Matthews rips Cheney, Gaffney

Chris Matthews can be annoying, and his vendetta against the Clintons drives me crazy (I'm no big fan, but he's irrational on the subject), but he also can do a good job of holding people accountable for bending the truth and lying about history. He was a skeptic about the rationale for war with Iraq from the start, and here he goes after VP Cheney's blithe declaration that we would have gone to war knowing that there were no WMDs. Frank Gaffney, longtime hawkish apparatchik, is the recipient of Matthews' ire:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Covering new presidents: the media's double standard

Eric Boehlert, who did fine reporting for Salon.com for many years has an excellent new piece over at Media Matters. Picking up on the emerging conventional wisdom about press relations with new administrations, he offers a well-grounded reminder of those relations with the previous two presidents. It's a cautionary tale of shifting standards, well worth reading as a reminder of recent history:

In anticipation of the new administration, Beltway media insiders are busy laying the groundwork for how reporters and pundits will treat the new team on Pennsylvania Avenue.

'Once a president takes office ... an adversarial relationship usually flourishes, at least with beat reporters,' wrote Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, discussing the press corps on Fox News, agreed: 'They are inevitably going to turn on him, as all -- this happened to every administration. I don't see why we should be surprised. It is the natural turn of events.'

The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town.

Except, of course, when the press does not.

Tom Friedman hits the panic button

The N.Y. Times Op-Ed Columnist is hitting the panic button on our economic situation and worries that the lame duck period of the Bush presidency is going to last too long. After opining that it would be good to quickly amend the Constitution so Obama could be inaugurated immediately, he suggests that Bush fire Hank Paulson and appoint Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary forthwith.

This is the real “Code Red.” As one banker remarked to me: “We finally found the W.M.D.” They were buried in our own backyard — subprime mortgages and all the derivatives attached to them.

Yet, it is obvious that President Bush can’t mobilize the tools to defuse them — a massive stimulus program to improve infrastructure and create jobs, a broad-based homeowner initiative to limit foreclosures and stabilize housing prices, and therefore mortgage assets, more capital for bank balance sheets and, most importantly, a huge injection of optimism and confidence that we can and will pull out of this with a new economic team at the helm.

The last point is something only a new President Obama can inject. What ails us right now is as much a loss of confidence — in our financial system and our leadership — as anything else. I have no illusions that Obama’s arrival on the scene will be a magic wand, but it would help.

Right now there is something deeply dysfunctional, bordering on scandalously irresponsible, in the fractious way our political elite are behaving — with business as usual in the most unusual economic moment of our lifetimes. They don’t seem to understand: Our financial system is imperiled.

I can only being to imagine how panic-stricken Friedman would have been in late November of 1932, knowing there was over three months of lame duck Hoover to go. Here's hoping, for all our sakes, that Friedman's panic attack is an overreaction.

Weekly radio address: President-Elect Obama

Recent days have provided a number of indications that Barack Obama isn't buying the argument that he needs to go slow, focus on deficit-reduction, etc. Earlier in the week, his soon-to-be chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, spoke to a business group assembled by the Wall Street Journal and talked about "going deep" (not, one hopes, a 'Hail Mary pass') in responding to the economic crisis. This week's radio address/YouTube video from the President-Elect doesn't make the specifics clear, but it does make clear that he is going to seek an ambitious economic package that includes government-created jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, crumbling schools, and so on. Combined with his reference in his "60 Minutes" interview to the two books he's currently reading on FDR, the signal is pretty clear that he isn't going to be seeking modest programs. He continues, however, to emphasize that he's going to need bipartisan support and that he will reach out for it. If he convinces the public that he is doing so sincerely, it will put the onus on congressional Republicans if they maneuver to block his initiatives or if they seek party-line votes. The appointments leaking out from the transition team have been stirring some unrest among the netroots, but they also will make it harder for the GOP to claim that he's governing as a wild-eyed lefty.



Of course, there are some who would make that claim even if he retained Dubya's current Cabinet and appointed Mitt Romney as domestic policy adviser (you know, the same one's who are calling this the Obama Recession and hawking investment advice to survive the crippling effects that Obama already has had on our economy (here, for example; and Human Events is filled with declarations of the disastrous effects Obama already has had on the economy, and sends numerous emails to its readers, offering up the financial services of right-wing financial gurus who will protect them from further Obama-created losses). These same folks are also trying to gin up a controversy over Obama's plans to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine (eliminated by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan), thereby wiping out right-wing talk radio and the fair and balanced folks at Fox News. The absence of any evidence that Obama has any sch plans hasn't slowed down the hysteria (which is being used in fundraising emails), nor do any of them seem to notice the contradiction between the ludicrous claim that Fox News is fair and balanced and the assertion that the return of the Fairness Doctrine (which called for broadcasters to provide equal time on controversial issues) would have a negative impact on the network of Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly. Let's hope that such knee-jerk ideological idiocy becomes increasingly irrelevant in the coming years.

Robert Reich asks why we're rescuing Wall Street and not the auto industry: Citigroup Versus General Motors

He's not sure we should be rescuing either, and makes the case at TPMCafe that there may be a better case for helping out the auto industry (with lots of conditions) than bailing out the bankers.

The 2008 Presidential Campaign, Part II

No sooner had the news networks declared Obama the victor in the 2008 presidential election than the second part of the campaign began. Part II is the campaign to define the meaning of the election results. Trapped (happily) in the crowd in Grant Park without a remote control, I was forced to watch and listen to Bill Bennett, former Reagan Cabinet member and oft-decorated cultural warrior, as he repeatedly argued that (1) the U.S. is a center-right nation, (2) the 63+ million Obama voters were casting a vote for center-right governance, and (3) the first order of business for President-Elect Obama had to be to move to the right and reach out to Republicans, to demonstrate that he wanted to include them and to govern in a manner amenable to them.

Bennett may have been the first to make such an argument, but he certainly wasn't the last. Nor has the argument been made solely by Reagan Republicans (though they have made the argument en masse). A similar argument has been made by numerous DLC Democrats, warning that the Democrats have gotten into trouble in the past by overreaching with liberal policies for which the American public has no appetite (see Carter, Clinton pre-triangulation). The answer, they argue, is to govern in the middle and reach for small, often symbolic victories.

This position also has received support from a wide range of pundits and mainstream journalists, further buttressed by an argument that began appearing during the pre-election portion of the campaign. One notable example was the repeated effort by Bob Schieffer, during the final debate, to get both candidates to list those campaign promises they would have to break because of rising deficits. Schieffer was by no means the first, and certainly not the last, to press the assumption that, while we might be able to manage a trillion dollar deficit, we certainly cannot allow it to get any higher and, in fact, need to do whatever we can to avert reaching that figure. It is, the reasoning goes, simply unrealistic to believe that the federal deficit can go any higher than that already projected in the Bush budget plus the added costs of the bailouts of financial institutions. Given that assumption, there is no money available for anything that Obama has listed among his priorities, unless they can be accomplished without significant expense. So, some have argued that the middle class tax cut will need to wait; others have argued, somewhat paradoxically, that increases in taxes on the wealthy and on corporations (in reality, the termination of the Bush tax cuts) must be postponed because of the recession; and the nearly unanimous 'conventional wisdom' seems to be that there is no way that Obama can do anything significant on health care in the near future.

So, whether it is justified by a claim about the ideological identity of the American public or by the necessities of holding the line on deficit spending (presented as a non-ideological, realist position), many of the forces of conventional wisdom are aligning to argue against the Obama Administration doing anything that would represent significant changes in domestic policy.

On the other side are those who argue that the election results mark a significant change in public opinion, a rejection of the verities of Reaganomics, culture wars, and the Bush Doctrine. This camp argues that 2008 was a change election, much as the 1932 and 1980 elections were. This point of view even has some surprising (to me, at least) advocates, like Chris Matthews. Matthews has been arguing with guests espousing the first interpretation of the election, asserting that Obama is in a position to do what FDR and Reagan before him had done: they won the election and then proceeded to move national policy and popular opinion further in the direction of their campaign by moving quickly to pass an ambitious legislative agenda. (Matthews also is fond of noting that George W. Bush did something similar, even after requiring a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court to be elected.) This camp argues that voters will become disillusioned if Obama seems to be pursuing policies that make only small changes, that they will feel that this is not the change they were promised and will then punish Obama and the Democrats at their next opportunity.

Just as the 'go slow, think small' party makes a key assumption about the economy and deficits, so too does the 'act quickly, big change' party. Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate economist and liberal gadfly, is one of those making the case for the need to engage in an ambitious program of government spending as a means of ameliorating the deep recession into which we appear to be sliding. In a column written before the latest bad news, a record drop in consumer spending, worse even than that after 9/11, Krugman argues that many of the usual remedies for fighting a recession are not available for fighting this one. Most notable among these is cutting the federal funds rate -- it has been as low as 0.3% in recent days, so there's nothing left to cut. What is the answer, then, if we are to stave off a depression?

To pull us out of this downward spiral, the federal government will have to provide economic stimulus in the form of higher spending and greater aid to those in distress — and the stimulus plan won’t come soon enough or be strong enough unless politicians and economic officials are able to transcend several conventional prejudices.

One of these prejudices is the fear of red ink. In normal times, it’s good to worry about the budget deficit — and fiscal responsibility is a virtue we’ll need to relearn as soon as this crisis is past. When depression economics prevails, however, this virtue becomes a vice. F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget in 1937 almost destroyed the New Deal.

Another prejudice is the belief that policy should move cautiously. In normal times, this makes sense: you shouldn’t make big changes in policy until it’s clear they’re needed. Under current conditions, however, caution is risky, because big changes for the worse are already happening, and any delay in acting raises the chance of a deeper economic disaster. The policy response should be as well-crafted as possible, but time is of the essence.

Finally, in normal times modesty and prudence in policy goals are good things. Under current conditions, however, it’s much better to err on the side of doing too much than on the side of doing too little. The risk, if the stimulus plan turns out to be more than needed, is that the economy might overheat, leading to inflation — but the Federal Reserve can always head off that threat by raising interest rates. On the other hand, if the stimulus plan is too small there’s nothing the Fed can do to make up for the shortfall. So when depression economics prevails, prudence is folly.

This second campaign will be nearly as consequential as the first one. We can only watch and wait to see which side of the argument Barack Obama comes down on, and how successful he is in persuading the public that his side is the right one.

[Note: As time permits, I'll update this post with links to representative arguments.]

Tubeside Chats

The Washington Post reports that, as President, Barack Obama will record his weekly radio address as a video, too, and that the videos will be posted on YouTube. The practice will be instituted beginning this week:

Today, President-elect Obama will record the weekly Democratic address not just on radio but also on video -- a first. The address, typically four minutes long, will be turned into a YouTube video and posted on Obama's transition site, Change.gov, once the radio address is made public on Saturday morning.

The address will be taped at the transition office in Chicago today.

"This is just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent," spokeswoman Jen Psaki told us last night.

In addition to regularly videotaping the radio address, officials at the transition office say the Obama White House will also conduct online Q&As and video interviews. The goal, officials say, is to put a face on government. In the following weeks, for example, senior members of the transition team, various policy experts and choices for the Cabinet, among others, will record videos for Change.gov.

Guillotine! Guillotine!

The Madame DeFarge of the GOP illiterati, Ann Coulter has been taking names, and now she's going to kick some asses:

After showing nearly superhuman restraint throughout this campaign, which was lost the night McCain won the California primary, I am now liberated to announce that all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities.

We'll start with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Then we shall march through the states of New Hampshire and South Carolina -- states that must never, ever be allowed to hold early Republican primaries again.

If cooler (saner?) heads don't prevail, the GOP may undergo a Cultural Revolution that will have Mao's ghost nodding his approval. Newt Gingrich has spent the past 7 or 8 months positioning himself as the guy who will have the ideas and the strategy to bring the GOP back once again. Ann and BillO seem to like Palin for that job -- or for the job of fronting the party. It would be good for the country if some grown ups took charge in the GOP and presented the country with an opposition party that had different ideas about governance rather than a strategy for winning elections. I was no fan of Goldwater, Reagan, or Bill Buckley, by they actually had a coherent set of ideas about governance -- I disagreed with many of them and objected to many of the policies they advocated, but they often (not always) made a case that wasn't just name-calling and cynicism. That said, part of me wouldn't mind if Coulter and the gang finished the job of discrediting the cultural right once and for all. I think that would make it easier to have a serious discussion about what role the nation is willing to see the federal government play in the economy and about whether we truly are engaged in a world-historical struggle (and, if we are, who the enemy actually is).

But for that to happen, we'll need to turn down the volume on rantings like Coulter's, as is apparent in that same column:

For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

Starting tomorrow, if not sooner.

O'Reilly and Carl Cannon debrief Sarah Palin's candidacy

Over at The Huffington Post, they've got a video clip of Bill O'Reilly grilling Carl Cannon, Fox News's senior political correspondent about reports coming out of the McCain-Palin campaign that indicate that Palin was more ill-prepared than had been previously known. Some of what the McCain staff are saying is startling, but, to my mind, nearly as startling is what the interview reveals about O'Reilly's standards for candidates (so long as they're right-wing enough).

McCain: Martyr or victim of his own ambitions?

This piece, in the aptly named SPIN CYCLE: Maverick McCain now political martyr -- Newsday.com, argues for martyr:

In the end, we got to know the meaning of 'Country First.'

First, John McCain would make sacrifices for his country as the enemy's captive in a war. Decades later his party would sacrifice him as its captive in a national election.

Considering the perils he faced against Barack Obama, the Arizona senator comes out of the election more martyr than maverick.

To me, this is the reminiscent of the many analysts who spent a considerable amount of time arguing that the lies and the nasty attacks and distortions that marked McCain's campaign -- as several fact-checking operations verify -- were not really the candidate's own doing. Sometimes they pointed to body language, and other times to their previous experience with him or the gap between his earlier statements and the conduct of his campaign. I never found those arguments convincing, mostly because of the last two words of that sentence: "his campaign." A candidate owns his or her campaign. Many may abdicate control to their money people, consultants, and party officials, but they're still making a choice. That's even more so in the case of someone who has been round for a long time -- they can't blame it on being swayed by more experienced pols or on not knowing that people working for their campaign may have their own agendas or standards.

McCain is, I think, an even more egregious case, precisely because he built his reputation on being a maverick, unafraid of going his own way and unafraid of bucking anyone who asks him to do things that violate his conscience and principles. It is beyond me how any of these pundits and reporters can not see the paradox of claiming to be a maverick and allowing others to suggest that they don't really approve of their own campaign's tactics (ignore that message added onto the commercials saying that I endorse this ad).

But you don't even need that to reject the view of McCain as martyr, running a campaign that he didn't want to run. Just look at his steady move to the right, beginning during Bush's re-election campaign, his reversals on numerous issues, and then try to make the case that he was a martyr to someone else's cause. The main hired the very people who slimed his wife and their adoptive daughter in 2000. What principle is served by that, except personal ambition? So, no, I don't believe that John McCain didn't approve of his own campaign, that he sacrificed himself to the party. But even if I did, choosing such martyrdom to one's political party would contradcit the central theme of his campaign: Country First.

The victory speech

After standing for hour after hour amid an amazing crowd -- cooperative, happy, friendly, ecstatic -- I don't have much to say right now, except that it was an experience I'll never forget. And that looking at the people surrounding me, and looking at the people in Phoenix, said much of what needs to be said about why Obama won and McCain lost.

Belatedly, Bruce's Halloween video

A spooky Robert Johnson-esque tale of the Jersey Devil, stalking the Pine Barrens:

New song by Bruce

Performed at Obama rally with Patti

Vrdolyak pleads guilty in kickback scheme - Chicago Breaking News

Ed Vrdolyak once was one of the most powerful people in Chicago. Along with Ald. Burke and a few others, Fast Eddie led the majority of Chicago aldermen in tying up everything Harold Washington wanted to do in his first term as mayor, irate that the voters had picked someone other than them to run the city. Voters returned Washington for a second term, and gave him enough like-minded members of City Council to be able to govern, though sadly he died before completing it. Chicago quickly returned to being a Daley family fiefdom (albeit with some changes from King Richard I's reign). In any event, the following sentence will evoke feelings of schadenfreude among many Chicagoans: "Former Chicago alderman and power broker Edward Vrdolyak pleaded guilty this morning to a kickback scheme involving the sale of a medical school building."

Dang!

I've been wasting my time:

An article of faith among conservative critics of American universities has been that liberal professors politically indoctrinate their students. This conviction not only fueled the culture wars but has also led state lawmakers to consider requiring colleges to submit reports to the government detailing their progress in ensuring 'intellectual diversity,' prompted universities to establish faculty positions devoted to conservatism and spurred the creation of a network of volunteer watchdogs to monitor 'political correctness' on campuses.

But three sets of researchers recently concluded that professors have virtually no impact on the political views and ideology of their students.

Guess I'll have to go back to teaching instead of brainwashing.

Obama leads McCain by 6 points in Reuters/C-SPAN-Zogby poll

Grim news for those hoping for a McCain comeback:

Democrat Barack Obama's lead over Republican rival John McCain firmed marginally to 6 points with support for both candidates steady before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday.

Obama leads McCain by 50 percent to 44 percent among likely voters in the three-day national tracking poll, up from a 5-point advantage on Saturday. The telephone poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.

'There are two full days to go before Election Day and obviously anything can happen, but it is hard to see where McCain goes from here,' pollster John Zogby said.

The Zogby polls have been pretty consistently providing the most optimistic view of McCain's chances, if one rules out some of the partisan-funded polls, regularly showing smaller margins than many of the others. This has led many McCain-friendly bloggers (like Matt Drudge) to promote Zogby results over those from Gallup and other polling outfits. But six points nationally with two days to go is a pretty big margin, and the state-level polls don't offer a lot of hope either. One measure of the daunting landscape is that it is relatively easy to find ways that Obama could get to 270 even if he were to lose Pennsylvania; it's almost impossible to find paths to 270 for McCain should he lose there. If Obama wins in three western states where he has been leading consistently -- Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico -- he can lose Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and still get 270 by winning Virginia. While I suspect Florida may still go to McCain, Ohio has been polling for Obama for weeks now, and the final Columbus Dispatch poll shows Obama up by 6 with a 2.0 margin of error. Could PA, OH, and FL swing back to McCain? Sure, but it seems less likely when the national polling is showing a slight widening of Obama's lead.

But in a little more than 48 hours, we can stop speculating and start watching actual returns. What a relief.

Implausible deniability?

John McCain declared long ago that he regarded the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons to be out of bounds for his campaign. That hasn't stopped his running mate from making passing references to it, and now the Pennsylvania GOP is airing this ad:



Will McCain condemn it? Will he publicly call for them to take it down? Will he plead powerlessness -- I can't control what they do, they aren't part of my campaign -- to do anything about it? Will he be asked about it? We'll see. Since his running mate is on record that it is a legitimate issue to raise (remember, she's worried about the press denying candidates their First Amendment rights to launch attacks without being criticized), I'm betting McCain will opt for implausible deniability.

Obama rapid response

I've commented previously (as have numerous others) on the Obama campaign's great rapid response team -- they have new ads out in a flash, seizing one opportunity after another to hammer home their message. They've done it again, picking up on Dick Cheney's endorsement of McCain yesterday. First, Obama added references to it to his stump speech, and today there's this ad, contrasting some of Obama's endorsements with Cheney's latest:

Tom the Dancing Bug takes on the commies who inspired Obama

Shocking revelations here.

And Obama responds quickly

The Obama campaign's rapid responses to ads from McCain has been one of the most distinctive features of their campaign, something sorely lacking in recent Democratic campaigns (or, happily lacking, depending on your perspective).

While in Virginia . . .

he goes after Obama, alleging he wants to slash the DOD budget by 25%. Virginia is home to many in defense industries and many retired soldiers, and he's hoping to move the state back into his column -- without doing so, only Pennsylvania can possibly save his candidacy.

McCain's closing argument ad

It hearkens back to the convention and earlier ads in evoking his years as a POW.

Palin's Constitution

Not long ago, Gov. Sarah Palin's answer to the question of what the Vice President's job is led some to raise questions about her grasp of the U.S. Constitution. To be fair, Sen. Joe Biden had some difficulty keeping straight which article covered the Executive Branch, and VP Cheney has mystified many Americans with his unique reading of the VP's job.

Now Palin has moved into another section of the Constitution, the First Amendment, and she brings a mavericky eye to it as well. ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports:

In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by 'attacks' from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

'If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,' Palin told host Chris Plante, 'then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.'

Now I'll admit that I'm not a Constitutional scholar either, but my understanding is that the First Amendment prohibits governmental restrictions on citizens' speech and on that of the press. Gov. Palin, however, seems to think that it would protect candidates (and government officials) from the press criticizing them for what they say. Or perhaps she retained enough of high school civics to know that what she is saying is nonsensical legally, but figures it will work for her politically. Ignorant of our fundamental document? Disingenuous enough to spout nonsense in the hopes of swaying those who are ignorant? Those seem to be the options to me. Neither one seems like a good answer regarding someone running for national office.

McCain claims Obama wants to bring back welfare

. . . or quotes papers owned by Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife (who financed much of the 8 year campaign waged against Clinton's presidency).

Obama's infomercial (updated)

Any news here? No, but it was very professional, it hit his main themes, it demonstrated that he gets what people are going through, and it showed some of the people to whom he wants to redistribute wealth (not that he put it that way). It also retold his own story in a way that made it blend with the families on whom the program focused.



After watching portions of the program a second time, I was impressed by the subtlety of how it rebutted the claims that Obama is really offering a return to welfare: it did so by putting a face on the people that he's targeting with his tax plan. After seeing these people and hearing their stories, I'm betting it will be harder for many viewers to see this as 'welfare,' with all of its accumulated negative connotations of handouts to the undeserving. Now most people who got welfare, prior to 'welfare reform,' didn't fit that stereotype, but the stereotype was more powerful than the reality for many people. That's clearly what the McCain camp is wanting to evoke on the stump and in a new ad (that I'll post later). Elsewhere, Eric Alterman and others have pointed out the hypocrisy of McCain calling this welfare when he's offering a similarly refundable tax credit as the centerpiece of his health care plan.

McCain faults paper for not releasing Khalidi tape

Perhaps Joe the Plumber should be excused for thinking that an Obama presidency would mean the end of the state of Israel. After all, he easily might have gotten that impression from listening to John McCain or Sarah Palin. The AP is reporting on McCain and Palin's calls for the LA Times to release a viedotape that served as a partial basis for a story they ran six months ago. The story was about a party for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor with whom Obama is friends. Khalidi, as Obama has acknowledged, has been critical of Israeli policies. But as the story notes, both Obama and Khalidi have indicated that they are friends in spite of some significant disagreements about Israel. And, as the story notes, an organization chaired by McCain gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to sponsor research by Khalidi into Palestinian public opinion. Nonetheless, the AP reports:

"McCain and Palin cited the paper's position as evidence of media bias. The Times has endorsed Obama's candidacy.

'If there was a tape of John McCain in a neo-Nazi outfit, I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different,' McCain said in an interview with Hispanic radio stations."

The quotation from McCain is not merely over-the-top political spin. It is a dishonest effort to play off of fear and prejudice. Likening attending a party for a respected scholar to wearing a neo-Nazi uniform (what do those look like, exactly, other than Nazi uniforms?) surely is intending to equate that gathering as being like attending a Nazi meeting. Of course nothing in the story supports that, and the story indicates that, while others spoke harshly of Israeli policy, Obama called for greater understanding on both sides. And the description of Obama's friendship with Khalidi fits neatly with Obama's arguments for engaging with even our enemies: by engaging with those with whom we disagree, we create opportunities for them and for us to broaden our understanding of issues. Now, I imagine that John McCain understands that, but it didn't stop him from equating Khalidi and his friends with Nazis. By Godwin's law, McCain loses the argument. Let's see if Godwin's law holds in elections.

David Gergen unmasks Ronald Reagan as a socialist!

Okay, well actually, he points out the absurdity of the McCain/Palin claims that Obama is one. It comes after a discussion of the absurdity of the continuing back and forth within the McCain-Palin campaign about who's responsible for the clothing flap. In the last minute or so, Gergen employs a redutio ad absurdum to lampoon the socialist argument dominating the GOP effort the past several days: if Obama's plan to give tax credits to working Americans who owe no income taxes (but pay payroll taxes) makes him a socialist, then so was Reagan, who signed the Earned Income Tax Credit into law.

I think that what this pints to is the declining usefulness of the longstanding Republican tactic of labeling Democrats as liberals. It had a long, successful run as a way of marking Democrats as unsuitable for high office, but there are signs taht it won't work anymore. First, Americans have grown accustomed to GOP assumptions about the economy, tax cuts, and the role of government. It's what many voters now have grown up with, which makes the supposed dangers of liberalism seem more theoretical. On top of that, most voters have noticed that the Republicans were in control most of the past eight years, and are starting to remember again that government serves necessary purposes that go beyond national defense and law enforcement. Katrina was a stark reminder of that, and the current financial and economic crisis is another. Add to that all of the incompetence manifested by various agencies of the federal government during the Bush years, and I think Americans may be ripe for rejecting the doctrine espoused by Ronald Reagan: government isn't the solution, it's the problem. (And Gergen's example also illustrates that, even for Reagan, this a rhetorical truth more than one that he governed by. And while I'm on the subject, the federal government grew significantly during Reagan's presidency, just as it has during Dubya's -- in that regard, McCain is wrong in suggesting that the growth under Bush was a betrayal of Reaganism, since both presidents talked about shrinking the government while increasing it, mostly in areas related to national security.)
This clip is courtesy of Crooks and Liars.

Has Joe the Plumber passed his use by date?

Sure looks that way when he starts getting grilled on Fox News Channel. Granted, it's unlikely Sean Hannity would have treated him the way that Shepard Smith did, and Bill O'Reilly only would have done so if he figured he needed one of those stories to demonstrate that he really isn't a partisan. Smith seemed incensed at Joe's assertion that a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel and wouldn't let him off the hooks. Kudos to FNC for committing journalism.

Obama's "Closing Argument"

And McCain ad leaves door open to Obama being ready . . . some day

Obama ad: McCain not ready on economy, will rely on Palin?

Cold War rhetoric

Yep, we're back in the late 20th century folks, when America was locked in a battle with countries where the government collectivized everything and their people were not free. And Barack Obama wants you to live in one of those countries, to make the good ol' USA one of those places where there's no private property and the government acts as a nanny state and makes every one dependent (of course, that goes along with the earlier rhetoric calling Obama's tax proposals welfare). I guess one week from today we'll find out whether the voters have moved into the 21st century or not.

Compare

That's the title of McCain's new ad, and it sums up the ad pretty well: it rehearses the contrasts on economic policy that McCain has been making, but without the edge. Even the music is somewhat jaunty. Obama looks grim or vaguely threatening in the photos of him, but McCain looks like a happy guy, positive and optimistic. Is it too late for this mood shift we've been seeing the past few days, from grumpy old man to the happy warrior?

Attack anchor 2

Okay, we expect this from Fox News Channel (or, at least, I do). And, to be fair, anchor Megyn Kelly was responding to a press release from the Obama campaign that blasted them for pushing a story about excerpts from a 2001 radio interview in which Obama was part of a panel discussing slavery and the Constitution. So there was reason for the tone to be somewhat adversarial. But the whole argument Fox makes about the distinction between their news anchors and their 'commentary' folks, like Hannity and O'Reilly, sort of goes out the window when an anchor repeatedly interrupts a guest, talks over him, and accuses him of being the one who is doing so.

Attack anchor

I'm betting that as soon as Joe Biden was done with this interview on a Florida TV station, he went looking for the person who arranged the interview and asked him or her, politely, 'Have you lost your mind?' But you can see in this video, courtesy of Crooks and Liars, that he really was wondering that about the anchor conducting the interview.



Wonder who she's voting for.

New 2 minute Obama spot addressing economic policy

This new ad is somewhat reminiscent of one released when the financial crisis first seized national attention. Like that one, it consists of Obama directly addressing the camera, talking calmly about his policy proposals. There's nothing new here, but given the state of the polls, it isn't clear there's any reason to change now.

Huffington Post finds evidence of Pinochet-McCain meeting

In a scoop over at Huffington Post, John Dinges obtained previously undisclosed information:

"John McCain, who has harshly criticized the idea of sitting down with dictators without pre-conditions, appears to have done just that. In 1985, McCain traveled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile's military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, one of the world's most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others.

The private meeting between McCain and dictator Pinochet has gone previously un-reported anywhere."

The whole story is worth reading, and provides documentation to back up the story. One question this raises for me is why the story is being broken on a blog rather than in a newspaper or on one of the television news outlets. If the story gets MSM attention (which I predict will require the Obama campaign raising it), it will be interesting to see how the McCain campaign explains this as not a contradiction of the McCain-Palin attacks on Obama for being naive enough to meet without preconditions with dictators with terrorist associations. I'm sure they'll come up with a number of reasons why this doesn't count, but we're talking about someone who not only 'disappeared' thousands of his country's citizens, but also was involved in a car bombing in Washington, D.C.

Nice catch

I belatedly ran across this entry in Hendrik Hertzberg's blog at The New Yorker, which begins: "Barack Obama may have gone to Columbia, but John McCain went to Colombia. Therein lies a tale."

He delves into the mystery of why McCain devoted so much time singing the praises of Colombia as a U.S. trading partner during the final presidential debate. It's worth breading.

Rush is Right

Rush Limbaugh says the Powell endorsement of Obama was all about race, and here is Photographic Proof.

Worst campaign spokesman ever?

In an AP article chronicling Obama's assertion that McCain offers 'willful ignorance', the response of the McCain campaign to the charges is reported as follows:

The McCain campaign shot back that Obama's stimulus plan, which includes sending billions to state and local governments to keep projects and health spending afloat, isn't the right recipe.

'When Americans are hurting, Barack Obama's plan to take more and more money from pocketbooks and hand it over to mismanaged government budgets is not the solution - it's the problem,' said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. 'Barack Obama is simply offering more of the same.'

I realize that Bounds can't know exactly how reporters will frame his statements, but given that the centerpiece of Obama's stimulus proposal is a call for getting funds to underfunded state and local governments to pay for infrastructure and heath coverage, did he really want to make a statement that suggests that all state and local governments mismanage money? And does he think most voters place more faith in the federal government? Because the proposal is to send federal money to state and local governments, not to institute a new tax. I wonder how Republican mayors and governors, who have been feeling the crunch as much as Democratic ones, will react to this suggestion that they'd have enough money to pay for improvements and health care if they only learned to manage their money properly.

Not for the first time, I wonder where McCain found Tucker Bounds.

I'm not George Bush, and I approve this message

McCain has a new ad out that starts with him agreeing with his audience that the last eight years haven't gone well. He says this as if he and his audience are alike not only in their opinions, but also in their lack of complicity in the policy and other failures those eight years have brought us. I have to wonder who is going to buy into this vision of McCain as having had little or nothing to do with it all. I guess people who forget him encouraging them to re-elect Bush four years ago.

Newshoggers.com: The Republican Provenance of Obama's Rhetoric

I recommend an interesting post by anderson over at Newshoggers.com provides more support for my belief that the political thinker who tells us most about how a President Obama might govern is Abraham Lincoln. The subject here is the argument Obama has been making about not valuing wealth over capital. anderson digs up Lincoln's reflections on the question from his first State of the Union message. It makes interesting reading, and certainly doesn't fit the GOP orthodoxy of recent years.

Facing the robo-calls head on

PoliticsTV.com has video (embedded below) of a new Obama ad that goes after the McCain campaign's robo-call hyping the Obama-Ayers-terrorist connection. These robo-calls have been condemned by two incumbent GOP senators (Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota), each of whom is facing a tough challenge, and by Colin Powell. The Obama ad takes the unusual step of playing the audio of the robo-calls.

Colin Powell on the first task for the next President

Prior to delivering his endorsement, there was this interesting exchange between Brokaw and Powell on Meet the Press:

"MR. BROKAW: If you were called into the Oval Office on January 21st by the new president, whoever it happens to be, and he said to you, 'General Powell, I need from you your recommendation on where I begin. What should be my priorities?' Where would you start?

GEN. POWELL: I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world, and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America's role in the world.

The problems will always be there, and there's going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don't even know about right now. And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward, and we're going to fix our economic problems, we're going to meet our overseas obligations. But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and, in the international community, in America."

Right there, I think, is why all of the dismissal of eloquence, of rhetorical skill -- going back to Hillary Clinton during the primaries -- has been wrong-headed. Much of the power of the modern presidency is rhetorical. Yes, there have been effective presidents who were not eloquent, but it's hard to think of one who successfully led the nation during a time of national crisis or transformation. Even the current president, not known by any means for his eloquence, was at his most effective when he ably delivered the eloquent speech addressing Congress after 9/11. Prior to that speech, there still were doubts about his ability to handle the crisis, fueled in part by the clumsiness of his first rhetorical efforts. In any event, we face multiple crises as a nation: two protracted wars, a global financial and economic crisis, global warming -- the next president will face daunting challenges, and he will need to rally the support and optimism of a nation that is discouraged, cynical, and pessimistic. He also will need to repair the damage that the current administration has done to our image among both our friends and our enemies. So, as Powell suggested here (and in his press conference afterward) rhetoric does matter.

The Washington Monthly weighs in on the Powell endorsement

Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly offers his take on why he thinks Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is significant:

"What's more, today's announcement becomes something of a trump card. As VoteVets.org Chairman and Iraq war vet Jon Soltz noted the other day, 'For all the smears being hurled about 'palling around with terrorists' and 'white flag of retreat,' nothing can counter that like a Republican former 4-star coming out and saying 'This guy loves America as much as me.''

I'd just add that Powell didn't just tacitly offer a vague endorsement, he offered his unapologetic support to Obama, while blasting what's become of his old friend, John McCain. He sounded like a man who barely recognizes what's become of today's GOP. For self-described moderates and independents, Powell remains a widely admired figure. What's more, few if any Americans enjoy the media adulation that Powell has, which means coverage of this morning's announcement is likely to be very strong.

With that in mind, Powell's endorsement this morning may very well have a significant impact."

Colin Powell Praises Obama and, This Time, Endorses Him

For those of you who missed the video, here (via TPM) is video of Powell endorsing Obama on Meet the Press and of him answering questions about that endorsement afterwards:

on MTP



on CNN



I was struck by two things, in particular. First, I was struck by the moving story Powell told about the photo essay about our troops, part of his explanation of the impact that the recent conduct of the McCain campaign and its surrogates has had on Powell's decision. He clearly states that McCain is not a bigot, but he also doesn't let him off the hook for what's gone on around him. Second, in the brief Q&A captured in the CNN clip, Powell offered as succinct a justification of taxes generally, and of the Obama tax proposals specifically, as I've heard. He didn't parrot Joe Biden saying that paying taxes is patriotic, but his point was very similar -- just harder to caricature. On that last point, I guess there was a third thing that I want to note. Powell, near the end of the MTP clip, asserts that rhetorical gifts are important, too. He doesn't make an explicit argument for why, but I think the implication was that there was a link between Obama's rhetorical skills and Powell's belief that he could be a transformational figure in American history.

Joe Klein sees a sea change

In the wake of Katrina, a number of people wondered whether the disastrous failure of government to respond might lead people to start rethinking the idea that we don't need the federal government other than for national security. As this seemingly endless presidential campaign has developed, more people have wondered whether we might not be seeing signs of a dramatic shift in public sentiment regarding the proper role of government. Such talk has accelerated during the current financial crisis. Joe Klein adds his mainstream voice to the growing chorus in his blog,
Swampland at TIME:

Journalism is, naturally, about the past. We are much better at reporting things that have happened than in predicting the future. We never seem so foolish or obnoxious, especially on TV, as when we accede to the constant demand for crystal-balling. But the obvious danger inherent in journalism is that we tend to get trapped in the assumptions of the past. Too often this year, my colleagues--especially those who are older than me, but also my fellow baby boomers--have seemed a bit moldy in our questioning of politicians: What are you going to do about budget deficits? What are you going to do about entitlement programs?

These are valid questions, but less relevant in a financial crisis that will probably lead to a severe recession--and especially after 30 years of government neglect of its basic responsibilities. We need to spend money now to create jobs, to keep up with the rest of the world on alternative energy and high-tech infrastructure...Oh, and by the way, if government activism is now back on the table, we can begin to talk about the real answers to our entitlement problems: Medicare and medicaid can only be solved when they're included in a comprehensive, regulated and managed universal health insurance system.

The point is, this is a very good year to be Senator Government. Ronald Reagan used to say that the most frightening nine words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." That is no longer true. This year, the most frightening eight words are "I'm John McCain and I approved this message."

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court sides with Brunner - Openers - cleveland.com

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports: "The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on verification procedures for hundreds of thousands of new voter registrations. Read the full opinion.

The decision is the latest in a string of back-and-forth rulings through the court system as Republicans challenged Brunner, a Democrat, over how identities are checked. On Oct. 9, a federal judge ordered the secretary of state to check the names against databases such as driver records and Social Security lists. Then a federal appeals court sided with Brunner. The full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals swung back to the GOP side. Brunner said she would abide by the ruling -- but then appealed to the top court."

Irony alert

The same folks who brought you promises to end abuses of power from a person just found to have abused her power, now bring you promises of greater transparency in Washington from someone whose administration has found an ingenious strategy to make public records private. MSNCBC reports: "Sarah Palin's office has discovered a renewable resource to bring millions of dollars into Alaska's economy: the governor's e-mails.

The office of the Republican vice-presidential nominee has quoted prices as high as $15 million for copies of state e-mails requested by news organizations and citizens. No matter what the price, most of the e-mails of Palin, her senior staff and other state employees won't be made public until at least several weeks after the Nov. 4 presidential election, her office told msnbc.com on Thursday.

How did the cost reach $15 million? Let's look at a typical request. When the Associated Press asked for all state e-mails sent to the governor's husband, Todd Palin, her office said it would take up to six hours of a programmer's time to assemble the e-mail of just a single state employee, then another two hours for 'security' checks, and finally five hours to search the e-mail for whatever word or topic the requestor is seeking. At $73.87 an hour, that's $960.31 for a single e-mail account. And there are 16,000 full-time state employees. The cost quoted to the AP: $15,364,960."

You want negative? You ain't seen negative!

Ben Smith of Politico reports that this ad is going to be running soon in Ohio:

Hmmm, I wonder why the Republican Party is in trouble

Perhaps things like this are contributing to voters seeming to flee the GOP: "Sacramento County Republican leaders Tuesday took down offensive material on their official party Web site that sought to link Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden and encouraged people to 'Waterboard Barack Obama' – material that offended even state GOP leaders." I love "even state GOP leaders"! But the material that was posted is truly frightening, and it wasn't just some off-the-wall comments by fringe commenters. This was stuff posted by the Sacramento county party chairman. A party spokesman tried to justify it by saying that the Democrats have played the race card, but acknowledging that this material "went too far." Yeah, right.

The Sac Bee website has a slideshow that shows some of the material that was removed, for example this:

Good luck to the next president

McClatchy reports that a new National Intelligence Estimate paints a grim picture of Pakistan as a nation on the verge of collapse: "A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America's key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.

A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as 'very bad.' Another official called the draft 'very bleak,' and said it describes Pakistan as being 'on the edge.'

The first official summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: 'no money, no energy, no government.'"

The story also notes that the NIEs on Afghanistan and Iraq also paint fairly grim assessments, including doubts about whether the U.S. will be able to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan any time soon. So much for McCain's assessment that victory is at hand and, perhaps, for Obama's pledge to withdraw most U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

If we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll have to fight them in Afghanistan?

As U.S. Gains in Iraq, Rebels Go to Afghanistan - NYTimes.com: "American military successes in Iraq have prompted growing numbers of well-trained “foreign fighters” to join the insurgency in Afghanistan instead, the Afghan defense minister said on Tuesday."

Politico reports: McCain, advisers divided over Wright attack (but perhaps not about this leak)

According to Mike Allen at Politico.com: "John McCain is at odds with many of his top advisers over launching a renewed attack on Barack Obama's ties to his long-time pastor and mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to campaign sources.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and several top campaign officials see a sharp attack on Wright as the best — and perhaps last — chance to rattle Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill. ) and force voters to rethink their support of him. But McCain continues to overrule them, fearing a Wright attack would smack of desperation and racism, the officials said.

With McCain unlikely to budge, GOP officials are hoping groups outside of the campaign will finance an ad attack on Obama-Wright ties. It is unclear if any conservative group has the cash to bankroll a serious effort, however."

The story goes on to quote unnamed campaign officials, painting McCain as adamantly opposed to raising Wright while his advisers have tried to persuade him that it is a legitimate issue.

The article raises a couple of questions for me. First, why is Allen allowing a top campaign official to retain his or her anonymity? What possible journalistic purpose is served by letting campaign operatives leak stories to the press without providing readers with information about who they are? The official obviously wants this story out there, as do the anonymous GOP officials cited in the article, so make his or her name public. That way, should ads start running about Wright, the public can make their own judgments about who is behind them and why (and other journalists can further investigate).

The second question it raises, and part of the reason I object to the use of anonymous sources, is whether this is a legitimate split between McCain and members of his campaign staff or just a ploy. At this point, if we get flooded with ads about Wright (and if it has the desired effect of producing numerous news reports and op-ed columns revisiting Wright's sermons), then McCain can say that he stuck with his earlier public pledge not toraise the issue while reaping the benefit of having done so. Since the article indicates that unnamed GOP officials are hoping for an outside group to fund such ads, it's clear that there's a desire to have a 527 do the campaign's work for it. Why, then, is Allen providing them with political cover?

We're organizized now!

Okay, according to TPM and MSNBC, those big McCain economic announcements are back on for today. Guess they just wanted to watch to see what Wall Street did yesterday . . . oh, and Obama laid out a set of four proposals yesterday in Ohio.

Never mind

This NY Times headline says it all: No New Economic Policy Is Expected From McCain:

Despite signals that Senator John McCain would have new prescriptions for the economic crisis after a weekend of meetings, his campaign said Sunday that Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some.

The signs of internal confusion came as the campaign was under pressure from state party leaders to sharpen his message on the economy and at least blunt the advantage that Democrats traditionally have on the issue in hard times. Republicans have grown fretful as Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, has edged ahead in polls three weeks before the election, while Mr. McCain has veered between ill-received economic plans and attacks on Mr. Obama’s character.

This comes scant hours after Politico.com headlined that new initiatives were on their way, and teased a couple of them. I bet McCain HQ has one of those cute signs up: We got to get

organizized

McCain to unveil new economic plans

Politico.com reports that new economic initiatives are going to be rolled out by the McCain campaign shortly:

As part of a plan to reinvigorate his flagging campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is considering additional economic measures aimed directly at the middle class that are likely to be rolled out this week, campaign officials said.

Among the measures being considered are tax cuts – perhaps temporary – for capital gains and dividends, the officials said.

“The market’s the focus,” a McCain adviser said. “You want to stop the fleeing.”

That doesn't sound very well targeted towards the middle class to me, since the people who benefit most from cuts in capital gains and dividends tax cuts tend to be in the top 5-10% of the population. But, the story notes that it is not yet at all clear what else may be included in the new proposals:

In a matter of weeks, McCain has gone from being a conventional tax-cutting conservative to a big-government interventionist.

Officials could not say what the package might include because more than 30 ideas have been put in front of McCain during the current crisis, and they said he has to choose what to unveil and when.

“That’s up to McCain,” one official said.

Among the ideas that have been considered are a bigger tax deduction for middle class mortgages, and more a more robust loan program for small businesses. But officials said the front-burner ideas all dealt specifically with markets.

McCain’s new package would amount to a do-over from the hasty introduction of McCain’s mortgage buy-up program, which was widely criticized by conservatives and was seized on by Obama as a fresh target.

Palin rips Obama with distorted quotation

They may not be talking about Bill Ayers anymore (though ads still do), but the GOP candidates aren't shy about misrepresenting Obama in order to whip up fear and outrage against their opponents. Obama, in the course of talking about why he supports comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only sex ed, indicated that he wouldn't want his daughters to end up pregnant or with STDs because they'd been denied basic information. But here is Politico.com's report on what Sarah Palin had to say: "Thus, McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, spent Saturday morning in Johnstown — an industrial area in southwestern Pennsylvania dominated by the type of older, white, working-class, socially conservative voters who favored Clinton over Obama in the primary — where Palin blasted Obama’s support for abortion rights as “absolutely radical.”

Referencing Obama’s comments that he wouldn’t want one of his daughters to have an unwanted pregnancy and be “punished with a baby,” Palin said “it's about time we called him on it.”"

While Politico's story did have a link to click through to a story that provided context on Obama's remarks, they nowhere mention in this story that Palin was misleadingly implying that his comment was in reference to abortion policy.

Conservative pundits for Keynesian solutions

In A Bailout For The Middle Class, Ross Douthat approvingly quotes another conservative who is advocating, in part, that the federal government stimulate the economy (and the middle class, particularly) to get us out of the looming deep recession. Part of the solution? A significant federal investment in infrastructure. It's refreshing to see people on the right arguing for a federal role, and arguing for something other than budget-balancing. While the latter is important and desirable, in the current crisis, it seems foolhardy. Add to that the dire situation of our public infrastructure -- roads, bridges, mass transit, etc. -- and a Keynesian solution of deficit-spending that pumps money into the economy while also delivering public goods (instead of just paying the next month's grocery bill) seems to make a lot of sense. If other conservatives share this view, then the next president should have an easier time of getting broad public and political support for such measures.

Palin's Talent Scout was Bill Kristol

Seems there's a reason why Bill Kristol has been so full-throated in his support for Sarah Palin, whether in the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, or various cable outlets. It's because he's Palin's Talent Scout, according to The Daily Beast website: "In June 2007, a cruise liner sponsored by the political journal The Weekly Standard set anchor in Juneau, Alaska. Editors and guests of the publication were then treated to a reception with Governor Sarah Palin. It was a moment of discovery to equal Hernando Cortez’s landing at Veracruz. A writer for London’s Daily Telegraph interviewed one of the participants in the Juneau junket about the meeting with Palin:

“She’s bright and she’s a blank page. She’s going places and it’s worth going there with her.” Asked if he sees her as a “project,” the former official said: “Your word, not mine, but I wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment.”"

According to Scott Horton,

Palin’s name appeared in fifty-seven Weekly Standard articles since the Juneau meeting—starting with a paean entitled “The Most Popular Governor” that ran right after the reception.

Indeed, Kristol, who was a loyal McCain supporter in 2000 and is often thought to have suffered exclusion from Bush’s inner circle as a result, may have played a key role in McCain’s decision to tap Palin as his running mate.

"Sorry, Dad," Buckley's son writes, "I'm Voting for Obama"

Christopher Buckley, son of William F., after writing supportively of McCain earlier in the campaign, has concluded that he needs to do something he has never done before: vote for a Democrat for president. Here is his oft-times witty explanation for his heresy: "Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.

Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do."

McCain's attacks fuel dangerous hatred -- baltimoresun.com

Or so says Frank Schaeffer, at one time a leading figure of the religious right, in this Baltimore Sun op-ed: "John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate."

[Thanks to TPM for finding this one.]

That was then, this is now (with apologies to S.E. Hinton)

GOP ad attacks pol McCain praised - Mike Allen - Politico.com: "A new Republican Party ad called “Chicago Way” whacks Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for his ties to “political boss William Daley,” shown in sinister black and white.

“William Daley: Heir to the Chicago machine,” the narrator says. “A top Obama adviser.”

But, wait. Is this William Daley fellow really so bad?

He hasn’t always been. Back in 1997, one John McCain, now titular head of the party buying the ad attacking Daley, called Daley “an experienced, talented individual,” when he was confirmed as Commerce Secretary under President Bill Clinton."

Who are these guys?! Part Two

Mark Silva, at the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp, also notes that the attacks on Obama cut both ways. He points to a high profile McCain supporter who announced he is now a former supporter, because he doesn't know who John McCain is anymore.

Obama parries

Speaking in Chillicothe, Ohio this morning, Obama parried the recent attacks on his character and judgment by trying to turn McCain's slogan against him:

"Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time; even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent’s campaign announced last week that they plan to “turn the page” on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” So in the last couple of days, we’ve seen a barrage of nasty insinuations and attacks, and I’m sure we’ll see much more over the next 25 days. We know what’s coming. We know what they’re going to do.

But here’s the thing, Ohio. They can try to “turn the page” on the economy and deny the record of the last eight years. They can run misleading ads and pursue the politics of anything goes. But it’s not going to work. Not this time.

I think that folks are looking for something different. It’s easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that’s not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious. The challenges are too great. The American people aren’t looking for someone who can divide this country – they’re looking for someone who will lead it. We’re in a serious crisis - now, more than ever, it is time to put country ahead of politics. Now, more than ever, it is time to bring change to Washington so that it works for the people of this country that we love."

He doesn't ever say "country first," but the implication is pretty clear. First, he suggests that McCain lacks the courage to raise Ayers to his face, and then he implies that McCain is more concerned with the state of his own campaign than with the state of the country. I'm liking my theory that he's baiting him more and more.

Update: Also of note in the speech was Obama's announcement of a new proposal to aid small businesses with loans via the Small Business Administration and a suspension of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups.

Baiting McCain?

Both Obama and Biden have publicly questioned why McCain is talking about Ayers, but wasn't willing to bring it up during the debate Tuesday night (see video below). This may be part of why McCain responded positively to a supporter who urged him to bring up Ayers and Rev. Wright at the final debate. It seems like a challenge to McCain's self-image, which focuses heavily on his courage, his willingness (sometimes eagerness) to say things publicly that may make others mad -- the maverick, the guy who never will win Miss Congeniality awards. Makes me wonder if they aren't trying to goad him into a very public display of the famed McCain temper.






Well, I hadn't seen this clip from McCain's interview yesterday (also with Charlie Gibson). It confirms my sense that Obama and Biden were poking at McCain's self-image. Now, we'll have to wait to see whether it provokes an outburst.

Slime here, get yer slime here!

After releasing a longer web ad going after Obama-Ayers (most likely in the hopes of getting lots of free airplay on the cable news nets), this shorter one is going on TV today. The somewhat bizarre pairing of the overhyped Obama-Ayers connection with the subprime collapse is necessary because they need to have something that goes after Democrats in Congress to justify the use of money that doesn't come from McCain's public funding. The connection made in the commercial is that both reflect bad judgment. At a McCain-Palin rally yesterday, McCain told a talk radio host who urged him to do so that he would raise Ayers and Rev. Wright at the final debate. He may or may not -- he'd hinted he'd bring up Ayers at the second debate, but didn't -- but I'm sure that Obama has been planning how he'll respond. Will he bring up McCain's own dubious connections? Will he attack McCain for mudslinging and refuse to fire back? I'm sure that a lot will depend on whether polling indicates that this is having a negative impact on voter perceptions of Obama.

Who are these guys?!

McCain and Palin repeatedly have been asserting that Americans know who John McCain is, but ask "Who is the real Barack Obama?" Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone says, Not so fast. Do we really know who John McCain is, and is he who he says he is? The story he paints, largely with the help of McCain's former military and political colleagues, is very different than the one painted in McCain's multiple memoirs.

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone: "This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather."

One health care economist's take on the Obama and McCain health care proposals

While he doesn't like everything about Obama's plan and how he speaks about it, he explains why it makes more sense to him than does McCain's. This will give you a taste, but it's well worth reading the whole thing. It's a start, at least for me, in understanding the contrasts between the two proposals and the challenges ahead.

Triage | Chicago Tribune | Blog: "Is Sen. Barack Obama’s health reform plan affordable, I asked one of the nation’s most distinguished health care economists today.

“Yes,” said Uwe Reinhardt, the James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton University, who spoke with me about the presidential candidates’ health care proposals. But maybe the question should be phrased differently, he suggested.

“What we should be asking is, ‘Can average American households afford not to have this plan?’” Reinhardt offered."

Hilarious

Jason Linkins, over at Huffington Post, has video of Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, turning the tables on Sean Hannity after the 2nd presidential debate. Hannity, no surprise, was wanting to talk about Obama's 'shady' associations, especially with Bill Ayers, when Gibbs turned the guilt-by-association game against Hannity. [Disclosure: Not only did I appear on WBEZ-FM with Bill Ayers once, I accepted a ride to the 'L' from him afterward. There go my presidential aspirations.]

Palin talks to reporters

I suppose those covering Gov. Palin were thankful that they got to do something besides travel from place to place listening to her stump speech. They didn't learn much from this rare opportunity to ask her questions. She did provide further evidence of an inability to construct intelligible, syntactically correct sentences, raising the question of how she got a college degree in anything, let alone in journalism.

clipped from www.cbsnews.com Asked why she has been focusing her remarks over the last few days on the questionable connection between Barack Obama and 1960s radical William Ayers, rather than on the tanking economy, Palin defended her tactic. “Well, Americans are caring about the problems in the economy, of course, and wanting to know what those long-term solutions are that our ticket can provide and what the other ticket is proposing,” Palin said. “So when you talk though about what it is that we are proposing and what it is that Barack Obama is proposing, again it is relevant to connect that association that he has with Ayers, not so much he as a person—Ayers—but the whole situation and the truthfulness and the judgment there that you must question if again he's not being forthright in all of his answers as to how did you know him, when did you know him, why would you continue to be associated with him?” When asked directly by a reporter, Palin denied that she was suggesting Obama was dishonest.

Then again, maybe the journalists involved should be embarrassed. They had fifteen minutes with her, the first time she was available to them, and they asked her about Tina Fey, they asked her if they could babysit her 7 year old daughter, and one of them showed her a picture of him in his hockey uniform with his mother. Sure, because they'd asked all the important questions in the first ten minutes.

This doesn't sound good

Some of the same people who created the financial mess we're in may end up getting paid to advise the government on how to fix it. Outsourcing the solution to this mess, and the management of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, seems like more of the through-the-looking-glass governance we've come to expect from the Bush administration. But how did Congress, especially the presidential candidates sign off on leaving this possibility open?

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com The department's quick turn to the private sector will help it prepare for the massive task of overseeing mortgages and other financial assets to be acquired by the government as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that was approved by Congress and signed by President Bush on Friday. But it means that the government has little time to assess the companies that will be partners in what could become one of the largest public-sector funds in American history. Some of the same firms that have played roles in the rise and collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market may end up guiding the government as the bailout unfolds, department officials said.

Portent of things to come?

Since Bill Ayers has reentered the presidential campaign with a vengeance (after a lower profile appearance last May), with Gov. Palin suggesting that Obama is 'palling around' with a domestic terrorist, might we expect the Obama campaign to start talking about McCain's own ties to those who have acted to subvert our country and its constitution? Steve Chapman riased the possibility in his Chicago Tribune column last May, and the response of the Obama campaign to the new McCain-Palin tactics suggests that we may see them bringing G. Gordon Liddy back to the naiton's attention.

clipped from www.chicagotribune.com Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

As Chapman notes, Liddy has been defiantly unrepentant about his role in a variety of criminal activities on behalf of the Nixon White House, and has called for armed resistance to federal agents. For those old enough to remember, Liddy was widely perceived as a scary nut case as revelations if his activities in behalf if Nixon came out. That he has 'rehabilitated' himself as a talk radio host and been an invited guest on television news programs says more about the sad nature of media than it does about his respectability. Might be interesting to see McCain pressed to defend his recent praise of Liddy -- if Obama has offered public praise of Ayers' principles, it's surprising that we haven't heard of them yet.