I was watching CNN this morning. They ran a piece about a civics literacy quiz that was conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Their major findings:

- Americans Fail the Test of Civic Literacy
- Americans Agree: Colleges Should Teach America's Heritage
- College Adds Little to Civic Knowledge
- Television--Including TV News--Dumbs America Down
- What College Graduates Don't Know about America

The results are appaling. One ramification: lack of civic literacy = indifference to civil liberty. (Perhaps the aforementioned is melodramatic, but I had to attempt a clever write-bite...)

Take the quiz here. It is only 33 questions. Good luck and share your thoughts.

There is a You Tube video with an excerpt of her energy speech. While watching, I compared it to the speech transcript at John McCain's website.

When one follows both simultaneously, one can only conclude that Sarah Palin has a talent for taking a prepared speech and making it worse with her ad libs. Her personal additions added nothing to the content of the speech, mangled the English language, and were self serving.

We already know that Sarah Palin is incapable of answering questions of substance and policy in a meaningful way. The comparison I made led me to conclude that she is unable to meaningfully deliver a written speech.

Wow.

With all this talk about sexism, I thought it would be enlightening to share what the Lipsticked Pitbull herself said about gender in the March 2007 issue of Alaska Business Monthly:

ABM: You're the first female governor of Alaska. In a recent article, you credit the Title IX federal law, which guarantees women equal opportunities in education, including school sports, with helping you get where you are.

Palin: I had a great upbringing under Title IX. I can't imagine where I'd be without the opportunities provided to me in sports. Sports taught me that gender isn't an issue; in fact, when people talk about me being the first female governor, I'm a little absent from that discussion, because I've never thought of gender as an issue. In sports, you learn self-discipline, healthy competition, to be gracious in victory and defeat, and the importance of being part of a team and understanding what part you play on that team. You all work together to reach a goal, and I think all of those factors come into play in my role as governor.

Did Palin have any input on running the sexism arguments against Obama? What happened to the lessons she learned playing sports?

I wonder how Sarah Palin feels about being depicted as a helpless female surrounded by wolves. Isn't this McCain campaign image of her the ultimate form of sexism?

With all this talk about sexism, I thought it would be enlightening to share what the Lipsticked Pitbull herself said about gender:

ABM: You're the first female governor of Alaska. In a recent article, you credit the Title IX federal law, which guarantees women equal opportunities in education, including school sports, with helping you get where you are. 

Palin: I had a great upbringing under Title IX. I can't imagine where I'd be without the opportunities provided to me in sports. Sports taught me that gender isn't an issue; in fact, when people talk about me being the first female governor, I'm a little absent from that discussion, because I've never thought of gender as an issue. In sports, you learn self-discipline, healthy competition, to be gracious in victory and defeat, and the importance of being part of a team and understanding what part you play on that team. You all work together to reach a goal, and I think all of those factors come into play in my role as governor.

Did Palin have any input on running the sexism arguments against Obama?  What happened to the lessons she learned playing sports?

I wonder how Sarah Palin feels about being depicted as a helpless female surrounded by wolves.  Isn't this McCain campaign image of her the ultimate form of sexism?

I'm sure myriad posters will throw in their two cents about McCain's selection of Palin.  Some initial obervations:

1) McCain made the pick solely to overshadow the reaction to Obama's great speech.

2) Palin was chosen as a token female.

3) Palin was a high risk choice.  Is high risk what we can expect from a McCain Presidency?

Here are some things stated during Hardball:

1) Todd - Palin's choice was a gimmick choice.

2) Mitchell - Palin was not vetted carefullyl.  She and McCain have met only once (Todd says twice).

3) Buchanan's best gush on her was that the expectations on her are so low, that she would be a success just standing up.

Please add your own observations to the list above.  

All told, the selection of Palin proves that McCain does not serve a cause greater than himself.  His only cause is himself.  If McCain really cared more about his country, he would have selected a VP with more experience - someone who could have readily stepped into the office of the Presidency.

McCain clearly put the boot to his own butt today.

You know the MSM is reaching POW saturation when Maureen Dowd writes an op-ed about McCain overplaying his prisoner card. Toward the end of her article, Dowd writes, “The real danger to the McCain crew in overusing the POW line so much that it’s a punch line is that it will give Obama an opening for critical questions.”

McCain and Company opened the door to imaginatively including his time in Hanoi in myriad statements. If they want us to remember their candidate’s POW status, then let’s help them out in an equally creative way.

Hence the McCain POW contest. What other things can the initials stand for? Come up with an answer and supply a reason for your response. (Tip of the hat to Liam and commenters for POW interpretations in a post made yesterday) For example, when people think of McCain as a POW, they should think of a:

1) Person of Wealth (or in Parallel Universe Rove’s world, a Prisoner of Wealth) - It is silly to debate how many houses the McCains own. Once the number exceeds four, it is clear that they are rich and, accordingly, privileged. As this NYT article points out, McCain did not work for his wealth – he married into it. McCain’s newfound wealth gave him the funds to enter politics. (McCain was able to lend his inaugural 1981 campaign $167,000.) Their wealth and privilege would disturb me less if McCain didn’t try to pretend that he understands the plight of middle class Americans. His foray into a Pennsylvania grocery store clearly shows he does not. (feel free to provide other examples).

2) Paucity of Wisdom - For starters, think Iraq War vote, confusion between Shia and Sunni, drill here/drill now, tire pressure gauges, the Pakistan/Iraq border, and Czechoslovakia. In addition, here is a nugget from McCain’s own book Worth the Fighting For (via this article) "Although I seem to tolerate introspection better the older I am, there are still too many claims on my attention to permit more than the briefest excursions down the path of self-awareness. When I am no longer busy with politics, and with my own ambitions, I hope to have more time to examine what I have done and failed to do with my career, and why." My interpretation of this quote: McCain tendency is to act now and think later. Should not the process be the other way around?

3) Puerile Old Whiteguy - McCain’s can be crude and cruel. His joke about Chelsea Clinton was, at minimum, in poor taste.  This article gives a non-humorous lesser known example of his cruelty. (Look for the story that ends with McCain saying, “I'll embarrass a Democrat any time I get the chance.”).

4) Prisoner of War (or in liam’s post, a Promoter of Wars) - In this alternate interpretation, he is trapped by his own hawkish tendencies. He believes, for example that victory (whatever that means) was possible in the Vietnam War. This NYT article describing McCain’s response to 9/11 (McCain was more hawkish than Bush) should send chills down anyone’s spine. McCain can’t seem to resist the temptation to use force and is, therefore a prisoner of his temptation.

5) Pawn of W (as in Pawn of Dubya) - Much of John McCain’s mindset and campaign pledges equates to an extension of 43’s Presidency. Think Iraq policy, tax policy, offshore oil drilling. The title of this post was chosen exactly because McCain and Dubya now think and act similarly. The KJMA(w) implies that try as hard as he might, McCain cannot separate himself from W.

So, in regard to John McCain, what do you think the letters P, O, and W should stand for?

On his website, John McCain invokes one of his signature phrases: “My friends, each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest.” Who could disagree? Even the staunchest Obama supporter must concede that McCain uses that phrase effectively. However, what does John McCain mean when he talks about serving a cause greater than one’s self?

Two manifestations of serving a greater cause come to mind. One is “walking the talk.” Is rhetoric supported by action? The other is humility. How is personal history used to achieve ends?

Walking the Talk 

1) McCain and Energy. McCain has gotten a lot of mileage grandstanding on energy. From tire pressure gauges to drilling here and drilling now, McCain has tried to get the upper hand on the issue. On his website, one of his promises is to “Encourage the Market for Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro and Solar Power.” How committed is McCain to alternative energy and long term energy security? In a NYT op-ed, Tom Friedman writes: “on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill…that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems… Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote…and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year - which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.”

It’s bad enough for McCain to miss eight votes on an issue he has made central to his campaign. But not voting because he couldn’t muster the energy to walk from his office to the Senate? Is he serving a cause greater than himself?

2) Indignation Over Congress. In the same Friedman article. McCain is admonishing Congress. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” How has he backed up his oft-repeated tongue-lashing? On the last day of Congress before their break, McCain did not bother to vote on H. Con. Res. 398; the resolution providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses. If McCain cannot bother to vote against adjourning Congress, he has no business urging them to get back to work.

3) Supporting the Troops, and the War.  A subject looked into previously, but McCain’s hypocrisy over these bread and butter issues bears repeating. Two brief examples:

- McCain hasn’t always voted to support the troops.

- McCain has missed critical Committee meetings on Afghanistan.

McCain has missed votes on issues in which he claims a passionate belief. He publicly opines one way while voting another. How is not walking the talk an example of McCain serving a cause greater than himself?

Humility

If McCain’s phrase were a math statement, it would read: Cause > One’s Self. As McCain injects more of himself self into the campaign, he is changing the equation into Cause = One’s Self or Cause < One’s Self. The most obvious way McCain puts more self into the formula is his and his campaign’s constant reference to his time as a POW.

John McCain once said, "One of the things I've never tried to do is exploit my Vietnam service to my country because it would be totally inappropriate to do so." Sadly, he has not lived up to his words. For those of you not familiar with McCain’s shameless exploitation of his time in Vietnam, read this by TexasLiz, or recent posts by TPM bloggers Lauren, Christopher Williams, and Ripper McCord. For those of you will not read the linked posts, consider this particularly egregious example of POW exploitation. When asked for an explanation of McCain’s Housing Gaffe, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers included the following: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison."

Fortunately, it seems as if the MSM is becoming increasingly critical of the constant POW references.

The McCain campaign refers to Obama as the World’s Biggest Celebrity. The question to ask is who behaves more like a celebrity – Obama or McCain? Celebrities self-promote by shamelessly bringing attention to themselves. Look at the one walking around pantyless. Look at the other strutting down the red carpet in the revealing designer outfit. McCain doesn’t wear revealing outfits. (I won’t speculate on his underwear…) But like the glitterati, McCain draws attention to himself through self-promotion – specifically, by referring to his time as a POW at every possible moment.

The celebrity image that McCain wants to place on Obama is someone who puts himself first. Perhaps McCain should look in the mirror before accusing others of something that he clearly is.

Once again, props to Ripper for suggesting the ass themed week. Please show support by recommending posts like this and by supplying additional evidence.

McCain’s Naval career and POW status make his claims of fully supporting the troops and veterans unquestioned. It is time that Americans take a closer look at whether or not John McCain’s rhetoric is supported by his voting record.

McCain’s Voting Record: Does It Reflect Support of Troops and Veterans?

Congressional votes are difficult to interpret. That being said, McCain’s voting record for troops and veterans deserves more scrutiny.

John McCain has missed votes on and voted multiple times against funding the troops in Iraq. According to this article, “John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans. In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq.”

Again, Congressional votes are tricky things to construe, (especially when the interpreting is done by those of us who do not assiduously follow the legislative branch). What do organizations that presumably watch Congress closely think of McCain’s record? 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America grades Congress on how they voted on “legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families.” They gave a McCain D (Obama got a B+). According to FactCheck.org, “...McCain doesn’t have a perfect score with DAV (Disabled American Veterans), a [non-partisan] group of 1.3 million disabled veterans that supports more funding for veterans health care. McCain has a 20 percent record of voting the way DAV would like him to in 2006.”

At minimum, the above suggests that voters should question what McCain really means when he says that the supports the troops and veterans, especially when this claim is central to his persona/campaign.

McCain’s imperfect voting record makes his attacks on Obama support of the troops hypocritical. According to the NYT, McCain, at a VFW convention yesterday, “charged that when his rival voted against funding the troops in a single vote in 2007, he had tried to ‘legislate’ failure.” McCain has tried to exploit this vote before.  This article by FactCheck.org not only corrects the record on Obama’s troop support but also reminds us that “although he's [McCain is] the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he missed all seven of the hearings that his panel held on Afghanistan” for the past two years.

McCain relies on his reputation and rhetoric on troops and veterans to mitigate the reality of his voting record and committee absences. He has on at least one occasion shamelessly exploited the armed forces for selfish reasons.

The last word on John McCain should go to the troops themselves. Speaking with their wallets, deployed troops donated six times more money to Obama than McCain. Hmmm…

First of all, props to Ripper McCord for suggesting the idea of taking the offensive on John McCain. Pundits talk about how we really don’t know Barack Obama. The question is, how well do we know John McCain? (Work has prevented me from checking TPM regularly, so if someone has posted about this issue already, I apologize.)

John McCain treats women as second class citizens both personally and politically. The points below are supplied in defense of this thesis. I encourage readers to supply other personal and professional examples (with citations) of McCain’s attitude towards women.

Two Examples of How John McCain Personally Interacts with Women

1) When John McCain campaigned at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, he jokingly said that he encouraged his wife to participate in their beauty pageant. “With a little luck,” he said, reading from his notes, “she could be the only woman ever to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip!” This video shows that the Buffalo Chip contest makes the Miss America Pageant look like an audition for Mensa. Does John McCain think of his wife only as a piece of meat or, in times of anger (allegedly), as a c**t? How sad it would be if all he appreciated about Cindy is her appearance.

2) A NYT article on Carly Fiorina, written Elisabeith Bumiller, may provide additional insight. Bumiller writes:

"…on a recent morning on the McCain campaign bus …the candidate summoned Fortune’s onetime "most powerful woman in business" to sing to him and an audience of reporters in the back… Ms. Fiorina, embarrassed but not at all shy, did as she was told. "Now we know the secret of her success," Mr. McCain enthused when Ms. Fiorina was done with her serenade."
 
By summoning Fiorina to sing, McCain was demonstrating his power (over a woman) to an audience of reporters. By attributing her accomplishments to her singing, McCain was trivializing her intelligence and business skills. Would he have made Joe Lieberman sing? I think not.

Women in John McCain’s Political World

1) Despite the fact that John McCain claims he supports equal pay for equal work, he opposes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which increases the amount of time a woman has to file a pay discrimination complaint. An April vote prevented the bill from going to the Senate for full debate and a vote. Both Clinton and Obama took a break from campaigning to vote in favor of advancing the bill. McCain could not pull himself away from his selfish quest for the Presidency to vote. (McCain can’t even make a token attempt to put his country before himself.)

McCain is opposed to the bill because he fears that it’s passage would open “us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." This may or may not be true, but not enacting the bill guarantees that pay discrimination claims will not be heard. Here is another site that talks about the bill McCain does not support. The article provides one of McCain’s solutions to the equal pay dilemma: "They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households." McCain shows how clearly he misses the concept of equal pay. He is essentially telling women, that it is their fault that they are not getting equal pay. He believes that women need to try harder than men in order to get equal pay for the same job.

2) Roe vs. Wade – I don’t know if we need to go into depth on this one. Suffice it to say that any Supreme Court judges McCain appoints will have a propensity to curtail women’s reproductive choices. So says this article. The end of the article is especially illuminating and shocking. 

The bottom line: McCain, in his personal and political interactions with women and women’s issues, is deplorable.

Newsflash: Obama Receives Endorsements from New Testament Figures.

In a video erroneously released by the McCain campaign, Moses was shown tacitly endorsing Senator Obama.

This action by the Old Testament Legend triggered endorsements by Giants of the New Testament. In a coordinated announcement, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit also gave their blessings to Obama, also anointing Him as The One.

The Three glowed, providing a heavenly backdrop as a spokesangel read a prepared statement. "We join Moses in our endorsement of Barack Obama. While He was in the desert during his trip in the Middle East, we put the Senator to the test three times and He passed with flying colors."

The McCain campaign, in an attempt at damage control, questioned the actual number of endorsements received by Obama.

"Obama is claiming three new endorsements, but in acuality, he only received one," said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis, "Obama is playing the Trinity Card, and sadly, he's dealing from the bottom of the deck."

An unidentified high ranking official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, disclosed that the McCain camp is desperately trying to find Biblical figures to endorse their candidate. "Holding hands with the Dalai Lama [as seen midway through this video] is not enough. McCain suggested Allah, but, as Joe Lieberman reminded him, the God of Islam is not in the Bible. We're trying to land Joseph and Mary, but securing Jesus' parents won't be easy."

Need a break from screaming and ranting over this week’s campaign nonsense? Are you in search of substantive food on which to mentally chew, versus the empty calories that have been foisted upon us?

If you haven’t already, read The Curious Mind of John McCain in today’s Washington Post. What excellent insight it gives about him. For those of you who don’t have time to read it, here are tidbits:

1) The article quoted from McCain’s book “Worth Fighting For” about why he ran for President in 2000: “I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president…. In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”

So much for McCain serving a cause greater than himself. As an example of how his ambition got ahead of his principles, the article cited his flip flop over South Carolina and the Confederate Flag - a decision McCain himself admitted was one of his worst.

2) Here is an excerpt about McCain’s interest in economics: One [expert on financial services] who met with McCain earlier this summer to discuss the subprime lending crisis said McCain spoke about it only “in platitudes,” relying on populist political talking points. McCain did not seem to understand economics, or to be interested in the subject, said this person, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the meeting.

Is this the person we want in charge of our economy?

3) The article shares some of McCain’s thought on the Iraq and Vietnam wars: McCain can be impatient with complicated answers to questions he considers straightforward, with gray when he sees black and white. For example, he sees no gray outcome possible in Iraq: "In war," he has said, "there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose." But he has not defined victory in Iraq, and many wars have ended ambiguously. McCain's commentary on Iraq often echoes his descriptions of the Vietnam War. He can make both sound like classical military confrontations and rarely mentions their political complexities.

Do we want a President who lacks patience and fails to see nuance in complex issues?

The article is well worth reading because it goes beyond Britney, Paris, celebrity, and paper currency. Rather, it offers more profound reasons to reject McCain.

McCain and his supporters have claimed in recent days that Obama is receiving too much media attention, that the media has a "crush" on Obama and covers his every word and slights John McCain.

I agree -- clearly the media is not paying enough time to McCain and it's time they started.  It's time they started covering the teeming hoards at McCain's foreign speeches.  It's time they started featuring McCain's deep and up to the minute foreign policy knowledge.  And, above all, McCain's brand name straight talk.

The American people deserve a complete picture of the Republican candidate and I think the media ought to give it to them.

It's only fair to Obama!    Just ask the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs!

-- Pangaea's wife, sucked against her will into the blogosphere once again.  God I wish it were November already and we could go back to real news!

On thonight's Hardball show, McCain's "Summer of Love" ad was played, which references McCain's ordeals in Vietnam.

Now, I'm with Obama and others who honor McCain's service.  But why is John McCain a hero?

Did he do anything especially heroic in combat?  What did he do that was more honorable than other POW's in Vietnam?

I ask this in the spirit of fact finding.  I hope that some of McCain's supporters respond thoughtfully.  Most importantly, I do not intend this post to be the proverbial "hanging curve ball" invitation for people to bash McCain.  I am asking my questions to acquire knowledge.

In today's NAACP speech, McCain describes his reaction to the news of the assassination of Dr. King. McCain says that he was, "feeling just as everyone else did back home, only perhaps even more uncertain and alarmed for my country in the darkness that was then enclosed around me and my fellow captives."

McCain further added, "The enemy had correctly calculated that the news of Dr. King's death would deeply wound morale, and leave us worried and afraid for our country."

In an April 4, 2008 interview, McCain was asked why he initially voted against an MLK holiday. His response was that he changed his mind when he "began to learn" about what a transcendent figure Dr. King was.

Which McCain should we believe - the POW who knew that King's assassination would deeply wound morale, or the policitican who belatedly began to learn more about the civil rights leader?

Among the many thoughtful and well written posts regarding the cover of the New Yorker are those by destor23, Scientific, and Leonce Gaiter. Some lamented that fact that Obama was drawn in Arab/Muslim garb. Pundits on various shows were lamenting the latest Newsweek survey which points out that some Americans still believe Obama is Muslim and how terrible it is that this false fact persists. The Obama camp aggressively tries to debunk the lie.

A basic question that also needs to be addressed is: What is wrong with being Muslim? What if Obama or McCain were exactly who they were and were Muslim? Should their religions make a difference?  

Both Obama and the MSM, in stressing the inaccuracy of the claim, implicitly say, “Being Muslim is bad. Being Muslim is wrong.” I wish Obama, when asked about his faith, would respond, “I am a Christian and there is nothing wrong with being Muslim.” I wish that the media would remind us that being of a particular religion is not, in and of itself, bad.

During the primary season, there were questions about Mitt Romney’s faith. (Ultimately, Mitt’s problem was Mitt.) His faith, in and of itself, should have never been an issue. A candidate’s faith should only be of concern if a candidate seeks to break the separation between church and state. (By that metric, Bush is far more dangerous that McCain or Obama.)

What’s wrong with being Muslim? Nothing. What’s wrong with how the media and the Obama camp address the lies? A lot.