BS: Popular views on McCain

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 08:23 PM

McCain's relationship to "big oil" interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:47 AM

Elizabeth Drew, the McCain admirer who wrote "Citizen McCain" in 2002 writes an essay in 2008 describing how John McCain lost her support. Interesting perspective.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:17 AM

Mr. McCain lied first, in a Spanish-language ad that accused Mr. Obama of helping to kill immigration reform last year, by voting for amendments that supposedly doomed a bipartisan bill. The ad lamented the result: "No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side?"

That is a jaw-dropping distortion. The bill wasn't killed by any amendments. It was killed by a firestorm of talk-radio rage and a Republican-led filibuster. The very bill that Mr. McCain now mourns is the one he sidled away from as his own party weakened and killed it. It's the one he says he would now vote against.

For Mr. McCain to suggest that Mr. Obama opposes the "path to citizenship" and "guest worker program" compounds his dishonesty. Mr. Obama supports the three pillars of comprehensive reform — tougher enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here.

Mr. McCain was an architect of just such a comprehensive bill. But he is also leading a party whose members rabidly oppose the path to citizenship. So, in deference to them, Mr. McCain now emphasizes border security as the utmost priority. Except when he's pandering in Spanish. ...

(NYT Columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 10:09 AM

RIg:

I seriously disagree. I think another right-wing presidency could really ruinate the country beyond recovery.

At least, in Obama, we have a person who understand the importance of individual rights AND individual responsibility. On the right end its more like "individual priveleges and individual blame".

Something worth reflecting on. BEsides, we've been suffering fromt hese SKull and Bones Yalies for years, and look where it has gotten us. Surely it is time for a Harvard man with better than a C average. They tend to be smarter than D+ Yalies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:53 AM

The problem being, the alternative is worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 09:51 AM

WIth a similar outcome!! Smart...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 07:32 AM

Oh! Well actually I really think there is only one John McCain, and he hasn't really changed at all. He is doing, though, what he thinks he needs to do in order to get elected.
                I think what we are seeing now is a direct result of what happened to McCain in the primary of 2000. He was simply Roved to death. It worked for GWB, and got the stupidest idiot since Ronald Reagan elected to the White House. He's gambling that it will work again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:24 AM

I meant, "Which version of John McCain?".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:07 PM

At this point, I'm not really rooting for anybody, but I don't like a one sided conversation.

                I listened to Ralph Nader talk about the economy over the weekend, and I really think if he could get elected he would make a super-human effort to fix a lot of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:33 AM

WHich one are you rooting for, Rig? We seem to be dealing with a multiple personality situation in the aging body of John McCain. Got forbid the wrong "Who" gets sworn in as President of Whoville.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:17 AM

I think after McCain gets elected, everything will settle out and we'll be perfectly fine...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 10:07 AM

The McCain of the Week


By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 17, 2008
VIENNA, Ohio


"The people of Ohio are the most productive in the world!" yelled John McCain at a rally outside of Youngstown on Tuesday. Present company perhaps excluded, since the crowd was made up entirely of people who were at liberty in the middle of a workday.

Folks were wildly enthusiastic as the event began. That was partly because Sarah Palin was also on the bill. (With Todd!) And when McCain took the center stage, they were itching to cheer the war hero and boo all references to pork-barrel spenders.

Nobody had warned them that he had just morphed into a new persona — a raging populist demanding more regulation of the nation's financial system. And since McCain's willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long.

Really, if McCain is going to keep changing into new people, the campaign should send out notices. (Come to a rally for the next president of the United States. Today he's a vegetarian!)

"We're going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street — enough is enough!" this new incarnation yelled, complaining angrily about greed and overpaid C.E.O.'s. Slowly, people begin to peel out of the crowd and drift away. Even in these troubled times, there are apparently a number of Republicans who think highly of corporate executives and captains of high finance.

The whole transformation was fascinating in a cheap-thrills kind of way. It's not every day, outside of "Incredible Hulk" movies, that you see somebody make this kind of turnaround in the scope of a few hours.
... (NYT Columnist Gail Collins. More here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:33 AM

exerpt
Introduction: Follow This Dime

Washington is the city where the scandals happen. Every American knows this, but we also believe, if only vaguely, that the really monumental scandals are a thing of the past; that the golden age of misgovernment-for-profit ended with the cavalry charge and the robber barons, at about the same time presidents stopped wearing beards.

I moved to Washington in 2003, just in time for the comeback, for the hundred-year flood. At first it was only a trickle in the basement, a little stream released accidentally by the president's friends at Enron. Before long, though, the levees were failing all over town, and the city was inundated with a muddy torrent of graft.

How are we to dissect a deluge like this one? We might begin by categorizing the earmarks handed out by Congress, sorting the foolish earmarks from the costly earmarks from the earmarks made strictly on a cash basis. We could try a similar approach to government contracting: the no-bid contracts, the no-oversight contracts, the no-experience contracts, the contracts handed out to friends of the vice president. We might consider the shoplifting career of one of the president's former domestic policy advisers or the habitual plagiarism of the president's liaison to the Christian right. And we would certainly have to find some way to parse the extraordinary incompetence of the executive branch, incompetence so fulsome and steady and reliable that at some point Americans stopped being surprised and began simply to count on it, to think of incompetence as the way government works.

But the onrushing flow swamps all taxonomies. Mass firing of federal prosecutors; bribing of newspaper columnists; pallets of shrinkwrapped cash "misplaced" in Iraq; inexperienced kids running the Baghdad stock exchange; the discovery that many of Alaska's leading politicians are on the take—our heads swim. We climb to the rooftop, but we cannot find the heights of irony from which we might laugh off the blend of thug and pharisee that is Tom DeLay—or dispel the nauseating suspicion, quickly becoming a certainty, that the government of our nation deliberately fibbed us into a pointless, catastrophic war.

So let us begin on the solid ground of these simple facts: this spectacular episode of misrule has coincided with both the political triumph of conservatism and with the rise of the Washington area to the richest rank of American metropolises. In the period I am describing, gentlemen of the right rolled through the capital like lords of creation. Every spigot was open, and every indulgence slopped out for their gleeful wallowing. All the clichés roared at full, unembarrassed volume: the wines gurgled, the T bones roasted, the golf courses beckoned, the Learjets zoomed, the contractors' glass buildings sprouted from the earth, and the lobbyists' mansions grew like brick-colonial mushrooms on the hills of northern Virginia.

Democrats have tried to explain the flood of misgovernment as part of a "culture of corruption," a phrase at once obviously true and yet so amorphous as to be quite worthless. Republicans, for their part, have an even simpler answer: government failed, they tell us, because it is the nature of government enterprises to fail. As for the great corruption cases of recent years, they cluck, each is merely a one-of-a kind moral lapse unconnected to any particular ideology—an individual bad apple with no effect on the larger barrel.

Which leaves us to marvel helplessly at what appears to be a spectacular run of lousy luck. My, what a lot of bad apples they are growing these days!

…

The truth is almost exactly the opposite: Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction; it believes in entrepreneurship not merely in commerce but in politics; and the inevitable results of its ascendance are, first, the capture of the state by business and, second, all that follows: incompetence, graft, and all the other wretched flotsam that we've come to expect from Washington.

The correct diagnosis is the "bad apple" thesis turned upside down. There are plenty of good conservative individuals, honorable folks who would never participate in the sort of corruption we have watched unfold over the last few years. Hang around with grassroots conservative voters in Kansas, and in the main you will find them to be honest, hardworking people.

But put conservatism in charge of the state, and it behaves very differently. Now the "values" that rightist politicians eulogize on the stump disappear, and in their place we can discern an entirely different set of priorities—priorities that reveal more about the unchanging historical essence of American conservatism than do its fleeting campaigns against gay marriage or secular humanism. Conservative's leaders laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job.

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

Every mispent trillion dollars or lost 500 billion is nearly doubled by interest over decades for that borrowed money.
IT used to be a stratedgy to leave the democrates with no money for their agendas except to pay down the debt.

Now it has gone beyond that has put the nation in peril of no global trust and for the existence of a prosperous nation for generations.
dh

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:24 AM

BILL MOYERS: Your book describes conservatism as "an expression of American business." Why exclude Democrats? Jimmy Carter triggered the deregulation frenzy. Bill Clinton pushed for NAFTA, signed the Telecommunications Act of l996 which gave the megamedia companies everything they wanted, auctioned off the Lincoln Bedroom, and swooned over Robert Rubin while showing Robert Reich the door. Democratic Congresses were shaking down corporations when George W. Bush was still tipsy in Texas. And who was running Congress during the S&L swindles of the late 80s? Why single out conservatives as the greedy party?

THOMAS FRANK: Democrats can be conservatives too, of course. In fact, certain Democrats' embrace of the free-market faith has been just as consequential as the Republicans' own move to the right. When the Democrats gave up on FDR and came around to the ideology of Reagan, the opposition ceased to oppose.

But this was the subject of my 2000 book, ONE MARKET UNDER GOD, which discussed NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act at some length. THE WRECKING CREW is an effort to explain the particular species of corruption we see in Washington today.

Clinton's contributions here were not insignificant, but they were more passive than active. His celebration of outsourcing set up the government-for-profit of the Bush era. His war on federal wages ensured that government would remain an unattractive career option, especially when compared to what's offered by the contractors who are our de facto government today. His failure even to try to reverse certain initiatives of the Reagan years allowed them to harden into permanent fixtures of the Washington scene.

There are other forms of corruption that are particular to liberalism, and that occur more naturally among Democrats. But by and large, the particular mode of corruption I describe in this book is a Republican invention. True believers in the free-market way invented it and feel most comfortable in it. Most Democrats can be embarrassed by their relationship to lobbyists because publicly they pretend to be the "party of the people"; most Republicans are happy to say they believe in market-based government.

You go on to write that the political triumph of conservatism has coincided with the rise of the Washington area to the richest rank of American metropolises. But can't it be said that the ascendancy of liberalism turned government into the cornucopia of spending which became a vast feeding ground for predators of all stripes?

During its heyday, liberalism was often depicted in these terms-as a giveaway to special interests, handouts to organized whiners, pork-barrel projects like the TVA. There may have been some merit to those charges-they aren't my subject in this book so I don't know-but whatever they were, they are as nothing compared to the kind of money presently being sent down the chute to defense contractors and homeland-security operators and so on.

As for Washington's wealth, it is uniquely a phenomenon of the era of privatization and outsourcing, not of liberalism.

You seem to dismiss, if not denigrate, the term "culture of corruption." If that doesn't fit the nexus between K Street, the White House, Congress and contract-dispensing federal agencies, what does?

My problem with the term "culture of corruption" is that the word "culture" is being used generically-to mystify and accuse, not to define. I wanted to get down to specifics: What, exactly, is corrupt about this culture? How did it get that way? What's responsible for it? The Democrats' talk about a "culture of corruption" implies that simply voting for Democrats will fix it; when we know more about this culture we discover that it goes far too deep for such a simple solution.

You argue that the sprawling spectacle surrounding Jack Abramoff was not just a matter of a "few bad apples." So was the whole orchard rotten?

It's not the apples, it's the trees themselves. It's systemic. It's structural. It's the logical consequence of the philosophy of government currently in place. It has nothing to do with individuals except for the handful of geniuses who invented it all.

I read the muckraker David Graham Phillips, whom you quote in your book. A hundred years ago he was writing about The Treason of the Senate when the biggest names in the world's "greatest deliberative body" were serving "interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous; interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people." Ralph Nader couldn't say it better. So what's new?

Morally, those sentiments are right on-target. What's new is (a) the unthinkable is back; (b) it's infinitely more complex; and (c) it's ideological. The Vanderbilts had their own U.S. Senator because that way they could grab more, but the people doing it today are motivated at least partially by ideology. They have a theoretical justification for what they've done: the market is always and in every case better than the bureaucracy.

What's more, many of the people I describe in the book understand themselves as crusaders against corruption. They think *they* are the muckrakers, demanding more and more deregulation or privatization. Government should get out of the marketplace altogether. By what right does it regulate insider trading or price fixing? Get off our backs!

You require several pages — riveting pages, I will admit — to describe a "fantastic misgovernment." Distill the essence of it for a bumper sticker or t-shirt.

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad.

Or: Cynicism spawns corruption, which spawns cynicism.

Or: Bring back the regulators before the system self-destructs.

Conservatives are fond of writing op-eds and going on television to say, "Don't look at us. It was the Republicans!" Are we really talking about a colossal case of mistaken identity here? Were the souls of conservatives actually hijacked and implanted in Republican bodies bought at a local taxidermist shop?

It is true that not all Republicans are conservatives — we used to have some pretty liberal ones out in the midwest. Also some pretty clean ones, especially in Kansas City, where the Dems were the party of Pendergast.

But the distinction is constantly abused by conservatives in order to get their movement off the hook when their one-time leaders' numbers plummet. One day Jack Abramoff is their maximum leader; when it's discovered that he's been ripping off his clients, suddenly he's not a conservative anymore. One day George W. Bush is thought to be in daily contact with the Almighty; when his numbers tank, he's an "impostor" who's tricked the movement. They once said the same things about Reagan, incidentally.

Incidentally, all of this is a basic logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman." Scotsman A says, "No Scotsman puts soy milk on his porridge." Scotsman B says, oh yeah? I know a Scotsman who puts soy milk on his porridge. Scotsman A then replies, "well, no *true* Scotsman puts soy milk on his porridge."

Many years ago I reported for a documentary on the Iran-Contra scandal — when President Reagan was waging a "secret" war against the Sandinistas and his hirelings in the basement of the White House traded arms for hostages to finance it. In your description of that scandal you write that two great conservative themes converged: "freedom fighters" and political entrepreneurship. Right?

Yes. The right of those years was infatuated with the idea of "freedom fighters" — the contras in Nicaragua, the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, Jonas Savimbi in Angola, and whatever that brutal gang was called in Mozambique. To conservatives these guys seemed to represent a kind of sixties in reverse, in which the glamorous guerrillas were now on our side. And, yes, they thought Jonas Savimbi was glamorous.

They supported these figures with entreneurial methods: asking millionaires to contribute to nonprofits which would then buy supplies for the contras (and supplies for the fundraiser); transforming their control of the state into cash (selling weapons to Iran). Their ultimate ambition was supposed to be called "The Enterprise": a foreign policy instrument completely free from the scrutiny of Congress.

And you think some of what we've seen under this regime evolved — pardon the secular language — from that convergence?

The entrepreneurship is officially woven into the fabric of the state now: "Government should be market-based," Bush says. Entrepreneurship is what gave you both the catastrophic depopulating of FEMA and the lucrative but ineffectual recovery effort after Katrina. Or look at Iraq, where much of our foreign-policy apparatus is indeed private and is almost completely beyond scrutiny. Try phoning Blackwater and asking them why they do the things they do.

Two years ago my documentary "Capitol Crimes," which we're repeating and updating this Friday night, reported on how conservatives in Washington ganged up to promote sweat shops on American territory. You devote a chapter to this story and call it "Bantustan That Roared." Give our readers a peek into what you mean.

"Bantustans," or "homelands," were a tool of the apartheid government in South Africa. They were supposedly separate countries in which the black population could be theoretically housed, leaving South Africa proper for the whites. Generally speaking, the bantustans had two industries: casino gambling and low-wage manufacturing. One of them was ferociously libertarian, and much beloved of American conservatives. And they were all propped up ideologically by appeals to racial or ethnic pride.

Each of these elements was present in Saipan, to one degree or another. The raging libertarianism, the casino gambling, the sweatshop manufacturing-exploiting, in this case, imported Filipinos and Chinese-and the constant use of ethnic pride to excuse the whole rotten thing. I say Saipan "roared" because, while the bantustans pretty much sucked for everyone who lived there, it has been a great success for some.

Tom DeLay went there with a gaggle of conservatives in two and called the sweat shops "a petri dish of capitalism." How about that for a vision of America's future?

DeLay was right. That's what we're becoming. Democracy is over. It's rule by money, now: plutocracy, the pre-thirties system.

What do you make of the fact that Norquist is still riding high, despite the seamy business he carried on of using his organization to funnel money from Abramoff's clients to Ralph Reed? Does his constituency just not care about such things?

Apparently not. Maybe they think Norquist is just a good entrepreneur. I met him, by the way, and found him a charming and very intelligent man.

Who are the real casualties of THE WRECKING CREW?

It's ordinary working people. Thirty or forty years ago, it was possible to work a blue-collar job and enjoy a middle-class standard of living. In fact, it was common. It was the American way. The reason it was so common, though, was because we decided to make it that way and used government as our instrument. That instrument is no longer under our control. Someone else is at the wheel, and they're steering us in a different direction.

So can good little liberals go to bed at night now and sleep soundly knowing the Good Democrats have slain the monsters and reclaimed the castle?

No. Unfortunately, the system I describe is part of the landscape in Washington now. It's structural. It's an industry. It's not going down without an enormous fight. Besides, rather than putting away this very profitable game, a lot of Democrats seem excited to try their hand at it.

(Other Democrats, though, are trying to get to the bottom of things. Some Republicans, too. There used to be one called John McCain that I liked.)

Years ago the WALL STREET JOURNAL banned subversive — liberal — writers from their editorial pages. Suddenly you pop up as a columnist on the op-ed page. Are you Rupert Murdoch's fig leaf?

How did it happen? This wasn't supposed to be the Age of Miracles.

I have never met or spoken to Rupert Murdoch. The editor of their op-ed page is the one who offered me a spot. I was as surprised by the invitation as you are, since one of my previous books was basically an extended commentary on the JOURNAL's opinion page over the course of the 1990s.

I personally think that one of the reasons I've ended up at the JOURNAL is, ironically, the famous "liberal bias" critique. I've always suspected that one of the reasons I've never been offered a regular, permanent place in any prominent mainstream publication is that everyone in big-media-land is terrified of seeming too liberal, and hiring someone like me would obviously expose them to terrific blasts from the right. Well, one of the only publications in America that is totally immune to that critique is the WALL STREET JOURNAL. Which means they're free to hire me.

Has living in Washington made you cynical? Or was it the ripping of the veil in "The Wizard of Oz" that destroyed your faith?

The literature of Washington is, by and large, the literature of cynicism and disillusionment. I wanted to update it for our time. But I prefer the word "skeptical," since I believe good government is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:01 AM

"During the cold war Reagan's defense build-up, decision to deploy new missiles in europe (despite massive protests), and his rhetoric (Evil Empire) all contributed to the rise of Gorbachav and ultimately accelerated the demise of that system. The dems/libs opposed all.

Now we have a gop that is utterly inept at handling terrorism. Consider how much damage the invasion of iraq has done in lives, money and US credibility. What's more, look at how hard it'll be to garner future support for military action based on intel. Who will believe it?

Bush has been an unmitigated disaster. Isolationism isn't the solution. Bullying isn't a policy. McCain shows no promise in the realms diplomatic initiative, nuanced thinking, creative solutions, etc… He's a blustering politician. I hereby denounce my lifelong allegiance to the gop.

Actually, the current admin was the turning point, but the selection of Palin was just another indication of how far this party has fallen. the only constitutionally mandated function of the vp is to assume the presidency should the prez be unable to serve. the only way to assess palin is as a potential prez. foreign policy is of particular importance since it's the province of the executive and opportunists are liable to exploit the turmoil and transition of mccain's demise and the ascendency of this lightweight.

Mccain's 2 most important decisions of the recent past have been on iraq and his vp choice. both are horrible choices, proving his decision-making is faulty. obama has chosen wisely on both fronts. clearly he has the intelligence, temperament and judgment. although his lack of experience is a concern to any fair-minded person, he appears to have exceptional judgment.

— Posted by Former republican (NYT co0mments)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 09:33 AM

" On Tuesday, he clarified his remarks. The clarification was far more worrisome than his initial comments.

He said that by calling the economy fundamentally sound, what he really meant was that American workers are the best in the world. In the best Karl Rovian fashion, he implied that if you dispute his statement about the economy's firm foundation, you are, in effect, insulting American workers. "I believe in American workers, and someone who disagrees with that — it's fine," he told NBC's Matt Lauer.

Let's get a few things straight. First, no one who is currently running for president does not "believe in American workers."

More to the point, the economy is stressed to the breaking point by fundamental problems — in housing, finance, credit, employment, health care and the federal budget — that have been at best neglected, at worst exacerbated during the Bush years. And as a result, American workers have taken a beating.

In clarifying his comments, Mr. McCain lavished praise on workers, but ignored their problems. That is the real insult.

For decades, typical Americans have not been rewarded for their increasing productivity with comparably higher pay or better benefits. The disconnect between work and reward has been especially acute during the Bush years, as workers' incomes fell while corporate profits, which flow to investors and company executives, ballooned. For workers, that is a fundamental flaw in today's economy. It is grounded in policies like a chronically inadequate minimum wage and an increasingly unprogressive tax system, for which Mr. McCain offers no alternatives.

As for Wall Street, Mr. McCain blamed the meltdown on "unbridled corruption and greed." He called for a commission to find out what happened and propose solutions. His diagnosis and his cure are misguided. The crisis on Wall Street is fundamentally a failure to do the things that temper, detect and punish corruption and greed. It was a failure to police the markets, to enforce rules, to heed and sound warnings and expose questionable products and practices.

The regulatory failure is rooted in a markets-are-good-government-is-bad ideology that has been ascendant as long as Mr. McCain has been in Washington and championed by his own party. If Mr. McCain adheres to some other belief system, we would like to hear about it. ..."

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:49 PM

From The Progress Report:

This weekend, the U.S. financial system faced what the Washington Post called its "gravest crisis in modern times." The securities firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, "becoming the largest financial firm to fail in the global credit crisis." At the same time, "the credit crisis claimed another of America's oldest financial companies," as Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America for $50 billion. The insurance giant AIG, meanwhile, "made an unprecedented approach to the Federal Reserve seeking short-term financing," and had its credit rating downgraded, leading to "urgent talks to put together a $75 billion line of credit." On the same day that news of this financial turmoil broke, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) argued that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Looking at the members of McCain's "economic council those who advise the campaign on economic issues -- it becomes clear why he is so divorced from the bad economy. Some of his economic advisers helped create the housing crisis, some abused corporate loopholes to hide billions in corporate profits, and some simply refuse to admit that there is anything seriously wrong with the economy. A look at some of McCain's economic gurus:

THE 'ECON BRAIN,' PHIL GRAMM: Former senator Phil Gramm is known as McCain's "Econ Brain." Recently, he has called America "a nation of whiners" who are in a "mental recession." While in the Senate, he was behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The former made legal "the mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector," while the latter "destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies." As The Nation wrote, "those two acts effectively ended  significant regulation of the financial community." After leaving Congress, Gramm worked for the Swiss bank UBS. Politico reported that while at UBS, "Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006. During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages." McCain has also voted against discouraging predatory lending practices.

THE OUTSOURCER, CARLY FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP), Fiorina exploited a corporate loophole to hold more than $14 billion in profits overseas, a loophole that McCain is against closing. She was forced out of HP after a merger with Compaq failed to bring Hewlett the profits that Ms. Fiorina had forecast," resulting in tumbling shares. She is also a defender of outsourcing, which she calls "right-shoring," and has said that "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore." "It's hard on people, but I don't understand how you pick and choose among the jobs you want to save and protect against and not expect people to do the same to you," she said. While McCain has recently condemned "golden parachutes" -- excessive compensation for exiting CEOs – by saying, "CEOs that led us into this mess are walking away with over $20 million, and we're not going to let that happen as president…They deserve nothing," Fiorina walked away from HP with a $21 million severance package, which, with another $21 million in options, brought her $42 million. In a 2007 interview with Fortune, Fiorina said that "what we ought not to do is regulate or legislate CEO compensation."

THE CHIEF LOBBYIST, RICK DAVIS: After the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that  called lobbyists "primary contributors" to the crisis. One of these lobbyists though, is McCain's own campaign manager, Rick Davis, who " served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation." Davis challenged even the smallest reform measures intended to make sure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being held more accountable for their actions. This helped the mortgage giants, "consistently [beat] back congressional efforts to increase oversight, even after a major accounting scandal in 2003 resulted in a $400 million fine for Fannie.

THE IDEOLOGUE, DONALD LUSKIN: Like McCain, Luskin believes that "things today just aren't that bad," and everyone should "quit doling out that bad-economy line." In a Washington Post op-ed last Sunday, he wrote that "we have surely become a nation of exaggerators" regarding the economy, despite agreeing that "the foreclosure rate is the worst since the Great Depression." Luskin claimed that "unemployment is up a bit," when it is at a five-year high of 6.1 percent. He also asserted that the housing crisis is "over." As evidence of the economy's strength, he pointed to last quarter's GDP growth of 3.3 percent, yet "somehow fail[ed] to mention that the quarter before, it was 0.9%, and the quarter before that, -0.2%." Luskin also failed to note that one of the primary reasons for the growth was the "$90 billion in economic stimulus payments that reached taxpayers during the quarter."

---

Seems like John is offering the henhouse to the wolfpack, here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:02 PM

"'(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's senior domestic policy adviser said Tuesday that the BlackBerry mobile e-mail device was a "miracle that John McCain helped create.'"



                           He was probably talking about the other kind of Blackberry, the kind that grow on vines with stickers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:49 PM

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's senior domestic policy adviser said Tuesday that the BlackBerry mobile e-mail device was a "miracle that John McCain helped create."


Sen. John McCain "laughed" when he heard his adviser's remark about the BlackBerry, another aide says.

The adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, discussing the nation's economic woes with reporters, said that McCain -- who has struggled to stress his economic credentials -- did have experience dealing with the economy, pointing to his time on the Senate Commerce Committee.

Pressed to provide an example of what McCain had accomplished on that committee, Holtz-Eakin said the senator did not have jurisdiction over financial markets, then he held up his Blackberry, telling reporters: "He did this."

"Telecommunications of the United States, the premiere innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create," Holtz-Eakin said. "And that's what he did. He both regulated and deregulated the industry."

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Vice President Al Gore drew controversy when he said that during his time in Congress, he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" -- based on his work promoting funding and early research in that area.

The Obama campaign responded to the McCain adviser's comments Tuesday shortly after they were reported.

"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Meanwhile, McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator "laughed" when he heard the comment.

"He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer," McDonald said.

The Obama campaign debuted an ad last week that attacked McCain's skills with technology, including computers.

The ad refers to the number of years McCain has been in Washington to paint him as out of touch: "1982. John McCain goes to Washington," the announcer says. "Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn't.

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail. Still doesn't understand the economy. And favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations but almost nothing for the middle class.

"After one president who was out of touch ... we just can't afford more of the same."

Asked whether he prefers a Mac or PC in a Yahoo News/Politico interview earlier this year, McCain admitted: "Neither. I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get."
(CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:20 AM

Michael Kinsley (yes, him again!) writes at PostPartisan, a group blog for The Washington Post's opinion writers. "McCain has described his motive for McCain-Feingold as a giant mea culpa for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. Maybe when this is over, one way or another, McCain will swear off corrupt lying the way he has sworn off corrupt money."

Kinsley later adds:
[N]o one — not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters — cares enough about lying. To some extent, they even respect a well-told lie as evidence of professionalism. If a candidate complains too much about an opponent's lies, he or she starts being regarded as a bad sport, a whiner. Stoic silence doesn't work either. People start asking why you don't "fight back." Pretty soon, the victim of the lies starts getting blamed. C'mon: this isn't paddycakes; politics ain't beanball; and so on. This happened to Al Gore in 2000 and to John Kerry in 2004. And it's already starting to happen to Barack Obama this year.

Sure, if he loses, it will be his fault. Sure, he and everybody ought to know that the Republicans play this game for keeps. But that shouldn't let John McCain off the hook. He says he'd rather lose the election than lose the war. But it seems he'd rather lose that honor he's always going on about than lose the election.

Time magazine's Mark Halperin made a similar complaint on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," and Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post provides a partial transcript (and the video). "To spend even a minute on this expression [lipstick on a pig], I think, is amazing and outrageous," Halperin said.

He later added:
The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on it, they'll fall because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're staying it on the stump as a core part of their message, it's in their advertising. I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist — journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.


NYT Opinionator

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:04 AM

older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: "I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves."

Yet another radical element of McCain's plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we've heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these "needless and costly" insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans' ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we'd be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we're not even paying much attention.

(Bob Herbert, NYT columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:53 AM

"I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."
-- John McCain, October, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:50 PM

The Progressive:

McCain-onomics


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has spent much of his general election campaign for president trying to distance himself from President Bush's failed policies -- even though the policies he has outlined and would pursue as president mirror those of the last eight years. McCain's strategy so far has been to make the public forget he is offering Bush's policies. During the Republican National Convention earlier this month, McCain and his fellow conservatives seemingly refused to acknowledge that the current administration even exists: Bush's name was mentioned once while Vice President Dick Cheney's name was not mentioned at all. Convention speakers also ignored many key issues that face Americans today, such as health care, environment, and the economy. Yet at times, McCain's surrogates will let the truth slip out. In June, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) admitted that McCain's economic policies would "absolutely" be an "enhancement" of Bush's. He's right. McCain's economic policies are rooted in the same supply-side economic theories that give huge tax cuts to the rich and the most profitable corporations, which will ultimately expand the already ballooning federal deficit. Indeed, as New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor Paul Krugman noted, McCain's economic proposals are "Bush made permanent" and "would leave the federal government with far too little revenue to cover its expenses."

THE WEALTHY WILL CASH IN: If elected president, McCain plans to double down on Bush's corporate and individual tax cuts. His plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, a plan that would save corporations $175 billion per year, with $45 billion going to America's 200 largest companies as identified by Fortune Magazine. The five largest U.S. oil companies would save a grand total of $3.8 billion per year. The wealthiest Americans would also cash in. McCain's tax plan will increase after-tax income of the richest 3.4 percent by more than twice the average for all households -- and offer no benefit to the poorest taxpayers and minimal savings for the middle class. At the same time, McCain has not offered any specifics on how he would pay for these massive cuts. In fact, McCain's plan would produce the highest federal deficit in 25 years. After inheriting Bush's $407 billion deficit, yearly deficits under McCain would increase sharply, beginning with at least $505 billion in FY2009. 

THE FLAWS OF SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS: Like Bush -- and President Reagan before him -- McCain is fully embracing supply-side economics, lowering tax rates to promote economic activity which, in theory, lead to additional government revenue. But a new report from the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute has analyzed the two "supply-side eras" in U.S. history -- 1981 to 1993 and 2001 to present -- and concluded that "the results have been meager." The report found that after tax increases in 1993, real investment growth was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001 and "economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras." Real median household income "was greatest after the 1993 tax increases, at 2.0 percent annually compared to 1.4 percent after 1981 and 0.3 percent after 2001." Wages and employment also rose higher after 1993 as compared to the two supply-side eras. And in contrast to record deficits that resulted from the two supply-side eras, between 1993 and 1999, the United States"went from a federal deficit of 3.9 percent of GDP to a surplus of 1.4 percent." Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have said that tax cuts do not offset revenue losses.

GREENSPAN WEIGHS IN: Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the current downturn in the economy is "probably a once in a century type of event," one that is the worst he has seen in his career "by far." Indeed, just yesterday, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America "for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer." But Greenspan also addressed McCain's $3.3 trillion tax cuts, telling Bloomberg news last week that the country cannot afford the cuts "unless we cut spending." "I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said. Perhaps McCain will take Greenspan's advice. While McCain has acknowledged that "issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," he has also added the caveat: "I've got Greenspan's book."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:48 PM

McCain Videos for those in Doubt.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

"Obama's fundraising phenomenon continues. Given the terrifying prospect of president Palin, I can completely understand why the money is now pouring in. My job is to flush out all the information we can find on this serial liar and get it to you. Your job is to figure out what to do with that information. But there's no call for complacency:

It doesn't mean the Democrats will outspend the Republicans this year, though. The Republican National Committee's cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, in combination with swelling outside spending, will likely allow McCain to level the playing field, though the fact that Obama has raised the money himself, in small chunks, gives him direct control over how it's spent, and fewer concerns about technical limits on spending. An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August.
I hope Obama stops running that cheap ad about McCain's out-of-it-ness with computers and the like. It's not as vicious or anywhere near as deceptive as McCain's ad onslaught, but it's beneath the Obama campaign. It's their one current error. Correct it. Remove it.

Obama must maintain the high road. He must keep insisting that the McCain-Palin camp has no new policies to offer on the most critical issues we face, especially in foreign policy. And he must carefully and relentlessly explain what he intends to do. If he does that and refuses to take the bait, he will win. If he descends into the foul sewer where McCain now resides, he will lose.

Karl McCain knows one thing: how to smear, lie, disorient, distract, and intimidate. You can't beat these thugs and liars at their own game. Beat them at the task of government. They are unfit for it. Obama is not.

(Atlantic)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

Frankly, given what McCain went through in 2000, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that he's campaigning this way.
But I don't think it has anything to do with an honest discourse in American politics. When have we ever had that?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM

"Jonathan Martin:

McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation.

"We recognize it's not going to be 2000 again," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media's swooning coverage of McCain's ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. "But he lost then. We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."


What this means is that they will lie and refuse to be accountable for the lies. In fact, because the lies are working, they will keep lying. All that matters to McCain is winning. By whatever means. By whatever lies. It's pure Rove. Which is why, if it works against a candidate like Obama, we will not have honest or rational discourse in American politics for a generation.

"(Atlantic)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:02 PM

If Obama did in fact try to forbid the "Free Lunch" from lobbyists, then indeed he is a much despised man in the hearts of DC politicians.

The way to a man's heart is through his stomach.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 01:14 PM

Stringsinger

Can you find any error in the FACTS presented? If not, you are being an idiot. Facts can be checked- OPINIONS are whatever people decide on.

Is the article fact or opinion?

If you want to limit sources to only those that agree with what you do, then I fail to see how you are any different than Rev. Moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 01:03 PM

The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon of the infamous "Moonies",
an ultra-right-wing conservative abusive religionist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:59 PM

The idea that McCain is bi-partisan is laughable.

Quoting the Washington Times is like selecting a passage from Mein Kampf.

It is complete garbage by a right-wing owned and biased newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:22 PM

Records show McCain more bipartisan
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
Monday, September 15, 2008

Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.

An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.

McCain campaign surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham, though, said the numbers expose a difference between the two candidates.

"The number - 55 and 13 - probably shows that one has been more desirous to find common ground than the other. The legislative record of Senator Obama is very thin," said Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, who has teamed up with Mr. McCain probably more than any other senator.

The Times study looked at the bills each man introduced as the chief sponsor, and at the bills sponsored by other senators that each man signed onto. The study excluded resolutions and amendments, focusing instead on measures that each man authored and put into the normal legislative process.

Former Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, all independents, were grouped with Democrats because each caucused with Democrats during the time under study.

Bipartisanship is a frequent issue on the campaign trail, with the McCain camp and surrogates such as Mr. Graham arguing the standard is how often someone takes leadership on an issue in defiance of his own party - a measure by which Mr. Obama falls short and Mr. McCain clearly excels.

He even revels in his stances, telling the audience at a values forum at Saddleback Church in California last month his list is extensive: "Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture." He could have added campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts as other areas on which he's broken with the majority of his party.

At the same forum, Mr. Obama said his major break with Democrats came on congressional ethics, when he sponsored a bill to curb meals and gifts from lobbyists.

In a memo to reporters, his campaign points to bills he worked on that gained near-unanimous support from both parties, including a bill more than a third of the Senate signed onto, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, pushing peace initiatives in Sudan, and a bill sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, on charitable contributions that passed by a voice vote in each chamber.

But foremost, his campaign cites his work teaming up in 2006 with Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, on the Cooperative Proliferation Detection Act, a noncontroversial measure to secure weapons of mass destruction, and with Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to force the administration to create a searchable database to track federal spending grants.

Speaking to reporters during the Republican National Convention earlier this month Obama aide Robert Gibbs said Mr. Lugar and Mr. Coburn would back up Mr. Obama's bipartisanship claims.

Mr. Lugar's spokesman said the senator is not doing interviews on the subject. Mr. Coburn, in an interview, said Mr. Obama is a good senator to work with, but said there's no comparison to Mr. McCain's long record.

"Barack is a great guy, a nice guy, he's a good friend of mine. He has passed two pieces of legislation since he's been in the Senate - had his name on two," Mr. Coburn said. He praised Mr. Obama's staff for the work they did on the spending grants bill, but he said Mr. Obama hasn't gone head-to-head against his leadership when it mattered: "Where have you seen him challenge the status quo?"

Mr. McCain on the campaign trail cites his own frequent Democratic legislative allies such as Mr. Lieberman, with whom he's worked on gun control and global warming; Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was his partner for immigration and patients' rights; Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who worked with him on campaign finance; and Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who was the top Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee when Mr. McCain was chairman.

Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Kennedy didn't respond or declined through spokesmen to talk about the issue. Mr. Lieberman, however, has gone in the opposite direction, endorsing Mr. McCain for office and hitting Mr. Obama for failing to live up to his bipartisan claims.

Mr. Graham said it was unfortunate people weren't recognizing their work with Mr. McCain.

"What you've got now is, you've got some people who are afraid to recognize John's bipartisanship because of the nature of the election," Mr. Graham said.

Mr. Graham has teamed up with Mr. McCain on some of his most contentious bills, including the immigration and campaign-finance fights, and said they both have "the scars to prove" they were in the fights.

"I have experienced the price that's been paid to help John do some difficult things since 2004," he said.

Those fights are part of the reason Mr. McCain had trouble securing the Republican presidential nomination, including winning less than 50 percent of Republican primary voters' support, despite clearing the field less than halfway through the primaries.

The Times analysis found Mr. McCain's most frequent Democratic teammates are Mr. Dorgan, with whom he shared leadership of the Indian Affairs Committee and who co-sponsored 23 of Mr. McCain's bills, and Mr. Lieberman, who signed onto 15 McCain bills.

Mr. Obama's most frequent Republican partners were Mr. Lugar, who co-sponsored nine Obama bills, and Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, who signed on to eight of Mr. Obama's measures.

The bill on which Mr. McCain attracted the most support in the past few years was his plan to combat greenhouse-gas emissions. That bill garnered 16 co-sponsors, 14 of whom were Democrats, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrats' vice-presidential nominee. Mr. Obama himself signed onto another of Mr. McCain's global-warming bills.

Mr. Obama's best successes in attracting co-sponsors came on a bill to boost the union's bargaining power with the Federal Aviation Administration, on which all 38 co-sponsors were Democrats, and a bill to issue a postage stamp honoring Mrs. Parks, which garnered 24 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

The Times study didn't look at voting, but Congressional Quarterly conducts annual studies of senators' voting records.

Over his Senate career, Mr. McCain has voted with the majority of Senate Republicans about 85 percent of the time, while in his three years in the Senate Mr. Obama has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:59 AM

I think they are an indication. McCain was headed for obscurity before he picked Sarah Palin. Now he's pulling ahead of Obama in the national polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 07:24 PM

Boy, what a lacklustre thread this is. It tells you something when our "Popular views on....." threads rank at these comparable levels in their number of posts:

1. Popular views on Obama - 2910 posts

2. Popular views on the Bush Administration - 1480 posts (most of them by Amos) ;-)

3. Popular views on McCain - 473 posts

4. Popular views on Chongo - 167 posts

5. Popular views on cheese - 65 posts


The level of interest in John McCain is apparently so weak that he is not all that far ahead of an ape and a dairy product! LOL!

A similar "Popular views" thread on Sarah Palin would have probably garnered well over 1,000 posts already, judging by all the threads going about her. Hell, maybe 2,000...

This tells you something. Without Sarah Palin, where would McCain be right now? Very few people can be bothered to even talk about him much if these threads are any indication.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 06:58 PM

Want to see McCain's mansions?

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/49248-mccain-s-mansions-the-houses-that-greed-buil

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 09:54 AM

...and Obama's!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 12:24 AM

Well, whoever is pulling McSame's puppet strings, for example...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 10:46 PM

I agree that it reflects the standards of those who drive it--now all we have to do is figure out who's driving it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 09:55 PM

The process reflects the standards of those who drive it--a scenario in which McCain is one of the figureheads; when he dives for the gutter, it reflects on the whole national disposition, thanks to the amplifying cross-copying of the media and the hypnotically suggestible state of many viewers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 09:46 PM

The problem isn't McCain as much as the process of getting elected. Look what Rove and company did to McCain in 2000. He's a smart man; he learns. A candidate has no power and little influence over the course of the country if he/she loses.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:12 PM

Sept. 12, 2008 | On the anniversary of 9/11, the virtuous John McCain showed up for a single day, as if the solemnity and sorrow of the occasion had penetrated his hard campaign carapace. From his joint appearance with Barack Obama at ground zero in the morning through their consecutive interviews on national service at Columbia University that evening, McCain reminded America that we have known a politician by that name who cared about honor, independence and decency.

Meanwhile, his newer doppelgänger appeared on television in horrifically dishonest and inflammatory commercials savaging Obama over sex education, assuring us smugly that "I'm John McCain and I approved this message." The vicious John McCain never went away, even for those few hours.

And that is the contradiction now confronted by the national press corps, whose members desperately wish to believe in the old McCain they adored rather than the new McCain who nauseates them. Some pretend that what they see is not really happening, or doesn't matter; others wrinkle their noses but cannot quite muster indignation; and a few, very few, realize that the campaign is being debased by the man who once denounced this ugly style of politics and promised reform.

Enjoy this story?

Thanks for your support.

Probing those issues is sensitive and painful for the press corps that still loves him, but the Arizona senator's appearance at Columbia to discuss national service -- a safe, worthy topic that does not lend itself to Swift-boat-style attacks -- provided a perfect opportunity for two nationally prominent journalists. Judy Woodruff of PBS and Richard Stengel of Time magazine, the Columbia forum's interlocutors, were plainly relieved to encounter the agreeable McCain who says only kind things about his opponents, prays for the recovery of his beloved friend Ted Kennedy, understands the importance of government, and speaks movingly about the values that unite us as Americans.


That smirking creep who accuses Obama of wanting to subject 6-year-olds to "comprehensive sex education" was not onstage. Instead there was only a familiar fellow whose answers, while occasionally dotty or inelegant, were nevertheless always well meant and sometimes witty.

Many of the questions posed by Stengel and Woodruff were softer than cotton candy. ("Senator, we have less than a minute in this block. But do you think the length of your service in Washington gives you a unique understanding of the changes that need to be made?" asked the gentle Judy.) Such indulgence may have been inevitable under the circumstances, since the service forum was not a press conference or a debate. Tough interrogation might have looked like an ambush.

For everyone involved, in any case, the clear agenda was to establish the next administration's legislative and programmatic benchmark on national service -- and that was accomplished when both Obama and McCain committed to expand AmeriCorps and encourage other volunteer initiatives, both public and private. That left plenty of time for meandering discussion of the importance of national service, the exceptional character of America and other matters that called for patriotic bloviation. To their credit, Woodruff and Stengel did not wholly avoid the sore subject of that other McCain. But they didn't press hard.

When Woodruff asked him about the "derisive" attitude toward Obama's community organizing expressed by Sarah Palin and other speakers at the Republican convention, she gave him the opportunity to disown that "kind of language."

McCain's response was revealing -- not because he said anything new but because he adopted the same style of obfuscation that the politicians of the Bush family have traditionally used to distance themselves from the thugs who act on their behalf.

He began by acknowledging that politics "is a tough business." Then he tried to blame Obama by suggesting that "the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different" if only the Democrat had accepted his proposal to hold a dozen joint town hall meetings. He said that Palin was only "defending herself" by attacking Obama. And finally he claimed, contrary to every utterance on the subject at his convention, that he respects Obama's "outstanding" record of community service.


This exercise in excuse making went unchallenged until Stengel asked McCain whether the "ugly" tone of politics would drive young people away from public service -- and what had happened to his hopes and promises of a "different" and "high-minded" campaign.

"Has it been rough? Of course. And again, it isn't the final recipe or the only answer," he replied, again demanding that Obama accept his "request" to "go around America" together. This sounded more and more like a rehearsed response. Woodruff followed up by asking plaintively whether it "is naive of people to expect that politics could be a little less rough-and-tumble and even nasty."

McCain's answer was the same as that a man like Karl Rove might offer:

"The people make the final judgment with their votes. They make the final judgment about campaigns and how we present ourselves to the American people. And I think that that will be the ultimate test of what kind of campaigns do we run."

In other words, the only test of campaign tactics is whether they work. So now we know that there are not really two McCains, one good and one bad. There is only one McCain, and he has two faces. (Salon)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:14 PM

Old thinking deteriorates. Bad judgement calls on selecting nutcase VP's.
Lying becomes part of the political process and a hallmark of the GOP.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:56 PM

NEW YORK (AFP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday denied his barrage of hardball negative advertisements against Democratic rival Barack Obama amounted to "lies."

The Arizona Senator defended his campaign's tactics against Obama, which claimed his opponent called Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin a "pig" and advocated teaching sex education to kindergarten children.

"Actually, they are not lies," McCain said on the ABC television chat show "The View."

The Obama campaign had argued that McCain's camp deliberately misinterpreted Obama's recent comment that Republican claims to represent change were like putting "lipstick on a pig" as a sexist remark aimed at Palin.

"He shouldn't have said it. He chooses his words very carefully, this is a tough campaign," McCain said.

Earlier this week, the McCain campaign debuted an attack ad claiming that as a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama backed a bill to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners."

"Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family," the narrator of the advertisement said.

In reality, the legislation allowed local schools to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, meaning that kindergarten kids could be warned about sexual predators and inappropriate touching but not taught about sex.

The Obama camp hit back angrily at McCain over the advertisement.

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

"Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:33 AM

"The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: "I'm John McCain, and I approved this message."

This from that straight-talker of yore, who fervidly denounced the 2004 Bush campaign's Swift Boat character attacks on John Kerry's military record.

What a difference four years makes, especially after Mr. McCain secured the nomination by hiring some of the same low-blow artists from the Bush campaign.

The kindergarten ad flat-out lies: telling voters that Mr. Obama's "one accomplishment" in education was to favor "comprehensive" sex education for 5-year-olds. "Learning about sex before learning to read?" intones the voice-over, as a blur of respected sources are cited — none of them accurately, as they have proclaimed.

The truth is that as an Illinois legislator, Mr. Obama favored a sensible bill supported by many mainline organizations — including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society and the Illinois Public Health Association — to provide an "age and developmentally appropriate" sex education curriculum for older students. At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators. And parents of children of all ages had the right to withdraw their children from the classes.

Surely, Senator McCain knows that all that change he's promising for the tooth-and-claw Washington culture must start on the hustings. Yet, the kindergarten ad that he's blessed signals that his goal is shamefully more of the same.

The way these ads work, this one is already playing over and over on the Web as a free-media "ghost," in professional parlance — too late for any cynical expression of regret by Mr. McCain. And no regret has been offered.

The lesson for voters is to be wary of all ads from the McCain machine. The lesson for Mr. McCain is that if he really believes in straight talk, he should fire his ad writers and any aide who believes that the best way to win the presidency is to lie to American voters. "

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:52 PM

The problem is, when Obama has to speak without a tele-prompter, it sounds like Morse Code--dit dit dah dah dah, dit dit...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:37 PM

""John McCain has obviously decided that he can't win a straight-up fight, so he's decided instead to wage a battle of character assassination, relentless lies, and culture war armageddon. So what happens on November 5th?

"If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic Congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war.



"And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia."

At Huffington Post, John Neffinger sees a turning point for Obama:

"This 'sex ed' ad the McCain campaign just launched is waaaay over the line. After a parade of out-of-context quotes, it shows Obama smirking naughtily as the voiceover talks about him wanting to provide 'comprehensive' sex education to kindergarteners. The voiceover by itself is hard-hitting, but together with the visuals, the ad basically paints Obama as a pedophile. (In reality, the legislation provides for educating younger children about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles.)

"So this is it. This is Obama's Dukakis-and-the-death-penalty moment.

"Everyone who sees this ad can see how dirty it is. And if Obama wants Americans to respect him, they must be allowed to see him react with the kind of anger -- controlled, but still palpable -- that they would feel if somebody did that to them.

"That means Obama must address the issue, personally and promptly, and do it just right. He must talk about honor and shame, how he has young daughters, and how just like any parent, he wants to do everything he can to protect them from pedophiles."..."(Ibid)

---

So McCain's campaign is running up the dirty tricks book, just as predicted during the primaries.

But Obama is not standing still for the crap they're slinging. We will see if his defense turns into a good offense or not. I suspect we'll see some really good long midcourt baskets that will leave Palin with rouge on her face.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:33 PM

"ime's Joe Klein is particularly exercised:

"Back in 2000, after John McCain lost his mostly honorable campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he went about apologizing to journalists -- including me -- for his most obvious mis-step: his support for keeping the confederate flag on the state house.

"Now he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it . . .

"I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain -- contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat -- talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig."

TPM's Josh Marshall can't resist an I-told-you-so:

"One of the interesting aspects of this campaign is watching the scales fall from the eyes of many of John McCain's closest admirers among the veteran DC press corps. I'm not talking about the freaks on Fox News or any of the sycophants at the AP. I'm talking about, let's say, the better sort of reporters and commentators in the 45 to 65 age bracket. To the extent that the press was McCain's base (and in many though now sillier respects it still is) this was the base of the base. And talking to a number of them I can understand why that was, at least in the sense of the person he was then presenting himself as.

"But over the last . . . maybe six weeks, in various conversations with these folks, the change is palpable. Whether it will make any difference in the tone of coverage in the dominant media I do not know. But it is sinking in.

"All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House . . .

"So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska."...(WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:32 PM

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg pries that window open much further with a terrific piece in the October edition of the magazine entitled: "The Wars of John McCain."

In it, Goldberg, a Fix friend, seeks to draw out the Arizona senator on his views of World War II, Vietnam, Korea and Iraq in hopes of shining a light on the way in which his experiences with each -- from his grandfather's service in WWII to his father's and his own involvement in Vietnam to his approach to the war in Iraq -- reveal the way in which McCain thinks about America's role in the world.

Writes Goldberg:

"In one area, though, he has been more or less constant: his belief in the power of war to solve otherwise insoluble problems. This ideology of action has not been undermined by his horrific experiences as a tortured POW during the Vietnam War, or by the Bush Administration's disastrous execution of the Iraq war."

And later he adds:

"[McCain's] willingness to speak frankly about the utility of military intervention sets him apart from his opponent. Senator Obama, though certainly no pacifist, envisions a world of cooperation and diplomacy; McCain sees a world of organic conflict and zero-sum competition."

Those paragraphs frame the choice in the coming election as starkly -- and effectively -- as any we've seen written in recent months. Unlike eight years ago when many people went to the ballot box believing that there was little difference in the directions that George W. Bush and Al Gore would move the country, the divisions between Barack Obama and McCain are real and impactful when it comes to defining (and re-defining) America's role in the world.

While that insight is critical to understanding McCain, it's a paragraph later in Goldberg's story that reveals a fundamental -- yet ill-understood -- truth about the Republican candidate.

"In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals," writes Goldberg. "It's not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor -- two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined -- that he becomes truly unbending." (Emphasis added by The Fix.)

Those lines are a perfect explication of John McCain the politician. He is a man for whom rigid adherence to ideology does not come naturally and, in fact, he tends to bridle at the idea that he must always come down on one side of an issue due to the "R" after his name. (David Brooks, as always, says it better than The Fix can: "The main axis in McCain's worldview is not left-right," Brooks wrote in recent column. "It's public service versus narrow self-interest.")

But, war -- and the politics surrounding it -- are outside the realm of McCain's tendency toward "ideological plasticity" (in the great phrase by Goldberg). The rules that govern other decisions in the campaign don't apply; it's why McCain stuck by his support for the surge despite its initial unpopularity even as he was abandoning his call for comprehensive immigration reform. The two issues simply aren't equivalent in McCain's mind. One is matter of life and death. The other is politics.

Goldberg's story is a remarkable -- and rare -- look at how McCain thinks about politics and policy; what he values, what he doesn't and why. Read the whole thing.


From "The Fix", washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

IT'S HARD to think of a presidential campaign with a wider chasm between the seriousness of the issues confronting the country and the triviality, so far anyway, of the political discourse. On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government's rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Sen. John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Sen. Barack Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.

Mr. Obama's supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive -- it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "The other side, suddenly, they're saying 'we're for change too,' " Mr. Obama said. "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." With a woman on the ticket, apparently all references to cosmetics -- or pork of the non-bridge variety, for that matter -- are forbidden. "Sen. Obama owes Gov. Palin an apology," sniffed former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift. "Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see." No matter that Mr. McCain used the lipstick-on-a-pig phrase himself, referring to (female) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care plan, or that (female) former McCain aide Torie Clarke wrote a book with that title. In the heat of a campaign, operatives will pounce on any misstep and play to the referees over any arguable foul. We understand that, and certainly the Obama campaign has not been above such tactics. But this cynical use of the gender card is unusually silly.


The kindergarten sex ad, exhuming an argument that Republican Alan Keyes used against Mr. Obama in his 2004 Senate race, was equally ridiculous. "Obama's one accomplishment?" the narrator asks. "Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' -- to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama: wrong on education. Wrong for your family." As a state senator, Mr. Obama voted for -- though he did not sponsor -- a measure that set out standards for non-mandatory sex and health education. It required that instruction be "age and developmentally appropriate" and allowed parents to have their children opt out. To call this an accomplishment seems a departure for a campaign that was insisting just last week that Mr. Obama had no legislation to his credit, conveniently ignoring his significant work on a lobbying reform bill. Mr. Obama's support for the Illinois measure seems both reasonable and relatively unimportant.

John McCain is a serious man who promised to wage a serious campaign. Win or lose, will he be able to look back on this one with pride? Right now, it's hard to see how.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 03:47 PM

"Unless, in fact, this election is about Palin. And it has to be. She - along with the Iraq war - is the embodiment of McCain's claim to presidential judgment and experience. If she is a fraud, and has been proven a demonstrable liar in ways that a competent campaign would have vetted six months ago, McCain's campaign is over, and deserves to be over. As is the election. I don't see how we can know anything until she has answered a series of obvious, factual questions from the press corps about the truthfulness of her various statements in the public record.

Besides, Obama needs to respond to the insane and desperate lies being lobbed at him. He's not Dukakis. And he should also keep reminding voters that, unlike the McCain camp, who don't want to discuss the issues in this campaign, he does.

Look: we seem to be on the verge of a financial crisis of potentially severe proportions, we have a nuclear-armed rogue state with a leadership in flux in North Korea, we have a direct war between the United States and the Taliban in Pakistani territory - and John McCain wants to talk about "lipstick on a pig" and a woman who didn't know the difference between a Shiite and Sunni two weeks ago. (I'm sure they've programmed her now).

They cannot be serious. I don't believe the McCain campaign is serious about anything any more, except bullying the press and running out the clock. This is the most shambolic campaign I have ever witnessed in a general election. If he runs his campaign this badly, how would he run the country?"