually, it’s very easy to categorize McCain as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Lizzie.  Maybe it wasn’t eight years ago, but it sure as hell is now.

And a little bit more:

In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush.

For those of you keeping score, that’s 64% of registered voters who believe McCain would be either the same as Bush, or farther to the right. Excellent.

Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and Mr. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November.

Style and background, I’ll grant.  But world view?  It’s exactly the same.  Taxes bad, corporations good, we need a strong daddy government that will stop at nothing to protect us from the evildoers.  Fortunately, it looks like the voters are starting to figure that out.

Add comment June 17th, 2008 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

This Just In: Women Not Stupid

Well, it doesn’t sound like McCain’s attempts to woo disgruntled Hillary supporters are really going all that well.  I can’t imagine why not.

TEN years ago John McCain had to apologize for regaling a Republican audience with a crude sexual joke about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno. Last year he had to explain why he didn’t so much as flinch when a supporter asked him on camera, “How do we beat the bitch?” But these days Mr. McCain just loves the women.

In his televised address on Barack Obama’s victory night of June 3, he dismissed Mr. Obama in a single patronizing line but devoted four fulsome sentences to praising Mrs. Clinton for “inspiring millions of women.” The McCain Web site is showcasing a new blogger who crooned of the “genuine affection” for Mrs. Clinton “here at McCain HQ” after she lost. One of the few visible women in the McCain campaign hierarchy, Carly Fiorina, has declared herself “enormously proud” of Mrs. Clinton and is barnstorming to win over Democratic women to her guy’s cause.

How heartwarming. You’d never guess that Mr. McCain is a fierce foe of abortion rights or that he voted to terminate the federal family-planning program that provides breast-cancer screenings. You’d never know that his new campaign blogger, recruited from The Weekly Standard, had shown his genuine affection for Mrs. Clinton earlier this year by portraying her as a liar and whiner and by piling on with a locker-room jeer after she’d been called a monster. “Tell us something we don’t know,” he wrote.

But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters — beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey.

How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11.

Oops.  I guess most women can tell when they’re being played.

The fictional scenario of mobs of crazed women defecting to Mr. McCain is just one subplot of the master narrative that has consumed our politics for months. The larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided, and that only a ticket containing Mrs. Clinton in either slot could retain the loyalty of white male bowlers and other constituencies who tended to prefer her to Mr. Obama in the primaries.

This is reality turned upside down. It’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.

(…)

That story is minimized or ignored in part because an unshakable McCain fan club lingers in some press quarters and in part because it’s an embarrassing refutation of the Democrats-in-meltdown narrative that so many have invested in. Understating the splintering of the Republican base also keeps hope alive for a tight race. As the Clinton-Obama marathon proved conclusively, a photo finish is essential to the dramatic and Nielsen imperatives of 24/7 television coverage.

The conservative hostility toward McCain heralded by the early attacks of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and James Dobson is proliferating. Bay Buchanan, the party activist who endorsed Mitt Romney, wrote this month that Mr. McCain is “incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls” and “has a personality that is best kept under wraps.” When Mr. McCain ditched the preachers John Hagee and Rod Parsley after learning that their endorsements antagonized Catholics, Muslims and Jews, he ended up getting a whole new flock of evangelical Christians furious at him too.

The revolt is not limited to the usual cranky right-wing suspects. The antiwar acolytes of Ron Paul are planning a large rally for convention week in Minneapolis. The conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec has endorsed Mr. Obama, as have both the economic adviser to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” Lawrence Hunter, and the neocon historian Francis Fukuyama. Rupert Murdoch is publicly flirting with the Democrat as well. Even Dick Cheney emerged from his bunker this month to gratuitously dismiss Mr. McCain’s gas-tax holiday proposal as “a false notion” before the National Press Club.

These are not anomalies. Last week The Hill reported that at least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Mr. McCain. Congressional Quarterly found that of the 62,800 donors who maxed out to Mr. Bush’s campaign in 2004, only about 5,000 (some 8 percent) have contributed to his putative successor.

(…)

The ludicrous idea that votes from Clinton supporters would somehow make up for McCain defectors is merely the latest fairy tale brought to you by those same Washington soothsayers who said Fred Thompson was the man to beat and that young people don’t turn up to vote.

The October Surprise is going to have to be pretty damn spectacular…

Add comment June 16th, 2008 at 07:04am Posted by Eli

Good News, Could Be Better

So much for Maverick:

According to the Pew Research Center, when asked to describe their views of McCain in a word, the term “maverick” didn’t even come up. Nor did “reformer” or “independent.” Ruh-roh. It looks like the embrace of Bush, 100 years in Iraq and his newfound affection for Bushenomics have all done serious damage to McCain’s perceived maverickness:

John McCain once had the most powerful brand in American politics.

He was often called the country’s most popular politician and widely admired for his independent streak. It wasn’t too many years ago that “maverick” was the cliche of choice in describing him.

But that term didn’t even make the list this year when voters were asked by the Pew Research Center to sum up McCain in a single word. “Old” got the most mentions, followed by “honest,” “experienced,” “patriot,” “conservative” and a dozen more. The words “independent,” “change” or “reformer” weren’t among them.

Voters have notoriously short memories, but it could be argued that McCain cheapened his own brand.

He embraced President Bush and attempted to become, like Bush, the choice of the Republican establishment. In the process, he helped obliterate recollections of his first run for president, when he became the first Republican in a long time with strong crossover appeal to independents and Democrats.

Losing his reputation for independence could prove particularly costly this year.

It turns out that there may be a cost for flip-flopping on tax cuts for the top 1% and wanting to “bomb bomb bomb Iran.” Who would have thunk it?

(…)

John McCain may just have lost his greatest asset.

This is great news.  McCain’s image as an independent agent of change is completely gone.  No-one sees him as a maverick any more.  Unfortunately, it sounds like lots of Americans still view him as honest, experienced, and patriotic.

Okay, I’ll give him a pass on patriotic, even if he does vote for torture and against habeas corpus, but honest and experienced?  No way.  I suppose he could be considered experienced in the purely literal sense, but if his experience doesn’t translate into wisdom, knowledge, or competence, what good is it?  And honest?  Pfft.  He lies every time he claims that he’s not an extension of Dubya, which is a lot.

2 comments June 15th, 2008 at 09:09pm Posted by Eli

Profiles Incompetence: The McCain Campaign Strikes Again

Oh, come on.  You can’t tell me these people aren’t deliberately trying to sabotage him:

ABC’s Rick Klein reports: Sen. John McCain on Friday  abruptly cancelled a Monday fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of a Texas oilman, after ABC News contacted the campaign inquiring about a verbal blunder the Texan made during an unsuccessful 1990 campaign for governor.

Clayton Williams stirred controversy during his 1990 campaign for governor of Texas with a botched attempt at humor in which he compared rape to weather. Within earshot of a reporter, Williams said: “As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”

His Democratic opponent at the time, the late Ann Richards… highlighted the comments in a TV ad during that 1990 campaign. View the ad HERE.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the Monday event was being cancelled, given the offensive comments. He said he could not yet say what McCain would do with donations brought into the campaign by Williams.

“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time this event was scheduled,” Rogers said. He added that Williams apologized for the comments back in 1990, but he said that does not excuse them.

Williams told the Midland Reporter-Telegram recently that he had already raised more than $300,000 for McCain and the fundraiser to be held at his home in Midland. Williams said that he needed to help McCain raise money to stop an Obama campaign that would enact “socialist” policies if elected to office.

Can someone explain to me how absolutely no-one on McCain’s team, or in the Texas GOP, heard Clayton Williams’ name and didn’t immediately think, “Oh yeah, the lie-back-and-enjoy-it guy - maybe we don’t want McCain associated with him, especially when he’s trying to sucker woo disgruntled Hillary supporters”?

I can only hope that the McCain campaign excercises this same kind of diligence and attention to detail when they’re vetting potential running mates.  I think David Duke and Mark Foley are available…

Add comment June 14th, 2008 at 12:39pm Posted by Eli

Why Obama Will Be The First Presidential Candidate To Need A Food Taster

Because this isn’t totally creepy at all…

John McCain’s presidential campaign is blasting a New York Times report that his campaign manager once worked for a Kremlin-backed politician, and that McCain likely knew of his efforts.

The McCain campaign is strongly denying the paper’s reporting that in 2005, a White House National Security Council staffer called John McCain’s Senate office to complain that Rick Davis, at the time a GOP lobbyist, was “undercutting American policy on Ukraine” by lobbying for a Kremlin-backed politician, Viktor Yanukovich, the paper reported.

The Bush White House — and McCain opposed Yanukovich, whom the United States and others had accused of election fraud, and benefiting from violence and intimidation towards journalists.

Yanukovich is the guy who is suspected of poisoned his opponent with dioxin.  Hopefully Davis didn’t ask him for any pointers…

Add comment June 13th, 2008 at 10:17pm Posted by Eli

Well, Which Is It?

From Paul Alexander’s new biography of Karl Rove:

“Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administration as a total failure,” said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich’s political organization.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable,” Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. “It will take generations to recover. I don’t know how long; maybe never.”

“I think the legacy is that Karl Rove will be a name that’ll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it,” said long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins.

National Journal, reporting on the McCain campaign:

“Generally speaking, Rove’s advice is action-oriented and useful,” said another senior consultant to the McCain camp. “It’s always well received.” This McCain adviser noted that Rove talks periodically to Black and a few other top campaign aides on several key matters. “It can be policy ideas, messaging ideas, fundraising prospects, or people who need calls from someone in the campaign.” Rove is “part of the information network that the campaign has,” this adviser said, adding that Rove talks fairly regularly to such key people as Wayne Berman, a major fundraiser for McCain; Nicolle Wallace, a communications adviser; and Steve Schmidt, a senior aide.

Seems like there might be some difference of opinion on whether Karl Rove and his math are an asset or a liability.  I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when the McCain campaign goes all-in on fearmongering, hateful smears, and impugning “Democrat” patriotism.  I can hardly wait.

Add comment June 13th, 2008 at 06:45pm Posted by Eli

Playing The Age Card

Well, it looks like this is something to look forward: Any time a Democrat says that McCain literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about, the media, Republicans and the McCain campaign are going to cry ageism:

I can appreciate the fact that the McCain campaign and Republicans in general are a little touchy about the senator’s age — running to be the oldest president in U.S. history will do that — but that’s no reason to characterize every critical adjective in the language as some kind of slight about McCain’s septuagenarian status.

Poll after poll shows that more voters trust Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on matters of national security than they do Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. Hoping to bridge that chasm, the Obama campaign and Democrats harped on comments McCain made on the Today show this morning, repeatedly calling the 71-year-old presumptive GOP presidential nominee “confused,” seeming to feed into concerns voters might have about the Arizonan’s age.

After McCain said this morning that it’s “not too important” when U.S. troops come home from Iraq, Obama aide Susan Rice said on a conference call that McCain’s comments reveal a “real confusion and lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq” and the larger region. She added that McCain’s series of errors of fact and judgment are “reflective of a pattern of lack of understanding and lack of strategic depth.”

Reporters, apparently having internalized McCain’s talking points, asked Rice if she was attacking McCain’s age by calling him “confused.” She responded, “[W]hat I meant by that is very simple — on critical, factual questions that are fundamental to understanding what’s going on in Iraq and the region, Sen. McCain has gotten it wrong. And not just once but repeatedly.”

This comes a month after Obama, responding to an ugly attack by McCain about Hamas, told CNN, “[F]or him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.” McCain, Lieberman, and their GOP allies said this was a shot at McCain’s age.

Look, this is silly. Every criticism is not a veiled reference to McCain turning 72. “Losing his bearings” has nothing to do with age — it refers to someone who has lost their way. They’re off track. They’re moving in the wrong direction. Likewise, people of all ages get “confused.”

Maybe McCain and the media can draw up a list of acceptable adjectives that McCain critics can use?

(…)

Tell you what, reporters and McCain campaign, pick a better adjective for us. “Confused” sounds like an attack on his age? Fine. You tell me. Befuddled? Bewildered? Baffled?

The problem isn’t that McCain’s critics are picking loaded terms; the problem is McCain doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about when it comes to his signature issue.

Why we’re not supposed to mention this is a mystery. I guess I’m confused.

Of course, it’s not about word choice, it’s about making Democrats afraid to point out that McCain is either lying, stupid, or flat-out crazy, which he often is.  Take that line of attack away, and what do we have left?

Add comment June 11th, 2008 at 08:46pm Posted by Eli

I’m Not Sure What’s Scarier…

That McCain would love to have Cheney serve somewhere in his administration, or that he said that he probably wouldn’t want him as vice president because “He and I have the same strengths.”

That’s just what we need in our next president, someone with the same skill-set as Dick Cheney.

Add comment June 11th, 2008 at 06:46pm Posted by Eli

Thanks, I Needed That.

Pessimist that I am, I have a tendency to imagine the worst-case scenario, and then get myself all worked up and furious about my own dark imaginings.  Fortunately, Barry Crimmins was there to reel me in this time:

Lots of people voted for Hillary Clinton this year for lots of reasons. Few believed they were doing anything but expressing their preference concerning the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. The vast majority of these people will vote for Barack Obama this fall. A deluded minority think that they remain in a cohesive unit with all of Senator Clinton’s other primary and caucus supporters and hold great sway by doing so.

Good luck to them. Primary season voters chose Clinton for myriad reasons, including:

[Insert myriad reasons here]

…and so on and so forth. The point is, these people have not been alloyed into some sort of political super element.

Today, Mrs. Clinton will formally encourage her supporters to join the Obama camp. This gesture is as much for her as it is for Senator Obama because she will be suggesting that people do what would have done anyway. Despite this, some Clinton dead-enders will continue to threaten to break with Democrats while talking as if they represent that mythical super-alloyed bloc of 18 million voters.

But most of those millions didn’t intend to hand their perpetual political proxy to Mrs. Clinton when they cast a ballot or walked to her side of a caucus. They simply weighed in on which candidate they most supported in the Democratic field. Prior to making their decision, had Mrs. Clinton’s supporters known anyone would suggest that their vote would represent an eternal splinter affiliation, it’s likely many would have chosen Mr. Obama instead.

Most Clinton voters chose her as their first preference in a campaign during which they plan to vote for anyone who will end an eight-year nightmare of Republican rule. A few tough months on the campaign trail hardly trumps eight years getting ground under the boot-heels of Bush, Cheney and their operatives. This nation is involved in protracted, foolhardy war. The economy is in petroleum-fueled flames. The environment is on the verge of epochal ruin. On the other hand, a few bumps and bruises were incurred on the campaign trail. Boo-hoo!

I think Crimmins is probably right - it’s just hard to remember sometimes, because the dead-enders are the ones doing all the shouting.  But being loud doesn’t make them representative.  And hopefully not influential either.

(h/t bdr)

Add comment June 9th, 2008 at 11:05pm Posted by Eli

Post-Primary Vocab

Two words to keep in mind:

Rival, n.

1. One who attempts to equal or surpass another, or who pursues the same object as another; a competitor.
2. One that equals or almost equals another in a particular respect.
3. Obsolete A companion or an associate in a particular duty.

Enemy, n.

1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
2. 1. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
   2. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces.
4. Something destructive or injurious in its effects: “Art hath an enemy called Ignorance” (Ben Jonson).

Please try to remember the difference.

2 comments June 9th, 2008 at 07:36pm Posted by Eli

Supporting The Troops… Dubya-Style

Yeah, Dubya loves the troops so much that he’s using them as hostages…

President Bush is threatening the lives of American troops if Congress doesn’t give him the money he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan….  The Commander-in-Chief  has also pledged to stop paying troops in combat if America’s wallet isn’t handed over straightaway.

From The Hill:

Bush said that if Congress does not act promptly, “critical accounts at the Department of Defense will soon run dry.” He added that civilian employees may face “temporary layoffs,” and the Pentagon would be forced to “close down a vital program that is getting potential insurgents off the streets and into jobs.” If the supplemental spending bill is not enacted after July, Bush said, the department would “no longer be able to pay our troops,” including ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I just want to be clear about two points:

1. Insurgents kill Americans.  So when the President says that the Pentagon would be forced to “close down” a program that gets “potential insurgents off the streets,” he’s really saying that he’ll deliberately allow the threat to American troops in Iraq increase if he doesn’t get his money.  He’s playing chicken with Congress at the expense of American lives in Iraq.  Make no mistake about it: More insurgents on the streets would lead to more American deaths.

(…)

2. Bush is also threatening to stop paying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is funny, because I don’t hear him threatening to cut the contracts of Halliburton, Blackwater, SAIC, and DynCorp–and thus cutting their employees’ inflated salaries.

This is a clear indication that the Bush administration is more loyal to contractors than to soldiers. When forced to cut spending, Bush would rather starve members of the Armed Forces than cut the exorbitant pay checks given to those who work for privatized military companies.

Impeachment is too late at this point, but there’s no reason that this appalling behavior shouldn’t be hung around John McCain’s neck–thus ensuring that the betrayal of the American military doesn’t extend past January 2009.

At the very least, Obama needs to put McCain on the spot and force him to either repudiate Bush on this and pledge that he would never make these kinds of threats if he became president.  Either McCain helps pressure Dubya to abandon this stance, or he clings to him and destroys what’s left of his own pro-troop, independent-from-Dubya reputation even further (opposing the new GI Bill really didn’t help).

True, it’d be giving McCain an opportunity to score some points at Dubya’s expense, but I don’t think he’d take it.

2 comments June 8th, 2008 at 01:13pm Posted by Eli

Pat Roberts Accidentally Sabotages McCain

Hey, remember this?

The [Senate] Intelligence Committee began a comprehensive investigation nearly five years ago. Initially, the committee was prepared to release one authoritative document on the Iraq intelligence, what it said, and how it was handled. With the 2004 presidential election looming, then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) split the report in two — one on how wrong the intelligence community and agencies were (released before the ‘04 election) and another on how the White House used/misused/abused the available information (to be released after the ‘04 election).

Roberts played fast and loose for years. First he said publicly that he’d “try” to have Phase II available to the public before the 2004 election. He didn’t. Roberts then gave his word, in writing, that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would have a draft report on controversial “public statements” from administration officials by April 2006. That didn’t happen, either. Then he indicated that he wanted to give up on the second part of the investigation altogether. (In January, we learned that the investigation was impeded by the Vice President.)

Well, it finally came out, and it pretty much confirmed what most reality-based people already believed:

[Y]ou’ll never guess what investigators found.

A long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public Thursday concludes that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements to promote an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence.

In a statement, Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D- W. Va.) said, “There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.”

Key points from the report, by way of Rockefeller’s office:

* Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

* Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

* Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

* Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

* The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

* The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

To this day, Still-President Bush will talk about his obviously false pre-war claims in the context of mistaken intelligence, which “everybody” believed at the time. But this long-overdue report is a reminder of just how wrong the Bush defense is — he (and his team) weren’t fooled by errors, they fooled others with arguments they knew had no foundation in fact.

Now here’s the beauty part:

And then, of course, there’s John McCain, who’s running on his national security expertise and judgment on military matters, who bought every line Bush told him, then parroted it to the nation. Worse, McCain has assured voters that “every [intelligence] assessment” justified the 2003 invasion. Today reminds us how wrong this is.

Or as Joe at Americablog puts it:

Republican Senators fought very hard to prevent the release of this intel report back in 2004 to insure Bush’s re-election. And, they wouldn’t release this report back in 2006 to protect their own re-elections. All that delay has resulted in the release of this report in 2008 — leaving John McCain to defend the Bush Iraq war agenda. In some ways, it was worth the wait.

This report makes the illegitimacy of the Iraq invasion even more mainstream and “official” (as opposed to being something that can be dismissed as a dirty hippie conspiracy theory), and makes McCain’s claim that “every assessment” justified it even more untenable.  I wonder if he’ll keep saying that - I hope he does.

2 comments June 5th, 2008 at 06:38pm Posted by Eli

The Obama Treatment?

“The Johnson Treatment,” by George Tames

I do so hope this is true…

In a move that could further imperil his already weakened status in the Democratic Caucus and fuel talk about his split loyalties, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) Wednesday took center stage in the GOP’s mounting attacks on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Lieberman participated in a media conference call Wednesday morning organized by House Minority Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticizing Obama’s stance on the Middle East.

Lieberman’s criticisms came in response to Obama’s speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which was his first major address after claiming his party’s nomination late Tuesday night.

(…)

[D]uring a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

(…)

While Lieberman Wednesday declined to say whether he would continue acting as a surrogate for McCain in attacking Obama, he stated that he would not put his work in Congress in jeopardy by participating in the McCain campaign.

“Obviously I support Sen. McCain … but I can only do so much as long as it doesn’t interfere with what I’m doing here,” Lieberman said.

When asked whether his activities should bring his role as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee into question, Lieberman said he would leave that decision up to the Democratic Caucus. “That’s up to my colleagues,” he said.

Nobody puts Lieby in the corner!

I am very, very happy to see Obama finally taking on the Democrats’ sacred monster, Senator With-Us-On-Everything-But-The-War (and the judiciary, and torture, and choice, and who the next president should be, and…).  As Kagro notes, Short Ride may finally be realizing that he won’t get a free ride as a McCain campaign surrogate.

1 comment June 5th, 2008 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

McCain’s Louisiana Lying

Raise your hands if you’re at all surprised.  From the Obama campaign:

During a press conference today in Louisiana, Senator McCain was asked why he twice voted against creating a commission to investigate the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.  McCain responded, “I have supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy.”  However, Senator McCain has voted against such measures on multiple occasions.  In response, Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan issued the following  statement:

“Whether he simply wasn’t aware of his voting record again or he was intentionally misleading the people of Louisiana, John McCain certainly isn’t offering us ‘leadership you can believe in.’”

McCain Said He Supported “Every Investigation” Into the Government’s Response to Hurricane Katrina. During a press conference today in Louisiana, McCain was asked why he twice voted against creating a commission to investigate the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.  McCain responded, “I have supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy.” [Fox News Channel, 6/4/08]

McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Establishing A Commission To Study The Response To Hurricane Katrina. In 2005 and 2006, McCain voted against proposals to establish a Congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local government response to Hurricane Katrina in U.S. Gulf Region.  Both proposals were sponsored by Senator Clinton.  [S. Amdt. 2716, Senate Vote 6, 2/2/06; S. Amdt. 1660, Senate Vote 229, 9/14/05]

I’m hoping that by November, “Straight Talk Express” will be nothing more than a punchline.  I am very, very happy that the Obama campaign is attacking McCain’s honesty, and spotlighting his undying loyalty to The Worst President Ever.

Honesty and independence are the McCain brand, and without them he has nothing but anger and war and lobbyists.  So if Obama can strip those positives away from him, he can pretty much forget about the Moderate/Independent/Undecided/Reagan Democrat vote.  He’ll have to rely on Dubya’s Twenty-Eight-Percenters, and they don’t trust him much either.

Add comment June 4th, 2008 at 09:00pm Posted by Eli

Gramm Smasher

Texas Observer explains how McCain’s economic adviser is personally responsible for the mess our economy is in today.  My favorite parts:

That Gramm is now advising the Republican nominee for president on economic matters “shouldn’t give people a lot of comfort,” says University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the late 1990s. “Gramm has been a central player in two major economic crises—the credit crisis and the incredibly high price of energy. … He’s got his fingerprints all over legislative efforts that led to this.”

(…)

His critics say that Gramm’s anti-regulatory rhetoric failed the bulk of his constituents—which included thousands of hapless Enron employees who lost their life savings—but lavishly rewarded a few wealthy pals, like Ken Lay. University of Texas economist James Galbraith says Gramm is “not against government at all. His career has been finding ways to make money for his friends. It’s a predator relationship. [Government] is his food supply.”

(…)

When his new party won control of the Senate, Gramm rose to chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, where he was able to put his anti-regulation views into law. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed laws put in place after the Great Depression setting up protective barriers between commercial banks, investment banking firms, and insurance companies.

Consumer groups strenuously opposed the landmark legislation. “It was strongly deregulatory and … did not address safety and soundness,” says lobbyist Ed Mierzwinski of the public interest group U.S. PIRG.

(…)

Banks had been chipping away at the barriers through Federal Reserve rules for decades. But Gramm’s sweeping deregulation “stripped away restraint,” says Broome.

While Gramm denies any link between the current subprime mortgage crisis and his legislative efforts, Mierzwinski, Broome, and even some Wall Street analysts trace a direct connection.

Michael Panzner, a Wall Street veteran and author of Financial Armageddon, says the massive deregulation encouraged “aggressive, swashbuckling, high-risk practices that might have been frowned upon in the banking industry, but which were viewed as typical, say, on Wall Street.” Eventually, those practices “became the modus operandi throughout the financial services industry.”

Panzner also believes that Gramm-Leach-Bliley “may have even set the stage for both the collapse and the subsequent ‘rescue’ of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve.” The deregulated financial services industries were “encouraged to push the envelope in terms of risk-taking, and were not entirely dissuaded from thinking that the public purse would be available if things went horribly wrong.”

Still others blame Gramm’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved. Now, through the use of credit default swaps—which in theory insure the banks against bad debts—those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other investors.

Maryland law professor Greenberger believes credit default swaps “were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight.”

I especially like how the economists can’t agree on which piece of awful Gramm is responsible for the subprime meltdown.  And this is the guy who could be McCain’s Secretary Of The Treasury.

What could possibly go wrong?

2 comments June 4th, 2008 at 07:17am Posted by Eli