McCain and Social Security

Obama's ad.

The question is extremely valid.

James Fallows on the Palin Interview

Ssssssssmack!

That's going to leave a mark.

McCain's Disney Movie

Via Balloon Juice.


John Cole's right. When did Hollywood get more sense than the press? I don't know if Damon's "1 in 3 chance" is exactly the right number but it certainly a reasonable possibility that McCain will die in the next 4 to 8 years. Do we want a "hockey mom" carrying the football?

McCain on Technology

No, not his stance on its use.

As I mentioned I was at a dinner party last night. I was talking with a group of guys I'd just met and we got into politics a little bit. It was obviously a little superficial since nobody knew each other very well. Somebody mentioned that he liked McCain back in 2000 but wasn't real sure about him any more.

Another guy retorted, "Have you seen him in HD? He's really old. Really old."

Exploiting the Kids

Obama has said Gov. Palin's kids and family should be off the table. I agree. Apparently the goppers disagree.

I'm not going to start judging the Palin family. I don't know the circumstances and would not presume to understand them. Even though the statistics are against them, I hope that everything works out for the young couple. If the Republicans are going to go there, though, and tout this as some kind of positive ask yourself one simple question, if Obama had a pregnant 17 year old daughter what would the goppers and their attack dogs be saying. I would bet you my bottom dollar that the not-so-veiled racist slurs would be nonstop.

Hypocritical jack asses.

Pulling My Head Out of the Sand Weekend

Apparently over the weekend a whole bunch of slimy reporting and speculation about Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin and her oldest daughter hit the media and blogosphere. The issues around the two pregnancies are fully none of my business or your business, unless you are related to the Palin family or the unborn child. It is a matter for the family, not us. But no one should be surprised it is being pulled through the muck.

So, the question I have is what does this say about McCain's decision making process? The answer is clear. Nothing good.

UPDATE: More evidence McCain did no vetting.

UPDATE II: Obama tells everyone to back off! Good for him. It is acts and statements like this that makes me support him as much as his policies.

UPDATE III: Yglesias and I are on the same page.

Ripvanwinkle Stirs

I'm hesitant to jump on the criticisms of the Main Stream Media (MSM) because so much of it makes out that they are worthless. This just isn't true. They do some very good investigative reporting and coverage on many issues.

Where they have failed is in their decade(s?) long acquiescence to politicians that they present balanced coverage. In theory, I agree with that. The media shouldn't play favorites. In practice it has amounted to the media parroting back what politicians say without critical thought or investigation.

Well, maybe they are beginning to wake up. Maybe.

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran Russia

Sully puts it well.

McCain sees everything in terms of the Cold War and is looking for the next place to fight. He is fully a citizen of the past. He is not ready to lead us forward because he is still fighting the past. And it is not just McCain. He belongs to an influential group that dominates in the Republican party.

McCain's Living in Catch-22

I don't mean he's in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, although that might be the case. No, what I mean is that McCain is viewing history in the same way the book was written: out of sequence. Hilzoy explains while filling in for Sully. The short explanation is that Johnny McStraighTalk is crediting the surge for enabling the Andbar Awakening when the reality is that the Anbar Awakening started months before the surge, the on site U.S. commander describes the tipping point as 4 months prior to the announcement of the surge, and his troops left Anbar before any surge troops arrived in Iraq.

McCain Knows How To Win Wars

We know this because he told us. So when he tells us, "[It's] a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.," we should pay attention. But the people at Think Progress are questioning Johnny McStraighTalk's knowledge of geography and world affairs. Yglesias explains why they're wrong.

Enough already!

John McCain's status as a POW in Vietnam does not qualify or disqualify him to be president of the United States. Using it as a sole, or even major, criteria defies common sense.

Here's Richard Cohen.

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over.

In other words, McCain's courage in the face of torture 40 years ago means that he will have the courage to do the right thing as president.

That argument is bunk! Forget the fact that people and their ways of thinking change over 4 decades. It is a well documented fact that their level of courage changes over time too. If you don't believe me take a look at the car insurance rates for teenagers, twenty-somethings, and forty-somethings. There's a SIGNIFICANT difference. Why? Teenagers will take much greater risks than twenty-somethings who will take much greater risks than forty-somethings.

In addition, courage in one situation does not translate as courage in another situation. My brother will pick up and remove spiders from his house without killing them but just try to get him up on a roof. Can't be done. He's terrified of heights. A mutual friend of ours, a police officer, would have no problem getting up on a roof and daily faces the dangers of his job but I've literally seen him run off like the proverbial frightened little girl when a teeny spider shows itself.

A Country Of Laws, by 5-4 margin

The Supreme Court ruled today that the executive branch must obey the constitution. But that ruling was 5-4. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas thought it was OK for the government to indefinitely detain people without charges, without trial, and without justification.

John McCain has promised to nominate justices in the Roberts/Alito mode.

You know what to do. Donate, volunteer, and vote for Barack Obama.

UPDATE:
"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," - John McCain

Obama On McCain and Shrub

Via Andrew via Ambinder.

He's conceding nothing to them including foreign policy. I really don't think the goppers have a clue what is about to hit them!

"Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for."
...
"...in the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. And back during his “No Surrender” tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender; he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013. He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war. Just like George Bush, his plan isn’t about winning, it’s about staying, and that’s why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war. Because we don’t need John McCain’s prediction about when the war will end – we need a plan to end it."

It's On!

Nightmares?

I think I've mentioned that a group of us at work use a "secure" message board to conduct what used to be our email chatter. Well the rabid Clinton hating libertarian posted this picture with the title, "Nightmares Anyone?"


Now I'm well on record as an Obama supporter. I have become disgusted with HRC in the past month or so. Her use of gopper-like attack ads against my chosen candidate pisses me off. I'm convinced Obama has this locked up. There's no realistic chance HRC will get the nomination. But if she does, I will hold my nose and vote for her in November.

Why?

Because this guy gives me more nightmares.


The short list of nightmares:
Every time he talks about the gas tax.
Or health care
Or China and Russia
Roberts and Alito are his ideal Supreme Court Justices
Or the "League of Democracies"
Or 100 more years in Iraq
"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran"
Missile Defense in Czechoslovakia

Roe and McCain's SCOTUS Nominees

I doubt that I would agree with Ross Douthat on much. But on this point we are in complete agreement.

...[They say] that there's little reason to think that the Senator from Arizona will put an anti-Roe Justice on the Court, so a vote for McCain isn't really a vote against abortion anyway. I think they are mistaken on this point, just as I think that Larison is mistaken when he suggests that Roberts and Alito would vote to uphold Roe, and I suspect that pro-lifers who choose this election cycle to give up on the GOP would end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Roberts and Alito are the latest salvos in the GOPper agenda of putting the government in America's bedroom and forcing it out of the board room. I feel it is about as close to a guarantee one can get in politics that McCain will nominate judges in this same vein. And lest we forget, John Paul Stevens is really old!

Douthat thinks this is a primary reason to vote for McCain. This is where I disagree! I think this is one of the most important reasons to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who s/he is!

McCain = Shrub

The ever verbose Glenzilla:

Just as was true for Bush in 2000, McCain is running at a time when the Republican brand is sullied (in 2000 because of the ugly Gingrich/impeachment crusades and in 2008 because of the destructive Bush years). Thus, McCain is being politically marketed in exactly the same way that Bush the presidential candidate was (he's a uniter not divider; a new kind of Republican; you always know where he stands; he's a conservative who deviates from dogma and appeals to Democrats; he transcends partisanship; we're going to be a more humble nation, etc. etc.). It's exactly the same wrapping. And the media believed all of that about Bush and they now believe it all about McCain.
...
But on the foreign policy issues that are most consequential, McCain is George Bush. They pay lip service to the same pretty concepts of internationalism and democracy in order to justify endless militarism, occupation and war. They believe the "transcendent" obligation of America is to use its military force and other resources to re-make the world in our image. The Middle East is our personal playground and controlling it will consume most of our attention and energy. We should work cooperatively with other countries whenever they are willing to support our foreign adventures.

See, I told you it won't be all condo, all the time.

McCain Gaffe

From Marc Ambinder:

McCain: Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known and it’s unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq - the situation has dramatically improved, but I also want to emphasize time and again Al Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated. We are seeing a major battle take place in Mosul as we speak. The southern part of Iraq has other difficulties as we well know. So I am pleased with the progress, we have a long way to go, and I am deeply concerned about Iranian influence, not only in Iraq, but on nuclear weapons; on sponsorship of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, and if we leave Iraq it will enhance Iranian influence in the region to the detriment, I think, of every nation in the region.

McCain: I’m sorry; the Iranians are training the extremists, not Al Qaeda. Not Al Qaeda. I’m sorry.

I more or less dismissed this yesterday. Work was busy. Obama gave what may go down as one of the great political speeches of all time. And here was poor McStraightTalk misspeaking.

We've all done it right?

"Gov. Bush, can you name the president of Pakistan?"

Look, GWB took some deserved flak for not knowing anything about the world when he wanted to become president. But Shrub never ran as a policy expert. He ran as the Aw-shucks-why-don't-we-have-a-beer-together platform and besides, Al Gore was a elitist big fat jerk that wants to steal your SUV. And besides he was going to surround himself with policy experts. (We'll leave that disucssion for another time.)

On the contrary, Johnny McStraightTalk is selling himself as THE MAN on foreign policy.

Let's see here...

We've been in conflict with Iran since, oh, 197-fucking-9 when the Shi'a radicals in the country stormed our embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

In December of that same year the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and we supplied the Sunni insurgency there with weapons and training to fight the evil empire. The Soviet Union didn't fully pull out of Afghanistan until 1989. One of the leaders of the Sunni insurgency was a little known bloke from Saudi Arabia by the name of Osama Bin Laden.

From September, 1980 to August, 1988 Shia Iran fought a bloody battle with Iraq. The war was precipiated when Sunni lead government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The total casualties are estimated to be between 1 and 1.5 million people. And the U.S. played both sides against the middle in an attempt to prevent either country from becoming dominant in the region.

We've been at war in Iraq for 5 years now. FIVE LONG YEARS! Johnny McStraightTalk is telling us that he's the only candidate with the knowledge and expertise to win this war. I mean, he's a veteran and has been in the U.S. Congress since 1983 while all this hubbub has been occuring.

And yet Johnny, on a trip to highlight his foreign policy street cred, says that the Shia country of Iran is training the Sunni terrorist group.

Yep, ready on day 1, that's Johnny McStraightTalk.

People I'll Never Understand

This morning on NPR's Morning Edition there was an interview with young Christian evangelicals in Houston. (listen to the broadcast) They were asked their opinions of the three remaining major political candidates.

One woman (about 3:10 in) is voting for McCain because "Huckabee can't win." Another woman won't vote for Clinton because of "women's submission to men." The pastor for these thinks McCain is "a stud and war hero" and thinks a "a male should be leading our country."

McCain, Disqualifies Himself

The one potential adult in the Gopper field said that the only person who will decide when we should leave Iraq is General Patraeus.

In a word, NO!

Generals and the military should be allowed to make strategic decisions. I.e., should we advance on that position or pull back? Should we bomb RADAR positions first? Do I need 100,000 men to do this job or 350,000 men?

Politicians decide when we go to war and when we stop fighting. That's the entire point of civilian control of the military. I suspect McCain knows this but he is using the same ruse as Shrub and other Goppers. He either is incapable of ordering what he sees as a retreat or doesn't want to end the war despite public opinion so he hides behind the general's skirts. Both are unacceptable in a Commander-in-Chief.

It's even worse if he actually believes he doesn't have the power to make the decision. That would mean he doesn't even understand the most important power of the office he's running to hold.

The Saturday Debate

I had forgotten it was on but I stumbled onto the beginning of the dual Gopper/Democratic debate on Saturday night. It is the first of the many (dozens?) of debates that I have seen.

First, I really liked the format and the duality of the debate. Having a Gopper debate and a Democratic debate, back-to-back, allowed viewers to see the difference between the two parties. The debate format, where the moderator raises a topic and then the candidates argue about it amongst themselves with little intervention allowed viewers to get a real feel for where the candidates stand. Yes, yes, each candidate was able to get in the core of their stump speeches, but when they actually had to engage each other and challenged each other on policies it was actually educational.

The one critcism I would have of the debates is that they were long. It took three hours to get in both debates. For a political junky like me it was manna. I suspect for most people it was just too much to take in at one time. And on a Saturday night??? Even Andrew Sullivan blogged that he was turning it off to do something else.

The debate didn’t change my perceptions of the various candidates or who I am supporting. I do have a couple of individual observations to point out.

McCain was having a generally good debate even if he was a little abrasive in attacking Romney on his flip flopping. But, we all know that McCain has a rep of not being a very nice guy to begin with. Where I thought McCain faltered was on immigration. Romney went on the attack and McCain just kept repeating himself and sounded as if he was sulking.

Romeny, he who is made of plastic, blew my mind with one statement. When discussing how to get health insurance for all citizens he said, in all seriousness, “Fourty-eight million Americans CHOOSE to not participate…” WHAT THE FUCK! I don’t know what bothers me more: that Mitt might actually believe it, that Goppers in general believe it, or that no body challenged Mitt. Sure, there are some people that choose not to have health insurance but most, and I believe that vast majority, of the 48m can not afford it.

I don’t know that I can be a good judge of the gopper debate since I support almost nothing they stand for.

On the Democratic side I think it was mostly a wash. No body got hurt too badly and no body really put themselves ahead. It was interesting watching Edwards join Obama in attacking Hilllary. (I’ve been told I can’t call it tag teaming Hillary any more and I agree).

The one statement that brought me up short was when Richardson effectively said that terrorist organizations have acquired nuclear weapons. And no one batted an eye. I’m pretty sure it was a slip of the tongue as Richardson was forming his thoughts as he was speaking so I really don’t hold that against him. (NOTE, it was clear to me that Romney meant what he said.)

One other note. Throughout the debate Hillary continued to use the phrase "make change." As in, "I've made change" and "I want to make change." It sounded very awkard.

This morning I see that Obama has a 10 point lead over Hillary. So maybe he did better in the debate than I’m giving him credit for. Or, conversely, Hillary did worse than I thought.