The PCTC Blog

Look at All These Endorsements, Will Ya?

With word coming down that even Ronald Reagan's former Chief of Staff, Ken Duberstein, has endorsed Barack Obama for President , perhaps it's time we look at some of the endorsements for each candidate, and what they might mean.

Recent Obama endorsements include former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell, registered Republican Charles Barkley and DeVal Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts, but they don't count because they're black, and according to Limbaugh, they only endorsed Obama because of the color of his skin.

Likewise, John Thune, Rudy Giuliani and Pastor John Hagee endorsed McCain because they're the pastiest-looking white men on the planet, just like McCain, so we won't count them, either.

So, what are we left with?

Well, as of today, Obama leads the daily newspaper endorsement race in a landslide, by more than 2-to-1, according to Editor & Publisher, 240-114, with 47 papers who backed Bush in 2004 now backing Obama. When weeklies and magazines are included, the difference is even more stark, with Obama tallying 345 endorsements to McCain's 129.

One of the most startling endorsements has come from none other than the Salt Lake Tribune, although when you read the endorsement, it reads like less an endorsement of Obama, and more a show of disappointment because McCain didn't choose Mormon Mitt as his running mate. And who could have ever imagined that the Chicago Tribune and the Denver Post would ever endorse a Democrat? 

Caribou Barbie and the First Amendment: Not So Much

After eight years of the Idiot-in-Chief, do we need -- no, wait, that's the wrong phrase -- can we afford four to eight more years of White House occupation by morons who have never read the Constitution, and have no idea what it's about?

Here's a whopper from today, courtesy of Caribou Barbie, to Chris Plante on a right wing talk show in Washington, DC:

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

See, Barb -- can I call you Barb? -- the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the government, not the other way around. See, you're running for office to work in the government, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect government from the people, but to protect the people from YOU!

Got that, Barbie? The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people from clowns like you. A major component of that protection is a free press. Now, I know the press has become a lapdog for the neocons in recent years, based on their inaccurate assumption that Fox News' cable ratings, and the ratings of several of the wingnut radio talkers represents a majority view of the American people, but the fact of the matter is, the press, or as they have come to be caled, "the media" are an essential tool for fighting government oppression.

As such, the fear you have, that as a leader of the government, you wouldn't get to speak out on things because the press might be mean to you is just stupid, childish and petty. See, Barbie; the "chilling effect" on free speech doesn't work for people in government, because you people have power and get to make the laws. But when you threaten, or even imply that you might, limit access by the press, you are effectively cutting off access to government by the people.That's what the First Amendment protects us from.

Look, it's bad enough that you somehow think the Vice President runs the Senate; can you at least try to read the Constitution and if necessary, get someone to explain the hard parts or something?

And let me clue you in on another thing, Caribou Barbie; talking about Obama's "associations" with William Ayers in a way that makes it seem as if he was handing Ayers the bomb-making materials back when Obama himself was far, far away and struggling through third grade, well, that does constitute "negative campaigning." See, Barb; if you can't point to the positives of having you and Gramps in the White House, and the best you can do is insinuate that the other guy, who has been far more thoroughly vetted than you have been, might encourage terrorism somehow, that fits the very definition of "negative campaigning."

See, it would be as if Obama were to start talking about the fact that you were investigated and found to have abused the power of your office, or had close ties to a secessionist group, or used $150,000 in campaign money to buy yourself nice clothes, or showed yourself to be dumber than a stump when it comes to constitutional issues. Such non-issues would be considered "negative campaigning, as well, but Obama has too much class to go after you on such things.

And good for him.

The choice is clear, dear reader; you can vote for a Constitutional scholar, whose running mate and potential replacement, should the unthinkable happen, is one of the most respected members of the Senate, or you can choose an erratic old man, who himself has said he's too old to be president, who chose as his running mate one of the most constitutionally ignorant people to ever run for high office in the history of this country.

Gee, that's a difficult one, eh?

Stop Giving the Idiots Equal Time!

You know what's fascinating to think about?

 

Despite the fact that John McCain has run one of the worst campaigns in history, seems incapable of understanding the economic mess, thinks no one cares if we occupy Iraq for centuries, and has proved incapable of making a case why voters should vote FOR him, preferring instead to cite reasons to vote against Obama, and despite the fact that Barack Obama has spent the last 20 months demonstrating exactly the qualities Americans should be looking for in a leader, the Republican nominee is all but guaranteed to get  votes from at least 42-45% of Americans, even if Obama wins by  landslide.

Can you imagine Herbert Hoover running that strong against FDR in 1932?

 

Think about that. We are in economic meltdown, and McCain has no solutions. We're running crippling deficits, and he thinks it's perfectly okay. We're bogged down in two quagmires that have been royally FUBARed, and to which we're committed to spending $12 billion per month, and he's talking about possibly staying there for centuries, if necessary.  And except for some offhanded claim to some sort of "experience," McCain has nothing to offer, except that Obama's a "socialist," which is absurd in the extreme.  And at least ONE THIRD of voters will vote for that candidate, no matter what.

 

Seriously, what does that say about a large number of us? What has happened to us as a country? We used to believe in country first, with party and ideology way back on the scale of importance. Now, it's like a third of the country, if not more, will vote for whomever says exactly the "right things," as far as they're concerned, and damn the consequences.

 

I'm not just talking about the right wing here, either. Ralph Nader will still get about 2% of the vote, even this year, despite the fact that Nader doesn't really stand for anything, really. Yeah, I know, he says shit many on the left want to hear, but unless he has some magic potion to get the American people to go along with him, he'll never pass any of it anyway.

 

No, what I'm talking about is the large number of people who seem to be engaged in this "alternate reality" of sorts. I'm not sure what is causing the disconnect, but the effect seems to be fairly widespread.  A far too large segment of our population seems to have a serious collective disconnect with reality, and we need to address it.

 

Consider these statistics:

Cutting the Right Wing Crap Chart

Sometimes, it's fun to get e-mail from right wing clowns, especially lately, when it's pretty obvious Barack Obama will be our next president. They are apoplectic. My favorite of these last few weeks has to be a chart, which is designed to make it "easy" to know who to vote for.

Check this out... it's funny... but not in a humorous way... more like a sad, pathetic way. Oh, and the stuff in parentheses, in red, that's me, commenting...

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS

ISSUE		JOHN McCAIN	BARACK OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore U.S.		Yes	No (Of course, they start off with a lie. It's not first on his list, but it shouldn't be first on anyone's list, since drilling won't solve any problems, especially in the short term.)
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it		Yes	No  (McCain's favorite judge is Scalia, and who makes things up out of whole cloth better than Scalia? In fact, one of the major qualifications of right wing judges over the last eight years has been to create passages in the Constitution that don't exist, such as the clause that gives government the power to force women to stay pregnant aganst their will.)
Served in the U.S. Armed Forces		Yes	No  (Lessee... eight years with the AWOL draft dodger, and this is suddenly an issue?)
Amount of time served in the U.S. Senate		22 YEARS	173 DAYS  (Once more, eight years with a governor from the weakest-governor state in the country, and this is suddenly an issue?) (By the way, this chart was apparently created four years ago. Probably some wingnut who created this for Kerry, and just changed the name; all us liberals are the same after all, right?)
Will institute a socialized national health care plan		No	Yes   (This is an outright lie. In fact, it's one of the complaints I have about Obama; his health plan isn't socialized enough. We need single payer, period. Nothing else will work.)
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy		No	Yes   (It's kind of a lie. He's actually said he's in favor of curbs on abortions of viable fetuses, although it should still be a decisionbetween a doctor and the patient, and not involve the government at all.)
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately		No	Yes   (Slowly over 16 months, and pending conditions on the ground is not "immediately." I would remove them immediately.)
Supports gun ownership rights		Yes	No   (Another absolute lie.)
Supports homosexual marriage		No	Yes  (Another lie. He's in favor of civil unions. Not far enough. He should be in favor of same sex marriage. Note the use of the term "homosexual marriage," thus revealing their obsession with sex.)
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase		No	Yes  (He will reduce taxes on 95% of Americans, including small businesses. His goal is to increase the number of taxpayers, which would negate the need for a tax increase. And all of his programs are offset by spending cuts, so this is a lie too.)
Voted against making English the official language		No	Yes  (Good for him. This is a free country.)
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegalʼs		No	Yes  (This is another lie although if someone illegal worked here long enough, and paid enough in Social Security taxes, perhaps a case could be made for their receiving Social Security?)
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN	0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples).  McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA	28% on profit from ALL home sales.  (How does this affect you?  If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.  If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes.  This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) (This is an absolute lie. Obama proposes cutting the capital gains tax for most people to 20%, not increasing it. And the analysis of the tax consequences is way off, anyway. There are all sorts of ways to avoid taxes on such capital gains, and a tax accountant or lawyer can show you how to avoid it.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN	15% (no change)
OBAMA	39.6% (How will this affect you?  If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president.  The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') (Surprise; Another lie. Obama proposes reducing the top dividend tax rate to 20%, and only for those making over $250,000. He also will NOT tax dividends at regular income tax rates.)
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)	Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)	Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! (Seriously, how can they lie with a straight face, especially with all of the news coverage of this. All of the above figures are wrong. No one making less than $250,000 will pay one dime more in federal taxes of any kind. which makes all of the above complete crap.)
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN	- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA	Restore the inheritance tax.  Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax.  Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. (Yup. You guessed it; another lie. First off, the estate tax was not eliminated under Bush. Under current law, it will be phased out eventually. Obama's proposal will retain a 45% tax rate, but exempt the first $7 million. Now, how many "loved ones" are looking to inherit more than $7 million? Try a whopping 0.3% of all estates.)
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. (Bullshit.) New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already). (Bullshit)  New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity). (Carbon taxes, possibly, but they won't effect us more than a couple of dollars a month, at most.)  New taxes on retirement accounts, (Bullshit) and last but not least...  New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries! (And they saved the best for last. No new taxes will be needed, because we already pay an average of $14,400 per year in premiums and taxes for health care per family, anyway. Obama's plan simply doesn't allow insurance companies to deny coverage, and makes them pay for "pre-existing conditions." It also puts cost restrictions in place, and will probably result in a significant decrease in insurance premiums. I'll get more into this in a longer post, but suffice it to say, Obama's plan is not socialist enough. And if you want to talk health statistics, how about the fact that the United States, with the best health care facilities in the world, is 37th in the world when it comes to major health statistics. And ALL of the 36 countries above us have socialized medicine.)

Now that I have put this chart to rest, pardon me, I have to shower.

John McCain: The Grand Delusion

A testament to just how delusional John McCain is has to be his apparent thought that he could win the presidency this year in the first place.

Okay, before I begin, let me tell all voters to please go out and vote, and vote in mass numbers. Most of the bad voting machines are gone, but there is so much other evidence out there of attempts by Republicans to steal as many votes as possible, you have to show up, and you have to demand your right to vote. It's not just about president anymore; even if they can't steal the presidency this time, they could conceivably steal back some House and Senate seats, and even state and local races. Face it; these people want power, they are all about the power, and they will do anything to keep the power.

That said, who in their right mind ever gave a Republican a legitimate chance of winning the presidency this year? I predicted that, no matter who won the Democratic nomination, that person would win the presidency. There were so many signs out there, you'd have to be a right winger not to see them.

The Constitution for Dummies -- Yes, I Mean You, Right Wingers

You know, I don't care how you feel about homosexuality, or how tolerant you think you are, or any of that crap.

If you vote for any of these umpteen referenda in various states that effectively ban gay marriage in your state, then you are simply don't care about what America stands for.

The basis for everything this country does is embedded in the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution is to regulate the government, not individual people. Yet, for the better part of two decades now, the neocons running the government have been threatening to amend the Constitution to give government greater power over individuals. This is crazy.

I find it fascinating that the far right invokes individual rights to do anything they approve of, such as owning and carrying a gun without anything even resembling control. But when it's an activity they object to, even if it doesn't affect them in any way, they will stop at nothing to try to limit others' rights.

That's what these amendments are about, folks. They are about imposing the will of the pseudo-religious on those who might actually want to exercise their rights in a way that makes them happy, and harms absolutely no one. If this were liberals trying to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, they would be screaming bloody murder. Yet, here they are, trying to deny the rights of certain people, just because they don't approve of their personal choices.

Look, right wing nut cases, let me clue you in...

States don't actually marry all people. Most people actually get married in a church, and simply sign a marriage license. The license is the issue, not the marriage. Same-sex couples already get married, and  many of them in a church. And even if the state constitutions are successfully amended, which would be shameful, all of those couples will still get married, and they will still live together. What they will not receive are the hundreds of individual benefits that states reward married couples with. And tha, folks, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Yes, you read that right. Even if you pass your precious "anti-gay-marriage" laws, same-sex couples will still marry, and it's likely that, at some point, a judge somewhere will void the amendment anyway, because such an amendment is absolutely unconstitutional.

See, here's the deal. This is about personal freedoms, pure and simple. If you believe that people should be free to do what they want, then you have to vote against this law. You can't base it on your own personal prejudices, because such a concept is never a good basis for law. It doesn't matter if you "approve," it makes no difference if such a thing makes it look as if you're "condoning" homosexuality; if you feel like you must pray for their soul, then pray for their soul; but you can't vote to take away their rights.

You know, only once in our history has the Constitution been amended to take away people's rights, and that was Prohibition. It didn't work then, and it won't work now, because the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the government from running our lives, not to be used by prigs to run the lives of others.

If you vote in favor of denying the rights of people because you disagree with their personal choices, then you are in favor of tyranny and fascism, not freedom. It's that simple. Vote to "prohibit" gay marriage, and you're voting against what America supposedly stands for.

For the Sake of Justice, Impeach the Bastards

Okay, so it's a week before the election, when we finally certify that we're getting rid of the current regime. So why would I bring up impeachment, right?

Because it's not enough to simply kick these assholes out of office legitimately. These bastards need to be perp-walked, frog-marched and spend a large portion of the rest of their lives in prison -- and I don't mean a federal country club prison, with a golf course and 500 channels of cable TV. I mean Supermax.

One of the first things President Obama should do, if indeed he wins, is to order an investigation and an audit, so that we can figure out exactly what happened during these last eight years. And everyone who committed a crime should be sent to jail for a very long time. We may have to build a new prison for that many people, but hey; we can call Joe Arpaio down in Arizona, and he can tell us how to treat these hardened criminals, eh?

But there's a catch.

Gosh, Imagine... a Corrupt Republican

Stevens Convicted On All Counts.

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of seven corruption charges Monday in a trial that threatened to end the 40-year career of Alaska's political patriarch in disgrace. The verdict, coming barely a week before Election Day, increased Stevens' difficulty in winning what already was a difficult race against Democratic challenger Mark Begich. Democrats hope to seize the once reliably Republican seat as part of their bid for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

What can you say, except may he only be the first of a long line? If there is actually justice in this country, then every other corrupt Republican politician should also be convicted of his crimes, and sentenced to his or her crimes as well.

When compared to what Stevens is guilty of, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rice, et al, are guilty of far more dastardly deeds and must be punished accordingly, don't you think?

The Purging Must Stop!

Look, folks; this has to be one of the most important situations to fix before another election cycle goes by, and it underscores the reasons why all of you, and all of your friends, and everyone you talk to, MUST call their registrar's office BEFORE November 4, and find out if you're registered to vote, and if not, why not.

This is from an article at CNN.com.

College senior Kyla Berry was looking forward to voting in her first presidential election, even carrying her voter registration card in her wallet.

But about two weeks ago, Berry got disturbing news from local election officials. "This office has received notification from the state of Georgia indicating that you are not a citizen of the United States and therefore, not eligible to vote," a letter from the Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections said. But Berry is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston, Massachusetts. She has a passport and a birth certificate to prove it.

The letter, which was dated October 2, gave her a week from the time it was dated to prove her citizenship. There was a problem, though -- the letter was postmarked October 9.

"It was the most bizarre thing. I immediately called my mother and asked her to send me my birth certificate, and then I was like, 'It's too late, apparently,' " Berry said.

Berry is one of more than 50,000 registered Georgia voters who have been "flagged" because of a computer mismatch in their personal identification information. At least 4,500 of those people are having their citizenship questioned and the burden is on them to prove eligibility to vote.

Okay, what country are we living in again? I don't give a rat's ass whether the above 50,000 people were all Democrats or all Republicans, or a mix of each, although one can imagine that they're probably minorities and likely tend to be Democrats. But no matter who they are, read that last sentence above one more time, and then call your Congressperson, because NO STATE has the power to force you to prove your eligibility to vote.

Cutting the Crap: Conservative, My Ass!

You know, I rarely agree with David Frum on anything, but much of his assessment of the McCain campaign in  this morning's Washington Post hits the nail pretty much on the head. Here's an excerpt:

There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him.

A year ago, the Arizona senator's team made a crucial strategic decision. McCain would run on his (impressive) personal biography. On policy, he'd hew mostly to conservative orthodoxy, with a few deviations -- most notably, his support for legalization for illegal immigrants. But this strategy wasn't yielding results in the general election. So in August, McCain tried a bold new gambit: He would reach out to independents and women with an exciting and unexpected vice presidential choice.

That didn't work out so well either. Gov. Sarah Palin connected with neither independents nor women. She did, however, ignite the Republican base, which has come to support her passionately. And so, in this last month, the McCain campaign has Palinized itself to make the most of its last asset. To fire up the Republican base, the McCain team has hit at Barack Obama as an alien, a radical and a socialist.

Sure enough, the base has responded. After months and months of wan enthusiasm among Republicans, these last weeks have at last energized the core of the party. But there's a downside: The very same campaign strategy that has belatedly mobilized the Republican core has alienated and offended the great national middle, which was the only place where the 2008 election could have been won.

Like I said; it's difficult to argue with that sentiment. John McCain will likely lose this election, because he played to the Republican base, and not to the real strength in this election, which is the middle of the ideological spectrum.

But there's something in the above that really bothers me, and has bothered me for a while, and that is the concept that the Republican "base" represents anything resembling what Frum calls "conservative orthodoxy."

Caribou Barbie; Put Bush in a Dress and Add a Little Loon...

Okay, I don't know about you, but at first I found Caribou Barbie to be a lovable dweeb. Then, as she started speaking, I saw her as a slightly befuddled clown, who was in way over her head.

Now, I'm convinced; she's a freaking loon. A complete, unadulterated facsimile of those other loons, who tend to populate the Freeper Boards with their absolute hatred of anyone who seems to them to be the least bit "liberal," meaning someone who might possibly think someone besides the very rich should  benefit from the taxes they pay, and that people shouldn't be left for dead if they don't have enough money to pay for an operation.

Look, folks; she's not even remotely ready to be president, and that is, after all, supposed to be the main job of the vice president. If McCain were to win next week, and keeled over at his inauguration from the bitter cold that usually accompanies the January 20 date, we would not only be stuck with her, but she would get to appoint her vice president, as well.

Can we afford even the possibility of this happening?

It's Time to Hand The Reins of Government Back to the Adults

There is a great article in this morning's New York Times about the sense of "risk and reward" Democrats will feel, should they win the presidency, and strong majorities in the House and the Senate. Essentially, as the article points out very well, Democrats relish the opportunity to run the whole show, and demonstrate responsibility for fixing the mess the Republicans have made over the last eight years.

See, there's a major difference between the Democrats and the current incarnation of the Republicans, in case you haven't noticed. Democrats can't wait to fix the economic mess, amd show how the government can work for the people, while the Republicans couldn't wait to use their power to ram through an agenda that put us in this situation in the first place, although you'd never get them to admit it.

Apparently, Republicans are down to warning people of "one-party rule," which is a desperate move by a desperate political party.And it's also a red herring. Back when it was their political party that was running to dominate the political landscape, they weren't running around warning of the danger of one-party rule.

But the problem isn't the parties, exactly, anyway. Republicans ran the show in the 1950s, and the country did quite well during that period. And the Democrats ran the show during the 1960s, and except for getting us into Vietnam, the country did quite well then, too. The problem is, the current incarnation of the Republican Party has come to be dominated by right wing cranks who are actually more obnoxious than the Taft Wing was during the 1950s, and occupied the fringes of both parties at the time, as well they should have.

The danger isn't one party dominating the debate; the problem is that the Republican Party has allowed the fringe psychos to dominate party politics. I mean, could you ever imagine a time when Barry GOLDWATER would be considered a "moderate," and too far left for these jokers? Yet, he would be ashamed -- and in fact was ashamed before he passed away -- of what his Republican Party has become.

There is nothing wrong with one-party rule for reasonable periods of time, as long as the party in question understands who it works for. For too long, "bipartisanship" has come to mean "doing it the Republican way, or else," and there has been little concern by the Republican Party for the "little guy," who actually respresents more than 90% of the population. Everything the Republicans did over the last eight years was to push forward their merciless agenda, and to leave the average American high and dry, in favor of an agenda that gave rich corporations everything they wanted. And now, we need a party willing to undo most of that, and re-establish the United States as the benevolent world power we once were.

Unfortunately, there is only one party capable of doing that, and that currently is the Democratic Party. The Republicans may have their shot again, but only if they jettison the far right element that dominates the party, or at least move them back to the fringes where they belong.

Conservative, my ass.

Obama's Single-Handedly Reforming Campaign Finance: McCain Worried

John McCain made me laugh my ass off today.

I know, I usually laugh my ass off, but this had to be the most clueless thing I have ever seen in my life.  You see, McCain seems to be quite concerned about Obama's effect on the campaign finance system. Read this carefully, because it will make you laugh. Okay, it will only make those of us with a brain laugh;  the wingnuts will take this seriously:

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday" hours after Obama's campaign reported raising a record $150 million in September, McCain said the overall sum his Democratic rival has raised — $605 million — showed the "dam has broken" for future White House races.

McCain also complained that the identities of people who contributed more than $200 million of Obama's total take have not been reported, although that is allowable under federal law because the individual donations fall under the $200 reporting limit.

"I'm saying it's laying a predicate for the future that can be very dangerous," McCain said. "History shows us where unlimited amounts of money are in political campaigns, it leads to scandal."

With this, John McCain certifies himself as a clueless putz. I used to think he was a little smarter than his campaign demonstrated. Now, I'm not so sure.

Think about this for a moment.

Don't You Even THINK of Not Voting!

To paraphrase a very popular presidential candidate just a couple of weeks ago, the best advice I can give to absolutely everyone is…

Don’t get cocky!

If you look at all the signs, and if you know anything about politics, everything is in place for a decisive Democratic win on November 4. Unless the entire Obama campaign gets a collective brain fart and does something really obnoxious to turn the electorate against him, he will be named the president-elect relatively early in the evening on November 4.

But don’t you think for even a moment of not voting. and you have to get every one of your friends out there. Every single vote is necessary. And I mean EVERY SINGLE VOTE!

Why Would Anyone Endorse McCain?

It seems that Barack Obama is kicking John McCain's "you know what" in the newspaper endorsement department. But why isn't it a shutout? Who the hell would endorse McCain, except for the hardest-core  right wingers? I decided to look into it, and examine why these people are endorsing Gramps.

From the Dallas Morning News:

In better times, America could afford to consider entrusting the White House to an appealing newcomer like Mr. Obama and giving control of the presidency and Congress to the same party.

But in this time of great anxiety, the American people need a leader of experience guiding the ship of state. Mr. McCain offers the continuity, stability and sense of authority people want, as well as a decisive break from the Bush years.

The Democrat talks about change, but only the Republican has made change happen. Only one candidate has a solid record of standing up to his own party on principle and working hand in hand with legislators from the opposing party to get things done.

That candidate is John McCain, a progressive conservative we recommend.

I'm of the opinion that the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News is made up of the dumbest people anywhere. Seriously; we've had to endure the worst administration in the country's history for the last eight years. The government policies of the last eight years have led us to the brink of what could be our worst economic mess since the second-worst administration, the Hoover Administration. In addition to the severe economic distress we find ourselves in, we also find ourselves bogged down in one arguably just war, and an occupation, both of which can be politely considered FUBARed. Everytime there's a natural disaster, the entire country holds its breath, and hopes the government won't make it worse.

Yet these clowns want McCain in there for four years for "continuity" and "stability"? Are they kidding with this?

Why McCain Was Always Going to Lose: Bye Bye Right Wing!

The Republican Party is truly screwed, and I think they're just beginning to realize it.

 

See, the one basic truism of politics is that every election cycle is different. It's really not possible to compare 2008 with 2006, or 2004 to 2000, etc. I know, the pundits try, but if you actually pay attention, very few of them ever get anything right. There are a few who are less wrong than others, but for then most part, let's be real; they're wrong more often than they're right.

 

One of the reasons the Republicans are screwed is because they're trying to run the same campaign against Barack Obama that they ran against John Kerry, and that they've been running since 1980, and it's never going to work, for many reasons.

 

For the record, I would be saying this no matter who won the Democratic nomination, although Obama won the nomination largely because Hillary Clinton chose to run the same campaign Bill Clinton ran in 1992. You see, the Clintons have been way too beholden to the Democratic Leadership Council, which is the most Republican Democratic organization anywhere, and as such, they have absolutely zero political skills. If you doubt me on that, think about this: from 1994 to 2004, with the DLC running the Democratic Party, Democrats couldn't beat the pants off a party with a platform of essentially bankrupting the country and handing all tax money to the rich, and who have been bound and determined to prove the government absolutely incompetent.

Washington Post Endorses Barack Obama for President

Link: Barack Obama for President.

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.

Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.

Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.

A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.

The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.

There is lots more... It's clear... Barack Obama is ready for the presidency... McCain is not.

Cutting the Crap: Joe The Plumber is a Whiny Little Bitch

There was an awful lot of talk about "Joe the Plumber" last night, wasn't there? By virtue of that debate, one would think Joe was an average American working stiff, just trying to make his way to the American Dream. Listen to him, and you could get the impression Joe was being smoked in his desire to reach for the brass ring of business ownership, you know?

 

Okay, so let me ask you...

 

Am I the only one out there who thinks "Joe the Plumber" is a selfish, stupid ass?

This Pic Sums Up the Difference Between McCain and Obama

Republicans Are into Election Fraud, Not ACORN

Do you want to know how ridiculous the issue of "€œvoter fraud" is? Keep reading.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest that Tony Romo is not likely to vote in Nevada in 20 days, unless he actually lives there. I'€™ll go even farther, and promise you that Mickey Mouse, Dick Tracy, Bugs Bunny, Bruce Wayne (Batman), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt will never once show up at a polling place and cast a vote.

I remember when I was sending out brigades of canvassers to shopping centers, malls and universities to register voters. I had to pay them for every registration they submitted; all of them. I got quite a few fake registrations; the most common name seemed to have been Elmer Fudd€™s; I'm not sure exactly why. But I got them all; cartoon characters, dead people, celebrities; it wasn'€™t all the registrations, but a few pretty much every week.

And here's the rub; the only thing I could do about it, was to fire the canvasser, never use them again, and I usually handed the name to all of my compadres in the field. But I had to pay them for every application and, by law, I had no choice but to submit every single application to the registrar. I was not a government official, and I had no power or right to tear up an application for any reason.

Now, the Republican Party, in its never ending quest to distract you from the worst economic mess since the Great Depression, which they caused, and the two messed up quagmires, both of which they started and are responsible for, they have chosen to sully the name of a truly fine group of people, who are doing fine work in the name of democracy.

McCain's Ties to Saddam Even Closer Than Obama's ties to Ayers

In today's Huffington Post, Murray Wass reports that William Timmons, John McCain's handpicked transition chief (and he says that Obama's "picking out curtains"?), once lobbied on behalf of Saddam Hussein, to try to reduce sanctions against Iraq. But it's actually worse than that:

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Read the rest here...

And we're supposed to worry about a college professor whose last illegal activity was 40 years ago?

McCain is Right; Obama's Up For the Job, McCain is Not

One has to wonder if John McCain even wants to win these days.

Over this past weekend, McCain finally figured out that two weeks of calling Obama a “terrorist” actually lost him more votes than he gained. Apparently, someone on his campaign staff thought it was a good idea, because such smears "worked for Bush," but forgot to factor in the too-long war and the exploding economic mess when they went for that strategy.

So, in a last-ditch effort to remain remotely relevant, McCain held a weekend Republican economic strategy session, and what he essentially came up with is the following, which he delivered in a very stern, very harsh tone at a rally Monday in Virginia Beach.

"Our economy is in crisis. Financial markets are collapsing. Credit is drying up. Your savings are in danger. Your retirement is at risk. Jobs are disappearing. The cost of health care, your children's college, gasoline and groceries are rising all the time with no end in sight. While your most important asset — your home — is losing value every day. Americans are fighting in two wars."

McCain's Last Chance to Save McCain

I have to confess that I have never been a fan of John McCain, politically speaking. He’s far too conservative for my tastes. But up until the last few years, I always thought of him as being a step or two above the right wing cabal that took over the Republican Party years ago. While he stuck with his party almost all of the time, on a few key issues he had the capacity to surprise, such as when he teamed with Russ Feingold to at least try to reform the campaign finance system. He wasn’t actually a “maverick,” but he wasn’t an immovable right winger.

If that McCain had run for president this year, he may have had a chance to make the presidential race close. Instead, he turned himself into a staunch right wing clown, in a year when that was the last thing voters want. In the process of this race, McCain has tarnished his legacy, and demonstrated a desperation for the presidency that is probably one of the prime reasons Hillary Clinton lost earlier this year. Voters want someone who will work for them, to fix the nation’s problem; not someone who think he/she deserves to be president, and should be anointed as such.

John McCain was always the underdog in this election. Any Republican who won the nomination was likely to go down in defeat against any Democrat, save some incredibly boneheaded stunt by the Democratic nominee, which would have made the election close enough to steal once again.

Even Republicans and their supporters understood this. That’s why, early on, they supported their primary candidates to such a minimal degree. It’s why Republican supporters haven’t been papering party headquarters with money all year. The standard bearer for the Republican Party was persona non grata at the national convention.

Bye Bye Right Wingers

Newsweek has a new poll, which has Obama ahead of McCain by 52%-41%, but I'm ignoring head-to-head polls this year, because they all seem to be wrong. This election has been trending to the Democrats all year. It wouldn't matter if the nominee was Obama or Clinton, the Democrat was going to win this year, and the polls that had the race within 2-5 points were just wrong.

But there's a more startling indicator that Democrats are going to ride a tsunami into office in the next 25 days.

The same poll has a whopping 86% of Americans dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and pissed off at the status quo. Only ten percent of those polled are satisfied, and they're probably rich, and don't care about anyone else.

And make no mistake, right wingers. They know who deserves the blame; the right wing incarnation of the Republican Party. They know who got us here, and why, and that means Democrats are going to take over the government in a wave unlike any that's swept the government in 76 years...

Caribou Barbie Abused Power; Will McCain Continue to Associate With Her?

Well, well...

This is what happens when you make a rash, purely political appointment, without vetting the appointee thoroughly and completely.

Today, the Alaskan legislature, which is majority Republican, voted to release a report by a non-partisan investigator, hired by a Republican majority legislative council, that declares that Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, John McCain's perky running mate, abused her power when she fired the guy who refused to fire her brother in law, because her sister essentially asked her two.

Here is a summary of what they found:

Finding One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39/52/110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

 

The legislature reaffirms that every public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Finding Two

I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

 

Finding Three

Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten's workers' compensation claim properly and in the normal course of business like any other claim process by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled.

Finding Four

The Attorney General's office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails.

Go HERE for the full Report

---------------------------------------

So., let's recap. Caribou Barbie, candidate for Vice President of the United States, has shown herself to be unethical, and abused the power of her office as governor.

Haven't we had enough of that shit for the last eight years? Do we need another Administration in office that uses the Constitution as just so much toilet paper? How is replacing Dick Cheney with this woman, who obviously shares that immature notion that, because she's "the boss" in her mind, she can do whatever the hell she wants, an improvement? These people don't seem to understand that the United States is not a private company, and she is not its CEO. SHE works for the people of Alaska, not the other way around. And if she became president, she seems incapable of understanding that she would be the LEADER of the free world, not the BOSS of the free world.

And she's also a proven liar.

Note that fourth finding up there? In short, it means she promised to cooperate, and then told them to shove it.

Come on, folks. This is the kind of thinking we need to replace. WE need a government that works for US.

One question, though; since she's less ethical than William Ayers lately, will McCain continue to associate with her?

McCain's McMobs

At first, I thought it was a bit of a campaign tactic: whip up the base into a frenzy of hating liberals/Democrats and you'll get more of them to the polls.

But at this point, with McCain's numbers continuing to sink and the upcoming election clearly being anything but a base-vs.-base election, I have to agree with Josh Marshall: McCain knows he's going to lose, he'll probably lose badly, and he's trying to lay the groundwork for post-election excuses as to how he wasn't a total loser.

So, he's trying to give the double-Y-chromosome horde someone to hate for the upcoming loss besides him.

 

Cute, though, that they are taking a "whipping up a mob?  who, us?" approach to this.

McCain Does WHAT?

This is excellent...

NRA Sells Out: Endorses "One of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment”

Wow. I’m stunned. 

The National Rifle Association has endorsed John McCain. Not only that, but they have embarked on a $40 million ad buy, where they lie their asses off about Barack Obama, and his alleged desire to take away everyone’s guns.

Okay, let me dispatch the lies in the ads first.  

This is from The Wall Street Journal, and dated September 5, 2008 so you know it’s not coming from a “liberal” source:

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

So, there you are. We can start with the fact that the NRA is apparently a group of bald-faced liars.

Buying Bad Mortgage Policy from McCain

I know what a lot of you think you heard from John McCain last night about the government buying bad mortgages and all that. And in a way, it kinda sorta sounded like an idea Barack Obama had earlier, and that Congress included in its final bailout package last week.

But I listened to it again, and it sounded different. So, I looked at the transcript, and what I figured out is that John McCain really doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and cannot be trusted with the economy.

See, the idea that I thought McCain was discussing, and claiming as his own, was this idea that many have recommended (including me), in which people who are upside down on their mortgages can negotiate a new mortgage, reflecting the current, lower value of their home. The banks could be partially subsidized for any losses, and in almost no time, we’d all be back on our feet. People who were previously screwed would be made whole, and it would then be largely unnecessary to bail out the gamblers who pissed their money away by creating a phony market based on no actual value. In other words, he may be trying to paraphrase the plan Obama and the Democrats have been pushing all along.

But read carefully, because McCain actually stands this idea on its head.

Out of the Way, Wingnuts! This Election is Too Important for Your Crap!

Just to make clear, what you're seeing all over the country is the far right in this country being forced back to the fringes of political discourse in this country, which is where they belong, and progressives and real conservatives taking back the country. This is not just people wanting a little change in Washington; this is a movement. This is Americans waking up from a slumber, and deciding to take the country back, before there's nothing left to take back.

 

And it's so humorous to watch these idiots flail, and try to hang onto power. Seriously, is there anything more pathetic than watching Elisabeth Hasselbeck pleading wih the others on "The View" to please take her seriously, because what she has to say has huge national importance, or to see Sean Hannity beating the Ayers and Wright horses well after they're deceased, and starting to smell?

 

I'm going to put it as bluntly as I can, folks. If you vote for John McCain, you are voting to bankrupt the United States and turn us into a Third World country within our lifetimes. That's not to say McCain wouldn't be a slight improvement over the disaster who occupies the Oval Office currently. But shouldn't we aim higher? Instead of trading lung cancer for hepatitis C, why don't we instead work for the good health of the country?

 

One of the likely reasons so many people are finally waking up, is because a significant enough number of them have finally maxed out their credit, and can no longer pay the bills every month, and it's starting to dawn on them; perhaps something is wrong?

 

So, what's been wrong with neocon rule since Reagan? Gee, where do I start?

 

Cutting the Crap: The Second Presidential Debate

The most fascinating aspect of watching last night's debate was watching various alleged journalists fawn over John McCain's proposal, in which he suggested that the federal government should perhaps take over mortgages, and help banks write new mortgages, at the new, lower value of their home. Katie Couric and her compatriots over at CBS actually gave McCain credit for this idea, and suggested that he flesh this out on the campaign trail. Even the simps over at Fox Noise were bitching, because he came up with this idea, and they didn't like it a bit.

It really makes one wonder; do journalists even follow the news?

This isn't anything radical or different. Hell; I've mentioned this several times on this blog, over the weeks since the economy finally blew up. The idea has been floated for weeks; it would make more sense to subsidize banks to a degree, as they rewrite mortgages based on the current value of the home, rather than foreclose on people who could afford their home, if the mortgage was based on the actual value.

Caribou Barbie's Glass House

Look, I know Sarah Palin is just being told what to say by the McCain people. She has demonstrated herself to be just as detached and incurious as the current occupant of the White House, in that she obviously doesn't read news of any kind, and she didn't know anything about foreign policy, or that there even was such a thing, until about six weeks ago, when she was tapped for vice president out of the blue.

So, how was she to know that all of these accusations she's now throwing out on the campaign trail have been debunked already? I mean, golly; Sean Hannity just handed her a sheet of paper with a buncha stuff on it, and told her to read it, and well, she did, you betcha! How can it be her fault? She's just a "hockey mom," with a "Joe Six-Pack" husband and five really swell kids. (one is a little more swelled than others, dontcha know, but gee whiz, we don't need to be talkin' 'bout that, you betcha!)

(Okay, that's enough of trying to imitate Palin; I don't know how Tina Fey does it without giving herself a hernia.)

Now, I know the conventional wisdom lately has been to praise Caribou Barbie as a great politician, who can attract great crowds and is making a huge difference to the McCain campaign, but frankly, she has almost as many skeletons in her closet as John McCain, especially given her limited time in the political arena, and the Hannity-fed rocks she's "throwin'" are probably not the wisest thing to be tossing, when you live in such a breakable house.

Wasn''t Iran-Contra More recent Than "Days of Rage"?

In a follow-up of sorts to a post in which we cut the crap regarding William Ayers, the Associated Press is running a story this morning regarding a McCain connection to a group connected to Iran-Contra:

GOP presidential nominee John McCain has past connections to a private group that supplied aid to guerrillas seeking to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The group was dedicated to stamping out communism around the globe.

The council's founder, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain was launching his political career in Arizona. Singlaub said McCain was a supporter but not an active member in the group.

"McCain was a new guy on the block learning the ropes," Singlaub told The Associated Press in an interview. "I think I met him in the Washington area when he was just a new congressman. We had McCain on the board to make him feel like he wasn't left out. It looks good to have names on a letterhead who are well-known and appreciated.

"I don't recall talking to McCain at all on the work of the group," Singlaub said.

Okay, so what we have here is a McCain association with a group of people intent on killing others with whom they disagree politically, associating with "terrorists" (I think we can all agree that Nazis are terrorists), and who actively participated in illegal activity.

Oh, but it gets better.

Singlaub knew McCain's father, a Navy admiral who had sought Singlaub's counsel when McCain, a Navy pilot, became a prisoner of war and spent 5 1/2 years in North Vietnamese hands.

"John's father asked me for advice about what he ought to do now that his son had been shot down and captured," Singlaub recalled in one of two recent interviews. "I said, 'As long as you don't give any impression that you care more about him than you care about any of the other prisoners, he won't be treated any differently.'"

Covert arms shipments to the rebels called Contras, financed in part by secret arms sales to Iran, became known as the Iran-Contra affair. They proved to be the undoing of Singlaub's council.

In 1987, the Internal Revenue Service withdrew the tax-exempt status of Singlaub's group because of its activities on behalf of the Contras.

Elected to the House in 1982 and at a time when he was on the board of Singlaub's council, McCain was among Republicans on Capitol Hill expressing support for the Contras, a CIA-organized guerrilla force in Central America. In 1984, Congress cut off CIA funds for the Contras.

So, McCain's ties to this group were far closer than the 8-year-old Barack Obama's ties to the Weather Underground. He was on the board of this group, who supported Nazis and Contras, a band of thugs who killed innocent people and raped nuns in Nicaragua, but who were anti-Communist, so we supported them.

Not only that, but this group worked directly with Oliver North to provide cover for a Reagan White House operation, which sold arms to Iran (illegal), and used the money to fund the Contras (also illegal).

And McCain had quite the association with them.

Now, can we perhaps get back to talking about issues which matter?

Cutting the Crap: William Ayers

In the last few days, the increasingly desperate McCain campaign, mostly by way of the increasingly annoying Caribou Barbie, has been trying once more to revive an old Sean Hannity chestnut regarding Barack Obama "palling around' with "domestic terrorist" William Ayers, who was involved with a radical group called "The Weather Underground" nearly 40 years ago, when Barack Obama was 8 years old.

This is complete and utter crap on so many levels, it's actually shameful that anyone even brings it up. But as long as the right wing smear machine is involved, it shouldn't surprise anyone. But while we're at it, let's cut the crap, shall we?

First of all, according to an investigative report in The New York Times, Obama and Ayers did not have a particularly close relationship at all; Ayers held a couple of small fundraisers for Obama early in his career, and the two crossed paths as community organizers. Obama did not know Ayers when he was 8, and he has repeatedly condemned Ayers’ actions as a 60s radical.

In other words, this is much ado about nothing, with regard to Obama’s contact with Ayers.

But let’s take this in a different direction.

What do we know about William Ayers?

Let McCain Crawl in the Swamp: Don't Join Him

You know, one of the best things about the Obama campaign to date has been the positivity that has encompassed the message he has delivered over the last 18 months. The Clinton campaign, and now the Republican Party have attacked him repeatedly, and he has responded to the attacks in a very bright way; he answers them swiftly and surely, and then turns the discussion back to the issues important to the American people.

 

Now, of course, the McCain campaign is in full desperation mode, and they are planning to spend the rest of their campaign attacking Obama on everything they can think of, and hoping that something sticks this time, that hasn't stuck before.

 

In other words, folks; the McCain people are betting that voters are stupid. They've decided that, as more and more voters lose their jobs; as more voters lose thousands of dollars on their 401(k)s; as more voters lose their homes; as more voters lose relatives and friends in Iraq and Afghanistan; as the incredible incompetence of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party becomes more and more evident every day; you, the voter will care most about Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and pretend tax increases.

 

Here's my plea to the Obama campaign;

 

Please don't fall into this trap. Yes, it's good to bring up the Keating Five issue, because that goes to McCain's judgment regarding financial matters. It's also fair to bring up McCain's love of the neocon policies that led us to this precipice of disaster.

 

But that can't become the whole campaign. If that's what McCain feels he has to do to win, fine; he's wrong, but then, he's running the worst Republican campaign since at least 1932. You, Barack Obama, however, are a bright light in what has been a very dark political climate for about the last 30 years. For the first time since 1976, people are actually voting FOR a candidate who stands for something.

 

One of the oldest tricks in the Republican playbook has to do with their tendency to try to poison the electorate with irrelevant garbage that has nothing to do with the issues that matter to the majority. Their goal is to disgust as many people as possible with the process; to make them think that all politicians are the same, and will do anything at all to win, including "smearing" their opponent.

 

I know there is a loud call from people on the far left to match the Republicans smear for smear, and bring up everything you can about John McCain, but let's face facts; the far left has been politically irrelevant for quite some time. Ignore them, and run the same campaign you've been running all along. The American people are worried about things, and they need reassurance that someone will take the reins of power and guide the government back to the people. They need positives, not negatives. If John McCain doesn't understand that, that's his problem. Just stay the course, and give the American people some hope that the government will be back on their side sometime soon.

 

Again; it's okay to point out that McCain is wrong on the issues. But make sure only he crawls in the mud. Resist the temptation to join him.

It's About Time: McCain and The Keating Five Scandal

For those of you who have forgotten about this scandal, the Obama campaign reminds you:

Sign That Obama's Gonna Win By Landslide: Caribou Barbie Brings Up Ayers

It seems to me the Republican ticket has pretty much just given up.

You see, it really is a top Republican strategy, to poison the electorate, by muddying the political waters with so much political sludge that voters are too disgusted to even show up at the polls. See, the depressed turnout helps them, and makes winning more possible.

That's why you see Republicans go on the attack to a much greater degree than Democrats. I know a lot of people wish Democrats would fight back, and smear them back, but that's exactly what they want; it plays into their hands.

Of course, there is another reason for blatant attacks on their opponent, and that is to energize their "base," which is made up largely of the far right wing fringe element of our society; people who can be living in a trailer and subsisting on ramen noodles, cigarettes and beer, and think the biggest problems this country faces are abortion and gay marriage.

I think McCain's decision to go negative for the rest of the campaign is a little bit of both, frankly. Hence, you have Caribou Barbie spewing this kind of crap at three different campaign stops in Colorado and California yesterday;

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

Palling around? Is she kidding with this?

Texas-based Contractor USPI Indicted

This is the first of a small trickle of these types of stories, that is likely to turn to a flood sometime just after January 20.

Apparently, a Houston security company, United States Protection and Investigations, has been indicted and charged with conspiracy, three counts of wire fraud, and three count of major fraud, for inflating expenses for rental vehicles, fuel and security personnel in Afghanistan, to the tune of $3 million.

Of course, compared to the likes of Blackwater and Halliburton, these (alleged) crooks are just pikers. And I've become just cynical enough with the current administration to believe they're going after companies like this, just so they can say they're going after fraud and abuse, and to discourage any investigation of their crony companies.

And that is likely, given that Afghan authorities were behind the initial raid a year ago, along with FBI and State Department officials, and -- hold onto your hats -- Blackwater security personnel. During he raid, they arrested four of the company's management team and seized 15 computers. After the raid, the two Americans who had been arrested, while the Afghans remained in custody.

More coming...

THIS is the Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

If you ever doubted that today's incarnation of the Republican Party is a bunch of humorless, authoritarian tools, check out what they're whining about in Pennsylvania.

Apparently, during the Pennsylvania primary last spring, a woman was walking into a polling place wearing an Obama t-shirt, and she was told by volunteers to take it off, because it was a violation of the rules against electioneering at a polling place.

Okay, fair enough; I think a lot of volunteers would make the same mistake, because the ban on "electioneering" is quite non-specific. They could have suggested she tape a sheet of paper over the Obama shirt while she was in the polling place, but their heart was in the right place.

The woman, however, rightly objected to the request that she strip to her underwear in order to vote, and asked the state to clarify the rules, and tell her if she actually broke any.

So, after some deliberation, the Secretary of State for Pennsylvania issued a memo last month, advising counties o disregard the voters' attire, so long as the voter takes no additional action to attempt to influence others' votes.

Well, as you can guess, the Republican Party is furious, and two right wing Pittsbirgh-area election officials filed a lawsuit to have the memo rescinded. Their lawsuit contains a dire warning; "Nothing would prevent a partisan group from synchronizing a battalion of like-minded individuals ... to descend on a polling place, presenting a domineering, united front, certain to dissuade the average citizen who may privately hold different beliefs."

Democrats, on the other hand, feel that voters should be able to express themselves, and not be discouraged from voting, because they choose to wear their candidate on a t-shirt.

This is all part of a Republican strategy that is as old as Nixon's "Southern Strategy," folks. Republicans will do anything they can to depress voting as much as possible, because they have a statistical minority in the number of registrations. That's why they "go negative" so often; they're trying to piss people off enough to keep them away from the polls, to give them a fighting chance.

The idea that Obama will present a phalanx of people wearing t-shirts and intimidate McCain voters into voting for Obama in their secret ballot is ludicrous, because it ignores the fact that we live in a society where advertising is literally all around us, and we don't automatically go out and buy everything that is advertised to us.

And frankly, putting together a phalanx of people wearing McCain t-shirts, and openly attempting to intimidate Obama voters sound more realistic, anyway, dontcha think?

Republicans are the authoritarian bullies, after all. They're the ones pushing for a dress code at the polling place.

Law and Order Republicans Trying to Shove Caribou Barbie's Malfeasance Under the Rug!

Dontcha just love how the "law and order" Republican Party drops any pretense to "law and order" whenever it might mean actual law and order might put their ass in the proverbial sling?

Today, six Republican lawmakers in Alaska filed an appeal, asking the state Supreme Court to -- and I am not kidding here -- suppress the results of a public investigation instigated by Republicans against a Republican governor, because that governor just happens to be Sarah Palin, and John McCain forgot to vet her properly before he chose her as his running mate.

You see, this is about "Troopergate," in which Caribou Barbie supposedly demanded the Public Safety Commissioner fire her ex-brother-in-law, who was a state police officer, for no good reason, and then fired said Public Safety Commissioner when he refused to do so. In other words, there is a question as to whether or not Palin abused her power as governor, and the people of Alaska have a right to know. The independent investigator plans to turn over his report by next Friday, and therein lies the rub.

Here's the funny part, and I don't mean funny ha-ha.

The legislature is majority Republican, and the Legislative Council, which authorized the investigation in the first place, is also majority Republican. But now, because John McCain made a rash choice for vice president, without fully vetting her, Republicans are scrambling to cover up for his lack of judgment.

Keep in mind; the investigation is already pretty much complete. The only thing these Republicans are attempting to do is to make sure the results of that investigation doesn't see the light of day until after the election.

The Alaska Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal, and the oral arguments are set for Wednesday, so we'll see. But I have a couple of questions;

If Palin did something wrong, don't the people of Alaska actually have a right to know about it as soon as possible?

And similarly, if Palin is guilty of abusing her office, don't the people who are going to vote for her on November 4 have a right to know that, as well? I mean, if a significant number of McCain voters are voting for him, because of his choice of running mate, and she ends up being unable to serve as vice president, don't voters nationwide have the right to know that, as well?

"Law and Order" Republicans, my shiny white ass...

You Betcha! Uh Huh! Caribou Barbie Whines on Fixed News

Now, I have no doubt a lot of you can relate to being annoyed by Katie Couric. I think she's ill-suited for the CBS Evening News, but overall, I think she's a fine interviewer, most of the time. The annoyance with Couric (and yes, I refer to her quite often as "Katie," too) is that she too often lets up on the gas and sometimes applies the brake at an inopportune time during an interview.

Now, from my point of view, she was way too nice to Sarah Palin when Couric interviewed her in the last couple of weeks. But Caribou Barbie, being the Republican she is, thinks the Anchorwoman was just too "annoying."

This is from The Huffington Post, Palin On Fox News: Couric Annoyed Me.

In a portion of her sit-down with Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron, Palin claimed that Couric's questions -- which produced a series of staggeringly embarrassing responses -- put her in a lose-lose position.

"The Sarah Palin in those interviews was a little bit annoyed," she said. "It's like, man, no matter what you say, you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question, you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try to pivot and go to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that too."

First of all, you have to love the fact that she chose to reveal this on Fixed News, where she knows she'll get a sympathetic ear, in part because everyone on that channel whines like a bunch of little girls at a slumber party, even when they're not lying their asses off about the issues of the day.

Give Me the Elitists, Please!

Okay, so I watched last night's debate, along with a lot of other Americans, and I really wonder what the hell other people were seeing, because I saw unmitigated disaster on the part of Caribou Barbie, while others, including Paul Begala, saw something a little bit different.

Yeah, I know; it wasn't quite as bad as the train wrecks that marked her network interviews, but if I heard one more "Golly, Jeepers" come from my television, a hole was going to appear. Seriously, does she really think we want a goddamn vice president, and eventually president, whose main attribute is that she can appear just so gosh darned cute?

I flipped around the dial afterward, and actually saw a few who thought she won last night, because she didn't sound completely stupid and hare-brained. Even Paul Begala kind of complimented her. It was a slight bit back-handed, but still...

Where are our standards?

McCain Whines Like a Republican

I have to tell you, no one in the world whines quite like a Republican who isn't getting his way. Check this whimper from McCain regarding his fortunes thus far in this election. From McCain: Obama lead growing because 'life isn't fair' - CNN.com;

Sen. John McCain jokingly said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."

"He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain told Fox News on Thursday. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings."

Can you believe this whiner?

First of all, when "Simpering John" ran back to Washington, Congressional leaders had already been meeting to discuss a bailout plan, and by most accounts, he only got in the way.

Second of all, he didn't "suspend a damn thing. He stopped actively campaigning for a day or two, but his ads were still running (I saw quite a few of them), and his campaign surrogates were all over the media, trying to tell us was a "leader" he was, because he pretended to suspend his campaign, and was absolutely ineffective in getting anything done.

Strangely, he even took credit for helping craft the bill and helping to bring Republicans on board to vote for it, less than an hour before it failed.

The GREAT (?) Debate: Caribou Barbie vs. Joe "Foot in Mouth" Biden

Do you have your popcorn ready? I do. Orville Reddenbacher Movie Theater Butter.

Seriously, I have never seen so much interest in a vice presidential debate in my life. Caribou Barbie vs. Joe Biden. How exciting is this?

Not very.

Look. I can admit freely that Joe Biden would not be my first choice for running mate, if I was Barack Obama. But then, I'm not Barack Obama, so that's easy for me to say. I've never been a huge Biden fan. He says a lot of the right things, and I really, truly think he's a guy who understands the average person. But overall, he talks too much without an internal governor, and as a result, stupid things sometimes come out of his mouth.

You know, like claiming that FDR didn't go on television after the stock market crashed and scare the hell out of people.

But you know what? I trust Obama's judgment, and Biden isn't all that bad. In the above example, he got the details wrong, but the sentiment was right on. Roosevelt didn't take office until more than three years after the Crash, and there was no television. But Roosevelt did say, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." When you compare that to the gloom and doom offered up by today's Republican Party, well, I get Biden's point.

But what the hell was McCain thinking when he chose Caribou Barbie as a running mate?

The Financial Mess and a Solution We Can ALL Live With

I would probably be the first person to admit that I'm no economic expert, especially as it's defined these days. But then, whoever said economy was supposed to be as incredibly complicated as it's become?

 

Think about it. The way capitalism is supposed to work is, you make something or perform a service, and when you've delivered that product or performed that service, you get paid for it. Then, in order to make sure everything is open and fair, the government is supposed to enforce basic regulations. And you need those regulations because, while most people are actually quite fair and honest, there is always a segment of the population who will try to gain unfair advantage of people.

 

I even understand the introduction of credit and debt into the economy. The vast majority of people want to buy things, and can be trusted to pay for them over a reasonable period of time, along with a fair rate of interest going to the lender.There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

So, how did we get to where we are today? Why do we keep having to bail out the economy, just to keep ourselves afloat?The answer is deceptively simple. For the last 30 or so years, the government has been in charge of a government that deregulates everything, and believes that any economic device the market creates that generates cash is perfectly okay, and should be operated without oversight.

Is McCain's Train About to Derail?

I think the biggest mistake John McCain made with regard to setting up the debates was to lead with foreign policy. One of the cardinal rules of presidential politics is that voters will vote based on their last major impression of you, which makes it a mistake to lead with your only perceived "strength," which in McCain's case is foreign policy.

But worse than that little faux pas was the fact that he let Obama beat him on his "strength." At this point, he has nowhere to go, and it's beginning to show. In fact, it's pretty obvious that even the candidate himself is starting to sense that he's losing badly, and things are likely to go downhill from here.

Sam Stein has a piece in the Huffington Post, along with several video clips, detailing a meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board, in which McCain gets quite pissy. This has to be one of my favorite McCain distribes of the campaign so far:

"I have always had 100 percent absolute truth and that's been my life of putting my country first. And I'll match that record against anyone's. And I'm proud of it. And an assertion that I have ever done otherwise I take strong exception n to. And you will have to provide better proof than a bill that Sen. Obama supported that clearly calls for the teaching of sex education of young children."

I'm not sure I have ever before heard a presidential candidate claim he never lies, and then support the assertion by lying, in front of people who know better.

Stop Looking at the Polls! Get Out the VOTE!

This is not a year when head-to-head election polls are going to be particularly accurate, so please stop being so nervous about the polls, and concentrate on getting every human being you know to get out to a damn polling place to vote!

I don't care what the polls say; this is the Democrats' year, and the Republicans aren't even going to be close enough to steal it.

How can I say that? How can I look at the polls, many of which show Obama and McCain neck and neck, and say that Obama and Congressional Democrats are going to rout Republicans?

Because the stars are aligned for it, for one thing. Let me show you what I mean...

Rupert's Fox Post: Worried About NBC's "Fairness"

Okay, so I'm perusing the news this morning, and the following pops up, from this morning's Page Six in the New York Post:

NBC is under fire for having correspondent Andrea Mitchell cover the economic crisis because she's married to former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan - but some people are also wondering about David Gregory, who has a show, "Race for the White House" on MSNBC. Gregory is married to Beth Wilkinson - who until a month ago was general counsel, executive vice president and corporate secretary for mortgage giant Fannie Mae, which is now being investigated by the FBI. We wonder how Gregory will cover the story if his wife is implicated in the Fannie Mae meltdown.

Why did I laugh at this item?

Well, first of all, it comes from Rupert Murdoch's slime machine; it's a kissing cousin/training ground for Republican propaganda arm "Fox News." In other words, the same group of buffoons who euphemistically use the word "News" to describe the antics of people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly; the same idiots who allow a Republican operative, Roger Ailes, to run their "News" operation, and who present Karl Rove as a "news commentator," at the same time he's actively working for John McCain; are complaining about two of NBC's best reporters, because they happen to be married to people involved in the current economic meltdown caused by the Republican Party?

The inaccuracies in the above are breathtaking to behold; another irony in a news story regarding the potential "conflicts of interest" of two NBC reporters. For one, NBC is "under fire" from whom, exactly? A quick Lexis search shows that the only "concern" seems to be coming from the right wing blogosphere, and a few far-right "News" outlets. And I hate to break the news to the Post, but Fannie Mae has been under investigation for years.

Funny, but no one in Rupert-land seemed to mind when David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell were reporting the news while the Republicans were lying and telling us the economy was fine when it wasn't, and when Fannie Mae was following financial institution protocol and overstating its profits. Now, all of the sudden, as the economy is melting down because of Greenspan's acquiescence to Republicans, and the Republican refusal to either regulate or oversee, NOW suddenly, they're "concerned" about two of the best reporters in the business, and their ability to be "objective" in their job?

The folks at the "Fox Post" really couldn't care less about "objectivity." They're just concerned because ratings for Fox News are down a little, and MSNBC is surging.