McCain's VP Choice - Politics Above Country

To quote the architect of McCain's VP choice, Karl Rove:

"I think [Obama's] going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."
Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Presumably this still holds true? (For comparison, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska whose size estimates range from a low of 6,000 people to a high of 8,500 and whose major municipal headache appears to be keeping the moose out of the street.)

From a commentator over at Talkingpointsmemo:

I don't agree that the Democrats should focus on Palin's inexperience - at least not directly. (For one thing, it keeps Obama's "inexperience" in the discussion as well.) I would instead focus first on McCain's judgement and priorities - the argument practically writes itself: "Barack Obama selected one of the most qualified people available for the job of vice-president; John McCain picked one of the least qualified. Who really puts country ahead of politics?"

This is spot on. The problem is not pathetic Palin, she's merely a 'sympbol' an empty vessel that the Republicans come to time and again. A far-right conservative who supported Pat Buchanan over George W. Bush in 2000, she thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in public schools. Women are not likely to be impressed by her opposition to abortion especially when she thinks pro-life cancels out pro-choice even in the case of rape and incest. But she's perfect social conservative fodder, and she's good looking to boot: kind of like Ann Coulter without the meanness. Need zealous 'pro-life' cred for the evangelicals? There's Palin. Need Grover Norquist libertarian government self-emolation at its finest--there's Palin. Need to peel off a ticked off Hillary voter or two who might be witless enough to think voting for a vagina is the same as voting for women's rights? There's Palin.

Politically a brilliant choice, as all the hacks are saying. The only problem? Palin sucks at governing. She's only been in office a little under two years and is knee deep into a scandal. She left the city where she was Mayor millions of dollars in debt. Palin is exactly what modern Republicanism has become, the triumph of political manipulation over governance, petty symbols of social self righteousness overriding detailed daily concerns of survival. I had a conservative friend who, after a few beers, decided that he was deeply, indeed, mortally offended that the Democrats had actually packaged their convention to appear completely unified, even though, as he said, they obviously weren't. Yeah, crazy of those Dems wasn't it?

I wait with breathless anticipation his squeals of indignity regarding McCain's VP pick.

I'll let you know how it goes, but I won't hold my breath.

Hell, Conservative American Style

Quite good looking and she manages to reproduce okay. Up to five little critters she calls her own, helping over populate America that much more, as if it were needed. But, alas, her credentials even at the meager urban level where she ostensibly has some--ahem--experience, is sorrowfully, woefully, deeply lacking....Which is to say, she is the perfect Republican poster child: lacking in any and all expertise, but pleasing to the eye for men, and (thank God!) more than willing to crank out Republican babies while teaching them the happy lessons of 'creationism', conservative America's very own fairy tale science. Just what our nation needs.

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter as I subscribe first and foremost to Jeff Lieber's take:

She doesn't help win a "swing" state.

She doesn't win a demographic (and may, in the end, cause more women to vote Obama).

She doesn't even get you into a movie theatre with a ten percent discount.

She is a distraction; there to add "Noun-Verb-Mother-Of-Five" to "Noun-Verb-P.O.W".

She is nothing more and surely, clearly, much, much MUCH less.

And, should you happen to be interested in how much less she actually is, which is to ask the question -- if that old coot John McCain kicks, what will this fertile lady actually 'rule' like, or what area has she actually 'ruled'? Take a gander at the following post. And keep in mind; John McCain is seriously old, and he's been hacking out skin cancer cells for longer than I've been blogging.

Some things you should know about Sarah Palin

by Smintheus

Sarah Palin was had political experience only as a small town mayor until less than two years ago. What we don't know about her could fill a book. Here are a few things we're learning about Palin.

Sarah Palin left the finances of her town Wasilla in tatters when she moved on in 2002 (h/t xgz). She wanted a legacy as mayor, it seems, and pushed hard for the town to build a hyper-expensive sports complex. But Palin screwed the process up badly. Instead of buying the land for the complex when it was offered, her administration allowed a developer named Gary Lundgren to snap it up. Then Wasilla tried to seize the land from Lundgren through eminent domain. In the end, what with court costs Wasilla paid at least $ 1.7 million for land it could have bought for less than one tenth that sum - if the purchase had been handled properly. For this incompetence, Wasilla is still paying a steep price: higher taxes and cutbacks in services. In other words Palin is about as efficient as Michael Brown, onetime head of FEMA.

Diarist loyalson, a resident of Wasilla, has more to say about the damage Palin did to his town while she was mayor.

On the single most debated issue of our times, the Iraq war, Sarah Palin similarly was out to lunch until as recently as last spring. Shortly after becoming governor, she was asked her views on the surge (h/t LizzyPop):

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy.

John McCain would have us believe that Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror, and yet he selects as his running mate somebody who was paying almost no attention to the Iraq war for 4 long years after the invasion.

So what was Palin focused on?

Alaska Business Monthly: It's extremely early to ask this, but when your tenure as governor is over, what would you like to have accomplished? How would you like to be remembered?

Palin: I want people to remember me as having always conducted the state's business in an upright and honest manner. I want them to understand that I put Alaska first in every decision I made.

Try to square that with the troopergate scandal, in which Palin allegedly misused her power as governor by bringing inappropriate pressure for two employees to be fired. What's perhaps most interesting is that Palin appears to have begun misusing power almost as soon as she got any real power.

Speaking of inconsistencies, earlier this month Palin praised Barack Obama's energy plan (h/t Excelscior1). Here is the cached version of the press release that had been posted at the Governor's website. The original document has been scrubbed sometime during the last day (since Aug. 28). I wonder if that could have anything to do with McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate?

So how does it feel to live in Sarah Palin's screwed up 'Republican' dream town?

Sarah Palin was my mayor

by loyalson (from dKos)

I hope this helps paint the true picture of Sarah Palin's "experience."

My family moved to Wasilla when I was eleven years old. The road I lived on was still gravel, and the town then was still on its first of three successive Wal-Marts. It was 1996, and Sarah Palin would not be mayor for another three years.

Today, under Sarah Palin's leadership, Wasilla has become the picture of exurban sprawl: an explosion in the housing stock, tons of new highway expansion, tons of new big box stores and fast food franchises, and absolutely 0 sustainability. Combined with a lack of zoning, and a predilection for building open-pit gravel mines all over the place, and Wasilla could be the poster-town for bad municipal leadership.

Wasilla, like a lot of Alaska, is defined by its remoteness. It is a 45 mile drive from Anchorage, yet functions primarily as a bedroom community. The city limits are confined mostly to a narrow strip along the Parks Highway (a major route from Anchorage to Fairbanks), but Wasillans can live dozens of miles away from the town center. An official population of roughly 6,000 balloons to dozens of thousands in the greater Wasilla area. Despite their small size, Wasilla and Palmer form the major social and political axis of the Mat-Su borough, a county equivalent the size of West Virginia.

Demographically, the town is almost exclusively white. I didn't realize this, until I left and went to university in New Jersey. There is, or at least was, a stunning lack of diversity, even for Alaska. It is is extremely religious, primarily baptist judging from the many churches, tucked away into every nook and cranny. It is also extremely politically conservative, and is consistently a republican stronghold. Characteristically, it is also economically depressed, and is dependent on low-quality resource extraction, and the service industry, for the vast majority of local jobs.

Wasilla was essentially a giant gravel mine. There was a gravel mine behind my middle school. There was a gravel mine across the highway. There were gravel mines in residential neighborhoods. There were gravel mines all over the place.

A gravel mine is exactly what it sounds like: someone buys a block of land, and more or less completely converts it into gravel, like mountain-top removal done at ground level. The mine itself is an open pit which sits in production for years, and then, more often than not, is abandoned in situ, oftentimes sprinkled with abandoned extraction equipment. The pit behind the middle school, for instance, had a few rusted hulks that remained for years, and which may still be there today.

If there wasn't a gravel mine somewhere, then there was a strip mall. Wasilla love their gravel, and they love their strip malls.

Growing up, my father used to take me to a barber shop in one of our many strip malls to get my hair cut. I call it a barbershop, and the sign said it was a barber shop, but it was more of a combination barber shop, guitar repair shop, ammo store, and local NRA headquarters. That barber shop was a microcosm of Wasilla: an odd mix of country friendliness and can-do work ethic, and hardcore, reactionary conservatism.

When I graduated from Wasilla High School, Sarah Palin's alma mater, there were 1200 students, some fantastic teachers, and a strong Advanced Placement program. When Sarah Palin graduated, I doubt there were less than half that many students. Unfortunately, the last several years' budget cuts have hit WHS rather hard, and it's been shedding good teachers and AP classes, with no end in sight. Last I heard, the coordinated advanced learning program had been disbanded, for lack of funds. Wasilla High School used to turn out some amazing students, many of whom were friends of mine who went onto MIT, Harvard, Colgate, Tufts, and many other top universities. Now, WHS is a school in decline, even amidst an explosion in the local housing stock, and record state revenues from oil extraction. This decline began under Mayor Palin's watch as mayor, and is coming to its inevitable conclusion under her watch as governor.

Beyond gravel mines and strip malls, there is one thing that defines Wasilla more than anything else:

Walmart.

Wasilla has always had a Walmart, for as long as I can remember. A few years after I arrived, they built a new, much larger store across the street from the original. Just recently, the Wasilla Walmart was converted into a super center, not long after the neighboring town of Palmer was successful in defeating plans to open a Walmart in their town. Mayor Palin officiated:

Wasilla’s own Gov. Sarah Palin cut the red duct-tape ribbon early this morning with a really big pair of scissors and a slug of local pride.

Palin heaped praise on the store’s hard-working employees, the company’s community spirit and the hometown atmosphere that keeps the parking lot full just about any time of day.

“There’s something about Wal-Mart in the Valley that is always an event,” Palin said.

Anchorage Daily News: Walmart Opens In Wasilla As State's Largest Store
I don't know why people in Wasilla love Walmart so much. Perhaps its because every few years Walmart makes a big deal out of their Wasilla store selling more duct tape than any other store in the country. It might seem odd to those of you from Outside, and today it seems odd to me too, but Duct Tape sales once became a major point of local pride in Wasilla.

And that might be all you need to know about Wasilla, Alaska.

Editor's note: She also managed to leave Wasilla a few million dollars in debt. Serious peonage for an urban unit of 6,000.

Judgement

From TalkingPointsMemo.com

At TPMMuckraker we've been on the Palin/Trooper-gate story for a while. And we've just reported that the investigation by the state legislature is scheduled to report its findings in the first couple days of November.

This is a perilous story for Palin and McCain. I flagged some of the details earlier in the day. But this is the kind of story, the kind of investigation, where it is highly unlikely that Palin hasn't made public false statements about her involvement in what happened. I think that's generous. As always in cases like this, the question is whether anyone can prove it. There are a couple investigations -- one under the auspices of the state legislature and another of the state Attorney General, which she either supported or 'requested'. That latter investigation already surfaced taped phone calls that forced Palin walk back her original denials and admit that her aides had pressed for the firings, just without her knowledge.

Using the power of the government to settle scores with estranged relatives or associates is far from unprecedented. There are probably several similar investigations going on in other states as we speak. But I doubt very much that they were prepared for the heat of full bore national media scrutiny on this one. And in this case you not only the underlying act, which is sleazy, but the high probability that Palin is lying about her role.


Late Update: And special bonus: after the firing that got her administration into trouble, Palin replaced him with another guy who'd recently been hit with a credible sexual harassment accusation. Palin later admitted that she knew about the complaint in advance but denied that she knew of the letter of reprimand he'd received.

He lasted two weeks on the job.

What Liberal Media?

You might be forgiven for not knowing the words of Republican Congressman Leach. He spoke out at the Democratic National Convention, and, so far as I can tell, only C-Span managed to cover it.

You might recall the wall to wall coverage given to Zell Miller, with his spittle laced moment in the sun at the Republican convention, or the ever unctuous Joe Lieberman constantly oiling McCain's campaign with his lovely lies; but many--most--Americans won't have the opportunity to remember Leach's speech because NONE OF THE MAJOR NETWORKS BOTHERED TO COVER IT. Apparently it's only news when Democrats support Republican candidates, but the reverse is so hoo hum it doesn't rate a single minute of your time.

Well, just in case you're interested, here's what Leach said: a loud roar of approval for Obama's candidacy.

As a Republican, I stand before you with deep respect for the history and traditions of my political party. But it is clear to all Americans that something is out of kilter in our great republic.... Seldom has the case for an inspiring new political ethic been more compelling. And seldom has an emerging leader so matched the needs of the moment.... I stand before you proud of my party's contributions to American history but, as a citizen, proud as well of the good judgment of good people in this good party, in nominating a transcending candidate, an individual whom I am convinced will recapture the American dream and be a truly great president: the senator from Abraham Lincoln's state -- Barack Obama.... This is not a time for politics as usual.... Obama will recapture the American dream and be a truly great president."

McCain and Obama's tax plans...reading the small print

The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.
--From Lcurve.org

Editor's note: This shouldn't be necessary, but, tragically, I have friends who are actually considering voting for McCain based on his so called 'tax plan'. These friends seem reasonably intelligent in most other respects, so I'm writing this to cure their acute Bogartian illness, or at least, in some small way, help to alleviate their most glaring symptom: they are deeply misinformed.

What's John McCain's plan? Is he really dramatically cutting taxes even more deeply than Bush? Effectively, doubling down on Bush's tax cut?

Um, yep. But it might not help my friends -- who, like 96% of America, make less than $250,000 per year ...

From the Wall Street Journal

Sen. McCain's tax plan largely leaves the middle class behind. His one and only middle-class tax cut -- a slow phase-in of a bigger dependent exemption -- would provide no benefit whatsoever to 101 million families who do not have children or other dependents, or who have a low income.

But Sen. McCain's plan does include one new proposal that would result in higher taxes on the middle class. As even Sen. McCain's advisers have acknowledged, his health-care plan would impose a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years on workers. Sen. McCain's plan will count the health care you get from your employer as if it were taxable cash income. Even after accounting for Sen. McCain's proposed health-care tax credits, this plan would eventually leave tens of millions of middle-class families paying higher taxes. In addition, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, this kind of plan would push people into higher tax brackets and increase the taxes people pay as their compensation rises, raising marginal tax rates by even more than if we let the entire Bush tax-cut plan expire tomorrow.

The McCain plan represents Bush economics on steroids. It has $3.4 trillion more in tax cuts than President Bush is proposing, largely directed at corporations and the most affluent. Sen. McCain would implement these cuts without proposing any meaningful steps to simplify taxes or eliminate distortions and loopholes. In addition, Sen. McCain has floated over $1 trillion in new spending increases but barely any specific spending cuts.

To make this a bit more personal, under McCain's plan, he and Cindy McCain who are valued at approximately $100 million dollars will save close to $400,000 a year in taxes. The average middle class American (making less than $250,000)will save about ... $0 ... and they may actually end up paying more if his health proposal is implemented.

Sound fair to you?

Not only is it not fair, it will prove even more disastrous for the infrastructure of our country than Bush's plan.

From Salon.com

A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found a full third of Bush's controversial 2001 and 2003 tax cuts went to the top 1 percent of earners. McCain's tax cuts would be more massive than Bush's, and appear to skew even more to the wealthy. President Bush touted his breaks as providing a boost for the economy, but tax-policy experts credit Bush's tax policy with shifting the tax burden to the middle class, ballooning budget deficits, and contributing to a widening disparity in personal wealth.
[snip]
To get a sense of McCain's ambition, his tax cuts would cost the federal budget as much as $4 trillion from 2009 through the end of 2018, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That's eight times the size of the Pentagon's base budget this year. Bush's cuts would cost only $1.6 trillion if extended to cover the same ten-year period.

So what is Obama's tax plan? Is he really going to raise taxes astronomically as the McCain campaign hyperbolically suggests--"the Largest Tax Increase Since World War II"?

Um, no.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Obama believes that responsible candidates must put forward specific ideas of how they would pay for their proposals. That is why he would repeal a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But to be clear: He would leave their tax rates at or below where they were in the 1990s.

- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.

- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.

- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.

- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.

Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.

Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes.

From Obama's website:

In an interview with CNBC, Barack Obama stated, “And I think that we have an economy that's been out of balance for too long, so the general principle of raising taxes on higher income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I've said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class, you know. I generally define well-off as people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more [note to John McCain--$250,000 is a lot less money than 5 million dollars, maybe with all that dough from Cindy you could buy yourself a calculator?] And that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I will exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.” [CNBC, 06/09/08]

Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates.

Below is a graphic that gives a pretty good pictoral representation of the differing tax plans:



From the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center

Editor's note: The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute that is nonetheless staffed by both Republicans and Democrats -- co-director Eugene Steuerle was a deputy assistant secretary under Ronald Reagan -- and is known for its methodological rigor. Its 38-page analysis found that McCain's proposals would make the tax system even "more regressive" than permanently extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 to 2006. McCain would accomplish this by following Bush's blueprint and then supersizing it: providing "relatively little" tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, while giving "huge tax cuts" to the highest income brackets.

Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $800 billion and Senator McCain’s proposals lose $600 billion.

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

A Plea to the guy at the podium

From Hunter at dKos:

Our nation has been through so much
These last few thousand days.
Our battered hearts and weary souls
Look now for warming rays.
Our confidence is shattered;
Our discourse in the muck;
And so I have just one request:
Please, Obama -- please don't suck.

From Enron to the oil kings
Our country has been sold
And to the lowest bidders,
And we all have gotten rolled.
More tax cuts for the rich,
While the barons pass the buck;
It seems impossible to ask
But Obama: please don't suck.

Our soldiers in Iraq will stay
For many months, at least,
Because we thought preemptive war
Was a more docile beast.
Our diplomacy has become farce
Our policies, amok;
If you want to be in charge of it
Then Obama -- please don't suck.

It would be very simple
To let it slip away;
A pardon here, a bill, a law,
A tactical delay.
The lobbyists and crooks remain,
Always looking for a schmuck,
But we have few chances left,
So Obama:
Please
Don't
Suck.

Please Help John McCain!

Let me begin this post by stating categorically, I know exactly how many houses I own--one. And, sadly, actually, not all of one. About 75% of one at this point. The bank owns the rest. I'll hazard a guess that I'm more similar to 99.9% of American than those who own so many homes they can't keep track without having some staff dig up the relevant facts. Ahem.

But this certainly does not disqualify John McCain from the Presidency. In my view, it's fine to have a wealthy plutocrat as President who is so rich he can't keep track of the number of houses he owns. I'm sure he'll work devishly hard to ensure tax breaks for middle class Americans as a result of all that 'middle class' experience.

The only real question will be, where he considers the dividing line between being truly 'wealthy' or 'well off' and 'middle class'. Luckily, we have an answer for that. According to Senator McCain, if you make more than 5 million dollars a year you are sufficiently wealthy to be called 'well off', if you make less than that, you are 'middle class'...that means if you only make 4 million a year, you are middle class, same with 3 million, 2 million, 1 million, etc...

Just hazarding a guess here, but I'd lay even odds that 99% of Americans make considerably less than 4 million a year. In fact, those that make 5 million dollars a year are at the .0001 percentile, that is, only 1 out of every 1000 Americans will make 5 million dollars.

But that's really not relevant, because there have been lots of wealthy guys in the Presidency and, in some instances, they've treated the middle class and lower classes fairly well. Unfortunately, this appears not to be the case with John McCain. In fact, if you think you might be one of those lucky duckies earning above the magical 5 million dollar mark, you might want to help John McCain out with his help. Why is that? Well according to this politico report, poor John he has to pay a little over $273,000 a year just to pay off his local resident custodians, and gardeners, chauffers and misc. homemaker types for the 10 houses and condos he actually owns. What's surprising really is that the number is so small. Let's do a little math-- if you have 10 homes and each home just has one employee taking care of it, that means, that employee will only make $27,300 dollars a year. Wow! That's not much money -- in fact, the official poverty level for a family in the US is ... $21,027. So if John McCain has only one person attending each of his 10 homes throughout the year, at minimum he is paying each of them just $6000 above the US poverty level.

But, of course, for bleeding heart liberals such as myself, that poverty level disastrously underestimates the real cost of just trying to survive in this country--especially when you add in things like food and transportattion inflation and soaring health care costs. $27,300 is just barely scraping by. And, of course, I think we can reasonably ask is John McCain really only hiring 1 single individual to maintain each of his 10 little McMansions and condos? Likely not. In fact, if he's just hiring two person per home that means he's paying way, way below poverty level for his help. If the labor cost were evenly divided between those 20 employees they would make only $13,650 a year--or approximately $6000 below the official US poverty level.

Maybe we should all pitch in and send some money to John McCain? Obviously his 100 million dollars of wealth isn't sufficient to keep his own laborers from scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just imagine how well he'd treat the rest of us (that's the 99.9% of us who do not earn 5 million a year)if he were elected. I'm sure he'd make sure everyone of us was treated at least as well as his own help.

But that's not really the point of my post. The point of my post is to help John McCain's help--because, one thing we know, if John McCain wins the Presidency, he'll be taking a big hit in his salary. You can only imagine what that will do to his domestic staff. I see future lay offs, nail biting times for those already struggling to make ends meet thanks to John McCain's idea of a pay scale. He'll simply be forced to cut back, or reduce even further the poverty wages of his employees. It's just too cruel for words really, and, let's face it, there is something concrete all of us can do to help.

We can vote for Barack Obama, so poor John McCain won't have to fire his help.


Below is a fun video that should probably go viral. Have fun.

Recommended Summer Reading

A friend of mine, historical connoisseur, intellectual bricoleur and over all great guy, Don White has an answer for certain commentators at our local Southern rag who say the War of Northern Aggression (a.k.a., American Civil War) was somehow not about slavery. Well, Don says it was. He goes into great detail proving the point, all of it interesting, and, although I'm no expert in the field, let's just say all of it 'feels' right. I've always placed Southern-phils who spout that slavery wasn't the issue line right up there with folks who shout Iraq was all about freedom and democracy, conveniently forgetting the 360 billion barrels of potential reserves, and 12% of the world proven reserves the country sits upon. They're not exactly fools, but certainly predisposed to delusional thinking--no doubt helped along by a healthy dose of ideological rigidity. Don sets the critters straight with an enviable mixture of anecdote and charm. Check his piece out at Pathkeeper.net


Next up, Josh Marshall over at Talkingpointsmemo.com sets off a few warning bells about that old geezer trying to get his war on with the Russkies...

One of the great threats we face is the personal sense of grandiosity of the lead foreign hands who shape the course of our role in the world. Not national grandiosity, but personal grandiosity. Because if you're a foreign policy hand or political leader your own quest for greatness is constrained by whether or not you live in times of grand historical events.

There's a lot of this nonsense floating around today by pampered commentators who want to find a new world historical conflict to write bracing commentary about before we're done with the one from last week. But John McCain might be president in six months. And whether it's his own shaky judgment, temperament or just the desire to find a campaign issue, this loose cannon is a real threat to this country.

Josh Marshall does not, as a rule, go around giving off screechy misgivings about crazy politicians everyday (there are a lot of them to choose from, afterall). So take his words seriously. And I think he's spot on: McCain would be a very dangerous man in the Presidency. Worse (if that's possible) than Bush.

In the year of living obviously

In the year of living obviously

(Headline, MSNBC) BREAKING NEWS: Defense secretary Gates says U.S. does not want another cold war with Russia

Outside of troglodytes who call themselves neoconservatives (John McCain, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Billy Kristol, Paul Wolfwitz) is there anyone on this earth who actually wants another cold war with Russia? Anyone?

Directly underneath this 'Breaking news'
Price spikes erode U.S. standard of living

Now then...Who here thinks spiking prices would not erode the US standard of living? Raise your hands! I'm waiting....


And, finally we have these exquisitely thought out notes from Hillary Clinton's chief 'strategist', Mark Penn's ever fertile mind....

Requirements for any Launch...

1. Functioning political and fundraising operation

2. Basic Message about how you would change America, combined with willingness to listen and refine
3. The outline of major policy directions
4. National and local press strategies
5. Plan for 1st visits to key states
6. Web operation ready to go
7. Response war room for attacks/research operation
8. fwp (first woman president plan)

Yes, make sure we have a functioning political and fund raising operation and a basic message about how we would change America.

That will be $1,000,000, please.

A Day That Will Live in Infamy--08/06/2001

What happened on Aug. 6th, 2001?

The Bush administration was warned that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike the United States . Specifically, 'Federal buildings' in New York City.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct foreign terrorist attacks on the U.S. Bin Ladin implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
...
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted] service.
...
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
...
FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI, was on it, of course, and the intelligence community was still functional--they reported the threat:

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

But, despite the fact that Richard Clarke's 'hair was on fire' and this report landed on Bush's desk, it went unremarked and ignored.

Here's what Bush said, right after he was briefed it was going to happen

"All right. You've covered your ass, now."- George W. Bush

Then, of course, there was 9/11.

Someone please tell me again how Republicans are so much better at keeping our country safe.

Senator McCain, please tell me again how invading and occupying IRAQ has helped the U.S. hunt down Osama bin Laden?

Here's what Condi said after the incident:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center"- Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor

Republicans, deeply cynical of a working government and therefore, deeply incompetent at governing. Oh, but very good at covering their ass.

Any questions?

Modern Conservatism defined

Obama Describes The Modern Conservative Movement vis a vis the tire gauge nonsense posted below...

Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

You know what? I know some of these troglodytes--I've actually burned my precious time bothering to argue with them. They do pride themselves on almost complete ignorance, historical ignorance, political ignorance, in many cases, simple ethical ignorance of the kind most second graders have mastered. Considering their erstwhile leaders: George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain...I imagine its the only way they can get through a day.

Imagine, for a moment, what the world would be like if they were actually reasonably up to speed on most the salient facts of any particular argument? We might have a working Democracy.

When people write about the failed experiment called America, I hope they start with the first celebrity President--Ronald Reagan. He of the trees cause pollutions ignorance, the amazingly stupid Mujihadeen as founding father's lie and finish with the bookend we have in Bush. He of the murderous wars of convenience, the disastrous tax cuts, the sickening torture and dementia offered up as foreign policy. Just for the record folks: so called liberals have been out of power for well over 8 years. Republicans and their conservative followers did this to America. No one but.

Believe it or not, Republicans really are as destructive and foolish as you always thought

I have been trying to lay reasonably low this election season and not say anything too unsavory about either candidate.

But this latest bit of whackiness enters the realm of the sublimely wrong headed--and as such it would be criminal not to at least mark it for posterity and for those of you daily pressed with other concerns the so called conservative revolution has wrought: unnwinnable wars, unpayable gas prices, unaffordable health care, etc., etc. The closest comparison to this remarkable feat is probably the self defeating antics of Ronald Reagan tearing down the solar panels on the White House, circa 1980.
An inspired moment--that tough old celebrity hack qua President taking on those mean old photo-voltaic cells. I guess that's true business efficiency as only the highly evolved conservative mind is able to interpret it, much less embrace.

This time, Republicans have decided to make an issue of getting good gas mileage. Why don't they like good gas mileage? Because Obama suggested making sure your tires were properly inflated and that your car had a recent tuneup was a great way to ensure that you got good gas mileage. Obama observed that coastal drilling would save us so little oil and so little money even twenty years from now, that you can actually save more money immediately by doing “simple things” such as keeping your tires properly inflated.

Where did he get that crazy idea? From George Bush’s Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency…. Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips. Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

And that’s being generous, because Bush’s Energy Department says we can’t expect any impact on prices from coastal drilling until the year 2030.

But I guess, for Republicans, unless a method destroys something significant, a coastline say, a city, or a country, it doesn't really count as a worthwhile measure, no matter how much or little you save. So now they are going to trot around with little tire gauges to mock Obama's statement and ostensibly his energy plan. This plan was actually one of the saner things said in our public square on the topic and it's a shame it will be thusly mocked, but mocked it will be, an action reeking of gimmickry and the intrepid politics of Karl Rove. Like wearing bandaids to mock John Kerry's purple hearts, and putting ink on their finger tips to embrace the happy 'victory' of Democracy in Iraq--circa 2005, during the slaughter in that country and it's emptying of over a million of its citizens, the tire gauge mockery will be in lockstep with the Republican brand, image over substance; quick political profit over long term gain. In almost every instance there's no connection to an underlying reality; indeed, the reality can be contradictory and that doesn't matter: the yellow magnetic ribbon weeping for the lost troops on the back of the two ton SUV--whose gas was the cause those troops ultimately died for. The images of heroic Bush under the Mission Accomplished banner, whose great grandfather Prescott made the Bush fortune selling weapons and munitions to the Germans, who never served under combat in his life. Doesn't matter in Rove world. There's only the empty scornful symbol, utterly liberated from truth, like most of the 'deep' conservative thinkers I know. Contempt is clearly too kind a word--not for the way I feel about Republicans, though their may be some undeniable truth there--but for the way they are treating the American electorate.


A few updates from those silly conservationists: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) also recently “appealed to those with the real power to make change — average citizens — to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption.”

Second Update: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist also believes keeping tires inflated is important.

Third Update: Not too long ago, NASCAR told fans, “With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy.”

Yes. You read that right. The Republicans are pitting themselves against their own NASCAR base. What did I tell you? Foolish and destructive.

Candidates in the hands of an insane media

Jamie Foser over at Media Matters points to a great big problem that will probably only get worse for Obama. John McCain launches scurrilously untrue ads mocking Obama and his supporters. The media notes that the ads are untrue, then go on to report how those same ads are somehow sticking and causing Obama a problem. In this scenario, the only reason the ads 'are sticking' is because the media is granting the ads the imprimatur of legitimacy even after noting the not insubstantial fact that they are bald faced lies.

From MediaMatters

Over the past few weeks, and especially the past week, numerous news organizations and other neutral observers have debunked a series of false claims made by John McCain and his campaign.

FactCheck.org, for example, has called one McCain attack ad "false," said another contains a "false" insinuation, described another as misleading, called another "ridiculous" and added, "That's absurd, and McCain knows it." FactCheck said the attacks in yet another McCain ad are "oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading," noting that by the standards of evidence the McCain campaign used in the ad, the Arizona senator himself could be criticized precisely the same way. FactCheck called criticisms McCain has leveled against Obama's tax plans "bunk," adding, "He's wrong," and stating that McCain is using a "false and preposterously inflated figure" to attack Obama. They called another McCain attack "simply wrong" and "not true." They said yet another McCain ad "gets nearly all its facts wrong. ... [E]very number in the ad is wrong, except one. ... And even that number is rounded upward so generously as to flunk third-grade arithmetic." And FactCheck called yet another McCain attack "trickery" based on an "inflated and misleading" number that was the result of "Double, Triple and Quadruple Counting."

And that's just in the past month.

The Washington Post has reported that "McCain and his allies" are accusing Obama of "snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true" and noted that the evidence the McCain campaign provided to back up the claim did not do so. The New York Times reported that McCain's recent offensive against Obama has been based on claims that have been "widely dismissed as misleading," which is actually an understatement -- they've been widely dismissed as false. A St. Petersburg Times editorial denounced McCain's "nasty turn into the gutter," adding that he "has resorted to lies and distortions in what sounds like an increasingly desperate attempt to slow down Sen. Barack Obama. ... [T]hese baseless attacks are raising more questions about the Republican's campaign and his ability to control his temper." The New York Times editorial board called another McCain attack "contemptible" and "ugly." On MSNBC, Time magazine Washington bureau chief Jay Carney called a McCain ad "reprehensible." MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reported that a McCain ad is "completely wrong, factually wrong" and that it "literally is not true." The Cleveland Plain Dealer rated a McCain campaign ad a "zero" on its 0-to-10 scale of truthfulness.

All that -- and much, much more -- has come in just the past week.

In short, nearly every recent attack by the McCain campaign on Obama -- and there have been many -- has been debunked by at least one news outlet and in most cases by several.

So what's the problem? Sounds like the media are doing their job, right?

Wrong.

All week, McCain's attacks have been driving news coverage. Those same news organizations that have declared McCain's charges false have given them an extraordinary amount of attention, repeating them over and over. They have adopted the premises of the McCain attacks even as they acknowledge the attacks are based on false claims. The media narrative of the week has not been, as you might expect, that John McCain's apparent dishonesty may hurt him with voters. Instead, the media's basic approach has been to debunk McCain's attacks once, then run a dozen stories about how the attacks are sticking, how the "emerging narrative" will hurt Obama.

But attacks don't just stick and narratives don't just emerge. The only reason that the topic of the week was whether Obama is presumptuous instead of whether McCain is a liar who will do anything to get elected is that the news media decided to make Obama's purported flaws the topic of the week -- even after debunking the charges upon which the characterization is based. It's as though the news media -- so concerned about lies (that weren't really lies) in 2000 -- have suddenly decided that it doesn't matter that the McCain campaign is launching false attack after false attack. That it's the kind of thing you note once, then adopt the premise of the attack.

I'm not exactly sure how Obama handles this except perhaps to cut an ad that says point blank: John McCain is a liar. John McCain has been lying for the last three months. Do you want to elect yet another serial liar to the Presidency? Maybe that would do it, except, of course, the media might then argue that Obama is smearing McCain in turn. And so on.