Great Op-Ed Piece By David Brooks

I find myself agreeing with David Brooks more and more lately, and I pretty much agree with everything he has to say in this piece on yesterday's bailout vote in the House. Brooks flat-out states that House Republicans "led the way" and will get most of the blame:

* * * It has been interesting to watch [House Republicans] on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up. * * *

And speaking of right-wingers being mad at the House Republicans, check out this piece from the National Review which blasts House GOPers for blaming the failure of the bailout bill on a Nancy Pelosi speech:

I consider Nancy Pelosi to be one of the worst political figures of my lifetime: hyper-partisan, small-minded, and wrong on issue after issue. And I thought her speech on the House Floor yesterday — tearing into the president and Republicans when her job was to rally support for an economic rescue plan — was extremely unwise and irresponsible. It set exactly the wrong tone for a tough vote. But the assertion by Republican leaders in the House that as many as a dozen of their members who were leaning toward voting for the legislation ended up voting against it because of Pelosi’s speech is extraordinary.

Let’s see if we have this straight: whichever side of the issue you were on, yesterday’s vote was considered one of the most important ones members of Congress will ever face. Many respected voices argued that an economic catastrophe might follow in the wake of its defeat. Opponents of the legislation considered it a terrible violation of free-market principles. The stakes could not be higher.

After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi’s speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.

Can they be serious? Do they realize how foolish and irresponsible they sound? On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting “the speech made me do it” is lame and adolescent. The vote, after all, was on the legislation, not the speech. And to say that a dozen members of your caucus voted not out of principle but out of pique is a terrible indictment of them. I hope we learn the names of these delicate figures whose feelings were so bruised and abused. * * *

I also like what Barney Frank had to say about these "delicate figures" and their hurt feelings: "I'll make an offer -- give me those 12 people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nice to them and tell them what wonderful people they are."

McCain Enters The "Now What The Hell Am I Going To Do?" Phase Of His Campaign (With Updates)

Let's see -- last week, McCain prematurely declared victory in his debate with Obama, then proceeded to lose said debate. Then, just yesterday, we got this statement from McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt on Meet the Press with regard to the bailout bill (via Political Wire):

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."

Or not.

The bailout plan has been rejected by the House, and as a result, the Dow fell 778 points, the worst single-day point loss ever.

So let's sum up: Last week, McCain "suspended" his campaign and threatened to blow off the debate in order to return to Washington to straighten out this bailout mess. Even though McCain really didn't suspend his campaign and really didn't blow off the debate and -- let's face it -- really didn't do dick with regard to this bill, he had nonetheless taken credit prematurely for "bring[ing] all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."

Now what the hell is McCain going to say given that the bill has failed and less than 33% of House Republicans voted for the measure? Obama had enough sense to stay away from Washington, and only made the trip when his president asked him to (and even then stating that it wasn't a good idea to introduce presidential politics into the bailout debate). Despite Obama's absence from D.C., approximately two-thirds of House Democrats supported this bill, which was originally introduced by the Bush Administration.

How will McCain respond now? Well, I actually heard one of his surrogates on television this morning -- prior to the House vote -- attacking Obama for not returning to D.C. like McCain did, so I guess McCain's only real play at this point is to blame Obama for all of this.

UPDATE: McCain blames Obama for all of this.

UPDATE II: From Steve Benen:

This will probably come across as a little snarky because, well, it is. But I have to ask: isn't it incumbent on John McCain to at least pretend to "suspend" his campaign again?

UPDATE III: Check out this horseshit.

There's Even More Damaging Statements From Couric's Interview With Palin?

It appears so:

Sarah Palin has been struggling in her own debates -- with network anchors. While the Alaska governor hardly drew rave reviews for her interview with Charlie Gibson, her sit-down with Katie Couric last week opened the floodgates of criticism, even from conservatives.

Palin was halting, repetitive and occasionally stumped on basic questions. And the worst moments -- boasting again, Tina Fey-like, of Alaska's proximity to Russia -- have been endlessly replayed on other networks and the Web.

It may have been a turning point for Couric, who was persistent without being overbearing, in shedding early doubts about her ability to be a commanding presence in the CBS anchor chair. And the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing. * * *

My immediate response to the existence of this additional footage is, why wasn't it shown last week? CBS notoriously edited comments McCain made in an interview where he got certain facts wrong with regard to The Surge, so maybe CBS was pulling the same crap with Palin but now feels more comfortable airing these additional segments (which must be pretty freaking bad) given that Palin is being roundly criticized by folks on the right as well as by folks on the left.

By the way, Slic[k] sent me this interesting piece as to why it would be somewhat difficult for McCain to replace Palin at this point.

Debate Impressions (With Update)

If you were hoping for a debate moment akin to George H. W. Bush's looking at his watch during 1992's town-hall-style event, you got it with McCain. Well, it wasn't a specific moment, but more of a lack of a specific moment: McCain couldn't look Obama in the eye. Hell, he couldn't even look in his general direction, despite Jim Lehrer's request to the candidates that they talk to each other.

Don't get me wrong --unlike Bush Sr.'s now-infamous watch-gazing (which I don't think was a debate tactic), it's pretty obvious to me that McCain's refusal to look at Obama was deliberate. It was McCain's attempt to minimize Obama by displaying nothing but contempt for that "uppity" punk who has the gall to share a stage with him. If Joe Biden was the nominee instead of Obama, I really doubt that McCain would go through an entire debate and not once look at Biden. This was intentional.

The problem with such a tactic, however, is that it doesn't work when your opponent demonstrates that he is far more knowledgeable on foreign policy matters than you are. I was a little worried about how Obama would sound on some of the foreign policy questions, but he clearly knows what he is talking about and I think that irked McCain to some extent. I certainly don't think he liked it when Obama taunted him for saying the he wouldn't meet with the prime minister of Spain, which was an extraordinarliy bizzare comment for McCain to make given that Spain is one of our allies in NATO.

Yes, McCain actually did say that, and his campaign made it clear afterward that McCain had meant it. I hope Obama uses that debate moment in a campaign ad.

Members of the Corporate Media are giving Obama a lot of grief for "being too nice" to McCain, but I don't think it hurts a candidate to agree with an opponent on some issues -- like Obama did on the issue of Georgia -- nor do I think Obama made a mistake when he praised McCain with regard to his position on torture. In fact, I liked it because it drew even more attention to the fact that McCain was openly displaying contempt for Obama.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how McCain's refusal to even look at his fellow senator will end up playing and whether McCain will continue to do that in future debates.

UPDATE: We were watching the debate on MSNBC, and after it was over, the commentators came on and were immediately critical of Obama (e.g., he wasn't tough enough, he agreed with McCain too many times, etc.). They were talking as if Obama just got his ass kicked, which was odd because, as I noted above, I thought that Obama struck the perfect chord during the debate whereas McCain came off as an angry old man who was full of contempt for his opponent. I even turned to my wife and said, "Did those guys watch the same debate we just watched?"

Well, the post-debate polling clearly showed an Obama victory, which didn't surprise me. But the numbers I found most significant were these (from the CBS poll):

Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.

And these CNN numbers are very interesting:

CNN reports voter opinions that Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38%

The CNN poll showed men were evenly split, but women gave Obama higher marks 59% to 41% for McCain.

If Obama's goals were to appeal to independent voters generally and women in particular -- which, needless to say, should have been his goals -- then mission-freaking-accomplished.

Conservative Columnist Asks Palin To "Bow Out" Of Campaign

Here's some must-read stuff from Kathleen Parker of the National Review:

* * * Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

That's great writing. "My cringe reflex is exhausted," says Parker. That's exactly how I feel with regard to Palin. I can't even bring myself to watch entire interviews of Palin -- even the sound bites from such interviews are too painful for me to take in. The partisan in me made me laugh when I was first exposed to the whole "deer-in-the-headlights" appearance that Palin exudes. But when I see the same stuff now, I fear for our country.

And although I must admit that I agree with Parker's take on Biden to some extent, I have no doubt that Biden would be able to step in and be president should the need arise. But the thought of Palin becoming president makes me physically ill.

McCain Will Debate Tonight

From CNN:

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain will participate in Friday night's debate with his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, McCain campaign staff said. McCain said earlier this week he would not attend the debate if an agreement had not been reached on a $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street.

The outcome was up in the air Friday as lawmakers scrambled to agree on a plan.

But by midday, McCain's campaign said the Republican presidential nominee believed enough progress had been made for him to travel to Mississippi to participate in the debate, set for 9 p.m. ET at the University of Mississippi campus.

"He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Rep. [Roy] Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans," the campaign said in a statement.

"The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the senator will travel to the debate this afternoon." * * *

I was certain that McCain would attend the debate tonight regardless of whether a deal was reached. Sure, it will be embarrassing for him to show up now after saying that he would not unless there was a bailout agreement, but not attending would have been far more perilous for him politically.

Camp McCain will obviously be spinning this whole "I won't debate" deal in a big way over the next few days in an effort to make McCain appear more "presidential" because he was willing to "put country first," but it sure looks to me like he really screwed the pooch on all this. Even Mike Huckabee thinks that McCain's ploy was a mistake:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Thursday that Sen. John McCain made a “huge mistake” by even discussing canceling the presidential debate with Sen. Barack Obama.

McCain’s campaign has said the Republican wouldn’t participate in the Mississippi debate Friday unless there was a consensus on the financial crisis, but Obama still wants the debate to go on.

Huckabee defeated McCain in the Alabama GOP primary in February.

Huckabee said Thursday in Mobile that the people need to hear both candidates. He said that’s “far better than heading to Washington” to huddle with senators.

He said the candidates should level with the people about the financial crisis and say the “heart of this is greed.”

Huckabee said he still backs McCain’s candidacy, but said the Arizona senator should not have put his campaign on hold to deal with the financial crisis on Wall Street. He said a president must be prepared to “deal with the unexpected.”

“You can’t just say, ‘World stop for a moment. I’m going to cancel everything,”‘ Huckabee said. * * *

The funny part about all this is that McCain really didn't suspend shit. As noted by Rebecca Sinderbrand at CNN: "The difference between a suspended campaign and a full campaign is starting to look a lot like the distinction between a speed walk and a slow jog: to the untrained eye, the pace seems about the same."

What's Next For Camp McCain?

I was watching the coverage yesterday of McCain's decision to "suspend" his campaign and blow off the first debate. Barney Frank called the decision "the Mother of All Hail Mary passes" or something like that. I've also heard McCain's decision to tap Palin for the VP slot being described as a "Hail Mary pass." It makes you wonder what other gimmicks McCain has in store for us over the next several weeks.

Clearly McCain is terrified to let this election be decided on the issues -- in fact, didn't one of his campaign people actually say that this election will not be about issues?

The best part of McCain's recent stunt is all the hysterical shit that has resulted from it. This David Letterman stuff is hilarious. And I loved Barney Frank's comment that "We’re trying to rescue the economy, not the McCain campaign." I also enjoyed this post from Kevin Drum:

A couple of hours ago I suggested that maybe John McCain would try to postpone the first debate to October 2nd because that would then eliminate the vice presidential debate. (So sad....) I thought I was just being hackishly cynical when I said that, but no: according to CNN, that's exactly what McCain is proposing. The VP debate would then be "rescheduled." (Perhaps to November 5th, joked Dana Milbank.)

My lesson for the day: No matter how hackishly cynical you think you are, you're no match for the hackish cynicism of the McCain campaign.

But some people think that all of the recent maneuvering is merely setting the stage for this:

Democrats fear this morning that McCain is setting up a scenario in which he will vote against the bill, rally conservatives to his side and, most importantly, distance himself from both President Bush and Congress before the election.

Of course, both McCain and Palin are on the record at least supporting the idea of a bailout, so a McCain flip-flop on this issue might do more harm to his campaign than good. But it would sure be an interesting development, wouldn't it.

By the way, I find this very interesting:

Though Sen. John McCain says the nation's current financial crisis requires "all hands on deck" because "the whole future of the American economy is in danger," he admitted in an interview in Cleveland on Tuesday that he hadn't even read the Bush administration's proposed rescue plan that was unveiled over the weekend.

If the rescue plan was a 1000-page document, I could understand McCain's failure to read it. But as Josh Marshall notes, the Paulson Plan is three pages long.

Quote Of The Week

Joe Biden actually said this:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

I also read somewhere that FDR was an avid user of the internets, and that he especially liked The Google.

Obama Takes The Lead In Florida

From First Read:

If you want to know why Obama is doing his debate prep today in -- of all places -- Tampa, FL, look no further than the latest TODAY Show/NBC/Mason-Dixon poll, which has Obama up in the Sunshine State by two points, 47%-45%. Yet inside those numbers, Obama leads McCain in the Tampa Bay area (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, and Polk counties) by a 49%-43% margin. Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker says the key to winning Florida statewide is usually through Tampa Bay, and Obama’s six-point lead in the area explains why he’s ahead in this poll. Moreover, outside of Nevada, there is probably not another state that has been hurt more by the housing and credit crunch, and that may be benefiting Obama right now.

Also potentially troublesome for McCain in this must-win GOP state, he leads by just six among Hispanics (49%-43%), which in Florida is made up of a majority of Cubans. (If Obama does pick off younger Cubans, he may close the overall gap thanks to his large lead among non-Cuban Hispanics in the I-4 corridor.) Also, McCain's four-point lead among seniors (48%-44%) is not as big as he needs it to be to offset the electorate-changing demographics among blacks and young voters. So Obama's decision to prep for Friday's debate in Florida is turning into a smart play, huh? Any extra day in Florida might pay off…

Another state to keep an eye on is Indiana. Bush received 60% of the vote there in 2004, and also handily beat Gore there in 2000. In fact, Bill Clinton lost there to both Dole (1996) and Bush Sr. (1992). Right now, McCain is barely leading in Indiana.

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Into The Teens

From ARG:

George W. Bush's overall job approval has matched its low in American Research Group monthly polling as 82% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse, according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 76% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 78% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 18% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 78% disapprove. * * *

I Love This Headline

From MSNBC:

Pass It On: Sons Of Infertile Men May Be Next

Unless, of course, they've taken vows of celibacy, like their fathers before them.

McCain Better Start Booking Smaller Venues For His Campaign Rallies

This is kinda sad:

John McCain returned to the campaign trail on Monday, only this time without his popular vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin. The results were somewhat less than enthusiastic. As reported by MSNBC's First Read, the Republican presidential nominee addressed a crowd of roughly 3,000 people in a stadium that seats 16,000.

Hilarious

A reader sent me this article by Charles Krauthammer (I was under the impression that Krauthammer had been banished and forced to go live on an island somewhere -- oh well).

Krauthammer excuses Sarah Palin's inablity to answer Charlie Gibson's question on the Bush Doctrine because there are actually three other Bush Doctrines in addition to the one which caused over 4000 of our troops to needlessly die in Iraq:

* * * It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

He left out Bush Doctrine #5, the tenet which requires one's head to be firmly inserted into one's ass before making any decisions with regard to foreign policy.

This kind of reminds me of when Khadafi kept redrawing the "line of death" back in the 1980s. I love it how Krauthammer now feels that the *current* definition of the Bush Doctrine is simply "the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world." That's akin to saying that the fundamental mission of the U.S. Space Program is to launch shit up into space.

Regarding Palin, it was clearly one of those "deer in the headlight" moments. I think Gibson was probably just as surprised as Palin's handlers were when she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

What I find so hysterical about all this is that Charlie Gibson was hand-picked by the McCain campaign to conduct this interview of Palin because they thought he'd go easy on her. Well, he ended up asking a few questions that weren't total softballs, yet she ironically got hung up on one of the easier ones.

Now, thanks to Palin's shaky performance, Krauthammer and the rest of the Extreme Right have no choice but continue the "anti-elitist media" theme they introduced at the GOP convention and lump Gibson in with (as Krauthammer puts it) "the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."

What did Spiro Agnew say way back when about the press? Oh yeah, he called them "nattering nabobs of negativism." Krauthammer is basically channeling Spiro Agnew, and even managed to similarly throw in a little bit of alliteration.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But take heart, all you Sarah Palin fans -- I really doubt that her next interview will be as "hard-hitting" as the one with Gibson:

FOX News Channel (FNC) will present a special interview with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin. The interview will be conducted by FNC’s Sean Hannity and will be presented on Hannity & Colmes in two parts on Tuesday, September 16th and Wednesday, September 17th at 9PM ET. This is Palin’s first cable news interview.

Hannity better watch what he says/watch what he does during the interview, though -- if he asks one "wrong" question or moves his body in a way that frightens or otherwise bothers McCain or Palin, I have no doubt that McBushCo will lump him in with the rest of the snobbish, condescending, chattering, nattering nabobs of negativism who currently populate the ranks of the East Coast Media Elite.

Great Observations RE: Palin's ABC Interview

This James Fallows piece is dead-on:

* * * Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years. * * *

The rest of Fallows' article is definitely worth reading.

Another thing the ABC interview revealed is that whomever was prepping Palin with regard to foreign policy matters didn't bother to explain the Bush Doctrine to her because he or she must have assumed that Palin already had at least a minimal understanding of it. She is, after all, an American politician, right?

To use an example in music, if I signed up for guitar lessons and told my teacher (1) that I really needed to learn it fast, but (2) I had a couple years of lessons already under my belt, then my teacher may not feel the pressing need to start off by teaching me the basic C chord. The teacher, knowing that time was short, would assume that I had some working knowledge already.

Of course, my example is a bit lame because if I was truly clueless with regard to the guitar, it wouldn't take long for my teacher to realize that I didn't know shit. But Palin was clearly able to fool her foreign policy handlers into thinking that she had at least a basic understanding of current issues. I find that both humorous and terrifying.

It'll be interesting to see whether she'll be able to wing her way through the rest of the campaign. Who knows -- maybe her handlers will learn from the interview and realize that they need to go back to the drawing board with her.

There still may be time to get her ready for the debate. The idiocy of George W. Bush is now stuff of legend, but even he was able to successfully muddle his way through his first presidential debates -- and was thus able to move forward and ultimately get enough votes to steal the 2000 election.

If Bush could do it, then perhaps Palin can as well. We may be witnessing the emergence of a new George W. Bush.

McCain/Palin: A Match Made In The Infernal Regions (with Update)

Wow. First we learn that John McCain actually opposes legislation that would educate our children with regard to the dangers presented by pedophiles, and now we learn this:

When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

Palin had been in office for four years when the practice of charging rape victims got the attention of state lawmakers in 2000, who passed a bill to stop the practice.

Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that simply asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work. Croft said he doubts she was unaware of the practice. * * *

Geesus. If Obama or Biden had been mayor of a city that pulled this kind of crap, we'd never hear the end of it from the McCain/Palin ticket.

UPDATE: Someone finally has the guts to at least imply that McCain supports pedophilia. I wish the ad would have been a bit more hard-hitting, but it's a good start.

So This Is What Republicans REALLY Mean When The Say "Drill Here! Drill Now!"

From the AP:

U.S. government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties engaged in illicit sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said today.

The alleged transgressions involve 13 Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with — and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from — oil company employees, according to three reports released today by the Interior Department’s inspector general. * * *

McCain Opposes Legislation Promoting Education For Children Re: The Dangers Presented By Pedophiles

Sounds like a great topic for an Obama attack ad (from John Neffinger at Huffington Post):

This "sex ed" ad the McCain campaign just launched is waaaay over the line. After a parade of out-of-context quotes, it shows Obama smirking naughtily as the voiceover talks about him wanting to provide "comprehensive" sex education to Kindergarteners. The voiceover by itself is hard-hitting, but together with the visuals, the ad basically paints Obama as a pedophile. (In reality, the legislation provides for educating younger children about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles.)

So this is it. This is Obama's Dukakis-and-the-death-penalty moment.**

I think this presents Obama with a great opportunity to really go on the attack. Neffinger thinks Obama should respond this way:

Obama must address the issue, personally and promptly, and do it just right. He must talk about honor and shame, how he has young daughters, and how just like any parent, he wants to do everything he can to protect them from pedophiles.

We must see it in his face: he must furrow his brow and narrow his eyes. He is so cool, he very rarely does this, but it is critical in this situation, as people will look for his feelings in his facial expression. He can speak in a voice of controlled anger - softly even, that's fine - but we need to be able to tell how angry he is with the sound turned off. Not raging-hot angry, but piercing, cold, dignified angry.

OK, that's all fine and good and Obama should certainly do those things. But while he is doing all that, his campaign should run an attack ad which states:

John McCain -- we all know how he loves lobbyists and actually has seven top D.C. lobbyists running his campaign, but now he appears to be squarely in the pocket of the pedophile lobby.

Senator McCain actually opposes legislation which would provide for educating our youngsters about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles. Even Mitt Romney supports such legislation.

John McCain -- pedophiles may love him, but he simply presents too big of a danger to our children to be president of the United States.

Too over the top you say? I don't think so. McCain needs to pay a price for running such a ridiculous ad. Let him explain why he opposes such legislation. Put the turd in his pocket. Raise the stakes.

Palin Now Claiming She "Invented" The Bridge to Nowhere

OK, the title to this post is simply my attempt to do an "Onion" type headline, but I can't help but think about what happened to Al Gore when he was falsely accused of making shit up because this Sarah Palin character appears to be a pathological liar. As noted by Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor:

"On the same day that dozens of news organizations have exposed Governor Palin's phony Bridge to Nowhere claim as a 'naked lie,' she and John McCain continue to repeat the claim in their stump speeches. Maybe tomorrow she'll tell us she sold it on eBay."

McBushCo's Attempt To Derail TrooperGate Investigation Fails (Plus Obama Runs An Attack Ad!)

From the AP (via TPM):

A Republican effort has failed to unseat the Alaska state senator overseeing the ethics investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power when she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner.

Democratic Sen. Hollis French was accused of manipulating the probe for political effect on the national and state elections. Republican Rep. John Coghill last week asked the Alaska Legislative Council to discuss replacing French as the probe's project director.

On Monday, the head of the Legislative Council turned down his request. Democratic Sen. Kim Elton responded that he is sure that partisan politics can be kept out of the probe.

By the way, Obama has finally decided to go on the attack with -- of all things -- an actual attack ad. You can view it here. The text reads:

They call themselves mavericks. Whoa. Truth is, they're anything but. John McCain is hardly a maverick, when seven of his top campaign advisers are Washington lobbyists. He's no maverick when he votes with Bush 90 percent of the time. And Sarah Palin's no maverick either. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Politicians lying about their records? You don't call that maverick. You call it more of the same.

OK, it's a pretty good ad, but it's one that Obama arguably had to do out of political necessity. What I want to see is many more attack ads from Camp Obama which don't merely respond to what the McCain Campaign is doing, but explore new territory. For example, an ad which attacks Senator McCain for his many recent foreign policy gaffes would certainly piss off McCain to no end.

Or how about this -- we always hear that McCain "votes with Bush 90% of the time." That's all very interesting, but is it actually true that McCain currently differs from Bush on 10% of the issues? Although it is true that, many years ago, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, McCain now supports the extension of those tax cuts. So my question stands -- on what issue does McCain's position currently differ from the position of the Bush Regime?

Are there any? If not, then that fact might make a pretty good subject for an attack ad.

Maybe The Time Has Come For Obama To Go On The Attack

From Gallup:

John McCain leads Barack Obama, 49% to 44%, in the immediate aftermath of the Republican National Convention, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking results.

OK, a post-convention bounce is certainly expected, but I'm tired of Obama's apparent refusal to really go after McCain with attack ads. If Obama continues to refuse to go on the attack, I just don't see him winning this thing.

The Obama Camp doesn't seem to have a problem calling McCain on all his bullshit. Here is Obama's response to the new McCain ad claiming that Sarah Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere:

Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time and he and Sarah Palin will continue Bush's economic policies, his health care policy, his education policy, his energy policy, and his foreign policy. McCain and Palin will say or do anything to make people believe that they will change something besides the person sitting in the Oval Office. That's the kind of politics people are tired of, and it's anything but change.

OK, that's a fine response, but why not respond with an attack ad instead, and saturate all of the battleground states with it?

Perhaps such an attack ad could incorporate this:

Key Alaska allies of John McCain are trying to derail a politically charged investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner in order to prevent a so-called "October surprise" that would produce embarrassing information about the vice presidential candidate on the eve of the election.

In a move endorsed by the McCain campaign Friday, John Coghill, the GOP chairman of the state House Rules Committee, wrote a letter seeking a meeting of Alaska's bipartisan Legislative Council in order to remove the Democratic state senator in charge of the so-called "troopergate" investigation. * * *

In his acceptance speech, McCain says that "change is coming," yet his involvement in attempting to derail the TrooperGate Scandal certainly sounds like "business as usual" to me.

Obama should use that in an attack ad. In a single 30-second spot, Obama could (1) accuse McCain of trying to cover up misdeeds of his running mate, (2) call into question McCain's judgment in selecting Palin in the first place, and (3) bring up the issue of McCain's advanced age and history of health problems, which McCain directly brought into play by naming someone as inexperienced as Palin to be, as they say, a "heartbeat away from the presidency." With regard to the age issue, the ad could simply state that Sarah Palin was chosen for the VP spot by a man who -- if he won in November -- would be the oldest first-term president in U.S. history.

Such an attack ad would, in my opinion, be supremely successful because it would highlight the inadequacies of Palin but would do so by attacking McCain, which is important because McCain is, after all, the one running for president. And most importantly, it would attack McCain on the whole "change" issue, which is critical because McCain is now trying to brand himself as the candidate of change. As Josh Marshall notes:

Embracing the idea that this is a change election puts McCain in a possibly winning but also extremely perilous position because the claim to represent change is inherently preposterous. The Obama camp should grab onto this concession, bank it and fight the rest of the election on these terms. How can a senator who's been in Washington for 26 six years and embraces all the policies of the president of the last eight years be change? It answers itself.

It's time to take the gloves off.

Did MSNBC Go Too Far, Or Not Far Enough?

From The New York Times:

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left. * * *

I have mixed feelings about this. I watched MSNBC most of the time for convention coverage this year, and it did seem a bit odd to me when Olbermann and Matthews were literally gushing with praise after Obama's convention speech (it was, of course, a great speech and some level of praise would certainly have been appropriate, but the Olbermann/Matthews reaction did seem a bit over-the-top to me). Also, Olbermann's criticism of the use of 9-11 images at the GOP convention did seem a bit out-of-place -- it was a valid criticism, but it might have been better had one of MSNBC's political analysts made the comment as opposed to the anchor.

But then again, FoxNews has been doing this stuff for years, and MSNBC did have a lot to make up for after its bullshit decision back in 2003 to cancel the Phil Donohue Show, its highest rated show at the time, simply because Donohue was against the impending clusterfuck in Iraq. Back then, MSNBC executives took the fascist position that it wouldn't be good to provide "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Nowadays, MSNBC has learned that being anti-Bush can be profitable (no doubt due to the fact that 70% of the country hates Bush), and that is undoubtedly why it chose Olbermann, its most successful on-air personality, to anchor some of the major political events this year along with Matthews. But now it appears that elements of the Extreme Right have successfully taken control of MSNBC's programming. As Glenn Greenwald notes:

There is no question whatsoever that the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and the Right generally have recently made it a top priority to force MSNBC to remove Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from playing a prominent role in its election coverage, and MSNBC has now complied with the Right's demands. Does it need to be explained why it is disturbing in the extreme that the White House and the McCain campaign can so transparently dictate MSNBC's programming choices?

So, as I mentioned above, I'm torn. The naive part of me that wants our media to truly be "fair and balanced" definitely sees the downside to having Keith Olbermann anchor major political events. But the part of me that is tired of the fact that extreme right-wing conservatives have taken over talk radio and (except for Alan Colmes and the occasionally fair and balanced Chris Wallace) permeate FoxNews -- that part of me wants MSNBC to stay the course.

Assholes like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity share a large part of the responsibility for the disaster of the last eight years, and MSNBC's turn to the left certainly provides an alternative voice in this time of "change" and partially makes up for the fact that the Corporate Media were basically asleep at the wheel during late 2002 through early 2003, when Bush was lying his way into Iraq.

Maybe the best way to resolve this is simply for MSNBC to announce that, due to popular demand, it will now officially assume the role of providing a political counterweight to FoxNews. MSNBC, in order to promote this announcement, could adopt the motto "balanced and fair."

Ready To Lead On Day WhoTheFuckKnows

From Jed Report:

Forget whether or not Sarah Palin is ready to be president. She's not even ready to be a candidate for vice president!

Howard Fineman reports a top McCain adviser tells him that Palin is going to be taking a "timeout" from the campaign trail through the middle of next week. According to Fineman, Palin will use the time to "begin the education of Sarah Palin." Apparently, the excuse will be that she needs to attend to personal business, including seeing her son off to Iraq.

Fineman says they want to make sure she understands John McCain's positions on issues and the issues she is going to need to deal with as a vice presidential candidate. Most notably, she won't be doing any substantial media interviews until she returns to the trail, which could be at least as late as next Wednesday.

I think Karl Rove will probably let Palin do an interview eventually, but it'll most likely be a FoxNews interview. I can't imagine that she'll be allowed to do a legitimate interview or a full blown press conference, because that would mean she'd have to answer some tough questions, such as:

1. How old do you think the Earth is?

2. When did you come to the conclusion that global warming is a hoax?

3. Isn't it true that you were for the Bridge to Nowhere before you were against it?

4. What's your relationship with the Alaskan Independence Party, that America-hating secessionist group up in your state?

5. What particular books do you want banned?

6. Do you stand by your statement that the U. S. sent troops to fight in Iraq because it was a task from God?

I left out any queries on the whole TrooperGate Scandal because I doubt she'd be able to answer such questions given that it is an ongoing investigation (man, that has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?).

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Better...

Let's see -- the GOP is preparing to nominate a VP candidate who (1) had to lawyer-up recently due to her own personal TrooperGate Scandal, (2) is associated with a fringe, anti-American political group, (3) believes climate change is a hoax, (4) has a pregnant teen-aged daughter (yes -- I think the knocked-up daughter is a legitimate campaign issue), (5) once asked a library how she could go about banning books, (6) is so inexperienced that it makes McCain's advanced age into a bigger issue than it was before and seriously calls his judgment into question, and (7) instantly makes Obama's much-touted lack of experience into a non-issue.

That all adds up to a very bad week so far for the Republicans, which is kind of funny given that this is supposed to a very positive and triumphant time for them.

But if you thought it couldn't get any worse for the GOP, then you were wrong:

[J]ust two weeks ago, . . . Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus.

Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.

“He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.

Brickner then explained that Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jewish.

“The Jewish community, in particular, has a difficult time understanding this reality,” he said.

Brickner’s mission has drawn wide criticism from the organized Jewish community, and the Anti-Defamation League accused them in a report of “targeting Jews for conversion with subterfuge and deception.”

Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it."

Palin was in church that day, Kroon said, though he cautioned against attributing Brickner’s views to her. * * *

Oh, Heaven forbid -- I can't imagine anyone ever making something like this into a political issue.

In any event, there can be no doubt that the McCain Camp is running scared right now. I like what Kevin Drum had to say with regard to how both McCain and Palin have dropped off the radar screen since last Friday's announcement:

This certainly demonstrates boundless confidence in Palin, doesn't it? She's great! But, um, no, nobody can talk to her. And of course that goes for John McCain too, who cancelled his scheduled appearance on Larry King tonight. His excuse: CNN's Campbell Brown had gone "over the line" in an interview with McCain flack Tucker Bounds and he was mad about it. Anybody buying that? Normally I might just write it off to McCain's famous sense of self-righteousness, but in this case it's pretty obvious he cancelled his appearance because he doesn't want to face the press either until he learns a little bit more about his "soulmate." Not to worry, though. I'm sure the vetting will be done any day now.

I'd be surprised if the GOP actually ended up nominating Palin for the VP slot. It just ain't gonna happen, which is unfortunate because she embodies many of the things that have gone wrong with the Republican Party.

Hopefully McCain will stick to his guns and keep her on the ticket. Maybe he'll conclude that the dangers involved in removing her from consideration would outweigh the dangers of keeping her.

The Democrats Need To Start Running Attack Ads Against Palin Right Now (With Updates)

Such attack ads shouldn't be about Palin's lack of experience, or the fact that Palin's teen-aged daughter is pregnant, or that Palin is currently in the middle of an ethics scandal, but should focus exclusively on this:

The campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., likes to herald the independence of its new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.

And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."

After refraining from commenting on the charge for a day, the McCain campaign on Tuesday asserted that Palin was never a member of the AIP.

But Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time. * * *

And before you respond by saying that this is old news and that Palin shouldn't be criticized for something she did in the 1990s, you should be aware that she continues to maintain ties with this fringe group.

Just last March, Palin "recorded a video welcoming the convention of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), saying 'we have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest working, most grateful Americans in our nation.'"

Needless to say, this is a disaster for the McCain Camp. Joe over at Americablog summed it up this way: "Okay, imagine, just imagine, a Democratic candidate being a member of a party where people say they're not Americans. It would be over. Over."

The Democrats shouldn't hesitate on this one. They should immediately start attacking Palin as a member of a fringe group, and should further attack McCain for choosing a running mate who hates America.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin's husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party until 2002.

UPDATE II: Sarah Palin is also into book-banning.