Online petitions are perhaps as effective a means of moving the congressional inertiasaurus as, say, enormous campaign contributions.   But rarely are the petition drives set up by actual U.S. Senators calling out to the public to counteract what the Senators describe as "the forces of the status quo. 

Senators Durbin, Leahy and Schumer have established a website pithily titled Citizens for Real Healthcare Refore and a Public Option and are soliciting signatures expressing support for a public option.  They have already collected over 76,000 signatures.  Perhaps you would be willing to add yours?   The website is http://citizensforapublicoption.com.

It is a testament to my acute interest in this presidential campaign that I have been reading the Branchflower (aka Troopergate) Report – the bipartisan Alaska legislative report into Sarah Palin’s effort to turn the Alaska State Government into her personal vendetta apparatus – during a playoff game involving my beloved Boston Red Sox.  But it has paid off richly, and the Sox have managed so far despite my divided attention.

The basic storyline, as you know, is that Sarah and Todd Palin ("The First Gentleman," as the Report puts it)  want State Trooper Michael Wooten – who had been involved in bitter divorce and child custody dispute with Sarah Palin’s sister – fired.   They really, really want him fired.  They and their underlings present to  Commissioner of Public Safety  (and Palin appointee) Walter Monegan , and others  in the state police, a variety of reasons why Wooten needs to go.  The reasons are the normal litany of allegations you always hear when a powerful public official seeks to use her power to crush an opponent in a bitter family rivaly:  moose-shooting without a license; snowmobiling while on worker’s comp; dropping off by a single dad police officer of his kid in his marked police car; child-tasing.

The Palins’ quest for SWEET VENGEANCE   is zealous.   But it is also just a bit indiscriminate.    Thus, when approached separatedly by Todd and Sarah about Wooten’s unfitness for his job, on the ground that Wooten unlawfully shot a moose without a license (i.e., Wooten lacked the license), Monegan pointed out that the Palins’ concern that Wooten had not been prosecuted for the moose-take was itself problematic.   In particular, he pointed out that (1) Sarah’s sister – and Wooten’s husband – did have a permit at the relevant time, and had been hunting with him when he shot the animal; and (2) Palin’s father had butchered the moose, making him a potential in any potential prosecution of Wooten for the allegedly unlawful moose-kill.

As Monegan put it in his testimony:

Well, the wife, it was her permit. She willingly allowed someone else to use it. 

It also – once the moose has been shot, it had been drug – according to Todd – by Wooten in the back of the truck to location where it was butchered by the Governor’s father.   And so I pointed out that there are people also involved in this incident that theoretically could also be charged. And he [Todd Palin] said, I don’t want that, I only want Wooten charged.  Well, we’re not that way.   If there’s somebody who’s guilty, we have to hold everybody accountable for their actions and their decisions.

Of less rustic charm, but greater civic significance, is the revelation on page 50 by Officer Wheeler, a state trooper assigned to Sarah Palin’s gubernatorial security detail, that First Gentleman Todd Palin spends half his time in Governor Palin’s office.    As is evident throughout the report, the guy is an essential – nay, central -- part of Palin’s operation.  Sort of the Cheney to her Bush.

Since Todd Palin plays such a central role is Sarah’s administration, shouldn’t it matter that the guy was a longtime member of a secessionist political party founded by an America-hating extremist who died in an explosives deal gone bad shortly before he was to give an anti-US screed at the United Nations at the behest of the Islamic Republic of Iran? 

Last night McCain  asserted that Obama's position that the US should attack Bin Laden in Pakistan if Pakistan's government cannot or will not represented the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" adage.  Obama tartly responded that McCain is not in a position to accuse anyone of undiplomatic bluster, given that he "is the one who sang Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."

Here is the exchange, from CNN's debate transcript.

Obama: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."

This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."
[* * * *]

McCain: And, Tom, if -- if we're going to go back and forth, I then -- I'd like to have equal time to go -- to respond to...

Brokaw: Yes, you get the...

McCain: ... to -- to -- to...

Brokaw: ... last word here, and then we have to move on.

McCain: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn't think so. I understand what it's like to send young American's in harm's way. I say -- I was joking with a veteran -- I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

Problem is, millions of Americans have seen McCain singing his reckless and stupid "Bomb Iran" ditty with their own eyes, either on the news, or on this popular YouTube video.

As the familiar video shows, McCain sang his "Bomb Iran" song in front of cameras and in response to an audience question at a primary campaign event.  His effort to dismiss it as part of a joking one-on-one discussion with an "old veteran friend" is directly contrary to immediately accessible visual evidence.  

This is downright bizarre behavior.    McCain lied about something millions of Americans have already seen with their own eyes, and that is readily available to others.  What is up with him?  

I hate to be a johnny one-note, since I blogged on this after the first Obama-McCain debate, but tonight McCain again proposed a federal spending freeze.

That on the same night that he praised the $700 billion bailout bill, and proposed a massive but undefined new federal program to take up bad debt.

This is crazy stuff in a terrible economy.  It shows he is completely clueless on economic "fundamentals."  His cluelessness needs to be driven home.

Admit it.  You're not going to get much work done between now and Nov. 4 anyway.  So take time to read this absolutely scathing piece on McCain by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone.  It reveals McCain to be sort of like George W. Bush, a whiny, small, entitled jerk who has ascended to power based on family connections and a studiously crafted myth.  But it shows that in many ways he's worse that Bush -- in his recklessness, uncontrolled anger, cruelty, and misogyny.  It's 11,800 words long, and covers everything, from Annapolis, to Vietnam, to tail-chasing trips to Rio, to the S&L meltdown.  A small but revealing snippet about McCain's "kick-down" attitude toward a subordinate (and that helps to explain McCaingry's attitude toward the much taller Obama) follows:

McCain is sensitive about his physical appearance, especially his height. The candidate is only five-feet-nine, making him the shortest party nominee since Michael Dukakis. On the night he was elected senator in 1986, McCain exploded after discovering that the stage setup for his victory speech was too low; television viewers saw his head bobbing at the bottom of the screen, his chin frequently cropped from view. Enraged, McCain tracked down the young Republican who had set up the podium, prodding the volunteer in the chest while screaming that he was an "incompetent little shit." Jon Hinz, the director of the Arizona GOP, separated the senator from the young man, promising to get him a milk crate to stand on for his next public appearance.

A must read.  Your boss told me it's fine.

The Republicans are trying to cast off onto Democrats the massive political costs of an economic disaster that is largely attributable to the Republicans' deregulatory policies.  They are the Party of Buck-Passing -- from blasting Clinton for adopting painful policies to correct Republican deficits in the early 1990s; to attacking Obama and Democrats in Congress for wanting to end the disastrous Republican war in Iraq, and now this.

Obama's task will be to make them own both their initial failures and their utter lack of politica courage in rn.   My money's on him.

McCain proposed a spending freeze (except for defense and entitlements).

In a time in which credit markets are frozen, unemployment is up, and the nation (and world) are on the bring of a calamitous meltdown. 

This puts McCain squarely with Herbert Hoover, and against FDR and Keynes.  Does it not put hin against pretty much every reputable economist, and show his utter cluelessness about economic affairs.  Should this not be a lead point of attack tomorrow?

Today, John McCain tried to parry questions about his lurching debate-skipping histrionics by lashing back at Obama for rejecting, months ago, McCain's proposal to do  multiple town hall  meetings.

It wouldn't surprise me if McCain raises this point again, perhaps even in the debate tomoroow (if he shows).

Shouldn't Obama respond with something like, "You know, now I'm especially comfortable with that decision, because I'm not sure the public could stand the drama, week after week, about whether you would show up."

. . . when a mere shark just won't do.

Courtesy of NRO, here is Newt Gingrich on McCain's debate-quitting gambit (as Jonah Goldberg calls it):

This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ‘I will go to Korea.

The Humane Society Legislative Fund (the arm of the HS that is allowed to support candidates) today announced its endorsement of the Obama-Biden ticket. .  This is the first time the organization has ever endorsed a candidate for President.

This is an unusually important endorsement.  The Humane Society is a  very old and very well respected.   Its membership is huge, and its legislative endorsements, are distinctly bipartisan.   Concern for animals cuts across party lines – and while animal welfare is not a top issue for many people, for some it is a deal-breaking issue.  And for still others, the issue rises to the top only if, as in this election, a candidate distinguishes herself as unpalatably extreme – so much so, that her views on animal welfare issues cast doubt upon her fundamental decency and reasonableness in other areas.  

Some excerpts from the endorsement:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. [* * * *]

Importantly, Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) has been a stalwart friend of animal welfare advocates in the Senate, and has received high marks year after year on the Humane Scorecard.
[* * * *]

On the Republican ticket, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has also supported some animal protection bills in Congress, but has been inattentive or opposed to others.[* * * *]

While McCain's positions on animal protection have been lukewarm, his choice of running mate cemented our decision to oppose his ticket. Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska's wolves and other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States. 

Palin engineered a campaign of shooting predators from airplanes and helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters had twice approved a ban on the practice. This year, the issue was up again for a vote of the people, and Palin led the fight against it -- in fact, she helped to spend $400,000 of public funds to defeat the initiative.

What's more, when the Bush Administration announced its decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, Palin filed a lawsuit to reverse that decision. She said it's the "wrong move" to protect polar bears, even though their habitat is shrinking and ice floes are vanishing due to global warming.

The choice for animals is especially clear now that Palin is in the mix. If Palin is put in a position to succeed McCain, it could mean rolling back decades of progress on animal issues.

Voters who care about protecting wildlife from inhumane and unsporting abuses, enforcing the laws that combat large-scale cruelties like dogfighting and puppy mills, providing humane treatment of animals in agriculture, and addressing other challenges that face animals in our nation, must become active over the next six weeks to elect a president and vice president who share our values. Please spread the word, and tell friends and family members that an honest assessment of the records of the two presidential tickets leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama-Biden is the choice for humane-minded voters.

This deal is big enough that we ought to have a real national conversation about it.  Not a conversation involving some quick negotiations among a "bipartisan" group of legislators and Bushite undersecretaries -- in occasional and frenzied discussion with two distracted presidential campaigns.  A real conversation about where to take the country, a la 1860 or 1932. 

Ramming through something quickly now will almost certainly result in multibillion dollar mistakes due to haste and to the fact that the people with the most information are implicated in the screw up one way or another, or stand to gain enormously from the bailout.  Doing the deal now necessarily gives a central legislation framing and implementing role to the current administration -- which nearly everyone now recognizes to be inept, as well as venal and possessed of an economic and political philosophy that got us in this pickle in the first place.  They can't be trusted to clean up their mess, however fair that would be.  So how about let's adopt some stopgap measure for a couple months, then have the remainder of this election cycle be about what kind of country we want this to be or become, and how the financial risks and burdens the bailout would entail should be distributed to American citizens and their progeny? 

Discuss.

The Administration is proposing to commit up to a trillion dollars in taxpayer money and give complete discretion -- expressly removed even from judicial review -- to the Bush Administration as to how it performs this socialization of large portions of U.S. financial markets.

Whatever its economic merits -- and they appear to be quite poor -- this is an unacceptable outrage in a democratic republic.

There has never been a lamer duck than George W. Bush.  His invisibility during the late fiscal crisis recalls his furtive behavior right after 9/11, yet he does not have the excuse of needing to protect himself from possible physical harm this time.

The current mess seems to be further that the ideology that has dominated this country since Ronald Reagan's Administration has failed miserably.  And yet the Administration that asks for blank-check authority to respond to the disaster itself is a creature of a particularly inflexible version of that ideology.  Even if they are acting in good faith -- despite a long track record of running every aspect of the government to further narrow political agendas -- they cannot be trusted even to be competent.
 
I don't profess to have any insight worth your time about how to stabilize U.S. financial markets.

But I do profess to have some understanding of the Constitution and of the system of popular sovereignty it establishes.   And it is contrary to that system to the Constitution's vision for an plan that will effect generations of American's to be made over a few days, with representatives of a lame duck Administration -- whose vision of government has failed in every way -- essentially blackmailing members of Congress into a plan that asks every American taxpayer (and though John McCain doesn't understand this, that means all of us) to bail out private companies that

And one principle that should guide Congress's response to this crisis -- and that of both presidential candidates -- is that the American people should have some say in the matter.  And given that pretty much every major issue that this Administration has touched has turned out disastrously, it would be profoundly wrong to let this Administration saddle out grandchildren with crippling debt, without having an open debate, and a national vote, about what the basic countours of the rescue policy should be, and who should lead us out of it.

Congress should not give this Administration any more authority than is required to keep things afloat until November; then it should work closely with the November 4 winner on a long-term solution, to be signed into law by the next President.

Jed Report posts a delicious piece of MSNBC video, wherein Dr. Paul confirms that Phil  ("Whiners!") Gramm called to beg for his support for McCain; confirms that he said NO, and proceeds to say why in terms that must have caused the hearts of McCain strategists to sink:

I can't endorse somebody that disagrees with me on all the major issues -- on the federal reserve system, on spending and taxes, and No Child Left Behind, and McCain-Feingold, and foreign policy especially. I mean I could never support somebody who thinks that its funny to say "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." That to me is not somebody I could endorse ever.

Dr. Paul stated his opposition in terms of being obligated to adhere to his entire philosophy, i.e., support for McCain would violate core Paulite principles. Wonder if his vast legions of intensely loyal and principle-loving primary supporters will heed adhere to those principles too?

Find it here.

Great quote from Chris Mooney on an Alaskan-as-Climate-Change-Denier, and this:

This summer, she reached new lows in the eyes of conservationists by approving the killing of black bear sows with cubs. The year before, she put a $150 bounty on wolf paws to entice hunters to kill more of these elusive wild dogs. She also spent $400,000 of public money to defeat an initiative that would have banned aerial hunting of wolves for sport.

"Palin is an environmental horror story," claims conservationist Dave Chandler. "Alaska's out-of-control wolf slaughter is pretty brutal. When she approved the killing of all wolves in the Cold Bay area, state officials illegally killed 14 wolf pups - after killing their mothers - by dragging them out of their dens and shooting them."

The statement that Palin spent (big) public money on supporting aerial wolf hunting was new, and striking, to me.  On evidence that the wolf issue has broader political salience, see Alicia's post here.

That, as you may recall, was W's slogan in 2000.

An ad that someone linked McCain-Palin's bogus claims to reformism to W's claims in 2000 could be quite effective.

They are the same even in their false advertising.