Here's something that stands out to me as being remarkably telling and fantastically uplifting about what we can expect to see from an Obama administration.  Bill Clinton gave Barack Obama a moving introduction today at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.  In particular, he told of a meeting he and Sen. Obama had just a few weeks ago -- on September 11th, in fact -- at his offices in Harlem.  The key quote:

He recalled Obama's first question: "What is the matter with the way America is organized to exercise our soft power?"—by which he meant the capacity to deal with disease, poverty and conflict via nonmilitary and aid-oriented means. To Clinton, this was a sign of Obama's extraordinary intelligence and preparedness for the presidency, which he compared favorably with his own readiness as a candidate in 1992.

Now, there are two types of power considered in diplomacy and foreign relations: soft power and hard power.  As you might imagine, hard power describes militaristic and coercive means to achieve national goals.  Soft power is country's ability to affect change through non-military means by those listed in the quoted passage above, as well as through a nation's cultural influence on the world at large, and a its ability to lead by  positive moral example.

After eight years of an administration which has relied almost entirely on hard power to achieve its ends, a policy which has largely failed the American public at a time when foreign threats are rightly a key concern, and the destabilization of governments in the Middle East and Eurasia threaten to allow extremist groups to gain further influence among largely impoverished and oppressed populations, it is time that we re-evaluated our reliance on these types of tactics.

One of the greatest failures of this administration has been their inability to comprehend the influence of this "soft power."  To put this in its most cliche form, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and we've been dumping a whole hell of a lot of vinegar throughout the world.  The troubling thing about this, though, is that a nation's soft power is also directly dependent on its standing in the world.  In other words, when you piss off most of Europe and embroil yourself in a clearly illegal military campaign, you greatly reduce the amount of soft power you have.  This, in turn, forces a nation to rely even further on its hard power; especially a nation like the United States which has an effectively limitless military arsenal.  But here's where we find the second problem with the Bush approach to foreign policy, and why Obama's concern on our soft power capabilities is so heartening: by investing us so heavily in Iraq, the Bush administration managed to do two things simultaneously.  First, they reduced our soft power by making us wildly unpopular among many nations.  Second, they blew a significant amount of our hard power into one single endeavor.  This, effectively, has put the United States in its weakest position since becoming the world's sole superpower.  We can neither threaten nor otherwise influence either our enemies or our allies.  We've depleted both sources of power to historic lows.

It is in this environment that the candidate's of the 2008 election must be judged.  For his part, Barack Obama has put forth a policy he calls "dignity promotion."  The American Prospect took a look at the basic philosophy behind this term in "The Obama Doctrine," the feature article from their spring issue:

They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.

<snip>

This ability to see the world from different perspectives informs what the Obama team hopes will replace the Iraq War mind-set: something they call dignity promotion. "I don't think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does," says Samantha Power, a former key aide and author of the groundbreaking study of U.S. foreign policy and genocide, A Problem From Hell. "Dignity is a way to unite a lot of different strands [of foreign-policy thinking]," she says. "If you start with that, it explains why it's not enough to spend $3 billion on refugee camps in Darfur, because the way those people are living is not the way they want to live. It's not a human way to live. It's graceless -- an affront to your sense of dignity."

<snip>

What's typically neglected in arguments [over a policy of promoting democracy] is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen. Democracy, in other words, is valuable to people insofar as it allows them first to meet their basic needs. It is much harder to provide that sense of dignity than to hold an election in Baghdad or Gaza and declare oneself shocked when illiberal forces triumph. "Look at why the baddies win these elections," Power says. "It's because [populations are] living in climates of fear." U.S. policy, she continues, should be "about meeting people where they're at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That's the swamp that needs draining. If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not [providing]."

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years."

The two fold benefit of Obama's plan is that it not only seeks to lift America's moral position in the world and thus increase our soft power, but by drawing down forces in Iraq, we also can begin to build our hard power again.  Now, hard power should always be the last resort, but it is important that when push comes to shove, the American government be able to issue genuine threats.  In coercive diplomacy, bluffs quickly render the entirety of the coercer's power non-existent.  There are, in fact, seven distinct conditions necessary to the effective use of coercive force, of which perhaps the most key component is the opposition's certainty that the coercive nation is willing to follow through on its threats.  Without meeting all seven, a nation actually undermines its abilities to achieve its ends by using such coercion, and with our weakened military, the United States is frankly in no position to issue coercive threats.

Hell, even a nation does meet all seven conditions, that still does not guarantee success.  North Korea has successfully used brinkmanship for decades now to thwart American objectives.  The reason that North Korea has proven so successful at pushing back on American threats through brinkmanship comes from the fact that our intelligence on North Korea is almost non-existent, and their behavior seems intentionally designed to be read as irrational.  And in the case of terrorist groups which are dispersed throughout the world, coercive diplomacy -- the threat of using hard power -- proves even less effective given that terrorist organizations are not nations and cannot be dealt with like nations, not to mention that accurate intelligence on such organizations is almost as hard to obtain as it is from a isolated nation such as North Korea.

This is also why the whole idea of a "War on Terror" is absurd on its face.  There is no way to coerce a disparate, multi-cell operation with no official status into granting the kinds of concessions coercive diplomacy demands.  This is also why the United States' response to the election of a Hamas government in Palestine was counter-productive.  As a democratically elected government, Hamas became bound by certain obligations to the citizens of Palestine.  The best thing we can do to terrorist organizations, is to turn them into government organizations, who are then benefited by behaving as rational actors in a mutually beneficial negotiation scenario.  The worst thing we can do in the war on terror is to keep terrorists at the extremist fringe in which they have nothing to lose through irrational, destructive acts, and who, given the types of independent cell structures terrorism demands couldn't negotiate as a single unified front anyway.  Does that mean we support the promotion of terrorist groups?  Of course not, but it does mean that we should pursue policies which rob from the terrorists their most incendiary claims by allowing a positive mechanism for which the population can address those concerns which if left unaddressed create an ever-increasing market for terrorist recruitment.

Obama's continuing assertions that he seeks to expand and effectively utilize America's soft power, while still recognizing the need for the occasional used of hard power falls perfectly in line with America's best interest.  Extremism breeds in areas of instability and poverty.  Obama's plan seem poised to address those two issues.  By pursuing policies to stabilize these regions and offering not just a hand-out, but a hand up to those desperate and poor citizens, Obama stands a far better chance at reducing the impact and influence of terrorist organizations by getting the populations of these areas committed to central governments whose purpose will be to solidify such gains, as opposed to extremist groups whose only purpose will be to rage against the system which has left them dis-empowered.  Compare this to John McCain's repeated aggressively coercive policies, such as his idea of throwing Russia out of the G8 during the crisis between them and Georgia, which only serve to undermine both our soft and hard power as well as encourage the targets of his rage to ratchet up their rhetoric in return.

We've seen what the last eight years of foreign policy has done to our nation.  We don't need to see another four.

Dear John,

Thank you so much for your frank honesty as of late. It’s interesting that the limitless ambition, which has set you on a path of never ending falsehoods in its way makes you the most honest politician of the last century.

Even the media doesn’t believe you, and is more and more willing to say so. I’m not sure that one man has ever been so honest without actually attempting to be.

Every day I see you on television, I hear the same message: “I’m John McCain, and I’ll say anything you want to hear to get elected. I even nominated this dingbat to please you wacked-out ‘feminist’ types. Sure, she doesn’t know the first thing about foreign policy, energy, economics, or well… pretty much anything, but she does bring certain qualities to my ticket. She’s a woman…. okay, I guess that’s only one quality, but you gotta admit, it’s an important one. I mean, that’s all you dames really wanted right? Some pretty face on the ticket?”

Well, yes, Johnny Boy, I do agree it’s important. It’s important in that it tells us just how little you value your own nation. How does a man go from sacrificing his own freedom from the horrors of Vietnam to sacrificing his own integrity in order to place himself in the highest office in the land, especially at a time when his party’s ideology — deregulation, tax cuts, war upon war — is so at odds with the solutions this country needs?

There has long been an expression of liars whose pants catch fire. Well, Mr. McCain, I’m frankly surprised that you haven’t spontaneously combusted over the last month. Forget the pants; I’d be less than surprised if you burst into flames next week during the first debate.

And yet, just as a Viking who is set out to sea aboard a flaming vessel following his death, if would fit you to go out in much the same way. Just as the Vikings, you have proven yourself a plunderer without morals or ethics, and whatever there was of the “Maverick McCain” (if such a man ever existed), he has long since died. It’s time we sent his memory out into the distant waters to be forgotten, to be consumed by the flames of his own ambition.

Good luck in your next life, Senator. I can only hope your sins do not follow your through that black corridor you have created for yourself.

Sincerely,
Big Blue

As always, recommendations are most appreciated.  For more original commentary, visit us at The Left Anchor.

Beginning last Thursday, Bill O'Reilly began airing a five part interview with Sen. Barack Obama.  Today, I'll look at the second segment which aired last night and focused on the economy and taxes.  I'll back track later -- either later tonight or sometime tomorrow -- and focus on the original interview which dealt with foreign policy.  First, here's the video of last night's segment which will be followed immediately by my impressions of the fair points and the dishonest points made during the course of the eight minute exchange.

O'Reilly makes what I'm sure is a documented, but highly misleading claim that the economy grew 19% more under Bush than Clinton.  Given that he does not bother to mention which numbers he's quoting when throwing this out, I'm going to assume he's referring to the GDP.  The problem with this is that while the GDP can tell you how much the national economy grew, it has no baring on how the growth was distributed.  A Bush GDP which grows 19% more than was achieved by his predecessor does not mean anything when that growth is spread unevenly among the population, and that's leaving aside the fact that Bush's war in Iraq alone could account for a significant increase in the economy, but would not be considered by most Americans as being an appropriate way to stimulate an economy.

Obama wastes no time in responding:  "You know Bill, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

In a turnaround so quick that it makes your head spin, O'Reilly replies, "I know, I know, it's bull.  I know it is."  I watched this through a couple of times, and I can say without a doubt that there was not a touch of sarcasm in O'Relly's response.  So, Bill O'Reilly presents this data as some sort of defense of Bush's economic prowess, but thinks so little of it himself that it takes all of three seconds for him to call it "bullshit."

Then O'Reilly tries to beat back Obama's accurate portrayal of the gross inequitable gains made among the various income demographics (the majority of the gains O'Reilly cited went to the top 5% of Americans) by claiming that the difference in growth among working  Americans between the Bush and Clinton administrations was, "not that much.  They grew about $500 in real wages during Bush vs. $2,000 under Clinton."  For those keeping score at home, that would be a $1,500 a year difference.  Or to put it another way, real wages grew four times as much under Clinton than they did under Bush.  If O'Reilly genuinely believes that an extra $1,500 a year means nothing to the average American, then he is totally disconnected from the economic realities we face, which is not surprising given the millions he makes each year by peddling these glib distortions and paper thin defenses of obviously failing economic policies.

O'Reilly goes on to falsely claim that Obama wants 49% of his income in taxes, when in fact Obama is only proposing to raise the top tax rate three points, from 36% to 39% (the same rate as under Clinton, and significantly less than the rates historically paid by the top income bracket -- under Kennedy, the highest tax bracket paid 90% of their income in taxes).  Obama counters by noting that in return for this minor increase, he'll be able to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  Keep in mind here, that ever since the time of Aristotle, a broad and thriving middle-class has been considered essential for the existence of a stable and effective government.

In response, O'Reilly falls back to the red-meat conservative argument: "But that's class warfare."  To this, Obama responds that "95% of all Americans is not a 'class.'"

At this point, O'Reilly goes off the fucking rails, basically deriding Obama for thinking that the wealthiest Americans could probably live with a few dollars less if it would serve to save Social Security and ensure that every senior had a secure social safety net to fall back on once they're past the point of their prime earning years.

O'Reilly calls this "social redistribution" and a "socialist tenet."  Keep in mind at this point, O'Reilly is hammering what is probably the single most popular government program of all time as some sort of slippery slope into outright socialism.  I could sum up O'Reilly's thought process here rather quickly: "Fuck the poor, you can't take more from the rich in order to secure the middle class, because to do so makes you no better than Lenin or Stalin." 

But in point of fact, it is the middle class that needs the ability to consume if we really want to keep the economy going.  This includes senior citizens and working Americans, both whom indisputably benefit more under Obama's tax plan than they do under McCain's.  Television, middle class homes, new cars, etc.... these are the purchases that keep our economy thriving.  And it's no surprise that the stalled economic progress of working Americans during the Bush administration has resulted in a limp economy with one of the worst records of job creation in the history of this nation.  We've tried trickle down economics.  We did it under Reagan.  What happened?  The deficit sky-rocketed, and he left his successor with a recession on his hands.

Obama goes on to note that even Republican Teddy Roosevelt supported the progressive income tax.  Bill responds, "Not to the level you do."  Here's the wonderful thing about the internet.  These assertions are easily refuted.  Here are some of Roosevelt's own words regarding not only the income tax, but the ultimate Republican boogey man, the estate tax, as well:

I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.

Here he is speaking of the estate tax.

A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

Roosevelt was not merely a supporter, but a champion of progressive taxation, so much so that he was willing to pursue such legislation even over the objections of the Supreme Court.  I'm having difficulty tracking down the tax rates implemented under Roosevelt's presidency, so if anyone locates them, please leave a link to the source in the comments.

From this, Obama moves on to the fact that George W. Bush has increased our debt by $4 trillion dollars.  O'Reilly attempts to defend this by claiming the "War on Terror" (TM) was the driving factor in this, without bothering to note that Bush is the only president to cut taxes during a time of war and it is this recklessness on his part which has greatly added to our annual deficits.  And considering the largest expense in the "War on Terror" (TM) has been the conflict in Iraq, which O'Reilly previously admitted was a mistake during Thursday's interview totally undercuts this line of reasoning.  O'Reilly essentially depends on his viewers being unable to remember what he said mere minutes before he completely contradicts himself.  If Iraq was a mistake, then the deficits accrued by those efforts are equally a mistake and cannot be used to defend Bush's reckless economic policy.

I'll be back with the first part of this interview later and will continue to follow it through the rest of the week as it unfolds.

Beginning last Thursday, Bill O'Reilly began airing a five part interview with Sen. Barack Obama.  Today, I'll look at the second segment which aired last night and focused on the economy and taxes.  I'll back track later -- either later tonight or sometime tomorrow -- and focus on the original interview which dealt with foreign policy.  First, here's the video of last night's segment which will be followed immediately by my impressions of the fair points and the dishonest points made during the course of the eight minute exchange.

O'Reilly makes what I'm sure is a documented, but highly misleading claim that the economy grew 19% more under Bush than Clinton.  Given that he does not bother to mention which numbers he's quoting when throwing this out, I'm going to assume he's referring to the GDP.  The problem with this is that while the GDP can tell you how much the national economy grew, it has no baring on how the growth was distributed.  A Bush GDP which grows 19% more than was achieved by his predecessor does not mean anything when that growth is spread unevenly among the population, and that's leaving aside the fact that Bush's war in Iraq alone could account for a significant increase in the economy, but would not be considered by most Americans as being an appropriate way to stimulate an economy.

Obama wastes no time in responding:  "You know Bill, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

In a turnaround so quick that it makes your head spin, O'Reilly replies, "I know, I know, it's bull.  I know it is."  I watched this through a couple of times, and I can say without a doubt that there was not a touch of sarcasm in O'Relly's response.  So, Bill O'Reilly presents this data as some sort of defense of Bush's economic prowess, but thinks so little of it himself that it takes all of three seconds for him to call it "bullshit."

Then O'Reilly tries to beat back Obama's accurate portrayal of the gross inequitable gains made among the various income demographics (the majority of the gains O'Reilly cited went to the top 5% of Americans) by claiming that the difference in growth among working  Americans between the Bush and Clinton administrations was, "not that much.  They grew about $500 in real wages during Bush vs. $2,000 under Clinton."  For those keeping score at home, that would be a $1,500 a year difference.  Or to put it another way, real wages grew four times as much under Clinton than they did under Bush.  If O'Reilly genuinely believes that an extra $1,500 a year means nothing to the average American, then he is totally disconnected from the economic realities we face, which is not surprising given the millions he makes each year by peddling these glib distortions and paper thin defenses of obviously failing economic policies.

O'Reilly goes on to falsely claim that Obama wants 49% of his income in taxes, when in fact Obama is only proposing to raise the top tax rate three points, from 36% to 39% (the same rate as under Clinton, and significantly less than the rates historically paid by the top income bracket -- under Kennedy, the highest tax bracket paid 90% of their income in taxes).  Obama counters by noting that in return for this minor increase, he'll be able to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  Keep in mind here, that ever since the time of Aristotle, a broad and thriving middle-class has been considered essential for the existence of a stable and effective government.

In response, O'Reilly falls back to the red-meat conservative argument: "But that's class warfare."  To this, Obama responds that "95% of all Americans is not a 'class.'"

At this point, O'Reilly goes off the fucking rails, basically deriding Obama for thinking that the wealthiest Americans could probably live with a few dollars less if it would serve to save Social Security and ensure that every senior had a secure social safety net to fall back on once they're past the point of their prime earning years.

O'Reilly calls this "social redistribution" and a "socialist tenet."  Keep in mind at this point, O'Reilly is hammering what is probably the single most popular government program of all time as some sort of slippery slope into outright socialism.  I could sum up O'Reilly's thought process here rather quickly: "Fuck the poor, you can't take more from the rich in order to secure the middle class, because to do so makes you no better than Lenin or Stalin." 

But in points of fact, it is the middle class that needs the ability to consume if we really want to keep the economy going.  This includes senior citizens and working Americans, both whom indisputably benefit more under Obama's tax plan than they do under McCain's.  Television, middle class homes, new cars, etc.... these are the purchases that keep our economy thriving.  And it's no surprise that the stalled economic process of working Americans during the Bush administration has resulted in a limp economy with one of the worst records of job creation in the history of this nation.  We've tried trickle down economics.  We did it under Reagan.  What happened?  The deficit sky-rocketed, and he left his successor with a recession on his hands.

Obama goes on to note that even Republican Teddy Roosevelt supported the progressive income tax.  Bill responds, "Not to the level you do."  Here's the wonderful thing about the internet.  These assertions are easily refuted.  Here are some of Roosevelt's own words regarding not only the income tax, but the ultimate Republican boogey man, the estate tax, as well:

I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.

Here he is speaking of the estate tax.

A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

Roosevelt was not merely a supporter, but a champion of progressive taxation, so much so that he was willing to pursue such legislation even over the objections of the Supreme Court.  I'm having difficulty tracking down the tax rates implemented under Roosevelt's presidency, so if anyone locates them, please leave a link to the source in the comments.

From this, Obama moves on to the fact that George W. Bush has increased our debt by $4 trillion dollars.  O'Reilly attempts to defend this by claiming the "War on Terror" (TM) was the driving factor in this, without bothering to note that Bush is the only president to cut taxes during a time of war and it is this recklessness on his part which has greatly added to our annual deficits.  And considering the largest expense in the "War on Terror" (TM) has been the conflict in Iraq, which O'Reilly previously admitted was a mistake during Thursday's interview totally undercuts this line of reasoning.  O'Reilly essentially depends on his viewers being unable to remember what he said mere minutes before he completely contradicts himself.  If Iraq was a mistake, then the deficits accrued by those efforts are equally a mistake and cannot be used to defend Bush's reckless economic policy.

I'll be back with the first part of this interview later and will continue to follow it through the rest of the week as it unfolds.

Beginning last Thursday, Bill O'Reilly began airing a five part interview with Sen. Barack Obama.  Today, I'll look at the second segment which aired last night and focused on the economy and taxes.  I'll back track later -- either later tonight or sometime tomorrow -- and focus on the original interview which dealt with foreign policy.  First, here's the video of last night's segment which will be followed immediately by my impressions of the fair points and the dishonest points made during the course of the eight minute exchange.

O'Reilly makes what I'm sure is a documented, but highly misleading claim that the economy grew 19% more under Bush than Clinton.  Given that he does not bother to mention which numbers he's quoting when throwing this out, I'm going to assume he's referring to the GDP.  The problem with this is that while the GDP can tell you how much the national economy grew, it has no baring on how the growth was distributed.  A Bush GDP which grows 19% more than was achieved by his predecessor does not mean anything when that growth is spread unevenly among the population, and that's leaving aside the fact that Bush's war in Iraq alone could account for a significant increase in the economy, but would not be considered by most Americans as being an appropriate way to stimulate an economy.

Obama wastes no time in responding:  "You know Bill, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

In a turnaround so quick that it makes your head spin, O'Reilly replies, "I know, I know, it's bull.  I know it is."  I watched this through a couple of times, and I can say without a doubt that there was not a touch of sarcasm in O'Relly's response.  So, Bill O'Reilly presents this data as some sort of defense of Bush's economic prowess, but thinks so little of it himself that it takes all of three seconds for him to call it "bullshit."

Then O'Reilly tries to beat back Obama's accurate portrayal of the gross inequitable gains made among the various income demographics (the majority of the gains O'Reilly cited went to the top 5% of Americans) by claiming that the difference in growth among working  Americans between the Bush and Clinton administrations was, "not that much.  They grew about $500 in real wages during Bush vs. $2,000 under Clinton."  For those keeping score at home, that would be a $1,500 a year difference.  Or to put it another way, real wages grew four times as much under Clinton than they did under Bush.  If O'Reilly genuinely believes that an extra $1,500 a year means nothing to the average American, then he is totally disconnected from the economic realities we face, which is not surprising given the millions he makes each year by peddling these glib distortions and paper thin defenses of obviously failing economic policies.

O'Reilly goes on to falsely claim that Obama wants 49% of his income in taxes, when in fact Obama is only proposing to raise the top tax rate three points, from 36% to 39% (the same rate as under Clinton, and significantly less than the rates historically paid by the top income bracket -- under Kennedy, the highest tax bracket paid 90% of their income in taxes).  Obama counters by noting that in return for this minor increase, he'll be able to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  Keep in mind here, that ever since the time of Aristotle, a broad and thriving middle-class has been considered essential for the existence of a stable and effective government.

In response, O'Reilly falls back to the red-meat conservative argument: "But that's class warfare."  To this, Obama responds that "95% of all Americans is not a 'class.'"

At this point, O'Reilly goes off the fucking rails, basically deriding Obama for thinking that the wealthiest Americans could probably live with a few dollars less if it would serve to save Social Security and ensure that every senior had a secure social safety net to fall back on once they're past the point of their prime earning years.

O'Reilly calls this "social redistribution" and a "socialist tenet."  Keep in mind at this point, O'Reilly is hammering what is probably the single most popular government program of all time as some sort of slippery slope into outright socialism.  I could sum up O'Reilly's thought process here rather quickly: "Fuck the poor, you can't take more from the rich in order to secure the middle class, because to do so makes you no better than Lenin or Stalin." 

But in points of fact, it is the middle class that needs the ability to consume if we really want to keep the economy going.  This includes senior citizens and working Americans, both whom indisputably benefit more under Obama's tax plan than they do under McCain's.  Television, middle class homes, new cars, etc.... these are the purchases that keep our economy thriving.  And it's no surprise that the stalled economic process of working Americans during the Bush administration has resulted in a limp economy with one of the worst records of job creation in the history of this nation.  We've tried trickle down economics.  We did it under Reagan.  What happened?  The deficit sky-rocketed, and he left his successor with a recession on his hands.

Obama goes on to note that even Republican Teddy Roosevelt supported the progressive income tax.  Bill responds, "Not to the level you do."  Here's the wonderful thing about the internet.  These assertions are easily refuted.  Here are some of Roosevelt's own words regarding not only the income tax, but the ultimate Republican boogey man, the estate tax, as well:

I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.

Here he is speaking of the estate tax.

A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

Roosevelt was not merely a supporter, but a champion of progressive taxation, so much so that he was willing to pursue such legislation even over the objections of the Supreme Court.  I'm having difficulty tracking down the tax rates implemented under Roosevelt's presidency, so if anyone locates them, please leave a link to the source in the comments.

From this, Obama moves on to the fact that George W. Bush has increased our debt by $4 trillion dollars.  O'Reilly attempts to defend this by claiming the "War on Terror" (TM) was the driving factor in this, without bothering to note that Bush is the only president to cut taxes during a time of war and it is this recklessness on his part which has greatly added to our annual deficits.  And considering the largest expense in the "War on Terror" (TM) has been the conflict in Iraq, which O'Reilly previously admitted was a mistake during Thursday's interview totally undercuts this line of reasoning.  O'Reilly essentially depends on his viewers being unable to remember what he said mere minutes before he completely contradicts himself.  If Iraq was a mistake, then the deficits accrued by those efforts are equally a mistake and cannot be used to defend Bush's reckless economic policy.

I'll be back with the first part of this interview later and will continue to follow it through the rest of the week as it unfolds.

Beginning last Thursday, Bill O'Reilly began airing a five part interview with Sen. Barack Obama.  Today, I'll look at the second segment which aired last night and focused on the economy and taxes.  I'll back track later -- either later tonight or sometime tomorrow -- and focus on the original interview which dealt with foreign policy.  First, here's the video of last night's segment which will be followed immediately by my impressions of the fair points and the dishonest points made during the course of the eight minute exchange.

O'Reilly makes what I'm sure is a documented, but highly misleading claim that the economy grew 19% more under Bush than Clinton.  Given that he does not bother to mention which numbers he's quoting when throwing this out, I'm going to assume he's referring to the GDP.  The problem with this is that while the GDP can tell you how much the national economy grew, it has no baring on how the growth was distributed.  A Bush GDP which grows 19% more than was achieved by his predecessor does not mean anything when that growth is spread unevenly among the population, and that's leaving aside the fact that Bush's war in Iraq alone could account for a significant increase in the economy, but would not be considered by most Americans as being an appropriate way to stimulate an economy.

Obama wastes no time in responding:  "You know Bill, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

In a turnaround so quick that it makes your head spin, O'Reilly replies, "I know, I know, it's bull.  I know it is."  I watched this through a couple of times, and I can say without a doubt that there was not a touch of sarcasm in O'Relly's response.  So, Bill O'Reilly presents this data as some sort of defense of Bush's economic prowess, but thinks so little of it himself that it takes all of three seconds for him to call it "bullshit."

Then O'Reilly tries to beat back Obama's accurate portrayal of the gross inequitable gains made among the various income demographics (the majority of the gains O'Reilly cited went to the top 5% of Americans) by claiming that the difference in growth among working  Americans between the Bush and Clinton administrations was, "not that much.  They grew about $500 in real wages during Bush vs. $2,000 under Clinton."  For those keeping score at home, that would be a $1,500 a year difference.  Or to put it another way, real wages grew four times as much under Clinton than they did under Bush.  If O'Reilly genuinely believes that an extra $1,500 a year means nothing to the average American, then he is totally disconnected from the economic realities we face, which is not surprising given the millions he makes each year by peddling these glib distortions and paper thin defenses of obviously failing economic policies.

O'Reilly goes on to falsely claim that Obama wants 49% of his income in taxes, when in fact Obama is only proposing to raise the top tax rate three points, from 36% to 39% (the same rate as under Clinton, and significantly less than the rates historically paid by the top income bracket -- under Kennedy, the highest tax bracket paid 90% of their income in taxes).  Obama counters by noting that in return for this minor increase, he'll be able to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  Keep in mind here, that ever since the time of Aristotle, a broad and thriving middle-class has been considered essential for the existence of a stable and effective government.

In response, O'Reilly falls back to the red-meat conservative argument: "But that's class warfare."  To this, Obama responds that "95% of all Americans is not a 'class.'"

At this point, O'Reilly goes off the fucking rails, basically deriding Obama for thinking that the wealthiest Americans could probably live with a few dollars less if it would serve to save Social Security and ensure that every senior had a secure social safety net to fall back on once they're past the point of their prime earning years.

O'Reilly calls this "social redistribution" and a "socialist tenet."  Keep in mind at this point, O'Reilly is hammering what is probably the single most popular government program of all time as some sort of slippery slope into outright socialism.  I could sum up O'Reilly's thought process here rather quickly: "Fuck the poor, you can't take more from the rich in order to secure the middle class, because to do so makes you no better than Lenin or Stalin." 

But in points of fact, it is the middle class that needs the ability to consume if we really want to keep the economy going.  This includes senior citizens and working Americans, both whom indisputably benefit more under Obama's tax plan than they do under McCain's.  Television, middle class homes, new cars, etc.... these are the purchases that keep our economy thriving.  And it's no surprise that the stalled economic process of working Americans during the Bush administration has resulted in a limp economy with one of the worst records of job creation in the history of this nation.  We've tried trickle down economics.  We did it under Reagan.  What happened?  The deficit sky-rocketed, and he left his successor with a recession on his hands.

Obama goes on to note that even Republican Teddy Roosevelt supported the progressive income tax.  Bill responds, "Not to the level you do."  Here's the wonderful thing about the internet.  These assertions are easily refuted.  Here are some of Roosevelt's own words regarding not only the income tax, but the ultimate Republican boogey man, the estate tax, as well:

I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.

Here he is speaking of the estate tax.

A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

Roosevelt was not merely a supporter, but a champion of progressive taxation, so much so that he was willing to pursue such legislation even over the objections of the Supreme Court.  I'm having difficulty tracking down the tax rates implemented under Roosevelt's presidency, so if anyone locates them, please leave a link to the source in the comments.

From this, Obama moves on to the fact that George W. Bush has increased our debt by $4 trillion dollars.  O'Reilly attempts to defend this by claiming the "War on Terror" (TM) was the driving factor in this, without bothering to note that Bush is the only president to cut taxes during a time of war and it is this recklessness on his part which has greatly added to our annual deficits.  And considering the largest expense in the "War on Terror" (TM) has been the conflict in Iraq, which O'Reilly previously admitted was a mistake during Thursday's interview totally undercuts this line of reasoning.  O'Reilly essentially depends on his viewers being unable to remember what he said mere minutes before he completely contradicts himself.  If Iraq was a mistake, then the deficits accrued by those efforts are equally a mistake and cannot be used to defend Bush's reckless economic policy.

I'll be back with the first part of this interview later and will continue to follow it through the rest of the week as it unfolds.

It has all the proper qualities for viral distribution.  It's a new way of looking at Obama, not with any lofty rhetoric, but as a man telling his story and the story of his family, revealing in one fell swoop those events that influenced him at a very early age.  I think the video works on all levels.  The narration is fantastic, carrying just the right tone, rhythm and cadence. 

For their part, Michelle and Barack Obama talk about their courtship the way a couple might tell such a story to close friends and family while they still manage to tie it into the values that Obama holds, and by doing so, the reasons he's now running for president.  To see this video get lost to the bowels of the internet, never to be seen again would be a crime.  So I'm reposting it here, and encourage anyone who missed it to watch it in its entirety, and to then email it along to your friends, or post it on your Facebook profile.  And don't forget to recommend this post so we can give it as much exposure as possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL0KxjeKlrM

Thanks,

Big Blue, The Left Anchor

Bad news for both Obama and McCain, but slightly worse--I think--for Obama.

<snip>

The Obama ad mocking McCain's seven houses was effective only when it focused on the mortgage crisis.The McCain response, claiming that Antoin Rezco, the corrupt Obama contributor, had helped pay for Obama's house was far more effective--the indpendents hated the (somewhat exaggerated) idea that Obama cut a deal with a sleazeball to buy his house. (And as for McCain's Paris/Britney ad--the key wasn't the charge that Obama was a celebrity, but the sight of him speaking to that vast crowd in Germany, which at least one member of the focus group compared to a Nazi rally.)

<snip>

"Change" as a theme is over. Too vague. And Obama's rhetoric has begun to seriously cut against him. "No more oratory," one woman said. "Give us details."

<snip>

So this is Obama's task on Thursday: To convince people that he is a man of substance, not empty promises, that he has ideas--despite his lack of experience--about running government in a way that will be more effective. A tall order, I'd say.

Let's note a couple of things real quick.  First, a focus group of twenty-one people is absolutely useless as an indicator of what undecided Americans think.  You could have asked a single nine year old child what they thought and had just as much relevant information.  You cannot make any determinations about the opinions of literally millions of people based on a twenty-one person sample.  This is Statistics 101.

Secondly, when you visit a focus group under the guidance of a long-time Republican message and polling operative, and things somehow mysteriously wind up looking bad for the Democratic candidate, that should raise at least some suspicion.  Am I seriously supposed to believe a completely undecided voter would have compared Obama's Berlin speech to a fucking Nazi rally?  Hell, Klein doesn't even bother to tell us that Frank Luntz is a Republican operative, which seems like a massive journalistic failure to me.

And note the woman who says that she doesn't want pretty speeches.  She wants details.  Obama may have the most detailed plans of any candidate to run for office in my lifetime, perhaps ever.  And they are all available here and nearly all include full fledged pdf files providing every conceivable detail you'd want.  All that quote tells me is that the media isn't giving the public what they really want.  The media continues to refuse to make this election about issues.  They refuse to detail either of the candidates plans, despite the fact that in most cases, where Obama has details coming out of his ears, McCain has vague plans mixed with platitudes and no means for which to even pay for them.   Seriously, look over the two candidates' issues pages and tell me which one is "pretty words" and which one is "details."

Keep up the good work, American media.  You're making us all so fucking proud.  Wanna contact, Klein?  You can leave feedback for him here.

Crian hits on some good points in his piece concerning the media's continued concern with Obama's "poor poll numbers" (odd how the fact that McCain hasn't led once among RVs all summer doesn't reflect poorly on him).  Crian notes that given Obama's quick rise to prominence, people are more likely to view him as an unknown quantity whereas McCain's been in the public spotlight ever since he began his bid in 1999.  This is a fair point, but I also think it's important to note that Obama is, in fact, leading, and he has been all summer long.  Obama's five point lead has been almost unbelievably consistent.  The most recent Gallup poll has Obama at a -- you guessed it -- five point advantage over John McCain (47-42). 

Another oft-overlooked fact is that Obama has reached fifty percent support in the Gallup polls several times this summer.  McCain has yet to break 44 percent support among registered voters.  The best the McCain camp can do is point to some brief leads their candidate has enjoyed among likely voters, but historically, this far from the election polls of registered voters are likely to be more accurate than those of likely voters (the reverse is true in the closing weeks of a campaign).  This comes directly from the editor of Gallup himself, Frank Newport:

The July 25-27 USA Today/Gallup poll shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by a 47% to 44% margin among all registered voters but McCain leading Obama among likely voters by a 49% to 45% margin. This difference between registered and likely voters indicates that now McCain voters are disproportionately represented among the estimate of those most likely to vote if the election were held today.

<snip>

So, as a rule of thumb, registered voters are the relevant group to trend to establish basic patterns of change in voter support for presidential candidates. Likely voter modeling at this point is an additional analytic tool.

Even the conservative magazine National Journal views the likely voter models as suspicious, especially in light of how far off they are from the registered voter models:

Emory University political science professor Alan Abramowitz is undeterred. "A 7 point difference in [the vote preference] margin between actual voters and all registered voters," he wrote me, "would be much larger than that found in American National Election Studies surveys in any of the 14 presidential elections between 1952 and 2004 -- the largest gap in pre-election margin was 3 points way back in 1952, and the average gap was only one point."

I think he has a point. Gallup's data tells us that Obama's narrow lead among registered voters depends on those who tend to score lower on measures that typically correlate with turnout. So, not surprisingly, the Obama campaign is investing heavily in efforts to register and turn out new voters.

What is less clear is whether news accounts ought to be emphasizing such snapshots in July when the mechanism for those estimates is so inherently hypothetical and potentially shaky.

But even giving McCain the benefit of the doubt here, among likely voters, McCain has lead only twice, once by four points, and once by a single point, and the poll which put McCain at a four point lead significantly underrepresented the youth vote even by 2004 standards despite the fact that the youth vote is likely to increase this year.  Obama has carried every other likely voter or registered voter poll since the middle of May.  Moreover, Obama leads McCain in total number of field offices by nearly 3 to 1.  Effective voter outreach combined with a solid GOTV plan can add an extra two points to a candidate's numbers on election day.  The extended primary helped Obama in this sense, forcing him to organize and invest in states very early in the year, and putting him at a significant advantage over McCain.

To put it more bluntly, Obama is leading.  He has the better ground operation, and it's probable that the likely voter polls are filtering out many of Obama's supporters (the youth vote), while overrepresenting likely McCain voters (the elderly).  And yet, Obama is still leading.

As always, recs greatly appreciated.

Oh, shit.  It's gonna be Bayh.  It's not official yet, but Bayh sure is talking like he's already got the job, and there's speculation the deal's gonna go down tomorrow at a joint appearance in Indiana.  So, we're going to do a short profile of the man.

Evan Bayh is the junior Senator from Indiana.  He was elected in 1998 after having served two terms as governor.  According to a SUSA poll from this past February, Bayh remains very popular in his home state.  He holds an approval rating of 58 percent overall, and maintains a 50 percent of better rating among all major demographics, even among both pro-life and pro-choice voters.  As a former popular governor, and current senator, Bayh could conceivably put Indiana -- a state the Dems haven't won in 40 years -- back into play.  And unlike, Ted Strickland, or Joe Biden, Bayh doesn't undercut Obama's message of youth, reform, and change.

On the issues, let's look at the worst parts of Bayh's voting history (h/t NeuvoLiberal}:

1. Bayh co-sponsored Lieberman's Iraq war resolution, as did McCain. All three of them voted for the war.

1. Bayh is the main sponsor/author of the Iran resolution S.Res. 580 which  Lieberman and McCain are co-sponsoring. The house version of this bill, H.Con.Res. 362, calls for a (naval and other) blockade of Iran, an act of war.

1. Bayh voted for the FISA amendments/immunity bill, as did Lieberman. McCain would've voted for it had he not skipped the vote; he voted for an earlier version of the bill which contained retroactive immunity.

1. Bayh and McCain voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (McCain was a co-sponsor).

1. Bayh, McCain and Lieberman voted for cluster bombing civilians and refugees (by voting against a bill proposed to ban cluster bombing.)

1. All three of them voted for Patriot Act Reauthorization in 2006.

1. He was the chairman of the DLC during 2001-2005 (coinciding with the worst Republican-lite behavior by the Democratic party, including many of them voting for the war.) Lieberman preceded him as the DLC chair.


2. He even voted for building a fence along the Mexican border.

1. Sen. Bayh also supports extending the death penalty.

1. Bayh also foolishly entertains the notion of creating private Social Security accountts.

Bayh was also head of the DLC from 2001-2005.  This was the very same organization that convinced the party that they were better off supporting the war and watched over as the party lost seat after seat after seat.  Which to to say, I would never want Bayh's old school strategy anywhere near the presidency.  But it's not all bad news with Bayh.  According to 538, he is far more liberal than the state in which he resides, and only slightly to the right of the average Democratic senator.  He votes the party line nearly 90% of the time.  He may be a conservative Democrat, but he doesn't appear to be a blue dog.  And I've got to admit, he gives a hell of a stump speech.

The LA Times takes up the increasingly spreading meme that Obama is "presumptuous" and "arrogant."  Talking to world leaders, planning a transition to the White House, putting his campaign logo on the tail of his plane -- just who does this guy think he is?

Fox News host Sean Hannity told viewers last week how "presumptuous" Obama had become. Proof: The candidate told congressional Democrats that the world had been waiting for his hopeful message and that to some he had become a symbol of a "return to our best traditions."

That may not be humble pie, but doesn't even come close to breaking the narcissism barrier. Don't our politicians routinely boast about how essential they are to the republic?

Then came the stunning revelation that Obama had begun planning for a transition to the White House.

Fox News hostess E.D. Hill -- who dubbed Obama's playful knuckle bump with his wife a "terrorist fist jab" -- reminded viewers recently that the Democrat was "not commander in chief just yet, which is why some find his decision to start planning his transition into the White House a bit presumptuous."

Hill wondered whether Obama was "jumping the gun or just covering all the bases?"

Never mind that McCain advisors have acknowledged that they too were planning for a White House transition or the fact that history has rewarded those who looked ahead. Early transition planner Ronald Reagan hit the ground running in 1980. Bill Clinton initially struggled after dawdling on White House preparations in 1992.

Now let's be frank here: there is something rather impressive about the Republicans managing to turn Obama's popularity and his universally acknowledged speaking prowess against him.  What's not so impressive; however, is the media falling right in line with GOP talking points.  But we need not panic just yet, as over at the Post Howard Kurtz reports that Republican strategists are still dissatisfied with what they see from the McCain campaign:

Republican strategists not affiliated with McCain say his campaign seems to lurch from one tactic to the next and has been largely devoid of new ideas that might draw sustained coverage.

"The McCain campaign's challenge in this Obama environment is to be consistent and drive a daily message for more than two days in a row," says Scott Reed, who managed the 1996 presidential campaign of another septuagenarian senator, Bob Dole. "It's hard, it's frustrating, but it needs to get done. The surrogates are off message every day. They're all over the place. They need to echo what McCain says."

I don't know that I agree with this.  The McCain camp seems to be pretty happy with their new "celebrity" message, and their most recent rounds of attacks have chewed up the lead Obama gained during his trip overseas; the national numbers are statistically tied, and the numbers in the major swing states reflect this.  That said, for the time being, I can take comfort in the fact that Republican insiders are harboring the exact same concerns they were two months ago.

And yet, despite the closeness of the race as it stands now, there are facts of great significance buried in the demographic breakdowns behind the most recent polls numbers.  So, how about a little pick me up for the Monday morning blues? 

Despite the claims of some in the media that Obama is losing ground, the truth is that the Illionois Senator is massively outrunning Kerry's 2004 margins among women, Hispanics, and low wage workers, while holding his own among white voters.

So, let's take a moment to dig into the numbers behind the numbers.  Obama leads McCain by a whopping 19 points among women (55-36).  This is a demographic that in 2004 favored Kerry by a meager 3 points (51-48), meaning we're looking at a nearly unbelievable 16 point swing in our direction since the last election.  That's no small potatoes.

The turnaround among Hispanics is even more impressive.  Kerry took that demographic by 9 points in '04, while Obama is trouncing McCain there by a nearly three-to-one margin (66-23).  For those keeping score at home that's a net gain of 34 points, which just goes to show how damaging the GOP's scare mongering on the immigration issue has been, and just how ridiculous were the notions that suggested Barack Obama was going to have a problem appealing to Hispanics.  Moreover, if the Democrats can pass real immigration reform including a path to citizenship under an Obama administration, then the Republicans can kiss the fastest growing minority in the country goodbye for two or three decades.  Between blacks and Hispanics, we're looking at nearly 20 percent of the vote, much of which is already beyond the GOP's reach, while the rest seems to be rapidly escaping their grip. 

Even white voters look like they'll under-perform for McCain this November.  In 2004, George W. Bush secured this bloc with an impressive 17 point lead, but McCain currently leads here by only 7 points.  Once again, unless McCain can manage to nab every undecided among white voters, he's likely to lose ground here as well.

As for the Democrats' most loyal supporters, African Americans, Obama has managed to to increase his margins here as well.  Kerry drew the support of 88% of black voters in 2004, while Bush managed to carry on the GOP tradition of wildly under-performing among black by bringing in a paltry 11% of the black vote.  And yet, McCain fares far worse among these votes, securing only 1% among that same demographic to Obama's 94% of the vote.  Given the margin of error, that effectively means McCain might have zero support in the black community.  In addition to this, it's only natural to assume that the black community -- already among the most active participants in politics -- will increase their over-all share of the vote in order to give their support to the first credible black candidate for president.

Finally, in 2004, Kerry took the working class vote -- those making less than $30,000 a year -- by 16 points (58-42), while a recent Washington Post poll has Obama leading McCain among this demographic by a 2-1 margin (58-28).  Much of this change can be attributed to the aforementioned gains among Hispanics, and African-Americans, but Obama even manages to secure a 10 point advantage among low wage whites (47-37) -- a demographic in which we were assured Obama would face much difficulty.  Unless McCain manages to grab the entire bloc of undecideds among low wage workers, it's probably a reasonable assumption that Obama will also greatly outperform Kerry's numbers in 2004 here as well.

So, while the current polls may provide some hope to McCain supporters, underneath there looks to be significant structural flaws that may prove insurmountable to his campaign as time wears on.  I wouldn't expect to see any massive fluctuations until after the Olympics, but judging from the gains Barack Obama has made in nearly every important demographic, it is difficult to imagine that the race will remain this close for much longer.  And that is cause to celebrate.

*The links provided in the first two paragraphs are the sources for all other numbers in this post.

If you enjoyed this post, and found it informative, then we'd love a recommendation.  And don't forget to check out our official blog over at The Left Anchor.

Senate Republicans continued to do the work of the American people (read: oil companies) Friday by killing a bill that would have addressed the speculation in the oil market which many are crediting for the remarkable rise in oil prices over the last few years.  In its place, Republicans seek to open more areas off-shore to drilling.  This followed Thursday's rejection of a bill that would have compelled oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of land to which they already have access, but aren't using.

Opponents said the legislation, which also called on the Interior Department to accelerate leasing in an area of Alaska specifically set aside for drilling, could diminish domestic exploration since it would bar oil companies from obtaining new leases if they were not actively exploring current holdings. Republicans said companies might be reluctant to bid on new sites they could then lose if they were seen as not moving fast enough.

The White House expressed a similar view in issuing a veto threat against the bill. “By blocking some firms from competing for new leases, this legislation would further increase gasoline prices that already exceed $4 per gallon and result in unintended consequences due to litigation,” the White House said.

Democrats said they were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. “Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader.

The GOP even has a slogan for their approach to America's energy crisis, "Drill more, consume less."  What I find most disturbing about this is that it displays a zero comprehension of how free markets work. Here we have a party who believe that free markets are the panacea to all the world’s ills, and yet, they are pursuing a policy whose very tagline is total non-sense.

Even if we take the GOP at their word that more drilling would drive down prices — which btw, it won’t — that would only encourage consumers to consume more oil, not less. This is basic Econ 101. If the Republican plan succeeded and their fantasies of lower oil prices were realized due to increased off-shore drilling, the basic result would be an increase in oil consumption and a reduced concern for alternative energies. That’s what happens when the price of a good goes down, people consume more of it.  That's one of the most basic tenants of the free-market philosophy.  The fact that the GOP can't understand this demonstrates the shallowness of their economic policies in general.  They don't understand economics, they're just regurgitating Milton Friedman and the Chicago School's view of the world.  They're basically like parrots; sure, they can say the right things, but they have no comprehension of what they're actually talking about.  Moreover, just as was the case with FISA earlier this year, the Republican response to issues that they themselves identify as vitally important is often to block all attempts to address the issues unless they get their way.  Either the Republicans don't believe that these issues really are as important as they claim, or they are willing to put their own political ideology ahead of the needs of the American people.

The fact of the matter is that at this point a real energy policy needs to focus on two things: getting alternative fuels to a point where they can compete with the ever dwindling supply of oil, and creating a transportation infrastructure that can function without the need for oil. These are, of course, monumental challenges which is why Al Gore’s proposal for an Apollo-style program meant to change America’s energy consumption is the only view that really makes sense.  The energy crisis is perhaps the most serious challenge we have faced since the end of the Cold War.  Unlike the Cold War, though, there are no human actors controlling global warming whose rationality prevents them from destroying the world. There’s no button to push, only a point of no return to which we draw closer with each passing day.

If the Republicans wish to provide relief to the average American, they needn’t do it at the pump. Gas is not the only pressure point afflicting the wallets of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. American. Where are the proposals to ease the burden of college tuition? Where are the proposals to ease the cost of health care? There’s an enormous amount of room for savings in each of those areas, which would be every bit as beneficial to Americans as lower prices at the pump would, and yet, the Republicans focus their attention on energy, and moreover, on policies designed to benefit the oil companies at the expense of developing a true alternative energy infrastructure.

Yes, perhaps some people would say, “Gee, I’m saving so much on college tuition, I think I’ll spend it on this costly gas,” but I doubt they would be very numerous. More than likely such savings would go to purchasing more consumer goods. This would have the added benefit of improving our currently weak economy.  But if the Republicans are seeking to lower the cost of gas without producing any savings elsewhere, then the public response will be to fall deeper into our addiction to oil.

Perhaps the biggest problem with Republican energy policy is the simple fact that these oil companies -- rich as they may be — have finite budgets to work with. If we open up more land to drilling, then they are going to invest in drilling that land, which means they’ll have less money to use to research alternative energy. The Democrats plans aren’t perfect either, but at least they don’t contribute to the problem the way the GOP is attempting to do.

The man to look to for answers is none other than Al Gore.  Here's what he has to say about America's energy problems:

“If you look at the seriousness of the climate crisis, you see how it ties to the economic crisis and the national security threat that we face,” he said. “200 billion dollars are being sent overseas just from oil.”

“The idea that we can drill our way out of this is just so absurd,” he said, comparing the push for offshore oil drilling — which has gained popularity and put environmentalists on the defense — to dealing with a hangover by having another drink.

Amen, Al, amen.