I am proud to link you to my first post on TPM -- April 28th.

Hurry!  Get inside, I'm so glad you got here safe and sound!  I'll take those, just shut the door.  Watch the towels on the floor...no, it's not your fault the carpet's wet, it's been soaked all night.  There's a leak around the door anyway when it's a wind driven rain like this.  I keep saying I'll get it looked at, but then the sun comes out and I kinda put it off.  Just throw your wet stuff over there, in the laundry room.  That's good, yes, right there.  Thanks.

Whew!  Want a drink?  I'll bet.  I've got to say that I really appreciate ya'll stopping by tonight.  Thank goodness you're close by and didn't have to drive in this mess too far.  You know the rules - if it's not safe to head for home when the time comes, you've got a home here.  No need to leave.  Sorry!  Almost forgot that drink.  What was it again?  Wine, beer....oh really.  Like I have that recipe on hand.  Cool, come with me then, you don't want me trying that by myself.

A Southern phrase - it's pouring buckets outside.  The wind is circling the water, screaming at the raindrops and demanding equal attention.  Every minute or so the thunder negates the effort of the wind and the lightening trumps them all.  The thunder shakes our foundations.  The lightening illuminates our fear, and wonder.  Not necessarily in that order.

There go the lights.  I know!  Smart, huh?  And you thought the candlelight was just for ambiance.  What about the ice filled coolers ready for bottles?  I'm amazing, and will accept genuflecting at your leisure.  What?  Well, that's just not nice.  Who threw that?

No soft music in the background.  There's a crescendo of nature and power promising to overcome us with pure sound and fury.  The lights aren't low.  There's another electricity pulsating with excitement and grandeur.  Fireworks on the twelfth of July.  Geogeous in the synchronicity.

Guess we'll have to talk to each other.  Luckily, we're not only good at it, we like it.  It even feels like we're closer tonight than on an average night.  Must be the weather.  By the way, when the sun comes out tomorrow (don't you dare) someone remind me to get that front door looked at.  It's ruining the carpet.

Sorry, I missed that over the thunder.  What did you say?

Blackwater, no social security, as many open loop holes as possible -- John McCain, unbeknownst to himself, is advocating market anarchy.  He's not the kind who wants to overthrow the government and remove the monopoly on force.  He's the kind that wants to employ "progressive security" without overthrowing the government.  Same result, why waste the time and money?

He can remove Phil Gramm -- Mr. Mortgages are Imaginary.  He can say he cares about people who suffer.  But who owns the McCain campaign?  Who owns Bush that wouldn't own McCain?

We can call it by many names: progressive security, meta-insurance policies, entrepreneurial military competition, advanced ordering techniques, post-modern controlling systems, covert citizen enhancement, free-market decision making, global monarchism, dehumanization, domestic warmongoring, anarcho-capitalism, destruction of politics, etc.

We forget so easily that Obama is the first candidate in our history owned by us. 

From today's Sun-Sentinel, the main daily out of Ft. Lauderdale, FL:


Voter registrations in Florida show 'huge swing' toward Democrats



Pertinent quotes:

An escalating number of voters registering as Democrats is providing evidence that the 2008 election could produce a wave of support ... trigger[ing] a decades-long shift of party allegiance that could effect elections for a generation.
...
Democrats have posted even greater gains statewide, up 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the Republicans.

"I'm excited to vote for whoever is running for the Democrats," he said.  "I don't have much of a choice.  I don't really like the other party."

Michael Martinez, an associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, said there aren't many people shifting from the Republicans to the Democrats.  But the allegiance of first-time voters is significant.

"New voters tend to identify with the hot party at the time.  In the 1980s, a lot of new voters were identifying with Reagan, because he was sort of the hot commodity," Martinez said.

Just a heads up to those who might be interested.  Obama will be interviewed by Zakaria on his CNN show GPS.  It starts at 1:00pm ET.  The CNN episode summary:

An exclusive interview. Senator Barack Obama answers the tough
questions on the world's greatest crises, from Iraq to Afghanistan,
from Israel to Iran. Don’t miss what promises to be one of the best
interviews of the year!

Yes, I wrote this sometime around September of 2003. Dissent was being squashed and the mantle of patriotism granted only to those who supported an illegal war and a rogue administration. So I wrote this - my first ever politically oriented piece of writing. I think it's still at least as relevant today as it was then.

Patriotism

Am I a patriot? I suppose, to my surprise, that I probably am. Not that I am a flag-waving zealot. In fact, I really don’t believe in countries at all. So how do I come to be a patriot, yet not fit the usual description, lifestyle or pattern of behavior?

I am a believer in truth and freedom. That sounds good. I am a believer in truth and freedom. Truth and Freedom. High ideals. Yet, in so many ways, that’s what the founders of this country (the United States of America, in case you’re wondering) had in mind. Well, that’s what I think they had in mind. Their rhetoric convinces me that they had some mighty high ideals. Democracy. Government by the people. For the people… Equality…

Pursuit of happiness. Nice touch that. But perhaps it would be a good idea to examine what provides happiness? For some, it’s pretty whacked. I mean perhaps Jeffery Daumer is an extreme case,  but it seems to me that a lot of people are so interested in what they think is important that they are willing to cannibalize the less fortunate in order to get that all-important thing. Political Jeffery Daumers. Usually it’s money. People seem willing and anxious to go to great lengths to get more money. I say “more money” because a lot of them already have “more money” and still aren’t satisfied. Well, that’s not a surprise, because it’s the pursuit of money that has them hooked, as surely as some unfortunate homeless person addicted to crack cocaine or heroin. And if it isn’t money, it’s power. The pursuit of power, without the requisite common sense and commitment to service, is an empty and destructive path. Isn’t it strange that many of the really rich, powerful, greedy types are so opposed to drugs, yet they are complete addicts themselves to probably the most dangerous and destructive drugs of all – power and wealth?

So, wouldn’t it be a much nicer world, not to mention less violent and far more healthy, if what provided happiness for people was service to others? Love of one another? Thinking, “What can I do for my world, for my fellow man?” Sure, we aren’t all Mother Teresa. But we can aspire to a higher purpose…

But “higher purpose” today may translate as “nefarious purpose.” From what I can see right now, I think I’m witnessing the end of an experiment. This experiment is often called the United States of America. It’s often called democracy. Sometimes it seems to be synonymous with freedom, fairness and equality. More high ideals.

From what I can tell, sitting as I am in a position of little information and less power, there is a movement afoot that would place people with lots of money in charge of the government. Nothing new? Well, in this case, they are bypassing the usual pseudo-democratic process we have been using for a couple of hundred years in which predominantly rich people try to convince, cajole or bamboozle voters into believing in them so they can be “really important people,” and, instead, they are basically buying and manipulating their way into positions of increased power. Now I’m not saying that some of our political types aren’t idealists with high values and even altruistic motives. A few politicians are cut from extraordinary cloth. But I think most are little more than rag merchants, and those are the ones who end up corrupting the system.

The current movement that concerns me, which is currently being played out in various vignettes around the country (the United States of America), is not about freedom and the democratic process, but, in fact, seeks to use influence, power and money to cause the forcible redistribution of power to benefit… who? Those who already have money and power, of course.

Seeing all this and noticing my reaction to the blatancy of this attack on our values and the spoilage of our ideals… this is what makes me realize that I am a patriot. Cast suddenly in an unfamiliar role, I find myself unsure of my lines. I don’t know my blocking, and I’m looking desperately for a stuntman to do the really difficult stuff. A political Jackie Chan, I’m not.

You know, it’s easy to take potshots at George W. I mean, I sincerely believe that he’s unqualified to be the president of any country (other than Texas, perhaps). But I strive to be generous and polite. George W is misguided, at best, criminal at worst, but he is part of a larger machine. For those of an older generation, he’s Howdy Doody and Buffalo Bill is really pulling the strings somewhere off camera.

Can’t we come up with intelligent, wise, honest, charismatic and literate leaders capable of making decisions that actually benefit our future instead of catering only to short-term profit and power brokering? And aren’t we, as a people, as a nation with so many advantages, capable of recognizing the bullshit, the short-sighted policies, the lies and transparent deceit, and the ultimate end to this road in destruction of what we all hold dear, even when we differ in ideology, religion and geography? Can’t we actually elect, overwhelmingly, someone who truly represents what this country is about?

I am sad to say that I live in insane times. It used to be interesting times, which harkens to the old Chinese curse, but now we’ve gone past interesting (unless you are capable of incredible detachment or you buy into all this myopic crap that’s running our country and our economy) and into insane. I keep thinking of Hitler’s Germany and the Fall of Rome. The signs are there, and you don’t have to be Cassandra to read them.

Oh, but of course there’s hope. The great silent majority could just stand up and be counted… but I have little more faith in the overall intelligence and discernment of the “majority” than I have in the minority that is currently in charge. I mean, it seems to me that the rich and powerful and unscrupulous power addicts are also much more effective at furthering their agenda, while I’m not sure the rest of us even have an agenda that translates into political action. I mean, where do love, spirit and service fit into the picture? Or, as Tina Turner asked the question, “What’s love got to do with it?” Is it only in the minds of a small minority of ex-hippies? Is this torch only carried by a few people looking to make a difference in a different way?

I often meet young people who impress me with their high values and commitment to service to others. They have tattoos, piercings and sometimes intentional scars. They look scary, as if they have completely rejected society as I have known it all my life. And yet they desperately want to be of service to the world – those who haven’t given up – and they have amazing and wonderful values. But almost universally, they have become disenfranchised from the political process. There used to be a term – generation gap – but what we have today is far bigger – a credibility gap that grows wider with every perversion of our system at the hands of those who no longer care about its integrity. How often can we expect to stretch credulity, butcher truth and use empty rhetoric to hide from confrontation and still expect to have our incredibly intelligent and perceptive young people buy into the system?

So… I’m a patriot. I’m a patriot because I care about the high ideals that have always been the bedrock of this country. I’m a patriot because, if we could just step past our own self-interest and really model the values that we nominally represent, we, in the United States of America, could change the world. We have already won the Cold War – not with guns, but with our culture and some of our ideology. Granted, we have exported our own particular form of greed all over the world, but we have also influenced many to believe in freedom. Now, if only we could become models of truth and real goodwill toward men AND women AND nature… what an amazing force we could be – far more  powerful than all the cruise missiles and cluster bomb brigades could ever hope to be. We can win the hearts, minds and imaginations of the world and become the leaders of a truly free and leaderful world. We can be Weapons of Mass Enlightenment.

I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m not the only patriot. And I want to believe it’s not too late to resurrect the original ideals of this country and wrest control back from those who use its own rhetoric to tear it apart and replace it with something totalitarian and egomaniacal. I want to believe that sanity will prevail and that we will consider the future of our children, our race, our ideals… that we will think seven generations ahead, that we will preserve the natural world even as we preserve our freedom and that of all humanity. I’d like to think we will come to our senses – all of us, even George W and his gang of would-be thieves – and really work for peace, harmony and equality on Earth.

So, I’m a patriot, and Earth is my country. Mankind is my clan. I want to be proud to be human. At the moment, I’m not.

I know many of you are frightened about recent events in the banking industry, this is a normal response from non-economists and non-Presidential candidates.

To allay some of your fears, provide and educational video that should set everything straight and help you all get some much needed rest so you'll have plenty of energy to get out there and shop.

Educational Video Link Here

God Speed and vote John Sidney McCain

Well, we have another analysis and another story. The analysis basically seems to say Obama is cocky and he should watch his step. They say he revels in the contrasts between him and McCain, um, I think that is the point of a contest. Link herehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_el_pr/obama_contrast;_ylt=Aue2VUOLvAT2aFUylC2DXVayFz4D

The second story is about the bumpy roads McCain endured this week, BUT, they managed to get a good dig at Obama.Link here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_week_in_review;_ylt=Atb5ZzbjI15wCZzanc6eNp5h24cA

Let's hope we get as much mileage out of this as they did Jeremiah Wright- which I think is less damaging to. Case in point 1) McCain knew Gramm longer 25 yrs to 20 for Obama and 2) Gramm shaped policy based on his views and Wright preached at Obama's church-which one affects you more

Is it also fair that MSM rode Clarkegate till its death, yet Whinegate goes for one day and dies, but I will gladly bring it up at every chance. And how hypocritical is it of McCain to say Obama should fire Wesley, yet GRAMM is STILL in McCain camp. Why is the MSM so complicit, the guy makes an Iran joke, the next day Iran launches Missles, Gramm says outrageous things, McCain makes a joke-it's off the table. Can we say follow-up.

I think from now on I will be reading the LA Times.NO ONE, not even left leaning MSNBC, mentioned the affair story of McCain and Cindy, while Johnny Boy was still married to his first wife. Let, that have been Obama-all hell would have broken lose. Oh, lets not foget the A.P analysis saying they miss Hillary-link here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080711/ap_ca/missing_hillary) yet it was a not so sincere analysis, basically beating a dead horse.

Who can we write to or can we start a website titled HEY AP! Could you get of McCain's nuts and come up for air?

This is a post about mistakes in emphasis on the progressive, blogging left.  I mean overemphasis upon: the civil immunity provisions of FISA, the thirst to hold in 2008 hearings to impeach George Bush for taking us to war arguably without Congressional authorization, the wish to hold Karl Rove in contempt, prosecutions for Department of Justice hackery, and other reductions of our party’s agenda to winning a series of legal skirmishes with and about Bushism.  While I would have voted against FISA, think the Iraq War is evil, think Karl Rove is contemptible, I think it’s much more important to acquire and concentrate power in our party while the pendulum swings toward us.  Until November 2008, I believe that should be our sole focus, and that the emotional satisfaction of show trials and spectacle punishments, while satisfying, are not only counterproductive as they may awaken the sleeping GOP base, but a waste of our focus.

While Whitewater, Bush v. Gore, and general anger at the folding-chair performance of the Democratic Congress may have brought us to a place where we’re focused more on winning legal conflicts than elections, it is a stupid place to be.

The recent FISA imbroglio reflects this.  As I’ve written, the thing I don’t get, and which suggests to me some lack of focus here, is that the focus is on preserving civil lawsuits against telecommunications companies.  The argument is that the truth about the government’s surveillance programs cannot come out unless civil remedies for aggrieved private citizens are preserved.  I do think private citizens should have this recourse, but as a long-practicing civil litigator, this seems quite stupid if people making this argument are serious.

A party focused on governing and on winning elections wouldn’t offload oversight to the civil litigation process.  Such a party would render oversight, from its perch in Congress.  The focus on immunity is a function of the failure of Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, but it’s still a dumb focus.  Our party’s leaders need to be made to do oversight.  It’s their job, not the job of well-intended lawyers who occupy no Constitutional role.  Having won elections, our Senators and Congressfolk need to govern, not delegate or abandon their Constitutional function.  And forget Congress, this is the era of the strong Executive.  So electing one is much more important than “proving up” the known excesses of Bush.  I want 2009-2017 to be a time of hope and reform more than I want to endlessly rehash the evils of 2001-2009.

This same goofy dance is writ larger in the current impeachment brouhaha.  The comments on TPM line up with the comment of KRXA’s Hal, who said on his program to me that many of his listeners are very upset with Nancy Pelosi for not pursuing impeachment in 2008.  While I commented back to Hal that we need to win the fall election, and that Pelosi is a good progressive, there’s a deeper, more obvious point here.  Sure, the prosecution of the War on Terror (TM) via the invasion and occupation of Iraq is deeply wrong.  But the American people elected Bush in 2004 to keep on keepin’ on.  The election was a referendum on the war.  Maybe you’ve noticed -- we lost the referendum.  Be mad at the American people for it.  Be mad at the swing voters in Ohio for it.  Blaming our political foes because they beat us is whiny and utterly misses the point.  Impeach the American people, or leave it alone.  The Kucinich articles are cowardly and five years too late.  What’s Dennis’s real game?  I’m a better progressive than Nancy Pelosi?  Corrosive, and bullshit.  The war was wrong?  No shit.  Defund it, or get us out by acting under the War Powers Act if you can.  But a show trial?  That’s for parties permanently out of power, who can’t do more.  We have Congress.  We need to use our power to act, not to create spectacle.

And maybe it tells us is that it just feels good to impeach.  We lost the election, so let’s have a political prosecution.  After all, our political foes did that to Bill Clinton, so they deserve the same.  Back atcha.

It’s unsurprising that we learn little about winning elections from Dennis Kucinich, whose home state had a chance to elect John Kerry and thus truncate the war, and chose not to.  But again, we’re trying to win a battle in a courtroom.  This is the extension of Warren Court-ism into a philosophy of government.  Rights we could not enact at the ballot box will be won, if needed, in the unelected courts.  But civil lawsuits and impeachments are fundamentally empty if relied upon as instruments of real governance.

The continuing Department of Justice scandal, in which a culture of political hackery led to the selection of federal prosecutors (and the omission to hire others) on the basis of rank partisanship, is a disgrace.  It needs to be investigated independently and to its conclusion, and if there are crimes along the way that require prosecution, we need through oversight and parallel Congressional inquiry to make sure that such prosecutions happen. 

But we can’t confuse the prosecutions with the higher point – throwing out of power the corrupt party that disgraced itself by polluting the historically nonpartisan office of that icon of public service, the federal prosecutor.   Obama has talked about this issue.  We should talk about it.  But the point isn’t to put people away.  The harm the party of permanent war and partisan prosecution did has been done.  The bell cannot be unrung (no, not even by Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment that went missing longer than the Rose Law Firm billing records).  The point is to win.  FISA immunity, permanent Middle Eastern war, hiring unqualified hacks as prosecutors.  Once in power, we won’t do this. 

A final example was the would be contempt citation against Karl Rove.  In a rush to self-injure, some progressives renewed their chronic flogging of Nancy Pelosi, this time for not using administrative processes to go after Rove for nonresponsiveness to Congress’ mandates.  Rove is of course evil, but the bigger question is what instrumental purpose is served by holding Rove in contempt – do we get something from him that helps us consolidate our position, do we turn him into a martyr to the sleeping right wing?  The relentless crapping on Pelosi as not being bloodthirsty enough is a testament to the self-destructive inability of pockets of the left to work in party discipline.  And it is further proof that too many folks want blood from legal processes more than they really want an ’09 progressive majority.

So it’s good to speak against the war, against FISA, against Republican excesses, to speak against politicizing the most necessarily neutral part of our government – federal prosecutors.  But we shouldn’t be licking our lips over impeachments, show trials, and contempt citations.  The legal processes surrounding issues are smoke.  The issues are the fire.  And it’s in the fire we are going to be purified, or damned this year, either by winning a Presidential election that allows us to govern and growing a progressive Congressional majority, or not.  That is almost all of what matters this year.  So let’s win elections.  Lawsuits are for the losers.

This may be the most important Presidential election many of us will ever witness, take part in, or otherwise experience.  So much is at stake; for us and for future generations.  You wouldn’t know it if you were watching closely.  Mainstream media outlets have conspired (for what reason I am not sure) to manipulate the coverage of the campaigns, in what appears to be John McCain’s favor.  

Coverage of McCain’s top economic advisor Phil Gramm’s “…mental recession,” and “we’ve sort of become a nation of whiners,” comments have been mostly ignored by news outlets, lightly discussed amongst the political punditry and will be forgotten in just a matter of time.  If the media were doing its job it would discover similar statements of this conservative ideology.  McCain himself said that many of the problems Americans are facing today, “…including losing one’s own home,” are psychological.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16150.html

We’ll see what the Sunday talk shows think of this.  As you watch, think of Obama and think of ‘Bittergate,’ think of ‘Naftagate,’ think of the good Reverend Wright spectacle.  Will they continue to make the bias so obvious?

I still like to believe Mark Warner is on ice for Obama.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/07/12/nunn_0713.html

But Sunday's Atlanta Journal Constitution thinks otherwise, and has a relatively extensive piece on Sam Nunn, Barack Obama's VP.
I also believe Jimmy Carter advanced Nunn for the position recently.
It would be a sensible choice.  If there is simpatico between the two, it is hard to conceive of a more logical choice (other than Mark Warner).
What are the downsides of a Obama-Nunn ticket?  In other words what ammunition does such a ticket give McCain?

Below are selected passages and quotes from an interview by Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper with John McCain in today's New York Times.
_____________________________________________

"He [McCain] said, ruefully, that he had not mastered how to use the Internet and relied on his wife and aides like Mark Salter, a senior adviser, and Brooke Buchanan, his press secretary, to get him online to read newspapers (though he prefers reading those the old-fashioned way) and political Web sites and blogs.


“They go on for me,” he said. “I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.”

"Asked which blogs he read, he said: “Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously. Everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics.”


“I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail,” Mr. McCain said.

_______________________________________________

Where does one start when commenting on this?

Can one be a functional Senator without knowing how "to get online?"

Would one think that someone desiring, for many years, to be elected President of the US might have heard of the Internet and been curious enough to perhaps check it out once or twice during the past two decades?

Aren't fighter pilots kind of by nature "technical guys?" Don't they have to be ultra-comfortable with technology and the human interface therewith to fly those super-tech machines?

And, once logged on, why does he need others to "show" him Drudge & Co.?

How many other members of Congress don't know how to log onto the Internet; how many don't use e-mail?

What the hell is going on here!?!

A reporter in Ireland asks Bush about Iraq in 2004.  She doesn't back down and Bush gets a little testy and demonstrates that he is in a world all his own.  
You can find the link here

Ridiculing the McCain campaign for their performance this week is a bit akin to getting at a pinata, except with a big club and no blindfold.  The McCain  campaign is the political equivalent of low-hanging fruit.

That said, one  thing that I have never criticized John McCain for is the use of his  former POW status to promote his campaign.   It's gripping, unusual stuff that works as a narrative bridge for Sen. McCain.  As far as I'm concerned, Sen. McCain has every right to exploit his former POW status for political gain.  Frankly, I wouldn't expect anything else; it's good politics.

However, we are long past the time where the McCain narrative that he is "reluctant" to talk about his experiences should receive any play in the media.  That train left the station a long, long time ago.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single day on the campaign trail when Sen. McCain does not bring up his former POW status completely unprompted. 

The problem isn't that he repeatedly invokes his experiences unprompted, but rather, that he does it in such a crass politically pandering way.  And then when he gets called on it, he recoils into his cocoon of "reluctance".   For example, when a reporter on the "Straight-Talk Express had the temerity to ask Sen. McCain how his experiences were relevant to his present job pursuits, McCain reacted thusly:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk
about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for
the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the
experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.

"I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.

This is McCain using his POW status as a shield; he invokes it whenever he doesn't care to answer a question.  And he does it often.

I mention this because McCain had the flap over recounting his experiences incorrectly in an interview in Pittsburgh this week.  Sen. McCain was simply asked what came to his mind when he thought of Pittsburgh and somehow turned that into a story about being a POW [but he's reluctant to talk about these things].  This is how the encounter was reported:

Asked Wednesday by KDKA-TV's Jon Delano what first comes to mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, Mr. McCain said, "The Steelers. I was a mediocre high school athlete and I loved and adored sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me, particularly in the early years."

Sitting by his wife Cindy, the senator then told a story about his 51/2 years as a POW.

"When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers -- as my squadron mates."

Of course, the story wasn't true.  According to McCain's previous tellings, it was the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers [a story he has recounted on numerous occasions, including in his most recent book and HERE].  It was basically a crass pander to a political swing state audience.  Much like Hillary and sniper fire, Sen. McCain simply changed the story to fit present circumstances.  However, unlike Hillary, McCain seems to think of himself as the last honest man in politics and above politics.

This is McCain using his former POW status as a sword; bringing up his experiences unprompted to fit a campaign narrative that he wishes to push. 

But what makes this story especially maddening is not that McCain brings up the experiences unprompted;  or even that he occasionally fudges the stories to fit present political circumstances [a charitable conclusion, I think].  No, it's that when he's called on it, he attempts to crassly use the same experience as a shield from criticism.

Hence, this inexplicable statement put out by the McCain campaign when called on the lie:

The senator's mixup with the Steelers "was an honest mistake," a campaign spokesman said yesterday. "If bloggers want to make fun of John McCain because he forgot which team he used under torture, that is their right."

WOW!  Where do you even begin with that statement and it's absolute crassness.  So, it's not John McCain's problem because "he forgot" the team he used [which is almost impossible].  Rather, it's the bloggers that "want to make fun" of Sen. McCain, which, I assume means, asking legitimate questions about his retelling and how he could have mixed up the teams.

Notice also, that the statement throws in the phrase "under torture" in an attempt to demonize anyone that deigns to question Sen. McCain's recounting of his experiences. 

Frankly, this use of John McCain's former POW status as both a sword and shield is borderline unconscionable.  And, it's not that different from how President Bush and Karl Rove used patriotism as a bludgeon to keep the press at bay in the run-up to the Iraq War.

At long last, is there ANYONE in the press that will have the guts to call the McCain campaign on their rank political opportunism? 

I certainly hope so; before it's too late.

I have to admit, Barack Obama has proven to be the candidate of change. In the last few weeks, he has changed more than the whole primary campaign.

You have proven to this Democrat that you have changed so much, I will have to reevaluate my position on voting for you.

In other words, I am refining my options.

I know many of you, like myself, have been disappointed with a few of the votes cast recently by Barack Obama; specifically FISA.  To some extent, the bloom is off the rose a bit.  However, chalk me up in the group of people that believes this is actually a good thing.  I've never been too big a fan of placing all my eggs in one basket.  Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, which means his success translates to the implementation of a Democratic Party political agenda.  As of now, that is a political agenda that is vastly more popular than the initiatives being pushed by Republicans.  It is imperative that we provide Barack with the means to effectively respond to the upcoming ad blitz. 

I've seen this movie before and I don't particularly like the ending the first time.  The Republicans are gearing up for a massive August ad blitz that will be used to "define" Sen. Obama.  One of the disadvantages to being relatively new to the national political landscape is that Barack is more susceptible to being biographically "defined" by the Republican Party.  Here's a rundown of how the Republican ad blitz will unfold; I can name that tune in about five notes:

HUSSEIN!! 

PATRIOTISM!! 

DOESN'T SHARE YOUR VALUES!! 

SCARY BLACK PREACHER!! 

SECRET MUSLIM!!

Let's not lose the forest for the trees.  If you, like myself, have been disappointed with Barack's recent specific votes, I'd ask you to consider donating to the following causes instead:
1. Securing universal [or, at a minimum, near universal] health care.
2. Securing [or frankly, even caring about & movings towards] energy independence.
3. Veterans Benefits [Veterans are quickly becoming the new Republican Party version of a fetus--they care about you from conception to birth, but after that, you're on your own].
4. Ending the war in Iraq [as opposed to the hallucinatory idea that we should maintain a large, long-term presence ala Korea/Germany].
5. Not instigating a war with Iran.
6. Progressive taxation.
7. Women's reproductive choice.
8. Bringing back some semblance of government regulation [as opposed to the ridiculous, Phil Gramm, 'let-the-free-market' dictate everything form of conservatism].
9. Allowing poor John Paul Stevens to retire [for the love of god, the man's about 673 years old--can we please elect a Democrat?  I think he'd might like to step down].
10. Fiscal responsibility [some might say sanity].

There are obviously many others, but I'm sure that everyone gets the drift; especially if you're either a registered Democrat or Independent.  Please use the link below to donate [or go to the website itself if not comfortable using mine].  Thanks.

Hope everyone has a fantastic weekend.  Take care and, as always, keep up the good work.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Sincerely,

Jeff Cronin

I sent this link in to TPM yesterday and thought some mention would be made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2277298/President-George-Bush-'Goodbye-from-the-world's-biggest-polluter'.html

Once again MSM is ignoring a story that typifies this administrations contempt for anybody else but themselves. This comes as we read reports that Cheney personally edited EPA reports and Bush rejects any plans to regulate greenhouse emissions. How much more crap do we have to put with from this polluter-in-chief.

He's not my president.

I thought that might get your attention.

The media is lewd, crude, rude, skewed ...

and if we have anything to say about it, screwed.

Raidder99 and I have spent hours -- nay, days -- setting things in motion to begin a netroots effort to call out the media when it lies, distorts and misleads. Many others have contributed suggestions and ideas in their comments.

Yet no one has signed up so far to actually help. So take a look at TTGZ's post today recapping the work so far and recommend it to keep it alive another day.

Then, if you want to get involved outside TPM, where we can work together non-anonymously, email contact info to my alter-ego at <a href="mailto:eddiestinkypants@att.net">Eddie Stinkypants' email</A>

Thank you. Or you may now return to your echo-chamber without ever effecting change in the media's bias toward McCain.

Since Ghengis's original announcement of the TPM-aholics party has fallen off the front page, this is just a quick post to announce the location and details for the Austin, TX TPM-aholics fundraiser party.

The date is next Saturday, July 19th.  Party starts at 7pm. Snacks, drinks, music, fun provided.  Suggested minimum donation $25.

RSPV and find more event details and directions here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gvm3

Intriguing report in the L/A Times today about conversations between Barack Obama and an influential donor and “ardent” Clinton supporter in which Obama claims that Hillary is still under consideration for V.P. In promoting Hillary for V.P. to Obama, the donor, Jill Iscol, repeats a myth that has infected the minds of Hillary supporters since the primary campaign. Iscol is quoted as telling Obama, “…nobody has been vetted the way she has been vetted."
    Like the myth the Clintons created that Hillary somehow received 18 million votes, a number now treated as accepted wisdom, the notion Hillary has been thoroughly vetted is absolute horse hockey.
    Let’s take a look back. During the Clinton White House years the minor league scandals, travel gate, file gate, Rose law firm records, just to name a few, were overshadowed and lost in the shuffle of major league scandals and distractions like Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and impeachment.
    At the very end of the Clinton administration, Bill granted pardons to all sorts of scuzzy characters, including Marc Rich and Hillary’s brother. Since leaving office, Bill has been associated with some questionable dealings with questionable individuals. ("Questionable" is a  nice word for them.)
    Should Barack Obama suddenly go insane and name Hillary to the ticket, does anyone imagine that Republican operatives and interest groups would not immediately begin dissecting everything from quick fortunes in cattle futures to shadowy oil deals in Kazakhstan? What about bank accounts in the Cayman Islands? What about the tax deduction the Clintons took for a donation to their own foundation. And speaking of the foundation, who are some of the other mysterious big dollar donors that Bill  refuses to name?
    How long would it take before more of the stains and smudges of 20 years of the Clintons’ soiled laundry would come spilling out? The Bosnia lie Hillary repeated over many weeks early in the primary season was only exposed as a lie this past spring. What else is buried?
    Vetted? When you’re the Clintons, when you’ve been lying and cutting corners for most of your adult life, the vetting process never ends.
    

If you thought you were depressed after reading Theda's post, wait until you read <A HREF=" Thomas">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/sticking-a-wrench-in-the_n_112303.html ">Thomas Edsall's</A> piece on huffpo. A very vocal group of clinton supporters are planning to take the fight to the convention floor, hoping that enought delegates will switch from Obama to clinton to give the nomination to Hillary.  They have taken out an ad in the Chicago Tribune and call themselves "The Denver Group".  They claim their fight it to keep the Democratic Party democratic. 

It has seemed clear to me for a while now that clinton donors are not coming through for Obama or even for the Party.  If they had been, the DNC wouldn't be so broke.  Greg Sargent has been uncharacteristically quiet about all things Hillary.  I don't know whether he was scared off the last time he tried to write about her, or what, but it seems to me the clinton donors in general and this particular group are newsworthy.  So how about it, Greg.  Anything to be worried about here?  
   

Democracy Now hosts Casey Porter and Colby Buzzell, two soldiers who have been stop-lossed and show an excerpt of the Stop Loss film:
Video (until Monday) Transcript

JUAN GONZALEZ: What’s been the impact on morale of your fellow soldiers from the massive use of this stop-loss policy?

SPC. CASEY PORTER: Well, I haven’t seen any soldier that’s thrilled about it. I could tell you that. They—a lot of them kind of feel that they’re trapped, that there’s nothing they can do, although I try to encourage soldiers to do, is I encourage them to join organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War, which I’m a member of, to stand up for themselves. But they feel like, you know, there’s no legal recourse, there’s nothing they can do. It lowers morale, incredibly so. And even—and just the mission itself, I mean, driving around, waiting to get blown up, which is essentially what we still do, that is just—you know, just compounds that low morale.

Most people who follow this site care a lot about what it addresses.  Any one of us could rattle off dozens of issues that require attention, that demand action.  We care!  We post about it.  We read about it.  We blow of steam about it around the water cooler.  We read theories about these issues and discuss them over at TPMCafé Book Club.

We care.  A lot.  So what can we <i>do</i>?

I ask the TPM readership this, not merely for myself, but for all of those who--like me--are blindly groping around for the right action.  For me, it started in the surreal political aftermath of September 11, 2001, when rational thought fled Washington like a soul from a corpse.  Since then, I took the following pathetic and powerless measures:

- reading TPM
- mildly disagreeing with someone who called Tom Daschle "just a dick"
- joining mailing lists for progressive organizations
- reading MoveOn.org's 50 Ways to Love Your Country
- talking politics (but with like-minded individuals only)
- secretly and impotently burning inside whenever I hear irrational conservative arguments
- listening in on AM talk radio shows, like an angry spy
- wearing an Obama T-shirt (at home, indoors, of course)

Has anyone else behaved as worthlessly as me?  Who else is mortally afraid of losing an argument and reflecting poorly on one's cause?  Who else has trouble getting past the social anxieties of political confrontation?  Who else wishes they could find a worthwhile path to action, a fulfillment of his or her deeply-felt convictions?

What do you do?

Our President ended a private meeting of the G8 leaders with the words:
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." Ha, ha, ha.

Can we make it through the 191 days before Inaugural Day? I'm not sure. Not because of President George W. Rickles, but because of the Italy/Berlusconi insult and what it says about what's happening in the White House.

Which is this:  The rats have left the ship -- if not
physically, at least mentally. The interns are doing all the work,
they're 20 years old, and they're unsupervised. Anyone who's done staff work can recognize the symptoms. This was the G8 summit,
folks.

I just read a comment on another web site that was written by a Brit who wrote that Obama reminded him of Tony Blair.  When Tony Blair was elected as leader of the New Labour party, he talked of a new politics of hope that would end the years of political bickering and game playing.  He wrote of finding common ground and compromise in place of oneupsmanship.  In short, his words sounded much like those of Obama in this campaign.  We all know where the Tony Blair story ends: New Labour has been the party of corporate capitalism and colonialist wars.  New Labour has gutted civil protections in Britain in ways that the Tories could not have accomplished, often in a way that Bush/Cheney can only envy. 
I was looking for a trope to capture my general uneasiness with Obama, and this is it.  Of course, even after New Labour became extremely unpopular, they won the last election, because their voters feared the alternative of the Tories taking power.  And yet, so many of us in the U.S. are continuing to think that we will hold our noses and vote for Obama, even after he has begun clearly to reveal his true self since winning the nomination.  FISA is only the beginning, I'm afraid of a Tony Blair regime in the U.S. under the name of Obama.  Can one really say that Britain or the world are better off today because New Labour defeated John Major?  Not really.  Of course, no reasonable person could vote either for the Tories in the UK or for McCain in the US.  But New Labour hasn't been better by much, if at all.  What really do we have to think that Obama won't be more of the same.  Nothing new about New Labour.  Not much change in Change We Can Believe In.

Progessives are good at standing up against oppression, whether it be based on sex, race, class, or otherwise.  What they are sometimes not so good at is clarifying what awaits a person upon liberation from oppression, or even what such liberation really requires.

Sometimes, the quest for freedom seems to be, "I want what he has," with the "he" being some powerful white guy.  Here, the problem is not that white guy has power, it's that others do not have as much power.  Freedom then is achieved when women, nonwhites, or whoever are able to get access to the power to which they have previous been denied access.

Many, however, have criticized this understanding of freedom on the grounds that it merely aspires to replicate what was already a bad understanding of freedom.  If the white guy, or simply the person with power, only uses that power to promote his or her personal preferences, and if those preferences promote bad social outcomes like more social fragmentation or environmental degradation, then the individualistic quest for freedom is not one that anyone, oppressed or otherwise, should pursue.

Some will agree that one should not be a socially or environmentally destructive egoist, but they will still insist that it is precisely the nature of freedom to be able to decide what values one will and will not pursue in one's life.  In other words, the answer to the question, "What is freedom for," can only be answered by each individual.  Various expression of the philosophy of existentialism have affirmed something like this.

At one level, the existentialist position is exactly right.  Only I can make the choices that I make.  Pretty obvious.  But, things break down when one asks whether or not I can make a bad choice.  Here, some who desire to be non-judgmental will hold off on clarifying what differentiates a good choice from a bad choice.  In doing so, they refuse to answer the question, "What is freedom for?"  By failing to answer the question, they also fail to clarify why seeking freedom from oppression is an imperative rather than simply a preference that some might choose to pursue and others might not.  In other words, if we cannot answer the question, "What is freedom for?" we will be unable to answer the question, "Why seek freedom for myself or others?"  In short, "Why bother?"

One consequence of failing to answer the question, "What is freedom for?" is a difficulty in seeing the big political picture.  What kind of society do we want to use political power to help create?  Only when we can answer this question can we begin to prioritize our political battles.  Failure to answer this question makes it more  likely that we will flail about every time some political outcome doesn't go our way.  Our frustrations then exemplify exactly the individualistic notion of freedom that seeks power only for its own sake, and so gets upset every time a lack of sufficient power is experienced.

To answer my own question, I think freedom is for building up the web of relationships, I call it the common good, between people and between humanity and the rest of creation.  A negative way of saying the same thing is to say that freedom means reducing unnecessary isolation between individuals and communities.  By building this web of relationships more opportunity, one could say more freedom, is brought to the lives of individuals.  But it then matters what we do with that opportunity.  We each can use our freedom to further build up the web, and so bring more opportunity to our lives and to the lives of others, or we can use our freedom to break down that web, to increase isolation, and so reduce opportunity in our lives, in our families, in our communities, and in the world.

To be sure, many will object to this answer to the question.  That is no problem, I am happy to debate the answer.  What is more important is that one recognize the importance of at least trying to answer the question.

Obama "shredded" the constitution by voting for the revised FISA bill. Yeah, it's in tatters; nobody has any rights any more, and there's zero protections of our privacy and no hope in the future for increasing protections. I call this the "slippery slope" hysteria.

He "caved" on FISA because he's into playing politics, a.ka., lying. Some play. He's drawn heavy flak from both sides. Critics say he blew it.  He says  he  sticking  to his  principles, to honestly deciding  what he thinks  is best for the country, making a close call and assuring us that he will fight against the negative consequences of this checkered bill. "Capitulation," I thought, was going over to the other side, as Hillary did when she voted for the war resolution. She didn't have protections, qualifications, showed no signs of realizing that Bush was a pathological liar. Obama sees through the bad things about the bill and thinks he can ameliorate them. If that's caving in to pressure, then he truly is an idiot, because the pressure came only after the vote.

Here's a big one. He's a "centrist."  Yeah, right.  That's why he's for supporting faith based institutions'  secular programs that are, in principle, supported by many positions taken by the ACLU. Oh, and his vote for stripping the telecom immunity from the FISA bill--all the dyed-in-the-wool centrists' who voted against it must have lost their stripes as he became one of the few true centrists for that moment.  What about his recent intensified support of Israel? That clearly violated his previously expressed sensitivity to the Palestinians. Now he cares not a whit about them. We know that, because we see the shifting and shaping going on, and, well, what else can we conclude? He's definitely a centrist, maybe even no different than Bush, as Choamsky suggests.  Then there's the  promise to  "refine" his Iraq policy. That's worrisome. He could easily turn out to be a closet neo-con. Many suspect that he is a closet radical. One of these views has to be correct. If we add them together, we get, you guessed it, a centrist. Hey, if he looks like a centrist for one month, then he must be one.

He isn't anything he said he was, honest, genuine, progressive. Never mind that his entire life up to this point was dedicated to these principles and that people who worked directly with him have certified that he was.

After all, as Mother Jones recently argued, even Paul Wellstone was swallowed up by the system. He had been a committed community organizer too and discovered that institutional influences were impossible to resist. Actully, Wellstone was unlike Obama in crucial respects. Most notably, Wellstone was given to being entirely disagreeable, which is why Wellstone suffered a power shortage. Obama's power is in his empathy. Still, if Wellstone went the way of all flesh, then Obama must too. The big bad powers that be reach into every politician's heart and put an artificial one in it's place. There's no resisting it. Not!

<i>Foreword: This may be interpreted as angry snark. It's not intended that way, nor really as criticism of any sort, but there's only so much I can do about the way some folks will go out of their way to be offended. This, however I can do: I can assure you that I am NOT attempting to stir the pot with the pissy contention that Democratic centrists are the same as or no more than or no better than Republicans.  Nor am I claiming, Nader-like, that there is no difference between the two parties. This latter concept is a topic for its own essay.</i>

My thesis here is simply that middle-class loyalists in both major parties are willing to sacrifice their own best interests to support their party's candidates and platforms. Another premise is that they make this sacrifice unknowingly. Still another is that this ignorance is self-induced.

It is easy for the people who will read this scribble to see the symptoms that I describe in the Republican party. We can see the foolishness of Republican rank-and-filers supporting tax cuts for the rich at the expense of their own welfare and its disastrous effects on their (and our!) children. Similarly, it is easy for us to look on with incredulity as they applaud the Bush Administration's incursions into their telephone conversations, their places of worship, and their bedrooms. It seems to us ludicrous that their political heroes feed them patriotism on one hand and destroy both the country and its defensive capability on the other. Can't they see, we ask, that these policies benefit no one but those who need the benefits least? <b>Why</b> can't they see, we wonder, the irony in their behavior?

But the nature of subjectivity and objectivity dictates that non-wealthy Republicans can't see their folly while we can, and can't hear it when we try to describe it to them.

Similarly, Democratic centrists seem unable to recognize when their candidate is willing to jettison the very tenats that they most cherish. I am speaking, of course, of the reaction to the revelation of Sen. Obama's numerous recent rejections of constitutional and human rights positions that have been near and dear to the hearts of Democrats (with some VERY significant exceptions) since Jefferson founded the party in the 18th century. "FISA" has become the code word for this, but just as importantly, Sen. Obama lately has concretized his right-of-center views on the Second Amendment, presidential prerogatives WRT war-making, the death penalty, and perhaps reproductive choice. (Some  say that he is also waffling in his commitment to Iraqi troop withdrawal but this seems to be no more that a pipe dream of right-wing MSM manufacture.)

The arguments put forth on the Senator's behalf on these newly-emphasized (if not newly-revealed) positions run the gamut from denial of unconstitutionality to claims of necessity due to security needs to claims of necessity for political reasons, and these latter are often accompanied with a wink and the assurrance that the Senator will move well to the left once again after the election. But in any case, the point is pounded in repeatedly that -- no matter what -- Sen. Obama must be elected for his appointments to the Supreme Court lest we risk the safety of the same Bill of Rights that he is failing to support!

As I have described elsewhere, we have seen this same set of arguments made in the 2006 senatorial race between now-Senator Bob Casey and then-Senator Rick Santorum. The music may be slightly different, but the dance ends exactly the same way. We now have the most conservative Democratically-controlled Senate certainly of my lifetime -- a VERY long time! -- and it shows in their output and their lack of output. Reviewing a local blog here in Pittsburgh, I see the exact equivalent questions being asked and answered about Jason Altmire WRT his upcoming second race against the former incumbent Melissa Hart.

The argument from the centrists is the same every time: If you don't vote for X because he/she is good, you just gotta vote for X because Y is worse. (And one of the drawbacks of our form of government is that Z is really not an option.) The upshot is that the Democrats have become a party that even LBJ would not recognize. They pay little respect to economic justice, peace, or civil liberties -- principles that these Democratic apologists would point to as being at the core of their beliefs.

So what is it that causes this disconnect in both parties between behavior and enlightened self-interest? I really don't know. Atavistic tribalism? Stubborn pride over a position taken? Unwillingness to reverse the earlier position and thereby look foolish? Combination of all the above? I just really don't know.

I should also take the opportunity to point out one important difference between loyalists in the two parties. Republican loyalists will never agree that their party is in need of improvement. Democratic loyalists will. This is probably bad for unity in the short run, good for quality in the long run.

<i>Afterword: Is there anybody out there who can help me set aside my own tribalistic and self-defeating prejudices?</i>

Claiming the surge worked is like saying the fire hose worked to get the attack dog out of the yard.  The problem is the guy that told you to use the fire hose is the same one that let the damn dog into the yard.

----------

We should stay in Iraq because its too violent for anyone.
BUT, if there's no violence we should also stay in Iraq.  When exactly do we leave Iraq, when the violence is "fair to middling?"

----------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PdMAO_3_DE

This is the video of Countdown where they air the presser where McCain was asked about staying in Iraq if the Iraqi Government asks us to leave.  At 2:21 in (I interpret it as) he says  in regards to being asked to leave a Iraq "If we do this right that shouldn't happen.  We're gonna be there militarily for a long long long time."

WHAT if we do it right then they won't ask us to leave.  There was never a plan to leave, even back in 2004

WOW!  Why isn't that part of the quote getting play?

    I think his mind is gone. I don’t mean that cruelly, or snidely.  I mean, speaking as a “senior,” that for many of us, memories of times way past are much clearer than of recent events. I can’t learn the lyrics to new songs, but I remember every word of the lyrics learned from age 3 through high school.

    McCain has yet to offer coherent positions on the economy, energy, or health care — or in fact anything other than his military exploits --  because those things have never really mattered to him, and still don't, and he’s too late to the game. (The problem is no doubt exacerbated by the fact that he keeps changing the positions he does take.)

    This is what worries me most about McCain, and I wish to goodness journalists and commentators would have the nerve to talk about it.

"Of course not!" was my first reaction. Then I began to play with the possibility in my mind and I found the thought highly amusing. Then I remembered what a fellow critter at "The Zoo" said about an impeached President, who wouldn't be allowed to grant pardons. Then I remembered an article in "The Nation". Then I thought, why not?

I just heard it on the local morning news. He was only 53, so that's sad for his wife and children. I suppose we'll see a lot of tributes from the MSM.

Obama and McCain recently offered distinct definitions of patriotism.  McCain said it means doing what's best for your country no matter what.  Obama said it means having faith in one another as Americans.

Many here are aware of a long-running survey question that has been asked using identical wording and offering identical answer choices going back to at least the early 1960s: "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right--just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" (prefaced by instructions asking the respondent to think about government in general)

Forty-five years ago or so, something like 60-65 percent of respondents said either all or most of the time they trusted the government to do the right thing.  With short-term fluctations such as just after 9/11 (64% answered just about always or most of the time on 9/25/01-9/27/01), that figure has plummeted to where far less than half of respondents give either of those replies.

I am wondering if a parallel question, along the lines of the following, has been asked in any reputable survey going back many years: "Do you trust a typical fellow American citizen to do the right thing just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" 

If any of you reading this are aware of such a question and data collected on the responses over the years I'd be interested and appreciative if you could share that information.

I would like to be able to look at a graphic overlay of the responses over the decades to these two questions to see whether they tend to move in parallel or not.

Social trust is of course vitally important for the health of our country, and for the success of a progressive political agenda.  I find Obama's choice to make this the focus of his definition of patriotism interesting in that McCain went for the abstract definition while Obama gave a more interpersonal definition.