McCain's people are looking at the same poll numbers as we are - or worse.  They know he needs a game-changer, especially when you see the distinct shifts in the electoral map towards Obama.  McCain saw his troubles earlier this year and decided to turn things over to the Rove thugs (you could argue that his first real "adjustment" came in 2004, when he gambled on lurching towards the conservative base).

When the scorched earth strategy of the Rovians produced little real movement in the polls beyond a mild softening of Obama's favorable ratings, he decided to throw caution and vetting to the wind in favor of Alaska's Miss Petrol Congeniality.

These are a series of calculated gambles, much like "suspending" one's campaign and trying to cancel a debate.  The gambles almost always have failed to pay dividends worth the damage inflicted.  The one gamble that seems to have to paid off was keeping Palin away from reporters - clearly a better option than putting her near any microphones, while also effectively lowering the bar for Thursday's debate.  As Dylan said, though, "there's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."

Which brings us to last night.  As mentioned, McCain at best tied on a night of foreign policy which his team negotiated to put out first in order to position him over Obama going into the next two debates.  It's still early, but I'd say that gamble will work out like the rest of them.  More importantly, time is growing short and those poll numbers are not looking good.

Keep in mind those Rovian thugs, who are 1) realistic, and 2) completely amoral.  While McCain may prefer to fade away like an old soldier, my guess is that his campaign would rather burn out with all guns blazing.  We will likely see a few major hail mary passes in the remaining weeks - and some of them may not look pretty.  The Obama camp has been pretty savvy to date, and I just hope that they are prepared for this eventuality.

Days after John McCain was roundly jeered after calling for the firing of Christopher Cox, the drama has taken a new turn.

I have yet to see the media correct this, but McCain is lying when he says Obama is linked to Fannie Mae's troubles, according to the AP.

"He put Fannie Mae's CEO (chief executive), who helped create this problem, in charge of finding his vice president. That's not change, that's what's broken in Washington," McCain said.

As someone who covers the mortgage industry, I can tell you that this is an obvious attempt at deception.  Jim Johnson ran Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, a period during which the company was among the most reputable companies in the nation. 
His successor, Franklin Raines, was responsible for a massive accounting scandal and was thrown out on his ear. 

Daniel Mudd came in to clean up the considerable mess.  He did a decent job in getting the house back in order, but ultimately allowed himself to be pressured by Congress into taking on more and more bad loans to stabilize the liquidity crisis.

As for Johnson, he stepped down after it came out that he was given preferential terms on a loan by Countrywide after he was out of Fannie Mae and long before it became clear that Countrywide was selling the country down the river.  Nevertheless, it looked bad and he tried to limit the damage (although he probably did more by stepping down).

In any case, Obama did not put Daniel Mudd (who presided over massive losses at Fannie) in charge of the VP vetting process, which is what McCain is suggesting. 

The McCain camp knows they are not telling the truth.  It is not that they are saying something that's partly true or some such thing.  McCain is coughing up a flat-out lie.

Calling an investigation "tainted" by partisanship goes back at least to the Greeks, but I can't help but be reminded of similar GOP efforts to shoot the investigators.  Two seconds of googling brought up this gem from Tom Delay's spokesman:

This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should.

How did things work out for the GOP Majority Leader?  In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of GOP knuckleheads blaming partisan attack dogs, even when the investigation efforts are bipartisan, as with the former Miss Congeniality of Alaksa.  I leave it to the AP:

The lawsuit called the investigation "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None of the lawmakers who filed the suit in Anchorage Superior Court serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the investigation.

I just wrote about the possibility of a Colin Powell endorsement for Obama, and that possibility has become even more likely today.  Powell joined five other former Secretaries of State in calling for the next President to engage in talks with Iran - a move championed by Obama and belittled by McCain.

Even Henry Kissinger, Dr. Strangelove himself, is calling for sustained negotiations.  The group said that a concern for Israel should not hamper discussions.

Beyond policy, the meeting was interesting for James Baker's hesitant endorsement of McCain, but even more curious was Powell's dance around the issue of endorsements:

 

Powell, the first African American secretary of state, said he had not decided yet. "I am an American first," Powell said.

He said he had told Obama, "I am not going to vote for you just because you are black."

The critical issue, he said, "is who is going to keep us safe."

Considering that the others openly declared their endorsements, Powell once more refused to back the candidate of his own party.  But even more striking is his "just because" quote, which implies that he will endorse Obama because he "is going to keep us safe."

Powell is arguably the most sought after endorsement left in the final stretch of the campaign.  A well-timed statement, or perhaps even a Sunday morning appearance, could dominate a news cycle or two.

More importantly, it would give Obama's approach to foreign policy a distinct legitimacy, especially if the cable news programs keep showing shots of Powell holding up anthrax at the UN.  Ironically, the return of this personal nadir for Powell will provide tons of grist for the cable shows, and should serve to reinstate a reputation sullied by his inisistence on playing the "good soldier" over the good of the American public.

Later in the article, Powell contradicts the hard-line moral clarity of Sarah Palin by suggesting that the Russians were not "unprovoked," as she had suggested to "Charlie."

Powell, who served President Bush from 2001-2005, sought to allay suspicions that Russia was turning into a second Soviet Union, even though it acted "brutally" in its conflict last month with Georgia.

It was "foolhardy," he said, for Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to "light a match" with a military operation in South Ossetia to forcibly reassert is authority over the breakaway region.

Score another one for Obama, who allowed that foreign policy is a complex game of chess, even when people like Bush and Palin want to play checkers.

Colin Powell remains the last significant endorsement in the political arena, especially because of his ambivalence.  The Republican refused to attend either convention, including that of his own political party.

I wonder what effect the VP decision of each campaign could have on his endorsement choice.  After all, he knows Sen. Biden extremely well and has a strong confidence in his credentials.  During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden espoused several key tenets of the so-called Powell Doctrine, such as exhausting diplomacy, maximizing our allies and legitimacy in the run-up, and using overwhelming force - all of which are fundamentally at odds with the Bush Doctrine.

On the other hand, McCain is at the top of the ticket for the GOP.  His resume is thick, but sometimes at odds with Powell's views.  McCain's recent performance with Russia is a perfect example of that.  Meanwhile, McCain's judgment comes sharply in question with the choice of Sarah Palin, who openly denigrated experience, hires buddies over more qualified candidates, and insists that we should be so committed to the mission that we must never blink.  Also, her views on Russia range from naive to nutball.

I can't say how much of a newscycle the Powell endorsement may garner, especially given the extreme pace the campaign will likely take in the next two months, but a Sunday morning slot for the announcement could have wide reverberations.

For someone who may be best remembered by generation for holding a test tube of anthrax at the UN, Powell may not be all that excited about 4 more years of Bush policies - particularly with a dangerously incurious ideologue VP choice for a cancer-surviving 72-year-old.  He may, however, be excited about another African-American pioneer that shows a willingness to engage publicly in the nuanced chess game of foreign policy.

Anybody else notice the way that McCain's convention line attacking 'Me First and Country Second' politics is a pretty succint way of describing the GOP economic plan? 

It's also wraps up Sarah Palin's approach to earmarks.  I mean what other uses could you have for federal tax money?  Give it to a bunch of those irresponsible "community organizers"?

Apparently, John McCain wasn't the only person taking advice from former Sen. Phil Gramm, who led the charge to deregulate the banking industry, only to find himself on the board of the company which posted the most subprime-related losses on the planet.

Zurich-based UBS AG, speaking of all-American, was forced to writedown a jaw-dropping $43 billion (that's a "b") in the past year because it gobbled up mortgage-backed securities (MBS) like it was Halloween candy in an effort to become the largest firm in the world (by assets held).

That type of good business sense (I suppose that's why it doesn't hurt that Gramm is a top lobbyist) seems to have prevailed for Andrew McCain, the son of Gramm's current political boss.

The younger McCain served on the board of Silver State Bank until a few weeks ago, when he resigned "for personal reasons."  Before the dust could settle from his exit stage right, the bank has become the 11th bank to fail this year. 

As a reminder, McCain's "Keating Five" scandal centered on a federal bailout of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.  Just a quick reminder.

The failure of Silver State is expected to cost the FDIC deposit insurance fund between $450 million and $550 million.  The fund has already been severely hit by the bailout of IndyMac Bank, which collapsed right around the time Andrew McCain resigned.

After 8 years of the deregulation pushed by John McCain's top economic advisor, there are currently 117 financial institutions being monitored by the FDIC as "problem" banks in danger of potential collapse.

Did I mention that this is John McCain's top economic advisor?

This is especially troubling for a nominee who admits that he doesn't understand macroeconomics and a VP pick who only has experience running a state based entirely on a single resource?

That's not change we can believe in.

We know that McCain described the flag of Southern secession as a "symbol of heritage" that should be left to the state's to decide whether or not to fly it above their capitol.  He later admitted that this position was an "was an act of cowardice" and that he had "broke[n] [his] promise to always tell the truth" in order to try to "win the South Carolina primary" in 2000.

We also know that one of the key speakers at his convention, Mike Huckabee, said, "If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we would tell them where to put the pole; that's what we'd do."

What we don't know is how the Palin family feels about the issue.  We know that one member of her family considers himself a "f-ckin' redneck," while her husband twice registered for a political party espousing the secession of Alaska from the Union.

So where do McCain and Sarah Palin stand on the issue of the allowing states to fly the "rebel" flag?  I'm sure future equivocation will only endear the ticket to the conservative base, but I'm genuinely curious.

In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire filled out during the 2006 gubernatorial race, Palin said she would fund abstinence-only education programs in schools.

"The explicit sex-ed programs," she wrote, "will not find my support."

The position prompted a local paper, the Juneau Empire, to respond.

"Abstinence may be a laudable goal, but failing to educate teenagers about how to protect themselves from disease or unintended pregnancy is tragically misguided. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, abstinence-only programs do not reduce sexual activity, teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.

"Every day 10,000 U.S. teens contract a sexually transmitted disease, 2,400 get pregnant and 55 contract HIV. Unintended pregnancies happen to Republicans, Democrats and people of all faiths."

This all comes as it was revealed that the Governor of Alaska said she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.

"I would choose life," said Palin.

What is implicit in her statement is that she would not allow her daughter to choose at all.  Or anyone's daughter.  Or anyone, period.

It is tragic that Palin's daughter has been caught up in national politics, and I recommend that we keep her out of the picture, but it is an even more pressing reminder of the millions of daughters who would find themselves caught up even deeper in politics should McCain change the balance of the Supreme Court.

While all eyes are on the convention, the Bush administration's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which successfully stopped state attorneys general from putting in tougher predatory lending laws against national lenders operating in their state, is now trying to pressure other federal regulators into watering down much-needed credit card reform.

In an unusual move, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has asked other federal regulators to scale back a proposal to crack down on unfair and deceptive credit card practices.

The proposal, issued earlier this year by the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), would ban credit card issuers from raising interest rates on existing balances, except in certain circumstances, such as when a promotional rate expires. It would also require banks to apply at least part of any payment to higher-rate balances and clamp down on fees charged to consumers with blemished credit.

Responding to the latest proposal, Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan wrote in an Aug. 18 letter that reform could have "unintended and undesirable consequences," such as less credit being offered to consumers. The agency oversees most credit card issuers, but doesn't have the authority to propose rules like other bank regulators, including the Fed.

Dugan also said that banning issuers from raising rates except under limited circumstances "would severely curtail the ability of creditors to react to adverse changes in a borrower's risk characteristics during the term of the account."

...

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., author of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, said mounting pressure on the Fed to "water down its regulation underscores the need to pass credit card reform legislation."

Robert Garsson, a spokesman for the OCC, dismissed the criticism. "We believe the standards we're proposing are things that average consumers will understand and would find pretty reasonable," Garsson said.

Just because this is a lame duck administration doesn't mean they are cute and harmless.

If Obama wanted to swing the conversation back to the kitchen-table economy, he was given a perfect opening today to score some major points in the hotly contested state of Florida.  Real Clear Politics has McCain up by 1.8 points today, but the real statistic to look at comes courtesy of RealtyTrac. 

The foreclosure tracking company has Florida ranked second in the nation with one home in every 186 filing for foreclosure - a 139% increase from a year ago.  Nationally, a jaw-dropping 17% of existing homes on the market are bank repossessions.

Meanwhile, Gov. Charlie Crist's top mortgage regulator was forced to resign after an investigation by the Miami Herald found that "more than 10,000 people with criminal records were allowed to work in Florida's mortgage industry from 2000 through 2007 and that convicted felons had bilked at least $85 million from lenders and consumers."

Earlier this year, the FBI named Florida the number one "hot spot" for mortgage fraud, a growing epidemic that has forced the bureau to reallocate a large percentage of its agents and resources to cover it.  In the wake of 9/11, FBI agents were pulled en masse off of white collar crimes and no replacement were ever made.  Now, the unregulated mortgage industry is set to explode the record number of fraud cases, resulting in billions of dollars in losses that will be passed on to consumers.

If Obama can't use the rising tide of foreclosures and mortgage fraud to turn Florida to the Democrats, he should just fold his tent.  Especially since McCain gave him an opening the size of a football field by putting together virtually no plans for dealing with the housing crisis beyond "tough sh-t."

I won't even go into Countrywide's ballooning legal troubles, or that the lender's CEO is now under a formal investigation for insider trading and covering up problems with the company's loans. 

Guess where a huge chunk of those mortgage loans were made?  Here's a hint: it rhymes with "schmorida."

It is incumbent upon Obama to return the framing of his popularity back into a positive message. The McCain camp did a remarkable, if not entirely honorable, job of political ju-jitsu by turning Obama’s considerable support against him, especially after polls show public fatigue with the candidate after the wall-to-wall coverage of his trip abroad.

The Obama campaign must do much, much better than pointing out that McCain is one of the oldest celebrities of the talk show circuit, a rare political mistake that only hurt Obama by keeping the story alive.

It would be far more effective and more positive for the Obama campaign to reaffirm the Berlin crowd as a symbol of the political capital that he garners in Europe. With the recent events in Georgia, Obama can show that this goes beyond the warm and fuzzy feelings of being liked abroad.

Because of his enormous popularity with the people of Europe, Obama can use that support as leverage when dealing with NATO countries in applying pressure to Russia. Although it is clearly in the interest of NATO members to contain Russian aggression, the diplomatic resources available to Obama allow him to shape the debate in Europe in ways that McCain simply could not, particularly given the surprisingly hard-line position that he has taken.

While there remains a sliver of Americans who appreciate a return to the “moral clarity” of the first Bush term, back before the media bothered to fact check, Europeans tend to gag reflexively on this sort of cowboy diplomacy.

Obama surrogates need to hammer home that there is a substantive political power behind Obama’s popularity that would give him a considerable edge as Chief Diplomat of the nation.

I am very confused about what is happening in South Korea as our under-beloved leader pays a visit.  On one hand, you have Reuters with the headline: Bush arrives in Seoul, anti-U.S. protest fizzles.

U.S. President George W. Bush arrived in South Korea on Tuesday for talks focused on communist North Korea and was greeted by a minor protest aimed mostly at his host instead of a big anti-U.S. rally that had been expected.
In a surprise boost for Bush, who has largely managed to set aside prickly issues with Seoul, it was a rally in the city centre in support of what is likely to be his last visit to East Asia as president that ended up attracting a huge crowd.

"I came to pray for the country to come together and with President Bush coming, for his visit to go smoothly," Lim Ji-young, 23, said against a background of gospel music at the pro-U.S. prayer rally of an estimated 15,000 people.

There was little sign of the widespread anger that had sparked weeks of mass anti-government protests after President Lee Myung-bak agreed to completely end a ban on U.S. beef imports, which had been barred five years earlier over mad cow disease concerns.

Some 20,000 police have been mobilized for the Bush visit and easily outnumbered a few hundred anti-Bush protesters who were dispersed with a brief burst of water cannon.

That doesn't seem so bad.  What's a "brief" burst of water aimed at a "few hundred" protesters?

But then I came across the AP's headline: Police fire water cannon at Bush protesters.

Police fired water cannons at thousands of protesters Tuesday as President Bush got a volatile reception in South Korea at the start of his three-nation Asian trip.

...

As evening approached, an estimated 20,000 anti-Bush protesters gathered nearby. Police turned water cannons on them as they tried to move onto the main central downtown boulevard, telling the crowd that the liquid contained markers to tag them so they could be identified later.

"I don't have anti-U.S. sentiment. I'm just anti-Bush and anti-Lee Myung-bak," said Uhm Ki-woong, 36, a businessman who was wearing a mask and hat like other demonstrators in an apparent attempt to conceal his identity.

The anti-Bush crowd dwindled later in the evening to several thousand people, with the hard-core remnants turning aggressive. Protesters shattered the windows of a police bus and authorities responded by again firing water cannons.

About 70 demonstrators were arrested, police said, in addition to another 12 near the military airport where Bush landed.

How does a rally dwindle to "several thousand" people when Reuters only says there were a "few hundred" at all?  And how can more than 80 demonstrators be arrested when Reuters could only verify that one of their cameramen saw about 12 people get taken into custody?

As someone who took part in anti-war rallies before the Iraq invasion that were significantly diminished by the press as they sounded the drumbeat to war, I can't help but marvel at how these wire services march to the beat of two clearly divergent drummers.

I noted earlier that it seemed a little strange that an ad by McCain used a hip-hop soundtrack when showing images of 1960's hippies.  Naturally, the images contain the subtle image of a swarthy black man walking with some unwashed peaceniks, followed by a make out session segue to McCain getting shot down in his shiny, phallic jet half a world away in service to his country.

I couldn't find much notice of the racial undertones by the media at the time (nevermind the Freudian ones).  But now it is clear that this was part of a much larger strategy to freak out white America with the prospect of a basketball court under the Oval Office.