Skip to content

Month: August 2008

The Few The Brave

by digby

Dan at Pruning Shears has an interesting post up today about an unsung hero. I think all of us should spend some time giving some public props to those who “didn’t go crazy” during these crazy Bush years.

It was very difficult for people in the Bush administration — or anywhere — to stand up for what was right for quite a long time. I’m still discomfited by the extent to which the nation was cowed by the wingnuts after 9/11. I admire those who stood up when it was hard to do it.

.

The Gloves Are Off For Good

by digby

It would appear that McCain has started the fall campaign a little bit earlier than they might have planned due to their candidates’ unfortunate habit of being a fool.

In response to Obama’s aggressive moves today, they came out swinging with the first full on Rezko attacks and one of their 527s launched a series of ads about Obama’s relationship with 60s bomber William Ayers.

I don’t know if either of those attacks — or the sure-to-come Jeremiah Wright smears and some others we may not have thought of — will stick. Perhaps none of them will. But the point of these things isn’t to take Obama out with one fatal blow. It’s to keep raising doubts about the new guy and keep him from sealing the deal with the American people. The death by a thousand rapier swipes.

One thing is for sure. When they are attacked by the Democrats they are going to attack back. They aren’t playing defense. And when they aren’t being attacked by the Democrats they are also going to attack. This campaign is going to be vicious.

Will it work? I wouldn’t have thought so a few months ago. Now I’m less sure. But there’s no use debating the point. The Obama campaign is on notice: they are going to be under relentless attack until November. Whether they just endure it or fight back, those are the conditions under which this election campaign will be waged. The gloves ain’t going back on.

.

A Noun, A Verb and POW

by digby

HuffPo:

Facing a Democratic Party positively giddy over his recent admission that he didn’t know how many houses he owned, John McCain quickly returned to a political trump card: his POW experience.

Speaking to the Washington Post, aide Brian Rogers, in full damage-control mode, acknowledged that his boss had “some investment properties and stuff,” but added: “This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison.”

I’m frankly a little bit surprised they are being so cavalier with this. At some point even the somnambulent press corps is going to start rolling their eyes.

The Huffpo article goes on to catalog the many times McCain has rather awkwardly brought his POW history into the campaign even as they insist that he rarely talks about his experience.

The Obama campaign has decided that it’s not a good idea to say anything about McCain’s Vietnam service, but it certainly does seem like something that would be good fodder for comics and a reasonable line of inquiry from the press. To me, this is one of the most absurd aspects of the campaign — the idea that he can successfully get away with evoking his POW experience as a conversation stopper when he’s criticized for things completely unrelated to the military or national security (and even that’s a stretch) is simply mind-boggling.

They may have gone to the well once too often with this one. Using his time in the Hanoi Hilton to excuse the fact that he’s such an out-of-touch aristocrat that he doesn’t know how many houses he and his heiress wife own may have been the shark jumping moment for his POW schtick.

.

Rich Is A State Of Mind, Dude

by digby

Following up on dday’s post below — and the meme that is sweeping the blgoopshere this morning — McCain’s inability to remember how many houses he owns isn’t the only telling thing he said.

From the Politico:

McCain’s comments came four days after he initially told Pastor Rick Warren during a faith forum on Sunday his threshold for considering someone rich is $5 million — a careless comment he quickly corrected.

In the interview, McCain did not offer an alternate number, but had a new answer ready.

“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”

This must be why they need their taxes lowered.

McCain has actually a long history of not knowing about financial matters in his own family:

John and Cindy were married on May 17, 1980 at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix. They made a prenuptial agreement that kept most of her family’s assets under her name; they have since kept their finances apart and file separate income tax returns.

Her father’s business and political contacts helped gain her husband a foothold into Arizona politics; she campaigned with her husband door-to-door during his successful first bid for U.S. Congress in 1982,with her wealth from an expired trust from her parents providing significant loans to the campaign and helping it survive a period of early debt.

She moved back to Arizona in early 1984, and gave birth to her child, Meghan, later that year. She subsequently had John Sidney IV (known as “Jack”) (born 1986) and James (known as “Jimmy”) (born 1988). Her parents lived across the street and helped her raise the children while her husband was frequently in Washington; she typically only saw him on weekends.

In April 1986, she and her father invested $359,100 in a shopping center project with Phoenix banker Charles Keating. This, combined with her role as a bookkeeper who later had difficulty finding receipts for family trips on Keating’s jet, caused complications for her husband during the Keating Five scandal, when he was being examined for his role regarding oversight of Keating’s bank.

See, he’s a “poor” billionaire himself.

(You can see McCain’s 1989 press conference on the Keating Five scandal and the shopping center matter, here.)

I seem to recall a lot of horrible stuff being said about the henpecked John Kerry and his marriage to the wealthy heiress Teresa. But John and Teresa married deep into their middle age, long after both of them had already established their careers and identities. McCain’s entire political career has been tied to his marriage to a woman nearly 20 years his junior and her daddy’s vast wealth. I would think most Americans would find this aristocratic lifestyle as a consort to a liquor heiress just as “exotic” as Obama’s childhood is alleged to have been. In fact, Barack and Michelle Obama have led lives that are far more like the average American’s than John McCain.

Perhaps that’s another thing people just don’t know. I recall that in 1992, that’s why they did that “Man from Hope” movie for the convention — they’d found out that because Clinton had gone to ivy league schools, a lot of people assumed he came from wealth. When they reintroduced him as a self made man, people changed their minds about him.

I suspect that the opposite could be true about McCain. People know he was a POW, but they don’t know that he left his first wife for a much younger, wealthy woman whose daddy financed his political career. His only excuse (and probably a lie, at that) for not knowing how many houses he owns is that he doesn’t know anything about the family finances — his wife holds the purse strings.

It’s worth noting that McCain got very, very angry when he was questioned back in the 1980s about his wife and father in law’s business partnership with Charlie Keating:

McCain, in his autobiography, said he regrets staying at the meeting. He wrote that he should have left when one of the regulators said the meeting was “very unusual” and that he “really shouldn’t have come back” after learning that the regulators were sending the matter to the Justice Department.

Months later, questions emerged about why McCain did not reimburse Keating for all the Bahamas vacations. McCain said he thought that his wife, Cindy, had written checks for a number of trips, but documentation could not be found for any except the 1986 trip. McCain agreed to pay $13,433.

In addition, the Arizona Republic reported that Cindy McCain and her father had invested $359,100 in a shopping mall for which Keating was the principal backer. When reporters questioned the investment, John McCain wrote in his autobiography, he “shouted at them, cursed them, and eventually slammed the phone down on them. It was ridiculously immature behavior.”

I don’t get the impression that his behavior is any more mature today, despite the fact that he is over 70. His wife’s financial dealings seem to be a sore spot. I think it’s a good idea to poke at it.

.

The Bill O’Reilly Of Politics

by dday

I know how many houses I own (that would be zero). That’s the difference between me and John McCain.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

“I think — I’ll have my staff get to you,” McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. “It’s condominiums where — I’ll have them get to you.”

The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia, according to his staff. Newsweek estimated this summer that the couple owns at least seven properties.

So his staff is even lowballing it. I’ve heard as many as ten. Josh Marshall wants to start a contest. Actually you can look at the map of homes here. And as Matt Yglesias says, it’s actually a hard question to answer, which should tell you what a man of the people McCain is right there. Obama generously pegs it at 7.

The fabulous life of John McCain is best understood as a burning desire for personal glory. The fact that he pays lip service to the opposite is a dead giveaway. Max Bergmann had the best take: he’s a pundit.

Each of those statements from McCain sound like they came from an excited media pundit. Well that’s because they did.

McCain’s approach and tone on foreign policy has always been more emblematic of a tv pundit rather than a sober president. While McCain has attacked Obama as the “celebrity” candidate, the fact is that a bad place to be over the last 25 years has been between John McCain and a TV camera. The New York Times on Sunday noted that one of the first things McCain did after 9-11 was go on just about every TV program – where he incidentally called for attacking about four countries. In its biographical series profiling the candidates the Times also noted that McCain was attracted to the celebrity of the Senate with one close associate noting that McCain “saw the glamour of it. I think he really got smitten with the celebrity of power.” McCain clearly enjoys being on television and he has been a constant commentator on the Sunday news shows and the evening talk news programs.

But TV appearances encourage sound bites, over-the-top rhetoric, and good one-liners, not reasoned and nuanced diplomatic language. This is especially true from guests who are not in the current administration, since you are less likely to get invited back on Face the Nation if you down play a crisis or take a boring nuanced position. Thus on almost every crisis or incident over the last decade, McCain has sounded the alarm, ratcheted up the rhetoric and often called for military action – with almost no regards to the practical implications of such an approach.

And TV pundits make lots of money and maybe don’t know how many homes they own, but they don’t make for an attractive Presidency. McCain is the Bill O’Reilly of politics, always in the spotlight by making angry, irrational, hotheaded statements, drawing attention to himself with his quick draw, dangerous rhetoric.

A rich, out-of-touch, self-regarding, perpetually angry pundit.

UPDATE: Via yg bluig in comments, in case you thought the McCain campaign couldn’t work in a POW reference in response to this one, think again.

(spokesman Brian Rogers) also added: “This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison,” referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.

Leave John McCain ALLLLOOOOONNNNEEEEEEEE!!!!

.

Armistice?

by dday

Not exactly; three years is a long time. But while we’ve been hearing that the US-Iraq agreement on troops would have a “general time horizon” (as John Stewart said, something you move toward but never gets closer), this sure sounds like a timeline to me.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq’s cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal of combat troops from the country, according to senior American officials.

The draft agreement sets 2011 as the goal date by which U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq, according to Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Humood and other people familiar with the matter. In the meantime, American troops will be leaving cities, towns and other population centers by the summer of 2009, living in bases outside of those areas, according to the draft.

This is of course entirely dependent on the implementation, this only talks about combat troops, and many parts of the Iraqi government must agree to this (only Bush has to give this a thumbs up, because as you know we don’t have a Congress). But clearly, the Iraqi Parliament has been able to wring more concessions out of the Administration than anyone ever has, and they did it by using the Administration’s own tactics – getting close to the deadline and being stubborn – against them.

Iraq has plenty of its own problems – the looming powderkeg in Kirkuk, a more assertive Nouri al-Maliki pushing around prominent Sunnis throughout the country and muscling out Shiite rivals before provincial elections, the very real threat of spasms of violence if the elections are seen as rigged, and most troubling, Maliki simply won’t integrate the security forces.

A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing because the Iraqi government is failing to absorb tens of thousands of former Sunni Muslim insurgents who’d joined U.S.-allied militia groups into the country’s security forces […]

But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don’t intend to include most of the rest.

“We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently,” said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the issue. “Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida.”

He said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those militia members who hadn’t been absorbed into the security forces or given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they’d be arrested, he said.

Some militia members say that such a move would force them into open warfare with the government again.

These struggles are localized and, honestly, inevitable in the jockeying for power, and our troops there are serving no national interest for the United States OR Iraq. In fact, it’s very clear that their presence is allowing Maliki to edge out the competition, secure in the knowledge that our military will protect him. He figures he needs two or three more years to crush everyone, at which point the American combat troops he’s using as a proxy can leave (it also strengthens his hand to show his people that he ended the occupation). And so we are enabling authoritarianism and the building of a strongman. This endangers Iraq in the medium and long-term, but it sure makes the place safe for the multinationals for the time being.

A speedier withdrawal would remove that cover and, while making the country more chaotic in the short term, might actually force them to reconcile their differences (obviously we’d remain engaged diplomatically). Our troops are too precious and our military too broken to have them being used as a nascent dictator’s paramilitary with no strategic benefit to the United States.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman has some good thoughts on the politics of this.

.

Culture ‘O Life

by digby

Fanatics

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Rigel Anderson Report: John McCain’s campaign signaled on Wednesday that the Arizona senator is backing away from his previously stated goal of changing the GOP’s platform on abortion.

“There’s a process in place for the delegates to work on the platform and we are going to let that process work itself out,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told ABC News.

McCain’s plan to take a hands-off approach with the abortion platform stands in stark contrast with the position he took during his first presidential run.

Back in 2000, McCain clashed with then-Gov. George W. Bush over his unwillingness to change platform language that called for a human life amendment banning all abortions.

McCain implored Bush to join him in wanting to add exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother.

[…]

During an April 14, 2007 media availability which followed the Iowa GOP’s Lincoln Day Dinner in Des Moines, McCain reaffirmed his support for changing the platform.

But now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee, the McCain camp is making it clear that he has no plans to push for changes to the platform.

They won’t even allow abortion if the woman’s life is in danger? Yep. And they consider it so fundamental that if McCain changes it, he will be committing political suicide:

McCain’s decision to leave the platform untouched follows a warning from a prominent social conservative.

“If he were to change the party platform,” to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life, “I think that would be political suicide,” Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, told ABC News in May. “I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble.”

Welcome to the Dark Ages. May I offer you some mead?

I doubt even most conservatives think that a woman’s life should be sacrificed in favor of a fetus, much less normal people. Someone should tell them.

.

Sad

by digby

I always had a fondness for Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and I’m sad that she has died today. From all accounts of those who knew her, she was a good person and it was clear to all that she was a good liberal.

RIP

And make sure you get your blood pressure checked, people …

.

The Choice That Dare Not Speak Its Name

by digby

I keep hearing whispers the last few days from unlikely quarters that Hillary Clinton should be the vice presidential pick. Even the delegates to the convention, including the professional politico superdelegates, seem to agree:

Senator Hillary Clinton is by far the favorite choice for the number two spot on the Democratic ticket, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll of delegates to the Democratic convention. When asked who they would like Barack Obama to select, 28 percent volunteer her as their top choice for Vice Presidential nominee
Six percent volunteer Delaware Senator Joe Biden, and four percent mention two other unsuccessful Democratic candidates: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. [Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair.] Another 4 percent volunteer Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.

[..]

By more than five to one, superdelegates think putting Clinton on the ticket would help Obama win the election: 56 percent say she would help, 11 percent say she would hurt Obama’s chances. The rest are undecided or don’t think her candidacy would affect his chances of victory in November.

There is little difference between men and women delegates when it comes to a vice presidential choice: 27 percent of men and 30 percent of women volunteer Clinton’s name. There is also little difference by age.

In addition, about six in 10 women and a similar percentage of men say that Clinton’s name on the ticket would help Obama in the fall.

I’m personally incredibly uninterested in the VP pick — this parlor game is so lame and so tiresome by this point that I’ll just be glad when it’s decided. But if the strategy for the fall is now to win with a ground game and increased turnout of the base, there is some logic to choosing her over one of the others.

As long as he doesn’t pick a Republican I can live with it. (Please, don’t pick a Republican …)

Oh, and me likee:

McCain is one corrupt motha … shut your mouth!

.

Drafty?

by dday

John McCain hears town hall attendee say: “If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell,” says “I don’t disagree with anything you said.”

This kind of talk was on the “Internets” in 2004, but wasn’t completely pushed by Democrats, and there wasn’t actual video of the GOP candidate basically agreeing that we need a draft.

This time around? Well, VoteVets is on it, so far:

Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, “At least Senator McCain is being honest. A vote for him is a vote for the draft. Period. Unless Senator McCain radically changes his worldview, there would be a draft to implement his plans.”

Soltz added, “When you take into account his indefinite military commitment to Iraq, his desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, record lows in recruiting and retention, and possibly more wars he is looking to get into, like “Bomb Bomb Bomb” Iran, his numbers don’t add up without a draft. Whether America likes it or not isn’t relevant – a draft is the only way to do everything Senator McCain wants to do. I give him points for being honest and upfront, though, that we’re going to need a draft if he is elected.”

This is pretty clear. Your sons and daughters will be sent off to fight should any problem arise in the world. John McCain believes only in blunt force and aggression over diplomacy and multilateralism, and either we grind the existing troops further into dust or there’s a draft. There are no alternatives.

Particularly when you’re running a campaign based on increasing turnout from the under-30 set, I think this would be something you’d want to mention…

…The reason that we’re going to need a draft, of course, is because McCain is a reckless hothead who’s default setting is more war.

In an apparent effort to regain the offensive, the Obama campaign launched a broad attack on McCain today, portraying him as reckless on foreign policy, a hot-head who’s too willing to use force and not willing enough to apprise himself of facts on the ground before urging military action.

On a conference call with reporters just now, senior Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice argued that there is “a pattern here of recklessness” when it comes to McCain’s approach to various national security issues. She pointed out that McCain reacted too quickly with “aggressive and bellicose” rhetoric on the Russia-Georgia crisis, and contrasted that with Obama’s measured response to the dust-up.

“There’s something to be said for letting facts drive judgment,” Rice said, also referring to McCain’s desire to target Iraq right after 9/11.