Short Christmas Mass at St. Louis Cathedral, New Orleans

"Obama is good because he is for equality. Equality good. But he's [implication: HE sure isn't!] a liberal. That's bad. Obama bad."

McCain and the Bush Prosecution

Speaking to George Stephanopoulous of ABC News today, McCain made a bureaucratic decision regarding Congressional responsibility to investigate abuses of power in Iraq by individuals at all levels of government and in the military. He and Senator Levin did not believe that they held responsibility for holding anyone accountable for crimes yet, in the report, they acknowledge that senior administration figures did commit crimes. Is he making the argument that another Congressional committee should hold a trial, or that it's up to the courts to decide? Without stating explicitly who is responsible for holding the executive branch accountable for the criminality of the last eight years, McCain wants to let bygones be bygones.

McCain seems content to leave history behind, preferring only to "prevent it from happening again." This type of thinking exemplifies precisely the adage that those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. If Congress does not exercise its oversight power on the executive branch in the form of criminal charges (the only sort of sanction it can impose), future generations will have no sure way of knowing where the majority stands on the issue of torture. Our progeny will look back in disbelief that we did not speak.

America cannot afford to repress the national trauma of September 11 by refusing to discuss the painful errors we made. Europeans liked for awhile to speak of America as a "gawky adolescent" who was experiencing growing pains when we stumbled after that day. While often used to denigrate the United States, the characterization can also help us to understand how exactly to move forward from the aftermath of September 11. Instead of burying the past and lurching into a rose-colored future, let us sort out the good from the bad. In order to heal, we must prosecute anyone who's actions do not pass legal muster. Failure to expose our faults and work to solve the problems will continue us on a dysfunctional path.

John McCain can redeem himself by leading the vanguard in Congress to punishing the criminals among the Bush Administration.

McCain's Function in an Obama Presidency

The recently released torture report should serve as the opening salvo in John McCain's political revenge against Bush and the cadre loyalists who defeated McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries and whose failed administration ruined McCain's chances in 2008. Who better for Obama to co-opt as an aggressive pursuer of all the wrong-doings of the last eight years than his own political opponent, the "maverick" Republican who "reaches across the aisle" to govern in the people's interest? McCain should cherish the role, since any success he has will cement his image in history the way he professes to see himself. In the coming weeks, we need to see McCain change his mind about looking into the past and start working towards securing convictions for the most egregious criminals of the Bush era. I think this is one of the only ways for McCain to rehabilitate the image that was damaged so badly during the election.

Live Debate Blogging

7:58- Let's hope Bob Schieffer moderates like "a real pro."

8:03- McCain says Americans are "hurting and angry...and they're angry." Is McCain projecting his own anger at Obama & the media, discussed in recent weeks, onto the American electorate as a whole? Does this count as populism?

8:06- Once again, as in the first debate, it is Obama who relies on the formulaic "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." I'm no enemy of the comparative study, but I think formulaic language weakens the electoral intellect.

8:08- Excellent! McCain goes directly to Obama, "Joe looked to your tax plan..." Is McCain telling the truth? Obama has that "Oh, John, you're not telling the truth" smile on his face. Whose plan will really lower taxes on Joe the Plumber?

8:11- Whoever is correct about the tax plan, McCain is certainly wrong about "class warfare" and "spreading the wealth around." McCain is openly defending the rich, "Why would you want to raise taxes on anyone."

8:13- McCain says, "We're talking about Joe the Plumber" and seconds later he defends the rich again by supposing that no one should pay for the goals of America.

8:14- Obama is not getting his point across.

8:16- Obama will go through the federal budget line by line and eliminate programs that don't work... and then he makes a distinction with "programs that we need." Sounds like a shield to not cut any programs to me. I'm going to hold President Obama to this one.

8:19- McCain is strong tonight. He's going to the mattresses on spending. But there's that "planetarium" line again. It's so much more than "an overhead projector." Has anyone ever been to a planetarium? Anyone know how awesome they are? Would we have NASA without current NASA engineers and physicis

8:22- "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." That is a stake in the heart.

8:23- Obama is right about clean coal technology making him unpopular with environmentalists. Check out my post below about Entergy's plan to convert the Little Gypsy plant to clean coal.

8:25- "I've got the scars to prove it."

8:25- "Senator Obama, your argument for standing up to the leaders of your party isn't very convincing."

8:26- Here's the moment, "Will you say these things to the other's face?"

8:27- McCain takes on John Lewis?

8:28- McCain takes on Obama on the issue of spending, and very effectively. He has Obama in his hands, working him like putty. Accuses him of not standing up to the leaders of his own party, then calls him out for not taking on John Lewis. This is not racism and this is not race-baiting. This is McCain winning the debate.

8:31- McCain accuses of Obama for airing "attack ads" that attack his policies. That is not an "attack ad." That is an ad. Attacking the policies of your opponent is the point of any campaign.

8:34- How will McCain respond to the "palling around with terrorists" line?

8:35- Obama did not accuse soldiers or soldier's wives of anything.

8:35- Why won't Obama just answer McCain's accusations with truthful statements? He's trying to unite. He wants "to disagree without being disagreeable." McCain is having none of it. He brings up Senator Clinton again, which is subtly undermining of the Obama candidacy. He comes to ACORN (see Wesley Peart's post below). What does Obama say?
"Bill Ayers is a professor of education at the U. of Chicago. Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he...committed despicable acts." He lists the rest of Ayers' associates from that very same board. Will anyone listen already?

"ACORN is a community organization. They were...paying people to register folks... The only involvement I had with ACORN, I worked for them, along with the US Justice Department...on the motor voter act."

And Obama brings out his real associates. This is a much more successful tack. Will this be an uptick for Obama?

8:41- Schieffer leaves the door open for more ACORN/Ayers questions later.

8:44- "...what they call the lower 48." Oh, that's cute, isn't it? Sarah Palin is from Alaska!
Those people haven't been involved in the political process because they don't care enough about politics. They think that everything will be alright and that their vote doesn't matter. They aren't involved now because Sarah Palin is running. They're involved now because someone told them that a black Muslim terrorist was running for president.

8:47- Schieffer just nixed Obama's response! Did anyone else see Obama try to respond, but then frown as if Schieffer had just denied him the chance? I certainly did.

8:49- McCain is doing a fantastic job tonight. Where has this John McCain been for the last two months?

8:50- I get the sense that Obama's energy policies aren't getting through. I saw $2.99/gal gas today. He isn't bringing anything to McCain. And McCain is able to sit there and keep smiling while he readies the next barrage of attacks.

8:52- McCain parses language, really going for Obama's strong spot. No one denies that Obama is a great orator. But McCain is delivering a career performance. This is going to make the next three weeks a lot tighter. No more clear sailing for Obama, if the rest of the country agrees with me.

8:55- "...we can create 5 million new jobs." Finally Obama gets back to the economy.
And McCain brings back the "negotiate with terrorists" meme, albeit inserting Hugo Chavez in place of Mahmoud Amhadinejad. Then compares Obama to Hoover. I don't think those comparisons strengthen McCain's hand at all.

8:58- Obama, speaking directly to the camera, explains his health care plan. I know a lot of people who have been waiting to hear this, and who have needed to hear it from Obama himself. And he's honest about spending, looking to the long-term benefits. Why not add some dig about, "So Americans can still enjoy health care when they get to be Senator McCain's age."

McCain returns to "my old buddy...Joe." That was very Larry David-esque in its delivery. McCain misrepresents Obama's position, then apologizes, then looks absolutely shocked - shocked! - when Obama corrects him. That was laying it on pretty thick. McCain knows he is winning but he's getting arrogant.

9:03- Obama really doing well to speak directly to "Joe" while defending his plan against McCain's mischaracterization.

9:04- When did Obama just try to redistribute the wealth? Obama just said "no fine." If the American people "will receive more money" under McCain's plan, isn't that also redistributing wealth? McCain is simply not telling the truth about Obama's health care plan. It isn't about "fundamental differences between [their] policies," it is about McCain telling untruths about Obama's plan.

9:07- "All I wanna do, if you've already got health care, is lower your costs. That includes you, Joe." - Obama

9:08- McCain states, "I'm a federalist." Let's look into this one.

9:09- McCain suggests that Congress give up its prerogative to confirm or deny judges because "elections have consequences." If those consequences are that the president gets his/her way, what is the point of Congress? The last thing the federal government needs is more expansion of executive power.

9:12- Will McCain lean on executive power again in the face of Obama's reasonable propostion to help the branches cooperate? No, but he takes on abortion in a real world context after refusing to do so in the judicial context.

9:13- McCain admonishes Obama for his vote on treating fetuses that survive abortions, but what about torture? Why did McCain vote to allow the Bush Administration to torture enemy combatants? Obama pretty much took the wind out of McCain's argument on this one. The law to protect unborn fetuses was on the books. Gotta check on this one, though.

9:18- Really just noticing the CNN "Audience Reaction" graph, but Obama's talk of education is making the red Republican line skyrocket! Go Peace Corps! And suggesting that parents "put away the video games" and exercise responsibility made the graph drop dramatically. Is this simply a case of the graph operating at a different delay than the video and audio we're seeing on the screen?

9:24- Did McCain forget Michelle Obama's name? Just because vouchers failed in Washington, D.C. isn't an epitaph for the entire concept. For one, look at the Washington, D.C. gun policy. They aren't exactly beacons of freedom in the civic government of our nation's capital.

9:25- Q: Is it right to use autistic children for political ends?
A: No.

9:27- What does the mayor of Washington, D.C. support when it comes to education policy? My immediate sources say the appearance is that the mayor supports education wholeheartedly, making many appearances at presentations and programs at local schools.

9:29- Can we trust Obama? Looks like McCain's strategy hasn't changed at all. He's proud to serve, he'd be honored, and you can't trust Obama.

9:30- Formulaic language ("worst economic crisis since the Great Depression") once again.

9:31- Interesting how that red Republican graph was high on several occasions when Obama was speaking. I would not put it past the GOP to have coached their audience so no one could accuse them of being the same sorts of people who have been showing up at McCain-Palin rallies.

Removing Party Affiliation to "Cure" Voter Fraud

Much has been said in recent weeks on the prospect of fraud in the voter registration process. The numbers of newly registered voters who register as Democrats far outweighs the number of registered Republicans, so Republicans claim "fraud" and begin to file lawsuits. They just won a big one in Ohio.

I propose a solution. Stop allowing voters to register their party affiliation. Since the political parties are not entities of any government (we hope) but private organizations, it does not make sense for voters to register their affiliation with the political parties when registering to vote. This would at least make combating vote fraud a non-partisan issue instead of seeing the obviously reactionary tactics of the GOP.

elections

If you want to change things, elections aren't the way to do it. Nearly every freedom we enjoy today was earned by constant, persistent popular struggle. They weren't bestowed upon us by great leaders--this is a near universal, incidentally. McCain and Obama are spokesman from either side of a very narrow spectrum of opinion, namely the opinion of corporate elites and their government analogues. Just take a look at their corporate backers. McCain's top financial contributors include Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan/Chase, AT&T, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the US Army, Dept of Defense; all contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars. On the other hand, Obama's top financial contributors include Goldman Sachs, Citigroup JPMorgan/Chase, AOL/TImeWarner, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, etc. There's every indication that McCain's policies will be virtually identical to the policies of the neocons over the last 20 or so years. Likewise, Obama will very likely shift policy toward the centrist position of the Clinton era which brought us a Devastating sanctions regime in Iraq--which crippled the country and deepened the population's dependence on Saddam's efficient food distribution programs, effectively forestalling an internal movement which might have overthrown him--the bombing of Sudan which had, "appalling consequences for the economy and society" of Sudan (Christopher Hitchens, Nation, June 10 2002). Also, the simultaneous passing of NAFTA and implementation of Operation Gatekeeper (NAFTA flooded the Mexican economy with cheap, government subsidized U.S. Agribusiness products, devastating the Mexican economy, driving indigenous farmers off their land, and driving down wages across the country. Operation Gatekeeper effectively militarized the U.S./Mexican border) can be attributed to the Clinton administration. So we're likely to see more of that with Obama. The only reason I mention this is because I'm a little tired of hearing my, mostly well-intentioned, liberal friends talk about how much better things will be if Obama wins. Furthermore, a casual look at Obama's healthcare plan should reveal that most of us young, uninsured, working adults won't see a bit of it. That isn't to say that it won't have some marginally positive effects.
If any of you are thinking that this is some sort of tacit endorsement of McCain, you're wrong. It should be immediately obvious to even the casual observer that McCain is every bit the international aggressor that Bush is, possibly worse given his voting record, and that he'll continue Bush's efforts to restructure our society according to a Third World framework in which there is massive injustice as regards the distribution of wealth, increasing rates of incarceration for nonviolent crimes--which serve to marginalize sectors of the population who don't significantly contribute to wealth production--and an overall decrease in public oversight and government regulation of the unaccountable tyrannies that we call "corporations."
The only way to effectively improve the quality of life in this country is to win democratic control over economic resources. And nobody's going to give it to us. If we don't take it, we won't have it.
There's been a lot of rhetoric comparing Obama to Kennedy. That being the case I think a brief review of Kennedy's record is in order. Kennedy was responsible for illegal international aggression against South Vietnam--always the primary target of our assault on southeast asia, illegal terrorist operations in Cuba, a millions cambodian deaths, the list of crimes goes on. As far as Obama's media persona, it's completely vacuous. He talks about hope and change but doesn't bother to elaborate on how that might happen. Here, I think the comparisons to Kennedy are more or less accurate.

McCain Pushes Back

Here.

I am very heartened to read the Time piece linked above, which tells how McCain rebuked a Minnesota crowd for the venom of its anti-Obama fervor. McCain, replying to a woman who referred to Obama as "an Arab terrorist," said

"No, no ma'am...He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."

My sense is that this is McCain doing what McCain would do in any similar situation, as opposed to McCain doing whatever it takes to become president. He's re-humanizing himself, and I hope it continues. I hope he loses the election, but I hope he continues to be a decent human being.

Political Ugliness

I feel compelled to comment on the ugliness that has begun to appear at McCain-Palin rallies, in which the speakers whip the crowd into such a frenzy that the members of the audience shout inappropriate comments about Obama. For example:
.

And at a Sarah Palin rally, an audience member yelled "kill him" when Palin spoke about Obama and Bill Ayers.

I've been to rallies for presidential candidates, and I find it very difficult to believe that the candidates speaking do not hear these shouts. These are not hungry, riotous mobs from past centuries spilling on to the streets in search of food. These are twenty-first century Americans, some of whom are demonstrating that they believe executions to be the proper way to eliminate political enemies. Why did McCain and Palin not stop the behavior right then and there? McCain's own facial expression suggests that he heard the shout of "terrorist." Why did he grin and continue on?

If this sort of thing goes down at an Obama-Biden rally, rest assured I will comment on it and denounce it. We have elections precisely to prevent social violence. Americans must not tolerate even the suggestion of political violence.

Entergy Returns to Stone Age

Entergy tries to wipe out its good work against climate change in Louisiana by converting the Little Gypsy plant, in St. Charles Parish, to burn coal & coke instead of natural gas. Entergy claims the move could save customers money "as soon as 2021," while opponents say it would reverse the company's strides against global warming.

French Police Clash with "Youths"

Full article here:

ROMANS-SUR-ISERE, France (AP) - A French police officer was shot and wounded during clashes with youths that broke out after a teenager died while fleeing police, authorities said Tuesday.
The officer appeared to have been shot in the leg with a hunting rifle, said the police prefecture in Romans-sur-Isere, a southeastern town located 60 miles from Lyon in the Rhone Valley on the edge of the Alps. The officer's life was not in danger. Dents from bullets and buckshot were also found in police vehicles nearby.
Police used tear gas and rubber pellets to push back some 50 youths during clashes late Monday and early Tuesday. Several cars were burned and about 15 shop windows were smashed.
After nightfall Tuesday, some 300 riot police officers and gendarmes took up positions around the center of town to prevent a second night of clashes. Some teams of officers were brought in from neighboring regions.
The violence broke out after a 16-year-old died by driving a stolen car into a wall while fleeing police. Four other minors in the car were lightly injured.
Accidents involving police and youths have been particularly sensitive in France since riots in 2005 that were sparked by the deaths of two teens electrocuted in a power substation while hiding from police.
Jean-Pierre Nahon, a prosecutor in the regional capital, Valence, said a police watchdog agency will investigate latest incident.
Nahon said that, according to a preliminary investigation, the five teenagers had stolen the car overnight and were driving at high speed through the center of Romans-sur-Isere when police began chasing them. The young driver took a sharp turn and lost control of the car, running into a wall.

A few questions come to mind immediately: Why are armed officers being deployed to defend against teenagers? What insecurity must police in France be feeling right now that they must send 300 officers to deal with a small town worth of unruly kids? The teenagers are obviously slightly out of control; they are stealing cars and crashing them into walls, for one. The police, too, are out of control, from the looks of things.

I must reserve judgment. I'm going to research this, try to put it in context, and hopefully be able add some examples from the US to the discussion. More later.

Wall Street Bail-Out Fails in the House

By a vote of 207-228. Perhaps this means we'll get another stab at converting large chunks of our economy to a socialist model. Perhaps it just means that the House knew how outraged their constituents would be if this hand-out passed.

Ultimately, I don't think that giving the money to Wall Street would solve the problem. If it is true that we have $700 billion laying around to give to firms who lost their money honestly (perhaps crookedly), I believe the better bet would be to offer an unprecedented stimulus to the American economy by giving every adult American an equal share of that pie. Why is this such a bad idea? As of 2006, the Census Bureau estimated that almost a quarter of Americans were under the age of 18, out of a total population of 300,000,000. That's 75,000,000 minors, leaving 225,000,000 persons over the age of 18.
Here's the math: $700,000,000,000 divided by 225,000,000 = $3111.11 per American over the age of 18.
We all know that Wall Street is only going to get itself in trouble again, or find some way to weasel out of its obligations from whatever version of the bail-out bill passes. Give the money to ordinary Americans. Those bankers who have helped cause the crisis we are now in are Americans, too, and so of course they will get their $3111.
Assume that money is taxed at a rate of 20% (in places too low, in places too high, but a good middle number depending on the bracket). That's $622 less $3111 = $2489. $622 x 225,000,000 = $140 billion right back into the government coffers to make the total cost of this unprecedented economic stimulus a paltry $560 billion.
Let's make it happen!

Who Thinks the Bail-Out Stinks?

Not as many people as press reports suggest, apparently. The crew at FiveThirtyEight parse the polling data, looking closely at how pollsters word their questions, and how such wording elicits seemingly obvious responses. Well worth a gander by anyone who cares about this sort of thing (read: More people should care about this sort of thing).

Also, here's a .pdf link to the full proposal as it is being debated in the House of Representatives right now.

Debate

8:05 pm: Obama takes on McCain & Bush

8:06 pm: McCain: "Not feeling great about a few things lately...but I'm feeling better now..." thanks to bipartisanship!!

8:07 pm: McCain avoids the "greatest crisis since WWII" line.. He "Palins" around to "we must end our addiction to foreign oil"! Where did that come from?

8:10 pm: McCain still goes back to WWII with his Eisenhower story. Promises "accountability" in government but declined to answer whether or not he would vote for bail out - won't offer accountability for himself.

8:15 pm: Members of Congress "sitting in jail now" because of earmarks... exactly where McCain will probably end up if he gets 4 years of the kind of unfettered power Bush has had.

8:18 pm: Obama stumbling on laying blame at McCain's feet. He could've done better than that. Also weak on refuting McCain's charge of out of control spending.

8:19 pm: Why keep going back to this "people facing charges" / "in prison" idea? Is he going to propose criminal charges for the Wall Street CEOs who have fleeced America into a new Depression?

8:24 pm: What is Obama's definition of "rich"?

8:33 pm: There we go, Obama. Bring the spending discussion right back to the Republicans. Iraq's $79 billion surplus?!

8:37 pm: Was McCain against Charles Keating's unnecessary spending when it went directly into McCain's pocket?
& There's that Miss Congeniality line again. Did he forget he's already used it? MAVERICK! "& I've got to say that I have a partner who's a good maverick with me now." This is golden. That McCain smile, too.

8:40 pm: McCain takes credit for the surge but shirks responsibility for getting us into Iraq in the first place?

8:41 pm: Bin Laden - there he is. I forgot about that guy.

8:44 pm: Obama putting his own responsibility for foreign policy on Biden. Good move but I can't say I agree with it. Obama is running for president, not Biden. He has to display his own command of the subject and explain the actions McCain brought up.

8:48 pm: Tactics and strategy. McCain is speaking directly to press reports that his "campaign suspension" was a mere tactic. He wants Americans to think that it was part of a larger strategy?
What did Admiral Mullen say?

8:51 pm: Obama emphasizing civilian control of military by deferring to Sec. Gates' recommendations while McCain sticks with the generals. It isn't surprising that McCain sticks with the generals, given his military background, but the fact is that the United States is not a country whose foreign policy is controlled by the military. Our Commander-in-Chief is a civilian for that exact reason. I'm curious to see how the top brass will react to an Obama presidency. How will the policy shifts be enacted in our strategic thinking?

8:56 pm: What's McCain squinting at in the audience? Is he expressing distaste with Obama's "If John disagrees, he can let me know" line? Those two seemed to be action-reaction. No similar reaction to the "if you want to sing songs about bombing Iran" line.

8:59 pm: If he's wearing the bracelet now, has he been wearing it for over a year?

9:00 pm: Obama - "I've got a bracelet, too.... No US soldier ever dies in vain because they're following in the service of their commander-in-chief." He turns it back to judgment, something McCain hasn't been showing much of lately. How can Obama win this debate when McCain returns time and again to the military honor line? I don't think Obama can overcome that among the majority of Americans.

9:05 pm: "The Iranians have a lousy government and therefore they have a lousy economy..." - McCain.
The United States has a lousy economy therefore...?

9:13 pm: "What Senator Obama doesn't understand..." That line has been repeated about 10 times so far by McCain.
A minute earlier, too, I really thought Obama was going go after Palin for calling Kissinger "naive" when Obama started saying he had been called "naive".

9:15 pm: Here goes the McCain temper!! & in defense of Kissinger?
(9:29) Was McCain thinking about Palin when he began to get heated there for a moment?

9:18 pm: McCain pounding Obama for being "naive." It's sort of disrespectful, isn't it, the way he's doing it? The tactic and the tone he's using to discredit Obama?

9:21 pm: "Vladimir Putin: Our President" - Did the Russians sneak across their border and post Putin propaganda?

9:24 pm: One more lede question: Thank the Lord, this is getting boring.

9:31 pm: "Senator Obama still doesn't seem to understand..."

9:34 pm: Is McCain seriously comparing Obama to "this Administration"??? OMG!

McCain Campaign Technique: Positive Visualization

I've seen posted the video of Chris Weber calling time-out against Duke when Michigan was out of time-outs, but I think another basketball analogy works much better here. I remember watching an old basketball instructional video, probably sent to my Dad from Sports Illustrated, starring the late, great Red Auerbach and the still great Larry Bird. Auerbach asks Bird about his free-throw shooting technique. Bird replies that before he even takes the shot, he closes his eyes and visualizes the ball going through the hoop. Astonished, Auerbach asks (something to the effect of), "You mean you actually watch yourself shooting and making the free throw before you even take the shot?" "That's right, Coach," Bird says.

Maybe McCain is using the old visualization technique for his campaign. He was practicing for the debate earlier this week when he began visualizing how things would actually go against Obama Friday night. Clearly, he freaked out and realized that there was no way that ball was going through the hoop unless he did something maverick-y right away. Hence, "suspends" his campaign, mucks up bail-out negotiations, un-suspends campaign. McCain opened his eyes and realized that he was still standing at the free throw line with the entire arena watching him sway back and forth with his eyes closed, waiting for him to shoot the ball.

Only he isn't a basketball player at the free throw line. He's the Republican Party's candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And no one fouled him, so he should never have been at the free throw line.

Can't wait to watch the debate tonight!

That Damn McCain Campaign

So amidst all the fury over the Obama camp's legal drive to stop the NRA ad, the McCain camp (could it really have been anyone else?) pulls the Sarah Palin Miss Alaska pageant video.

A few key points:

• There is some dispute over the veracity of the anti-Obama NRA ad
  
• No one denies that Sarah Palin competed in the 1984 Miss Alaska Pageant.

• As far as anyone can tell, the Obama campaign operates within a commonly agreed upon reality.
• As far as anyone can tell, the McCain campaign seeks to create its own reality based upon its desires.
  

That last point refers to the already much discussed ad McCain placed in online today declaring his victory in tonight's debate. The problem? The debate is tonight, which means it hasn't taken place yet.

Sarah Palin Miss Alaska

Nice score by Andrew Sullivan:


The best part, and I'm being serious here, is the trumpet player in that band!!

UPDATE: (16:56 CT) Sullivan posted the version you see now after the earlier version was taken down.

Ouch

This looks bad:

Video from The Weekly Standard.

Apparently the same Democrats who are pushing their bail-out plan ignored former Treasury Secretary John Snow and former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan's dire warnings to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. McCain, on the other hand, sponsored a bill calling for reform of financial regulation.

For McCain's part, don't forget so easily that Rick Davis, his campaign manager and a top advisor, was getting paychecks to the tune of $15,000 every month to lobby against regulation. Was McCain still trying to atone for his Keating 5 involvement? What is different about then-McCain versus now-McCain?

Ed Rollins on Motives of House Republicans

Former Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins, Anderson Cooper 360, speculates on why those pesky House Republicans aren't playing ball with the bail-out:



He doesn't address Rep. Spencer Bachus directly, who we know wasn't authorized to speak for his party, but Rollins answers in the affirmative to Cooper's question/statement that House Republicans are putting party over country right now. We can expect those same House Republicans will conjure some argument that makes them look like uber-patriots while their colleagues are cynical pols.
Video from TPM.

Bachus the Maverick

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that Bachus is playing maverick.

House Republicans protest they are not playing politics with the bill. Bachus, they say, is a maverick who told the Democratic negotiators six times that he did not have the power to speak for his caucus. The press conference, they contend, was a staged production to give the illusion of an agreement and force it down the throats of unwilling House Republicans.

What is Bachus getting out of all this? Is McCain grooming him to replace Phil Gramm as his Secretary of the Treasury?

From the Detroit Free Press:

[House Minority Leader John Boehner] did not say why Bachus was sent to a meeting between parties if he did not have power to make a deal.

"We don't believe there's been a bipartisan negotiation," [Boehner] said.

Bachus is certainly, in my estimation, doing McCain's bidding. The sequence and timing of events offer few explanations to the contrary. A deal is imminent; McCain shows up; the deal is off, with Bachus serving as a lonely, though vocal dissenter. I doubt anyone (including myself) remembers how long ago Bachus endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination? January 25, 2007. Bachus has stuck by McCain's candidacy for almost longer than anyone. Does he sense a payoff?

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) stands to the right of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today at the Capitol. (photo: REUTERS)

Rep. Spencer Bachus for VP?

What else is Bachus doing for the McCain campaign? For all we know, Bachus could be jockeying for McCain's next vice-presidential nod after he's forced to dump Palin when Biden tears her apart in their first debate, should it ever happen.

A Bachus press release from today:

As I made clear in the meeting this morning, I was not authorized by my colleagues to make any agreement on behalf of House Republicans.
There was progress on many issues, but no agreement other than to continue discussions.

I suppose after pulling a stunt like he pulled earlier today he'd better make an effort to "make clear" what exactly he was "authorized" to do.

I wonder, though, why wouldn't the Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee be authorized to speak for his party? I can't help but suspect that the McCain campaign has inserted itself actively into the House negotiations, which would enable McCain to vote with his fellow Republican senators when it is politically expedient for him to do so while still exerting some level of control over the discussions in the House.

Deal Breaks Down; Rep. Spencer Bachus

From Politico:

Frank gave reporters copies of the House Republicans’ set of principles, and he said that their primary goal — insuring bad bank loans, rather than buying them — had already been rejected by Paulson as unworkable. He noted that no House Republicans raised the insurance idea at a House hearing yesterday; if anyone had, he said, Paulson would have rejected the idea out of hand.

Paulson rejected the insurance plan as unworkable because he knows probably more than any of us how worthless the FDIC is and, similarly, how worthless any loan insurance issued by the federal government would be.

From the same article:

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) stood in for the House Republicans. But as Frank said after the meeting, “he wasn’t even marginally deputized” to speak for his caucus, having been publicly chastened by House GOP leadership earlier in the day. Bachus, said Frank, excused himself from the meeting, explaining that since he wasn’t authorized to speak on behalf of his caucus it wasn’t useful for him to stay.

Who is this guy? Did those McCain staffers he had breakfast with Wednesday dose him with some sort of "maverick juice" that turns once sane individuals into unrepentant risk-takers? It clearly isn't just Barney Frank who was irritated by Bachus' comments, he had been "publicly chastened" by the leadership of his own party! Why don't the Senate GOP do the same to John McCain?!

Chase Bail-Out of FDIC

Sources close to the Chase bailout of the FDIC tell me that the WaMu CEO held a conference call with top WaMu management in which he explained that Chase had no intention of actually buying WaMu until the FDIC, short on the cash it needed to bail-out WaMu itself, leaned on Chase to follow through on the bid. Chase, in return, wanted its own back scratched by the FDIC. What happened? Where does the FDIC go now when it needs money? You guessed it. Chase.

Chase just bought the FDIC. When the next big bank folds, who bails it out? Chase. When Congress moves to pass tighter oversight of the banking industry, who is going to threaten to stop funding the FDIC? Not the taxpayer. It's going to be Chase. We're taking giant steps toward the private sector takeover of government. While the nets and the blogs scream bloody murder about Main Street bailing out Wall Street, about these private firms becoming public trusts, the most liquid of the liquid firms left swoops down to gobble up Main Street.

Guess Bush showed remarkable foresight when he tried privatize Social Security. The next time private rapacity drains public coffers, some other solvent private entity will likely follow the example set by Chase today and offer a lifeline. How poetic that, as Bush leaves office, private interests score a major financial coup against the public good.

Police Violence Leads to Police Death

This article by Radley Balko over at Reason. A Chesapeake, Virginia police officer killed while breaking into a man's home to serve a warrant for a nonviolent drug offense. The substance of the article speaks directly to the point in this blog's first post about the need for citizens to keep a watch on the police.

Venetian Gondola Song

This from Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:



The best part may be the slant rhyme between "joe bi-DEN / vice-presi-DENt / oh yes we CAN." I seem to recall a very shady deal with a certain Venetian gondolier that ended up with myself and several companions out 30 Euro each, but hey, no hard feelings.

McCain-Bush meeting plus Obama

David Kurtz over at Talking Points Memo goes some way toward answering the question I posed about the substance of the White House meeting between Bush, McCain, and Obama. He quotes Dana Perino:

"Sen. McCain is the one who called for the meeting, and we thought it was a good idea."

What?! So now Bush is letting McCain call the shots at the White House? When in the course of American history has any candidate for president called a high-level meeting at the White House? Perhaps if the candidate was Vice-President at the time. Maybe. The simple fact that McCain and Bush belong to the same political party does not entitle McCain to wield such clout.

Perino's comments came about two hours ago. The stories in the mainstream media all suggest, however, that Bush called the meeting and invited McCain and Obama.

McCain as key to Bush's legacy

Here's a quote from Robert Draper’s McCain piece in the latest issue of GQ (Oct. 2008, p. 296):

"On June 22, 2004, Bush took McCain’s buddy Lindsey Graham aside during a White House function and, standing on the Truman Balcony, told Graham that, as the latter would remember it, “he saw John as the guy who would carry on his legacy in Iraq.”"

This isn’t merely about Bush helping McCain as a fellow conservative; this is about Bush helping McCain because he thinks McCain is the best guy to “stay the course.” Remember, too, that this Graham-Bush conversation took place BEFORE the 2004 election, before Bush was even assured of a second term in which to cement his legacy.

What is the actual substance of the meeting Bush invited McCain and Obama to attend? Is Bush offering both of his potential successors a legitimate stake in contributing to the bail-out efforts, one that they wouldn't have merely as senators but earn only as candidates? Doubtful. He's doing everything he can to prop up McCain's non-existent chances at furthering the Bush legacy in Iraq, and if that means letting McCain grandstand about fixing the economy then so be it. I'm just not sure why Bush invited Obama, as well. Bush has politicized every branch of government in his eight years; why is he pretending to be bipartisan now? His legacy?

A friend suggested to me last night that McCain is like that guy who was assigned to your group project in class who never came to any of the meetings, never contributed anything to the project, but who came into class the day of the presentation and took credit for the whole thing.

Policy Politics Police

Policy because this is what we call citizens' ideas for what government should do. Since citizens run government, it is citizens' ideas that matter most. This blog will be a forum for its contributors to comment on the operation of the United States Government and all the various localized governments within the United States federal system.

Politics because our citizen-politicians operate and compete for power in a forum in which political traditions determine the rules. Elections matter. Congress matters. State governments matter. Local governments matter. Neighborhood associations matter but really should be wholly out of the purview of the federal government.

Police because police officers account for by far the most direct violations of citizens' rights by members of any branch of government, and someone independent of the authorities should keep an eye on the authorities at all times to make sure the they never exercise their power illegally. Think of this blog's third mission as an online CopWatch program.

It occurs to me as I write that many refrain from criticizing the police out of fear of reprisals. Those same individuals would not hesitate to voice criticism of elected officials because elected officials cannot stop us on the street at anytime in the way police officers can. The state of affairs I describe is, of course, anathema to a free society. Communities need better lines of communication with their police departments. Citizens must control the means of communication directly. Citizens should learn legal means of controlling interactions with police officers. The mission of police departments should be minimized significantly in order to reduce and eliminate violations of citizens' rights.