Just who is working for John McCain

I will not be voting for John McCain--that comes as no surprise to anyone here. And I think, as a candidate, he has numerous problems. He has flipped on key issues, and wedded himself to the Iraq war and Bush presidency in ways that I think will hurt him down the road.

But more than that, we want a President who hires good people around him. Bush did a spectacularly poor job of that, and I must say that McCain is off to a bad start. Not only the flood of lobbyists he hired (after badmouthing lobbyists, of course) but his staff seemed completely unaware that Rod Parsely and John Hagee were batshit crazy. And that wouldn't have required much beyond a google search to figure out.

Now we hear that McCain has been forced to cancel and then un-cancel a fundraiser with Texas oilman, Clayton Williams after learning about William's famous "lie back and enjoy it" advice to rape victims. Maybe those of us who lived in Texas at the time are unique, but I find it hard to believe that no one on McCain's staff didn't remember this huge gaff.

Incompetence of this level is bad enough on the campaign trail. Much worse when it leads to hiring people to run policy.

Tim Russert's passing and the celebrity of journalism

I am sure you have all heard the news, that Tim Russert passed away at the very young age of 58. I was shocked when I heard the news as I think everyone was. Mass media has brought us closer to a lot more people--in a one-sided way, and so we feel as if we know famous people, and grieve when they die.

Turning on the news, the cable shows were filled with tributes to his work and his person. What I have listened to, it sounds as if he was the best journalist ever. A perfectly understandable and normal response to the passing of a friend and colleague.

But that is also the part that makes me a little uncomfortable.

When you turn on NBC, you are watching what happens whenever a group or business loses someone close. As I said, it is understandable and normal. But in this context, it has also been presented as "news." In one sense, it is exactly what the cable news channels excel at. They cannot explain the economics of healthcare, or really explore the FISA debate with any nuance, but they can do emotion and shock. The fact that this is about one of them, and their emotion is real, and their pain is real, doesn't really make it any less an indictment of modern journalism.

We see the celebrity factor here and wonder how one celebrity can really cover another? Why do we wonder that someone as famous, and recognizable as most of these "analysts" and "anchors" are, how do they not see themselves as part of the famous elite? So when they interview a politician or celebrity, they are really talking amongst themselves.

None of this is intended as disrespect to Tim Russert or his family. His death is tragic and sad, and I am so sorry for those who knew him. I understand that in eulogizing him, they will elevate him to the "best ever," and he will become "scrupulously fair" and the "best interviewer ever." I don't think that was true. But that is irrelevant. His passing is tragic and sad.

But so are all deaths.

New SBC President

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Well, Frank Page actually did question some of the Republican tendencies in the SBC. The new one will likely not, and is closely identified to the Karl Rove of SBC politics, Paul Pressler, and others.

"Johnny Hunt's election confirms that Frank Page's election in 2006 did not signal the emergence of a 'kinder, gentler;' SBC,' said Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics. 'The founding fathers of SBC fundamentalism have reasserted their political power. Their continued direction is away from the center. That makes hollow the months of chatter in the media about the emerging evangelical center. If there is no trending away from extremism in the SBC, there is no trending away from the Christian Right among conservative evangelicals."

At least Wiley Drake only received 45 votes (our old friend, Les Puryear, recieved 188--take that Wiley!). But the body is also voting on kicking out certain churches. Of course, this includes those friendly to the gays, but in this case, they are also considering booting any churches with women pastors.

Sure is a welcoming body.

Sigh.

Regrets we listened to him, I suspect

Sigh.

President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”

Obama Button Project

Cool. I think I like this one the best.

Churches against Torture

And more. Hat tip to Shaun at Upper Left.

Historic

I heard part of yesterday's Hillary speech, and what I heard sounded really good. As frustrated as I became with her, I do have tremendous respect for her ability, and also for the historic nature of her campaign. We really did get to a point where the bulk of the discussion about her were not about gender.

And yesterday, she did what many of us thought was impossible. She endorsed Obama and pledged to fight for him.

Speaking of Hillary, I used to listen to Christian radio during the Clinton years. I carpooled with a friend who liked such fare and found myself returning to it (until, as readers here will remember, I replaced my old truck and started driving a car with a cd player. Only then did I stop listening to Dobson and others on the road).

As bizarre as it was during the Bush years to listen to these people, you should have heard them during the Clinton years. Tony found this great list of religious right conspiracy theories. My favorite from the list--besides Jack Van Impe suggesting that the UN had secret signs on the back of Interstate signs telling them the location of believers, or the more serious role that Jerry Falwell played during Civil Rights--is about Hillary. Texe Marrs (yep, that is how he spells "Tex") argued that Hillary was in a lesbian conspiracy with Janet Reno. As I recall, Marrs referred to Hillary as a "lesbian marxist."

All of these conspiracies are funny, sad and disturbing. And the fact that these paranoid ramblings became part of the evangelical political discourse is shameful for those who should know better.

But back to me.

As my good friends know, I often dream about famous people. I have met Bill Clinton, Neil Young, Emmylou Harris in dreams. In another, I chased Manuel Noriega on a motorcycle.

Well, last night, I dreamt I was in a huge ballroom and sitting at the table behind me was Barack Obama. At one point in the dream, my table mates have left me (I don't know who they were or how I drove them away) and Obama ends up at my table. He shook my hand and thanked me again for coming. :) I then asked him how he could keep up with the campaign schedule, and then asked him about this real story where he had to convince his Iowa fundraisers to not panic early in the campaign. He was amazingly gracious in my dream. So there.

Later in that same dream, I also met Tony in person. In my dream, he had written a book and I took it up to him for him to sign. He signed it to the wrong name.

Thanks a lot, Tony!

A good church sign?

Maybe?:

"LOUISVILLE -- Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, AZ, has erected a new sign in front of its rustic, southwestern-style, adobe building just like the one Nauraushaun Presbyterian Church has placed in front of its modern, red-brick edifice in Pearl River, NY. The new additions are 3-foot by 9-foot black vinyl banners that declare in white letters that 'Torture is wrong.'"

Obama more substantive than McCain?

At least one writer for the American Conservative thinks so:

"What Halperin also misses here is that in any contest between Obama and McCain, Obama is the substantive, policy-oriented candidate, while McCain is the one offering mostly pious bromides about victory, service and being American. If style often beats substance, Obama is in trouble because, as his supporters tirelessly remind us, Obama does have a substantive policy agenda (even if he doesn’t spend as much time talking about it and a lot of his boosters don’t care what it is) and McCain’s entire campaign has been even more driven by biography and character than Obama’s."

The Costanza Energy Policy

Very interesting list of reasons why oil is so expensive and here are just the first 8:

1. Limited areas available for offshore drilling;

2. Stopped the rise of CAFE standards for automobiles;

3. Restricted nuclear power generation of Electrical;

4. Federal Reserve policies since 2001 led to a very weak US dollar (raising Oil prices);
5. Energy conservation policies? None

6. Iraq and Afghanistan wars contributing to Middle East tensions

7. No major United States funding for R&D on energy;

8. Kept CAFE standards for light trucks/SUVs much lower than autos

Read the whole list and you get a picture of one hell of a lot of blame to spread around. The Bush admin has done very little to help us here, but their policies (or lack of) are only part of the mess.

A necessary correction

To commonly misused terms. Just like the improper use of the word "appeasement" few other words are so misused as the red-baiting smear (that I honestly thought had been relegated to the history trash bin--after all, who really worries about Communism now?) From Andrew Sullivan:

A reader writes:
As a specialist on Soviet history and more particularly on the Soviet Gulag, I am just so annoyed by the ignorance of statements like this:

"I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," - Tom DeLay.

"And did the Obama rally begin with the Soviet National Anthem?" - Hugh Hewitt

Put these guys and their ilk in my class for a semester and let them understand what Marxism and Communism were really about. Progressive taxation, no matter how much one might be opposed to it, is simply qualitatively different than the elimination of private ownership of the means of production. Government regulation, even if it interferes with the economy, is not the equivalent of total nationalization of the economy. These are not minor distinctions, but fundamental to the very definition of what Soviet Communism was, and why it had the outcomes it did. The attempt to tie Democrats and liberals (the latter of which was a term of abuse within the Soviet political structure) is incredibly ignorant of the actual history and structure of Soviet Communism.

***

Kos diarist Hunter adds this for the Hammer:

"Tom Delay, Indicted Republican: Unless he proves me wrong, [Obama] is a Marxist.

Hunter, Blogger: Unless he proves me wrong, Tom Delay lures children into his van with candy, gasses them to death with bug spray, and uses their powdered bones as an aphrodisiac when making love to all the animals at the San Antonio Sea World.

Prove me wrong, pal, prove me wrong."

Our political tug-of-war

I have been trying to argue (offline) that our political dialogue has a false sense of left v. right, in that people lose track of just how far to the right we have gone. In that context, when a conservative Democrat speaks, it isn't representative of the far left, where as most Republican Senators are much closer to the far right--and there are practically no moderate Republicans (in office, I mean) left.

Anyway, I wrote this very flawed analogy and thought I would post it to see what others thought. (My offline recipients have yet to respond, and I am impatient.)

Imagine the political landscape as a tug of war played out on a football field. (This is a very limited analogy with numerous holes (first and foremost a tendency toward the two dimensional left v. right, for example) but (in my head at least) offers some possible uses.) In this analogy, the political landscape (tug of war) is a limited set of people or ideological stances. In other words, not everyone on the field gets to grab the rope. The bulk of the participants are within 20 yards of the 50 yard line, with smaller and smaller numbers as you near the goal lines. Obviously, those in the middle of the field represent moderate beliefs on the role of government, taxation, etc. (just one of the reasons this is flawed in that some people could occupy multiple places on the field simultaneously--but bear with me!). Those near the goal posts are the more radical of the left/right spectrum.

I would suggest that, within this limited analogy, the political landscape has migrated from the left to the right in an almost rugby "scrum" style (or little kid soccer where the mob follows the ball around the field). During the 20s, the center of that rope was probably right of center, but during the New Deal, moved back over the line to the left. I would further suggest that the center of that rope remained left of center (perhaps just barely) through the end of the 60s, and even during the Nixon administration had moved only slightly to the right of the center line. Carter may have tried to move the scrum back to the New Deal, but by this time, the majority of the participants pulling on the rope were right of center. That rope continued to move to the right through Reagan, GHWB, and only slightly moved back toward the center under Clinton, and never crossed the mid point during his administration. In many ways, Clinton's economic and foreign policy are very similar to GHWB in most ways.

But under Bush, the entire scrum moved far right, to the point that those radicals on the far right--hard core libertarians, neo-cons, and anti-government types actually got to grab the rope. They had always been there, writing their screeds and ranting their rants. But under the previous administrations, they didn't actually get to touch the rope. Sure, a finger or two under Reagan and HWB, but the bulk of those on the rope were of the moderate or pragmatic wing of the party. But under Bush, for the first time in American history (or at least the modern Presidency) the people with the best grasp on the rope on the right side of the tug-of-war, were those people on the 10 or 15 yard line to the right. Grover Norquist, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Ashcroft, etc., all represent the more conservative and radical elements of conservatism.

By comparison, I don't see the truly radical left ever getting really much more than a finger on that rope, and none of them since the 1960s. Even those who got to play then were not advocating government run industries, or even a radical challenge to market capitalism. I would include in that, by the way, the Roosevelt administration who I believe saved capitalism from those fringe elements who had their best chance during the depression years. But FDR and the bulk of his advisors believed in market capitalism.

So, again, in this limited little analogy, I think you can see how I approach this current situation. When Republicans gave part of the rope pulling to those on the far right, they have skewed the game. The task, I think, for the Democrats is to get that scrum moved off the right wing goal line and closer to the middle.

Report argues that Bush/Cheney cherry-picked intelligence to push for war

As many of us believed, of course. The report evidently exonerates the admin on those areas where the intelligence really did support their claims--like the belief that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, but says on key issues, they simply ignored their own intelligence:

But the report says the Bush administration veered away from its own intelligence community's conclusions in two key areas: Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda and the difficulty of pacifying Iraq after a U.S. invasion.

Statements in dozens of prewar speeches and interviews created the impression that Baghdad and Al Qaeda had forged a partnership. But the report concludes that such assertions "were not substantiated by the intelligence" being shown to senior officials at the time.

Claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, for example, were dubious from the beginning and subsequently discounted. The idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda hinged on intelligence from a source who soon was discredited.

Bush officials strayed even further from the evidence in suggesting that Hussein was prepared to provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda terrorist groups -- a linchpin in the case for war.

In October 2002, for example, Bush warned in a key speech in Cincinnati that "secretly, and without fingerprints, [Hussein] could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The threat was repeated frequently in the run-up to war but was "contradicted by available intelligence information," the committee says.

On post-war prospects, the report contrasts the rosy scenarios conjured by Cheney and others with more sober intelligence warnings that were being presented to senior officials.

Cheney's prediction that U.S. forces would "be greeted as liberators" was at odds with reports from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which warned nearly a year earlier that invading U.S. forces would face serious resistance from "the Baathists, the jihadists and Arab nationalists who oppose any U.S. occupation of Iraq."

The End?

MSNBC is reporting that Hillary will bow out on Friday and endorse Obama.

Open letter to Hillary Clinton

(Because, of course, she reads this blog).

Dear Senator Clinton,

You have no idea how often I have defended you and your husband in the past. I stood and argued with those who advocated impeachment for what I still believe was a private failing. I defended you when you identified that "vast right wing conspiracy" against you and your husband. I winced when your husband's personal problem came to light, and when he parsed the meaning of "is." I threw up a little in my mouth when he pardoned Marc Rich and others.

But I defended you both against the right wing echo machine. I said you weren't that bad. Watching the current president mumble and drawl, I often said (along with millions), "I miss Bill." When you first started your run, I argued with those who said you were scary from the right, and unelectable from the left. I suggested that there was a measure of misogyny involved in criticisms of you. When Andrew Sullivan referred to you both as power hungry sociopaths, I argued back.

But like this reader email to Sully, I have to now backtrack. Watching you refuse to concede when Obama locked up the delegates needed was painful. Almost as painful as watching you encourage white racism in our own party. Almost as painful as watching Bill go from statesman to race-baiting political thug in a matter of months. Almost as painful as your spinning the popular vote and changing rules in midstream. Almost.

I am done defending you. And you need to go back to the Senate and figure out some plan of atoning for what you have done to our party and our nation. Unfortunately, I have no good faith belief that you have any concern for anything beyond your own power and you will pursue that regardless of the damage to the Democratic party or the potential of giving us four more years of disastrous policy.

Sigh

10 away from magic number

Marc Ambinder on Obama's delegate count:

"Before the delegates from South Dakota and Montana have been allocated, Sen. Barack Obama needs just 10 to clinch.
So tonight, he will clinch."

Rumors are flying that Clinton herself will suggest she is ready to be Veep. If that brings in all her supporters, does that deal with all of the right wingers who will mobilize out of hatred for her?

Couple of political notes

First, the blogosphere is abuzz about the potential end to Hillary's campaign. Will she end it? I don't know. I do know that watching some of the Hillary supporters fall into open racism toward Obama makes me more than a little ill. But I also hold out hope that most of the Clinton supporters are like most of the Obama supporters--united in their desire to see a Democratic president. I certainly hope that we don't see a repeat of 1968 when hard line liberals refused to vote for Humphrey and essentially allowed a moral reprobate like Nixon to become president.

This Kos diarist gives me hope, writing about a Florida town hall meeting where Congressman Wexler spoke to his constituents, most of whom voted for Clinton.

"I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it. I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies. I support him because he speaks truth to power. He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami. Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years. 'We're going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.' Whether or not it works, that's all any politician dares to say. Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo. Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today."

As good of a defense of Obama as I have read anywhere, and hopeful that most in the crowd appeared to be annoyed with the primary, but not so much that they were going to vote McCain.

****

We talked about Ricardo Sanchez' new book a last month and it is now out and not very positive about our civilian leadership

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.

Kasey Chambers

And her husband Shane Nicholson performing a track off their new album, which has not yet been released in the states (their web site says that is in the works).

Conservativism

John Kenneth Galbraith:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

I know a lot of conservatives and know they don't see it this way, but it sure looks like self-serving policy to me.

Bush on responsibility

Bush spoke to the graduating class at Furman University and had this to say about being responsible and understanding your weaknesses:

"There is no shame in recognizing your failings or getting help if you need it. The tragedy comes when we fail to take responsibility for our weaknesses and surrender to them.'"

Turns out he was talking about his own battle with alcoholism. Turns out for him, whatever humility and introspection he ever had, he used up when he stopped drinking.