Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A Military Leader: McCain Would "Pose Unacceptable Risk to National Security"

Check out this critique of John McCain from Lt. Col. Robert G. Gard:

The fields of foreign and national security policy, however, are John McCain's disqualifying weaknesses, in my view. McCain has demonstrated clearly that he is a dedicated ideologue when it comes to foreign policy, unwilling to consider opinions or even credible evidence contrary to his preconceived notions.

Most of our disasters are from ideology blinding leaders from truth.
His temperament, marked not only by impatience but also by rude and sometimes hostile behavior, would discourage advisors from bringing to his attention views that might not be consistent with his preconceptions. A President with this combination of significant shortcomings would be a dangerous commander-in-chief, posing an unacceptable risk to the security of the nation.

OK, Security First, Country First folks - then you need Barack Obama.
No President can be conversant with all the problems and issues he or she will face. More important than a specific set of experiences are high intelligence, good judgment, a steady and even temperament, and a willingness to consider options presented by advisors who have been selected for their expertise.

A few months ago, I met in a small group with Senator Obama in his office to discuss a contentious security issue. People with different, even opposite, views had been invited to attend. Obama listened carefully and asked penetrating questions, confirming my observations concerning his intelligence and temperament.

I believe that Barack Obama possesses the requisite qualifications to serve far more effectively as President of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. military than his opponent, John McCain.


So much for the smear campaign waged by the McCain campaign.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Blast from Hell: Al-Qaeda Endorses McCain!

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the Web site chatter but had no immediate comment.


Read more...

Blast from the North: Anchorage Daily News Endorses Obama


This endorsement should send a chill down the McCain/Palin camp's spine.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.


And about Gov. Palin?

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.


Which leaves McCain out in the cold.

Friday, October 24, 2008

McCain's Flip-Flops & Waffles Go Quantum!



Upon discovering this long-suspected list, it's become eminently clear that John McCain never saw an issue he couldn't take both sides of - simultaneously.
He is/is not one of the worst/best Republicans/Democrats/Independents to ever vote for/against this/that/every/no cause/non-issue confronting the American/non-American people. So at least we always/never know/don'tknow where/where-not he stands/doesn't stand. And as quantum/non-quantum physics becomes more important/irrelevant, I'm sure/unsure McCain would/wouldn't be/not-to-be a great/abominable leader. And if so/not, at least/most, Palin would/wouldn't.

So with/without any further ado/adon't, here's the list, thanks to a link from this great blog lately/not-lately introduced/not-introduced to me/not-me:

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three
weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offsho...
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law;
now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15781.htm...
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against
privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15863.htm...
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion
rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/mccain-flips-o...
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the
opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15825.htm...
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme
Court reached the same conclusion,he called it “one of the worst decisions in
the history of this country.
”http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15864.htm...
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.”
He used to promise the opposite.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/now-mccain-is-flip-f...
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in
the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for
retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/28/mccains-abo...
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba.
Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15617.htm...
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he
believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15557.htm...
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now
he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15564.htm...
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy
making. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15573.htm...
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he
doesn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccains-97-lob...
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John
Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15633.htm...
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global
warming. Now he doesn’t.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15699.htm...

Want more?

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Republicans Jump Ship: Scott McClellan, Colin Powell, and the List Goes On...


Today Scott McClellan, that famous former Bush Press Secretary, announced that he's going to vote for Barack Obama for President!

We already heard the much-expected endorsement of Colin Powell, Bush's former Defense Secretary, and then there's this list:



McCain campaign advance team (Thu Oct 23):
The McCain campaign advance team is setting up an unusual election night event, one that doesn't even feature the candidate, perhaps with the expectation of a loss. The AP reports that while supporters will have the usual election-night party in Arizona, McCain will not be physically present: "Only a small press "pool" -- mostly those who have traveled regularly with the candidate on his campaign plane, plus a few local Arizona reporters and other guests -- will be physically present when McCain speaks."

Just a little question, though: How will McCain "speak" when he's not "physically present"? Guess it will be a big screen event...

Alison Goldwater (Thu Oct 23):
Alison Goldwater, granddaughter of Arizonan and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, early voted for Barack Obama, saying of John McCain, "I don't have respect for him." (John McCain has frequently called himself a "Barry Goldwater" Republican.)

National Republican Senatorial Committee (Thu Oct 23):
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is advertising on behalf of Republican senate candidates across the country, is now running ads that presume that McCain will lose. Their argument is that voters should pick Republican senate candidates because otherwise Obama will "get a blank check."

Arne Carlson (Thu Oct 23):
Arne Carlson, former Republican Governor of Minnesota, endorsed Obama for president, saying "He has laid out for this nation a vision for a national purpose."

That's a lot of ship-jumping for one day! But there's more, lots more...

Ken Adelman (Mon Oct 20):
Donald Rumsfeld's right hand man, Ken Adelman, is the last Republican you'd think would jump ship. His reasons? Temperament and judgment. He says about Sarah Palin: "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office--I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency."
Florida GOP (Sun Oct 19):
The Florida GOP is planning to withhold about $2 million that it was planning on spending to help John McCain win the state. Instead, "Florida Republicans already are looking ahead to 2010 when Crist runs for re-election."
Colin Powell (Sun Oct 19):
Colin Powell, former 4-star general, Reagan national security adviser, Bush Sr. chairman of the joint chiefs, and secretary of state, gave a full throated endorsement of Barack Obama and indictment of the McCain campaign and the Republican party.
Frank Luntz (Sat Oct 18):
Frank Luntz, GOP pollster and language expert, states bluntly: "I think Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States." He adds: "John McCain cannot communicate. Stevie Wonder reads a teleprompter better than John McCain."
Susan Collins (Fri Oct 17):
Embattled Republican Sen. Susan Collins is calling on John McCain to stop paying for automated phone calls which describe Barack Obama as having "worked closely" with "domestic terrorist Bill Ayers". "These kind of tactics have no place in Maine politics," said Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley. "Sen. Collins urges the McCain campaign to stop these calls immediately."
Michael Smerconish (Fri Oct 17):
On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Chicago Tribune Editorial Board (Fri Oct 17):
For the first time in the 161 year history of the Chicago Tribune, the paper has endorsed a Democratic presidential nominee: Barack Obama.
Peter Spaulding (Fri Oct 17):
McCain's New Hampshire state chairman slams the campaign's tactic of launching robocalls accusing Obama of links to terrorists.
Kathleen Parker (Fri Oct 17):
National Review writer Kathleen Parker takes another big step away from the GOP, declaring that Republicans "do not, in fact, deserve to win this time, and someone [Chris Buckley] had to remind them why."
Richard Lugar (Wed Oct 15):
Richard Lugar, the seniormost Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came close to a full endorsement of Obama by endorsing his approach to foreign policy - specifically, his emphasis on diplomacy..
RNC (in Wisconsin) (Wed Oct 15):
The RNC is giving up on McCain in Wisconsin. TV stations report that they've stopped airing ads attacking Obama, and won't comment on the pullout.
Rush Limbaugh (Tue Oct 14):
Rush Limbaugh all but accepted the fact that John McCain had lost this election, asking Sarah Palin "have you even thought about a political future beyond this campaign?" Obviously, if Limbaugh thought McCain could win...her political future would be as Vice President.
Heather Mac Donald (Tue Oct 14):
Conservative pundit Heather Mac Donald systematically disassembles McCain's VP pick and concludes that "conservatives should not sacrifice standards for political advantage."
Matthew Dowd (Tue Oct 14):
Matthew Dowd, a former Bush strategist, let the cat out of the bag: "They didn't let John McCain pick the person he wanted to pick as VP...[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that."
Dennis Hopper (Mon Oct 13):
Loyal Republican actor-director Dennis Hopper is giving up on his party, at least for this election, complaining of the "lies" of the current administration and saying "I voted for Bush, father and son, but this time I'll vote for Obama."
Mickey Edwards (Mon Oct 13):
Republican Mickey Edwards, formerly a congressman from Oklahoma, distances himself from McCain, saying "today, thanks to a campaign apparently managed by Moe, Curly, and Larry, he comes across as erratic (Obama's word, but it fits), impulsive, befuddled, and ill-tempered, and apparently unable to utter any words other than 'surge' and 'earmarks.'" Edwards also plays the blame game very explicitly: "If Obama gets a big win, it will be McCain himself, and the Three Stooges calling the shots at his headquarters who will deserve whatever blame is attached for transforming a viable and energetic Obama campaign into a steamroller grinding the Republican Party into the ground."
David Frum (Mon Oct 13):
David "axis of evil" Frum gets his "I told you so" ready at the National Review and rebukes his critics who complain that he isn't cheerleading for McCain enough. He concludes: "Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise."
Ray LaHood (Mon Oct 13):
Rep. LaHood, who has represented Illinois' 18th district for seven terms and is retiring in January, told WBBM Radio that Palin should control the racially-charged heckling at her rallies: "Look it. This doesn't befit the office that she's running for. And frankly, people don't like it."
Michelle Malkin (Mon Oct 13):
Michelle Malkin expresses her disappointment in McCain after learning that "John McCain had no problem calling ACORN members his friends during his ill-fated illegal alien shamnesty crusade." She concludes, "We're Screwed '08."
Erick Erickson (Mon Oct 13):
Erick Erickson, "editor in chief" of RedState.com, is giving up on McCain: "With only a few weeks left until election day, let's be blunt: McCain-Palin '08 does not seem to be making headway against the polling." He suggests that McCain needs to choose between himself and senate/house Republicans, and suggests that his readers focus on downballot races: "The Republican numbers in the House and Senate can be salvaged, but in the next few weeks there must be a realistic assessment from the McCain campaign regarding winning his own race versus helping Congressional Republicans mitigate their losses."
Ed Rollins (Mon Oct 13):
Rollins, who managed Reagan's 1984 campaign: "And while chaos and disarray reigned supreme in Sen. Barack Obama's opponents' campaigns, the steady, disciplined and strategically driven Obama campaign marches forward toward likely victory."
Bill Kristol (Mon Oct 13):
Kristol: "It's time for John McCain to fire his campaign. He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama's."
Lee Terry (Mon Oct 13):
In Nebraska, a Republican representative, Lee Terry, ran a newspaper ad featuring support from a woman who called herself an "Obama-Terry voter."
Linda Smith (Sun Oct 12):
Linda Smith, Republican chairwoman in Clark County, Ohio. "I have to blame the McCain camp for not pushing it hard enough," added Smith, whose rural county lies between Dayton and Columbus. "It's so ingrained in people's minds that Republicans are good on national security, but Democrats are good on the economy, and it's very hard to counter that."
Tom Ellis (Sun Oct 12):
Tom Ellis, GOP chairman in Butler County, Ohio, a key Republican stronghold in 2004, said there had been "some slippage" for McCain in recent weeks. He said Republicans were finding it "hard to penetrate" the torrent of bad economic news and deliver an effective pitch to independents. And the Arizona senator's attacks on Obama's past links to former radical William Ayers, he said, "do not garner him any advantage" with swing voters. "There's a sense of frustration at this point," Ellis said. "What I hear is people are expecting more of the Republican ticket. They've got to speak directly to the economic issues. People want to hear specific solutions from Sen. McCain."
Roger Stone (Sun Oct 12):
Roger Stone, a longtime McCain supporter, said the state party and the national campaign bear almost equal blame. ''This effort lacks coordination and a cooperative spirit and it's showing,'' Stone said. "But it's more than mechanics. The campaign has no consistent message.''
George LeMieux (Sun Oct 12):
George LeMieux, Crist's former campaign manager and staff chief, said McCain erred in not choosing Crist as running mate. ''If Gov. Crist was the vice presidential nominee, John McCain would be winning Florida,'' he said.
Charlie Crist (Sun Oct 12):
"Saturday, he skipped a McCain football rally and instead went to Disney World."
Bill Kristol (Sun Oct 12):
On FOX News Sunday, Kristol said the McCain campaign was "stupid...pathetic...flailing."
Patrick Ruffini (Sat Oct 11):
Conservative columnist Patrick Ruffini argues that the RNC needs to give up on McCain and try to save Republican house and senate seats, and that "McCain should start explicitly making the argument for divided government, with him as the only hope of preserving it. This is unlikely to be a voting issue at the Presidential level, but we need to get the idea percolating that we are about to elect Obama with unchecked, unlimited power." That is, Ruffini wants to sacrifice McCain to save congressional Republicans.
Mitt Romney (Sat Oct 11):
Mitt Romney said McCain, who has offered scattershot proposals on the economy, should present a broad vision of how he would lead the country through the economic crisis. "I'm talking about standing above the tactical alternatives that are being considered," Romney said, "and establish an economic vision that is able to convince the American people that he really knows how to strengthen the economy."
Robert A. Gleason Jr. (Sat Oct 11):
Robert A. Gleason Jr., the Republican chairman in Pennsylvania, said he was concerned that Mr. McCain's increasingly aggressive tone was not working with moderate voters and women in the important southeastern part of a state that is at the top of Mr. McCain's must-win list.
Tommy Thompson (Sat Oct 11):
Former Republican Governor of Wisconsin, said it would be difficult for Mr. McCain to win in his state but not impossible, particularly if he campaigned in conservative Democratic parts of the state. Asked if he was happy with Mr. McCain's campaign, Mr. Thompson replied, "No," and he added, "I don't know who is."
Saul Anuzis (Sat Oct 11):
Saul Anuzis, the Republican chairman in Michigan, said "I think you're seeing a turning point, you're starting to feel real frustration because we are running out of time. Our message, the campaign's message, isn't connecting."
Norm Coleman (Fri Oct 10):
Coleman bails on McCain rally: "[Norm] Coleman told reporters that he would not be appearing at a planned rally with McCain this afternoon. Could it be McCain's sliding polling numbers in Minnesota? His attacks on Obama?"
Christopher Buckley (Fri Oct 10):
Christopher Buckley, son of National Review founder William F. Buckley, and columnist for the National Review himself, endorsed Barack Obama, saying "this campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic."
Bob Eleveld (Fri Oct 10):
Bob Eleveld, former Kent County Republican chairman who led McCain's West Michigan campaign in 2000, said: "I'm not supporting either of them [McCain or Obama] at this point. I think the straight talk is gone."
William Milliken (Fri Oct 10):
Former Republican Governor of Michigan William Milliken, who endorsed McCain during the primaries, said: "He is not the McCain I endorsed; he keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me. I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."
Ed Rollins (Fri Oct 10):
Ed Rollins ran Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in 1984, so he knows a thing or two about landslides -- and he's predicting one for Barack Obama. At this point, he says the only question left to answer is whether John McCain will take the Republican Party down with him.
Joshua Trevino (Fri Oct 10):
Joshua Trevino, co-founder of RedState.com, wrote on his blog: "In the end, I couldn't do it...I opened it fully intending to vote for John McCain...Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it. So, my choice for President in 2008, scrawled in my ballot as an act of futile protest, is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana."
Matt Lewis (Fri Oct 10):
Matt Lewis, a contributing writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com, told CNN the plan only further riles conservatives upset with McCain's backing of the massive government bailout plan passed last week. "Fundamentally, the problem is John McCain accepts a lot of liberal notions, unfortunately. There is somewhat of a populist streak," he said. "Most conservatives really did not like the bailout to begin with, and this was really kind of picking at the scab."
Michelle Laxalt (Thu Oct 9):
Republican Laxalt slams the McCain campaign's tactics.
Michigan GOP (Thu Oct 9):
The Michigan GOP is in disarray, and said the following about those jumping ship in an email they sent to local supporters: "In the meantime, there have been several individuals, including some disgruntled former employees, who have tried to take advantage of the situation by stealing cell phones, and other electronic equipment, as well as substantial amounts of collateral materials. In at least one instance there was an employee who vandalized their victory center on the way out the door.
National Review Editorial Board (Thu Oct 9):
"We never thought we would defend the Frank-Dodd legislation, which we bitterly opposed last summer. But it looks downright prudent compared to what McCain has proposed. McCain's plan is a full bailout for lenders."
Perry Diaz (Wed Oct 8):
Perry Diaz, chairman of the National Federation of Filipino-American Republicans, resigned from his post and withdrew his endorsement, saying "I endorsed McCain before the California primary believing that he was the right man for the job. I was wrong. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate and his decision a few days ago to resort to personal attacks on Obama's character and integrity run counter to my personal beliefs and core values. I have lost my respect for McCain and I believe that a McCain/Palin administration would only worsen the economic situation in the country."
David Brooks (Wed Oct 8):
David Brooks rips apart McCain's pick for VP, saying "Sarah Palin represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party."
George Will (Wed Oct 8):
George Will laments McCain's campaign and quotes an Orioles manager: "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" His takeaway? "Obama in a romp in November? Don't be surprised"
Lilibet Hagel (Tue Oct 7):
Lilibet Hagel, wife of Republican senator Chuck Hagel, appeared with Susan Eisenhower to endorse Barack Obama, saying that this election is "not about fighting phantom issues churned out by a top-notch slander machine. Most importantly it is not about distracting the public - you and me - with whatever slurs someone thinks will stick."
Michelle Malkin (Tue Oct 7):
Malkin is outraged by McCain's new mortgage giveway plan.
Jack Waldvogel (Sun Oct 5):
Jack Waldvogel, GOP chairman for Emmet County, Michigan, is furious that McCain and Palin announced their intention to pull out of Michigan, saying "Just don't formally announce that you are 'pulling out' of Michigan, and then come back two days later asking the base core of support to 'keep working.' What a slap in the face to all the thousands of people who have been energized by the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket. I've been involved in County Party politics and organization for 40 years, and this is the biggest dumbass stunt I have ever seen."
Kathleen Parker (Fri Sep 26):
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in the National Review that Sarah Palin is "out of her league" and should step down for the good of her country.

Wick Allison (Mon Sep 22):
Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review and current editor-in-chief of D magazine, endorses Obama and writes "I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses. But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history."
George Will (Sun Sep 21):
"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," said Will. "The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate."
WSJ Editorial Board (Fri Sep 19):
In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.
Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy (Wed Sep 3):
Noonan and Murphy get caught on an open mic griping about the choice of Sarah Palin. Noonan says "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullsh** about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and that's not what they're good at, they blow it." Murphy adds that the choice was "cynical" and "gimmicky."


That gives me hope for the human mind...

Friday, October 17, 2008

Dems, Do Like Obama: Ignore Palin Entirely


The moment Sarah Palin walked into the presidential race, everything went haywire. That's precisely her purpose: to confuse, distract, rile up, titillate, and exasperate the American public to the point that they might just, in one mindless moment at the polls, vote for John McCain/Sarah Palin. All we need, right? in a political campaign is more pitbulls - described loosely as animals bred to fight to the death, mindlessly, on "guts" alone. Killer instinct. They may be nice on one side, but don't press them...they don't need minds, they need revenge. Sarah Palin's not all that, but she tries real, real hard, which is in some ways worse.

John McCain's actual message is a repeat of George Bush's message. Insofar as he is a "Maverick", it's really only an image thing, not a substance thing. At best, it means he'll gamble more often. As in "...Maverick is his name...luck is his companion, gambling is his game..." And if that's "best" in times like this with the economy melting down like a terminated cyborg, what's worst?

So with a message - "tax breaks for the rich, tough breaks for the rest" - that doesn't resonate, and with a delivery style that resembles that of a depressed person, he needs someone so manic, so mindless, that all messages, all issues get sucked into some crazy vortex.

That's Sarah Palin.

Unless we ignore her. Completely. Not a single damn word. No comment. Let her rant, rave, be cutesy, folksy, show off her incontrovertible ignorance and incompetence for the job she's trying to be a shaky heartbeat from. She makes that point.

I believe there are enough intelligent people who understand she's not going to help the economy, the war in Iraq, the bloated Pentagon, the healthcare system, or even, for that matter, Joe the Plumber. She's only going to help poll numbers for John McCain if enough white guys like her legs. And that has nothing to do with helping women, most of whom are for Obama on issues. I agree with John Cusack who said,

McCain won't just be more of the same -- it will be worse than Bush-Cheney -- using the disasters of the past eight years and the actual crises we face to double down on the American Enterprise/Heritage Foundation vision of government that desires, as Grover Norquist said, to shrink government until "we can drown it in a bathtub."

I would recommend a return visit to the groundbreaking Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

McCain, who said he knows nothing about economics, will surely hand over the reins to the Friedmanites and neoconservatives who have sent the country on a path to ruin. Anyone looking at his team could tell you that. Palin and the interests she represents are even further to the right.

Now, no one in their right mind -- including reasonable independents and Republicans -- wants to double down on neocon ideology, but here comes the "maverick" and his economic advisers to use the crises we face to implement more "change" and "reform" to the system by privatizing everything in sight. Is this what the American people want? When they are aware of it, the answer is always no. It's the same bullshit re-branded.


Great point, Kusack! McCain is a neocon in fake "Maverick" clothing, and needs to be exposed. Palin is being used as a sexy "libertarian" draw, but in reality doesn't have the slightest idea what's going on, let alone what she would do about it.

Ruin the government you are purporting to run and turn it over to privatization frenzy, creating a shadow government of private corporate rule. That's the whole idea.

So let's brand bust this maverick gibberish but understand the coded language that belies their true mission... we should take them at the true meaning of their words.

Not just more of the same -- worse than the same. Times of crisis are great opportunities to implement the radical agendas we usually reject.


Even conservatives, true conservatives, don't wish death to America. By "less government", do we mean the Department of Homeland Security or surveillance of regular Americans? Or being "served" by Blackwater? Let's gut taxes so we don't "spend" in fixing crumbling infrastructure or health care or education or even alternative energy? So where's the money for the Republicans' beloved war supposed to come from, if most of the budget is tanked in bailing out the robber barons you didn't want to "spend" a dime regulating or at least holding accountable for their actions? Is that the Republican "take" on, say, the morals of the ten commandments?

Obama is no extremist or even particularly "liberal", as painted falsely by the lying McCain/Palin team. But McCain and Palin ARE extremist, right-wing extremist, and America can't endure another year of this trash, let alone four. So let's all ignore the much-hyped story of Palintology and vote by conscience ... for the children who'll have to live with our decision.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Palin Palling Around With "Terrorists", Too???


This guilt by association thing has gotten out of hand, with Sarah Palin lambasting Barack Obama for his supposed "association" with Bill Ayers, who was a Weatherman radical in the '60's when Obama was 8 years old. Now Palin, too, can enjoy her own "guilt by association"! CNN's Rick Sanchez, much to the chagrin and angst of the McCain campaign, brought out Palin's strong ties to the Alaska Independence Party, which advocates ... seceding from the Union! Yes, you got it - Sarah's been palling around with guys who hate the United States so much they want to secede from it, cut ties, become a separate nation of Alaska. Unionists, anyone?

All 3 videos are here - one of the CNN show video, one of Sarah Palin addressing the A.I.P., and one of its founder, Joe Vogler, founder of the A.I.P.

Full report in Salon is here...

Mark Chryson, 51, former chairman of the Alaska Independence Party, surprised Salon reporters when
he pulled a 9-millimeter Makarov PM pistol -- once the standard-issue sidearm for Soviet cops -- out of his glove compartment. "I've got enough weaponry to raise a small army in my basement," he said, clutching the gun in his palm. "Then again, so do most Alaskans." But Chryson added a message of reassurance to residents of that faraway place some Alaskans call "the 48." "We want to go our separate ways," he said, "but we are not going to kill you."


Take a good look. This is the guy who helped Sarah Palin get to where he is today.

Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin's campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.


Secessionist movements in the deep South?? Is this what they mean by the "South Will Rise Again"? Against whom??? Well, it doesn't stop there.

Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution's language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as "Black Helicopter Steve," to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. "Every time I showed up her door was open," said Chryson. "And that policy continued when she became governor."


"Anti-government militias"??? Doesn't that constitute right-wing terrorism? Remember Oklahoma City and Tim McVeigh... it was called "domestic terrorism"... Seems that Sarah Palin not only "pals around" with people who could be considered "terrorists", but helps to promote their policies, ideologies, and pet projects or fight their pet peeves, as the case may be. This is a far stronger "connection" than the hazy, sleazily-made "connection" they force-feed on the public of Obama and Ayers.

So what about Joe Vogler, the Godfather of the AIP? Godfather? No, he was the Original "Maverick"!

The AIP was born of the vision of "Old Joe" Vogler, a hard-bitten former gold miner who hated the government of the United States almost as much as he hated wolves and environmentalists. His resentment peaked during the early 1970s when the federal government began installing Alaska's oil and gas pipeline. Fueled by raw rage -- "The United States has made a colony of Alaska," he told author John McPhee in 1977 -- Vogler declared a maverick candidacy for the governorship in 1982. Though he lost, Old Joe became a force to be reckoned with, as well as a constant source of amusement for Alaska's political class. During a gubernatorial debate in 1982, Vogler proposed using nuclear weapons to obliterate the glaciers blocking roadways to Juneau. "There's gold under there!" he exclaimed.

Oh no! Don't tell me Sarah Palin "pals around" with folks who hate America! Where does that put "Country First"? I guess she agreed to go with McCain for the chance at Big Power ... a pretty big draw, I might add. But if she's gonna get nasty about Obama's alleged associations, we have the full right, and in fact, responsibility, to get real, real close and have a critical look at her associations, too. And they don't look all that, shall we say, patriotic, or even anti-terrorist. Oh, and speaking of terrorists or alleged terrorists, how about this?

With sponsorship from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vogler was scheduled to present his case for Alaskan secession before the United Nations General Assembly in the late spring of 1993. But before he could, Old Joe's long, strange political career ended tragically that May when he was murdered by a fellow secessionist.


Yeah, it wasn't a threat. It was a damn serious thing, this secessionist thing. This guy went international to leave the United States, literally, and become another separate nation of Alaska. And it's his party that continues to haunt our stone-throwing, accusing, not-so-innocent-herself Sarah Palin.

Let the voter beware.

Monday, October 13, 2008

McCain Anti-American? His Volunteers Taught to Smear Obama with Terrorism

McCain is no "uniter" and when it comes to incitement to violence, he's not an innocent bystander - he's fanning the flames. Maybe this is already out there. But to no surprise to many, it's official: Huffpo's Jeffrey Feldman reports:

According to Time, McCain campaign staffers in Virginia are teaching volunteers to see Barack Obama as having terrorist 'friends,' and then providing these volunteers with arguments for persuading voters that Sen. Obama, like Osama Bin Laden, shares responsibility for bombings of the Pentagon.

The report from inside the McCain campaign brings to light an alarming fact: while McCain tells his supporters publicly to refrain from violent rhetoric, he continues to teach his volunteers rhetoric designed to elicit violent responses.


Is that the sort of responsible leadership we need in these critical times? Or does it actually break up the "union"?

Karen Tumulty of Time, reports from inside McCain's campaign training center in Virginia that Virginia's state GOP Chairman Jeffrey M. Frederick is leading training sessions designed to create a view of Obama as a terrorist. No, no, it's true:

With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points -- for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary."


Which view of the world was augmented by more ignorance:

"And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born."


By actually training volunteers to lie in the most vicious and outrageous way - doesn't this merit cries of "smear campaign" or a suit for libel? - McCain and his campaign are proving themselves wildly unfit for public office, let along the Office of the Presidency.

It is precisely this kind of fear-mongering and name-calling and wild and callous preference for violent opposition that made Bush-Cheney the complete disaster that their administration is, and brought our country to the virtual standstill it is currently in, where the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, and most of those mindlessly repeating the Big Brother-loved rhetoric are actually among the victims of the very mentality they enthusiastically embrace.

The report from inside the McCain campaign is disturbing on several levels. While McCain has begun chiding his supporters at public rallies for using violent rhetoric, his campaign has taken the opposite tack behind closed doors. Despite the public image of a campaign not responsible for the violent outbursts of a few followers, the Time report reveals a ground operation actually training its volunteers to elicit violent responses in voters--specifically by making false claims about Barack Obama's connection to terrorist attacks on U.S. military buildings.


By connecting Obama to the 9/11 terrorists in the worst, most stupid and conniving, lying way, McCain and his campaign are directly responsible for calls for violence against Obama, and in turn, violence against those who support him, and in turn, against other Americans. McCain is not a Presidential candidate in such a case. In this desperate turn for his campaign, he becomes a leader inciting civil war and in the spirit of secessionist-leaning Sarah Palin, inciting the very destruction of the dream and reality we call one nation, America. Far from patriotic, his desperation has certainly put "Country Last".

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Debates Ignore 12 Million People: Where's the Discussion of Immigration?

There may be a lot of reasons for this, but isn't it absurd that the Presidential debates have so far totally ignored the issue of immigration? Is that because it's too hot-button? Or because they hope they can get elected without dealing with it? Angela Kelley brings this issue up:

Latino community to immigration advocates to probing journalists have been eagerly awaiting to hear more about what the two candidates plan to do about the 12 million undocumented people living in the United States. To date, they've heard very little.


Are the candidates afraid that this will explode in their faces?


Our immigration problem isn't going to disappear just by not talking about it. As Barack Obama and John McCain were preparing for their debate last night, 300 workers were rounded up in an immigration raid at a chicken processing plant in South Carolina. In fact, as the two candidates were taking shots at one another, we can guess about 100 children in South Carolina--both citizens and non-citizens--were still left stranded, not knowing where their parents were or when they would see them again.

Obama and McCain haven't been afraid to talk about who is to blame for the demise of 2007's immigration bill. In dueling Spanish-language ads, McCain has unfairly accused Obama of trying to block the major immigration bill that he supported. Obama retaliated with an equally questionable ad tying McCain to immigration hardliners like Rush Limbaugh who McCain has generally stood up to. Yet amidst all of this finger-pointing, neither candidate has adequately addressed the bottom line: what would they do, as president, to fix our broken immigration system?


I discussed this back-and-forth earlier and disagree that Obama's ad was "equally questionable", but do agree that the candidates have not given any specifics or made themselves very clear on the issue.

Nonetheless, Obama's general approach to politics appears that it has more compassion and therefore will do a better job, if compassion is still included, of dealing with migrant issues humanely and in a balanced way without getting sidetracked by hate-mongering extremists.

So there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
That's no small number.

So why don't the candidates address the issues involving those 12 million people?

• What is realistic and what should be done about the 12 million immigrants here in the U.S. without papers?
• What should be done with the employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers, take advantage of them, and undercut their competitors: what should be done about them?
• Opponents of reform say anything that provides legal status to those here illegally is amnesty: how do you define amnesty? Do you support amnesty? If not, what do you support?
• How do you make sure that we actually solve the problem rather than pass reforms that perpetuate the problem and lead to another 12 million coming in illegally in the future?


Actually, then, there's more than 12 million people involved: there's the Latino vote, significant in swing states, involved.

With anti-immigrant fervor plaguing Latinos--both citizen and non-citizen--immigration has become one of the most pressing issues for Latino voters. That's why you'd think that the two camps would be eager to win over the unprecedented number of Latinos prepared to vote for the first time in battle ground states by sharing their solutions to our immigration system breakdown and not tip-toeing past the 12 million elephants in the room.


Could someone answer why this critical voting bloc is essentially being ignored on a key issue that actually affects all Americans? It is a critical factor to the economy - the labor issue - and at the same time it is a moral issue - mistreatment of undocumented migrants is unconscionable, especially when it goes under the guise of "patriotism". Where is "liberty and justice for all" when not having certain papers is equated with crimes like theft and murder? The anti-immigration backlash is just another facet of the Grand Old Party's legacy of hate and division painted over with the colors of a flag.

Ltr to Liebermann's Rabbis: Tell McCain to Stop the Hate

Just an excerpt from Jesse Kornbluth's letter to Joe Lieberman's Rabbis:
I often think about Kristallnacht, that terrible night in Germany when it became unmistakably clear what the Nazis intended for the Jews. Almost a hundred Jews murdered, tens of thousands deported, windows smashed, businesses seized -- and hundreds of synagogues burned. Quite the "November surprise," if you will. But even after this horrific orgy of violence in 1938, there were many German Jews who didn't get it, who thought they were safe, who thought this was where it ended.

Now we know better. We say "Never again." But look around you, gentlemen. History does repeat, and in this case, with spooky echoes of Germany's darkest decade. A bad economy. A search for someone who can be dehumanized and blamed. The cries for "justice". And then....?

How would we recognize Kristallnacht if it happened today?

My fear: It's on the horizon, and coming closer every day.

Today "The Other" is Barack Obama. At a McCain-Palin rally the other day, there was a cry from a yahoo in the crowd: "Off with his head!" John McCain and Sarah Palin have not condemned that man. Indeed, they promise to ratchet up their "questions" about Obama in the final weeks of the campaign. At this point, it seems, they'd find nothing upsetting if the audiences at their rallies showed up with torches and pitchforks.

Jews, above all others, should fear this kind of hate speech. It may start with the demonization of one black man. Then it will move on to greedy Wall Streeters and "Jewish bankers" and a "liberal media" owned and controlled by Jews. [It's already happening: The Anti-Defamation League reports "a dramatic upsurge in anti-Semitic statements" on financial message boards on the Web. ] And then -- it sounds crazy, but it sounded crazy to many Jews in Germany -- the mob will come for us. Because that's where this goes. It's where it always goes. No matter where it starts, it ends with the Jews -- we're the ultimate "Other."


Well, they may go for Muslims this time around instead. But the point is made. Can anybody move McCain to compassion?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Monday, October 6, 2008

Experts: McCain's Style "Depressing"; So Palin Gives Him "Manic" Side

Going into the debates, it makes sense to look at the potential effect of the two candidates' speaking styles, and experts have been watching and analyzing. New software into whether or not political candidates are being honest or just spinning based on speech and verbal patterns, inflections, style, etc., came to this unexpected conclusion - honesty aside - about John McCain's style:

"The voice analysis profile for McCain looks very much like someone who is clinically depressed," says Pollermann, a psychologist who uses voice analysis software in her work with patients. Previous research on mirror neurons has shown that listening to depressed voices can make others feel depressed themselves, she says.


So that's why he picked Sarah Palin! Someone who, in contrast to his "depressed" and depressing monotone style, is the closest one could possibly get in politics to totally "manic".

David Skillicorn, a mathematics and computer science researcher at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, developed the software that analyzes word usage within the text of a conversation or speech to determine when a person (in this case, a politician) "presents themselves or their content in a way that does not necessarily reflect what they know to be true".

The study conducted by Pollerman using this software not only reveals why McCain is so ineffective as a speaker, contrasting sharply with the powerful appeal of Obama's speaking style, but also

Pollermann uses auditory analysis software to map seven parameters of a person's speech, including pitch modulation, volume and fluency, to create a voice profile. She then compares that profile with the speaker's facial expressions, using as a guide a set of facial expressions mapped out by Paul Ekman, (an expert on facial expression analysis) called the Facial Action Coding System, to develop an overall picture of how they express themselves.

Her analysis shows that McCain's voice changes little in pitch as he speaks, and so conveys very little emotion or impact. Whether he is addressing positive prospects or discussing sad facts, his voice always sounds the same.
Additionally, McCain's voice and facial movements often do not match up, says Pollermann, and he often smiles in a manner that commonly conveys sarcasm when addressing controversial statements. "That might lead to what I would call a lack of credibility."

People are unlikely to trust statements made in a flat tone, particularly when they do not match the person's facial expressions. According to Pollermann's analysis, it may not make any difference that McCain does not pepper his speeches with spin, if the way he talks does not strike people as believable.

Obama, by comparison, speaks with greater pitch modulation, and his facial expressions correlate very well with what he is saying. His one facial foible may be a tendency to furrow his brow, she says, conveying constant concern. This is similar to the UK prime minister Gordon Brown, whose expressions tend to be limited to sadness, anger and disgust, according to the Vox Institute's analysis. But Obama's fluency, high speech rate and good use of pitch make him a dynamic speaker.


This bodes well for Obama's wide appeal and ability to transcend racial prejudices and political boundaries. At the same time, in terms of actual "spin", Obama ranks much higher than McCain. This does not translate into "dishonesty", but rather, I believe, to be an indicator of rhetorical ability, where the politician "creates" an image. McCain is not adept at creating his image rhetorically, and relies instead on a set of images, such as the "maverick" image, made by others and accumulated over the years. He has a greater need for an enthusiastic, expressive surrogate. Preferably a woman. Enter Sarah Palin.

In general ... Obama's speeches contain considerably higher spin than either McCain or (Hillary) Clinton. For example, for their speeches accepting their party's nomination for president, Obama's speech scored a spin value of 6.7 - where 0 is the average level of spin within all the political speeches analysed, and positive values represent higher spin. In contrast, McCain's speech scored -7.58, while Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention scored 0.15. Skillicorn also found that Sarah Palin's speeches contain slightly more spin than average.

So the analysis appears to back up McCain's claim that he is a "straight talker". However, for the purposes of political speech-making this may not be an entirely good thing for him. "Obama uses spin in his speeches very well," says Skillicorn. For example, Obama's spin level skyrockets when facing problems in the press, such as when Jeremiah Wright, the reverend of his former church, made controversial comments to the press.


And in reality, people need leaders who can "spin" well without compromising basic principles. McCain lies as well as the next guy, but he doesn't spin well. That makes him an uninspiring candidate who doesn't create concern or motivate people on a large public scale. That in turn does not bode well for him as a leader in a nation where confidence alone can make or break an economy, support for a cause such as war or peace, or cooperation between parties. Both McCain and Bush share this inability to inspire, which inability has led, in the past eight GOP years, to a huge increase in conflicts and divisiveness both domestically and internationally.

Even though, Obama would do well to note that there's such a thing as "overspin", where he looks almost too "rhetorical" and generalizing, not connecting enough with people straight on. Then again, in tough times, which is what we have now, inspiration definitely trumps your classic monotone.

And as for the methods of determining that Obama's rhetorical skills are somehow indicative of dishonesty, while McCain's use of "I" as opposed to "we" is a "sign" of "straight talk", well, we have the facts that show otherwise. Or as a wise commenter on this article said:

...this article and the researchers it quotes seemingly tend to conflate rhetorical sophistication with dishonesty. But liars can be plain-spoken, too, and oratorical prowess doesn't necessarily signal deception.

According to my analysis, the studies referenced in this article merit a pseudo-science quotient of 7.582350146 on the Taural feces index. Computer science researchers should leave the study of political speech-making to rhetoricians.


So we'll take from these experts their observations about McCain's depressing style - a hard observation to dismiss, with all the overwhelming evidence we all can attest to - rather than their "conclusions" regarding "spin" vs. "straight talk".

Because it's overwhelmingly obvious who is talking the desperate lies under the guise of "straight-talk". And it's clear that a depression-talking pol needs a manic running mate. And in Sarah Palin, McCain has met his match. Depressing McCain whose expression is always the same, matched with Manic Palin, whose expression is also always the same, just more hyped-up and dramatized/energized. And they're on the same page when it comes to lies. Feed her the lies, she processes them quite predictably, in her own manic style. As for McCain, he has a special gift for hypocrisy and position-changing that will keep them both lying, Bush-style, all the way. Does this Manic-Depression thing mean we have, on the GOP side, Team Bipolar???

Well, gosh darn it...(wink)... YOU BETCHA! But it's a Bi-Polar Team of Mavericks!

John McCain: Fake Maverick, Not-Quite-That-Heroic Narcissist


This thorough and thoroughly damning analysis of the Republican ticket is worth reading whatever your political interests.

It begins with a comparison between John McCain and John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.

There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam — call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."


The two men then discuss their future plans, where Dramesi wants to go to the Middle East, which he believes will be "some problem" for America. McCain, on the other hands, is headed for Rio, where he believes he has a "better chance of getting laid." Which, according to his own autobiography, was a successful effort on McCain's part.

Dramesi on McCain?
"McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."


Is this the man we want for President?

This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.


McCain has shown himself to be the consummate hypocrite: creating a heroic image on the one hand bolstered by bold lies, and pandering to whatever interests suits him best on the other hand, as he openly caved on virtually all his so-called "maverick" principles - bi-partisanship, taking the "high road", straight talk, to name a few - once he got in sight of the Republican nomination for President. Since then, he has been on the low road, sacrificing his country's interests for his political gain, with a cynical slogan of "country first."

Few politicians have so actively, or successfully, crafted their own myth of greatness.


The hypocrisy is showcased in his political race for the Presidency.

We have now watched McCain run twice for president. The first time he positioned himself as a principled centrist and decried the politics of Karl Rove and the influence of the religious right, imploring voters to judge candidates "by the example we set, by the way we conduct our campaigns, by the way we personally practice politics." After he lost in 2000, he jagged hard to the left — breaking with the president over taxes, drilling, judicial appointments, even flirting with joining the Democratic Party.

In his current campaign, however, McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance," promised more drilling and deeper tax cuts, even compromised his vaunted opposition to torture.


Now that's the lowest blow of all.
Intent on winning the presidency at all costs, he has reassembled the very team that so viciously smeared him and his family eight years ago, selecting as his running mate a born-again moose hunter whose only qualification for office is her ability to electrify Rove's base. And he has engaged in a "practice of politics" so deceptive that even Rove himself has denounced it, saying that the outright lies in McCain's campaign ads go "too far" and fail the "truth test."


Man of principle? Not John McCain. Not in the least.
Read more...

It's well worth it.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

How Did We Miss This? Conservatives Blast Palin!


Yes, it's true! Sarah Palin's obvious incompetence has finally sunk in after the fireworks blew out, and even conservatives like Kathleen Parker admitted that she is not up to the job:

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.


And as everyone knows, McCain's 72 years, marked lately by a bout with the deadly cancer melanoma, are right there on the precipice of the grave: the question of the veep having to replace him becomes all the more significant in his case.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”


Here's a conservative woman who wanted with all her heart to embrace Palin as part of the McCain team. But she just can't. It's too great a stretch. Palin is not up to the job - she's waayy over her head.

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.


I'm not usually a fan of Parker and don't often share her views. But here we can agree...the Palin pick was a total disaster, and who knows how the GOP will crawl out of it? It says a lot about John McCain and his ability to make important executive decisions. That ability looks very politically-motivated, showboating, emotional, and not suitable for the leadership position he seeks. In the meantime, the GOP is stuck with another bomb to bury. They've been awfully busy with their financial landslides, housing market implosion and lie-driven war debacle to have to now deal with the delicate issue of a landmark choice, a suddenly-beloved woman Veep-pick returning gracefully into the Alaskan sunset. Maybe they should find a dentist.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Class Act: Obama Wins Debate


Polls show people believe Obama won. Pundits may cry it's a draw, but the facts say otherwise...

Monday, September 22, 2008

Greenspan-Gramm's $45 trillion Fantasy Scam Becomes Self-Aware


Devilstower's great dkos diary tells the history, and intentions, behind the Wall Street/Financial debacle that has Bushco wants YOU to BAIL OUT NOW for 700 Billion Dollars, putting America in 11.7 Trillion Dollars Debt.

It's best to read the article, but just to get a sense of what's at the heartless heart of it, meet Phil Gramm and "Maestro" Alan Greenspan's financial cyborg: the name's credit default swaps.

As if bent on terminating America and its prosperity and riches altogether, Republican anti-regulationists decided to make greed the ultimate moral determinator: Greed = The American Dream. It is "Our Dream" to "Get Rich, or Die Tryin'", or better yet, let someone else die while the elite don't die, and get rich with a minimum of work (aka, "tryin'"). And John McCain's economic idol, Phil Gramm, helped author this anarchist, regulation-free debacle.

It all started with GOP icon Reagan and his voodoo economics, where the rich bilking the rest of us was supposed to result in some sort of drip-drip-drip down to... the rest of us. They de-regulated - i.e., put out into the Wild West with no laws - the Savings and Loan industry, which more or less exploded with greed and collapsed.

Then, after that debacle, Gramm & friends - notably, Alan Greenspan, American Financial Idol - worked very hard to build a totally lawless world of ever-expanding Finance, where Monsters eat Dogs, and Dogs eat Pipsqueaks, and Pipsqueaks pay taxes. And Monsters eat each other in Carnival Cannibalia, where no monster is too big to become bigger and, of course, bigger means better, right?

And in the middle of this greed, law-bashing fest was good ol' John McCain, basking in Republican elitism: grab the money, say we're defending America and the Individual. While in fact they are doing the exact opposite.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley reversed those rules, allowing not only more bank mergers, but for banks to become directly involved in the stock market, bonds, and insurance. Remember the bit about how S&Ls failed because they didn't have the regulations that protected banks? After Gramm-Leach-Bliley, banks didn't have that protection either.

Gramm wasn't done. The next year he was back with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was slipped into a "must pass" spending bill on the last day of the 106th Congress. This Act greatly expanded the scope of futures trading, created new vehicles for speculation, and sheltered several investments from regulation.

As with both Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Garn-St. Germain, large parts of this bill were written by industry lobbyists. This famously included the "Enron Loophole" that exempted energy trading from regulation and was written by (big suprise) Enron Lobbyists working with Gramm. Not coincidentally, Senator Gramm, the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Enron, was also key to legislating the deregulation of California's energy commodity trading.

Thanks to this fortunate trifecta of Gramm-crafted legislation, Enron was able to create "EnronOnline" and trade electricity in California with absolutely no oversight or transparency. They quickly worked out how to game the system. Previously, there had been only one Stage 3 rolling blackout in the history of California. Within months, the system had been manipulated by traders to generate 38 such blackouts and wholesale electrical prices had gone up more than 3000%. Despite production capacity equal to four times the demand during winter, energy traders even engineered a blackout in mid-January.


The Enron debacle, the S & L collapse, and now the meltdown of virtually everything on Wall Street - right after Republicans have changed the system to put retirement money for "ordinary Americans" - i.e., non-elite Americans - in Wall Street, all of this was engineered by Republicans Gramm and his senatorial supporters, including John McCain.

Notice that it's always propaganda selling Americans the false and misleading line: the Government is BAD because it wants to REGULATE us free & individualistic all-American Americans and we want America First!

Is that drivel or insanity? Then why do people buy this crap? Did anybody notice that all the meltdowns and disasters occurred from LACK OF REGULATION. They want to OVERREGULATE and SURVEILL YOU, the American People, while they, in their Big Elitist Superrich Protected Corporations and Agencies, go free unregulated, not subject to laws or scrutiny. They peer into your emails and underwear, while they want to fly "under the radar" while screwing you and this whole country for their own personal profit, power and fantasy ideologies.

Of these, the worst are the Credit Default Swaps.
Among those instruments which the CFMA sheltered from regulatory scrutiny was something called the "credit default swap." A kind of insurance one bank could exchange with another, credit default swaps supposedly made it safe for banks to take on ever riskier forms of debt. The Act didn't invent these swaps, though they were relatively new. Instead, by placing them in a state where they were not only unregulated but almost perfectly opaque, credit default swaps were turned into the perfect vehicle to fuel a Wall Street revolution. No one had any idea what these things were actually worth, they were traded "over the counter" without being administered by any exchange, and even the SEC could monitor their existence only indirectly.

So how did the Credit Default Swaps become self-aware???
A secondary market for trading swaps exploded into existence, and swaps were traded with absolutely no consideration for the nature or quality of the underlying investment. Swaps changed hands a dozen or more times, growing in "value" as they went. Worse still, no one regulated who could buy a swap, so it was (and is) perfectly possible for a company to acquire swaps that theoretically cover billions of dollars in loans, even if that company doesn't have a red cent on hand to cover those swaps should the loans default.

How big did this market become? Here's business correspondent Bob Moon and host Kai Ryssdal on American Public Media's Marketplace from back in the spring.

BOB MOON: OK, I'm about to unload some numbers on you here, so I'll speak slowly so you can follow this.

The value of the entire U.S. Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.

The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.

The size of the U.S. stock market: $22 trillion.

OK, you ready?

The size of the credit default swap market last year: $45 trillion.
KAI RYSSDAL: That's a lot of money, Bob.

As in three times the whole US gross domestic product, Bob. And the truth is that Moon probably underestimated. The unregulated and poorly reported credit default swaps may have actually passed $70 trillion last year, or about $5 trillion more than the GDP of the entire world.


Look at what, of all people, Ben Stein said:
The crisis occurred (to greatly oversimplify) because the financial system allowed entities to place bets on whether or not those mortgages would ever be paid. You didn't have to own a mortgage to make the bets. These bets, called Credit Default Swaps, are complex. But in a nutshell, they allow someone to profit immensely - staggeringly - if large numbers of subprime mortgages are not paid off and go into default.

The profit can be wildly out of proportion to the real amount of defaults, because speculators can push down the price of instruments tied to the subprime mortgages far beyond what the real rates of loss have been. As I said, the profits here can be beyond imagining. (In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...)

These Credit Default Swaps have been written (as insurance is written) as private contracts. There is nil government regulation of them. Who writes these policies? Banks. Investment banks. Insurance companies. They now owe the buyers of these Credit Default Swaps on junk mortgage debt trillions of dollars. It is this liability that is the bottomless pit of liability for the financial institutions of America.

Did you see that???
This is a mainstream financial analyst, Ben Stein.
So what if the whole subprime fiasco was "set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse"?

So the Swaps themselves became real. Somebody has to pay. They got the US government in a back room, and gave them an ultimatum. Pay up, boys, or we take over.
Wonder why the entire government is jittery, paying up $700 Billion and more?
The Credit Default Swaps have become self-aware.
God help us.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Messagee to Congress: Don't Let Bush Get Away With This!

The headline blares from the New York Times:
Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street

What was that again?
Yes, the worst Administration in US history is now asking for 700 BILLION DOLLARS TO BAIL OUT WALL STREET1

The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.


And by way of excuse, Bush says
“I will tell our citizens and continue to remind them that the risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package, and that, over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”


Yeah, right. I'm sure. And this means we can watch the dollar come tumbling down, not to mention the potential for admission of wrongdoing by greedy speculators, let alone the neocons for pushing rampant speculation as the ultimate moral high ground. Didn't we hear that government was the Great Satan?

So how come we now have to pray to the Great Satan to bail out those Wall Street angels who were there saving us from government and its evil democratic regulations?

Democratic leaders have pledged to approve a bill but say it must also include tangible help for ordinary Americans in the form of an economic stimulus package.


Yes, let's give the taxpayers a rebate too. The winner in all this? The people who profit from materials provided to the US mint? Money engravers? Doesn't this whole thing smack of counterfeiting somehow?

Did somebody say it's because of deregulation? Or maybe because of the trillions going to the War Without End Amen? Whatever it is, it's courtesy of the Grand Ole Party, inherited by the forked-tongue-speaking John McCain.