My Three Cents

ZOMG! ONOZ! Garrett freaks out over "boogyman"!!

2008-10-17T23:02:00.001-04:00

In another sign of Scott Garrett?s priorities, he has now decided to not only go after an organization whose main purpose is to make sure that people who are eligible to vote are registered, but also to go after his opponent?s campaign manager for having the audacity to work for another organization that ?was aligned with? the organization that registers voters.

Got that?

In a time where our nation is facing a financial crisis unlike one we have seen in decades (not to mention Garrett?s own ties to players that caused this crisis), the burning issue of utmost importance is that Shulman?s campaign is being run by someone who ?has ties? to an activist organization that ?has ties? to ACORN, an organization that has followed the law and is guilty of?.wait for it?.trying to help people vote.

Wow.

I guess the fact that he is even more extreme than Bush (voting close to 90% with him but on the other 10%, Bush was the one who was reasonable), has personal ties to convicted republican felon Jack Abramoff, was not only one of 34 to vote against the stimulus bill but put forth his own stimulus bill that consisted solely of corporate tax breaks and is out of step and out of touch with this district?s voters put him in this predicament.

To see him spend time, his supporters? and donor?s money, and waste the time of his constituents in order to play some twisted (and highly lame) game of guilt by sort of association by sort of association not only had me wondering if we are to find out that Kevin Bacon also ?had ties to? ACORN and the Shulman campaign, but also for doing exactly what McCain is doing in his desperate and losing campaign--

Making up phony strawmen and boogymen to scare voters into forgetting the major problems that we are facing domestically, financially, militarily and on an overall global basis in the name of distraction and desperation.

I don?t know if it is more disingenuous or pathetic.

Palin wants to be "McCain's Cheney"

2008-10-06T10:53:00.002-04:00

In all of the mockery, post debate punditry and mocking, there is a very important point that I haven’t seen explored nearly as much as it should – and that is the issue of the unitary executive theory that the Bush/Cheney administration has pushed beyond all levels of reality and legality.

The other night in the debate, Palin basically agreed with the excessive power of the Vice President’s office, and expressed support for continuing these policies under a McCain administration.

Why is this important, other than the basic premise of an Executive Branch running wild and running roughshod over the Legislative Branch – including all of the Executive Orders issued by Bush, the secrecy asserted by the current administration, the signing statements, the “I’ll hold my breath unless I get whatever I want” mentality? Well, we know that Palin just so happens to be under investigation for abusing her power as Governor of Alaska, and has already set a precedent for this dangerous behavior.

Not withstanding the fact that Cheney has a lower favorability rating than the devil himself, it is a dangerous view of the Vice President’s office and the view of how the Legislative Branch is supposed to balance out the Executive Branch (except for the past eight years, of course). Yet, Palin said the following last night (emphasis mine):

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

To make matters worse, she draws on her ~~abusing power~~ “experience” as Governor to support her position.

Biden, in contrast, indicated that Cheney is the most dangerous Vice President in history, and being one who comes from the Legislative Branch, knows how much meddling and strongarming this current Executive Branch did when it came to neutering the Legislative Branch and process.

We may make fun of Palin – and sometimes it is for very good reason. However, she has had a taste of power; whether it be as Mayor or as Governor, even for a relatively short period of time. And she made it perfectly clear last night what she would intend to do with the power entrusted to the Vice President if McCain was to be elected – or even moreso if she were to become President.

This country couldn’t afford that with a Vice President like Cheney, who at least thought about and planned his actions (no matter how illegal or misguided or dangerous). With Palin, who seems to take pride in being clueless about pesky facts and rules and laws, it would be just as dangerous, if not more so.

Last night, Sarah Palin not only agreed with the unitary executive theory, but all but told the nation that she would wholeheartedly continue it if she were to be the Vice President.

For that, she should be called “McCain’s Cheney”. All of the power and vindictiveness, but with less foresight.

Leaked transcript of Palin giving McCain advice

2008-10-06T10:53:00.001-04:00

So in response to questions of whether he would ask Palin for advice on certain matters, especially ones concerning foreign policy, McCain said that he has “turned to her advice many times in the past”.

And luckily, this is a day and age where conversations are overheard, meetings are recorded and the public is able to see or hear many discussions between or comments by high level officials that we never would have been able to have heard a few short years ago.

This is such a time. In a long discussion on various foreign policy matters, we see how McCain and Palin interact, as well as the types of issues that McCain has turned to Palin for advice on, not to mention the advice or wisdom that she has provided to McCain based on her “worldview”. The topics range from nuclear proliferation to the Middle East to Iraq to general strategy, and is quite stunning.

JM: So, we should probably make sure we are on the same page, and even though I have been to every country in the world and you haven’t left the United States until earlier this year, there are some things that I wanted to get your opinion on.

SP: You betcha!!!

JM: Now that the surge in Iraq has proven to be a huge success, we need to figure out what to do in terms of keeping the violence down so that we can declare victory. There are billions of dollars in surplus in Iraq and we need to make sure it doesn’t go into the hands of our enemies. What is the best approach?

SP: Oh gosh, I know that our troops are the bravest and boldest and we will be victorious. And as long as we keep Putin from rearing his head.....

JM: No, Sarah, Putin isn’t be involved in Iraq.

SP: You know that he is real dangerous though. And because they are right next to us, we need to make sure that we stay vigilant against any Russian invasion.

JM: Um, sure. Back to the Middle East.

SP:Okey dokey

JM: Well, the Taliban and al Qaeda are regrouping in Pakistan and are attacking our troops and since I already called Afghanistan a success and told Obama that he shouldn’t be striking targets into Pakistan – or at least not announcing it – I am kind of boxed in. What do you think we need to do here?

SP: Ya, well, first we have to recognize that those who attacked us on 9/11 and who we are fighting for our freedom are now not only in Iraq like they were when they attacked us, but now we have to take the fight to them and show no mercy.

JM: Sarah, that is sort of what Obama had already said, except that the 9/11 attackers were not from Iraq. We need another plan.

SP: Well, since spreading freedom and democracy in places like the Middle East are what we need to keep focusing on, then we need to make sure that the people in these countries can see the fruits of our freedom spreading and how we were able to win in Iraq and avenge the attacks on 9/11...

JM: Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11.

SP: Hmmmm...so what about Russia? You know that I know a lot about Russia. I like your idea about kicking them out of the V-8. Then they won’t be invading our NATO allies, and invading a NATO ally is like invading us. Which you know, they can do right in my state of Alaska.

JM: Well, yes, but Georgia isn’t in NATO yet, and it is the G-8, not the V-8. V-8 is a drink and...

SP: Not a good drink though. Unless you have it in a bloody mary, which I always found offensive for 2 reasons. First, it is near blasphemous to say something like that about the Blessed Virgin who gave birth to our dear Lord and second, a bloody mary uses vodka, which is the drink of choice in Russia. And you always have to watch out for the Russians. Which, by the way, I can do right from my window.

JM: OK, let’s move on. Recently, the Queen of Jordan has been in the US recently talking about women’s rights, and since she is a hot piece of ass and you were in beauty pageants, I wanted to see how you can show her that we are serious about women’s rights issues

SP: Well, ya, sure. You know that we are all freedom loving humans and she just needs to know that the most important thing is to make sure that we rid their country of the evil terrorists. Once we do that, women in her country can share in all of the freedoms that you and I believe women should have.

JM: Let’s talk about terrorism in the Middle East. We know that Iran is a state sponsor of Hezbollah, and

SP: God Bless You

JM: What?

SP: You just sneezed.

JM: No, I was talking about Hezbollah, the terr...

SP: See, ya just sneezed again.

JM: You know what, just forget it. We’re done here.

The press blackout on McCain's medical records and cancer

2008-10-06T10:51:00.001-04:00

We are all aware of the fact that John McCain is a survivor of melanoma – at least 2, if not 4 times, actually. And we also know that McCain, someone who was tortured (and there is ample evidence of the long term effects of torture, both physically and mentally) is not the shining example of someone in top physical shape.

And yet, when McCain, someone whose medical records are well over 1,100 pages and has a history of cancer, takes medication to sleep (not to mention whatever other medications he is currently taking for high cholesterol, arthritis and whatever else) not only released his records to a limited group of reporters for a three hour period of time with no ability for anyone to take notes or other documentation but also declined to release any further information, the press sits on its’ hands.

Here is someone whose health situation is more precarious than any other Presidential candidate (with the possible exception of Reagan in his 2nd term or Paul Tsongas), yet when 2,500 doctors call on him to release his medical records and answer questions about his cancer history, there is not a peep.

Oh wait, there WAS a peep. Matt Stoller wrote a long post about melanoma not too long ago. Americablog had a number of posts, including this one. Also, Brave New Films put together a must see video, which I have embedded below:

And an advertisement was put together talking about McCain’s age and health history - questions that not only should be answered completely and truthfully but also verified by independent doctors. Yet, after CNN declined to run the ad, MSNBC ran this ad a few times, only to stop under pressure from Fox News and Bill O’Reilly.

With a job as stressful as that of President, and with the poor health history of John McCain, it is simply baffling why there isn’t complete outrage with it comes to what McCain is hiding in his health records. I would think that if there were no major health issues with McCain, then he would be happy to put these questions to rest once and for all. Since he is refusing to open up his medical records, we do not know if he is dying of cancer. We do not know what medications he is taking. We do not know what other ailments he has. We do not know if he has been tested for Alzheimer’s, whether he has PTSD, or whether he has a hangnail.

This leaves not one but two main questions in my mind:

What is John McCain hiding in his health records with respect to his cancer and other potential health issues?

Why is the corporate media covering for him, when over 2,500 physicians have weighed in on their concern as well?

While we can all guess as to the answers here, I think that it is imperative that we keep asking these questions. We probably won’t get any answers, but at least we can keep this very important story out there - even more so with the growing concern over his running mate.

If not for Biden, she (and many other women) may be dead

2008-10-06T10:40:00.000-04:00

It is well documented how much of a horrific record John McCain has when it comes to his views and votes and policies towards women. And while some people know about the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden was nearly singlehandedly responsible for drafting and getting passed, the stark contrast between how the two tickets approach issues important to women is not getting nearly enough attention.

Hopefully the following story will help change that.

I will keep the identity of this individual anonymous, but it is the story of someone who I have been corresponding with for the past couple of years on many issues, including voting rights, other political issues and more recently, some personal matters and discussions. She is someone in the progressive community, and has asked if I would help tell her story - a story that could very well have ended with her losing her life as well as her 2 daughters - if it wasn’t for this landmark legislation that Joe Biden was responsible for.

Although Biden’s legislation wasn’t passed until the 1990’s, she is certain that she and her daughters would still be running and hiding from her ex-husband, wondering if they would have the relevant protection from him if not for the provisions contained in the Violence Against Women Act.

I have received copies of the divorce papers, which included a lifetime order of protection, and her story includes a name change, numerous threats with guns and knives and her family’s fleeing 1,000 miles to get away from his stalking. The story includes her being dismissed from her job at a law firm because he was waiting in the lobby for her 2 days after he beat her, and the Firm “didn’t want any trouble”. At the time, there was no law against a husband merely “waiting for his wife”, despite what I am about to share with you. The divorce decree noted that he was guilty “without cause or provocation...of extreme and repeated physical cruelty”, and she “established by competent, material and relevant proof all of the allegations and charges” against him, some of which are noted below.

She was married around 1970, and here is a brief summary of some things that she had to endure before fleeing for her life in 1979 (it is in her exact words, so that is why it is in the first person):

One day I tried to defend myself while he was beating me and grabbed a steak knife and threatened him with it. He took it away from me and stabbed me with it. I carry that scar to this day.

As he was beating me he would always point his finger in my face and say "I don't try to leave me, because I find you and kill you and the kids."

Or Christmas Eve, 1974. I was 3 months pregnant with my 2nd child and his brothers were late for dinner. He beat me and choked me until I passed out. But before that, he threw the christmas tree and all the gifts out the 2nd floor window of our apartment.

In 1975, the cops pointed their finger at my husband and basically said we know she's your property, but don't get us called out here again.

In 1979, the cops hunted him down, escorted us out of the county when they didn't know where he was, escorted us to the hospital and stood guard the whole time we were there, and a judge signed a warrant for his arrest.

In 1979, the DA said it was my word against him that he even HAD a gun, much less tried to kill me and his daughters (4 and 8 yrs. old) because the girls were too young to testify. Even the neighbor child who was spending the night at my house was "too young to testify."

I am putting the rest in blockquotes because it shows how bad it got, and how little was done for years for it to get to this point.

[After moving out and hiding for a few months] one night he broke my door down in a drunken rage at 2:00 in the morning.

And he held us at gunpoint for 2 hours. Simultaneously, he was threatening all 3 of us, pistol whipping me, trying to convince myoldest daughter to come live with him (in his car). At one point, he put the gun in his 3 yr. old daughter's mouth (who was screaming at the top of her lungs on my hips) and told me "shut her up or I will."

When he came in, he threw the phone out the plate glass window, then the sofa.

Finally, I got all 3 kids between him and the only exit out of the apartment. I grabbed their hands and ran out the door and down the stairs. I was headed for the local 7-11 because they were open 24 hours. I figured someone would call the cops for me there.

As we ran down the street - me beaten and bloody - a woman and 3 kids, he got in his car and came up on the sidewalk. He shouted "bye kids" as he gunned it and tried to run us all down.

I ran into an apartment building, locked the door and just started shouting "Help me, someone help me. He's trying to kill us."

He, by the way was stopped by the cops shortly afterwards and was arrested for pulling a gun on the cop. After three days, she had to go back to work, because she had to support the children (he didn’t work for the past few years), and that is where he was “waiting in the lobby” for her. With no domestic violence laws, and despite the arrests, the beatings and everything else, not only was nothing done to stop him from threatening her, but her firm dismissed her (as stated above) because they didn’t “want trouble”.

This is when she fled 1,000 miles away to a city she never lived in, knew nothing about and knew nobody in. Her story has a good ending - she got counseling for the kids, changed their names, enrolled them in school and got a job.

But the hell that she had to endure would have been very different, and many women today would have to endure the same “do nothing until he tries to kill you again” mentality that existed at the time, if it wasn’t for the landmark legislation that Joe Biden was responsible for.

Because of that legislation, there are now shelters that battered women can turn to, there are hotlines and thousands of lawyers available and there is coordination between states and localities with respect to responding to domestic violence and rape - literally hundreds of new laws.

No woman should have to go through what she did. Not even close. Thankfully, she was able to start her life anew - to whatever extent someone that had to deal with years of such severe abuse can “start anew”. But at least she is alive.

It could have ended very differently if she didn’t get lucky and didn’t flee the way she did. And for millions of other women today, they don’t have to endure the living hell that she went through.

Joe Biden is a large reason why.

Scott Garrett: on the wrong side of the financial crisis.

2008-10-06T10:39:00.001-04:00

Back in April, Scott Garrett lamented the end of deregulation:

“It’s disconcerting to see the end of deregulation, more so because it’s coming from our own administration,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a member of the Republican Study Committee, a panel of about 100 House conservatives. “As conservatives, we need to get our Republican, conservative brand back. … I can tell you we’re not going to get that brand back by embracing Democratic economic regulations.”

Not only is this in line with Garrett’s so-called “free market” approach which has resulted in predatory lending practices and the massive tax breaks for corporate America at the expense of the middle class, but is also in line with his campaign pledge in 2002 when he talked about deregulation being the answer to help businesses.

Make no mistake – Scott Garrett’s views on business are not taxpayer friendly (as evidenced by his very own stimulus plan that was entirely business tax breaks and his earlier votes on a bill regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

But let’s look a bit deeper into Garrett’s actions when they directly related to companies like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide Insurance and Washington Mutual.

Garrett is on the House Financial Services Committee, and is therefore in a direct position to help taxpayers when it comes to the financial crisis. Yet, his votes have been on the side of the same corporate entities that have donated over $800,000 to Garrett over the years, including Countrywide and AIG.

His Chief of Staff, Amy Smith has longstanding ties to lobbying for the financial industry, including almost $400,000 in lobbying fees paid to her firm by disgraced mortgage giant Countrywide Financial over a 2 year period

A new ad was released by Dennis Shulman’s campaign that hits Garrett hard on his conflict of interest and cluelessness when it comes to the problems in the financial services industry. In a press release earlier today, Shulman said the following:

"Scott Garrett has been one of Washington's greatest advocates for deregulation while scooping up enormous amounts of campaign cash from predatory lenders seeking to avoid reasonable regulation," said Dennis Shulman, the Democratic nominee in New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District. "Scott Garrett has literally entrusted his taxpayer-funded office to a former lobbyist for one of his major donors, Countrywide Financial, while arguing that it is `disconcerting to see the end of deregulation.' I believe it is disconcerting to see a member of Congress continue to embrace the agenda of the corrupt predatory lenders who created the financial crisis that has destabilized the entire economy."

"Garrett consistently plays the corrupt Washington DC special interest game, building his campaign war chest by courting the special interests that he is supposed to be regulating. I have made a solemn pledge to refuse campaign contributions from any corporation I would oversee in Congress."

Let’s help Dennis send Scott back to NJ-5 for good. Here is where you can donate.

McCain should have won this debate handily. And he didn't.

2008-09-26T23:17:00.000-04:00

Here is the most important thing that I took away from the debate tonight, and it is very basic and should be remembered and repeated as much as necessary.

While we dissect every aspect of this debate, including whether McCain was too angry, too grumpy or was able to hammer home phrases such as “doesn’t understand” or “naive” and whether Obama looked Presidential, agreed with him too much or was right on point when it comes to the issues, even if he didn’t have any memorable moments, there is one very important thing to take away from tonight’s debate.

This is supposed to be the one point that McCain is the strongest on, and Obama at a minimum held his own.

Sure, I thought that there were times that Obama could have landed a killer punch or that he should have been more forceful on McCain’s many lies. But there is one thing that we need to keep in mind, as the post-debate pundits talk and the McCain campaign trots out ads that show how much Obama agreed with certain points that McCain made. And that is on the issues of foreign policy, McCain did not blow away Obama.

Obama should have been crushed in this debate. McCain’s entire campaign is based on his supposed command of foreign policy issues, and Obama showed that he had a strong grasp of the issues (as we already knew) - all while looking Presidential. McCain may have gotten in a few digs, but the bottom line is that McCain should have won this debate handily, and he didn’t.

If McCain can’t show that he is that much better on foreign policy issues, and I am sure that there will be many fact checks indicating the numerous lies that McCain uttered (or mispronouncing the names of Pakistan and Iran’s leaders), then how can he claim that he is better suited to be Commander in Chief?

Make no mistake, the debate outcome was pretty close to an outside observer. Obama (I think) won on facts and substance. But McCain did very well in messaging and obviously knew what he was talking about - even if much of it wasn’t actually true. And the most important thing to remember is that we should be happy that Obama did as well as he did against McCain on McCain’s home turf.

John McCain should have won this debate handily. And he didn’t. That is the takeaway from tonight’s debate.

This is the McCain/republican economy

2008-09-15T11:28:00.000-04:00

Frankly, anyone could have seen something like this coming – at least to some degree. The housing bubble, just like the internet bubble before it, had to come crashing down at some point. Either people couldn’t afford to continue buying houses at increasingly escalating prices, or some form of shenanigans in the form of interest-only loans or sub prime loans (just like junk bonds before them) or something that involved (1) an enormous amount of risk taken by financial institutions for short term profit, (2) deceptive lending practices aimed to confuse the average American home buyer and (3) a “don’t worry about paying now” mentality that only served to make more people pay much more later would be undertaken – only to fall like a house of cards when it came time to pay the piper.

This, while part of it, was the grand design all along. It was part of the “Bush ownership society” that promised everyone their own American dream. It was not meant to serve most of Americans, however – as all too many are finding out in horrific ways. None other than Alan Greenspan has called it “the worst economy he has ever seen”.

And, as I said above, this is exactly what Bush, McCain and the republican party wanted all along. As noted by the AFL-CIO’s web site, McCain still wants to privatize social security, all while raising the retirement age, cutting cost of living adjustments and voted against protecting social security.

McCain himself admitted to not understanding economics, and his top economic advisor (don’t think that Gramm isn’t still connected to McCain, or that he won’t be if McCain wins) called this a mental recession and the nation a bunch of whiners.

McCain’s tax plan is even worse in this economy. Greenspan said that this country couldn’t afford McCain’s tax cuts, and his current tax plan will continue shifting the wealth to the upper echelon of the uber wealthy, while 95% of households get a tax cut under Obama’s plan.

To strike a contrast, households making under $112,000 will get a bigger tax cut under the Obama plan than the McCain plan, with households making under $160,000 are pretty much a wash between the 2 plans. And oh, by the way, the stock markets do better under Democrats than under republicans.

In addressing the housing crisis, McCain’s comments included the following:

“Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary – working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets – to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?

[...]

“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

McCain also skipped the vote on the economic stimulus package which would have been the deciding vote as the bill got 59 votes. While McCain’s campaign said he would have voted against the package, he showed a lack of honor, because:

By missing the vote, however, he didn’t have to go on record denying benefits to 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled vets — both key blocs of support for his campaign.

The Bush tax cuts that went to the most wealthy – the ones that could have helped tens of millions of families and that McCain once was against, are now a cornerstone of his tax policy - further denying hardworking American families any small bit of relief that would be not just welcomed, but necessary.

And just as a little nugget - the McCain’s would have close to a $400,000 tax cut under his own plan.

When you look at how we got to this point – a stacked deck in favor of big business, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, lower real wages, trade policies that do not favor the American worker or consumer, bailouts of major financial institutions instead of help for the working family trying to put food on their table, cuts to any government programs that helped the working class, unnecessary tax breaks to the oil companies and an ill-planned (not to mention illegal) invasion where wealthy and connected companies received millions of dollars in no-bid deals – this is the blueprint of the republican economic plan. This is “trickle down economics” on steroids. The only thing connecting this to the “ownership society” is that the American taxpayer is on his or her own..

These plans were reckless. They were designed to benefit the few – not the many. Even the tax rebates were a total farce that was designed as little more than a boon to the oil, credit card and retail industries. Even the freepers noted that the rebates didn’t boost the economy.

The worst part of this all is that the people who brought you the “worst economy in Alan Greenspan’s lifetime are ALL connected to the McCain campaign. Lobbyist after lobbyist after lobbyist (close to 200 in all) who worked on behalf of Big Oil, mortgage lenders (many lobbyists representing many mortgage lenders), insurance companies, telecom companies and energy companies that benefited tremendously from the Bush/Cheney energy policies.

Make no mistake - this is precisely the economy that Bush, Cheney, McCain and their republican party cohorts wanted, envisioned and willfully brought to the American people. And this is precisely the economy that McCain will continue bringing to America.

As none other than Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough said, it is an economy of “less jobs and more wars”.

******************************

As I promised DKos member LNK, here are some takeaways and talking points:

This economy is a direct result of the implementation of republican policies that McCain favored, and continues to favor;

Even Greenspan said it was the worst economy he has ever seen, and that we can’t afford McCain’s tax cuts;

McCain’s tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, while families earning under $112,000 will fare better under Obama’s tax plan;

The stock market historically does better under Democrats than it does under republicans;

McCain still wants to privatize social security and reduce benefits;

McCain’s closest and top economic advisors have consistently put big business before the American people – working for the very financial institutions, oil companies and energy companies that benefited at the expense of American families; and

Under his own tax plan McCain would receive a tax cut that is over 7 times the average household’s entire income.

McLobbyist transition team head was ultimate Nixon insider

2008-09-12T11:26:00.000-04:00

There has been a bit of eye rolling and amusement at “presumptuous” McCain picking the ultimate Washington insider lobbyist to head his transition team. But (hat tip to Rick Perlstein) there is a deeper and more sinister connection and bit of news about one William E. Timmons, Sr. that hasn’t gotten mentioned much, if at all.

That is - Timmons was Nixon’s chief congressional liaison and was known as Nixon’s congressional lobbyist.

OK, fine, so he was only lobbying Congress on behalf of a President who resigned in shame after impeachment was hanging over his head.

Or not. Seems as though a conversation between Timmons and Nixon was part of the “White House Tapes” that was noted in the book, Abuse of Power - and the discussion focused on Timmons and Nixon strategizing on how to push members of Congress (and who to push) with respect to conducting “investigations” .

In one conversation on July 2, 1971, Nixon and Timmons talked about the House Internal Security Committee, its members, and who Timmons should contact in order for the committee to “resuscitate itself” and conduct a half assed investigation with its’ Senate counterpart instead of having people convicted of conspiracy in the leak of hte Pentagon Papers.

Audio clip of this discussion is here, and a partial transcript is below:

President Nixon: Yeah. Well, now, how would that committee be, you think, to conduct an investigation of this conspiracy. You know what I mean?

Timmons: Mm-hmm.

President Nixon: Far better than having these people indicted and so forth, is really to call them before a committee and say, “Now look, did you do this or that or the other thing.” You know?

Timmons: Yeah.

[...]

President Nixon: Do you think Ichord would be—now, he’s running for governor, I understand, isn’t he?

Timmons: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

President Nixon: Don’t you think he ought to be willing to take a thing like this.

Timmons: I would think so. It’d be some headlines for him.

[...]

Timmons: You want me to set that in motion or . . .

President Nixon: Well, why don’t you—

Timmons: [Unclear.]

President Nixon: —yeah, why don’t you do a little . . . do a little sniffing around or something to see whether they’d like to . . . . Well, look, first of all, it can’t be from me, of course.

Timmons: Sure.

President Nixon: But what I’m getting at is, it would seem to me that this is an opportunity for that committee to resuscitate itself.4 You know what I mean?

Timmons: Mm-hmm.

President Nixon: It can become a very valuable committee now. They just call them up there.

Timmons: Mm-hmm.

[...]

President Nixon: What do you think?

Timmons: I think it’s a great idea. I had talked to [White House Political Operative] Chuck Colson just briefly about this—

President Nixon: Yeah. Yeah.

Timmons: —a week or so ago. I think it’s tremendous. In the Senate, you know, on the Government Operations Committee there’s a subcommittee on national security and international operations.

President Nixon: Yeah. Who’s that?

Timmons: It’s chaired by [Senator Henry M.] Scoop Jackson [D-Washington].

President Nixon: Yeah, but do you think Scoop would be willing to go—?

Timmons: I don’t. I doubt it. I just don’t know.

President Nixon: I don’t think he would. I wouldn’t rec—

Timmons: Messing around with the Senate, you know?

President Nixon: —get—Ichord’s people should step in and preempt this field.

Timmons: Mm-hmm.

Now, obviously there is a lot here, and we don’t need to repeat all that was said or get into a lengthy explanation into the relationship between Timmons and Nixon, or how Timmons became a lobbyist or who he lobbies for (although FireDogLake has an excellent post on that) or that he has been involved in pretty much every republican administration since Nixon.

But when McCain has tossed aside campaign themes as he has with his ex-wife or his honor when he returned from Vietnam, having gone from “experience”, to “country first” to “I’m not really that out of touch with everything” to “even though I’ve been around the same Washington establishment that brought failed conservatism, corporate favors being given out like candy and aggressive foreign policy, I’m really about change”, he picks someone to head up his transition team that:

Is known as the Washington insider in the republican establishment;

Has been involved with the Washington insider establishment for close to 40 years;

Knew of Nixon’s trying to improperly influence Congress to whitewash an investigation into the Pentagon Papers case;

Was involved in the plans to improperly influence Congress to whitewash the investigation; and

Headed Nixon’s legislative affairs office and lobbied Congress to not impeach Nixon (even toasting Nixon on the day he resigned).

This is the type of person that John McCain wants in charge of his transition team. In fact, this is the person that John McCain wants in charge of his transition team.

Clearly, McCain has left his honor in Vietnam.

FLASHBACK: McCain's "secret plan" to get bin Laden

2008-09-11T11:25:00.000-04:00

Back in January, John McCain talked about having a secret plan to get bin Laden:

“One thing I will not do is telegraph my punches. Osama bin Laden will be the last to know,” he said today while riding on the back of his bus between Florida events. In other words: he’s not telling. Why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House? “Because I have my own ideas and it would require implementation of certain policies and procedures that only as the president of the United States can be taken.”

Last night, Keith Olbermann had a special comment regarding the politicization of 9/11 by the republican party. Of course, the one thing that the republican party is very good at is politicizing national tragedies, as we saw from the death porn “tribute” at the republican National Convention a few days ago.

But this is about more than mere politicizing bin Laden or 9/11 or national tragedies (as the republicans tried to do again at the outset of the republican convention with respect to the hurricanes. It is about yet another example of reckless and dangerous behavior by John McCain and his playing politics with national security..

Why on earth would anyone, ANYONE who had an idea or a strategy to capture or take out the man who was responsible for the worst attack on American soil – an attack that was used as a pretext for pretty much everything that has been done ~~to the people of this country, the people of Iraq and our allies around the world~~ by the administration and its enablers in Congress over the past seven years - willfully hide and keep those ideas and strategies from those who have the ability to capture or take out that man?

Just as McCain has turned his POW experience into the latest version of “noun-verb-9/11” and excuse for everything he has ever said or done, he has done the same here in politicizing the 9/11 attack. McCain’s comments were on the heels of news that Pakistan was losing its battle against the Taliban and al Qaeda, and since McCain’s comment, attacks in Afghanistan have risen to record levels.

Unless there is something to the contrary, McCain should explain why he is purposely and willfully withholding what could be very valuable information as to bin Laden’s whereabouts, as well as the means to capture or kill him. To shamelessly use bin Laden or 9/11 for personal political gain, or to silence anyone who dares to question obvious lies or inconsistencies is the very definition of dishonorable behavior.

And if McCain does not have a “special super secret plan” to capture or kill bin Laden, he should explain why he feels the need to politicize a national tragedy as well as a national security issue for his own personal and political gain. Interestingly, this is also the very definition of dishonorable behavior.

On a day where our entire nation’s thoughts turn to that horrific day seven years ago, McCain owes it to the people of America - the people he wants to represent to share just how he plans to capture bin Laden – if not with the world, then certainly with those who have the ability to do so.

Or, he has the obligation to explain why he has obviously left his honor in Vietnam – as even something as sacred as a national tragedy and something as important as taking out those who were responsible for attacking us seven years ago is not off limits for politicization by a once-honorable man.

Too bad that once-honorable man is not the one running for President today.

...and now for some messed up foreign policy news

2008-09-10T11:24:00.000-04:00

Just in case everyone forgot that we have an overstretched and overburdened and overstressed military fighting in Iraq where there has been little political progress despite the “fact” (and I use the term loosely) that the escalation has been a resounding success, while the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is getting worse, I want to point out three pieces of news that hopefully Obama or (gasp) McCain will have to deal with.

None of which are good, by the way.

First up is a report that the rate of Army suicides has gone up so drastically that it may surpass the rate of suicide for civilians.

Let that sink in, because this would be the first time that the military suicide rate exceeds that for the civilian population since the Vietnam War.

As of August, 62 Army soldiers have committed suicide, and 31 cases of possible suicide remain under investigation, according to Army statistics. Last year, the Army recorded 115 suicides among its ranks, which was also higher than the previous year.

Army officials said that if the trend continues this year, it will pass the nation's suicide rate of 19.5 people per 100,000, a 2005 figure considered the most recent by the government.

The rate is higher for military men than for civilian men, and is higher for younger people than for older troops. Not only that, but the cause is the multiple deployments, the stress on families and the higher exposure to combat:

"Army leaders are fully aware that repeated deployments have led to increased distress and anxiety for both soldiers and their families," Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said. "This stress on the force is validated by recent studies of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression."

I’m sure that the cut in veterans’ benefits and health services has nothing to do with that – which, by the way, McCain voted against increased benefits for veterans.

The second piece of news deals with the resounding success of the so-called “surge”, as we all know that there was a ton of political progress as a result of the decreased violence, right?

Or not.

A basic stalemate and “gridlock” on provincial elections, where nobody wants anyone else to have too much sway, therefore resulting in nothing.

Iraqi lawmakers returned from their summer recess Tuesday, still gridlocked over the critical law on provincial elections and with no new vote in sight.

A premature vote, warned Ali Adib, of the ruling Dawaa Party, could lead to another veto by the Kurdish leadership. "It means we'll go into crisis and the positions of the blocs will freeze and get more and more complicated," he said.

Elections in Iraq's 18 provinces are seen as crucial for national reconciliation and safeguarding the security gains of recent months. They would be the country's first since 2005 and would enfranchise many Sunnis who boycotted that round.

Good thing that it is a foregone conclusion that Saint McCain was right about the surge working as we see free and fair elections in Iraq, as well as all of the other political benchmarks being met. Long live freedom. And purple fingers.

And lastly, just as McCain was saying how much of a success Afghanistan was, and that is why we don’t hear about it anymore (despite the record number of troop deaths and attacks, or the fact that al Qaeda and the Taliban are running free between Pakistan and Afghanistan), there is the America hating Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying that we are not winning in Afghanistan and we can’t “kill our way to victory”.

But but but, I thought that Afghanistan was a resounding success....

He (Navy Adm. Mike Mullen) also warned that time was running out on the ability of the West to provide Afghanistan with vital nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan including roads, schools, alternative crops for farmers and the rule of law.

"These are the keys to success in Afghanistan. We cannot kill our way to victory and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone," Mullen said.

Mullen acknowledged that President Bush's announced troop increase in Afghanistan — one Army brigade and one Marine battalion, about 5,000 troops — will not adequately meet the request of three brigades announced by the ground commander in Afghanistan.

While Mullen talked about Afghanistan and Pakistan being “inextricably linked”, coupled with the recent attacks that the US was conducting within Pakistan that kind of sort of really pissed off a lot of Pakistanis (regardless of the fact that he is right), it sets up a dangerous situation that is caused by the complete lack of planning and understanding by the current administration, coupled with and supported by McCain, things are on the bubble of exploding at any given moment.

The fact that McCain wants to ignore Pakistan and Afghanistan to continue the folly in Iraq, bully Iran and threaten Russia shows that he is completely out of touch and has no clue as to how to deal with the rapidly deteriorating situation on the ~~Iraq~~ Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

How, may I ask, does he plan on dealing with this crisis? Does he have a plan or an idea to diffuse the situation in Afghanistan? To have a long term plan in Pakistan in order to confront those who actually did attack us AND are in a country that currently has nuclear weapons?

Oh wait, I think that I heard of another manufactured controversy that requires 24/7 attention. Never mind this diary.....my apologies.

Please stop using "maverick" - even "not a maverick"

2008-09-08T11:23:00.000-04:00

I know this will probably receive more than a few jeers around here, but I firmly believe that it isn’t just a matter of how forcefully you say something, or even how hard you hit (or hit back), but it is also a matter of what you say that is just as, if not more important.

And while I am thrilled that Obama has an ad that directly hits McCain at the core issue of his judgment, behavior and “persona”, it fails on a very large point - and that is it plays right into the theme of “maverick”, which is what will be reinforced - even moreso than the fact that Obama is saying McCain is NOT a maverick.

I know that many progressives frown upon the concept of framing, and feel that since “we have the issues, why can’t we just win by telling people that they really really do agree with us”. But I also know that a McCain presidency is unacceptable on so many levels, and I am willing to use any tools that are available to get whatever little advantage we can get - because every advantage, no matter how minor, means changing perceptions and votes. And in a perfect world, just talking about issues alone would be enough. But this isn’t nearly a perfect world, and by being aware of the impact that words and ads and attacks have - not just that they are words or ads or attacks - we have a better chance of doing a number of things:

Convincing people of what we want to convince them of;

Talking about it on OUR terms, not the other side’s terms; and

Remaining true to our ideals and core values.

The new ad is great in that it calls McCain out for what he really is, as opposed to what people used to think he once was. But in all actuality, the idea of McCain = maverick is already so ingrained in people’s heads that even adding the word “not” in between the two will not do much more than fire up the choir that he is (or we are) already preaching to.

Now, I don’t expect the Obama campaign to be reading this, but I would hope that any of you who are reading this will take note and try to talk on our terms for the remainder of the campaign. That means not having to answer a question that you feel is unfairly posed - turn the question around or answer one that is more in line with the accurate interpretation of whatever misleading or false choice question is being posed. That means using words that we want to use, not denying words that the other side is using.

Saying “Obama is not a Muslim” is very true, but all it does is reinforce Obama = Muslim, even though there is a definitive denial in there. I happen to be a fan of George Lakoff, whose book Don’t Think of an Elephant is a must read for those who want to understand how the right has injected things such as “pro-life” and “death tax” into what is now pretty much acceptable frames by many. And the basic gist is that when you talk about things in the other side’s words or terms, even if you are fighting it, even if you are right and the other side is wrong, it is the frame and term itself that lives on, not the argument.

As Lakoff recently said:

“Facts don’t matter. The framing is what’s important,” Lakoff reminded, adding that the left recoils at this concept, considering it manipulation. But it’s not; everything is framed. “Every single word we use invokes a frame in our brains, and the only question involved is if you’re using those frames honestly and if you’re protecting yourself against fraudulent framing.”

Lakoff’s convinced that the reason progressive ideas haven’t done as well at the ballot box in recent years is because the language used to describe those ideas is stuck in the Age of Enlightenment. For instance, when progressives talk about universal health care, the discussion often gets caught up in facts and figures—how many people are uninsured, how much of the money goes to administrative costs. This causes people to drift off; their eyes glaze over. The message is lost. Meanwhile, conservatives, who use emotionally laden narratives—remember “Harry and Louise”?—end up dominating political debate.

And this is something that is so easy to follow, without even losing one shred of our core values. Instead of saying that “McCain is no maverick - he is more of the same”, why not leave the first part off, or better yet, just McSame. Same point, no reinforcement of McCain = maverick.

This theory holds true in a number of ways - not even political. There was at least one study dealing with perceptions between reality and “negative labels”. In this study, adults wouldn’t drink from a bottle that was clearly labeled “not poison” (emphasis mine):

In accord with both the sympathetic magical law of similarity and the principle of nominal realism, previous research has shown that American adults have difficulty in ignoring a label indicating toxicity on a food, even though they know the label is false. This study confirms the finding, and shows that there is some reluctance to choose or consume a food entity if it is labelled explicitly as being nontoxic (a label of not sodium cyanide or not poison). Hence this type of magical thinking seems to ignore negatives.

While I hope that Obama continues to hit hard at McCain for all of the things that he is (and even all of the things that he claims to be but is not), I sincerely hope that the use of “not” with whatever McCain’s (or the republicans’) term or frame is will be avoided. On a similar note, when fighting the smears that keep coming out, we should all try very hard not to deny the smear or allegation using the same frame and term, just in the negative. That will more likely just reinforce it.

Change the frame. Use the words that you (or we) want to use. Claim the debate on our terms as well as our positions (since many people agree with our positions on a number of things as is). We have a tough enough battle as is - and just by being careful about how we talk to our neighbors, our friends, potential (Obama) voters and even likely McCain voters, we can make it a bit easier or a lot tougher to make the case for Obama and the case against McCain.

How does Bristol feel about being a campaign prop?

2008-09-05T11:23:00.000-04:00

When “children are off limits”, yet John McCain made an unsolicited and outlandish offensive joke about then-teen Chelsea Clinton, that was just fine to republicans. When “family values” are made the issue year after year and election after election by the republicans, and the “liberals” are to blame meme rings more and more hollow as lies are being promoted regarding abstinence-only programs and head-in-the-sanders are blaming movies, books and anything other than their own behavior towards their own teens – that is the conservative republican way.

And amid all of the hoopla surrounding the Palin VP pick and their family “situation”, what is lost in the discussion is the fact that a young pregnant teen (my guess is that she didn’t purposely get pregnant) is being exploited by her family at a time when she needs their understanding and support more than ever.

The issue of Bristol keeping the baby is one that she should make on her own, with the guidance and support of her parents and doctor. The fact that Sarah Palin indicated that she is thrilled that Bristol chose to keep the baby indicates a wee bit of hypocrisy on her part – after all, if Palin is against birth control and condoms (even for married couples), and is against abortion even in the instance of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and is pretty outspoken about that, then (1) what choice did Bristol even really have if she didn’t want to keep the baby and (2) what kind of “choice” does any woman who gets pregnant have – regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the age, ability to support the baby or education level of the mother-to-be?

On top of that, the likelihood of teen marriages succeeding is not all that great – and when you throw an ultra conservative family message and a father who recently admitted that he doesn’t want kids (rightfully so for a teen), the prospects don’t look good.

However, this is all background to the fact that Bristol is being used as a prop for the “family values” ~~train wreck~~ campaign that her mother is a part of.

Now, I don’t have a teenage daughter, but I did have a teenage sister, and knew plenty of teenage girls when I was growing up. And my friends have daughters, some teenage and some younger, so my perspective may not be the same as a mother or a teen or even a father with a teenage daughter. But I am not an idiot, and I know how self conscious teenagers (especially teenage girls) can be about what other people think about them as well as how they look.

The fact that the McCain campaign and the Palin family knew about her pregnancy and still (1) allowed Palin to be part of the ticket knowing that there was no way to hide the pregnancy, (2) leaked word about her pregnancy, (3) announced that she would marry the father and (4) trot them out as “proof” of conservative family values at work is beyond shameless.

To take advantage of a personal family situation (or crisis, which I am sure it was to Bristol) is the height of selfishness and callousness, and is really the antithesis of what family values are all about. They have made their daughter and “son-in-law-to–be” a prop in their campaign and have not only run roughshod over whatever privacy these two teens deserve in this very difficult time in their lives, but have made a spectacle out of them in front of the entire country (and world) to see.

And judge.

Regardless of what happens in this campaign, it is clear that the Palin and McCain families are not thinking about Bristol in any way other than to exploit her and her pregnancy.

Which I guess is also ok if you are a republican, when children are only off limits if you aren't exploiting them for your own political gain.

Blood in the water

2008-09-03T11:22:00.000-04:00

I have long said that this should be a 6%-10% popular vote, 320+ electoral vote blowout, but for a number of reasons (many including the complicity and disgraceful behavior of the corporate media), a race that is, in reality, probably not (in reality if the vote were to happen on any given day) nearly as close as it is portrayed to be is still, well, “close”.

And it always seemed like there were so many moments where the McCain campaign and republican party would crash and burn like the 5 planes that McCain himself lost. But every time it was supposed to happen, it didn’t. And nearly every time, it was because of the corporate media burying a story, a gaffe, a verbal assault or a McCain moment for some other conjured up lie about “what some people are worried about with respect to Obama” or a well timed barbecue.

We knew that once the truth about McCain came out, when the sheen of the false persona behind the poor judgment was wiped away, the risky gambles were exposed, the hotheaded outbursts were recounted, the lack of awareness about basic things like the economy, the internet, the Sunnis/Shiites/Iran/al Qaeda was too much to hide, the “prickly” nature was exhibited one too many times and the grudges and the self serving pandering couldn’t be covered up any longer – this race would start to represent what it should have represented.

It’s no secret that many in the corporate media (as well as a good number of Americans) pushed and followed a narrative that ran counter to what the country actually was interested in and what the needs and important issues facing families were. Distractions were pushed to the top of the agenda because corporate media heads decided that “this is what people want to talk about”, while real important issues facing this country were being ignored and sugar coated.

At the same time, a groundswell of new voter registrations, thousands of volunteers, and Americans have decided that it is time for a change. A time to no longer be told what to think, and how to vote, or what issues are important. The text message announcement of Biden as Obama’s VP pick was sheer brilliance as now there is an instant way to rally and reach millions of people before or on Election Day.

The fact that even Pat Buchannan loved Obama’s speech last week, coupled with the media frenzy over the Palin selection has been almost unbelievable to watch and has given a window to completely take advantage, go for the jugular and stomp McCain, Palin and the republican party into the ground on November 4.

That Noonan (Reagan’s speechwriter) and Murphy (one of McCain’s informal advisors) would say the things they are saying about Palin when off mic is nothing short of stunning.

To them, nothing is more important than backing a “winner”. And right now, they are starting to sense that maybe, just maybe, McCain is going to be a big loser.

The very important thing here is that while this is amazing, it is only a window of opportunity that we MUST take advantage of. Noonan’s Wall Street Journal article just today gives a very different picture of her thoughts on Palin. But now that she has been exposed for what she really thinks (ditto for Murphy), this is something that should not only be hung around Noonan’s neck and Palin’s neck but more importantly, around McCain’s neck.

We have to stay on offense - and while it should be as relentless as we can be, it should also follow the same theme about McCain. This is all about McCain and his poor judgment, his self serving advisors as well as his reckless and arrogant decision making. If Palin stays, great – we have a slew of things to keep dripping out that have nothing to do with her daughter. If Palin goes, then that speaks to the poor judgment of McCain, regardless of why she goes.

We can keep this narrative going, keep the McCain camp and the republicans on defense and make them look to America like the losers that we already know they are. But we have to stay on top of this every single day until the election.

How? Pretty simply, actually. The corporate media smells blood in the water. McCain and the republicans have screwed up (whether intentionally or not) so badly that even the shills and hacks can’t completely cover for them all the time. What we need to do is remind everyone of the disaster that the republicans have brought and how the way McCain’s campaign is run is indicative of how he will run the country.

By monitoring the corporate media sites and stories, and posting links/comments/narrative frequently, we can force stories and narratives into the “mainstream”;

By using social networking like the "Know Your McCain" Facebook group (please join this group), we can distribute this information far and wide;

By DIGGing stories and narratives, we can keep them out there;

By using YouTube and sending videos around, we can expose the lies passed off by the talking meatsticks;

By remembering that this is all about John McCain and his failures, his rush to judgment and his poor decision making and centering everything around that, we can keep his campaign and the republicans on defense; and

As Dallasdoc wrote below, WORD OF MOUTH. Tell everyone you know a story or a tidbit about McCain or Palin that they otherwise wouldn't know - something that speaks to judgment and character.

Hat tip to Kossack LNK for challenging me to give action items and talking points

If they are on defense, they aren’t making up lies. If they are explaining or whining, then they are losing. They know they have a big loser on their hands but are still trying to desperately cover up how much of a loser it really is. Their corporate media buddies can only do so much, and even they are starting to show their true feelings.

We have a great opportunity to make this the blowout that it should be. If we can keep another new story out there every week, then we can drive the narrative. And there are more than enough stories to keep us going through the election.

The opening is small, but it is there. And it is getting a bit bigger – but only if we take advantage of it can we shatter this election wide open.

A look at a McCain administration's decision making process

2008-09-02T11:20:00.001-04:00

The one thing that should come of this, regardless of whether Palin is dumped from (or “withdraws” from) the VP slot, is that John McCain has horrible judgment and makes rash decisions and relies on people who have a self serving track record..

Whether it be his trusting of the religious right in his non vetting of his “soulmate” Palin, or his ties to Iran double agent Ahmed Chalabi or his lobbyist-filled campaign, or the involvement with Charles Keating or his physically attacking fellow republicans or foreign diplomats - McCain has shown poor judgment time and time again.

And we can look to more of the same under a McCain administration - poor decisions that are not well thought out, lashing out at anyone who dares to question and a reliance on those who are out for themselves even at the expense of America and Americans.

It isn’t too tough to imagine how McCain would react to any number of situations as he has a long trail of bad judgment, fake machismo and being a sucker for those who want to take advantage of him for their own gain if it means a bit of power for him. Let’s look at how a few scenarios would play out:

Major Natural Disaster in the US

President McCain summons Homeland Security Secretary Tim Pawlenty, whose bold experience and willingness to take on liberal Democrats who wanted infrastructure funding for silly things such as rebuilt bridges or roads. Under Pawlenty’s advice, McCain decides to hold a series of fundraisers for his reelection campaign while telling people that things aren’t so bad - and then sends FEMA Head Grover Norquist to examine the region before declaring it a Federal Disaster area. Norquist and McCain decide to raze the entire region and give tax breaks to Halliburton to rebuild the area into a giant John McCain Presidential Library.

International Crisis

After deciding to invade Czechoslovakia before consulting with Secretary of State Joe Lieberman, who talks McCain down by telling him that there is no longer such a country, McCain decides to personally boycott any G8 meeting until that “damn Soviet Union” is kicked out like he wanted. National Security Advisor Doug Feith tells McCain that it is really Iran and Syria working with the “the other Muslims”, and the intelligence linking this plot goes back to an “official document” and was completely vetted as rock solid evidence, despite being mocked by the international community and at least three National Intelligence Estimates.

Stock Market Crash

After blaming the liberal blogs for depressing morale after the twelfth straight month of 250,000 jobs lost and a 1,500 point drop in the Dow over one week, Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm tells Americans to “suck it up” as McCain decides that the only thing that can help the economy is a direct stimulus package that will eliminate the middleman and go directly to Big Oil in the form of $1 billion in direct payments and refundable tax credits.

Domestic Terrorist Attack

Despite the fact that three white southern males blew up an abortion clinic, a community center and a temple and despite the fact that all three males had MySpace pages that proclaimed “death to gays”, “the Holy War is upon us” and “baby killers must die”, McCain appoints a special commission headed by Ralph Reed and Ted Haggard to investigate why the liberal lifestyle is to blame. When it is pointed out that the parents were part of a white supremacist group and had ties to Conservative religious extremists, McCain’s only comment was that for over five years the only religion that McCain practiced was “the religion of American freedom while in prison”.

*********************

Sadly, most of the examples here involve people whose judgment and decisions and personal motivations are questionable at best. However, these are all people who have had too much sway over McCain - a man who is already prone to taking extreme risks and high stakes gambling.

The Palin pick is wrong for many reasons - a number of which relate to her background, her husband’s background, their extreme views and abuse of power. However, the pick and the ensuing fiasco (that is so delicious to watch) is just another indication of the poor decision making process, the bad judgment and the questionable people that McCain relies on and surrounds himself with, not to mention shamelessly panders to.

And that is something that will not change, regardless of who the VP pick is or was, or whether the situations are snarky like above or are actual situations or crises.

Hypocrite McCain was fundraising during CA wildfires and midwest floods

2008-09-02T11:19:00.000-04:00

Once again, I’ll be brief in what I think is an important tidbit of information regarding hypocrite opportunist selfish self serving panderer John McCain. And if you are on Facebook, please join the "Know Your McCain" Facebook group, so we can distribute this information far and wide.

Mr. “putting America first”, except when it comes to actually putting America and Americans first, is touting how much he wants to be there for America in times of emergency. Never mind the fact that going towards the disaster zone sucks up resources that will have to be used for his protection, and never mind the fact that he didn’t get on Air Force One with Bush three years ago while the very region that he is grandstanding in now was drowning.

But if he was so interested in helping America and the victims of disaster areas, then why did he spend nearly all of June fundraising for his own presidential campaign - three months after he had the nomination sewed up while the Midwest was flooded, California had tremendous wildfires and droughts and both regions were declared “disaster areas”?

The Midwest floods started at the end of May and continued throughout June. According to Wikipedia (and if it is important enough, I will get the backup links), 6 states were impacted, 13 people died and the damage was estimated at more than $6 billion..

The 2008 California wildfires lasted from late May into July, with at least 10 drought or fire proclamations in all areas of the state from late May through late June.

And during all of this, where was pandering hypocrite McCain (certainly not in the Senate, since he missed 100 votes since mid April)?

Fundraising for his own campaign.

It was so important for him to ~~try desperately and shamelessly to pander and make amends for eating cake with Bush while the Gulf Coast drowned in 2005~~ show that he is “there for America” during this week, yet when it was just as important for leadership and there were more Americans in need - in two areas of the country for an entire month where he had nothing that was pressing to his campaign going on, McCain showed where his priorities really and truly are. By the way, even though Obama and Clinton were just wrapping up a very long and contentious primary season, at a time when the nomination was not yet locked up, Obama helped with sandbagging the midwest disaster areas.

Here is the “calendar of events” for the McCain campaign. He had 36 events scheduled for June. He had one “environmental briefing” in Santa Barbara, which I would give him the benefit of the doubt on if it wasn’t sandwiched around fundraisers in Fresno and a swanky private golf club in Las Vegas.

He did have 23 fundraisers (or “finance receptions”) during the month, including stops in New York, Philadelphia, Virginia, Cincinnati, Chicago, Hartford, Memphis, Nashville, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Miami, Washington DC (although he missed three votes the day after he was in DC so he could be in New York City - for a dinner fundraiser), Houston, San Antonio and Missouri.

Oh yeah, and two more fundraisers in California while the fires raged on.

Of course, this is something so basic that anyone in the corporate media could take less than one hour and actually do some real reporting instead of the disgusting suck up that is being done. But why should we wait for them to actually do their job before pointing out such basic hypocrisy and pandering like this latest one from McCain?

FLASHBACK: McCain voted against Katrina relief multiple times

2008-09-01T14:46:00.001-04:00

This will be short, but (I think) important. And if you are on Facebook, please join the "Know Your McCain" Facebook group, so we can distribute this information far and wide.

While the cake pictures are a perfect visual of how much McCain was interested in ~~not partying while a major city drowned~~ helping out three years ago when Katrina hit and devastated the Gulf Coast, there is another typical example of McCain’s shameless pandering and politicizing a potential natural disaster by diverting attention from relief efforts towards himself and his selfish grandstanding (just like the market stroll in Iraq) which I haven’t seen mentioned all that much.

And a hat tip to Bob Geiger for pulling together some real good information regarding McCain’s numerous votes AGAINST Katrina relief in 2005, and helping to strike down Democratic bills and amendments that would bring tax benefits, health care and emergency relief to victims of Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

Oh yeah - both Obama and Biden were either co-sponsors of, voted for or drafted Katrina relief or oversight bills.

Biden was the sponsor of Senate amendment 1661, which was to provide emergency funding to victims of Katrina. The vote failed 41-56, with McCain voting against it.

As Geiger notes:

Biden's legislation would have provided many things including money to purchase interoperable communications equipment to help first-responders dealing with the disaster, $10 million "to find, unite, and transport children impacted by Hurricane Katrina to their parents, legal guardian, or next of kin" and funding to assist victims of domestic violence in affected areas.

[...]

"The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported that over 1,000 children have been displaced by this storm -- that means they are not with their parents or guardians -- and in this amendment we provide $10 million for that effort," Biden continued. "We also provide $9 million to support domestic violence victims impacted by the storms. We all heard of the reports of sexual assaults in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and we will support those victims who have not been moved to new shelters."

McCain also voted against not one, not two (this one failed by three votes) but three other Democratic-introduced Senate amendments that would have brought much needed relief to Hurricane victims.

And yes, he voted against a bipartisan oversight commission to study the failings and recommend corrective measures to ensure that the next time will be better.

Let’s keep reminding America how much McCain really cares about putting country first.

*******************

Thanks to Lauren S for the following video:

PLEASE DIGG THIS AS WELL

Hypocrite McCain was fundraising during CA wildfires and midwest floods

2008-09-01T14:44:00.000-04:00

I’ll be brief in what I think is an important tidbit of information regarding hypocrite opportunist selfish self serving panderer John McCain. And if you are on Facebook, please join the "Know Your McCain" Facebook group, so we can distribute this information far and wide.

The 2008 California wildfires lasted from late May into July, with at least 10 drought or fire proclamations in all areas of the state from late May through late June.

And during all of this, where was pandering hypocrite McCain (certainly not in the Senate, since he missed 100 votes since mid April)?

Fundraising for his own campaign.

Oh yeah, and two more fundraisers in California while the fires raged on.

Can we now talk about McCain's age and health?

2008-08-30T10:15:00.001-04:00

On a few occasions over the past couple of weeks, I have mentioned an initiative with respect to going on the attack against John McCain. With that, I have created a Google Group called "Know Your McCain" and we are looking to gather information (old and new), create viral videos, write blog posts and use social networking to spread the message about how dangerous John McCain is.

You can look for diaries with the tag "Know Your McCain", and some diaries will have the "Know Your McCain" in the title as well. If you are interested in joining the Google Group or helping out with the Facebook group, please send me an email (address is in my profile).

***************************

This has been something that seems to have been kept (relatively) in the background over the past year or so, even though it most certainly should not have been. But now, with a selection of someone that has a very light resume, is being investigated (and will likely be deposed) in an abuse of power scandal, a passing interest in Iraq, fundamentalist credentials and no clue as to what a VP does, it calls into question McCain’s age, health, judgment, and decision making process.

And it is all his own doing.

While there have been many themes to the campaign so far, a new one should now be emerging - one that supports all of the underlying questions that even fellow republicans have (and had) about McCain. There are questions as to whether he will make similar snap decisions without proper thought, input and debate when it comes to matters of national security or in a time of crisis. Make no mistake - he has failed his first big test, regardless of how anyone tries to spin this choice.

As part of this should be about Palin - it really should be more about McCain, as this is more indicative of the whole “putting country first” nonsense and sham that his campaign has been all along. Her shortcomings are now his. He is 72 years old, and certainly not a young 72. He was, as he will remind you at every turn, a POW for over 5 years, and was tortured. He is forgetful when it comes to basic foreign policy matters, and snaps at reporters even more than he has in the past. When challenged, he goes on the attack as opposed to thinking calmly under pressure. He likely suffers from some form of PTSD. He has survived cancer at least two times, and will not release his full medical records, let alone any mental fitness or psychiatric testing.

While it is not something that is comfortable to think about, he is a prime candidate to lose his mental capacity over the next few years - or at least slow down substantially. There is a greater likelihood that he could die in office than any other President, with the possible exception of Reagan. The stresses of the Presidency are well documented and can significantly age someone due to the rigorous schedule, the pressure and decision making, the crisis after crisis and even more so now with all that this country is facing.

Again, this is uncomfortable to think about and even less comfortable to talk about, but it is there. And it is real. He has slowed down significantly since January. He admitted to not thinking clearly after a few long days in a row. He takes Ambien to sleep better (not good for that “3AM phone call”).

McCain opened the door to question what happens if the unthinkable happens.

Can Palin stare down Putin or a dictator? Can she make an informed decision about the devolving political situation in Iraq? Does she have the ability to understand the complexity of the Georgia/Russia situation? Can she navigate through the Israel/Palestine situation with the respect that someone with years of experience and knowledge can? Will she be equipped to “reform” Washington when she is under investigation herself? How will she deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda? Is she less equipped to deal with a 9/11-type scenario than Bush was?

All of this has nothing to do with her being a woman - with the possible exception of the feeling that if she weren’t a woman, she would never have been the choice with a resume and background and inexperience on a major level that she has. oh, and before anyone calls that statement sexist, I will say that it is sexist that McCain passed up a good number of very qualified women to make this snap decision. Personally, I view this as no different from CBS hiring Katie Couric - an unqualified woman - over more qualified women.

This decision is being called “bold”, if nothing else. But “bold” also can mean stupid and rash. And in a situation where McCain’s age and health and past is what it is, coupled with the rigors and stress (both physical and mental) of being President, this is more about him than it is about Palin. This was not a “bold” or “maverick” choice. This was a pander to the fundies and a decision made with little to no vetting or thought.

It makes you question whether he has the mental capacity to have the good judgment and deliberate thought process to be President, and it puts the issue of his age and health front and center. And with those questions looming large now, it should, as Thad Cochran said, send a cold chill down everyone’s spine.

As Joe Biden said, this is the time for a “wise leader”. And this decision by McCain was not wise, nor was it indicative of what a leader would really do.

Palin is just more of the same

2008-08-30T10:11:00.001-04:00

The time is now to frame this choice, and to define Palin for what she really stands for - before the republicans lie and do it themselves.

It is crucial now in the first few days to set the tone and the narrative with respect to what is really the latest major decision by the McCain campaign questioned by both the left and right. And once everyone gets past the surface, and once anyone looks beyond her inexperience, her personal story, how “desperate” this may or may not look, the fact that she is the first woman VP candidate on the republican side, her “not-being ready for prime time” when it comes to foreign policy matters, the comparisons to Quayle or Agnew (both of whom were on winning tickets, by the way) and whatever else is said about McCain’s choice (inappropriate or not), there is one thing that still shines through:

Palin is really just more of the same.

More of the same belief in the failed republican and conservative policies that got this country to were we are now. More of the flippant remarks about the importance of high level Administration positions. More of Bush. More of Dobson and the fundamentalists. More “out of touch with America”.

Her positions and views will come trickling out over the next few weeks. Some of them will likely be obscured, while others (both good and bad) will be covered more. This could very well turn out to be dismissed and ridiculed as the Harriet Miers debacle was, or it could be played up based on her family and background.

But all of this should be tied to one overarching theme - her choice as running mate may be unprecedented for the republicans, but she is a typical republican on most of the important issues.

This has to be about ISSUES and her extreme republican views.

More of the same cozying up to Big Oil;

More of the same reliance on “sound science” to deny climate change;

More belief in government intruding into people’s private lives when it comes to their own personal private decisions;

More ethics investigations;

More potential abuse of power;

more ties to corrupt indicted republicans;

More lack of a clue about the middle class plight with strong approval by the Club for Growth.

There is already a desperate attempt by republicans to play up her “life experience” to offset the lack of any foreign policy or major executive experience (less than 2 years of a first term Governorship hardly qualifies). This is what the right will try to do in order to make up for her lack of a resume.

And with all that, the inexperience, the opportunity to define not just Palin but more importantly, McCain’s judgment and hypocrisy and shameless pandering is a short window. Her stances, positions and views will come out in time. And all of them should tie into one overall theme:

There is no difference between Palin and McCain and Bush and the failed republican policies. And what’s worse, Palin would be in way over her head if anything were to happen to the 72 year old man who is not in the best of health for his age at the top of the ticket.

More of the same. But with less experience.

"John McCain was wrong"

2008-08-30T10:10:00.002-04:00

By now, most of us have seen, read or pored over Joe Biden’s excellent speech. And in hammering home the major differences between McSame and Obama when it comes to major decisions, Biden hit on a theme that could be absolutely devastating to McCain over the next few months.

John McCain was wrong.

The beauty of this is that (1) it is accurate, (2) it puts McCain on the defensive, (3) it is simple to repeat and (4) can be applied equally to domestic and foreign policy matters. There are a number of different frames to use with respect to McCain – and while many are good, they also haven’t stuck. This is partially due to the faux image that McCain has spent years building up virtually unchallenged by the corporate media (thankfully that is starting to change a bit recently). But it is also due to the fact that it isn’t always easy to find something that sticks well.

The “McSame” theme is probably one of the closest so far, but even that hasn’t been exploited as much as many of us would like – especially considering the fact that Bush has one of the worst approval ratings, the worst record of anyone I can remember and McCain has voted with Bush more than pretty much any Senator (that is, when he actually shows up to vote).

Biden mostly talked about McCain being wrong and Obama being right when it came to Iraq and other foreign policy matters, which sadly is necessary because of the major gap between reality and people’s perception of McCain’s “experience”. Take a look at how well it went over:

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan--we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded"? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?

The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban--the people who actually attacked us on 9/11--have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Barack's call for more troops.

John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about? Or Barack Obama, who said we must talk and make it clear to Iran that its conduct must change.

Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran, because that's the best way to advance our security.

Again, John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq--that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?

Now, after six long years, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.

John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

Again and again, on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was proven right.

But it doesn’t stop there – not by a long shot.

When it comes to the economy, the McCain campaign thinks it is all in people’s heads. John McCain is wrong;

When it came to the Gulf Coast and Hurricane Katrina, McCain said he would have done whatever he could. He could have boarded Air Force One with Bush after celebrating his birthday, but he didn’t. Regarding Katrina, John McCain was wrong;

When it came to supporting veterans and providing the troops with rest, armor and equipment, he consistently voted against the troops. When it came to really supporting our veterans and troops, John McCain is wrong;

When it comes to women’s issues – equal pay, respect, privacy, medical decisions, McCain has been and is wrong;

When it comes to the decisions on changing the course of this country – a course that the vast majority of people think we are on the “wrong path” - John McCain is wrong;

When it comes to understanding the plight of millions of Americans who have no healthcare coverage, his campaign says that it is not true since anyone can go to the emergency room (ignoring any preventative care, of course). On this too, John McCain is wrong;

When it comes to matters of diplomacy, McCain think that attacking foreign diplomats and threatening other countries is the best course of action. John McCain is wrong;

When it comes to understanding the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, when it comes to tax cuts for Big Oil vs. hard working middle class Americans, when it comes to offshore drilling having immediate benefits (or any tangible benefit for at least a decade), when it comes to energy independence, torture, or even owning up to his own words he may have said one day, one week, one month or one year ago, John McCain is and was wrong.

Wrong on policy matters. Wrong on factual matters. Wrong on diplomatic matters.

Wrong for this country.

KYM: McCain knows torture doesn't work. So why is he for it?

2008-08-30T10:10:00.001-04:00

***************************

There are some Vietnam veterans groups who are looking to attack McCain based on the “collaboration” that he gave his captors. While I am not going to give any opinion on whether McCain’s statements or “broadcasts” are off limits, or even relevant, I think there is a much deeper issue here that needs to be explored. And since things have to be boiled down to bite size pieces so that many people can understand it, I’ll just state the following:

John McCain was tortured (even though it wouldn’t count as torture under the Bush/Gonzales/Yoo definitions);

John McCain knowingly made false statements to his captors while in Vietnam, even though it was used as propaganda (i.e., he didn’t materially “help” them and therefore the word “treason” should not come into play here); and

John McCain knows that it is easy to provide information while being tortured that is unreliable.

So, with these very basic conclusions that I think pretty much anyone can agree with – the big question is why, knowing all of this, does John McCain still think that torture is ok?

This speaks directly to McCain’s character. He knows what torture can do to an individual. He knows that it is unreliable (forgetting everything that is out there about the unreliability of information provided under torture). And yet, he still voted for continuing torture of detainees.

More than once. Especially when he – of all people – was in a position to use his experience as a POW to do something for the good of the country, as opposed to using it for cynical and craven political reasons the way he has over the past few months.

There are really only two reasons why McCain, a man who himself was tortured and provided information that he knew wasn’t accurate or helpful to his captors, would approve of torture now, and neither of them speak very highly of McCain’s character:

Cynical political calculation; or

An underlying need to take revenge against and inflict severe long-term physical and mental pain on others and see them tortured.

Both of these traits are absolutely unacceptable for a President of the United States to have – whether in the role as Commander in Chief or in the role as diplomatic leader. It shows a total lack of morals, whether the lack of morals is based on compromising himself and cheapening his experiences for political and personal gain, or whether it is based on a sick twisted need to inflict pain on others (something that earned him the “McNasty” name and reputation).

If McCain really wanted to put “country first”, he could have done so by speaking out against torture and coming out against Cheney and Bush and Yoo and Gonzales when it mattered. That speaks to the “cynical political calculation” I note above.

If McCain knows full well that unreliable information is provided while being tortured (which I would assume he does based on his own experience), and STILL wants others to be tortured, then that is far worse – it shows a callous disregard for human life and should serve as a wake up call for anyone that gives any validation at all to his “I was a POW so everything I say or do now should be excused” line.

Either way, two things are true – McCain knows that torture doesn’t work, and he still approves of it.

That is a sign of a serious issue that makes him unfit for the office of the Presidency.

A partial list of violations of the law that no longer are crimes

2008-08-18T12:01:00.002-04:00

t sickens me to think that Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were disqualified as choices for Attorney General because of nanny taxes and yet we get Attorneys General who believed in stomping on the Constitution (Ashcroft), approve of voter suppression and torture as well as lie to Congress and reporters (Gonzales) and who think torture is only torture if it is done to him, won’t prosecute or investigate crimes committed by the Executive Branch and now thinks that not all violations of the law are crimes (Mukasey).

Thanks for that last one, Senators Schumer and Feinstein.

Whether you look at the “regular” definition of the word “crime” or even the legal definition, you will find the most basic “violation of law” as part of the definition.

But this isn’t just to point out that the current Attorney General is willing to say that not every crime is a crime in trying to stretch the boundaries of reality so far as to not prosecute...um....hmmm....what’s the word....oh yeah....crimes by members of his own Justice Department, it is to wonder just what other ~~crimes~~, I mean “violations of the law” are just peachy keen according to the man who only holds the title and position of the nation’s top law enforcement official.

We know that violating the fourth amendment (which is of higher authority that “a law”) is not a crime;

We know that ignoring subpoenas by Congress is not a crime (disclaimer: IOKIYAR);

We know that politicizing the internship program at the Justice Department is not a crime;

We know that waterboarding another individual isn’t a crime (unless it is done to him);

We know that destroying taped evidence of torture, after being ordered not to), is not a crime;

We know that top Executive Branch officials ordering torture isn’t a crime;

We know that suppressing people’s right to vote is not a crime;

We will probably soon find out that violating FEC campaign finance rules is not a crime (again, IOKIYAR);

We also know that violating the habeas corpus rules is also not a crime;

We know that lying to Congress is not a crime; and

For good measure, covering for the President himself over potential ~~crimes~~, er, “violations of law” that the President may have committed is most certainly not a crime.

I’m sure that I missed more than a few, but I am glad that having a funny sounding name or names that sound similar to names that sound funny are worthy of indefinite detaining or “errors”. And living in a house that wasn’t even the house that SWAT teams were supposed to be looking for is their own fault when they are raided or wrongfully arrested.

Torture. Fabricate evidence to invade another country. Violate laws in hiring and firing practices. Suppress the vote illegally. Violate the fourth amendment. Blow the cover of a covert CIA operative and an entire network of people working on WMD issues. Break campaign finance laws. Ignore subpoenas.

Go ahead - those aren’t crimes and there certainly is a precedent for not being prosecuted.

Just don’t wear a shirt that has a cartoon robot on it while trying to fly or, even worse, wear a t shirt that says “Give Peace A Chance”. Because those are not only ~~most certainly not in any way~~ violations of the law, but are also crimes.

KYM: Unstable McCain should be medicated, not President

2008-08-18T11:59:00.000-04:00

On a few occasions over the past couple of weeks, I have mentioned an initiative with respect to going on the attack against John McCain. With that, I have created a Google Group called “Know Your McCain” and we are looking to gather information (old and new), create viral videos, write blog posts and use social networking to spread the message about how dangerous John McCain is.

You can look for diaries with the tag “Know Your McCain”, and some diaries will have the “Know Your McCain” in the title as well. If you are interested in joining the Google Group or helping out with Facebook, please send me an email (address is in my profile).

***************************

I’ll probably take some heat for this, but I am serious here, as the prospect of someone with anger issues, who holds grudges, doesn’t think about the implications of his words before he talks, is confrontational by nature and experience five years of torture (and the effects of it) being the President of the United States – especially now – is downright scary.

As recently as 2000, McCain stated “I hated the gooks. I’ll hate them as long as I live”. While this is disturbing in and of itself, regardless of the horrors that he had to endure, the fact that he was tortured for 5 years should be considered as far as both the dedication to his country that he showed then, and the far reaching impact on him, his psyche and how he views the world.

If this was an isolated incident, then that would be one thing – and even somewhat explainable (even if unacceptable to all Asians). But more recently, McCain did it again when Bud Day, a leading campaign surrogate said that ”the Muslims are going to kill us”, and he refused to disavow the comments that painted only one billion people with the same broad brush – let alone in a most confrontational way.

But it still goes way deeper than that. We know the amount of stress that an individual who is at war endures. We have seen many many soldiers return with various levels of PTSD, and our own CIA declassified documents that were prepared in the 1960s that dealt with brainwashing and torture. Other than the fact that there are “interrogation techniques” referred to as “torture” in these documents that are way less extreme than some that our own administration and much of the republican party thinks is just peachy keen, there are some interesting notes.

For starters, note the passage in bold regarding isolation. John McCain spent approximately 2 years in solitary confinement. That’s a helluva long time. The CIA document referenced in the link above (the link in the diary is broken but if you play around with it, you can get to the entire document) has the following to say about isolation and the impact on a person subjected to it (emphasis mine):

A major aspect of his prison experience is isolation. Man is a social animal; he does not live alone. From birth to death, he lives in the company of his fellow man. His relations with other people and, especially with those closest to him, are almost as important to him as food or drink. When a man is totally isolated, he is removed from all of the interpersonal relations which are so important to him and taken out of the social role which sustains him. His internal as well as his external life is disrupted.

---snip---

After a few days it becomes apparent to the prisoner that his activity avails him nothing and that will he will be punished or reprimanded for even the smallest breaches of the routine. His requests have been listened to but never acted upon. He becomes docility of a trained animal. Indeed, the guards say that prisoners are “reduced to animals”. It is estimated that in the average case it takes from four to six weeks of rigid, total isolation to produce this phenomenon.

Four to six weeks in isolation will produce that. John McCain was in isolation for two entire years. And within those two years, he was also bound into painful positions with rope and beaten every two hours.

As I wrote in a diary a few months ago:

The long term effects of solitary confinement have been well documented, and there is little doubt that the torture that McCain endured had a profound effect on him, both short and long term.

[...]

Is there any doubt that McCain feels some level of anger, bitterness, holds a grudge or wants revenge for what was done to him? Hell, I know I would. I’d be permanently pissed off and looking for a fight - and I’m a pretty mild mannered guy. But, do we want to have a Commander in Chief who is even more hawkish on foreign policy than Bush is? On Iraq? On Russia? On China? Someone who talks openly about more wars, especially at a time when we are hated around the world for our confrontational and reckless foreign policy, not to mention with troops already stretched to the breaking point?

But even with that, it still goes deeper than the torture, the threats, the grudges, the sweeping comments and derogatory statements that offend multiple entire races. In a precarious global situation – one that the United States is already not looked favorably in, we see chest thumping about “100 years in Iraq”, we hear of excluding Russia from the G8 (not to mention his apparent desire to restart the Cold War), we hear talk of there being more wars, we have a Presidential candidate whose view of diplomacy is to physically assault foreign diplomats, just to name a few of the more major alarming issues.

If we want to look at how he treats those on the homefront, he blows off reporters when he isn’t berating them individually (this pattern goes back to 1982) or what he thinks of his wife or rape victims, there are plenty of examples of what is clearly an angry and disturbed man with little tolerance.

These issues are serious ones, and as much as some people want to ignore them or call them “quirks” or “gaffes” or part of his personality, they are scary and are not befitting of someone who aspires to be President or Commander in Chief.

“Shoot first” is what got the United States into the mess it is currently in – both domestically and internationally. Browbeating, chest thumping and insulting entire races or countries is not what is needed.

But when all of these traits, experiences and factors are considered together – if it was someone who wasn’t running for President (I’ll add “as the republican candidate”) – if it was your grandfather, your uncle, your neighbor or someone you worked with – this behavior would not be acceptable or tolerated. This individual’s mental stability would be called into question and would likely be referred for some sort of professional help.

So why is it ok if the person is only running for one of the most important positions in the world?

"Voter fraud" = "we will suppress the vote"

2008-08-18T11:58:00.001-04:00

I’ve done a bit of writing over the past couple of years about election integrity issues, election fraud, voter suppression and the “gaming the system from the inside” that has been the republican party’s modus operandi since 2000 when it comes to stealing elections in various forms.

And right on cue - even since the ~~anti-voter~~ voter ID laws that were recently passed in Indiana (and almost passed in Missouri), we are seeing, as my good buddy dday is referring to as the “new battleground” - that big bad boogyman of “voter fraud”.

Never mind the fact that this is (1) a false argument and (2) false in the small issue of fact, as I wrote a few months back:

So, now that this is out of the way, I’ll refer to a 2006 DOJ memo that I discussed over the weekend:
The US Department of Justice put out a release regarding the “massive” voter fraud that they have uncovered and investigated. And there was lots to be “proud” of:
As a result of the Initiative, nationwide enforcement of election crimes has increased dramatically. At present, 195 investigations are pending throughout the country. Moreover, since the start of the Initiative in 2002 over 300 investigations of possible election crime have been opened, and over 125 election crime matters have been closed after investigation; 119 individuals have been charged with ballot fraud offenses and 86 individuals have been convicted of these crimes; and 48 individuals have been charged with campaign financing fraud and 42 individuals have been convicted of these offenses.

In over four years, only 42 individuals have been convicted, and under 50 have been charged with campaign finance fraud - now if we think of those who have been heavily lined to campaign finance fraud, one party comes to mind in a big way - and that isn’t the one who keeps pushing “voter fraud” laws. Only 86 people were convicted of “ballot fraud” (of course, Ann Coulter was cleared after calling in a favor from her well connected boyfriend), out of 300 investigations.

The issue of the voter going to the polling place in order to personally cast a vote that is fraudulent is, based on the DOJ’s own numbers - basically nonexistent. And the one high profile case was that of Ann Coulter, someone who conveniently wasn’t charged.

But the issue of voters without proper ID is one that is potential gold for the party that (1) wouldn’t likely get these votes anyway and (2) can eliminate a possible 10 million plus registered voter (or vote) advantage.

Still don’t believe me? OK, fine. Let’s just look at the tens of thousands of Floridians who were disenfranchised in 2000, or the hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters in 2004 who were disenfranchised for a contrast to the 150 or so individuals who the DOJ is touting.

The first and larger issue here is the way that this issue is being presented and argued - whether it be “voter ID” laws, whether it be voter roll purges, whether it be voter registrations or whatever else. The issue should be to make sure that people that have the right to vote can actually vote, not that people that are not eligible to vote should not be voting.

Yes, both are true, but the 2nd part - about people voting who shouldn’t vote, or people registering to vote illegally is a very minor issue - as noted by the DOJ report linked above. The flip side of these 50 people, or even 150 people who committed so called “voter fraud” or “registration fraud” is that hundreds of thousands of people in Florida were illegally disenfranchised, tens of thousands in Ohio and countless others in states that have enacted voter roll purges or ID laws.

And we are already seeing it again - as dday states in his post linked above:

With an uninspiring candidate, an enthusiasm gap and a host of fundamentals against them, obstruction and suppression is really all the Republicans have left. You can see exactly where they're worried from this story:
As Barack Obama tries to draw hundreds of thousands of new voters to the polls, Republicans are beginning to scrutinize registrants' eligibility as both sides draw a major battle line over voting rights.

Republicans are moving to examine surges in voter registrations in some states. A Republican lawyers group held a national training session on election law over the weekend that included campaign attorneys for Sen. John McCain and other Republican leaders. One session discussed how party operatives can identify and respond to instances of voter fraud.

Republicans said they are particularly worried about prospects for fraud in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and are beginning to comb thousands of new registrations in those states for ineligible applicants. In some cases the huge numbers threaten to swamp their efforts -- and those of state and local governments to verify and process applications.

Read: we're going to lose Virginia and Pennsylvania unless we invalidate hundreds of thousands of legal votes through bogus voter fraud claims. Both of the Secretaries of State in these commonwealths are Democrats, but of course the county boards of elections have more local control, as we've seen. And be prepared for this meme that the stress of all these new voters may break the system.

We have already seen three instances recently where this fear mongering has reared its ugly head.

The WaPo recently shot down the Virginia State republican Party Chair’s baseless allegations of “coordinated and widespread voter fraud....throughout Virginia, since there was no fact to back up these assertions. In Connecticut, the republican state party Chair made unsubstantiated allegations and calls for investigation into non-existent voter registration fraud, based on a video made by Election Journal, which is run by Mike Roman, a man who happens to be McCain’s Director of Election Day Operations and was the RNC’s Director of Election Day Registration in 2006.

Of course, the Connecticut allegations and hysteria has nothing to do with this:

Democratic voter registration is up sharply in southwestern Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, and political analysts said Friday that

In fact, if city Democrats in Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stamford show up on Election Day in a tide of anticipated statewide urban support for Sen. Barack Obama, Shays' narrow 5,747-vote margin of 2006 could evaporate into a forced political retirement.

[...]

Since Jan. 1, 11,329 new Democrats have registered in the 17-town district. Only 3,462 Republicans have signed up so far this year and only 8,299 unaffiliated voters.

And from the hysterical to the ridiculous, there are unsupported allegations (with “a report forthcoming”) in Alabama with respect to votes being sold for crack. This is very similar to the same story that was put out in 2004 in Ohio, and even if true, requires prosecution of the offending individual - not sweeping law changes that will suppress thousands of other voters rights.

It is happening again - actually, it has been happening all along. And as more and more new voters are registered, there will be more challenges and hurdles thrown up by the republican party to make sure that less people can vote, not more people.

If a few hundred thousand likely Democratic voters get caught in the crossfire and don’t get to vote, then the republicans will consider it “Mission Accomplished”.

Ignoring forged war documents is a dangerous precedent

2008-08-13T11:34:00.000-04:00

How can impeachment be off the table if there is proof that documents that linked al Qaeda to Saddam or documents that made the case for invading Iraq were forged by the Office of Special Plans/Doug Feith/Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby or whoever else may have forged them?

How can impeachment be off the table if over 4,000 American troops were killed, tens of thousands more injured, not to mention all of the Iraqis who have been killed, displaced or had their lives ruined when intelligence officials spoke on the record about Bush knowing that Iraq had no WMDs, yet repeated this charge over and over and over and over?

Of course there were flat out denials of this by those close to the White House, as well as many rightist bloggers. But they have denied other lies and actions that have been proven to have occurred (or not occurred), or said (or not said) when it comes to this administration and its’ enablers in Congress.

But that isn’t the point. If even The American Conservative says that Dick Cheney is behind the forgery, and there is a tape and transcript that corroborates this assertion, then isn’t it Congress' duty to, at a minimum, initiate investigations and hold hearings to determine whether there was a deliberate attempt to lie this country into an invasion?

Didn’t Pelosi herself say that the most important thing about the Democrats regaining the majority control is the use of subpoena power? And while “drudging up things from the past” may not be what she or others in Congress want to do, if agents are willing to go on the record and indicate that the Office of the Vice President was directly involved in forging documents to make the case for invading Iraq, then Congress really doesn’t have a choice.

It is the duty and responsibility of them to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, whether they want to or not.

smintheus did an excellent analysis of the claims last week, and I would be hard pressed to think that a good number of the most gung ho republicans and especially military personnel would not be appalled that the use of the United States military was used to further top Executive Branch officials’ political and personal goals – especially if it was based on forged documents.

This may or may not ultimately turn out to be true. It may or may not lead to other evidence being uncovered. Once one or two people talk on record – especially when there was such contempt towards the intelligence community (in their area of expertise, mind you) by the Executive Branch and Defense Department – more people may be inclined to come forward.

Even Joe Conason (a man who certainly has a very solid overall track record) says that, at a minimum, this should be the basis for investigations:

Setting aside the relative credibility of the author and the government, the relevant question is whether the available facts demand a full investigation by a congressional committee, with testimony under oath.

When we look back at the events surrounding the emergence of the faked letter that is at the center of this controversy, a strong circumstantial case certainly can be made in support of Suskind's story.

Now, the fact that Congress has allowed subpoenas to go ignored by so many administration officials with no consequence is already a horrible precedent to have set. That kind of negates the whole “subpoena power” thing that Pelosi was talking about a few years ago. But Congress has to make amends here or deem themselves irrelevant when it comes to that whole “checks and balances” thing. And if the OVP may have already done this once with Iraq (and already tried to levy false charges against Iran to make the case for bombing), then what is to stop them from doing it again - especially if McCain wins the Presidency?

If there is nothing to the charges, so be it. However, there are intelligence officials on tape and on the record that have already said that Cheney and his office were behind forgeries to sell the Iraq invasion as well as Bush knowing that Iraq had no WMDs. Put them under oath and if they are denying their comments now, they can clarify if they were lying before or if they want to lie under oath.

But this is a string that is hanging which needs to be pulled on. If it unravels a bigger picture and criminal acts, then that is only good for the Constitution, the rule of law and the future of this country. If it goes nowhere, then at least there were meaningful investigations.

Congress is out of session now, but this should be one of the first items on the agenda of the Judiciary Committees when it returns.

To pretend that the charges don’t exist and to not investigate by putting these intelligence officials under oath is a tacit approval of forging documents to make the case for invading a sovereign nation.

And both the forgeries themselves as well as the lack of meaningful investigations is nothing short of treason.

A partial list of violations of the law that no longer are crimes

2008-08-13T11:29:00.000-04:00

It sickens me to think that Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were disqualified as choices for Attorney General because of nanny taxes and yet we get Attorneys General who believed in stomping on the Constitution (Ashcroft), approve of voter suppression and torture as well as lie to Congress and reporters (Gonzales) and who think torture is only torture if it is done to him, won’t prosecute or investigate crimes committed by the Executive Branch and now thinks that not all violations of the law are crimes (Mukasey).

Thanks for that last one, Senators Schumer and Feinstein.

Whether you look at the “regular” definition of the word “crime” or even the legal definition, you will find the most basic “violation of law” as part of the definition.

We know that violating the fourth amendment (which is of higher authority that “a law”) is not a crime;

We know that ignoring subpoenas by Congress is not a crime (disclaimer: IOKIYAR);

We know that politicizing the internship program at the Justice Department is not a crime;

We know that waterboarding another individual isn’t a crime (unless it is done to him);

We know that destroying taped evidence of torture, after being ordered not to), is not a crime;

We know that top Executive Branch officials ordering torture isn’t a crime;

We know that suppressing people’s right to vote is not a crime;

We will probably soon find out that violating FEC campaign finance rules is not a crime (again, IOKIYAR);

We also know that violating the habeas corpus rules is also not a crime;

We know that lying to Congress is not a crime; and

For good measure, covering for the President himself over potential ~~crimes~~, er, “violations of law” that the President may have committed is most certainly not a crime.

Go ahead - those aren’t crimes and there certainly is a precedent for not being prosecuted.

...and herein lies the problem

2008-08-11T08:29:00.002-04:00

As John Edwards has become the issue du jour and too many people are salivating over whether his political career is over, we now have yet another hypocritical and needless diversion from what is really important. Just like the recent overexposure of Paris Hilton and McCain’s passing the buck on his increasingly nasty and spiteful campaign, none of this means a damn thing to, oh, 300 million or so Americans.

But since it is a Democrat and since it has to do with sex and since the real horrors of what has been impacting many people on a day to day basis is getting buried and ignored just to create yet another diversion for people to either say “HA” or to get on their moral high horse (all while probably keeping their own skeletons in their closet), that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be called for the complete and utter crap that is really is.

Of course, if you want to talk about sex and politicians and the impact on their career, why not look at Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Foley and the years of covering up his actions, Newt Gingrich serving his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer and of course McCain’s tossing his first wife to the curb and having an affair with Cindy the heiress?

But moving past the issue of sex, which is really only important to people who have so little in their own lives to be proud of that they have to obsess and point fingers at others to feel better about themselves, there are so many other reasons to be absolutely frustrated with the hypocritical moralists and smarmy narcissists that are once again rearing their ugly heads. Over the past week, we found out that the White House not only passed off forged documents to sell the Iraq invasion, but they forged their own documents to sell the Iraq invasion, and there is not a peep about it?

We found out that the US attorney scandal is now focusing on the White House inner circle, yet there is a collective yawn. The much ballyhooed military tribunal of Hamdan resulted in a 5 month sentence even after a kangaroo court trial - basically a repudiation of the entire administration view on military tribunals.

We just passed 500 military deaths in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi Congress adjourned without meeting one benchmark that was supposed to be the main result of the so-called “surge”, yet all we hear is the foregone conclusion that the surge worked.

Torture is still on the table. One Attorney General approved of torture memos, while also being part of voter suppression lawsuits while the latest Attorney General approves of waterboarding as long as it isn’t being done to him, and also is a chief obstructor of justice when it comes to the Executive Branch. Iraqi prisoners are being put in small wooden boxes, which of course is most certainly not torture.

Spying on Americans has been given the thumbs up by Congress, criminal defiance of subpoenas by Rove, Miers, Bolton are being allowed to set a dangerous precedent, there is more saber rattling about attacking Iran - with similar lies being trotted out by this administration, and the current republican nominee.

And speaking of that republican nominee, he has lied about just about everything, he can’t even get the difference between the Sunnis, the Shiites, Iran and al Qaeda right. He lies about his pork projects, he lies about his opponent, he lies about comments he made days earlier, weeks earlier, months earlier and years earlier. He breaks his own campaign finance rules and lies about it. He lies to the press about his top advisor/lobbyist connections and meetings he had on behalf of lobbyists.

And he gets a pass on all of it.

Private entities that made huge profits by taking tremendous risks are being bailed out by our tax dollars (in a unilateral move by the Executive Branch), but nothing substantial is being done for homeowners that are struggling and are facing foreclosure on their homes. So much for that “ownership society”. A smoke and mirrors “stimulus package” that basically used American taxpayers as conduit to send billions to the credit card, oil and gas companies and retail industries has proven to be the farce that I called it for a few months ago as the economy didn’t come close to growing in the way that we were told it would.

Gas prices are still near all time highs as the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the universe, and while offshore drilling won’t do squat in the short, medium or long term, McCain is pocketing handsomely from oil company contributions, yet none of this is being reported either.

But let’s focus on a two year old affair by someone who isn’t part of the Presidential campaign anymore, isn’t in Congress and is far from the first person in politics to have an affair. Because THAT is what is important to the people of this country.

Jeez.....

The temptation is too much for me to fight.

2008-08-11T08:29:00.001-04:00

How can I NOT spread the word about how great John McCain's ~~ass backward~~ policies will be for ~~ruining~~ this country for years, nay, DECADES to come?

I mean, all I have to do is ~~sell out my soul~~, er, ~~astroturf because there are no real McCain supporters out there~~, er, ~~troll progressive blog sites~~, er, (swallows hard) proudly support a man who ~~has done nothing really of note since coming back from Vietman~~, I mean, is hawking cheap crap on his campaign website if I promise to copy and paste talking points into blogs in the hope that even brainless people won't notice that I am a new user with no diary or commenting history.

Talk about an opportunity that can't be passed up....

Maybe this can get me a PROSPERITY sign, a PEACE sign, a REFORM sign (because nothing spells reform like an old angry washed up insider who has sold out to everything that is status quo), or maybe I can hit the trifecta - the REFORM/PROSPERITY/PEACE sign!!!

Actually - come to think of it, the unintentional comedy factor in these signs is off the charts.

Even better, if I can troll enough sites, can I get enough points to get me one of the John McCain Filtered Water Bottles? It would be perfect to deliver hot bottled water to dehydrated babies.

But maybe I would have to sink a bit lower, and really REALLY sell myself out (or more accurately, be like McCain himself and pimp out Mrs. clammyc) in order to get her one of the spaghetti strap tank tops so I can enter her in the Miss North Jersey um..."pageant". Yeah, that would make me feel like a real part of the campaign.

Or....I can really go for the gold and try to accumulate enough ~~troll~~ points and get me one of the big and bad ass McCain Nation Party Packs - which I would only assume is complete with an ape suit (because nothing spells party like a good ape raping) and other assorted goodies that can be used to ~~humiliate and denigrate~~ excite the ladies on the block.

Well, all this excitement is getting to be too much. Let me see what today's talking points are so I can go regurgitate them and pretend that I actually care about an old phony who blows his top at the slightest challenge or questioning and has no clue about, well, anything that happened after 1985.

Oooooooooh.... "rising above partisanship" and jobs for ~~all of the other rich white republicans and their children~~, er, America.

Gotta go get busy with some trolling. Otherwise, I may miss out on the McCain Courageous Service CD, which I would only assume is limited edition.

Know Your McCain: his electability problem

2008-08-11T08:28:00.002-04:00

On a few occasions over the past couple of weeks, I have mentioned an initiative with respect to going on the attack against John McCain. With that, I have created a Google Group called “Know Your McCain” and we are looking to gather information (old and new), create viral videos, write blog posts and use social networking to spread the message about how dangerous John McCain is.

You can look for diaries with the tag “Know Your McCain”, and some diaries will have the “Know Your McCain” in the title as well. If you are interested in joining the Google Group or helping out with Facebook or MySpace, please send me an email (address is in my profile).

***************************

So much seems to always be made about Obama or Clinton or whoever else’s so-called “electability issues” – most of which turns out to be nothing more than a hunk of nonsense strung together from bits of polls, magnifying tiny segments of the population into a much larger group or whatever other themes that the Village wants to conjure up.

All the while, there has been no mention of the tremendous electability issue and problem that faces one John Sidney McCain.

Seriously.

Here is a man who is disliked by his own party. A man who, even though he clinched the republican primary on March 4, had an incredibly low amount of votes in the primaries, both before and (here is the kicker) AFTER he already clinched. For example, he only won one of the twelve caucuses, topped 55% of the primary vote only once (DC) before clinching the nomination and even after clinching the nomination only broke 80% of the vote two times in 10 primary contests.

Hardly a vote of confidence from his own party – a party that is as unpopular as any political party has been in my lifetime. But wait, there is more. Much more.

Here is a man who pissed off an entire hugely motivated section of the republican party – the fundies, only to finally flirt with an extremist pastor (Hagee) and then be forced to denounce him after pressure to do so, therefore alienating this portion of the base further.

Here is a man who has broken his own campaign finance laws - benefiting from them in the primaries when he had no support and no money yet denying that he ever “really” opted into the public financing. Some “straight talk: there.

Here is a man who is supposedly running on “foreign policy experience”, yet has made mistake after mistake after mistake when it comes to basic foreign policy matters.

Here is a man whose supposed “straight talk” has lied out of his ass so many times that even the WaPo, Joe Klein and Andrea Mitchell have called bullshit on his lies.

Here is a man who touts his military experience (which basically consisted of screwing around, losing 5 planes and being a POW close to 40 years ago), yet his voting record when it comes to the troops and veterans is nothing short of abysmal and thinks it isn’t too important when the troops will come home from Iraq. A man whose wife stole painkillers from a veteran’s charity that she headed up.

A man who is not only against a woman’s right to make personal private medical decisions, but would appoint SCOTUS Justices that would eliminate right to privacy, has made jokes about being raped and joked about Chelsea Clinton being ugly because Janet Reno was her father when Chelsea was just 18 years old , and left his first wife when she was disfigured in a horrific accident (after she waited for him for years to return from Vietnam).

And say what you will about his age being off limits, but over 40% of people polled last year would be hesitant to vote for a 72 year old for President. And that was before he bumbled and stumbled his way through a few weeks of campaigning - clearly looking like he is in way over his head.

Here is a man who is running one of the dirtiest and desperate campaigns – and still has the corporate media as his lapdog despite totally blowing off members of the press or asking the ever diplomatic question “what do you want, you little jerks? to other members of the press.

Here is a man whose idea of diplomacy is to sing about bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, to stay in Iraq for 100 years and to physically assault a foreign official in 1987.

Not only does he threaten to bomb bomb Iran (all while confusing Iran and al Qaeda), but one of his top aides lobbied for an Iran-linked firm, and McCain himself has deep ties to Ahmed Chalabi, who we know was a double agent for Iran (and continues to be linked to Iran), despite having McCain’s full support – either this is dangerously incompetent and naïve of McCain, or it is way more sinister than just being naive.

And finally (for now), here is a man whose running mate short list includes a former primary opponent who, on numerous occasions, was about to bait McCain into hitting him – in what was a very nasty and personal fight.

I think it is long past time where people start to look at the many major overriding issues with McCain and his campaign. Many of these should be fatal. And these should be spread far and wide.

John McCain is unelectable. The American public just doesn’t fully know it yet.

John McCain, fucking liar

2008-08-11T08:28:00.001-04:00

It’s long past time for people to not only give McCain a total pass on his outright lies, smears, “McCain moments” and other absolute nonsense that comes from his mouth but also to actively call him on it. And if he isn’t lying, then he is goddamn near senile and shouldn’t be President for that reason alone, notwithstanding all of the other very valid reasons that he shouldn’t be President.

Over the past few weeks, he has really stooped to a new low – and just when you think that there can’t be a new low. But yes, every day comes another outright ~~fabrication~~, nay, lie – about his positions, about Obama’s positions, hell – think back to the primary season when he lied about Romney or Huckabee or whoever else.

It’s too bad that only republicans know how to use the word “liar” when it comes to their opponents, even though they generally are using it for opponents that didn’t actually lie (and usually, they are the ones lying). But the fact remains that McCain is so power mad, so unhinged at the fact that he isn’t getting quite the fluffing that he feels he is due, his campaign has continued it’s collision course with the title of “most sleazy, dishonest and scummy campaign ever”.

The problem is that in an era where things can easily be verified, “I don’t remember” is sometimes passable and “I never said that” or “I never did that” is unacceptable and easily verifiable.

We know that he lied about not writing letters to the FCC to benefit one of his campaign contributors;

We know that he lied when he said that he never asked for nor received a single earmark;

We know that he lied about privatizing Social Security;

During the primaries, he lied about his potential running mate, Romney on more than one occasion;

Over the past week, he lied about Obama and visiting the troops. In fact, his new ad on this is also a lie.

He lied this week (again) about not using the word “timetable”;

He lied about his admission that he is the damn fool when it comes to the economy;

His campaign lied about oil spills after Hurricane Katrina;

He lied about his voting record when questioned by a veteran about it;

He recently lied to either a child or to conservative bloggers about immigration;

He lied about his POW experience (i.e., Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Green Bay Packers), and while this isn’t as big a deal to me, it should be raised if stupid petty nonsense about Obama gets raised.

Of course his wife Cindy lied about her recipes for cookies when she stole them from Family Circle magazine. Of course, stealing is something that she knows well, as she also stole painkillers from a veteran’s charity that she was in charge of.

He lied recently to FoxNews about a Town Hall event they were working together on;

He lied about decreasing oil prices being because Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban;

He has lied about Obama’s and Clinton’s health care proposals;

He lied about his position on Bosnia and Kosovo in trying to prove his credentials;

He lied about Clinton and Obama’s comments regarding renegotiating NAFTA;

He lied about his opting into public financing when it was convenient for him to opt back out;

He lied a few months back about Iran-Contra.

He lied about his involvement (not sexual but political) with Iseman and her firm.

And that is just off the top of my head and a quick search.

So let’s start calling him what he is. A full on liar. Not only “forgetful”, not only “misinterpreted”, not only “misquoted”, not only mean-spirited and stretching the truth.

A liar. As in “pants on fire”. If he is going to get a pass from the media, it makes it that much harder for the rest of us to get past the smokescreen. Here are around 20 instances, not even counting the 3 straight days of “Iran helps al Qaeda” or “the surge resulted in the Anbar awakening” or whatever other crap he tries to throw at the wall.

We just had 8 years of outright dangerous lies on many major issues. Not only are many of the same people involved with McCain campaign, but they are lying about just as many major important issues.

And lying isn’t so “mavericky”, is it?

****************

Update [2008-7-28 19:15:7 by clammyc]:: I did create the google group "Know Your McCain" and we are just getting it off the ground. We need writers, researchers, video people and anyone else who is interested. Email is in my profile if you want to join.

We can't let America elect another unhinged raving lunatic

2008-08-11T08:27:00.001-04:00

I’ll start by saying that this is a call to action continuation and follow up to my diary last week about starting to attack McCain. And I’ll also say that the events of this past week were nothing short of stunning in the contrast between what can be accomplished by Obama and the potential for repairing our image around the world - and what would happen in terms of 4 more years of the same tired failed McCain/Bush/Cheney/neoconservative ideas and policies.

It floored me so much that I donated my first $50 to Obama’s campaign earlier today - more than I donated to Dodd’s campaign during his too short candidacy.

To see stories like this about Obama and then things like this about McCain, it shows just how much more can be done when you don’t piss off everyone just because you feel like being an asshole.

Back in 2004, the entire world was rooting for Americans to do the right thing. And yet, we end up with this:

I said that I would start a series of diaries that would go on the attack against McCain. And based on the response I got from my diary last weekend, I started a GoogleGroup called “Know Your McCain”. Anyone that wants to contribute research, videos, diaries or help out otherwise is welcome to join and should send me an email (see my profile). Some have already been in touch, and have provided some very good links, information or videos. You can also get to any of the links from any of the many diaries in my signature, or go to McCain Source as well.

We are starting to see McCain completely lose his shit. He is blowing off reporters. He is becoming unhinged in a big time manner - lashing out at Obama on the most crazy of attacks, all while continuing to make mistake after mistake about basic foreign policy issues and trying to run a campaign based on two things:

Something that happened close to 40 years ago (his Vietnam service and POW status); and

Something that he credits himself with (the so called “surge”) which, at best, has only resulted in some decrease in violence - which is related to more than just “more troops” and has no bearing on what needs to be done now in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The problem here is that nothing that happened in Vietnam has any real bearing on what is going on now in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan and we only know that McCain has no plan for anything other than “I told you the surge worked” when it comes to Iraq, forgot (or even worse, doesn’t think) that Afghanistan was the first major conflict since 9/11, and thinks that Pakistan shares a border with Iraq.

But it isn’t just that, even though “that” is more than enough to warrant an Obama win at all costs. It is the instant rise in credibility that the United States will get with an Obama Presidency - one that will enable us to be strong where we need to be and smart about diplomacy.

Too many Americans rejected Kerry in 2004 because he wasn’t enough of an asshole to the rest of the world, and we all know how great it was for our standing in the world with Captain Asshole in charge of pissing off everyone else just because he could. With McCain it is even worse - just like Bush but angrier, older, more unstable and with more of a temper and grudge against more people.

Which is a scary thought.

As I wrote the other day, your kids and grandchildren will fight McCain’s “more wars”. Our foreign policy will be unpopular, aggressive, conducted with haste and arrogance. And we will lose more ground both overseas and on the homefront.

Big time.

With Obama, things will be far from perfect. And they will be far from easy. And too many things that will get accomplished will likely be out of necessity, reaction and crisis, not out of foresight or planning. But that is the hand we have been dealt, and not even a President Obama and a very progressive Congress can do what needs to be done.

However, with an unhinged raving lunatic with a grudge against the world, many members of his own party and horrible domestic policies (because the issue of economics is too big for him to understand and he has trusted advisors like Phil Gramm) - the hole that this country has been dug into by Bush and the republican Congress will need to be around 6 feet deep.

Because we might as well be dead to the rest of the world at that point.

If McCain wins, your kids and grandkids will fight his wars

2008-07-23T15:09:00.000-04:00

You have a friend or a colleague who has kids? Or one that has grandkids? Or is thinking about having kids?

Are they thinking that McCain is “moving to the center” (as I was told by a colleague earlier today)? Are they considering voting for McCain because Obama “doesn’t necessarily have the right experience” or for some other nonsensical reason? Do they believe the lies that McCain was “very against the war from the beginning”? Are they unfamiliar with McCain’s “there will be more wars” comment? Do they not know about his 100 years in Iraq comment?

If there is no other distinction that people can understand (or care enough about) – even though there are more distinctions than I can easily count to (and I am an accountant), it is this one: if McCain wins, he and his neoconservative buddies will ensure that there are more wars. Enough of the “more wars” that not only many of us, but our children and grandchildren will be shipped off to fight..

So, I plan on telling one of my closest friends, who is a self described “moderate libertarian” who happens to vote republican because of his wallet (he owns 2 dental practices) that his 7 year old son, 4 year old daughter and 1 year old son (who I am the godfather of) could likely be shipped overseas to fight in one of the many wars that McCain will start or inflame.

And I will tell my parents, who think McCain is not conservative enough that if he wins, they will be setting things up so that my 4 year old niece has a shot at being drafted into the decades long war that he plans on continuing (I will personally flee the country with the little mollusk if need be). Ditto for my work colleague down the hall who has 2 sons under the age of 6, and all of the people in my neighborhood who have young children, including my next door neighbors who have twin grandchildren who are around 2 years old.

It is that simple to me. It is that clear. SCOTUS is of utmost importance, however the damaging impact from McCain SCOTUS picks are not as easy to describe in tangible terms as “McCain would gladly have your kids kill and possibly die halfway across the world – or come back with PTSD or permanent injuries”.

Or the reverse – “Do you want your kids or grandkids to become fodder for McCain’s continuation of failed aggression?”>

Either way, it is a very powerful question, and paints a picture in very stark terms of what we can expect under a McCain presidency. And with there being absolutely no coverage of Iraq on the major news outlets and therefore no talk of the human cost in lost and damaged lives, I can think of no stronger more powerful way to pointedly show what is at stake here.

Will the Democrats ensure that justice is served for Siegelman

2008-07-18T14:20:00.000-04:00

I’m sitting here in Austin listening to Sam Seder interview Don Siegelman about the horrific actions that Karl Rove orchestrated in order to wrongfully imprison him for 9 months, and even though I knew some of the background, I am frankly shocked as I hear it straight from his mouth.

Once again, as Don said, “all roads lead to Rove”, and here is yet another example of a gross overstepping of any legal or moral lines by Karl Rove - carried out by fellow republicans and more importantly, yet again against a prominent Democrat.

And just as Rove (yet again) has skipped out on testifying before Congress, and just as we see more “sternly worded letters” or “stern comments” by top level Democrats and “significant interest” in investigating Rove and his illegal acts - such letters will be ignored, such subpoenas will be mocked, such comments will be dismissed by republicans, and the story will not be covered nearly enough by the corporate media.

Siegelman has just said that now Congress wants to investigate Rove’s involvement in this - yet another example where Karl Rove is involved in illegal acts against Democrats. Just like the White House emails, just like the prior refusal to testify, just like ignoring other subpoenas, just like the Plame leak, just like the US attorney firings, just like the smear campaigns and every other illegal thing that Rove has done.

There is a website set up called ContemptForRove.com that calls on Congress to make Rove testify or to hold him in contempt of Congress. Besides the obvious call for everyone to visit this site and send a note to Congress, it raises a question that I have been asking for quite some time, as well as a major concern about how the Democratic Party Congressional leadership treats its own.

Why is the Democratic Congressional leadership so unwilling to take all steps to not just investigate abuses of power and crimes by republican members of this administration but ALSO to protect members of its own party who have been wrongfully charged, imprisoned or targeted by Rove and the republican party?

The republican party, for all of its faults, take care of its own. Now granted, usually it is in the form of cover ups and stalling and obstructing justice and commuting of sentences for criminal charges. But they DO take go to great lengths to take care of their own.

The ONLY remedy here for the Democratic Party is to take care of one of their own - a GOVERNOR who was wrongfully charged, convicted and imprisoned for partisan political purposes. It would show that they are not only serious about “having each other’s backs” but also to hold one of the biggest criminals in this country - a criminal who is hated by such a large number of Americans accountable for his illegal acts.

This is a no-brainer. It would be a travesty of justice to not fully investigate and hold Rove in inherent contempt if he refuses to testify, just as it has been a travesty of justice for there to not be full investigations of all of the other crimes committed by this administration (or republican party members) over the past 7 years. These actions, as Sam Seder just said, are corrupting the chief law enforcement department in this country.

To have Rove be the one at the center of this and to hold him accountable would be a bonus. But the bigger picture is how this reflects on Democratic Party leadership. Will they make sure that one of their own is vindicated and that justice is served? A pardon by President Obama of Siegelman would be great. But even if Obama wins and even if he pardons Siegelman, this would not be nearly enough.

Will criminals be held accountable when their actions result in the wrongful imprisonment of a high level Democratic Party member? Or will this be brushed aside with no accountability?

The result of this investigation will go a long way to show whether top Congressional Democrats are more concerned with protecting their own from wrongful and illegal acts, or if they are afraid of “rocking the boat in the name of partisanship”. There is a BIG difference between the two.

Election theft disguised as the "Bradley effect"

2008-07-18T14:19:00.000-04:00

There have already been a few articles and discussions over the past few months about the “Bradley effect”, which attempts to “explain” discrepancies between what white voters tell pollsters and how they actually vote when it comes to “non-white” candidates.

And even though a lot of these discussions end up with evidence that dismisses the theory, as the election season heats up, there will no doubt be more of a racial undertone (whether it is blatant or not), and as long as poll samples are intentionally skewed to help McCain, or likely Obama voters are being excluded from the polling samples - there will be more focus on the so-called “closeness” of this race.

A few months back, I wrote a diary titled “They just have to make it close enough to steal”, and this point bears repeating over and over and over.....and over until the election.

The ways that the elections have been stolen since 2000 have been in a number of ways - whether it be caging, gaming the system from the inside, questionable software security “patches”, illegal voter roll purges, voting machine “issues”, voter ID laws, illegal redistricting, phone jamming or other shenanigans by people like Ken Blackwell or Katherine Harris - there have been different and creative ways for different states, different races and on different levels.

Many Americans have been led to believe that exit polls were suddenly inaccurate and unreliable, even though they have historically been the most accurate methodology in numerous countries for many years. We were convinced by the lying corporate media and the republican party that, while our exit polls were so far off in the 2004 Presidential race - and all in the favor of one candidate while at the same time, exit polls were being cited in the Ukraine as irrefutable evidence of a stolen election which was ultimately overturned there.

In many states, the voting machine problems have not been satisfactorily fixed - hell, in New Jersey, the voting machines are known as some of the least reliable in the country. And with new ~~anti-voter~~ voter ID laws being introduced, a renewed effort at voter suppression with each cycle, more states in play for Obama to potentially capture and the skewed polls that I mention above, this election is another one that is ripe for an attempt to steal.

While we can argue whether there is a “Bradley effect” - on that election, on ones involving Jesse Jackson, David Dinkins or others, the narrative of such a “phenomenon” is out there. And just as there were “theories” (no matter if they were based on fact or evidence, or if they were just explanations and cover ups so that a neat and tidy media narrative could exist) of why the 2000, 2002, 2004 and certain 2006 elections defied all sense of reason, statistics, evidence of suppression or disenfranchisement, it will be all too easy for a “new” (but recycled and largely false) narrative to come into play if there is a race that is close enough to steal comes into play.

And just as we have already seen skewed and biased reporting on Obama vs. McCain, just as we have seen biased polling sample sizes in order to give the impression that the polls are close than they are, and just as we have seen prior elections stolen with impunity, it will be all too easy for another “explanation” with no proof to be advanced if there are swings outside of the margin of error in certain states, or even if Obama loses states that historically voted republican but he is winning (or will be projected to win) this November.

Which makes it all the more imperative for this election to be a blowout, and for this narrative to be killed before it starts to rear its ugly head again - as it has from time to time over the past few months.

Scott Garrett's new low - hating on Americans with disabilities

2008-07-18T14:18:00.000-04:00

As noted by Howie Klein, the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments (HR 3195) was overwhelmingly passed yesterday by a vote of 402-17.

And once again, Scott Garrett was one of the 17 - the only republican from New Jersey (again) to vote against these Amendments. Is this because Garrett hates all Americans with disabilities? Is this because he thinks they don?t need protection against discrimination? Or is this a stick in the eye of opponent for NJ-5?s House seat Dennis Shulman, who has overcome many obstacles, including his own disability?

Here are some of the things that Garrett voted against yesterday:

Specifically rejects the erroneous Supreme Court decisions that have reduced the protections for people with disabilities under the ADA, restoring original Congressional intent.

Makes it absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.

Clarifies the definition of disability, including what it means to be ?substantially limited in a major life activity.?

Prohibits the consideration of mitigating measures such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology, in determining whether an individual has a disability.

Provides coverage to people who experience discrimination based on a perception of impairment regardless of whether the individual experiences disability.

Is supported by a broad coalition of civil rights groups, disability advocates, and employer trade organizations.

When asked by the folks at Blue America for his thoughts on Garrett?s vote, Shulman offered this sober and rational response:

"I'm not outraged as someone with a disability, I am outraged as someone who fights for the fundamental American value of equal opportunity."

"The Americans with Disabilities Act is a landmark piece of legislation that has provided millions of Americans with equal access in virtually all areas of life, including education, the workforce, and technology. Perhaps without it, I wouldn't be here to offer a sensible alternative to an out of touch career politician like Scott Garrett."

As an American, I am outraged at the latest extremist vote by Garrett. And as a resident of this District, I am ashamed to be represented by someone so out of touch with reality. Any support for Dennis and his campaign will go a long way towards bringing sanity back to NJ?s fifth district.

The contrast between the candidates couldn?t be clearer.

Offshore drilling - Garrett proves that he just doesn't get it.

2008-07-18T14:17:00.000-04:00

It isn?t exactly news anymore when Scott Garrett is the only NJ republican House member to vote a certain way. While it shows his stunning ability to be out of step with his own party (and not in a good way, since he is more to the right than most party members at a time when the republican party is more and more at odds with what Americans want), there are certain times when his lone vote shows an even more stunning lack of ability to grasp the big picture.

Offshore drilling is yet another one of those times.

Just recently, Garrett voted in favor of not one but two bills that would ?solve? America?s oil dependency by?.drilling for more oil, just here in the United States. Not only is this a bad idea from a short to mid term standpoint, but it is also a bad idea from a long term standpoint, as it (1) won?t lower gas prices in any material way and (2) won?t address the big picture need of becoming energy independent over the long term.

As far as the overall timeframe and impact, one of the more common timeframes that has been thrown around is that it would take 10 years before we hit a high level of production and there would be a potential 3% drop in prices on a per-barrel basis:

According to the NYT, the Energy Information Agency estimates that the total amount of oil in the offshore zone in question is about 16 billion barrels. If we assume that it would take about ten years from the day of authorization to get to peak production and that most of the oil is pumped out over 30 years, this would translate into a bit over 1 million barrels of oil a day.

That would be equal to about 1 percent of world production in a decade. If we assume a long-run demand elasticity of 0.3, this would imply a drop in world prices of approximately 3 percent. In today's prices, we would be looking at a drop in the price of a barrel of oil from around $135 to $131. If this were passed on one to one in gas prices (this is long-run story), we might expect to see a drop in the price of a gallon of gas from around $4.00 to around $3.92 a gallon.

But this isn?t really even the point, even though it demonstrates that (1) we can?t drill our way out of the current crisis, and (2) even if we can, we won?t see a big benefit even if everything runs as smoothly as one can hope. Put another way, the offshore drilling won?t reduce prices in the short term and won?t likely even materially reduce prices in the long term.

The larger issue here, of course, is energy independence in general, as well as the environmental impact of our choice in energy policy. And here is where Garrett is either clueless or doesn?t really care about the needs of his constituents when it comes to solving the short term and long term energy crisis.

Not that this lets other republicans who oppose drilling off their particular state coast but are all for drilling elsewhere off the hook ? as the ?NIMBY? argument is only a selfish one. Either you are in favor of more drilling or you are not. Either you are in favor of solving America?s oil addiction with more oil or you are not. Either you are for new initiatives in order to achieve energy independence and lower overall energy costs as well as help the environment or you are not. Either you are for more environmental pollution from oil and ?clean coal? (and by the way, coal is coal and is dirty no matter how ?clean? you want to try and call it) or you are not.

Either you get it, or you don?t (or you do but choose not to care).

By focusing on more oil and more refineries and more drilling, it is clear what Scott Garrett?s priorities are. And they are not with the short, mid range or long term interests of the people of New Jersey?s fifth district.

It is only with investment and focus on alternative energy sources and renewable energy initiatives that can save people money in the short term and help families transition to the use of hybrid cars, energy saving appliances, wind or solar energy sources and other similar ?out of the box? thinking that will help people save money in the short term as well as make changes that will be beneficial in the long run.

If Garrett can not or will not see this major pressing need, even when the other NJ republicans see it, then it makes you wonder whether he is fit to serve his constituents.

The long road back to respectability

2008-07-18T14:16:00.001-04:00

This is something that has been on my mind for some time, yet I still haven’t quite figured out where I am going with it. Over the past decade, this country has fallen from grace in a big way. Granted, “grace” is overstated, since there were many stains on the integrity and hypocritical nature of what we say as opposed to what we do long before Mister Bush took office in 2001.

But even taking that all into consideration, the way that this country’s promise and opportunity was hijacked - not by “republicans” or “Democrats” or even “neoconservatives” per se - since 2001 makes one (or at least makes me) look at what has gone on and how much respectability has been lost and wasted by a combination of greed, money, arrogance and wanton disregard for the rule of law.

In 2004, I thought that things would get better once Kerry was elected. Or, at least, it wouldn’t continue to get worse. Sadly, even if Kerry did win, much would still be the same - sure, there wouldn’t be such a mess of the Justice Department, and there would be two people other than John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, and we wouldn’t be dumping hundreds of billions into Iraq and a good number of other horrific things that are a direct result of the abomination that is the current Executive Branch.

But most of the problems facing Americans would still be big, regardless of who is in the White House - just a degree of how big.

That being said, it isn’t really worth playing the “what might have been” game, because Bush is in office, not Kerry. And with the way that Bush and many in Congress have been acting, the “just wait until Democrats are in the majority” line of thinking has been an even bigger disappointment when it comes to just how far we have to go in order to regain any respectability or advance any real progressive causes.

There is no credible explanation other than “they don’t represent us” that would explain the capitulation on Iraq funding or on FISA and the failure to have any meaningful consequences from the investigations that have been launched, nor the interest in stopping torture (or at least bringing this to light when it was first learned), the selling out of the middle class for oil and gas companies on the energy bill, the reckless disregard for the budget deficit on the AMT legislation or the challenges by Democratic party “elite” to progressive candidates by the DLC.

It’s even worse on the “other side” as the number of republicans who aren’t absolutely repulsive has dwindled to, at best, a single digit number. Stopping legislation that would help the middle class, that would be fair on wiretapping, would eliminate unnecessary and unaffordable tax cuts for special interests, stonewalling and lying and withholding documents and looking the other way about crime, corruption or the favored few are just a few of the many anti-American things that are done.

All just to show that they can obstruct everything because if they can’t get exactly what they want every time then nobody will get anything.

The same tools that wouldn’t be used by Democrats when they were in the minority (specifically by Reid and a few other Senators) are being used at every turn. Even Presidential candidates who are standing up for the Constitution are being railroaded by their own party “leadership”, while a number of impeachable offenses have occurred and been uncovered since last November with no consequences.

The same special interests are being rewarded and sheltered from accountability while not being prosecuted or seriously investigated for their complicity in violating federal law or international treaty. The election in November 2006 was supposed to take care of this. The election of 2006 was supposed to change the status quo and bring us in a new direction. Yet, impeachment was taken off the table immediately, and there has been little in the way of accountability.

Almost two years later, things have most certainly not changed - in fact, you can say that they have gotten worse. We have learned that many more of those Democrats that would make it all better were either liars or inept. We saw a party that turned its back on the winner of the Connecticut Democratic Primary for Senate for one of “its own” - a man who has only proven to be a power hungry egomaniacal liar and is actively supporting a republican (McCain) and will hopefully be kicked out of the Democratic caucus, and stripped of his seniority - yet that isn’t even a definite and it has gotten to this point without any semblance of major pushback. This is not nearly the first time that Lieberman has done this, yet he was welcomed with open arms by Senate Democrats over a progressive candidate that their own party’s voters wanted to represent their state.

We have been told that 2008 is the year that will change everything. Yet, there has been disappointment after disappoinment - on Iraq, on FISA, on things as silly as condemning MoveOn.org to more recent comments by Harold Ford that were as tepid of a defense of Obama as I have ever seen when it comes to smears, lies and distortions by republicans, the media and the McCain campaign. Similarly, there has been little push against all of the egregious things that McCain has said or done - now it can’t really be done by Obama, but it CAN be done by other prominent Democrats.

when one of the strongest remarks from House Democratic leadership was Rahm manuel saying that he won’t be buying the New Yorker anymore, how does that demonstrate leadership, and what message does that send to the American people?

The amount of “House” cleaning that needs to be done is massive. The balance of whose interests are being served is highly skewed. The current two parties have their differences but on the big picture and issues that are vital to the American people, there is more common ground with each other than with We the People. Not wanting to make moderate changes to the status quo or not wanting to tackle the big issues isn’t much different from willfully obstructing the passage of legislation that would make moderate changes to the status quo. Both result in nothing. We talk about more and better Democrats. And in some cases, the more part gives us a Jim Webb or a Jon Tester - not the ideal progressive by any stretch but certainly 100 times better than George Allen or Conrad Burns. But we also run the risk of electing the next Steny Hoyer or Jay Rockefeller, who are certainly not necessarily “better” Democrats, and can actively hinder progressives, Democrats and America as they become more entrenched.

How different will 2008 be? Or 2010 and 2012, for that matter. Will there be enough progress on global warming or healthcare or our education system or energy independence or our deteriorating infrastructure? Will we be any closer to withdrawing from Iraq? Will we be bogged down elsewhere, or still debating which Middle Eastern country we need to attack rightfuckingnow? Will the US dollar continue to be as weak, will the job market be any better and will the economy be any better? Will the US Justice Department be cleansed of its partisan ideology? Will our election system still be the laughingstock of the civilized world?

So much has happened that has done so much damage in so many ways. And it will take more than elections or incremental change to bring back any semblance of respectability for this country.

I shouldn’t say “this country”, as it isn’t the country itself - there is still opportunity and a lot that is right and good about it. I should say our “system” and our leadership with respect to their priorities and reputation. But we have seen very little change of direction as compared to what was promised in 2006. And our reputation is damaged beyond levels that would never even be considered a few years ago.

I do have faith that things can change - that things can get better again and at least there will be some accountability or change of direction. Certainly, and despite what some people think, Barack Obama is a HUGE step in the right direction - not my first choice as a candidate, but light years better than McCain. There is no other option than to do whatever we can to get him elected - and no, that is not mutually exclusive from holding him accountable in the blogosphere or even on MyBO (again, despite what some think).

But with Democratic leadership being as pitiful as it has been (I don’t think I ever saw a republican say that they needed a veto proof majority or a filibuster proof majority), more and more however, I am realizing just how far we have to go to get there.

Whiners, eh? Funny thing about that...

2008-07-18T14:15:00.000-04:00

With all of the talk about Phil Gramm's and by extension, McCain's campaign's comments about Americans being a bunch of whiners, most are focusing on the outrage as far as a reaction goes. But the truth is, there is a large segment of Americans that ARE whiners.

That segment would be, ironically enough, republicans.

Think of an issue - think of the incessant whining on right wing talk radio, think of the direction of the debate and discussion over the past decade (or even more), and we can see just how much Gramm's comments ring true.

Who can forget some of the classic whining moments that prove Gramm's point?

George W. Bush - Debate with John Kerry, 2004: It's hard work. But, again, I want to tell the American people, we're doing everything we can at home, but you better have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again.

This was just one of 10 comments that whine about the "hard work" something is.

Trent Lott, 2005 - describing the "need" for the nuclear option: "I'm for the nuclear option, absolutely," Lott has said. "The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."

Republican activists complain of "voter fraud", which there have been very few cases, in pushing widespread voter disenfranchisement initiatives. John McCain complaining about Congress going on July 4 recess despite missing close to 400 votes in this Congressional session. John McCain complains about his treatment by the press despite having them ignore his gaffes, his misstatements, his blowups, his "McCain moments" and his flip flops.

Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern on "the gay agenda": The "homosexual agenda is destroying this nation....This stuff—it's deadly," Kern says, "and it's spreading, and it will destroy our young people. It will destroy this nation."

Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas": "it's all part of the secular progressive agenda ... to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square." He then added: "[B]ecause if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."

Rick Santorum - whining about "activist judges": "Should we look at situations where judges have decided to go off on their own tangent and disobey the statutes of the United States of America?" Santorum said. "I think that's a legitimate area for oversight, sure."

Of course, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by a republican, as were more than half of the federal bench.

Scott McClellan whines about people playing the "blame game" about Katrina, while "Brownie" whines about Louisiana being to blame, and Brit Hume blames Gov. Blanco, despite thousands of pages of documents proving otherwise.

Thinking nothing of Swift Boating, lying and smearing opponents with whisper campaigns or outright leaking of classified information, Matthew Walter, spokesman for the New York Republican State Committee, whined about a privately financed exhibit that had mug shots of Bush, Cheney and others:

“It is simply inappropriate to have political attack in the form of egregious doctored photographs of the president and other high-ranking officials who have dedicated their lives to public service in a taxpayer-funded building frequented by schoolchildren and the general public.”

Republicans whine about how Democrats will raise taxes. Larry Craig complained about a "witch hunt", despite pleading guilty. Tom DeLay complained about "unfair partisan attacks" despite being knee deep in illegal activities. Republicans complained and tried to blame the Democrats for Mark Foley's sexual harassment of Congressional pages.

And of course, there is this "ace in the hole":

George W. Bush - 2006:"Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing," Bush said. He said the Democratic Party - the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman - has become the "party of cut-and-run."

This, despite overwhelming support for withdrawal from Iraq, the Bush administration's own "cut and run" from Afghanistan and a record of republican obstruction in the 110th Congress that is unrivaled by any Congress ever.

I could go on for days, but will leave it at these fine examples. So maybe Gramm does have a point - there are a lot of whiners in America. Thankfully, due to millions of Americans realizing how destructive the republican policies have been, the number of republican whiners has decreased over the past few years.

All that is left are a bunch of dead enders.

Screw you, Iraq, we're not leaving

2008-07-18T14:14:00.000-04:00

Iraq’s National Security Advisor is the latest official to insist on a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, following such dead enders such as the Iraqis themselves, not to mention al Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament (in fact, this is one of the only things that they do agree on).

But these silly Iraqis just don’t get it. It really doesn’t matter that 70% of Iraqis want us out. Or that top official after top official call for a timetable for our troops to leave. Or that the point of McCain’s ill-fated surge was to allow for political progress, which there has been none of. Or that most Americans want our troops out, and that keeping our troops in Iraq is hurting the cause in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan – the places where the Taliban and al Qaeda are. Or that more troops are now dying in Afghanistan than Iraq.

No, what matters is that John McCain says that the Iraqi government can’t make us leave (not to mention that he wants to keep our troops there for 100 years), that General Petraeus isn’t about to come up with any plan for withdrawal, and that even though members of Congress are asking for that, Congress is still providing hundreds of billions of dollars to ongoing operations in Iraq with no strings attached.

So, while these Iraqis whine and some members of Congress continue to act in the best interests of America, none of them realize that it isn’t their place to say what happens in their own country. After all, we liberated them, so they owe us. The timetable will be our timetable, not anyone else’s. And if you look at other “strategic acquisitions” made over this country’s history – this is not unlike the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Manhattan, or even the “liberation” of Texas.

This is for the Iraqi’s own good. It is for the good of the region. It is our “manifest destiny”. It is the “Pottery Barn rule”, and since it ain’t “fixed” yet, then we have an obligation to stay there as long as it takes to fix it – Iraqi officials or citizens be damned.

We are there, and we are not leaving. There can be hand wringing, there can be demands, there can be calls from the Iraqis, the Americans, the Iraqi officials and the US Congress for withdrawal. But none of this matters.

Congress is funding this ongoing occupation with no withdrawal dates attached (and even if they did, it wouldn’t be listened to), nobody thought of what to do after “shock and awe” and the Iraqis don’t know that we are really there to hear them say “God, I love freedom", even if we have to force it down their throats at gunpoint. Don’t they realize that they just aren’t grateful enough of what we are doing for them?

What are they going to do anyway, attack our troops? Don’t they realize that one of the Presidential candidates doesn’t care about the troops, nor do far too many people in Congress?

So go ahead and call for a withdrawal – it won’t happen. There is a better chance of Iraq becoming the 51st state than anything else. After all, how long as it been since Iraqis paid their taxes to the US – a country that has laid out all of this cash and to what benefit?

About that "September 10 mindset"

2008-06-17T15:56:00.000-04:00

Since this bullshit line is being trotted out again in an attempt to scare people into who-knows-what, let’s look at what a September 10 mindset really means and relates to.

Bill Clinton’s transition team warned the Bush administration about al Qaeda in 2000: Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act.

They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

Hmmmm….recognizing the threat of al Qaeda and trying to deal with it before something catastrophic happened. What happened as a result of this?

We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

Oh yeah…..that’s right.

What else was part of that “Democratic pre-9/11 mindset”? Well, we can look back to Democratic President Bill Clinton and his actions (which didn’t include shredding of the Bill of Rights or extraordinary rendition or indefinite detainment of people with no charges or torture). This “September 10 mindset” included dramatic increases in federal spending on counterterrorism between 1996 and 2000:

Between 1996 and 2001, federal spending on counterterrorism increased dramatically to more than $12 billion annually. The FBI's counterterrorism budget rose even more sharply, from $78 million in 1996 to $609 million in 2000, tripling the number of agents assigned to such activities and creating a new counterterrorism center at the bureau's Washington headquarters.

---snip---

Besides strengthening law enforcement, the Clinton administration sponsored a series of wide-ranging simulations that brought together local, state and federal officials to determine how government would respond if terrorists attacked with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Clinton himself was reportedly obsessed with the potential threat of anthrax and other bio-weapons.

That is why, by the time he left office, scores of those planning exercises were taking place annually across the country. Spending on "domestic preparedness" programs rose from $42.6 million in 1997 to more than $1.2 billion in 2000. The foresight represented by those appropriations has given his administration's successors an important head start.

Wow….disaster preparedness for biological or nuclear attacks, including funding for 40 million smallpox vaccines. What else is indicative of a “September 10 mindset”?

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

Right. “Pre-emptive war”. That was also a September 10 mindset, and since we know that McCain totally supported Bush on the transcendent issues, we can assume that his September 10 mindset will involve invading other countries “just because”.

But let’s keep looking at what this “September 10 mindset” relates to. There is this April 2000 memo from Janet Reno indicating that counterterrorism is one of the highest priorities, and there is also a 1998 FBI Strategic Plan document which calls counterterrorism the Tier One priority.

And if we want to look at specifically what the “September 10 mindset” is all about, let’s take a look at September 10, 2001. We have a document from John Ashcroft, which is the official FY 2003 budget request of the Department of Justice that ignores the FBI’s prior requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers (see the FBI request from August 2001 here). Not to be overlooked is the finishing touches that then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was putting on her “major national security speech”:

National Security Adviser Rice is scheduled to deliver a speech claiming to address “the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday.” The speech is never given due to the 9/11 attacks earlier in the day, but the text is later leaked to the media. The Washington Post calls the speech “telling Insight into the administration’s thinking” because it promotes missile defense and contains no mention of al-Qaeda, bin Laden, or Islamic extremist groups. The only mention of terrorism is in the context of the danger of rogue nations such as Iraq. In fact, there are almost no public mentions of bin Laden or al-Qaeda by Bush or other top Bush administration officials before 9/11, and the focus instead is on missile defense.

So now, after looking things over, maybe it is a compliment for republicans - especially ones that are so tied to the Bush administration policies - to be telling Democrats that they have a “September 10” or a “pre-9/11” mindset. It is clear who was focusing on terrorism and counterterrorism activities in this critical period and who was ignoring them.

...and what happens when Mukasey ignores these subpoenas?

2008-06-16T14:47:00.001-04:00

On one hand, I gotta express support, yet again, for Rep. Waxman, as he is one of a shrinking number of Congressional officials that dare to investigate, ask tough questions and follow up to a large extent.

On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that we have been down this road more than once over the past few years and still are in the same crappy place we were had no subpoenas been issued in the first place.

And when it comes to Attorney General (in name only) Mukasey - the recipient of the latest Congressional subpoenas, his track record is nothing short of abhorrent when it comes to views and disdain for the rule of law.

This round of subpoenas relates to Scotty McClellan’s revelations about Dick Cheney and the CIA leak investigation, and maybe it could uncover what many of us thought all along about Cheney’s role in selling a war based on lies and bullying. And yes, it is something, just as so many of the other subpoena and investigation and impeachment worthy actions, lies, crimes, stolen elections, illegal voter suppression as well as other offenses and cover ups are, that is necessary as part of moving this country forward.

To ignore or “let slide” the myriad of atrocities committed over the past 8 years will be a stain on this nation forever. To not hold these criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law will not only be a travesty of justice of the highest order but will also set a dangerous precedent whereby subpoenas can be ignored without consequence, where crimes can be committed and covered up only to not be investigated further, where governmental officials can be held in contempt of Congress with absolutely no punishment and where wars can be waged based on admitted and proven lies and laws can be disregarded based on a signing statement with no fear of retribution.

Bravo to Rep. Waxman for continuing to push back and look for answers. But as with so many other “strongly worded letters”, ignored subpoenas, cases that should be prosecuted, pursued or investigated by the Justice Department but aren’t, abuses of power, crimes, destroyed evidence and other impeachable offenses that are so blatant yet not discussed for fear of “sounding partisan” - what happens when Mukasey decides to ignore these subpoenas?

As much as a dereliction of duty it is to not investigate or not issue subpoenas, it may actually be worse to investigate or issue subpoenas only to not follow all the way through if the investigations lead to potential crimes or cover ups to which there are no consequences or ramification, or if the subpoenas are ignored with no consequence.

This was done in your name

2008-06-15T10:02:00.000-04:00

This is a disturbing diary, so I am warning you up front.

A report out of Iraq this past week by Dahr Jamail highlights another stunningly horrific result of the illegal use of white phosphorus and chemical weapons in Fallujah by “coalition forces” back in late 2004 and 2005.

Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say.

The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after "special weaponry" was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004.

After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah.

In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tons of DU in Iraq thus far.

Between the white phosphorus and depleted uranium (as reported back in early 2006, as many as 50% of Iraqi cancer patients were under the age of 5 years old. This number from 2006 is up from around 13% just over a decade years earlier.

Brain damage, cleft palate, deformities, cancer, early death, Down’s Syndrome, stillborn babies, miscarriages, heart defects and missing limbs are just some of the “abnormalities” that are being seen at an alarming rate over the past few years, not to mention bodies where the skin basically melted off after exposure to these dangerous and immoral chemical weapons use.

"We saw all the colors of the rainbow coming out of the exploding American shells and missiles," Ali Sarhan, a 50-year-old teacher who lived through the two US sieges of 2004 told IPS. "I saw bodies that turned into bones and coal right after they were exposed to bombs that we learned later to be phosphorus.

Were these mothers terrorists? What about the babies or children that were exposed to the chemicals and have either died or now have to suffer a life full of health issues - a life that will no doubt be shortened and full of difficulty as a result?

And by the way, this is not limited to Iraqis. As noted last year, Iraq vets have an alarming increase in cancer rates as well:

The number of these cancers remains undisclosed, with military officials citing patient privacy issues, as well as lack of evidence the cases are linked to conditions in the war zone. The U.S. Congress has ordered a probe of suspect toxins and may soon begin widespread testing of our armed forces.

---snip---

None of these soldiers know for sure what's killing them. But they suspect it's a cascade of multiple toxic exposures, coupled with the intense stress of daily life in a war zone weakening their immune systems.

"There's so much pollution from so many sources, your body can't fight what's coming at it," Valentin said. "And you don't eat well or sleep well, ever. That weakens you, too. There's no chance to gather your strength. These are kids 19, 20 and 21 getting all kinds of cancers. The Walter Reed cancer ward is packed full with them."

The prime suspect in all this, in the minds of many victims — and some scientists — is what's known as depleted uranium — the radioactive chemical prized by the military for its ability to penetrate armored vehicles. When munitions explode, the substance hits the air as fine dust, easily inhaled.

This is yet another huge issue that will need to be dealt with, and like so many others, is a humanitarian matter that will cast a dark cloud on what has been done in our names. Deformities and high cancer rates can’t be ignored - whether it is for Iraqi civilians or for our troops who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The pictures are absolutely heartwrenching (warning: these are very graphic).

The effects are just starting to be seen, and whether it is in Walter Reed for our returning troops, or in the hospitals in Iraq - it is overwhelming:

The doctor added, "I can say all kinds of problems related to toxic pollution took place in Fallujah after the November 2004 massacre."

Many doctors speak of similar cases and a similar pattern. The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records.

The Fallujah General Hospital administration was unwilling to give any statistics on deformed babies, but one doctor volunteered to speak on condition of anonymity -- for fear of reprisals if seen to be critical of the administration.

---snip---

A senior Iraqi health ministry official was quoted as saying Feb. 26 that the health sector is under "great pressure", with scores of doctors killed, an exodus of medical personnel, poor medical infrastructure, and shortage of medicines.

The atrocities committed in the name of “freedom” and “liberation” are countless. The fact that this was covered up, then downplayed by this administration is nothing short of disgusting. The ignoring and black out by the corporate media is inexcusable. But the truth is not hard to find - if you can stomach reading through it.

What’s worse is that all of this was done in our names, and most people don’t even know it (or want to know it).

How about some straight talk on abortion, Senator McCain?

2008-06-14T10:14:00.001-04:00

A week or so back, I created a bit of a stir with a diary whose title referred to SCOTUS overturning Roe. And while I make no apologies for the title, I did only talk about McCain’s “fondness” for judges like Alito, Scalia and Roberts, and how he would like to appoint SCOTUS justices in their mold.

McCain’s positions on abortion have been, even for someone who is firmly on the anti-privacy and choice side of the ledger, all over the road. But the least odious of the miserable positions that he takes is that he would like to see the decision revert back to the states, where a good number of states already have “trigger laws” on the books, which would effectively ban the right for a woman to have control over her personal private medical decisions.

And if we look at the extremists such as LifeNews, we will find that they too are not all that happy about the media coverage of McCain - but not in ways that many of us are unhappy with the media coverage.

No, what LifeNews wants all of America to know, and on this point I agree wholeheartedly with them, is that McCain not only is against a woman’s right of personal private medical decisions over her own body, but he is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortions.

Don’t you think this is something that all of the independents and people who think McCain is a “moderate” or not completely insane or who is respectful of women should know?

Let’s take a look at a few things that show what the real McCain is all about. First, here is the republican Party’s platform on abortion:

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution (from 2004’s platform)

We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment (from the 2000 platform)

We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.

So, let’s start with that. There is also this exchange between McCain and Sean Hannity from this past March:

”I got a call from a lot of people and they knew I was going to interview you today," Hannity said. "And I think one of the areas that came up the most is would you leave the pro-life language in the platform and the marriage amendment in the platform."

McCain responded, "yes,"

OK, you may say, that just shows that a weak candidate doesn’t want to rock the boat when it comes to riling up the fundie wing of the party. But then you see this exchange with George Stephanopoulos in 2006:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

So here, we have McCain supporting a Constitutional amendment and a “return of Roe to the states”, although he thinks that a SCOTUS reversal of Roe is more feasible. And with trigger laws already on the books, we can see that this may be the path of lesser resistance. However, there is, at least in 2006, an outright support by McCain to ban abortion via a Constitutional amendment except in extreme circumstances. Interestingly, this (as well as the call for a “marriage amendment”) would be the only potential Constitutional amendments that take away rights of Americans.

Let’s look back a few years - to 1999, which is a time that McCain actually said how he truly felt more often than not and had an element of “straight talk” to him - certainly light years more than today. As uncovered by Media Matters, on the January 30 edition of Meet the Press, there was this exchange with McCain on abortion and a Constitutional amendment:

Russert: "A constitutional amendment to ban all abortions?"

McCain: "Yes, sir."

Russert: "You're for that?"

McCain: "Yes, sir."

The problem here is that, to this day, whether it is coming from LifeNews or Media Matters - the corporate media is not telling the truth about McCain’s position on banning a woman’s right to make private medical decisions for herself. Granted, it is difficult to tell the total truth about McCain when he doesn’t do so himself and so frequently contradicts himself.

But one thing is clear - McCain has consistently looked to restrict a woman’s right to make her own decisions - whether it be overturning Roe and allowing states to outlaw a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions, whether it be a Constitutional amendment that would be the first (other than the since-repealed prohibition) to restrict people’s rights, or whether it is a modified version that outlaws women’s rights with limited exceptions.

So which one is it, Senator? And just as importantly, what would you propose as a punishment for women who “break the laws or amendments” that you seek to enforce? Would you imprison them? Would you imprison their doctors?

I think the country has a right to know just how far you would go to restrict people’s rights to make their own personal medical decisions and what you would do to “punish” those who don’t comply with your draconian wishes.

How about a little straight talk, for once?

Just how is it NOT a 3rd Bush term, Senator McCain?

2008-06-12T13:09:00.000-04:00

Not one week ago, John W. McSame got a bit defensive when addressing charges that he is running for Bush’s third term:

"You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term," McCain said. "You will hear every policy of the president described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false."

False, eh?

Care to explain just how that is false, and in what particular area or issue or topic or vote or policy that would be, Senator? Because frankly, I’ve been doing quite a bit of writing and reading about what you stand for and what your positions are and how you vote and who you associate yourself with and what you believe in and I’ll be damned if I can see any real difference.

Anywhere.

It wouldn’t be your voting record, which was 100% with Bush in 2008, and 95% in 2007 (not to mention an average of over 90% in just about every year since 2001 with one exception.). And it wouldn’t be your role in the notorious “Gang of 14” to ensure that Bush’s odious judicial appointments got through (not to mention the fact that SCOTUS judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia would be precisely who you would appoint).

It wouldn’t be in the area of leveling with the American public, as evidenced by Bush-like double talk on Hurricane Katrina (and just remember what you were doing and who you were with the day that Katrina hit) or on health care (more on that below).

It wouldn’t be on the domestic front either - since the very same tax cuts that you said you were against are the very tax cuts you voted to extend and have proposed yourself. And it wouldn’t be on social security privatization where your positions are pretty consistent with each other. Nor would it be in the area of health care, where experts in the industry say it falls far short of covering people who need it and need it now. Couple this with your support of Bush’s SCHIP veto or your rating as the worst Senator for children’s issues.

Or more-of-the-same foreign policy, where your top foreign policy advisor is a major neoconservative and your agreement with Bush on Iran (whether it be echoing talking points, threatening to bomb bomb bomb them or falsely linking Iran to al Qaeda). Iraq is no different as there is no plan to do anything - not just not do anything different, but not do anything. Anything, that is, except for wishing that things will be all rosy and just plain not knowing what the hell is going on there (or willfully ignoring what is going on there).

And on the economy, where other republicans proudly crow about how the economic policies will be a third Bush term and how “that’s a good thing”, or how bailing out Bear Stearns is more important than helping taxpayers.

Of course, we can ask what Bush thinks of this? It is a good thing that he is on record here:

Mark Halperin: The President behind the scenes has told people for months that he thought McCain would be the nominee. Even during some of those dark periods he still thought he could win. And also that McCain would be the best to carry forth his agenda. I've got news for you before the president starts, Karl Rove, a friend of Fox, Fox Contributor, yesterday delivered a check for $2,300 to John McCain."

Maybe you are right - just by saying something over and over, doesn’t make it more true. And by saying something over and over because it is very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know to be false.

Like you not being as close to a third Bush term as anyone could possibly get.

Corporate media finally wising up to the real McCain?

2008-06-12T13:08:00.000-04:00

I’ve been quick to point out the coddling of John McCain by the corporate media, and have (like many) been frustrated when his verbal diarrhea went virtually unnoticed during the Democratic primary process.

But over the past week or so (as a coincidence or not), it seems like there is a breaking through of the various “gaffes”, other comments, crazy-ass policy positions and general confusion by McCain – and the coverage has started to show.

Of course, there are still the strong denials and stubborn comments made by McCain or Lieberman or his neocon and lobbyist advisors, those at Fox News or the NRO or whoever else is making to deny the reality, but (and here is the key) there does look like an opportunity exists where we can continue to force the narrative on McCrazy’s comments and positions and since they are so far out there, they may get the additional coverage that has been lacking for so very long.

Obviously, since there are so many, they aren’t ALL going to get coverage (like the “bottled hot water to dehydrated babies” or the “vetoing every beer” comments he made last week), but a quick search of the various news articles and corporate media web sites does provide hope.

On USA Today’s home page, the two top stories under “Path to the White House” are McCain Troop Withdrawal Remarks Draw Fire and Polls: Women Favor Obama. Similarly, a quick search – you know, it’s a google, shows a number of other recent not-so-flattering articles about McCain.

There is the Boston Herald headline John McCain: I can’t be a referee which discusses the fact that he is flip flopping on his positions regarding the 527s that will be running attack ads and how he is helpless to do anything about them. Yahoo News asks “Did John McCain just say what I think he said about Iraq?” and MSNBC asks, is “John McCain ‘confused’ on foreign policy?”.

Today’s Wall Street Journal discusses McCain’s and Obama’s tax plans, but the headline is “McCain’s Tax Plan Favors Wealthiest, Analysis Says”, and that is complimented by the Boston Globe’s Obama promotes middle class tax cut. Interestingly and on the flip side, Lifenews is calling out the corporate media for erroneously NOT indicating that McCain would try to seek a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. Now, THAT is something that I would love to see pointed out.

Even the ultra rightist US News & World Report had the following to say in a post titled Obama blasts McCain on the economy:

In a speech in Raleigh, NC that is receiving largely positive coverage, Sen. Barack Obama sharply attacked Sen. John McCain's economic proposals, seeking to tie then to Bush Administration's policies. Media accounts generally describe Obama's remarks as a shrewd strategic move.

Almost as shocking is the Washington Times (no, that is not a misprint) hits McCain on taxes in a post titled “Tax record catches up with McCain” which talks about his voting record not matching his rhetoric on taxes.

ABC News has one of it’s main posts on the front page titled “Strange bedfellows: Obama and evangelicals” that talks about the “animus that many have for McCain”, the Houston Chronicle has a similar type article titled “Baptists are left guessing about McCain” and even Novakula himself penned a post titled “McCain’s evangelical problem”.

CBS News (via Politico) has a post titled “Record Gas Prices Could Hurt McCain” and the LA Times discusses “John McCain’s Ohio disconnect”.

And these are just over the past few days. Granted, this isn’t necessarily more than an indication of a few stories in a relatively short period of time. But there was this Newsweek article from February that was titled “Why the Right Hates McCain” and now that the entire political media climate isn’t sucked in by the Democratic primary battle, and as the country continues in the downward spiral economically, this does present an opportunity to keep pushing the narrative on McCain.

Not everything will break through – probably not nearly enough, but if the past few days are any indication, then it does show a willingness to point out the inconsistencies of McCain’s comments, actions and voting record. Also, notice that I did not include anything from the New York Times and the only thing I included from the Washington Post was from Novak. McCain is one of the most flawed candidates that we have seen in years.

And even the corporate media can’t continue to hide all of his flaws – especially when there are so many, there are so many missteps, misstatements and positions that go against what the vast majority of Americans want, need or believe in.

We regularly and rightfully rail against the corporate media when the so very often fail to do their jobs. But here is an opportunity to recognize the opening that has been given and exploit it in order to establish the narrative on McCain – and have it driven through in a way that we never would have otherwise expected.

"SCOTUS overturns 'Roe', eliminates right of privacy"

2008-06-03T13:34:00.001-04:00

You can expect to see that headline if John McCain wins the Presidency.

It is no secret that the non-”activist judges” on the Supreme Court are the older ones, and it is no secret that there could be two, maybe even three appointments over the next 4 years. And it is also no secret that McCain has been pandering to those who want to erode the Constitution further - ironically in the name of “strictly interpreting it”.

One of the more difficult things that face Democrats and progressives is to undo the “maverick” and “moderate” brand that McCain has spent decades building and crafting. There are mountains of evidence, hundreds of votes, countless comments, actions and people that he has closely aligned himself with - yet he is STILL though of as more likely to reach across the aisle and more likely to effectively work with the other party than Obama.

There are millions of independent or moderate voters who don’t know The real McCain and are unable to or unwilling to accept the cold hard reality that he is precisely the opposite of the carefully crafted persona that he is perceived to have.

I’ve been doing a lot of opposition research and writing about McCain over the past few months, and have been trying to figure out (as have many others) what the best way to rebrand him, convince uninformed voters about, and get information out regarding him. There are a lot of ways - there is the ties to lobbyists, there is the “double talk”, there is the “bomb bomb bomb Iran”, the “100 years in Iraq”, the Hagee endorsement, the “angry and unstable” approach, the “third Bush term” approach and there is the approach of using his words and votes against him.

As we all know, McCain is a highly flawed candidate in so many ways. And while some of these are better than others to convince people of just what John McCain is all about, there hasn’t been nearly enough focus on what he would do with the Supreme Court and how drastically his preferred choices would restrict personal privacy and freedoms as well as expand corporate secrecy, executive power and erode the Church/State separation.

The attack is simple: McCain’s ideal SCOTUS would take away your privacy and expand his.

We have his own words to back this up as well. Just as Bush used code words in talking to his “base”, McCain has done the same. Back in January, McCain said the following to Byron York:

"Let me just look you in the eye," McCain told me. "I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I've said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I've said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked."

Clones of Roberts and Alito. The two SCOTUS justices who have driven the Court further to the right than any other Court in recent memory. Alito - one who was all for the unauthorized strip searching a ten year old girl during a search that was only authorized for her father and his home. Roberts, who thinks that parolees who are not in violation of their parole can be searched without any cause or suspicion. And both, who think that mentally ill should be able to receive the death penalty - just to name a few cases.

Let’s also remember that McCain voted for every single one of Bush’s judicial appointees, and that the court he is looking to expand has done the following things in a short period of time:

in just three years the Roberts Court has crippled school-desegregation efforts (and hinted that affirmative action may be next); approved a federal law that bans a form of abortion; limited the reach of job-discrimination laws; and made it more difficult to challenge the mixing of church and state.

Besides the fact that this is the very definition of “activist judges” or “legislating from the bench”, the SCOTUS that McCain wants to see will continue to erode personal freedoms and rights. Not only that, but McCain also cited Scalia as a “model” of who he would select.

Scalia - the most extreme of the Justices - one who approves of torture and one who, unlike Thomas (who I may disagree with on nearly everything but is at least relatively consistent in his decision making process) is highly hypocritical in his views and decisions and has a long history of not supporting personal rights and freedoms.

This is the reality - the Constitution has been eroded on a tremendous scale by the Bush administration, and abetted in no small part by Scalia, Alito and the Roberts SCOTUS. John McCain’s dream is to pack and stack the Court with more Justices that will eliminate or erode personal rights and freedoms under the Bill of Rights, whether it be the First, Fourth or Eight amendments, whether it be in the area of a woman’s right of privacy, whether it be intruding into people’s personal lives or expanding Executive power and secrecy (as Scalia has already proven when he protected Cheney and his secret energy commission, despite being duck hunting buddies).

For me, this is the biggest reason to make sure that McCain does not win in November. It is bad enough that we have to deal with a couple of decades of Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Scalia. To add two or three more Justices to this draconian line of thinking will be devastating to the future and direction of this country.

While "defending its honor", MSM still dropping the ball

2008-05-31T14:14:00.000-04:00

For starters, I only use “MSM” in the title because “corporate media” or “infotainment media” wouldn’t fit. That being said, the sad irony of the press corps which once again shows how out of touch the village idiots are with reality is that, despite all of the huffing and puffing about how Scott McClellan wouldn’t let them do their jobs, they still are falling flat on their faces at every turn.

I’d use the term jumped the shark (hyperlinked for those who don’t know what it means) to describe them and their role in the whole “reporting the news and professional journalism” thing that they clearly have long given up but I think the term “jump the shark” has kind of jumped the shark...

When news reporters say that their corporate bosses pushed them to take out their “America, Fuck YEAH!!!” pom poms, that is bad enough. But when the same reporter complains about how unfair McClellan was being to criticize them was not only the same one to share a stage with traitor Rove in one of the most eye-burning dances ever and is STILL, to this day the NBC News Chief White House Correspondent, and is not doing the job that McClellan accused him of not doing, well, sorry, I have no sympathies there.

And when someone like Tom Brokaw is shocked, SHOCKED, that his profession were either dumb or complicit or unfit to do the jobs they are supposed to do, it is time to not only call him on this, but to push back forcefully.

When Brokaw says that “all wars are based on propaganda”, he misses the point. Propaganda means the spreading of ideas or rumor to further your cause or to damage an opposing cause. This was not propaganda. It was lies.

Period.

Hell, even Speaker Pelosi calls it a lie, although that apparently is still not grounds for impeachment.

What makes this worse, and what all of the whiny whiners are missing is that regardless of whether McClellan is right about them not pushing back hard enough or even, as my friend thereisnospoon says, what they reported after he stonewalled them (although it is an excellent point), is that there are still so many abuses and lies and stories that they should be reporting on and are not.

Where to even begin here? Even equating McCain’s total cluelessness about the troop levels and the violence in mosul with Obama’s minor “gaffe” (if it can even be called a gaffe) about a personal story that happened to be accurate in every meaningful way is a great disservice to what Americans should know when judging who should be their next President. Or the way that the Wright/Hagee/Parsley stories were reported - if they should even have been covered at all in the first place.

And it doesn’t stop there, of course. There are real serious things - things that should be covered and reported to the American people that we deserve to know about. Things that are imperative - things that are both accurate but ignored and things that are inaccurate yet covered non-stop as if they were gospel.

Things like the number of troops that are committing suicide and have PTSD. Things like telecom immunity really being about protecting Bush and his illegal programs. Things like the GAO report that shows how unprepared we are to deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan. Things like the Pentagon propaganda campaign. Things like FISA. Things like fake “evidence” that overblows the threat that Iran is to the United States (or Israel for that matter). Things like the continued devastation in the Gulf Coast, almost three years later.

Things like Rove and Miers ignoring Congressional subpoenas for no good reason. Things like the hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised voters from ~~voter ID~~ anti-voter laws and other voter suppression tactics. Things like the same voting machines that were unreliable in 2002, 2004 and 2006 are still being used, despite many not being certified. Things like asking what exactly happened to the millions of dollars in cash that were “lost” in Iraq. Things like why the US was arming both sides of a civil war in Iraq, or exactly what the role of our troops is or the desired end game is in Iraq or the reason we should still be spending billions of dollars every month there.

So many more things. Even things like why Cindy McCain gets a pass when Teresa Heinz Kerry didn’t. Or why McCain still calls himself a “straight talker” when he is either lying, stupid or just losing it. And even bringing it back to McClellan’s bubble bursting smack in their faces, why they STILL aren’t saying that they were lied to.

All the handwringing and finger pointing and blame gaming in the world won’t change the fact that McClellan passed along (either willfully or not) lies and they were not challenged or questioned at the time. And nothing will change the fact that the independence and integrity of those who are in the corporate media were sacrificed to become “buddy buddy” with the very people that lied and destroyed national security secrets and pissed all over the Constitution and made them out for the damn fools that they proved to be.

Regardless of whether it was their choice or the choice of their corporate ~~puppetmasters~~ bosses.

But instead of this “woe is me” nonsense, how about a bit of reflection and actually using it as a learning experience. There is so much that needs to be reported, so much that needs exposing, so much that a bit of research can lead to a huge story that the American public will be interested in.

The sad thing is that instead of doing the job that McClellan said you didn’t do a few years ago, you choose to keep crying that it just isn’t fair.

McCain needs to explain his own deep ties to Chalabi

2008-05-22T15:51:00.001-04:00

Earlier today, teacherken had a very important diary about the connection between McCain campaign honcho, lobbyist and political advisor Charles Black and Ahmed Chalabi, who we all know as the de facto Iranian double agent who duped the US with bogus intelligence about Saddam.

But there is something that has only been noted here and there which really merits more probing, and certainly demands an explanation from McCain himself - especially if he is to claim that he is not clueless on foreign policy and that is his own connections to Chalabi and how he helped Chalabi dupe the US, how he stood by Chalabi and how he propped up Chalabi all while Chalabi was working for Iran (even FoxNews reported that Chalabi was spying for Iran).

And before you wonder whether this a stretch, it is something that dates back more than a decade, showing a long relationship between John McCain and the man who scammed our country into the worst foreign policy clusterfuck in my lifetime, if not longer. Let’s flash back to 1997, when:

he tried to pressure the Clinton administration into setting up an Iraqi government in exile. Despite opposition from the Pentagon and the State Department, the next fall, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to overthrowing Saddam and funding opposition groups.

The chief beneficiary of this Act? One Ahmed Chalabi.

However, this is just the very beginning. It is likely that McCain became more involved with Chalabi through Randy Scheunemann who, as Cliff Schecter points out in his book, The Real McCain:

Scheunemann, is largely credited with bringing McCain into the neoconservative fold and creating the rogue-state rollback strategy. Beginning in 2000, when Scheunemann became a key advisor, McCain sought to distinguish himself from other Republican presidential candidates and House isolationists. McCain began reading the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and conferring with its editors, especially Bill Kristol.3

Scheunemann joined Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz on another bright idea: giving approximately $350,000 per month in taxpayer money to Iraqi National Congress kingpin Ahmad Chalabi. As we now know, Chalabi lied to the United States about Saddam Hussein’s capabilities and purportedly passed on classified U.S. intelligence to his friends in Iran.

Schenuemann and McCain go back to the 1990s, where he was highly influential to McCain on foreign policy:

Randy Scheunemann, who had drafted the Iraq Liberation Act and was on the board of Kristol's Project for a New American Century, became McCain's foreign policy adviser.

---snip---

McCain unveiled his new approach in a March 1999 speech at Kansas State University.

---snip---

The centerpiece of the speech was a strategy that McCain called "rogue-state rollback." Scheunemann says he invented the term, adapting it from the conservative critics of 1950s cold war containment. According to this strategy, the United States would back "indigenous and outside forces that desire to overthrow the odious regimes that rule" illiberal states. At the head of this list of regimes was Saddam Hussein's.

So now that we have established the history of this relationship, and the genesis of McCain’s obsession with overthrowing Saddam (as far back as the 1990s), let’s look at how this has impacted the relationship between McCain and Chalabi - and how McCain has never explained his support and actions that led to Chalabi duping the US into invading Iran - all while benefitting himself in the process.

In a book that was recently released about Chalabi and the US and the Iraq invasion, there were revelations that showed a relationship between McCain and Chalabi going back to 1991:

One of his key backers has been John McCain, who was one of the first patrons of Chalabi’s grand-sounding International Committee for a Free Iraq when it was founded in 1991. McCain was Chalabi’s favored candidate in the 2000 election since Chalabi knew that he would be able to free up the $97 million in military aid plus millions pushed through in Congress and earmarked for Chalabi’s exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, but held up by the Clinton State Department.

But wait, there’s still more.....

Back to the article by John Judis in 2006 linked above. Even as the invasion was beginning and there was debate and questions as to the intent and loyalties of Chalabi (as evidenced by the US raid on his home in early 2004), McCain was still pushing hard for Chalabi:

As the war unfolded, McCain remained a Chalabi booster. With the Iraqi military crumbling in early April, McCain signed a letter with four other Republican senators complaining that Chalabi's INC was not being funded. Appearing on "Good Morning America," he argued for "bringing in Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress as soon as possible."

Despite all of this, as well as the actions of Chalabi that were most certainly in support of Iran and even more certainly against the interests of the United States, McCain is still unapologetic. As recently as this past March, McCain was supporting his decisions to back Chalabi:

Asked by The Times this month if he regretted backing the 1998 law, which produced few discernible results other than bolstering Chalabi, McCain said he did not.

I think McCain owes it to America to let us know how a double agent who was giving the United States false information in order to benefit himself and the Iranian government was either able to dupe him for nearly two decades or whether he still thinks that this double agent who was working for a group that McCain has called a terrorist organization is a “patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart”.

Either way, it shows a stunning lack of ability on John McCain’s part to effectively represent the United States and its interests from a foreign policy perspective.

If you think there is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq now...

2008-05-19T15:01:00.001-04:00

There has been a lot of talk over the past few months and even past couple of years with respect to the refugee crisis in Iraq - the flight of much of the professional class from Iraq, the displacement of millions of Iraqis and the sectarian cleansing are just some of the things that jump to mind. Couple that with the high unemployment rate, the lack of electricity, the ongoing violence and rampant corruption, and the outlook has been pretty bleak for quite some time.

However, the recent events and fighting in Sadr City that created a shortage of food, water and medicine for tens of thousands of Iraqis (including up to 75,000 children) is just the tip of the iceberg.

How can that be, you may ask.

Well, let’s add in one of the worst droughts in recent history that will result in an approximate 35% reduction in the production of wheat and barley, leading to thousands more jobless Iraqis, a lack of ability to feed livestock and the need to import wheat as well as vegetables for the first time in years. In fact, the cost to import food into Iraq is now estimated at around $5 BILLION.

Oh yeah, over one million Iraqis are now forced to rely on international food aid (that is, if the aid is even able to reach these people - as is not the case in portions of Iraq).

Let’s look at what this means, other than the danger of already-pissed off Iraqis now losing more jobs, not getting the requisite food, water and medicine, who may now turn to whoever is going to help them - even if it is the local militias or tribes:

From Gorilla’s Guides: Early Warning: Lack of fodder and lack of water because of the drought threaten a true disaster for livestock in Anbar. GZG funds have been requested to ameliorate the situation and preserve what livestock there is. High prices of fodder and no fuel to transport stock to where grass and water are still available are causing severe problems. About 3 million head of cattle are recorded for the governorate before the starting of the summer dry season this year.

This means that 3 million cattle can’t be fed, watered or even transported to another area where they can be fed or watered.

And this is Anbar province - remember Anbar, that province held up as a model of the “surge’s”success, despite the fact that we bribed the local tribes to temporarily not kill our troops. Well, now that resounding success will be tested further - and in an area that two weeks ago saw an attack that killed four Marines - the highest number of Marines killed in an attack since last September.

And what about other areas of Iraq? Let’s look at the Diyala province:

"The shortage of water is the biggest threat that Iraqi agriculture has ever faced," an employee in the directorate-general of irrigation for Diyala province, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "It threatens not only food but also employment in this city (Baquba, capital of the province).

---snip---

The government is doing little to help people over this crisis. "The directorate is impotent and can give nothing to the farmers," the irrigation centre employee said. "Hundreds of thousands of acres are now desolate, and thousands of people jobless."

Most villagers work in farming, and now that farming no more sustains people as it did, life there is badly hit. Agriculture in this area kept Iraq supplied, and also produced enough for exports. But now farmers sometimes have a hard time feeding themselves.

Much of this has happened over the past year - since an Oxfam International report found a severe humanitarian crisis including the following:

Four million Iraqis – 15% - regularly cannot buy enough to eat.

70% are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% in 2003.

28% of children are malnourished, compared to 19% before the 2003 invasion.

92% of Iraqi children suffer learning problems, mostly due to the climate of fear.

Again, all of these points were PRIOR to the current drought and fighting over the past few months.

The situation in Diyala is not only impacted by the weather and lack of rain - it is also a direct result of the occupation creating an environment of sectarian cleansing, as the main pumping station is located between a Sunni and a Shiite district - two districts that have been fighting for the past two years. But the potential solution to this - set up the pumping station away from these districts so it can be supplied directly by the Diyala River isn’t feasible due to the little problem of dead bodies being dumped in the river:

Some farmers have demanded that the pumping station be supplied directly from the Diyala river upstream of the conflict area.

"But this suggestion was rejected because people know that the Diyala river carries the bodies of those killed in the sectarian fighting," said Abdul-Qadir Omran, a now unemployed trader. "It is not good for drinking, and psychologically it is unacceptable."

People of Baquba are used to seeing bodies floating by in the Diyala river, and have long since ceased to use water from the river or fish in it.

Let’s just put aside the fact that this was caused, at least in good part, by the continuing occupation-without-a-clue-or-plan that Mister Bush and his cohorts have championed. And let’s put aside the fact that there will be plenty of really pissed off Iraqis that want to know why the US or the Iraqi government isn’t doing a damn thing about it.

Let’s just look at the crisis that is facing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in numerous areas of the country from the fighting, the drought, the lack of water, the lack of electricity and the lack of jobs.

A little more than a year ago, it was reported in Newsweek that an investment of $100 million could restart 75% of the Iraqi state run businesses and put over 150,000 Iraqis back to work. Who knows what that number would be today - but it is certain that (1) it would be much lower than continuing to waste the money that is being wasted there now, and (2) focusing on the humanitarian issues that are facing Iraqis now - ones that we created and ones that we did not create is the only way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

It has been very bad for a few years now. It is about to get much MUCH worse. To continue ignoring this large and growing crisis is irresponsible, unethical and immoral.

What other murderous regimes does Cindy McCain profit from?

2008-05-18T13:51:00.003-04:00

I won’t even use the comparison to what Teresa Heinz Kerry went through and was accused of when she refused to release her tax returns. Because, while there is a reason to compare the media hypocrisy for hounding Kerry but giving McCain a pass - this is not about a gotcha moment.

Nor is this about John McCain using Cindy’s private jet and the hypocrisy of McCain’s faux maverick persona. And it isn’t even completely about transparency, as the talking meatsticks are focusing on (even though it is consistent with past criticisms of Democrats).

No - this is about something much worse. It is about doing business with murderers and dictators and profiting off of genocide. Maybe that is a strong phrase - but if McCain is vetting his already stuffed to the hilt campaign for questionable financial ties, then he should look no further than his sugar momma wife, Cindy.

Yes, it is clear that McLobbyist has an entire campaign of lobbyists, including just-resigned national finance co-chair, Tom Loeffler, who is also:

a former Texas congressman whose lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts. Loeffler last month told a reporter "at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain." But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by NEWSWEEK show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to "discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations."

But if McCain is to be serious about being transparent, we should know what other brutal regimes and human rights violators his chief source of income and funding is profiting from.

And while pointing the finger at everyone but himself, Mr. Double Talk Express should tell the world what his own conflicts of interest may be. We have already seen lobbyists making calls right from his own campaign bus. We have seen top lobbyist campaign official after top lobbyist campaign official after top lobbyist campaign official leave team McSame after another embarrassing disclosure finds ties to Saudi Arabia, Burma and other foreign firms seeking Pentagon contracts - and that is just on the overseas front.

We have seen McCain launch hysterical tirades about Obama and Hamas - only to have his own hypocritical ties to or comments about Hamas. We know that his wife had extensive dealings in mutual funds that invested in China and Sudan - to the tune of at least $2 million (that we know of).

The American people have a right to know what investments an aspiring First Lady has - especially one worth over $100 million. There is already ample evidence that the entire McCain campaign is a walking conflict of interest. There is already ample evidence that Cindy McCain is not afraid to do business with corrupt criminals. There is also ample evidence that Cindy McCain is not of the highest moral character.

And there is ample evidence that Cindy McCain is not shy about investing millions in companies that support brutal regimes.

We should know what other brutal and murderous regimes the McCain’s may be profiting from currently, or may possibly also owe favors to.

There should be no “benefit of the doubt”. After all, this is a “post 9/11” world, right?

Your vote only counts if you are republican

2008-05-18T13:51:00.001-04:00

Right up front, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Presidential primary.

No, what this is about is a rigged playing field when it comes to our elections, and how this strategy of “playing defense” - being reactive to the latest republican election crime and looking forward all while the republicans are already on to the next way to disenfranchise millions of voters who are highly unlikely to vote for them in the first place.

And just when everyone starts to realize that, yes, it is a big deal to require someone to get an “official” (whatever the hell that is) ID in order to vote - just ask the 98 year old nun in Indiana, for example, the republicans are...wait for it... once again on to the next way to suppress more likely Democratic voters.

I’ll back up for a moment with respect to these ~~voter ID~~ anti-voter laws, because all too many people really are clueless when it comes to why it is a big deal to obtain a photo or government or whatever else ID.

Let’s say you live in an area where you can’t afford a car (so you take public transportation), or a city where you don’t need a car (like NYC), or you are elderly and haven’t renewed a driver’s license in years or are disabled and don’t have a drivers license, or are move frequently for various reasons or have been displaced due to, oh, say, a major hurricane - just for a few examples. How are you going to be able to get sufficient documentation (birth certificate, for example), or take the time (or have the resources) to waste an entire day in order to get this “free ID”? Now, let’s say that public transportation costs money, and it is difficult to get a day off from work, or if you are disabled, you may need someone to drive you there and back (not to mention wait with you). And, for good measure, in order to get a copy of your birth certificate (that is, if you aren’t elderly or have been displaced or have moved frequently), it costs money.

Tell me again how that is “no big deal”?

But I digress.

What makes this worse is that by not screaming from the rooftops about this republican war against voting rights, the Democrats are falling right into yet another situation where the election will likely be far closer than it really would be if all eligible voters were allowed to vote and have their vote counted properly - if not an outright loss of Congressional seats by theft.

Stacking the deck at the FEC and then holding the FEC hostage so that McCain can break his own campaign finance laws. And what will be done about it? Voting machines that did not pass certification that were owned by highly partisan private interests, are highly unreliable and have shown an uncanny ability to make close to 100% of its “errors” to favor one party. And why are we still using these machines? Illegal caging, illegal scrubbing of voter rolls, illegal phone jamming, illegal redistricting, specious lawsuits by the Voting Rights Section to hinder minority district voters from voting. And what kind of real, meaningful accountability has there been? Thousands of Democratic voter registrations were thrown out by republicans during registration drives, disenfranchising all of those who thought they registered and were eligible to vote.

More importantly, while the “hanging chad” battles were being reacted to, there were privatized electronic voting machines with incredible results in Georgia. While agressive-bordering-on-illegal scrubbing of voter rolls was being reacted to, illegal caging activities were occurring, illegal redistricting was being conducted and bogus “voter fraud” charges were being used as a litmus test for the US Attorneys or as a reason to implement ~~voter ID~~ anti-voter laws were being passed in states with republican controlled legislatures and republican governors.

And while nuns can’t vote due to these new restrictive laws, we now have another battle to contend with - even more restrictive laws than a photo ID:

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

In Missouri, the Secretary of State estimates that this will impact up to 240,000 people. And in Arizona, where this is also a law, an estimated 25,000+ people had their registration rejected for “lack of proof”, even though they swore under oath that they were legal US citizens. And as I said the other day, the US Department of Justice has only had 40 instances of ballot fraud, and only 20 that were noncitizens in a close to four year period.

And speaking of making sure that the proper votes getting counted, lest we forget that it was not just republicans but also republican party operatives in 2000 who were intimidating the vote counters and it was the republican activist judges on the SCOTUS who declared Bush the winner as a result of their mandate to stop counting the votes.

Forget all of this nonsense about “the integrity of the voting system”. There is an all out assault on the rights of people to vote if they are not likely to vote for republicans. It is done under the guise of stopping illegal voters from voting. But the numbers don’t support that. The facts don’t support that. And history doesn’t support that.

It is much more simple - if you aren’t going to vote republican (and more and more people in general as well as various demographic groups are not), then there is a major effort underway to make sure that it is as difficult as possible for you to vote.

And if it isn’t you specifically, it could very well be someone you know.

Inevitability

2008-05-18T13:50:00.001-04:00

For the past 7+ years, my conservative father’s stock snarky answer to anything that I pointed out about the Bush administration or the rubber stamp republican Congress was met with a comment to the effect of “oh, don’t you worry, President Hillary will come in and make everything all better”. I always told him that (besides the fact that he was dodging the issue to begin with) there was no way that she would be elected President.

A couple of years ago, when he made that comment to me, my reply was that she wouldn’t even get the nomination - and we even bet a dinner on it. He could only ask who would possibly get the nomination over her. Now, this diary isn’t about Hillary Clinton - it just happens that her Presidential campaign is the product of a Democratic Party mindset that has resulted in oh-so-narrow losses (for the most part) and even some “key victories” in certain ever-shrinking lists of “swing states”.

Now, the “50% + 1” approach worked for the republicans for a number of years, and it (possibly in a self fulfilling prophesy) took a number of states, races and seats out of Democratic Party reach as a result of not even competing in these places. And while her campaign and chances may not be over, this old style of running a winning campaign most certainly is over.

After all, it was inevitable, right?

I guess it was a fairly safe bet for me to say that she wouldn’t get the nomination - since the Democrats are not like the republicans in that the candidate who put in his (and yes, “his”, because it is the republicans we are talking about here) time in and was “next in line” became the nominee. Remember - as late as 2003, Joementum was considered the frontrunner and likely candidate. Bill Clinton in 1992 was certainly not the early favorite, and Gary Hart was the early favorite in 1988 as well.

What this is about more than just how the early frontrunner doesn’t necessarily get the nod (or doesn’t usually get it) is the reason why she lost.

When I bet my dad that dinner, I am not sure that Obama had even declared his candidacy - or whether my dad even knew who Obama was. But I knew that there would be a new way of running a campaign - by using the technology and outreach of the internet, the grassroots, the netroots and social networking in order to organize, raise money, share experiences and GOTV.

We saw the start of that in 2004 with Dean’s campaign. We saw Dean beat the Democratic Party over the head in order to get buy in for the “50 state strategy” - and it has worked in a huge way. Credit some of it to Obama being able to draw in so many new voters (although if not him, then it very well may have been Edwards or someone else). Credit the 2006 elections, the “macaca moment” raising viral videos to a whole new level.

Either way, is was clear to many people way smarter than me that a targeted state, short sighted (and not looking past the first “Super Duper Ultra Mega Tuesday” was somewhat shortsighted), top down campaign that didn’t take advantage of this technology and drastically shifting landscape wouldn’t win if there was to be one that was able to capitalize on the “50 state strategy” and connectivity/outreach potential that the internet/social networking/current technology provides.

That isn’t to blame Senator Clinton for not seeing this and taking this approach. She ran a campaign that she thought would be successful. One that sold her as “the inevitable nominee, so get on the bandwagon early”. But she, and the other top advisors didn’t anticipate (or did anticipate and chose not to utilize it) that there was another way to organize - another way to run a national campaign that would maintain a large degree of control but also involve people in all corners of every state of the country - not just “the big ones” or “the swing ones” or whatever else that excludes a large portion of the population.

And yes, Senator Clinton, with the two decades of name recognition and pretty impressive credentials, not to mention the Clinton name, brand and “machine” behind her drew a huge number of votes in every state. More than McCain in most states - even in states where she lost and McCain won.

But another candidate was able to overcome all of this - and get more votes than her in almost all of these states, even with all of the built in early advantages for Clinton.

Which is a testament to a new style of running a winning campaign - and one that should make all of those who rely on the “old model” of running a campaign very scared. Including McCain, Clinton and anyone else who doesn’t get on board.

After all, it was only inevitable that this would happen.

To my self-loathing, chest thumping, $h!t talking republican brethren

2008-05-17T15:24:00.000-04:00

I’ve been meaning to write this post for quite some time, but now is as good a time as any. For the past few months, I (and a fellow liberal traitor) have been “debating” a few rightists on a whole variety of issues. Whether is it nonsense like Rezko or Wright or whatever other manufactured fantasy reason to point out (with escalating rhetoric that only a fifth grader on the playground would be impressed with) why liberal traitors with San Francisco values love terrorists, don’t want to “win” in Iraq and hate America, it always comes down to a few points.

Conservatives rule, liberals are teh suck;

Everything that went wrong with respect to everything over the past 8 years is because of “Clinton and the coward liberal Democrats” making it harder for America to be the greatest country in the world;

Facts provided and documentation of actual events are either ignored or compared to something that the Democrats or specifically Bill Clinton or “the Jew hating” Jimmy Carter did - but never actually addressed or even acknowledged; and

Conservatives rule, liberals are teh suck, only this time with insults, strawmen, profanity and my favorite, “I’m done with you”.

This isn’t the first time that I have been down this road. But with the events of this week (and quite possibly with the fact that I am now reading our own Jeffrey Feldman’s new book, Outright Barbarous, coupled with some stunningly delusional talk from my conservative “debate partner” about Gates only saying we should negotiate with Iran because he is afraid of the Democrats being pussies (yes, those are the exact words), it is time to call bullshit on this in the most demeaning and degrading way.

The cries of Democrats being weak or “appeasers” is laughable when you consider those brave republicans who, “when danger reared its ugly head, they bravely turned their tail and fled” and makes you wonder how little sex they were getting when they were in college.

The outlandish and so over the top that it surpassed embarrassing and went straight to pathetic titles of books like Liberal Fascism, Soulless, Godless or talk about “invading their countries and converting them to Christianity” to not caring if al Qaeda were to bomb San Francisco or that the New York Times building should be blown up or that we will roll over one night and crush Canada or whatever “investigation” is done to intimidate the lives of pre-teens because they dare to talk about how SCHIP saved their lives - despite being something that may actually spurn terrorist acts against our country or citizens - makes you wonder just how few friends these people had growing up.

Joking about shooting the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee or “musing” that someone should poison a Supreme Court Justice (how very funny..) or blaming 9/11 on the “liberals and the gays” is as callous as it is indicative of “something not being right” about you. Were you that shunned for much of your childhood that you need to call attention to yourself in any way possible?

Calling me a traitorous selfish idiot because I asked just what “winning” in Iraq would be when told that I don’t want us to “win” in Iraq or that I want America to lose or that Obama hates America but McCain loves America or conveniently ignoring facts or votes or actual events or polls or GAO reports all for a “you have Bush derangement syndrome and are clearly in need of help” is probably the (1) least relevant and (2) mind blowingly childish response that I could ever conjure up and makes me wonder if there is any semblance of logic, reason or the ability to interact socially. Right wing bloggers/101st Fighting Keyboardists being in favor of nothing less than constant military force and intimidation but only when it is by other people’s children yet the only Army they will ever see is the army of strawmen they build is the very definition of cowardly and weak.

But with all of that, the still-clinging to an irrational hatred for all things that aren’t either a violent show of “don’t-fuck-with-me might” (small penis syndrome, perhaps?) and an inability to communicate on any level that consists of anything more than insults, threats is really sad.

Not sad in the traditional definition, of course. Sad and in pathetic. And cowardly. And deserving of nothing short of complete and utter ridicule. Your tough talk and fake bravado shows just how low and insignificant you really are. And how much you hate yourself.

Your time is coming to a close - we’ve wised up to your nonsense. The party’s over. No more “war on Christmas”. No more “if Democrats get elected, we will get hit and hit hard”. No more “bring ‘em on”.

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out on your way back to the rock you slithered out from under.

The republican war on voting rights

2008-05-05T19:52:00.002-04:00

It’s long past time to talk about this whole “election integrity/voter fraud/voter ID/election fraud/ballot fraud” matter in a very different way. Consider the following hurdles that have not been overcome when talking about the need for wholesale election reform:

Talking about the hackability of voting machines doesn’t work because you can’t prove that they were, in fact, hacked in a manner that would show not just beyond-a-reasonable doubt but beyond-any-doubt-whatsoever (not fair, but true);

Talking about “voter ID”, actually, more like anti-voter laws isn’t working because, well, for starters, the SCOTUS just affirmed this, despite there being no documented case of this type of fraud occurring;

Talking about stolen elections hasn’t worked because either “it always happens anyway”, or the same “you can’t prove it” rebuttal;
Talking about the US Attorney firings or the redistricting or the stacking of the DOJ with partisan hacks is too complicated to put on a bumper sticker;

Talking about the thousands of anecdotes of vote machine flipping went nowhere either; and

Talking about exit poll discrepancies has led to the amazing argument that exit polls are not reliable, even though they are used pretty much everywhere else in the entire world as a measure of whether elections were fixed and they have never been as far off as they have so consistently been the past 8 years.

It seems like the whole “War On [insert boogyman here]” theme works well, and the fact is, all of the above - not to mention the few other matters that have come to light over the past few years with respect to election-related issues and questionable vote suppression laws and actions.

And the fact is, the Indiana ~~voter ID~~ anti-voter law is just one of many, many pieces to the bigger picture, all done in the name of “protecting voters” but are really intended to legally give republicans an Election Day headstart of at least 10 million potential votes.

Don’t believe me? OK, fair enough.

According to the National Council of State Legislators, half of the states have ~~voter ID~~ anti-voter laws more strict than the federal requirements:

Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo.

Oh, wait - my mistake. Kansas legislators just agreed on provisions for a ~~voter ID~~ anti-voter law, so make that 26 states by the 2010 elections.

So, now that this is out of the way, I’ll refer to a 2006 DOJ memo that I discussed over the weekend:

the US Department of Justice put out a release regarding the “massive” voter fraud that they have uncovered and investigated. And there was lots to be “proud” of:
As a result of the Initiative, nationwide enforcement of election crimes has increased dramatically. At present, 195 investigations are pending throughout the country. Moreover, since the start of the Initiative in 2002 over 300 investigations of possible election crime have been opened, and over 125 election crime matters have been closed after investigation; 119 individuals have been charged with ballot fraud offenses and 86 individuals have been convicted of these crimes; and 48 individuals have been charged with campaign financing fraud and 42 individuals have been convicted of these offenses.

In over four years, only 42 individuals have been convicted, and under 50 have been charged with campaign finance fraud - now if we think of those who have been heavily lined to campaign finance fraud, one party comes to mind in a big way - and that isn’t the one who keeps pushing “voter fraud” laws. Only 86 people were convicted of “ballot fraud” (of course, Ann Coulter was cleared after calling in a favor from her well connected boyfriend), out of 300 investigations.

The issue of the voter going to the polling place in order to personally cast a vote that is fraudulent is, based on the DOJ’s own numbers - basically nonexistent. And the one high profile case was that of Ann Coulter, someone who conveniently wasn’t charged.

But the issue of voters without proper ID is one that is potential gold for the party that (1) wouldn’t likely get these votes anyway and (2) can eliminate a possible 10 million plus registered voter (or vote) advantage.

Still don’t believe me? OK, fine. Let’s just look at the tens of thousands of Floridians who were disenfranchised in 2000, or the hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters in 2004 who were disenfranchised for a contrast to the 150 or so individuals who the DOJ is touting.

So how am I getting the 10 million plus number that is central to the republican war on voting rights? Well, let’s just forget the 2002 NH phone jamming, or the voter roll purges in Florida that I mention above, or the illegal TX redistricting or the voter roll management lawsuits in New Jersey, Missouri, Maine and Pennsylvania for a minute.

According to The League of Women Voters, close to 11% of Americans (21 million) have no photo identification. They break this down a bit further:

he following statistics reflect those individuals who do not have photo identification:

11% or as many as 21 million Americans

36% of voters in Georgia over the age of 75;

18% of Americans over 65 (6 million);

25% of African Americans;

10% or 40 million people with disabilities;

15% of low income voters

Here are a few more numbers:

650,000 registered voters in Georgia have no photo-ID (law recently passed);

200,000 Missourians of voting age, including 16% of seniors, have no photo-id;

5.5 million African American voting age citizens have no photo-ID;

6 million senior citizens have no photo-id

And just for good measure, here are a few other breakdowns:

People with disabilities:

According to disability advocates, nearly ten percent of the 40 million Americans with disabilities do not have any form of state-issued photo identification. Source: Center for Policy Alternatives

Low income people:

Citizens earning less than $35,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack current government-issued photo identification as those earning more than $35,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 15 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo ID. Source: NYU and Brennen Center Survey

Other than the “we know that older Americans, African Americans, low income Americans are more likely to vote Democratic”, let’s look at a few stats on these demographics. All of these were derived from the tables at the University of Berkeley’s “Quick Tables”.

For Americans between the ages of 56-89, there is a roughly 47% - 39% advantage of “Near Dem - Strong Dem” over “Near rep - Strong rep”. If we break down the numbers by race, even independents outnumber “Near rep - Strong rep” by an amount of 18% - 9% for African Americans. And by the way, “Near Dem - Strong Dem” gets a whopping 73%. If we look at “Other race”, then the “Near Dem - Strong Dem”/”Independent”/”Near rep - Strong rep” breakdown is 52%/27%/20%.

And what about the families earning less than $25,000? Their average breakdown is 47% for “Near Dem - Strong Dem”, 23% independent and 26% for “Near rep” - “Strong rep”.

One more “obvious statistic” can be found to show the disparity. 88% of African Americans voted for Kerry, and 90% voted for Gore.

The real basic take away here is that if you are going to tip elections, you aren’t going to be able to do it “one vote at a time” as these ~~voter id~~, anti-voter laws purport to combat.

You do it by rigging the system from the inside - by massive voter roll purges that are designed to purge the very demographics that are most likely to hurt the other party, by challenging districting in order to “make it more fair for people’s votes to be reflective of the district”, by implementing laws that are meant to keep millions of people who are likely to vote for the other party from voting and by stacking the deck in the positions where the voting machines are selected and monitored, where the federal and state election laws are “interpreted”, where the decisions are made with respect to voter registration and how the elections are run and even having cousins in the very media outlets who are calling the races for their candidate-cousins.

Make no mistake - this is a more than just a major partisan initiative. This is an all out assault on the voting rights of millions of potential Democratic voters and therefore, votes. This is a premeditated, long term, wide ranging attack against millions of Americans’ voting rights. But it isn’t just an assault on Democratic voters. It is an assault on the most basic right that a democracy affords.

And it should be referred to accordingly.

Let's talk about the "potential for voter fraud"

2008-05-03T12:08:00.001-04:00

In upholding the Indiana voter ~~suppression~~, er ~~disenfranchisement~~, er “ID” law, the US Supreme Court’s decision contained the following head smacking passage (hat tip to BooMan and Adam B):

The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor -- though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud -- demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

Now, I have written a thing or two about election fraud and election integrity issues over the past few years, so I think that I have a bit of a perspective here.

The fact that the US Supreme Court has put the above statement in its opinion is stunning in and of itself. The fact that the discussion about “voter fraud” has centered on the “mysterious evil person who knowingly gives false information in order to vote (or vote in a different precinct)” (oh, the irony there) is one of the biggest problems in the overall area of election integrity.

The number one and number two issues, at least to me, are (1) the fact that time and time again, the voting machines have been proven to be completely unreliable, unverifiable and even more important, owned by major partisan private companies - and have had their President of its’ election unit installing secret software patches on machines in Democratic districts, leading to mysterious 10+ point swings away from popular Democrats at the very last minute and (2) the entire system is corrupt from the inside - a system where bogus “voter fraud” claims can lead to strict laws that are specifically meant to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, aggressive purging of voter rolls (beyond what even the company in charge of the purging was comfortable with), “caging”, phone jamming and many other documented acts that resulted in tens of thousands of people (mainly likely Democrats) being disenfranchised or suppressed in each of the elections since 2000.

Let’s jump back to the Supreme Court decision again to answer the question posed by those who may ask what the big deal is to get a voter ID, let alone one that is free. This is from Souter’s dissent:

The need to travel to a BMV branch will affect voters according to their circumstances, with the average person probably viewing it as nothing more than an inconvenience. Poor, old, and disabled voters who do not drive a car, however, may find the trip prohibitive, witness the fact that the BMV has far fewer license branches in each county than there are voter precincts.

---snip---

The burden of traveling to a more distant BMV office rather than a conveniently located polling place is probably serious for many of the individuals who lack photo identification. They almost certainly will not own cars.....and public transportation in Indiana is fairly limited.

The decision further indicates that in order to get the “free” voter ID for the first time, one has to get a birth certificate, a US Passport or something else that....costs money.

So it is ok to disenfranchise “some” people in order to make sure that all of this “voter fraud” - no examples of which were provided (Ann Coulter’s lawbreaking noted above notwithstanding) - doesn’t run rampant.

One other thing to note about photo IDs - roxy at ePluribus Media noted that in Ohio, there was a “glitch” in the system for processing such ID requests, leading to a massive slowdown in the amount of ID cards that are being issued (emphasis mine):

A little article in the Toledo Blade gives one pause ... The article is not long, but though sparse on words it speaks volumes. On Monday it seems there was a little "glitch" with the server at the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. This server is actually a service allowing states to access federal databases as part of the verification process when issuing any state ID cards.

This little "glitch" apparently reduced the number of applications processed in Ohio, from a normal 10,000 per day to 35.

It seems this is not a new problem. A report in the Daily Journal back on Nov. 25th 2007 reports the same type of issue, but which mainly impacted Missouri.

Great, so we have two other states where this is an issue for those who don’t already have photo IDs - and guess which party they are more likely to vote for?

On top of this - how many cases of such “voter fraud” are we talking about? Well in mid 2006, the US Department of Justice put out a release regarding the “massive” voter fraud that they have uncovered and investigated. And there was lots to be “proud” of:

As a result of the Initiative, nationwide enforcement of election crimes has increased dramatically. At present, 195 investigations are pending throughout the country. Moreover, since the start of the Initiative in 2002 over 300 investigations of possible election crime have been opened, and over 125 election crime matters have been closed after investigation; 119 individuals have been charged with ballot fraud offenses and 86 individuals have been convicted of these crimes; and 48 individuals have been charged with campaign financing fraud and 42 individuals have been convicted of these offenses.

In over four years, only 42 individuals have been convicted, and under 50 have been charged with campaign finance fraud - now if we think of those who have been heavily lined to campaign finance fraud, one party comes to mind in a big way - and that isn’t the one who keeps pushing “voter fraud” laws. Only 86 people were convicted of “ballot fraud” (of course, Ann Coulter was cleared after calling in a favor from her well connected boyfriend), out of 300 investigations.

These are NOT large numbers, and of course, in a country with 300+ million people, less than 150 people NATIONWIDE being convicted of election-related offenses is not a huge number. I wonder if this included the republicans involved in the New Hampshire phone jamming, or the republicans involved with illegal redistricting in Texas or republicans involved in Jack Abramoff’s illegal money laundering or republican US Attorneys involved in bringing bogus charges up or republicans involved in illegal voter caging.

Now, let’s contrast that to the tens of thousands of Floridians who were disenfranchised in 2000, or the hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters in 2004 who were disenfranchised, or those in New Hampshire in 2002 from the illegal phone jamming.

And let’s talk about the “potential for fraud” in the highly hackable, highly unreliable machines that ~~fix~~ count the vote for 80% of this country. Or the countless other documented stories of people being disenfranchised in 2004 - nearly all of them ones who wanted to vote for Kerry.

So, if the bar is now being set to “undocumented and unsubstantiated cases of potential voter fraud”, then let’s go all the way.

The Diebold and other electronic voting machines have certainly met the threshold of “potential fraud”, being that the companies are tied in with the republican party, are easily hackable and have show too many “irregularities” and vulnerabilities (all “coincidentally” favoring one party) to be relied on.

The voter roll “purges” certainly have the potential to create fraud - especially in Florida where far too many eligible voters were sinisterly removed from the voting rolls, so why are they not being challenged as unconstitutional?

The counting of ballots in secret by partisans, especially where there are no safeguards in place is certainly indicative of potential fraud. The threat of dismissal of those who do not “find” voter fraud (as in the US Attorney dismissal in Seattle, for example) leads to potential fraud.

Secretary’s of State who are aligned with or are a high level operative in a candidate’s campaign (like Blackwell in 2004 as well as Harris in 2000) can (and has) led to fraud and disenfranchisement - not “voter” fraud but wholesale “election” fraud.

I can go on and on and on. The point is that if we are to let the activist judges on the SCOTUS sanction disenfranchisement of voters and suppression of votes based on what “might be”, then let’s do this the whole way - the entire system is not only corrupt but it corrupt in one direction. To think that the 2006 election was fair just because the Democrats won both Houses of Congress is laughable. There were a number of House races that should have also gone to the Democrats.

The game is fixed. The deck is stacked. And don’t think it isn’t already being stacked for this November as well - from the hackable voting machines to the disenfranchisement to the suppression that will occur on Election Day.

The SCOTUS decision was another nail in the coffin that is the farce of “free and fair elections”. There is no such thing, and will not be such a thing until the severity of the problem - the depth of the rot - is called and exposed for the entire country to see and that the system itself undergoes a wholesale change.

Paper ballots aren’t the problem. People showing up to vote more than once or without proper ID is not the problem.

Rigging the entire system from the inside is the problem. And it is a problem in nearly every state.

And until that is addressed and changed, voter ID laws will just continue to be the shiny object that distracts from the fact that each of the past four elections have, in one way or another - on one level or another - been stolen.

They just have to make it close enough to steal

2008-04-27T15:57:00.000-04:00

Sure, the media is obsessed with trashing Obama or Clinton, depending on the week or sound byte that can be taken out of context and twisted to insinuate that Democrats hate America or love terrorists or whatever other utter horseshit that they can conjure up to distract from the fact that John McCain is dangerous, or contradictory or just a flat out liar.

But the corporate media as well as McSame himself are just two pieces in a larger puzzle - the one to keep “The Base” happy and wealthy. We can hear lie after hyperbole after projection about how the Democrats are weak or that Hamas wants McCain to lose or that Osama secretly cast his ballot in 2004 for Kerry.

We know that is all nonsense - and that thankfully, many more Americans are waking up to that fact as well. And with a growing number of Americans thinking that the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections were stolen, not to mention the US Attorney purge, the Justice Department’s gaming the system from the inside, illegal redistricting, illegal phone jamming, voter ID laws that serve to suppress likely Democratic voters and FEC Commissioners who have a history of illegal partisan voter suppression, it isn’t like there is ample evidence that republicans steal elections - and that is before you even get to the hanging chads”, questionable SCOTUS decisions and Diebold hacking.

By nearly all accounts, McCain is a horrific candidate and a horrible choice for President or Commander in Chief. His own party thinks he is crazy. The fundamentalist radical clerics who run his party don’t trust him. His voting record against the troops and veterans is astonishing. I could go on and on - of course, there is this picture, which says it all about McCain’s priorities during Hurricane Katrina:

Even in a country that has as many racist and sexist idiots as this one, Obama or Clinton should kick the crap out of McCain in November, and his lack of inspiration down ticket should result in larger than normal gains for Democrats in Congress, even with the lack of a spine or complicity by too many in the current Congressional Majority. But frankly, none of that matters much if the truth about McCain gets repeated to enough people so that it won’t even be as close as it should be come November.

We know that all McSame has to do is grill up some ribs and the corporate media will treat him with kid gloves.. It will cover up the fact that he either doesn’t know the difference between al Qaeda Sunnis and Iran’s Shiites, or that he is lying about it. It will excuse the hate filled racist or bigoted remarks from those whose endorsement he chased. It will gloss over his very real ties to Charles Keating, while harping on some nonexistant tie between Obama and Rezko, or the nonstory that Whitewater should have been all along. It will talk incessantly about what Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton said while ignoring Cindy McCain’s stealing painkillers from a veterans charity. It will harp on Clinton’s tax return or Obama’s charitable contributions while allowing Cindy McCain to hide her fortune that is funding John’s entire political career.

Oh yeah, very few people actually like John McCain, want to vote for him or want to see him as President.

He is just the latest cog in the republican party corporate money war upward distribution of wealth machine and he must be stopped. He must continuously be exposed for the sham that he is. He must be exposed for the neoconservatives and lobbyists he surrounds himself with and the religious extremists who he panders to. His comments about not knowing much about the economy, about staying in Iraq for 100 years, for “bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”.

He can’t get close enough to Obama or Clinton by November - he is so much worse than either of them on so many levels that a close race shouldn’t even be a consideration (even with each candidate’s flaws).

Now is the time to start hitting him hard, and consistently.

Forcefully and repeatedly.

There is no reason to wait - primary or no primary. Even after the Democrats get a nominee, the media won’t do nearly the job they should do.

The longer we wait, the closer the race will be. And we can’t let it get close enough that they can steal it for a 4th time in 8 years, and the third straight Presidential race.

$100+ BILLION giveaway to the oil, credit card and retail industries

2008-04-27T15:55:00.000-04:00

Let’s just call this colossally shortsighted and ill-advised “rebate program” what it is - a giveaway of money that this government doesn’t have to the oil companies, the credit card companies and the retail industry.

We the People - at least those whose income levels are in the range where they are low enough to receive the rebates but most likely too low to be able to do anything meaningful with the rebates - are merely the intermediary between this corporate welfare program and the true intended recipients.

For starters, this so-called “stimulus program” does nothing to address the major underlying problems and issues that this wind-sucking economy is resulting from. Healthcare costs, extraordinarily high credit card interest rates, rising food, gas and other prices, decrease in real wages, negative savings rates over the past few years and tens of thousands of job cuts are just some of the many issues that this failing economy is based on, yet nothing in these areas are even remotely addressed by a $1,200 (if you are lucky) rebate check. Even if a family is eligible for the full $1,200 rebate, how many of the families will be able to use it to better their overall financial situation?

Just take a look at some of the numbers that were recently put together by the Center for American Progress (here are just some of the “lowlights” - emphasis mine):

Job losses mount. The already weak labor market has taken a turn for the worse. Employment declined by 80,000 jobs in March 2008—the largest loss since March 2003. Over the past three months, the economy lost 232,000 jobs. Average monthly job growth was only 44,700 jobs over the past 12 months, compared to 138,600 jobs in the previous 12 months, and 236,900 jobs in the 12 months before that.

Wages remain flat. Factoring in inflation, hourly wages were only 2.3% higher and weekly wages were only 1.1% higher in February 2008 than in March 2001.

---snip---

Family debt hits record highs. Household debt averaged a record 133.7% of disposable income in the fourth quarter of 2007. In the fourth quarter of 2007, families spent 14.3% of their disposable income to service their debt, up from 13.0% in the first quarter of 2001.

The housing crisis deepens. New home sales in February 2008 were 28.9% lower than a year earlier, and existing home sales were 23.8% lower. The median sales price of existing homes was 8.2% lower in February 2008 than a year earlier, and the median sales price of new homes dropped 2.7%. The average monthly supply of homes for the six months ending in October was 9.4 months, the highest since January 1982.

---snip---

People are paying more for basics. Transportation cost 9.5% more in January 2008 than a year earlier, college tuition was up by 6.2%, fuel and utilities by 5.6%, medical care by 4.5%, and food by 4.6%. Since March 2001, food prices rose by 21.6%, fuels and utilities by 36.3%, medical care by 34.1%, transportation by 26.1%, and college tuition by 63.5%.

So, when these checks come - where do you think they are going to go? Well, the sagging retail industry is already salivating:

[r]etailers worried about a consumer slowdown are already planning several ways for you to spend that windfall in their stores.

---snip---

"We want to get people excited about spending this spring and summer," said Lowe's spokeswoman Chris Ahearn, adding that the retailer was considering allowing customers to cash their rebate checks in Lowe's stores.

---snip---

...Penney CEO Mike Ullman recently told analysts that the retailer would "obviously compete vigorously" for the stimulus money.

"It couldn't happen at a better time for [us] because it sounds like the checks will go out over a 10-week period, beginning in late May, which leads right into back to school [season] for us," Ullman said.

Lovely - the economy is in horrible shape, so Americans couldn’t spend money on as much crap as the retailers were peddling during the holiday season, so instead of helping the consumers and Americans, why not just gear this so that the retailers can scoop up some of the money to prop up their bottom line over the short term. Screw the American family over the long term - there are toys and the latest fashions to be had.

And with oil at record high prices, and with gas predicted to be around $4 per gallon (if it isn’t already), oil companies that had record profits last year (including Exxon, which made $1,300 PER SECOND IN 2007), they certainly need the money more than American families who can barely afford their mortgage or rental payments, let alone food, medicine or other basic necessities.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post decrying the farce that these rebate checks would be. And since then, there was a billions-dollar bailout of a private financial institution, while taxpayers were left holding the bag for their troubles, there was a huge increase in oil and gas prices, a big decline in jobs (an increase in job cuts), a huge spike in rice and wheat prices - further driving up the price of food and a further weakening of the dollar and economy in general.

But instead of dealing with the underlying issues facing American families - they get a token amount of money that is not enough to make more than a couple of mortgage or rent payments (if that), a couple of doctor visits, one or two past due credit card bills or to cover a couple more tanks of gas so that they can get to work, where they earn less in real wages than in many years - essentially giving it all back to those who are causing the economic failure in the first place.

The only part of the economy that will be “stimulated” is the part that needs it least, and those who need it most get to hold onto the check just long enough to pass it along to private corporate interests.

Because they need the $100 billion more than We the People (at least those who are eligible for it, but that is another issue altogether) - or more than an actual investment in this economy or infrastructure that will have long term effects.

Listen to the man who will beat Virgil Goode (VA-5)

2008-04-27T15:53:00.000-04:00

Some of you may be familiar with former Democrat-turned republican Congressman Virgil Goode for his “walking tour” pork project for a town less than one square mile. Others may remember Goode’s comments towards Muslims and directed at Rep. Keith Ellison how he should not be allowed to be sworn in on a Koran, or how he told a constituent that he would have Ellison deported.

However, you may not know about his challenger - Tom Perriello, who is an excellent candidate in his own right, let alone who his opponent is. And you can hear Dante Atkins (hekebolos) and I interview Tom today at 3:30 PM Eastern on our BlogTalkRadio show.

So why is Tom Perriello so right for Congress? Well, in addition to the fact that Virginia is most certainly a “trending purple” state, Tom has already raised around $600,000 for the race (but he can use all the money he can get).

But even though money is unfortunately a driving force (until public financing of elections), there are many other reasons why we should be supporting his run. For starters, there is his strong faith leading to his history of community service and experiences – even at his current age of 33:

Tom Perriello has been to some of the worst hellholes on earth: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Darfur. "I was part of a team trying to force [Liberian dictator] Charles Taylor to leave office without firing a shot," explains Perriello of his Liberian stint.

---snip---

Perriello calls himself a "justice entrepreneur," and says he "looks at political solutions to military conflicts." He's helped found a nonprofit that stresses faith-based solutions to children's health care, and supports a higher minimum wage, environmental stewardship, and responsible solutions in Iraq.

The fact that Tom not only wears his faith on his sleeve, but actually backs it up with actions like his nonprofit organization that is looking to solve the issues facing the nation - instead of Goode and many others who use their “faith” as a hammer to slam over the heads of anyone whose religion is different or who doesn’t agree with them.

On the issues, Tom is just as strong. He is one of 51 House Candidates to endorse the Responsible Plan” (one of the original endorsees as well), which outlines a way out of the mess in Iraq. Economic fairness, healthcare, energy independence and national security are his main issues, including the following:

Economic Fairness - Tom will fight to ensure that all hard-working Americans are guaranteed a living wage and secure retirement. Parents should have time to spend with their families instead of having to work multiple jobs just to put food on the table. Tom will end the practice of giving tax breaks to companies that take American jobs overseas and will make sure that corporations and CEOs are held accountable for their actions.

Healthcare - Every American deserves access to a doctor, and none of our elderly should ever have to face the soul-crushing choice of whether to buy medicine for a spouse or put food on the table. Furthermore, our employers should not be burdened with healthcare costs that put them at a disadvantage to their competitors in other countries.

Education and Job Training - There is no higher calling for government than to help its people reach their God-given potential, and there are few better ways to do that than to ensure that all our children receive a quality education. We must support our local teachers and help recruit and retain new ones. We must develop better ways of evaluating our schools to encourage a focus on knowledge and learning. Educational opportunities must begin earlier and continue later in life by prioritizing a pre-K year, affordable and accessible college education and vocational training, and the lifelong skills training required to ensure American workers remain competitive in the global economy.

National Security - Americans are less safe today than on September 12th because of the decisions made by this Administration and many in Congress. Tom has spent much of his career fighting for justice-based security solutions in Western Africa, Darfur, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and he will apply the expertise he gained by focusing on results instead of rhetoric in Congress.

Oil Independence - Our national security, our climate, and our economic competitiveness demand that we achieve independence from fossil fuels during this generation. Our leaders have lacked the courage to do what is necessary to make our country safe and to encourage the “dot-com” boom of the next generation—alternative energy and efficiency technologies. Tom will ensure that the farmers, businesses, and consumers of the 5th District have the tools and the incentives to lead America through this challenge.

Please stop by Tom's website, and if you live in the area, this is a great race to get involved with. And of course, if you have some spare change to give to a very worthy candidate, please stop by Tom's ActBlue page and donate to a very worthy cause.

***********************

And if you're interested in hearing other interviews with great progressive candidates, click on the links below!

Jim Himes (CT-4) - The diary about Jim is here.. The link to his interview can be found here.

Ron Shepston (CA-42) - The diary about Ron is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Betsy Markey (CO-4) - The diary about Betsy is here. The link to her interview can be found here

Gilda Reed (LA-1) - the diary about Gilda is here. The link to her interview can be found here.

John Laesch (IL-14) - the diary about John is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Dennis Shulman (NJ-5) - the diary about Dennis is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Barry Welsh (IN-6) - the diary about Barry is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Charlie Brown (CA-4) - the diary about Charlie is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Mark Schauer (MI-7) - the diary about Mark is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Heather Ryan (KY-1) - the diary about Heather is here. The link to her interview can be found here.

We hope you have the chance to listen live; if not, we will be posting the interview at Heading Left, which is BlogTalkRadio’s official website for progressive internet radio and podcasts.

Good riddance to these Iraqi “insurgents, militants and extremists”

2008-04-21T19:11:00.001-04:00

For those of you who aren’t following the “goings on” in Iraq, well, things have been pretty messed up. The whole “go git al Sadr” thing didn’t work out too well, as over 1,000 of the Iraqi forces just gave up that fight. The Green Zone is being pelted on a regular basis now, and each week brings more death and destruction than the prior one.

Even with this, one of the major unreported items is that there has been a tremendous increase in air strikes in Iraq over the years, and 2007 saw an increase in air strikes from four per week to around four per day.

Yet, we either hear nothing about this at all, and even less about the massive number of casualties that these attacks cause. Hell, we barely hear about the IEDs or the suicide bombings that happen in all areas of Iraq on a nearly daily basis, and those kill our troops and Iraqi forces - so why would we hear about bombings that “only” kill Iraqis - let alone innocent Iraqis, including women, children, judges, policemen and the elderly.

A must-read post at TomDispatch hits on this very issue as well, further supporting the fact that nobody making any decisions has any clue whatsoever as to what is the end game in Iraq other than more of the same crap.

While we see headlines like Fighting in Baghdad as Sadr aide killed, if you look right below the surface, you will see:

Heavy gunfire erupted at around 11:00 p.m. (10 p.m. British time) in several parts of the slum, an east Baghdad stronghold of Sadr's followers and home to 2 million people.

A Reuters correspondent said U.S. helicopters and jets were swooping overhead and several of the aircraft fired missiles. The number of casualties was not immediately known.

Does it really matter how many casualties there are in an area where 2 million people live? Are all of these 2 million people insurgents or “Sadr aides”? Enough to justify this:

At the same time International Medical Corps is responding to frequent emergencies in the country, most recently, to people in Baghdad's Sadr City who have been caught in fierce fighting between local militias and U.S.-supported Iraqi troops.

Since last week, International Medical Corps staff has been assisting the most vulnerable families in Sadr City. IMC is distributing one month's worth of food to poor families - including rice, cooking oil, sugar, beans, and flour - as well as potable water and essential medical supplies. With food supplies initially located within the midst of fierce fighting around Jamila Market and access restricted for all civilian vehicles, International Medical Corps staff improvised a network of wheelbarrows to transport the goods from the stores.

In anticipation of increasing scarcity of essential supplies, International Medical Corps has strategically pre-positioned 1,500 food packages and has two additional emergency medical supply distributions planned for hospitals in Sadr City.

But we killed a whole lot of insurgents, right? Just like always....

Like This incident, reported recently in the LA Times:

Saad Mohammed was among those being buried Monday. A friend, Wisam Kadhim, said Mohammed was mortally wounded in a U.S. airstrike Sunday and had left behind a wife and two children.

"His family couldn't make a funeral for him, so we, his friends, made a small funeral," Kadhim said. Few people showed up, he said, because they feared being caught in crossfire.

But don’t worry about that, because:

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Steven Stover, rejected Iraqi allegations that U.S. airstrikes and gunfire have killed mainly civilians.

"There might be some civilians that are getting caught, but for the most part, we're killing the bad guys.

Or this incident from last month, where I can hear Bush smirking and saying, “well, let’s just say that justice was served”:

A U.S. airstrike killed five Iraqi civilians including a judge in the northern town of Tikrit on Wednesday, Iraqi police said.

---snip---

Iraqi police said five civilians were killed and 10 wounded in the air strike. The dead included Munaf Mehdi, a judge in the town.

I bet he was an activist judge.

And after a while, there’s just a blending of one:

a US military air strike on insurgent targets in a southern Iraqi city killed ten civilians

---snip---

A hospital source said the dead included six children under the age of 12. He put the number of wounded at 30.

Into another:

the attack killed three civilians, including a woman, and wounded six others, all from one family.

Into yet another (from today):

The US military has killed 15...Iraqis in air raids and attacks in eastern neighborhoods of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

The casualties included three policemen and three civilians that were killed in clashes in Sadr City.

---snip---

While the US claims that the attacks target militiamen holed up in Sadr City and other neighborhoods of Baghdad, witnesses told Press TV that US troops have been lunching heavy attacks on the densely populated slum city and "indiscriminately killing" civilians.

The numbers obscure the lives ruined and ended - and for what reason? To kill “insurgents”? What the hell should we care if they want us out of their own country (rhetorical question)? What is the goal? What happens if we stop al Sadr’s militia? And what is it our place to be doing that anyway, especially considering BOTH Saddam and al Qaeda are Sunni, and al Sadr is Shiite?

If an airstrike ever hit somebody of real “high value”, you can bet it would be trumpeted by the war mongers and Keyboard Kommandos (hell, they do that anyway). Yet, with a fivefold increase in the tonnage of ordinance dropped from 2006 through 2007, we only are “treated” to precision attacks like this one:

“In a raid in May 2007 on Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad,” the report notes, “American forces called in an air strike on nine cars that were seen positioning themselves to ambush the American and Iraqi troops on the raid . . . and five people suspected of being ‘terrorists’ . . . were killed in the attack. But an Interior Ministry official and residents of Sadr City said the cars were parked in a line of vehicles waiting at a gas station.”

Because, you know, once those cars fill up their gas tanks, the drivers can use them as a weapon of mass destruction, so we can’t take any chances.

Impeachment is the only way they don’t get away with torture

2008-04-18T17:18:00.002-04:00

United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Emphasis mine.

Impeachment at this juncture and based on the revelations over , regardless of the arguments against it, is a moral imperative. Bush will no doubt pardon anyone that has any connection to any wrongdoings, and even though Obama and Clinton talk about investigating the crimes committed in this administration, I think we all probably know how difficult it will be to get anything meaningful done in that respect, although if either of them do, I will be so very pleasantly surprised.

That being said, the arguments of “not enough time” or “not enough votes” all melt away when compared to the implications and consequences of ignoring and tacitly approving of torture. Torture is the most heinous and sadistic of acts that I can possibly think of. I would be willing to be there are millions, nay, tens of millions of Americans who agree with me. Yet, for us tens of millions, we will be known as “those people who torture”.

And it will not be forgotten, nor will anybody be forgiven (not to mention our troops being at greater risk for being tortured if captured).

Illegal wiretapping, while a violation of the Constitution and most certainly an impeachable offense, is not a crime against humanity. Outing an entire covert network of nuclear proliferation tracking, certainly more impeachable than lying about a blowjob, was never something that most people could understand how directly they were impacted by that. Ignoring subpoenas, destroying evidence of torture, lying to Congress and misleading the American people wasn’t something that apparently caught on in terms of anyone in Congress caring enough to pursue.

But torture is different.

Torture is subhuman. Torture is clearly illegal. Torture is a stain on the entire country. It is never “for noble causes”. It is never “right”, it is never “just” and it is never acceptable on any legal or moral level whatsoever.

Criminals associated with the administration were pardoned and the country “moved ahead” in a number of prior republican administrations. And while some of these criminals did commit some heinous crimes, I don’t believe that top administration officials - including the President - had such a hand in directing, approving and planning the torture of other humans - no matter what those humans were suspected of doing (or merely being associated with).

And this is the difference. Whether we approve of Bush and his administration or not, he does represent this country. As does/did Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Powell and Ashcroft. They are the face of “America’s bullying foreign policy”.

And they have associated this country with being torturers.

There is only one remedy that will ensure that the perpetrators will not get away with it. And to make any argument against this remedy ignores the consequence of “America tortures” will have on us for many years to come. It can be used as an excuse for attacks on our troops. It can be used as an excuse to attack US interests around the world. It can be used as an excuse to attack us here in America. It can be used as a reason to not ever take us seriously again.

What happens now is what will define us as a nation.

******************

Please join the ACLU in demanding a special prosecutor to investigate the role that was played by the highest officials in the Bush administration - including Bush himself in the acts described above.

And please spread the word - even if the corporate media doesn’t think that this is important enough - it is how we act now with respect to accountability that will determine who we are as a country. It has been almost two weeks since this story broke and there is still a near complete blackout on this story.

...wherein "they" allow al Qaeda to attack us. Again.

2008-04-17T21:37:00.001-04:00

For those who didn’t see dday’s excellent diary about the very unimportant Government Accountability Office report out today, well, it is a doozy.

The title itself should bring back memories of the infamous August 2001 PDB titled “bin Laden determined to strike inside the US”, as this one is titled The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas”.

The first paragraph lays it all out with the following reiteration of what we have known for quite some time already:

GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State and embassy documents, as well as Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA.

This, on top of the admission by Ambassador Ryan Crocker that al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan is the threat that we really should be paying attention to, and you wonder whether we will get another “nobody could have imagined” moment if and when al Qaeda attacks again.

And, as laid out in the GAO report (and covered nicely by Democracy Arsenal),

al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population."

Of course, Pakistan is our bestest friend (being that we have given them around $10 billion over the past few years) and is most certainly in the “with us” category. Hell, I’ll take $10 billion to not capture bin Laden and do absolutely nothing to stop terrorism - but of course, I would have to incorporate as a subsidiary of Halliburton in order to do so.

But when you talk about fighting terrorism while saying that capturing the man who is responsible for attacking the United States isn’t all that important or a good use of resources, what do you expect? And when you spend more time figuring out just how much to torture detainees, you will certainly miss the threat that is explicitly laid out for you when you are only the National fucking Security Advisor.

We know that we are dealing with a bunch of cowards. Not just those who attacked us, but those who allowed all of the warning signs to be ignored with little more than a “you’ve covered your ass now” and then allowed bin Laden to escape when he was cornered, and then diverted resources from Afghanistan to unnecessarily invade another country that had no nuclear weapons (as that is the only battle that is consistently picked by the neocons) and nothing to do with al Qaeda or the attacks.

Countless lives, countless billions of dollars, countless “chest thumping moments” - all to get us exactly to the point where we are at greater risk for being attacked then almost any time since 9/11.

What does John W. McSame have to say about this? Well, judging by how he reacted to Obama’s comments about actually going after al Qaeda in Pakistan, it would seem that McCain is also a coward who loves the terrorists, because after all, if you harbor terrorists, you will be held to account:

McCain - Will the next President have the experience, the judgment experience informs, and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan...

Forgetting the fact that Obama didn’t suggest invading Pakistan, it is clear that McCain views a country that harbors terrorists - specifically the ones who attacked us as opposed to “terrorists” who have little to no interest in attacking the United States - as our ally.

Can we afford a President that coddles countries who coddle terrorists? What will happen if/when what the GAO report says comes to fruition?

What happens if they let al Qaeda attack us again?

We can't heal until we face our demons

2008-04-17T21:36:00.001-04:00

The United States of America tortures people.

Get used to that. It is no secret - it isn’t even up for debate. There is not one person that has even the cursory knowledge of what was discussed, what was authorized, what was justified or the acts that were carried out on detainees by people representing the United States of America.

This is not a “time for healing”. Not yet.

This is the time of reckoning for the people and future of America - an accountability moment. The corporate media here in the US, not surprisingly, is ignoring this story but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t widely reported or known around the world. This isn’t new, although the revelations about the entire uppermost level of the Bush administration spent hours discussing sadistic acts that they could do via proxy to others “in the name of freedom” is new.

This can not pass - this can not fall into the waste heap of all of the dozens, nay, scores of scandals, crimes or “just” unethical acts taken by these torturing, lying, thieving, murderous criminals since stealing the 2000 election. This can not be swept under the rug. It can not and will not be forgotten. After all, civilized countries do not torture people, no matter what.

We can’t just move forward and put this bad period behind us. We need to understand how we got to this point, how we allowed this to be done in our names, and why those who were supposed to be “the opposition” did not object when briefed, did not investigate in any meaningful manner and are not screaming from the rooftops at the most recent discovery.

Torture is not something that will be excused - not for any reason. There needs to be justice. There needs to be a recognition of how far we have sunk - how a callous disregard for law and a complete and utter lack of any humanity by those who occupy the top offices in the United States Government has resulted in a sanctioned program that was specifically designed to do nothing other than torture people.

The current Congress is at a crossroads - not that it hasn’t been on other issues, but this is a defining moment in our country’s history. With all of the other illegal acts where no meaningful action was taken (other than continuously funding the disaster in Iraq, which is part of the same thing), ignoring the issue of torture specifically discussed in great detail by Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet and Bush himself is one that will show the world what kind of country the United States of America is.

The next President will have to deal with the fallout of this as well. Revelations that the President and his top officials discussed torture is what emboldens terrorists. This is what puts our troops at risk, as they will more likely be tortured now if captured. That will not go away.

Both Clinton and Obama have indicated that they will investigate the Bush administration crimes. Whether they will, with what zeal they will and which crimes they will investigate remains to be seen - one of them has to beat McSame first. But the issue of torture is one that should carry no excuses, no leniency, no tolerance.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue. It is what will define us and what our role is in the global community. It will define us here at home - right now, torture is carried out in our name, and we are finding out how high up in our government this goes.

If we do not confront this, it will define us. If we attempt to “let this pass”, it will come back to haunt us for generations. If we don’t step up, we will forever be “one of those countries that tortures”.

It is up to us to make sure that something is done about it, since we are not getting much help from those whose job it is to do something about it.

*******************

This Is Not Torture

2008-04-13T22:40:00.001-04:00

There are some pretty graphic descriptions in here. I put them in to show just what resulted from the discussions and decisions of top administration officials, and how it is a big fucking deal.

**********

Besides the fact that the media here in the United States doesn’t seem to think it is important that Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet (not to mention Gonzales, Yoo, most likely Miers and others) spent way too much time discussing, debating, justifying and approving how much torture is too much torture, it is pretty damn important.

It also matters that it is not being confronted forcefully and with more than just mere “strongly worded letters” amongst this shockingly blanket burying this atrocity that the world now knows runs straight to mister Bush himself. No matter how many times the euphemistic “enhanced interrogation techniques” is used by the same people who applaud a fictional “badass” like Jack Bauer for doing “whatever it takes” to stop that ticking time bomb from going off.

As if there is any such thing as torturing someone in the most benevolent of ways, only because the information you would get right fucking now would stop that nuke from going off inside the United States at the last minute.

Even though that is impossible, because we are fighting them over there so we don’t fight them over here. Or something like that.

But just so we all know just what is legal - what is justified because John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush himself and a number of others say it is - even though not one piece of actionable intelligence has been reported, not one attack been thwarted and not one conviction been won at all - it is imperative that this not ever be forgotten until those who are responsible for these actions and deaths be held accountable and, in the words of Bush - be brought to justice.

Here are a couple of things that are most certainly not torture, because we all know that the United States does not torture:

“I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum"

---snip---

“a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.”

I wonder how many terrorists were stopped from attacking us with those “enhanced techniques”.

According to the ACLU (who, by the way is spearheading an effort to appoint a special prosecutor), there were the following murders during interrogations:

A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was ""undetermined"" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he ""struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping."" Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of ""environmental manipulation"" as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized ""changes in environmental quality"" in October 2003.)

***

An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by ""OGA."" He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as ""Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint."" (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

***

A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists ""asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression"" as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as ""Q by MI, died during interrogation.""

***

An Afghan civilian died from ""multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities"" on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

***

A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)

But if you don’t trust a traitorous hippie liberal organization like the ACLU, maybe the solider’s own accounts will show what was approved by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others. Per testimony at Human Rights Watch, here are some of the productive and very legal fruits of these internal “National Security Council” meetings:

He was stripped naked, put in the mud and sprayed with the hose, with very cold hoses, in February. At night it was very cold. They sprayed the cold hose and he was completely naked in the mud, you know, and everything. Then he was taken out of the mud and put next to an air conditioner. It was extremely cold, freezing, and he was put back in the mud and sprayed.

This happened all night. Everybody knew about it. People walked in, the sergeant major and so forth, everybody knew what was going on, and I was just one of them, kind of walking back and forth seeing that this is how they do things.

Or this:

Standard procedure, when I was there, you (i.e., the detainees) had twenty-four hour inside the Conex (container) . . . you’re blind-folded, you’re zip-stripped, your hands are behind your back; your feet usually weren’t, unless there was a particularly volatile prisoner—somebody who’d caused a lot of trouble, they’d hitch the feet as well. You were there, twenty-four hours: no sleep, no food, no water.

The temperatures inside the container, Nick said, were extreme:

Early on, when I first got there, it only got up to about 115, but by July and August, we were regularly between 135 and 145 (Fahrenheit). (Inside the container) it was really extremely hot.

Or this:

Nick told Human Rights Watch what he saw when the detainee was brought into the interrogation building:

He wouldn’t say anything, and they kept screaming at him and screaming at him. And they picked him up and threw him against the wall—and it’s a concrete wall. They threw him up against the wall, they punched him in the neck, punched him in the stomach—you know, gut shot—they threw him down. (At one point,) they actually threw him outside—they had two guys (other detainees) outside watching—threw him outside the building, just threw him outside like that. And then they picked him up, dragged him back, pulling him by the hair and stuff. . . . They hold his arms like this (out behind his back) and then beat him down—enough so they could break it, to give you a little bit of the pain. Same with the kneecaps: kicked him in the kneecaps, you know, really hard, with those boots—combat boots.

That last case - an Iranian businessman (or small time electronics smuggler) who didn’t speak Arabic, therefore earning him a bigger beating.

All of those are apparently not only legal, but necessary so as to ensure that we are safer. And just for consistency, it isn’t just Iraq where these very legal things are being done to spread freedom and stop terrorists are taking place. Unless there are consequences - unless there is accountability, then what happened to this individual in Afghanistan will have been done in the name of The United States of America:

(In western Afghanistan:) The Americans blindfolded us and, worst of all, they made us completely naked and made us to sit in a cold room and we were shivering and trembling because of the cold air. . . . (Describing transport to Kandahar:) I was naked and I had no clothes at all when I was moved . . . . (Upon arrival at airbase in western Afghanistan:) I was pulled out of the car and moved towards an airplane. At the airport, someone who was pretty strong held my neck under his arm and pressed it hard and meanwhile kept punching me hard on my face and one punch hit me hard on my mouth and two front teeth of my upper jaw fell out, which you can see now(interviewee is missing both teeth).

(In Kandahar:) They behaved very rude with me after the plane landed in Kandahar. It was cold and they threw us on the desert for more than an hour. Then some army men came and took us inside. Getting us inside the room there were some guards ready, and they were beating us mercilessly, without any reason. They were kicking and punching us. Mostly they were beating us on our backs. Later (they) gave me clothes to put on. They shaved our hair and our beards and mustaches. After that they took me for an interrogation and before asking any questions they started beating me. One person picked me up high over his head and threw me onto a desk and made me lie there. And then two or three other persons hit me with their knees on my back and shoulders. . . . The next day I was taken for interrogation. . . .

(On the plane to Kandahar:) We were shackled and our eyes were covered so that we could not see anything. . . . (A)ll the handcuffed prisoners were forced to sit with their legs stretched and hands behind them and the whole body bent onto the legs all the way. (Demonstrates by kneeling and sitting on top of his calves and feet, with torso bent down over the knees.)

It was very difficult to remain in that position and if we fell to the side or moved, the armed men standing over our heads would beat us mercilessly with their army boots, kicking us in our back and kidneys. We were all beaten, without exception. . . . Our eyes were closed [blindfolded] while we were getting out of the helicopter at the Kandahar airbase. One man pulled me up by my arm and threw me down the stairs, and then made me to lie down on the ground with my face upward. We did not have the right to move, and if we did we were beaten. Other people were beaten. . . When we were in Kandahar, we were not allowed to talk with each other and if we did, we were beaten and we were not allowed to sleep. For instance, if we were sleeping we were waken up or if we were covering our head with our bed cover we were beaten strongly.

These are the “necessary interrogation techniques” that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Gonzales, Yoo and many many others participated in. All of these people are guilty of war crimes. All of these people are guilty of much more heinous crimes against humanity.

*******************