The NYT, via Glenn Greenwald:
It was a room full of people who rarely hold their tongues. But as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first.
Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill, and they were gathered around a conference table in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"When you listened to him describe it you gulped," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.
As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program "Good Morning America," the congressional leaders were told "that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally."
Mr. Schumer added, "History was sort of hanging over it, like this was a moment."
When Mr. Schumer described the meeting as "somber," Mr. Dodd cut in. "Somber doesn't begin to justify the words," he said. "We have never heard language like this."
"What you heard last evening," he added, "is one of those rare moments, certainly rare in my experience here, is Democrats and Republicans deciding we need to work together quickly."
Monday, September 22, 2008
What's the crisis?
$700 bill is a pretty hefty chunk of change. Is it too much to ask for bail out advocates to provide some quantitative data spelling out the extent of the need?
All we're hearing so far, as a reason to shell out the $700 bill, is that the markets are jittery. Seems we're due a better, more concrete explanation than that.
All we're hearing so far, as a reason to shell out the $700 bill, is that the markets are jittery. Seems we're due a better, more concrete explanation than that.
Doubling down on crazy. And stupid.
From the Washington Monthly:
GOLDEN PARACHUTES.... The only consistent element of John McCain's recent rhetoric on economic issues is that he's just not thinking things true. In the latest example, McCain has been, in true populist style, railing against "golden parachutes" for CEOs.
The more lavish compensation packages are part of McCain's economic pitch, the more likely he'll face questions about former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's golden parachute. And yet, as of this morning, he was apparently caught completely off guard.
On NBC's "Today," Meredith Vieira told McCain, "You have said, senator, that there are a lot of reasons for this financial crisis, but you have said, bottom line, it's those fat cats. It's the greed of Wall Street. And you said, you promised ... to crack down on CEOs who walk away with huge severance packages. And yet the person that up until recently was your public face really on your economic policies was Carly Fiorina.... She was fired in 2005. But she left with what I think was a $45 million golden parachute while 20,000 of her employees were laid off. She's an example of exactly the type of person you say is at the root of the problem."
McCain replied, "I don't think so." When pressed, he added, "I think she did a good job as CEO in many respects. I don't know the details of her compensation package."
Reminded that Fiorina received a $45 million golden parachute after being fired while 20,000 of her employees were laid off, McCain stumbled a bit before concluding, "I don't know the details of what happened."
Hewlett-Packard didn't exactly excel under Fiorina's leadership. The company's stock fell 55% during her tenure, and as Vieira emphasized, she was fired. As "punishment," she walked out the door with $45 million and, soon after, became an advisor to a leading Republican presidential campaign.
This certainly seems like the kind of greed and mismanagement the new McCain should disapprove of, doesn't it?
-------------------------
It's hard to believe the country is on the verge of putting this man, let alone his second in command, anywhere near the gear shifts of political and economic power.
GOLDEN PARACHUTES.... The only consistent element of John McCain's recent rhetoric on economic issues is that he's just not thinking things true. In the latest example, McCain has been, in true populist style, railing against "golden parachutes" for CEOs.
The more lavish compensation packages are part of McCain's economic pitch, the more likely he'll face questions about former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's golden parachute. And yet, as of this morning, he was apparently caught completely off guard.
On NBC's "Today," Meredith Vieira told McCain, "You have said, senator, that there are a lot of reasons for this financial crisis, but you have said, bottom line, it's those fat cats. It's the greed of Wall Street. And you said, you promised ... to crack down on CEOs who walk away with huge severance packages. And yet the person that up until recently was your public face really on your economic policies was Carly Fiorina.... She was fired in 2005. But she left with what I think was a $45 million golden parachute while 20,000 of her employees were laid off. She's an example of exactly the type of person you say is at the root of the problem."
McCain replied, "I don't think so." When pressed, he added, "I think she did a good job as CEO in many respects. I don't know the details of her compensation package."
Reminded that Fiorina received a $45 million golden parachute after being fired while 20,000 of her employees were laid off, McCain stumbled a bit before concluding, "I don't know the details of what happened."
Hewlett-Packard didn't exactly excel under Fiorina's leadership. The company's stock fell 55% during her tenure, and as Vieira emphasized, she was fired. As "punishment," she walked out the door with $45 million and, soon after, became an advisor to a leading Republican presidential campaign.
This certainly seems like the kind of greed and mismanagement the new McCain should disapprove of, doesn't it?
-------------------------
It's hard to believe the country is on the verge of putting this man, let alone his second in command, anywhere near the gear shifts of political and economic power.
It's the money, stupid
I don't have a lot of confidence that any oversight provisions and the like will ultimately provide much of a safeguard as to how the bailout money is distributed. Congress hasn't shown any real inclination to provide oversight on the war or much of anything else these past eight years. Democratic calls for greater oversight and executive compensation caps sound like fig-leafs to me, largely symbolic gestures to cover behinds for what will or should be a highly unpopular scheme.
If they end up handing over $700 bill or more they will have forefeited their control. It's as simple as that.
If they end up handing over $700 bill or more they will have forefeited their control. It's as simple as that.
Center Shifting Left
Politico:
A senior aide to John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, told Politico Sunday that the Arizona senator also favored compensation limits as part of the package, as does the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, according to a campaign spokesman for the Illinois senator.
A senior aide to John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, told Politico Sunday that the Arizona senator also favored compensation limits as part of the package, as does the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, according to a campaign spokesman for the Illinois senator.
Blog Recant
OK, I've had a bit more time to digest Bush/Paulson's proposed-demanded $700 bill Wall Street bail-out. And I've read people smarter than I is.
And what in the world is that crazy liberal big-gubmit terrorist-loving pinko Bill Kristol doing saying this:
Comments by McCain on Sunday suggest he might propose an amendment along the lines of one I received in an e-mail message from a fellow semi-populist conservative: “Any institution selling securities under this legislation to the Treasury Department shall not be allowed to compensate any officer or employee with a higher salary next year than that paid the president of the United States.” This would punish overpaid Wall Streeters and, more important, limit participation in the bailout to institutions really in trouble.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Credit Where Credit is Due (no pun intended)
I can't say I know enough of the specifics and implications of all of this--other than the obvious fact of its obvious contradiction of what conservatives claim to believe about the economy--but I am going to give credit (no pun intended) where credit is due and at least acknowledge that the president had the wherewithall to put a grown up in charge at Treasury and endowed Paulson with some independence and authority.
Again, maybe this is all way too much gubmit, much much too late in the game, but at least it appears that there is someone minding the store (albeit after it has been looted).
Again, maybe this is all way too much gubmit, much much too late in the game, but at least it appears that there is someone minding the store (albeit after it has been looted).
Wind-up Doll
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Obama is an Islam and will eat your Bibles
The financial meltdown, and Obama's subsequent rise in the polls, undoubtedly means we'll start hearing new reports of Obama's devotion to Allah and his having fathered two black children.
McCain/Palin: We'll Make Bush/Cheney look competent and dedicated to the Constitution
McCain's selection of Palin is starting to make a little more sense now: McCain's an idiot.
I hate to raise the "S" issue, but is McCain senile? On top of confusing Spain and Latin America, or taking a bizarrely belicose stance towards Spain, McCain apparently doesn't know that (a) the president can't fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission or that (b) that the SEC isn't the source of the current financial meltdown. A 1999 law authored by his top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, is.
I wonder how all of this will go down during a debate? Won't meet with a NATO ally. Doesn't understand the workings of Wall Street or the government's role in regulating it? Maybe the media will fixate on Obama's being "uppity" or something.
I hate to raise the "S" issue, but is McCain senile? On top of confusing Spain and Latin America, or taking a bizarrely belicose stance towards Spain, McCain apparently doesn't know that (a) the president can't fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission or that (b) that the SEC isn't the source of the current financial meltdown. A 1999 law authored by his top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, is.
I wonder how all of this will go down during a debate? Won't meet with a NATO ally. Doesn't understand the workings of Wall Street or the government's role in regulating it? Maybe the media will fixate on Obama's being "uppity" or something.
"Today, We Are All Fundamentals"
BarbinMD is right: Gail Collins chimes in with a truly lovable snarkfest:
“The people of Ohio are the most productive in the world!” yelled John McCain at a rally outside of Youngstown on Tuesday. Present company perhaps excluded, since the crowd was made up entirely of people who were at liberty in the middle of a workday.
Folks were wildly enthusiastic as the event began. That was partly because Sarah Palin was also on the bill. (With Todd!) And when McCain took the center stage, they were itching to cheer the war hero and boo all references to pork-barrel spenders.
Nobody had warned them that he had just morphed into a new persona — a raging populist demanding more regulation of the nation’s financial system. And since McCain’s willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long.
Really, if McCain is going to keep changing into new people, the campaign should send out notices. (Come to a rally for the next president of the United States. Today he’s a vegetarian!) “We’re going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street — enough is enough!” this new incarnation yelled, complaining angrily about greed and overpaid C.E.O.’s. Slowly, people begin to peel out of the crowd and drift away. Even in these troubled times, there are apparently a number of Republicans who think highly of corporate executives and captains of high finance.
The whole transformation was fascinating in a cheap-thrills kind of way. It’s not every day, outside of “Incredible Hulk” movies, that you see somebody make this kind of turnaround in the scope of a few hours.
On Monday in Jacksonville, Fla., McCain made his now-famous reassurance that the fundamentals of the economy were still good. It’s a longstanding line of his, but this was perhaps not the best week to dredge it up. So the handlers went to work, and by the time McCain arrived in Orlando a few hours later he was reprogrammed. And angry!
“We’re going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street! Enough is enough! We’re going to put an end to the greed!” he told a town hall meeting crowded with Hispanic Republicans. It was a rather jumbled message, but the new story line was firm. The fundamentals were not things like employment rates or trade statistics. The fundamentals were the workers.
We are the fundamentals!
And, naturally, the humble, hard-working fundamentals are good. Who could doubt it? Was Barack Obama trying to say that he didn’t think the American working man and woman was good? Was this the sort of thing they talked about at those fancy-schmancy Hollywood fund-raisers? Which, of course, John McCain hates. Give him some hard cider and a log cabin, and he’s happy as a clam.
But wait! The fundamentals are in danger! At risk because of “greed.” Which John McCain was shocked to discover has been running rampant in the canyons of Wall Street.
(snip)
It is also disconcerting, of course, to hear the Republicans rail against Washington as if the Socialist Workers Party had been running things there for the last eight years. But really, what would you do if you were McCain? There aren’t a lot of options, and he never did like George W. anyway.
This new tactic is different. McCain has always, genuinely, believed in dismantling government regulations, and there he was, vowing to create new “comprehensive regulations that will apply the rules and enforce them to the fullest.” It makes you think that he’s trying to impersonate something he’s not. Or wasn’t. Or might not be. The image is getting fuzzy.
This week, while McCain’s chief economic adviser was telling reporters that it was wrong to “run for president by denigrating everything in sight and trying to scare people,” McCain’s ad people were unveiling a new spot announcing “Our economy in crisis!” and calling for “tougher rules on Wall Street” along, of course, with more offshore drilling. Mournful unemployment-line music swells.
“The people of Ohio are the most productive in the world!” yelled John McCain at a rally outside of Youngstown on Tuesday. Present company perhaps excluded, since the crowd was made up entirely of people who were at liberty in the middle of a workday.
Folks were wildly enthusiastic as the event began. That was partly because Sarah Palin was also on the bill. (With Todd!) And when McCain took the center stage, they were itching to cheer the war hero and boo all references to pork-barrel spenders.
Nobody had warned them that he had just morphed into a new persona — a raging populist demanding more regulation of the nation’s financial system. And since McCain’s willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long.
Really, if McCain is going to keep changing into new people, the campaign should send out notices. (Come to a rally for the next president of the United States. Today he’s a vegetarian!) “We’re going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street — enough is enough!” this new incarnation yelled, complaining angrily about greed and overpaid C.E.O.’s. Slowly, people begin to peel out of the crowd and drift away. Even in these troubled times, there are apparently a number of Republicans who think highly of corporate executives and captains of high finance.
The whole transformation was fascinating in a cheap-thrills kind of way. It’s not every day, outside of “Incredible Hulk” movies, that you see somebody make this kind of turnaround in the scope of a few hours.
On Monday in Jacksonville, Fla., McCain made his now-famous reassurance that the fundamentals of the economy were still good. It’s a longstanding line of his, but this was perhaps not the best week to dredge it up. So the handlers went to work, and by the time McCain arrived in Orlando a few hours later he was reprogrammed. And angry!
“We’re going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street! Enough is enough! We’re going to put an end to the greed!” he told a town hall meeting crowded with Hispanic Republicans. It was a rather jumbled message, but the new story line was firm. The fundamentals were not things like employment rates or trade statistics. The fundamentals were the workers.
We are the fundamentals!
And, naturally, the humble, hard-working fundamentals are good. Who could doubt it? Was Barack Obama trying to say that he didn’t think the American working man and woman was good? Was this the sort of thing they talked about at those fancy-schmancy Hollywood fund-raisers? Which, of course, John McCain hates. Give him some hard cider and a log cabin, and he’s happy as a clam.
But wait! The fundamentals are in danger! At risk because of “greed.” Which John McCain was shocked to discover has been running rampant in the canyons of Wall Street.
(snip)
It is also disconcerting, of course, to hear the Republicans rail against Washington as if the Socialist Workers Party had been running things there for the last eight years. But really, what would you do if you were McCain? There aren’t a lot of options, and he never did like George W. anyway.
This new tactic is different. McCain has always, genuinely, believed in dismantling government regulations, and there he was, vowing to create new “comprehensive regulations that will apply the rules and enforce them to the fullest.” It makes you think that he’s trying to impersonate something he’s not. Or wasn’t. Or might not be. The image is getting fuzzy.
This week, while McCain’s chief economic adviser was telling reporters that it was wrong to “run for president by denigrating everything in sight and trying to scare people,” McCain’s ad people were unveiling a new spot announcing “Our economy in crisis!” and calling for “tougher rules on Wall Street” along, of course, with more offshore drilling. Mournful unemployment-line music swells.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
And to think Roger Ailes created Faux Business News station because he claimed CNBC was too anti-business
Atrios:
The Absurdity Of CNBC
The entire financial system is practically collapsing and they're lamenting the possibility of more regulation. I don't think the sports/referee metaphor is perfect, but it's probably good enough. People who prattle on about "the free market" are usually too stupid to have a clue how complicated and pervasive the "rules" had to be to to get a well-functioning modern market system: sophisticated concepts of contracts and enforcement, property rights, legal entities, proper accounting, bankruptcy, limited liability, etc... etc..., did not descend from the heavens but were, in fact, created.
The Absurdity Of CNBC
The entire financial system is practically collapsing and they're lamenting the possibility of more regulation. I don't think the sports/referee metaphor is perfect, but it's probably good enough. People who prattle on about "the free market" are usually too stupid to have a clue how complicated and pervasive the "rules" had to be to to get a well-functioning modern market system: sophisticated concepts of contracts and enforcement, property rights, legal entities, proper accounting, bankruptcy, limited liability, etc... etc..., did not descend from the heavens but were, in fact, created.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Decline of Congress
Via Glenn Greenwald, Mickey Edwards, former GOP member of Congress, testified today thusly:
There are a great many salient questions facing the American people and those of you who are charged with the responsibility of enacting the nation's laws: access to affordable health care; repair of an aging infrastructure; reducing energy dependence; ensuring the national security. But not one of those issues – and not all of them combined – is as important now or for the future as securing our position as a nation governed by the rule of law. . .
Let me be both candid and clear: the current greatest threat to our system of separated powers and the protections it affords stems not just from executive overreaching but equally from the Congress. America's founders envisioned a system in which each of the branches of government would guard its prerogatives and meet its obligations, each acting to serve the nation through the empowerment the Constitution grants and to protect our liberties through the constraints the Constitution imposes.
For most of the past eight years, and for many years before that, the Congress has failed to lived up to its assigned role as the principal representative of the people. . . .
Here is the challenge, stated as candidly as I can state it. Each year the presidency grows farther beyond the bounds the Constitution permits; each year the Congress fades farther into irrelevance. As it does, the voice of the people is silenced. This cannot be permitted to stand. The Congress is not without power. It can refuse to confirm people the President suggests for important offices; it can refuse to provide money for the carrying out of Executive Branch activities; it can use its subpoena power and its power to hold hearings and above all, it can use its power to write the laws of the country.
Do not let it be said that what the Founders created, you have destroyed. Do not let it be said that on your watch, the Constitution of the United States became not the law of the land but a suggestion. You are not a parliament; you are a Congress -- separate, independent, and equal. And because of that you are the principal means by which the people maintain control of their government. Defend that right, and that obligation, or you lose all purpose in holding these high offices. That is how you preserve and defend the rule of law in the United States.
*******************
True words, these. From an institutional perspective, the decline of Congress over the past several decades, and especially over the last eight, is the most worrisome of recent national developments.
There are a great many salient questions facing the American people and those of you who are charged with the responsibility of enacting the nation's laws: access to affordable health care; repair of an aging infrastructure; reducing energy dependence; ensuring the national security. But not one of those issues – and not all of them combined – is as important now or for the future as securing our position as a nation governed by the rule of law. . .
Let me be both candid and clear: the current greatest threat to our system of separated powers and the protections it affords stems not just from executive overreaching but equally from the Congress. America's founders envisioned a system in which each of the branches of government would guard its prerogatives and meet its obligations, each acting to serve the nation through the empowerment the Constitution grants and to protect our liberties through the constraints the Constitution imposes.
For most of the past eight years, and for many years before that, the Congress has failed to lived up to its assigned role as the principal representative of the people. . . .
Here is the challenge, stated as candidly as I can state it. Each year the presidency grows farther beyond the bounds the Constitution permits; each year the Congress fades farther into irrelevance. As it does, the voice of the people is silenced. This cannot be permitted to stand. The Congress is not without power. It can refuse to confirm people the President suggests for important offices; it can refuse to provide money for the carrying out of Executive Branch activities; it can use its subpoena power and its power to hold hearings and above all, it can use its power to write the laws of the country.
Do not let it be said that what the Founders created, you have destroyed. Do not let it be said that on your watch, the Constitution of the United States became not the law of the land but a suggestion. You are not a parliament; you are a Congress -- separate, independent, and equal. And because of that you are the principal means by which the people maintain control of their government. Defend that right, and that obligation, or you lose all purpose in holding these high offices. That is how you preserve and defend the rule of law in the United States.
*******************
True words, these. From an institutional perspective, the decline of Congress over the past several decades, and especially over the last eight, is the most worrisome of recent national developments.
"Casual Oversight By Regulatory Agencies in Washington"
McCain for it before he was against it.
It was, to put it mildly, terribly odd to read all of this. McCain has always supported the casual oversight he's now railing against. He's never lifted a finger to rein in Wall Street's excesses -- indeed, he's actively opposed anyone who tried.
It was, to put it mildly, terribly odd to read all of this. McCain has always supported the casual oversight he's now railing against. He's never lifted a finger to rein in Wall Street's excesses -- indeed, he's actively opposed anyone who tried.
Claptrap
Clark Stooksbury, via John Cole:
I have yet to see anything more to her than a politician with an attractive family who competently spouts rightwing boilerplate. When she denounces the war party, supply side theology, the bogus “drill, drill, drill” claptrap, or any other reigning orthodoxy of the Republican Party; I will take notice. But anyone willing to do that wouldn’t be on the Republican ticket in the first place.
I have yet to see anything more to her than a politician with an attractive family who competently spouts rightwing boilerplate. When she denounces the war party, supply side theology, the bogus “drill, drill, drill” claptrap, or any other reigning orthodoxy of the Republican Party; I will take notice. But anyone willing to do that wouldn’t be on the Republican ticket in the first place.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Anything To Win
Steve Chapman at Reason.com (h/t Andrew Sullivan):
[McCain] has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.
[McCain] has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.
Down 500
Oh well.
Good thing we took John McCain's bestest economic buddy's advice and deregulated the banking/investment industry:
[Gramm]was co-sponsor of the 1999 law that allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking. And the fact that Gramm was a prime architect of a 2000 bill that kept regulators' hands off of "credit default swaps," an exotic financial tool which helped enable the bundling and selling of crappy subprime mortgages to investors.
Good thing we took John McCain's bestest economic buddy's advice and deregulated the banking/investment industry:
[Gramm]was co-sponsor of the 1999 law that allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking. And the fact that Gramm was a prime architect of a 2000 bill that kept regulators' hands off of "credit default swaps," an exotic financial tool which helped enable the bundling and selling of crappy subprime mortgages to investors.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Alaskan Independence Now: Let My People Go!
Most of the press coverage of Sarah and husband Palin's association with a weird Alaskan secessionist group, the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), has been to note that, no, Sarah didn't formally belong to the group, but the husband did. No story. Nothing to see here. Please disperse.
This seems pretty weird to me (among many, many other things this cycle). If Jill Biden belonged to a Delaware Independence Party that had in recent years attempted to get a vote for secession on the ballot, whose meetings husband and VP candidate Joe attended in recent years along with Jill, wouldn't this be a pretty big deal? If Jill Biden belonged to a Delaware Independence Party, which backed Delaware seceeding from the U.S., and if husband and VP candidate Joe Biden attended such meetings while nonetheless lacking formal membership credentials, don't you think we'd be subjected to a wave of breathless flag-waving on Faux news and throughout the media along with breathless questions as to whether Jill was anti-American and whether the Bidens, and Obama as well because he picked Joe to be his VP, were sufficiently patriotic?
But I guess since Sarah and husband Palin are evangelical Christians, all this must be OK.
This seems pretty weird to me (among many, many other things this cycle). If Jill Biden belonged to a Delaware Independence Party that had in recent years attempted to get a vote for secession on the ballot, whose meetings husband and VP candidate Joe attended in recent years along with Jill, wouldn't this be a pretty big deal? If Jill Biden belonged to a Delaware Independence Party, which backed Delaware seceeding from the U.S., and if husband and VP candidate Joe Biden attended such meetings while nonetheless lacking formal membership credentials, don't you think we'd be subjected to a wave of breathless flag-waving on Faux news and throughout the media along with breathless questions as to whether Jill was anti-American and whether the Bidens, and Obama as well because he picked Joe to be his VP, were sufficiently patriotic?
But I guess since Sarah and husband Palin are evangelical Christians, all this must be OK.
Monday, September 08, 2008
It's Very UnAmerican to want to Ban Books
Like Sarah Palin does, and so apparently does John McCain, since he chose her.
The Obama-Biden campaign, if it is still in operation, I can't tell for sure, wants to use this line, I won't charge them.
The Obama-Biden campaign, if it is still in operation, I can't tell for sure, wants to use this line, I won't charge them.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Keep Honking -- We're Reloading
Here comes the money. I mentioned this below in an updated and properly sourced post, but Palin's attack speech has precipitated a wave of fund-raising. For Obama. $8 Mill since last night.
Maybe a little red meat is good for you after all.
Maybe a little red meat is good for you after all.
Where Is Hillary?
From what I can tell, AWOL on Obama and the Democratic Party. In other words, more or less where she's been for the past eight years while the Republicans have been wrecking the country.
Oh Well
The Dow records a 300-point loss after a jump in unemployment, The Associated Press reports.
I'm sure this is good news for John McCain.
I'm sure this is good news for John McCain.
167-36
The number of African-American delegates to the GOP national conventions in 2004 and 2008 respectively.
Almost to zero. But not there yet.
The GOP is already well known for its viciousness and nastiness. Want to imagine what their conventions will be like when non-whites are a majority of the population?
Almost to zero. But not there yet.
The GOP is already well known for its viciousness and nastiness. Want to imagine what their conventions will be like when non-whites are a majority of the population?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Sarah Palin -- Book Burner
I'd be remiss not to mention, among Commander Super General Palin's other fine accomplishments and endeavors, the Wusilli Mayor's shot at getting certain unspecified books burned, er, banned, from her high-school sized town's library while heartlessly canning the librarian (a non-partisan position if there ever was one, yes?) along the way. And have you ever noticed that seemingly every election year Republicans spread some rumor or another about how the Democrat wants to confiscate your Bible, but the only people ever on record as ever having tried or succeeded in confiscating or banning books are conservative, Christianist Republicans, like Palin?
Each day, each moment that goes by, makes me more offended and outraged at McCain's VP selection. It's hard to believe his contempt for America is as deep as this. And I haven't even said anything about Palin and how she hopes all the Polar Bears starve, drown and die. Really. Palin is a flat-out despicable human being.
And yes, I just coughed up my first $1,000 for the Obama/Biden campaign. Congrats, John McCain and Sarah Palin. Mission Accomplished.
Update: Ezra Klein laments:
I may be a political reporter, but I'm only human. It is simply not possible to keep up with quantity of scandals spilling out of Sarah Palin's extremely short political career.
Each day, each moment that goes by, makes me more offended and outraged at McCain's VP selection. It's hard to believe his contempt for America is as deep as this. And I haven't even said anything about Palin and how she hopes all the Polar Bears starve, drown and die. Really. Palin is a flat-out despicable human being.
And yes, I just coughed up my first $1,000 for the Obama/Biden campaign. Congrats, John McCain and Sarah Palin. Mission Accomplished.
Update: Ezra Klein laments:
I may be a political reporter, but I'm only human. It is simply not possible to keep up with quantity of scandals spilling out of Sarah Palin's extremely short political career.
What Will McCain Say Tomorrow Night?
Tonight is obviously Cult-Worship night at the GOP convention when the party's beleagured VP choice, whom most of the delegates, let alone most Republicans across America, had never heard of one week ago, comes out to rapturous applause from the party faithful and Christian Dominionists. I wonder if Palin will, like the Pentecostal "Name it, Claim it", prosperity gospel cajoling scam artist preachers Palin appears to know so well, will descend into the mosh pit of Phyllis Shaflies and practice a little laying on of hands to dispel whatever evil spirits might have invaded the souls of the faithful after the Democrats conventioned in Denver.
Anyway, after all of this, what will McCain say tomorrow night? What can he possibly say? Revert to form and trumpet the wide array of threats facing America from the Islamicistics facisictss muslmisiticsts, asserting that he, of POW and twenty five plus years of national government service alone possesses the attributes to confront them, hoping any thoughts of the youngster he picked for the ticket and who spoke the night before is conveniently forgotten? Does he go on a Cultural War rampage, which has never been his strong suit? Does he wax poetic about earmarks, many of which were favored by Palin before she became The One? Does he promise to unleash the fires of hell against Iran, Syria, and Venezuela? Will anyone left breathless from tonight's speech by The One bother staying around to hear from that old wrinkly dude guy?
Anyway, after all of this, what will McCain say tomorrow night? What can he possibly say? Revert to form and trumpet the wide array of threats facing America from the Islamicistics facisictss muslmisiticsts, asserting that he, of POW and twenty five plus years of national government service alone possesses the attributes to confront them, hoping any thoughts of the youngster he picked for the ticket and who spoke the night before is conveniently forgotten? Does he go on a Cultural War rampage, which has never been his strong suit? Does he wax poetic about earmarks, many of which were favored by Palin before she became The One? Does he promise to unleash the fires of hell against Iran, Syria, and Venezuela? Will anyone left breathless from tonight's speech by The One bother staying around to hear from that old wrinkly dude guy?
Inspiring the Base--The Democratic Base (Updated Below)
There's been a lot of talk since the Palin pick was announced of how this has rapidly animated the Republican Christianist base.
But if my own response is anything like those of others who gave to Obama during the primary season--but have held off donating since--then maybe the Republican base isn't the only one getting motivated.
McCain could have gone any number of directions with his campaign and his VP selection, but that he's chosen the path he has, has made the prospect of his and his party's continuing in the executive branch of government catastrophic.
Sure, maybe that would have happened anyway, that no matter how "centrist" McCain's public persona, his actual record is anything but, and activist Democrats would have gone all out for Obama eventually. But McCain's choices, both in campaign style and in executive decision-making, are reinforcing the travesties of government mangling and abuse of power during the past eight years. At least in its original roll-out period, George W's promise of a "compassionate conservatism", combined with the experience of Dick Cheney, suggested something resembling competency and deliberateness about the 2000 ticket (even if it didn't turn out that way). The 2008 team, however, is arguably on its face, the most ideological and reckless pairing since at least 1968. And where past candidates, like to a certain extent Obama, have campaigned to their party's base in the primaries and returned to the center during the general, McCain appears to be doing the opposite.
I suspect many of us who have been nearly lulled to sleep by Obama's turn to the center, have been sufficiently stirred up now.
Update: Here's some empirical evidence in support of the speculation. Maybe there's something to be said for having your opponent go last in the convention cycle. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
But if my own response is anything like those of others who gave to Obama during the primary season--but have held off donating since--then maybe the Republican base isn't the only one getting motivated.
McCain could have gone any number of directions with his campaign and his VP selection, but that he's chosen the path he has, has made the prospect of his and his party's continuing in the executive branch of government catastrophic.
Sure, maybe that would have happened anyway, that no matter how "centrist" McCain's public persona, his actual record is anything but, and activist Democrats would have gone all out for Obama eventually. But McCain's choices, both in campaign style and in executive decision-making, are reinforcing the travesties of government mangling and abuse of power during the past eight years. At least in its original roll-out period, George W's promise of a "compassionate conservatism", combined with the experience of Dick Cheney, suggested something resembling competency and deliberateness about the 2000 ticket (even if it didn't turn out that way). The 2008 team, however, is arguably on its face, the most ideological and reckless pairing since at least 1968. And where past candidates, like to a certain extent Obama, have campaigned to their party's base in the primaries and returned to the center during the general, McCain appears to be doing the opposite.
I suspect many of us who have been nearly lulled to sleep by Obama's turn to the center, have been sufficiently stirred up now.
Update: Here's some empirical evidence in support of the speculation. Maybe there's something to be said for having your opponent go last in the convention cycle. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
Angry Candidates, Angry Parties
Although the video-conferenced-in Republican president complained last night to GOP delegates that its opponents amount to an "angry left", look at who's getting angry today:
McCain campaign angrily defends Sarah Palin
Note also that this AP piece is by the infamous Ron Fournier. About him you can read here.
McCain campaign angrily defends Sarah Palin
Note also that this AP piece is by the infamous Ron Fournier. About him you can read here.
GOP to America: Just Bend Over and Take It
McCain Team's explanation for "punishing" CNN by canceling it's interview with Larry King:
“As a presidential campaign, we reserve the right to adjust Senator McCain’s media schedule in order to ensure the most effective use of his time,” said Maria Comella, a spokeswoman. “After a relentless refusal by certain on-air reporters to come to terms with John McCain’s selection of Alaska’s sitting governor as our party’s nominee for vice president, we decided John McCain’s time would be better served elsewhere.”
Get it? The media's role, the American public's role, is to "come to terms" with McCain's VP picks, not ask questions. You know, just like the Iraq war, the NSA surveillance, the torturing and indefinite detaining and isolation of prisoners, etc. Whatever the Republican Party does, whoever it nominates for anything, is outside the bounds of inquiry. Even though the GOP trumpets its alleged dedication to "family values", what it really means is that its own families are not up for discussion, only yours and ours are.
Just as the media is finally, finally, starting to take the McCain camp and the Republicans to task for their reckless decision-making and incompetence, it would be a shame were it to suddenly cave to Republican pressure to go soft on its nominees and policies. If it does, the Democratic Party and its nominees should not.
“As a presidential campaign, we reserve the right to adjust Senator McCain’s media schedule in order to ensure the most effective use of his time,” said Maria Comella, a spokeswoman. “After a relentless refusal by certain on-air reporters to come to terms with John McCain’s selection of Alaska’s sitting governor as our party’s nominee for vice president, we decided John McCain’s time would be better served elsewhere.”
Get it? The media's role, the American public's role, is to "come to terms" with McCain's VP picks, not ask questions. You know, just like the Iraq war, the NSA surveillance, the torturing and indefinite detaining and isolation of prisoners, etc. Whatever the Republican Party does, whoever it nominates for anything, is outside the bounds of inquiry. Even though the GOP trumpets its alleged dedication to "family values", what it really means is that its own families are not up for discussion, only yours and ours are.
Just as the media is finally, finally, starting to take the McCain camp and the Republicans to task for their reckless decision-making and incompetence, it would be a shame were it to suddenly cave to Republican pressure to go soft on its nominees and policies. If it does, the Democratic Party and its nominees should not.
"We have to start speaking English again."
Andrew Sullivan on the GOP's Orwellian, Know-Nothing-ism about McCain and torture:
I've noted the bizarre locution Bush used last night to describe the torture endured by John McCain. I hope the press corps will follow up. But one piece of evidence that the omission of the t-word by Bush was deliberate comes in Fred Thompson's speech as well. He went on at length about the hideous treatment handed down to John McCain in Vietnam. It was the longest section of the speech. Wanna guess if the word "torture" came up at all?
(snip)
What was done to John McCain was a war crime. His enduring of it, and his refusal to be released ahead of his fellows does indeed speak to enormous character, which is why so many of us love the man. But today's great crime is that what was done to him is now being done to others ... under orders from the president of the United States. You can either defend this, or you can use semantics to cover it up. The Bush administration has chosen the worst of all paths in this, and the taint of their actions is now spreading.
We have to start speaking English again. Asking Fred Thompson directly whether he believes John McCain was tortured in Vietnam is a start.
Update: one other thing. Thompson does not mention, again bizarrely, the stress positions that feature very prominently in McCain's own account of his torture. Why not?
I've noted the bizarre locution Bush used last night to describe the torture endured by John McCain. I hope the press corps will follow up. But one piece of evidence that the omission of the t-word by Bush was deliberate comes in Fred Thompson's speech as well. He went on at length about the hideous treatment handed down to John McCain in Vietnam. It was the longest section of the speech. Wanna guess if the word "torture" came up at all?
(snip)
What was done to John McCain was a war crime. His enduring of it, and his refusal to be released ahead of his fellows does indeed speak to enormous character, which is why so many of us love the man. But today's great crime is that what was done to him is now being done to others ... under orders from the president of the United States. You can either defend this, or you can use semantics to cover it up. The Bush administration has chosen the worst of all paths in this, and the taint of their actions is now spreading.
We have to start speaking English again. Asking Fred Thompson directly whether he believes John McCain was tortured in Vietnam is a start.
Update: one other thing. Thompson does not mention, again bizarrely, the stress positions that feature very prominently in McCain's own account of his torture. Why not?
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Polls
From Yahoo! dot com:
Obama's DNC Bounce Smaller Than Others and Shrinking
From TPM:
Bevy of Polls Show Expanding Obama Lead
Obama's DNC Bounce Smaller Than Others and Shrinking
From TPM:
Bevy of Polls Show Expanding Obama Lead
The Southern Gulag and the Myth of Southern Patriotism
In a break from all things Palin all the time, might I heartily recommend these posts by Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe on Douglas Blackmon's Slavery By Another Name.
As I've noted previously, the past year or so has seen the publication of several books debunking Southern mythology, of which Blackmon's Slavery is only the most recent and thorough.
As I've noted previously, the past year or so has seen the publication of several books debunking Southern mythology, of which Blackmon's Slavery is only the most recent and thorough.
Unintended Consequences
Arianna Huffington:
Minneapolis-St. Paul -- Even without George Bush in the Twin Cities, the GOP cannot escape its miserable record over the last eight years. (Indeed, trying to spot a recognizable Republican in town has become a favorite early-convention game.)
So you can see why Sarah Palin was such an appealing pick for John McCain. Along with all the things she brings to the table -- fresh face, mother of five, hockey mom -- Palin is notable for what she doesn't bring: a track record.
If McCain had picked any of the far more experienced candidates on his short list, they would have come fully equipped with a long paper trail implicating them in the horror show that is the Republican Party of the last eight years.
Palin has barely left a footprint on the GOP scene. And the McCain camp immediately scrubbed one of the few marks -- an ad on her campaign website featuring an endorsement from newly indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.
So with a party brand as damaged as the GOP's is right now, lack of experience isn't a bug, it's a feature.
*******
Andrew Sullivan:
The drama that could unfold in the next few days is simply immense. The emotions involved - especially among the Christianist base who have immediately bonded on purely religious and cultural terms with Palin - are epic. What I fear is some kind of pure emotional-religious wave that redefines the GOP for ever as a purely religious party, swamps all genuine questions about governance, celebrates this woman as the epitome of modern conservatism and rides the tidal wave of fundamentalist fervor to the White House.
This is not what McCain intended or wanted.
He wanted a reformer. He's got a saint. He doesn't understand the profound forces he has unleashed with this pick, especially when all the facts are on the table. I predict that as this story develops, it will be Palin who is effectively running for president for the GOP. Or if she is forced to withdraw, McCain will be forced back to Romney, but they will blame Palin's demise on the librul media, and hoist Palin like a martyred mascot on a freight train.
Minneapolis-St. Paul -- Even without George Bush in the Twin Cities, the GOP cannot escape its miserable record over the last eight years. (Indeed, trying to spot a recognizable Republican in town has become a favorite early-convention game.)
So you can see why Sarah Palin was such an appealing pick for John McCain. Along with all the things she brings to the table -- fresh face, mother of five, hockey mom -- Palin is notable for what she doesn't bring: a track record.
If McCain had picked any of the far more experienced candidates on his short list, they would have come fully equipped with a long paper trail implicating them in the horror show that is the Republican Party of the last eight years.
Palin has barely left a footprint on the GOP scene. And the McCain camp immediately scrubbed one of the few marks -- an ad on her campaign website featuring an endorsement from newly indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.
So with a party brand as damaged as the GOP's is right now, lack of experience isn't a bug, it's a feature.
*******
Andrew Sullivan:
The drama that could unfold in the next few days is simply immense. The emotions involved - especially among the Christianist base who have immediately bonded on purely religious and cultural terms with Palin - are epic. What I fear is some kind of pure emotional-religious wave that redefines the GOP for ever as a purely religious party, swamps all genuine questions about governance, celebrates this woman as the epitome of modern conservatism and rides the tidal wave of fundamentalist fervor to the White House.
This is not what McCain intended or wanted.
He wanted a reformer. He's got a saint. He doesn't understand the profound forces he has unleashed with this pick, especially when all the facts are on the table. I predict that as this story develops, it will be Palin who is effectively running for president for the GOP. Or if she is forced to withdraw, McCain will be forced back to Romney, but they will blame Palin's demise on the librul media, and hoist Palin like a martyred mascot on a freight train.
The Colors of Teen Pregnancy
Colbert King:
A few weeks ago, I wrote a column about the problem of teen pregnancy and the tragic impact it has had on so many aspects of life in the nation's capital. Reader response was heavy and, in some ways, disturbing. While I never used the terms "black or "African American" in the column, many readers saw the teen pregnancy problem in only racial terms.
What brings this to mind is today's statement from Sarah and Todd Palin disclosing that their unmarried 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant. The presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee and her husband expressed their pride in becoming grandparents. As a grandparent of six, I can appreciate their feelings, and extend to them a hearty welcome into the enviable grandparents' club.
I'm also happy to learn that their daughter will have the unconditional love and support of the entire family as she and her husband-to-be raise their baby.
I only wish the angry readers who weighed in on my column showed similar understanding and, if not love, then at least a little respect for the young women I wrote about.
Instead, this is some of what I got:
"How long has this 'problem' been going on in the black community? Since the dark ages, er, the 60's, say. From day one they should be held accountable for their behavior…Remove the kid if necessary and establish some kind of homes for them. Better the state rear them instead of the current crop. The girls have so little self-love they long for getting knocked up or just believing they're being loved." 7/19/2008 3:12 PM.
"One often reads, hears or sees profiles of young men who grow up poor in gang infested areas and try to understand the tough choices they make that lead them astray. Stories of young women who fail to keep their knees together until a man fit to be a father comes along are rare." 7/19/2008 5:59 PM
"What children see they will do and what they do they will become." 7/19/2008 5:46 PM.
"Stop handing out welfare and housing to teen mothers and teen pregnancy will be cut by ½ in a few years." 7/19/2008 10:59 AM.
Sarah Palin, husband Todd, and daughter Bristol are well suited to tell the rest of America that there is more to the problem than that.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a column about the problem of teen pregnancy and the tragic impact it has had on so many aspects of life in the nation's capital. Reader response was heavy and, in some ways, disturbing. While I never used the terms "black or "African American" in the column, many readers saw the teen pregnancy problem in only racial terms.
What brings this to mind is today's statement from Sarah and Todd Palin disclosing that their unmarried 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant. The presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee and her husband expressed their pride in becoming grandparents. As a grandparent of six, I can appreciate their feelings, and extend to them a hearty welcome into the enviable grandparents' club.
I'm also happy to learn that their daughter will have the unconditional love and support of the entire family as she and her husband-to-be raise their baby.
I only wish the angry readers who weighed in on my column showed similar understanding and, if not love, then at least a little respect for the young women I wrote about.
Instead, this is some of what I got:
"How long has this 'problem' been going on in the black community? Since the dark ages, er, the 60's, say. From day one they should be held accountable for their behavior…Remove the kid if necessary and establish some kind of homes for them. Better the state rear them instead of the current crop. The girls have so little self-love they long for getting knocked up or just believing they're being loved." 7/19/2008 3:12 PM.
"One often reads, hears or sees profiles of young men who grow up poor in gang infested areas and try to understand the tough choices they make that lead them astray. Stories of young women who fail to keep their knees together until a man fit to be a father comes along are rare." 7/19/2008 5:59 PM
"What children see they will do and what they do they will become." 7/19/2008 5:46 PM.
"Stop handing out welfare and housing to teen mothers and teen pregnancy will be cut by ½ in a few years." 7/19/2008 10:59 AM.
Sarah Palin, husband Todd, and daughter Bristol are well suited to tell the rest of America that there is more to the problem than that.
Republican Chaos Theory
I know some others have begun drawing connections between McCain's reckless Palin pick and his other reckless policy choices, but I think the connection with the Bush-McCain Iraq invasion is particularly illustrative.
The basic reason why Bush I, along with Cheney and Powell, didn't press onto Baghdad in Gulf War I was the fear of miring the U.S. Army in a decades-long, perhaps brutal occupation of Iraq. When Bush II came on the scene, and with the nudging of neocons like Rumsfeld and Kristol, this fear basically became a virtue of sorts. Sure, it would have been preferable from the neocon viewpoint for Iraq to have been a "cakewalk" as was projected, but the fact that it wasn't, wasn't bad either. Heads they win, tails we lose. In this chaos theory of the world, either outcome was considered conducive to the neocon policy goals. A quick, easy win and exit from Iraq would have obviously both enhanced the neocons credibility while freeing the U.S. army for deployment elsewhere (say, Iran). But a prolonged Iraqi occupation served other goals: the emersion of the U.S. in the Middle East, and the furtherence of Permanent War either way.
The Palin pick strikes me as being very similar. Sure, it would have been much preferable for the McCain camp had the media and everyone swooned over Palin. But the fact that the Palin pick has instead unleashed a whirlwind of controversy, well, that isn't so bad, either, from the standpoint of a chaos theory driven campaign strategy. After all, as some conservatives like Bill Kristol have already claimed, if the McCain campaign was doomed anyway (and I don't see how that would have been case, but for the sake of argument...) than controversy or no, the Palin pick explodes the political dynamic, enlivens the conservative base (itself a double-edged sword for generating opposition among liberals and the public to the GOP's Christianist authoritarians), which serves the McCain team and his party just fine as well.
The basic reason why Bush I, along with Cheney and Powell, didn't press onto Baghdad in Gulf War I was the fear of miring the U.S. Army in a decades-long, perhaps brutal occupation of Iraq. When Bush II came on the scene, and with the nudging of neocons like Rumsfeld and Kristol, this fear basically became a virtue of sorts. Sure, it would have been preferable from the neocon viewpoint for Iraq to have been a "cakewalk" as was projected, but the fact that it wasn't, wasn't bad either. Heads they win, tails we lose. In this chaos theory of the world, either outcome was considered conducive to the neocon policy goals. A quick, easy win and exit from Iraq would have obviously both enhanced the neocons credibility while freeing the U.S. army for deployment elsewhere (say, Iran). But a prolonged Iraqi occupation served other goals: the emersion of the U.S. in the Middle East, and the furtherence of Permanent War either way.
The Palin pick strikes me as being very similar. Sure, it would have been much preferable for the McCain camp had the media and everyone swooned over Palin. But the fact that the Palin pick has instead unleashed a whirlwind of controversy, well, that isn't so bad, either, from the standpoint of a chaos theory driven campaign strategy. After all, as some conservatives like Bill Kristol have already claimed, if the McCain campaign was doomed anyway (and I don't see how that would have been case, but for the sake of argument...) than controversy or no, the Palin pick explodes the political dynamic, enlivens the conservative base (itself a double-edged sword for generating opposition among liberals and the public to the GOP's Christianist authoritarians), which serves the McCain team and his party just fine as well.
Vett This
A lot of people have been talking about this NY Times piece on the McCain team's non-vettin of Palin, and for good reason. But it's a hard story to quote from without quoting the whole thing because the incompetence and recklessness it points to makes it hard to isolate any one or two paragraphs.
Nevertheless, since much of the article has been quoted already, I'll just point out the last few paragraphs:
A number of Republicans said the McCain campaign had to some degree tied its hands in its effort to keep the selection process so secret.
“If you really want it to be a surprise, the circle of people that you’re going to allow to know about it is going to be small, and that’s just the nature of it,” said Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to President Bush.
Former McCain strategists disagreed on whether it would have been useful for Ms. Palin’s name to have been more publicly floated before her selection so that issues like the trooper investigation and her daughter’s pregnancy might have already been aired and not seemed so new at the time of her announcement.
“It’s a risk,” said Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “No matter how great the candidate, it’s a significant risk to put someone on the ticket” who hasn’t been publicly scrutinized.
“They obviously felt it was worth the risk to rev up the base and potentially reach out to Clinton supporters,” Mr. Schnur said.
So, in order to keep the pick a "surprise", the McCain team essentially sacrificed any virtue to be derived from either a public or private vetting. It's hard to believe it came down to that. Truly staggering. Clearly the McCain team doesn't take the job of being president and any threats the country faces all that seriously.
Nevertheless, since much of the article has been quoted already, I'll just point out the last few paragraphs:
A number of Republicans said the McCain campaign had to some degree tied its hands in its effort to keep the selection process so secret.
“If you really want it to be a surprise, the circle of people that you’re going to allow to know about it is going to be small, and that’s just the nature of it,” said Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to President Bush.
Former McCain strategists disagreed on whether it would have been useful for Ms. Palin’s name to have been more publicly floated before her selection so that issues like the trooper investigation and her daughter’s pregnancy might have already been aired and not seemed so new at the time of her announcement.
“It’s a risk,” said Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “No matter how great the candidate, it’s a significant risk to put someone on the ticket” who hasn’t been publicly scrutinized.
“They obviously felt it was worth the risk to rev up the base and potentially reach out to Clinton supporters,” Mr. Schnur said.
So, in order to keep the pick a "surprise", the McCain team essentially sacrificed any virtue to be derived from either a public or private vetting. It's hard to believe it came down to that. Truly staggering. Clearly the McCain team doesn't take the job of being president and any threats the country faces all that seriously.
Palin believes you're going to hell
As noted at TAPPED by Sarah Posner, the theocratic Christianist preacher at Palin's Juneau church had this to say:
“Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise.”
What this pastor means by "horrible, horrible surprise" is of course, hell-fire and eternal torment (from the God who loves you of course). Now, as Posner notes, this is pretty standard fare at most evangelical Christianist churches. Essentially, most Christianists believe, or at least read and hear taught in their churches, that when non-Christianists die, they go straight to H. E. double-hockey-sticks. But this is a rather remarkable belief to hold, is it not? Surely this idea deserves some kind of serious scrutiny as to its validity. What are the implications of such a belief? If you seriously believe that most human beings do not "have Christ" and will therefore, have a "horrible, horrible surprise" awaiting them at death, then what would your feelings be towards humanity in general, to the value of human life, to the effects of natural disasters, war, poverty, hunger, and death? Well, if the people are not Christianist, then for the believer, these catastrophes are not only unremarkable, they may actually indicate that those who face them are only getting what they deserve for not "having Christ". Aside from the inability to prove such a belief, the Christianist doctrine of hell would be pretty damnable itself if a religion, oh say, Islam, believed such a thing (which it appears they do).
Was Palin in church that day? Does Palin believe this? If Obama can be questioned about his pastor's sermons, surely our media could ask Palin to comment on this.
“Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise.”
What this pastor means by "horrible, horrible surprise" is of course, hell-fire and eternal torment (from the God who loves you of course). Now, as Posner notes, this is pretty standard fare at most evangelical Christianist churches. Essentially, most Christianists believe, or at least read and hear taught in their churches, that when non-Christianists die, they go straight to H. E. double-hockey-sticks. But this is a rather remarkable belief to hold, is it not? Surely this idea deserves some kind of serious scrutiny as to its validity. What are the implications of such a belief? If you seriously believe that most human beings do not "have Christ" and will therefore, have a "horrible, horrible surprise" awaiting them at death, then what would your feelings be towards humanity in general, to the value of human life, to the effects of natural disasters, war, poverty, hunger, and death? Well, if the people are not Christianist, then for the believer, these catastrophes are not only unremarkable, they may actually indicate that those who face them are only getting what they deserve for not "having Christ". Aside from the inability to prove such a belief, the Christianist doctrine of hell would be pretty damnable itself if a religion, oh say, Islam, believed such a thing (which it appears they do).
Was Palin in church that day? Does Palin believe this? If Obama can be questioned about his pastor's sermons, surely our media could ask Palin to comment on this.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Banana Republicans, III
Is this true?
In fact, as Palin's cultural views become better known -- she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples -- she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters.
Maybe the media could ask the McCain campaign about this, that is, once the McCain campaign gets back from vetting the VP it's already selected.
In fact, as Palin's cultural views become better known -- she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples -- she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters.
Maybe the media could ask the McCain campaign about this, that is, once the McCain campaign gets back from vetting the VP it's already selected.
Banana Republicans II
As another weird disclosure about Palin emerges--she apparently belonged to some sort of fringe, Alaskan Independence group in the nineties--it occurs to me that not only has McCain basically thrown away the entire basis of his candidacy, his experience visa via Obama, but in throwing the hail mary with Palin, he's also discarded the other pillar of his candidacy, his "pass" from fawning American media types, unwilling to call Senator "Maverick" on his gaffes, policy inconsistencies, flip flops, or other problems, because the media thought it "knew" McCain. Not so with Palin.
Banana Republicans
Americablog:
For the past few months, McCain and his campaign have been launching vicious attacks on Barack Obama -- challenging his patriotism and linking him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Those attacks apparently sucked up all the McCain campaign's time and energy, because, it's obvious no one was thinking about the most important decision McCain would make during the campaign: naming someone to succeed him should the 72 year old McCain, who has had 4 bouts of cancer, die or be incapacitated in office.
Meanwhile, the Republican-friendly Time magazine mozies on up to the 5,000 person town Palin was once Mayor of and says of Palin's 17-year old daughter's pregnancy:
"...it's really nobody's business..."
Really? What if the unmarried Bristol wanted to abort? Would it really be "nobody's business" then? Not according to the McCain-Palin tandem and the conservative nanny state party they head.
Oh well, IOKIYAR.
In other news, Palin also appears to be a member in good standing with the Know-Nothing Party, recently revived from its ante-bellum origins.
But fear not. It now appears that the McCain campaign has begun vetting its choice for VP.
For the past few months, McCain and his campaign have been launching vicious attacks on Barack Obama -- challenging his patriotism and linking him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Those attacks apparently sucked up all the McCain campaign's time and energy, because, it's obvious no one was thinking about the most important decision McCain would make during the campaign: naming someone to succeed him should the 72 year old McCain, who has had 4 bouts of cancer, die or be incapacitated in office.
Meanwhile, the Republican-friendly Time magazine mozies on up to the 5,000 person town Palin was once Mayor of and says of Palin's 17-year old daughter's pregnancy:
"...it's really nobody's business..."
Really? What if the unmarried Bristol wanted to abort? Would it really be "nobody's business" then? Not according to the McCain-Palin tandem and the conservative nanny state party they head.
Oh well, IOKIYAR.
In other news, Palin also appears to be a member in good standing with the Know-Nothing Party, recently revived from its ante-bellum origins.
But fear not. It now appears that the McCain campaign has begun vetting its choice for VP.
Ooops Baby
Been away from the Internets for two whole stinking days, and I come back to hear you guys have gotten 17-year old Jamie Lynn Spears preggers out of wedlock. Er, wait. I mean, Bristol Palin, 17-year old dependent daughter of GOP VP pick Palin, is pregnant, which we found out only after rumors began circulating that the VP pick's four month old baby, Trig, is actually Bristol's, not Sarah's. Good grief. And we also know, now, that McCain apparently knew about Bristol's pregnancy before he picked Palin to run with him, but Governor Palin's own spokesperson didn't know as recently as two days ago.
To which Sullivan responds:
Marc files a dispatch on McCain's minimal vetting of Palin. All you can say from this - regardless of what happens with this Desperate Housewives subplot beginning to play out - is that McCain is more incompetent as an executive than Bush.
Ouch.
To which Sullivan responds:
Marc files a dispatch on McCain's minimal vetting of Palin. All you can say from this - regardless of what happens with this Desperate Housewives subplot beginning to play out - is that McCain is more incompetent as an executive than Bush.
Ouch.
Friday, August 29, 2008
We'll See
Not sure I can really add anything to what is already being said about McCain's surprise pick of Sarah Palin, except to say that McCain's having waited to make the selection public until the day immediately after Obama's generally well-received speech was probably a pretty astute move, and that considering the VP options available to McCain weren't all that great, this might have been the best he could do. After last night, McCain needed a jolt that I don't think Pawlenty or Mittens would have provided. But picking her seriously undercuts McCain's argument against Obama's seeming unreadiness for the job. And it was clearly an electioneering choice as opposed to a readiness choice.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama
Sullivan:
The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again ... and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.
While we're at it, let's own the middle name, too, should the GOP, in its final death throes, gasping at last straws, try to make something of that. Suck. On. This.
The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again ... and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.
While we're at it, let's own the middle name, too, should the GOP, in its final death throes, gasping at last straws, try to make something of that. Suck. On. This.
Chelsea!
Chelsea Clinton has gotten so Veronica Lake, it's a shame the camera can't cut to her every night at the Democratic Convention.
Amen to that.
What Catholic Dems Should Say About Abortion
From Stephen Suh at Cogitamus:
First, church doctrine has no place determining this nation's laws and policies. Even aside from the many American citizens who belong to other religions or none at all, there are many Christian denominations which either fully support a woman's right to choose or temper their abortion stance with the realization that no doctrine or policy can account for every situation.
Second, Democrats are neither "pro" nor "anti" anything as an abstraction. Democrats support the right to choose, full stop. Abortions occur in every nation, and have for all of human history, so obviously women have seen the need for them no matter what laws may be in place. As Democrats we not only want a society in which a woman who needs to terminate a pregnancy can do so safely, but a society in which those women who want to bear a(nother) child can actually choose to do that as well. The Republicans who are so affronted by our stance have been busily making it harder for women to choose to carry their pregnancies to term by opposing attempts to expand healthcare, parental leave and other pro-family policies supported by the Democratic party.
Finally, we're tired of Republicans continually spreading the myth of promiscuous women who, after having unprotected sex with multiple partners, run down to the local clinic for a quickie abortion during their lunch break. For some women, abortion is a difficult decision; for others it is simple and clear. But it is never made lightly. The fact that the Republicans cannot make their argument without painting half the population of the United States as either irredeemably stupid or conniving whores just shows how intellectually and morally bankrupt their position is.
There. That's not so difficult, is it?
First, church doctrine has no place determining this nation's laws and policies. Even aside from the many American citizens who belong to other religions or none at all, there are many Christian denominations which either fully support a woman's right to choose or temper their abortion stance with the realization that no doctrine or policy can account for every situation.
Second, Democrats are neither "pro" nor "anti" anything as an abstraction. Democrats support the right to choose, full stop. Abortions occur in every nation, and have for all of human history, so obviously women have seen the need for them no matter what laws may be in place. As Democrats we not only want a society in which a woman who needs to terminate a pregnancy can do so safely, but a society in which those women who want to bear a(nother) child can actually choose to do that as well. The Republicans who are so affronted by our stance have been busily making it harder for women to choose to carry their pregnancies to term by opposing attempts to expand healthcare, parental leave and other pro-family policies supported by the Democratic party.
Finally, we're tired of Republicans continually spreading the myth of promiscuous women who, after having unprotected sex with multiple partners, run down to the local clinic for a quickie abortion during their lunch break. For some women, abortion is a difficult decision; for others it is simple and clear. But it is never made lightly. The fact that the Republicans cannot make their argument without painting half the population of the United States as either irredeemably stupid or conniving whores just shows how intellectually and morally bankrupt their position is.
There. That's not so difficult, is it?
Zooey!
"I don't feel very good about the last eight years. And I feel like we're in a place where we really need _ there's a lot of damage that we need to recover from, and we need a very strong and inspirational leader to bring us out of this. It's pretty grim." - Zooey Deschanel in Denver
Grim? Well, not from where we're sitting.
Ready to Defend The Constitution
Ezra Klein highlights Bill Clinton's money quote:
My fellow Democrats, I say to you, Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president."
A somewhat subtle--and important--turn on the ready-to-lead meme. Being "ready" to wage endless war is a different thing than being ready to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U.S."
My fellow Democrats, I say to you, Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president."
A somewhat subtle--and important--turn on the ready-to-lead meme. Being "ready" to wage endless war is a different thing than being ready to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U.S."
Monkeys Working Around The Clock
Fox "news" gets the scoop on Obama and William Ayers once having had a cup of coffee together. Maybe. John Cole responds.
Arrogant and Dangerous
Clark Stooksbury, via John Cole, on the Greek columns:
I’m not paying close enough attention to know if this whole Obamamessiah business is justified. For all I know, Obama might literally believe himself to be a Greek God; but even if he does, he would still be less arrogant than George Bush and most likely less dangerous than John McCain.
"Arrogant" and "Dangerous" might be good ways to describe the last eight years and what McCain-Rove are promising for the future. It'd be good to see these terms find there way into an ad buy or two.
I’m not paying close enough attention to know if this whole Obamamessiah business is justified. For all I know, Obama might literally believe himself to be a Greek God; but even if he does, he would still be less arrogant than George Bush and most likely less dangerous than John McCain.
"Arrogant" and "Dangerous" might be good ways to describe the last eight years and what McCain-Rove are promising for the future. It'd be good to see these terms find there way into an ad buy or two.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Bill Clinton: Mailing It In
Josh and Andrew seemed to like it. I thought the Big Dog was all over the place, issue-wise, pretty stiff rhetorically.
And while it was early enough so that most people probably missed it, please don't ever allow Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Rockefeller near a microphone at a Dem convention ever again. Ever.
I guess Biden finished strong, but his opening moments were just nothing much. Very bland stuff.
A lot of people liked Kerry's speech, too. And while the "candidate McCain--Senator McCain" line was pretty good, Kerry also managed to throw in something about what a threat Iran was being, so I don't know where this takes us except into Republican 100-year-wars land.
I think if Obama loses, and someone besides Hillary throws their hat in the ring for '12, they will probably lose their knee-caps. I'm not saying that in support or opposition to a future Hillary candidancy, I'm just saying. Something's missing at this gig, I don't know what. Genuine specifics, maybe? The biggest threat coming from a McCain presidency in my mind is obviously the courts, but I don't know that that point is being made or will be made. In the absence of that, we have our candidates basically agreeing with McCain and Rove that Iran is a Serious Threat That Must Be Delt With. Not sure what the change is we're supposed to be believing in.
Maybe Obama will woo me back tomorrow night. Here's hoping.
And while it was early enough so that most people probably missed it, please don't ever allow Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Rockefeller near a microphone at a Dem convention ever again. Ever.
I guess Biden finished strong, but his opening moments were just nothing much. Very bland stuff.
A lot of people liked Kerry's speech, too. And while the "candidate McCain--Senator McCain" line was pretty good, Kerry also managed to throw in something about what a threat Iran was being, so I don't know where this takes us except into Republican 100-year-wars land.
I think if Obama loses, and someone besides Hillary throws their hat in the ring for '12, they will probably lose their knee-caps. I'm not saying that in support or opposition to a future Hillary candidancy, I'm just saying. Something's missing at this gig, I don't know what. Genuine specifics, maybe? The biggest threat coming from a McCain presidency in my mind is obviously the courts, but I don't know that that point is being made or will be made. In the absence of that, we have our candidates basically agreeing with McCain and Rove that Iran is a Serious Threat That Must Be Delt With. Not sure what the change is we're supposed to be believing in.
Maybe Obama will woo me back tomorrow night. Here's hoping.
But Iran IS "tiny" and DOESN'T "pose a serious threat"
From TPM:
New McCain ad sliming Obama for supposedly saying Iran is "tiny" and "doesn't pose a serious threat" is a comically dishonest distortion of what Obama actually said.
Probably the most infuriating development of the past several years has been--in addition to the fact that the invade-Iraq cheerleaders are still treated like Very Serious People--is the drumbeat to "do something" about that Very Terrible and Exceedingly Dangerous Threat, Iran. Be nice if Obama and the Dems pushed back on this, but unfortunately, in his AIPAC concession speech, Obama largely ceded the ground to the "dangerous threat" forces. And although it is largely water under or over the bridge, so did Hilary (who will certainly be the Party's nominee next time if Obama doesn't win this year).
New McCain ad sliming Obama for supposedly saying Iran is "tiny" and "doesn't pose a serious threat" is a comically dishonest distortion of what Obama actually said.
Probably the most infuriating development of the past several years has been--in addition to the fact that the invade-Iraq cheerleaders are still treated like Very Serious People--is the drumbeat to "do something" about that Very Terrible and Exceedingly Dangerous Threat, Iran. Be nice if Obama and the Dems pushed back on this, but unfortunately, in his AIPAC concession speech, Obama largely ceded the ground to the "dangerous threat" forces. And although it is largely water under or over the bridge, so did Hilary (who will certainly be the Party's nominee next time if Obama doesn't win this year).
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Defeatists in Iraq
So, who is this Mister Maliki dude-guy and why is he demanding that U.S. troops precipitously withdraw from his country by a fixed date?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Evolution of a Right Wing Attack Dog
On Joe Lieberman's saying "Obama has not always put his country first", Andrew Sullivan says:
And so the evolution from hawkish Democrat to Republican attack-dog continues. What Lieberman is doing is what a vice-presidential candidate tends to do: savage the opponent. Or more accurately, what Rove Republican vice-presidential candidates have been trained to do: savage the opponent as a traitor. It's funny but I don't recall him ever being so aggressive when he was Gore's running mate.
Yeah, well, 9/11 changed everything, blah, blah, blah.
And so the evolution from hawkish Democrat to Republican attack-dog continues. What Lieberman is doing is what a vice-presidential candidate tends to do: savage the opponent. Or more accurately, what Rove Republican vice-presidential candidates have been trained to do: savage the opponent as a traitor. It's funny but I don't recall him ever being so aggressive when he was Gore's running mate.
Yeah, well, 9/11 changed everything, blah, blah, blah.
Death Throes
On Evan Bayh's VP prospects, after the Indiana Senator signed on to the 100-year war in Iraq, only to later admit his vote was a mistake:
"The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party,” said Al From, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, of which Mr. Bayh was chairman for four years. “I think Evan’s real strength is you get someone on the ticket who has a record of being strong on national security, and that is a very important quality to have.”
I know we're close to a deal to give Lieberman to the Repubs. What will it take for the GOP to take the DLC and its head-pubah, Al From, off our hands, too?
"The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party,” said Al From, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, of which Mr. Bayh was chairman for four years. “I think Evan’s real strength is you get someone on the ticket who has a record of being strong on national security, and that is a very important quality to have.”
I know we're close to a deal to give Lieberman to the Repubs. What will it take for the GOP to take the DLC and its head-pubah, Al From, off our hands, too?
Saturday, August 09, 2008
2017
Tired of Republican presidential candidates and administrations that pander to the club for growth wing of their party by always clamoring for larger and more frequent tax cuts? Tired of Republican administrations bent on invading and occupying middle eastern countries for hundreds of years?
Then 2017 is the magic number for you to remember. In 2017, the party's over for Republicans always looking to bust the budget and rule the world. In 2017, Social Security income will for the first time in decades fall short of what's needed to pay monthly benefits. This means that beginning in 2017, Republican administrations and Republican congresses won't have the Social Security surpluses to kick around anymore. Or rather, beginning in 2017, when Social Security is no longer running a cash-flow surplus--as it currently does and has done since the 1980's--Republicans bent on wars without end and tax cuts for the rich and famous, won't have any Social Security surpluses to help them out, and they'll have to either borrow the money from outside of the government, or start trying to live within the country's means. In 2017, Republicans, who have always threatened to starve the beast of government but who have in actuality always governed like drunken sailors--will actually have to start cutting back on the military outposts they want to establish around the world and tax cuts they want to enact at home.
2017--When things really start to get fun.
Then 2017 is the magic number for you to remember. In 2017, the party's over for Republicans always looking to bust the budget and rule the world. In 2017, Social Security income will for the first time in decades fall short of what's needed to pay monthly benefits. This means that beginning in 2017, Republican administrations and Republican congresses won't have the Social Security surpluses to kick around anymore. Or rather, beginning in 2017, when Social Security is no longer running a cash-flow surplus--as it currently does and has done since the 1980's--Republicans bent on wars without end and tax cuts for the rich and famous, won't have any Social Security surpluses to help them out, and they'll have to either borrow the money from outside of the government, or start trying to live within the country's means. In 2017, Republicans, who have always threatened to starve the beast of government but who have in actuality always governed like drunken sailors--will actually have to start cutting back on the military outposts they want to establish around the world and tax cuts they want to enact at home.
2017--When things really start to get fun.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Anthrax (cont.)
David Neiwert:
One thing we do know: Once it became apparent that the phony theory that the anthrax contained bentonite -- which was how the attacks were originally connected to Iraq -- would not hold water, it was also clear that this was a case of pure domestic terrorism, and very likely right-wing terrorism at that. And it was at this point that all interest in solving the case, both on an official level and within the media, evaporated.
I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as Neiwert here. There was, apparently, an ongoing, FBI-led investigation of the matter, which resulted in the events of last week. So there was some official level interest in the case, however questionable its effectiveness or purpose.
But as far as the upper reaches of political officialdom are concerned, all interest certainly evaporated. And obviously all interest evaporated among the media elite as well. And to be truthful, the anthrax-blackout on the part of the administration and media helped suppress interest in the story among liberal bloggers, too.
But the obvious stinkiness of this story should encourage a more widespread diligence, from professional and non-professional investigative sources now. Or not. I've no doubt the professional media would just assume this story go away. And we obviously can't let that happen.
One thing we do know: Once it became apparent that the phony theory that the anthrax contained bentonite -- which was how the attacks were originally connected to Iraq -- would not hold water, it was also clear that this was a case of pure domestic terrorism, and very likely right-wing terrorism at that. And it was at this point that all interest in solving the case, both on an official level and within the media, evaporated.
I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as Neiwert here. There was, apparently, an ongoing, FBI-led investigation of the matter, which resulted in the events of last week. So there was some official level interest in the case, however questionable its effectiveness or purpose.
But as far as the upper reaches of political officialdom are concerned, all interest certainly evaporated. And obviously all interest evaporated among the media elite as well. And to be truthful, the anthrax-blackout on the part of the administration and media helped suppress interest in the story among liberal bloggers, too.
But the obvious stinkiness of this story should encourage a more widespread diligence, from professional and non-professional investigative sources now. Or not. I've no doubt the professional media would just assume this story go away. And we obviously can't let that happen.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Anthrax Letters, 9/11, and the Invasion of Iraq
Read today's Greenwald.
A week after 9/11, letters containing the lethal substance Anthrax, are mailed to the offices of Senator's Daschle and Leahy, as well as to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The mailings result in the deaths of five people, while scores of others become ill. The letters contain statements purported to be from Muslim "extremists" who want to bring death to America.
ABC news, in the person of Brian Ross, reports--on the basis of four supposedly high up and separate sources at the lab--that tests on the anthrax at a U.S. military lab at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, reveal the presence of bentonite in the anthrax. Bentonite is said to be uniquely associated with Saddam Hussein's anthrax production program in Iraq.
On the basis of the letters and the reports by ABC news, leading columnists, such as Richard Cohen, come out in support of an invasion of Iraq. The neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, also trumpets the ABC news reports of bentonite-laced anthrax letters as a basis for launching an invasion of Iraq. In 2002, the president identifies an "Axis of Evil", consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, with Iraq being included, in part, on the basis of their known production and dissemination of the lethal substance anthrax.
In March 2003, the U.S. invades Iraq, and in the course of the war and occupation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are tortured, killed or maimed. The price of oil has skyrocketed, and more than five years after the invasion, more than 150,000 U.S. troops continue to occupy Iraq.
In 2008, a leading suspect in the anthrax letter attacks, a top researcher and 35-year veteran at Ft. Detrick from whence came the ABC news reports of a bentonite-Iraq connection, commits suicide.
Nearly seven years since the anthrax attacks and the highly inflammatory and false ABC news reports, the network and its reporter, Brian Ross, still haven't come clean as to their supposed "sources" at Ft. Detrick.
To sum, anthrax laced letters purported to be from Muslim extremists in Iraq or close to Saddam Hussein, are mailed to U.S. Senators and media anchormen, traumatizing the country immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Highly placed sources in a U.S. military lab reveal to ABC news that tests indicate the presence of a substance uniquely associated with Iraqi anthrax programs. Scores among the political elite draq a connection between the anthrax and Iraq, helping to make the 2003 Iraq invasion publicly and politically palatable. Seven years later, as the investigation purports to center on a U.S. researcher as the source of the attacks, the leading suspect commits suicide. ABC news continues to with-hold the identification of its supposed sources.
How weird and outrageous is all of this?
A week after 9/11, letters containing the lethal substance Anthrax, are mailed to the offices of Senator's Daschle and Leahy, as well as to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The mailings result in the deaths of five people, while scores of others become ill. The letters contain statements purported to be from Muslim "extremists" who want to bring death to America.
ABC news, in the person of Brian Ross, reports--on the basis of four supposedly high up and separate sources at the lab--that tests on the anthrax at a U.S. military lab at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, reveal the presence of bentonite in the anthrax. Bentonite is said to be uniquely associated with Saddam Hussein's anthrax production program in Iraq.
On the basis of the letters and the reports by ABC news, leading columnists, such as Richard Cohen, come out in support of an invasion of Iraq. The neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, also trumpets the ABC news reports of bentonite-laced anthrax letters as a basis for launching an invasion of Iraq. In 2002, the president identifies an "Axis of Evil", consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, with Iraq being included, in part, on the basis of their known production and dissemination of the lethal substance anthrax.
In March 2003, the U.S. invades Iraq, and in the course of the war and occupation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are tortured, killed or maimed. The price of oil has skyrocketed, and more than five years after the invasion, more than 150,000 U.S. troops continue to occupy Iraq.
In 2008, a leading suspect in the anthrax letter attacks, a top researcher and 35-year veteran at Ft. Detrick from whence came the ABC news reports of a bentonite-Iraq connection, commits suicide.
Nearly seven years since the anthrax attacks and the highly inflammatory and false ABC news reports, the network and its reporter, Brian Ross, still haven't come clean as to their supposed "sources" at Ft. Detrick.
To sum, anthrax laced letters purported to be from Muslim extremists in Iraq or close to Saddam Hussein, are mailed to U.S. Senators and media anchormen, traumatizing the country immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Highly placed sources in a U.S. military lab reveal to ABC news that tests indicate the presence of a substance uniquely associated with Iraqi anthrax programs. Scores among the political elite draq a connection between the anthrax and Iraq, helping to make the 2003 Iraq invasion publicly and politically palatable. Seven years later, as the investigation purports to center on a U.S. researcher as the source of the attacks, the leading suspect commits suicide. ABC news continues to with-hold the identification of its supposed sources.
How weird and outrageous is all of this?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Is this all they have?
I guess Obama's celebrity status, (a byproduct of the GOP candidate's snarl and lack of charisma I'd say) as opposed to his policy proposals, is to be the dividing factor in this election. This is pretty weak tea, whose only probable impact is to lose the Britney vote. Maybe it will sit well with Middle America. Who knows? But it sounds pretty vapid to me. I thought McCain would be better than this.
Trashin the Place
I can't imagine the McCain campaign or the folks at GOP headquarters were thrilled to wake up this morning and see the Washington Post with an above-the-fold story calling McCain a liar, or the Ruth Marcus op-ed charging the Administration with having "trashed the place"--and Marcus wasn't even referring to the yeoman work of her Post colleague detailing the Administration's hack hiring and staffing of the Iraqi occupation or the Katrina catastrophe and the hack hiring at FEMA--for the hack hiring practices of the Justice Department's Monica Goodling, spawning a new political shorthand for ideology and incompetence in government run-amok--"Goodlings", as in "Goodlings Gone Wild".
(And a pretty good smack-down to boot by Marcus of her other Post colleague, David Broder, for complaining of the Clintons' "trashing the place" a decade ago. Ahhh, the nineties. Them were the days).
Neither can I imagine that seeing headlines and pictures about the Senate's longest reigning Republican, the Hulk Tubester, Ted Stevens, being indicted on corruption charges, doing much to cheer the ranks of more would be hack hirers and government bathtub drowning specialists at RNC headquarters or in the new Minority offices in Congress.
Just another stellar day in the GOP neighborhood.
(And a pretty good smack-down to boot by Marcus of her other Post colleague, David Broder, for complaining of the Clintons' "trashing the place" a decade ago. Ahhh, the nineties. Them were the days).
Neither can I imagine that seeing headlines and pictures about the Senate's longest reigning Republican, the Hulk Tubester, Ted Stevens, being indicted on corruption charges, doing much to cheer the ranks of more would be hack hirers and government bathtub drowning specialists at RNC headquarters or in the new Minority offices in Congress.
Just another stellar day in the GOP neighborhood.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Obama Should Townhall McCain
I know this is probably against the grain, with McCain liking specially-tailored townhall meeting-style debates and all. But I believe Obama should agree to some townhall style debates and not be overly cautious in restricting the crowd that attends.
If the "Obama is a prima donna candidate more comfortable parading before foreign audiences who can't or won't come down to earth to hobnob with the Regular Americans" meme isn't a constant GOP trope yet, I can guarantee it will be as the campaign goes on.
On top of it, Obama needs to be seen getting his hands dirty, as it were, taking risks, campaigning in relatively unfamiliar terrains and before potentially hostile audiences. I fear he's being too careful, in danger of immitating the overly-assured 1948 Dewey campaign whose candidate once wouldn't come out from inside the train to greet voters while Truman spoke out from "whistlestops" all around the country, helping to pull off the come from behind win.
If the "Obama is a prima donna candidate more comfortable parading before foreign audiences who can't or won't come down to earth to hobnob with the Regular Americans" meme isn't a constant GOP trope yet, I can guarantee it will be as the campaign goes on.
On top of it, Obama needs to be seen getting his hands dirty, as it were, taking risks, campaigning in relatively unfamiliar terrains and before potentially hostile audiences. I fear he's being too careful, in danger of immitating the overly-assured 1948 Dewey campaign whose candidate once wouldn't come out from inside the train to greet voters while Truman spoke out from "whistlestops" all around the country, helping to pull off the come from behind win.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
David Broder: Whiner
The headline--not usually penned by the columnist--is positive, but from the text it's clear Obama's overseas trip has "the dean" pouting [Bulworth comments in italics]:
--------
It made no sense when Barack Obama left the country on his nine-day overseas tour for some of my fellow columnists to describe it as a high-risk venture. [Really? Why not? Iraq is still a war-zone, and American officials and Iraqi leaders are still bunkered in the Green Zone]
Foreign leaders, who can read the polls as well as anyone, would go out of their way not to embarrass a man who may, six months from now, be president of the United States.
Obama prepares thoroughly for the big occasions. He is almost always well briefed, and he was traveling in sharp company -- with Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel -- so you knew he would be ready for these meetings. The chance of a major screw-up was minimal. [The dean was disappointed there wasn't]
And as millions of Americans who watched the primary campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate. There would be no verbal gaffes. [In other words, the dean is saying Obama is "slick"]
So where was the risk? [How about in the fact that he was traveling to Iraq, which is still unsafe enough to require that the specifics of official visits not be announced]
It existed mainly in the minds of some journalists and, perhaps, in the musings of Obama staffers who wanted to hype the journey. [What kind of slap is this? I thought McCain and the Republicans pretty much goaded Obama into taking the trip--but no mention of that here by "the dean"]
Acknowledging all that, it is still the case that Obama is pulling off this trip in great style and thereby has enhanced his Oval Office credentials. [The dean is implying Obama is all style no substance]
What he could not have counted on is the role that luck has played in the events that have surrounded the tour and in the actions of a cast of supporting players. When, on the first day of the trip, Obama stepped onto a basketball court at the air base in Kuwait and sent his first three-point shot cleanly through the basket, you knew that the gods had decided to favor him. [The dean's man, McBush, is so much the underdog, the "gods" are against him]
He could not have known in advance that on the very day he left Chicago, President Bush would suddenly reverse six years of policy and send a high-ranking State Department official off to a meeting with Iranian and European nuclear negotiators.
He could not have guessed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, eager to promise his constituents that the American occupation would not be endless, would persuade Bush to declare agreement to "a time horizon" for the departure of U.S. troops. [The dean thinks "a time horizon" is ridiculous, and Iraq's puppet ruler is pandering to his "constituents"]
And he could not have assumed that a Maliki spokesman, briefing reporters on the prime minister's meeting with Obama, would volunteer the comment that "the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal" of U.S. troops.
Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events. [Right. Who knew an invasion of Iraq--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would necessitate the occupation of Iraq by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops for decades on end and result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?]
So it was a confident and contented Obama who faced reporters Tuesday in Jordan for his first news conference of the trip. He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those in Afghanistan -- and also against the interests of the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus's views but asserting a president's own larger responsibility. [To the dean, "skillful" means artful, stylish, but not substantive or Serious]
On the other hand, his saying that there was no way to know what would have happened in Iraq if the United States had followed his advice to start the withdrawal of troops two years ago rather than embarking on the "surge" seemed disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong. [The "surge", which the dean favors because McBush and his pals favor it, has solved all Iraq's, and America's problems--but we still can't bring the troops home or tear down the Green Zone. And gas is still $4 a gallon]
But his troubles are minimal compared with those of John McCain, who looks like the odd man out in the ongoing foreign policy debate. Having given steadfast support to the policies of both Maliki and George Bush, he has a legitimate complaint: They owed him more consideration in the way they announced their shifts. As it is, McCain appears isolated from trends in both Baghdad and Washington. [Waaaahh. How come Bush and that Iraqi president guy didn't get McBush's approval for their actions and comments first?]
McCain's frustration at the turn of events is something he cannot conceal. The domestic economy was always going to be a problem for him -- even before gasoline hit $4 a gallon. But he had a credible position to argue on national security issues and a record that was consistent and in some respects prescient. [Right. Who knew the Iraqi invasion and occupation--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would cost trillions of dollars, cause a religiously-driven civil war among Iraqi's, bond Iraq closer to our other supposed enemy Iran, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and require hundreds of thousands of American troops to occupy another Middle Eastern country for decades on end. And that gas would still be $4 a gallon five years after we "liberated" Iraq]
But now the ground has shifted -- and his opponent was right where he needed to be to capture the advantage. July has been a cruel month for McCain. [The dean thinks July has sucked]
----
Easily Broder's worst column in months, if not years.
--------
It made no sense when Barack Obama left the country on his nine-day overseas tour for some of my fellow columnists to describe it as a high-risk venture. [Really? Why not? Iraq is still a war-zone, and American officials and Iraqi leaders are still bunkered in the Green Zone]
Foreign leaders, who can read the polls as well as anyone, would go out of their way not to embarrass a man who may, six months from now, be president of the United States.
Obama prepares thoroughly for the big occasions. He is almost always well briefed, and he was traveling in sharp company -- with Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel -- so you knew he would be ready for these meetings. The chance of a major screw-up was minimal. [The dean was disappointed there wasn't]
And as millions of Americans who watched the primary campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate. There would be no verbal gaffes. [In other words, the dean is saying Obama is "slick"]
So where was the risk? [How about in the fact that he was traveling to Iraq, which is still unsafe enough to require that the specifics of official visits not be announced]
It existed mainly in the minds of some journalists and, perhaps, in the musings of Obama staffers who wanted to hype the journey. [What kind of slap is this? I thought McCain and the Republicans pretty much goaded Obama into taking the trip--but no mention of that here by "the dean"]
Acknowledging all that, it is still the case that Obama is pulling off this trip in great style and thereby has enhanced his Oval Office credentials. [The dean is implying Obama is all style no substance]
What he could not have counted on is the role that luck has played in the events that have surrounded the tour and in the actions of a cast of supporting players. When, on the first day of the trip, Obama stepped onto a basketball court at the air base in Kuwait and sent his first three-point shot cleanly through the basket, you knew that the gods had decided to favor him. [The dean's man, McBush, is so much the underdog, the "gods" are against him]
He could not have known in advance that on the very day he left Chicago, President Bush would suddenly reverse six years of policy and send a high-ranking State Department official off to a meeting with Iranian and European nuclear negotiators.
He could not have guessed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, eager to promise his constituents that the American occupation would not be endless, would persuade Bush to declare agreement to "a time horizon" for the departure of U.S. troops. [The dean thinks "a time horizon" is ridiculous, and Iraq's puppet ruler is pandering to his "constituents"]
And he could not have assumed that a Maliki spokesman, briefing reporters on the prime minister's meeting with Obama, would volunteer the comment that "the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal" of U.S. troops.
Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events. [Right. Who knew an invasion of Iraq--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would necessitate the occupation of Iraq by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops for decades on end and result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?]
So it was a confident and contented Obama who faced reporters Tuesday in Jordan for his first news conference of the trip. He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those in Afghanistan -- and also against the interests of the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus's views but asserting a president's own larger responsibility. [To the dean, "skillful" means artful, stylish, but not substantive or Serious]
On the other hand, his saying that there was no way to know what would have happened in Iraq if the United States had followed his advice to start the withdrawal of troops two years ago rather than embarking on the "surge" seemed disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong. [The "surge", which the dean favors because McBush and his pals favor it, has solved all Iraq's, and America's problems--but we still can't bring the troops home or tear down the Green Zone. And gas is still $4 a gallon]
But his troubles are minimal compared with those of John McCain, who looks like the odd man out in the ongoing foreign policy debate. Having given steadfast support to the policies of both Maliki and George Bush, he has a legitimate complaint: They owed him more consideration in the way they announced their shifts. As it is, McCain appears isolated from trends in both Baghdad and Washington. [Waaaahh. How come Bush and that Iraqi president guy didn't get McBush's approval for their actions and comments first?]
McCain's frustration at the turn of events is something he cannot conceal. The domestic economy was always going to be a problem for him -- even before gasoline hit $4 a gallon. But he had a credible position to argue on national security issues and a record that was consistent and in some respects prescient. [Right. Who knew the Iraqi invasion and occupation--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would cost trillions of dollars, cause a religiously-driven civil war among Iraqi's, bond Iraq closer to our other supposed enemy Iran, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and require hundreds of thousands of American troops to occupy another Middle Eastern country for decades on end. And that gas would still be $4 a gallon five years after we "liberated" Iraq]
But now the ground has shifted -- and his opponent was right where he needed to be to capture the advantage. July has been a cruel month for McCain. [The dean thinks July has sucked]
----
Easily Broder's worst column in months, if not years.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
What About The Green Zone? Part XVIU
The AP:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that security in Iraq has improved and that the United States urgently needs to turn its attention to Afghanistan.
I keep wondering about the status of the Green Zone. The article states Obama met local Iraqi leaders in Ramidi, in AnBar Province. But what kind of travel is permitted for most Americans and Iraqi national leaders around, into, and from, the walled Green Zone?
If it's now secure in Baghdad, tear down the Green Zone walls, and start announcing scheduled visits by American officials.
Until then, I'd say not much has changed.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that security in Iraq has improved and that the United States urgently needs to turn its attention to Afghanistan.
I keep wondering about the status of the Green Zone. The article states Obama met local Iraqi leaders in Ramidi, in AnBar Province. But what kind of travel is permitted for most Americans and Iraqi national leaders around, into, and from, the walled Green Zone?
If it's now secure in Baghdad, tear down the Green Zone walls, and start announcing scheduled visits by American officials.
Until then, I'd say not much has changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)