Political history has given us many great economic portmanteaus--Reaganomics, Clintonomics, etc. But it's clear that this year's lasting contribution to that list should not be 'Obamanomics,' or the awkward 'McCainomics' (how about mavericonomics?). No, it should be Plumbernomics.

Plumbernomics is the phenomenon through which middle-class voters become so confused, misled, or stupid enough that they believe that their taxes would be raised under an (can I just say, 'the'?) Obama administration, even though they plainly would not.

Read more »

I've been busy, so perhaps other people have talked about this and I just didn't notice...but if not, people really need to watch this 15-second excerpt of Rudy Giuliani's speech at the RNC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_-7rv-1gw

For those who can't see the clip, Giuliani acknowledges Obama's historic candidacy before noting that, "It's the kind of thing that can happen only in America." I thought it was a fitting, and effective, nod to the opposition. Maybe Giuliani did too. But then something strange happened. The crowd laughed.

Laughed heartily. The brief crowd-reaction shots show faces alight with glee. I had to watch it several times just to make sure there wasn't some joke I was missing. But, as far as I can tell, there is none.

It's a strange moment. And all I could think about after I watched it was my grandfather.

My grandfather, like almost all my family, was a lifelong Republican. I still have his ID card from the 1996 RNC in my desk at home. He was a staunch Goldwater conservative--he pre-dated the Reagan coalition, and in many ways I think he was disappointed with the cynicism that engulfed the GOP in the 80s and 90s, but his support for his party never wavered.

Like a lot of our grandparents, he was, politically at least, a relic of a bygone era. If he were here today, we would probably still disagree on a lot of issues. But I know that my grandfather's political views were based on a philosophy that was serious, coherent, well-intentioned, and most importantly, sincere.

He was sincere in his love of his country. He was sincere in his faith. He was sincere in his belief in personal responsibility. And he was sincere in his desire to improve the lives of others.

Watch that clip again. Listen to the laughter and tell me if you hear any sincerity.

This is what my grandfather's party has become.

I still know and admire many sincere, well-intentioned Republicans. But they weren't the people in that crowd that night. They aren't the people running John McCain's campaign. And they won't be the people running John McCain's White House.

And that is because the political leadership of the Republican Party is anything but sincere. They are, in the aftermath of the Reagan revolution, a tattered coalition of various political factions beholden not to the service of the American people, but to interests like the religious right, the oil industry, Wall Street, and a misguided Cold War-era foreign policy cabal--all of which have combined brilliantly in the Bush administration to give us a tragic, costly and unnecessary war, eight years of inaction on global warming, and a severely deregulated financial sector that has left our economy in shambles.

Republican politicians preach about the principles of American meritocracy, individualism, and rags-to-riches, Horatio Alger-style entrepreneurship. But that clip shows just how dishonest all that preaching is. For today's Republican party, the American Dream isn't a promise; it's a punchline.

That cynicism has invaded almost every part of the Republican platform. Global warming is now universally acknowledged as a serious, and man-made, problem. But eight years of stalling from the Bush administration, which is heavily connected to the oil industry, have made the solution that much farther away. And that won't change significantly under another four years of a Republican administration.

Even the Bush administration has acknowledged that our invasion of Iraq was baseless, and no one needs to be told what it has done to our relationships abroad. The road to war began in the mid-1990s and the wake of the Cold War, when a small group of foreign policy experts, in the face of radical Islamist terrorism, began advocating for a return to a interventionist doctrine that would come to define Bush’s presidency under that name “neo-conservatism.” It was a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem, and our nation has paid the price for the mistake. A McCain administration would see the same reckless, failed ideology further damage our image abroad, threaten our international agenda, and, indeed, make our country less safe.

On the economy, too, the Republican leadership is insincere. They promise tax relief for millions of Americans but deliver them to few. They pledge to repair the economy—but for them, the economy is doing better than ever. An extreme lack of regulation has allowed Wall Street to profit at the nation’s expense. And we’re struggling to pay the rising cost of gas—but Exxon has posted consecutive record profits. Dishonest gimmicks like offshore drilling and the gas tax holiday are just more stall tactics from an industry that is at odds with the interests of the American people. And when John McCain’s chief economic adviser opines that we are a “nation of whiners” in a “mental recession,” we get to see a flash of what Republicans really think about the economy.

This is, in large part, the modern Republican party. Its platform is a pie, and each special interest gets a piece. The oil industry sets environmental policy to its own advantage. The financial sector pushes for new levels of deregulation. Cold War hawks get to finally enact their grand ideas of nation-building. The religious right, through icons like Pat Robertson and James Dobson, dominate social policy.

There’s no coherent philosophy there. Just opportunism. And the way they present themselves to the American people is fundamentally dishonest.

It’s dishonest to flood the discourse with bogus science, threatening the very future of our planet. It’s dishonest talk incessantly about tax cuts while McCain’s tax plan would offer less than a three percent decrease in taxes to 99 percent of the population. It’s dishonest to use our very patriotism, our love of country, to rally support for a misguided foreign policy that makes our nation less safe. And it’s dishonest to use abortion as a wedge while opposing social programs that have been proven to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies.

That dishonesty is why I thought of my grandfather. Honesty was his guiding principle. And it remains, I think, both my father’s and mine. And right now it is missing from the Republican party.

John McCain is a war hero and a good man. He has a few not insignificant disagreements with George W. Bush. But if elected, McCain would inevitably rely on the same cynical, dishonest Republican establishment that Bush has. For a demonstration of this dynamic, look no further than his selection of a running mate; after the religious right made it clear they wouldn’t accept pro-choice picks like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, he hastily chose a first-term governor of one of the least populous states in the nation. Two years ago today, Sarah Palin was the mayor of a town of 7,000 people; in four months she could be President. She is the least qualified candidate for the office in at least a century, but her selection isn’t surprising given that in today’s Republican party, and in John McCain’s campaign, all that matters is you can talk a good game. So what if she’s embroiled in an ethics scandal? So what if she actually supported the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”? Reading a speech written for her by the campaign, she calls herself a maverick and a reformer and hopes people believe it. More cynicism. More opportunism. More dishonesty.

Say what you will about Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or the policies they propose. But don’t call them dishonest. Their philosophy and their vision, at least, are coherent and serious. They are sincere in their desire to improve the lives of others, and the make this country a better place. Their platform is not cobbled together by business and religious interests; it’s a sober, reasoned, and comprehensive response to the challenges we face in the 21st century.

This isn’t meant to insult or offend Republicans. There are plenty of good people, many of my friends and family included, who support John McCain, and do so with the best of intentions. But if you’re reading this and you are a Republican just take a moment to ask yourself a few questions:
-    The oil industry, obviously, has a stake in preventing climate change legislation. In contrast, who in the Democratic Party stands to make billions by admitting that global warming is real, and a real threat? Who profits off of acknowledging a problem that could threaten the viability of our planet? Is twenty years of scientific research really just Al Gore trying to sell books? Who’s being honest?
-    Economists ridiculed John McCain’s proposed summer “gas tax holiday” as a sham that would have saved Americans an average of $30 while oil companies pocketed the difference in price. Now he says that offshore drilling is the answer, even while experts caution that additional drilling could increase global supply by, at most, two to three percent. Barack Obama has stated that he would be willing to include drilling in a compromise that also included investment in alternative energy. Who’s being honest?
-    John McCain has advocated for Georgia’s induction into NATO, even after it went to war with Russia over the breakaway province of South Ossetia. Under Article V of NATO, any attack on a member nation must be treated as an attack on all members. Should American, British, and German troops be in Georgia right now, fighting the Russian invaders under NATO leadership? In a potential McCain administration, this isn’t fantasy—it could very easily be reality, and doesn’t that raise serious questions about his judgment? Perhaps not surprisingly, in the aftermath of McCain’s fiery response to the Georgian crisis, it was revealed that his top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, in addition to being an architect of the Iraq war, is a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government. Who is being honest?

The scurrilous debate over against which candidate the press is most biased misses the point completely. In 2008, you don’t need to rely on the press to inform you as a voter. You don’t need Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly to tell you what to think about a candidate’s speech; you can go to YouTube and watch the whole thing, whenever you want. And you don’t need Fareed Zakaria to tell you about international affairs, Robert Bazell to tell you about stem cells, or Richard Engel to tell you about the situation on the ground in Iraq. The press are the middlemen—and their power should be dramatically weakened in a world where the information we could want is readily available on the Internet and need not be filtered by the news media.

In today’s saturated media atmosphere, the level of political choreography and stagecraft is higher than ever. There are no better examples than the two national party conventions that took place last week. But even in those carefully rehearsed environments, we witness brief flashes of authenticity, of truth. And during Rudy Giuliani’s speech, we saw the unfortunate true nature of the Republican establishment.

Me? I’m pro-life. I’m in favor of Second Amendment rights. I’m opposed to race-based affirmative action. I think all savings and investment taxes should be as low as possible. I’d drill in my backyard, if you could convince me it’s economically and environmentally responsible. And frankly, I don’t care if the NSA listens to my boring phone calls if it’ll make our country a little safer.

But I won’t vote for a party, and a candidate, who insult my intelligence. I won’t vote for a party who laughs at the American Dream. And I won’t vote for a party that has betrayed my grandfather’s commitment to honesty. You shouldn’t either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_-7rv-1gw

The nation is in crisis. Across the country, Americans are struggling to cope. The situation grows worse by the day, and there is no end in sight. But there is a common sense solution that could provide significant relief to those hard-working families who need it most.

It's time to increase our capacity. Now.

We can't waste precious time with empty promises of alternative solutions. Science isn't magic. Let's stick to what we know--what has worked for years.

Sure, it will take time. But what else can we do? Sit idly by as the crisis worsens further, and hope that science will soon provide some miracle that solves all our problems?

That's not what this country is about. This country is about action. And action is what we need now more than ever.

The time for political gamesmanship is over. Supply must be increased.

Congress must act now to increase our iron lung capacity.

...my dad put an early end to what surely would have been a long, vigorous, and uncomfortable debate with the following (regarding John McCain):

"Look--he's old. He's a war hero. He's not going to win. Leave him alone."

I was so glad to see this:

One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover.

You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out.

You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about.

More opportunistic, dishonest political gamesmanship from the Republicans, more irresponsible reticence (or ignorance?) from traditional news media.

First it was the gas tax holiday, a sham to end all shams, universally ridiculed by experts (and anyone who slept through freshman economics) but championed by Sens. Clinton and McCain. It was maddening to watch the media treat this nonsense as a real debate; it took a concerted and admirable effort from the Obama campaign to finally dismiss the "issue."

Well, here we go again.

John McCain, backed today by President Bush, is calling for an end to the ban on offshore drilling, ostensibly to "address the concerns of Americans who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline." Unfortunately, as the Energy Information Administration found, and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin admitted, repealing the ban would have no effect on gas prices whatsoever until as late as 2030.

It's disappointing enough that our elected officials would advocate such dishonest policy. But it's downright infuriating to watch the news media, once again, pretend that this is a debate worth having.

Offshore drilling is a terrible idea. It would have no effect on gas prices and do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It would serve only the interests of big oil. And the environmental effects would be disastrous--both the short-term ecological effects and, more broadly, the continued effect of carbon emissions on the earth's climate.

The news media's refusal to admit this is yet another example of its pathetic subservience to the insular, asinine
"debate" that goes on inside the Beltway, where our supposed public servants answer to no one but special interests. Without an independent media that places objective fact and intellectual consensus above partisan theater and political dramaturgy, it took this country two decades to recognize that our planet's climate was in crisis, four years to realize the invasion of Iraq was a sinister mistake, and six days to realize that people were starving in the New Orleans Superdome.

I expect Senator Obama once again to step in and effectively shut this thing down. But he shouldn't have to. Until the news media stops allowing politicians to manipulate the electorate with blatant dishonesty and starts doing its job as an accurate vessel for information, we'll continue to have these ridiculous "debates" that amount to nothing more than reality versus fantasy. And as the past eight years have shown, reality doesn't always win.

Forgive a shameless plug for a new blog:

Things That John McCain Says That Are Not True

Whether they're outright lies, telling displays of ignorance, or relatively forgivable misstatements, the guy certainly spends a lot of time saying things that simply aren't true. It's a lot of work trying to catch and document them all so any help you can offer is much appreciated.

Send your undecided friends to the site so they can see just how often the Senator disagrees with reality.

One of the most pervasive narratives created by those  opposed to Sen. Obama's candidacy is his supposed lack of experience. Today on Slate's XX Factor, Melinda Henneberger posted excerpts from an e-mail exchange with a "generous" Hillary donor who is considering backing McCain in the fall.

After reading it, I'm more convinced than ever that "inexperience" is, as Henneberger puts it, little more than "a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing." Take a look at the e-mail:

"I think her years as first lady count for something, but regardless, she has a much better command of the issues. He was a back-bencher in the state senate, not committee chair, etc. ... He improved during the debates, but even at the end he was flubbing basic tax, economic, and foreign policy issues. Maybe I've been dealing with those issues for too long, but honestly, he is constantly struggling for answers and contradicting himself. I think it would help if he gave voters a sense of who he would appoint to his Cabinet. If he is just going to be an inspirational figurehead, I'd like to know who's going to be advising him."

This particular permutation of the inexperience meme boasts neither factual evidence nor sound logic. The back-bencher charge smacks of that old "present" nonsense, and Obama's strong record as a pragmatist and effective lawmaker in the Illinois state senate is well-documented. 

And flubbing basic policy issues? Struggling for answers? Contradicting himself? Huh? Admittedly, I've been in the tank for Obama for as long as I can remember. But are we talking about the same candidate? The senator's speeches are unrivaled in their nuance, a courageous thing to do in our fast-paced, hypersaturated media environment. He was ridiculed by the right for slipping up (before correcting himself in the same breath) on something as small as whether Arabic or Pashtu is spoken in Afghanistan.

Does the author of the above e-mail truly believe John McCain knows what the hell Pashtu is? He can't even tell the difference between Sunni and Shiite, for crying out loud.

Henneberger says her friend is a lifelong Democrat and a Washington lawyer. Why, then, does she seem to be so detached from reality? The cynic in me is convinced that the illusory concept of Obama's inexperience serves only to conceal an individual's true grounds for opposing his candidacy. I can't think of any other reason a politically-engaged, progressive-leaning Washington attorney would suggest a political candidate make cabinet announcements five months before the election is even held, particularly when that candidate is juxtaposed with one who can't even remember what he voted for, or even what he said.