What Is, Was, and Might Have Been

Seventeen commanding, emphatic, and inspirational minutes that include a blunt presidential imperative that America end its "addiction to fossil fuel":


What might have been:


What was:


Citizen K. is off to Washington D. C. to attend a conference on Cancer Survivorship Research: Recovery and Beyond. From there, he'll shuffle up to Boston to visit #1 son. Citizen K. is also very happy to announce that he has been accepted by the University of Washington as a candidate for a Master's in Health Care Administration...

Waitin' for a superman...

Take it away, Leon! (Who is that banjo player, anyway?)

Sweet Home Alabama

After this commercial hit the Alabama airwaves, Republican gubernatorial candidate Byrne, not about to be Swift Darwined, screamed bloody murder and declared, "I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true." He went on to attack "powerful government insiders," "corrupt Democrat and AEA (Alabama Education Association practices," and "power mongers" as being behind "these despicable attacks." He proudly concluded by saying, "Like so many other Alabamians, I was raised in a conservative-minded Democratic household," but changed parties fifteen years ago because of the Democratic party's "liberal social policies, wasteful spending habits and big-government expansion." Well.

Byrne, an insider himself who has held elective office off and on since 1994, is apparently the first candidate ever to run for high office because he is uninterested in power. And in Alabama, no less. As for the "conservative-minded Democratic household," that's Newspeak for saying that he was raised to believe in segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.  Does anyone doubt that his parents voted enthusiastically for this man?

But what about the ad? Does Byrne have a point? Yes, sort of. Apparently, the ad was placed by a right-wing PAC called True Republican that outs Byrne as a closet liberal (!) not in touch with Alabama values. The AEA, which has tangled with Byrne for years, helped finance True Republican, evidently on the theory that attacking Byrne from the right will bear greater fruit in Alabama than an assault from the left.

Which has left Byrne crying foul and claiming that he has been smeared, but for what? Telling the truth about natural selection? Not as he sees it: Byrne claims that he has never told the truth about Darwin, and he may be on to something: As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, he supported a science curriculum that includes this:

Explanations of the origin of life and major groups of plants and animals, including humans, shall be treated as theory and not as fact. When attempting to apply scientific knowledge to world problems, no social agenda shall be promoted. 

I'm not even going to comment on that last sentence.

Byrne's opponent has avoided the controversy, focusing instead on another critical issue faced by a state with 10.9% unemployment and that ranks 46th in per capita income:



According to Sarah Palin, "we're all Arizonans now." Sure, but which Arizonans? I wonder how many times Sarah Palin had been to Arizona before John McCain decided that she would help him get elected president. It wouldn't surprise me if she hadn't even heard of it...

McCain not only created the Palin Frankenstein, he bears responsibility for the demise of ACORN, which began when he made accusations of voter registration fraud that he must have known were groundless (which has been shown again and again and again). Nonetheless, his words stuck in the most impressionable ears outside of a four-year old who believes in Santa Claus, and the relentless hectoring of a respected community organization got underway. Now that he's pandering to the worst elements of the Arizona electorate by tangling himself in stained political bedsheets with the deranged Russell Pearce, McCain is certain to end his career as a bitter crank who willingly sacrificed his integrity because he couldn't bear to leave the U. S. Senate...

Breaking News: Republicans Are Hypocrites

Few people have a better nose for hypocrisy than Rachel Maddow. Here, she points out the irony of Republicans excoriating the federal government for letting illegal immigration get out of hand while at the same time refusing to do anything about it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John McCain's rhetoric blaming President Obama for failing to secure the border is, unsurprisingly, especially egregious. As McCain well knows, a Clinton-era crackdown on illegal immigration into southern California called Operation Gatekeeper diverted migrant traffic to Arizona. Rather than continue north, most stayed in the state, taking advantage of Arizona's strong economy and employer willingness to hire them at low wages. For 11 years through two presidential administrations, McCain kept his mouth shut until 2005 , when he co-sponsored (with the late Edward Kennedy) the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, which never made it out of committee. The bill, which combined amnesty, guest worker, and border security programs, served as a template for similar bipartisan legislation attempts in 2006 and 2007, none of which succeeded after coming under pressure from all sides of the immigration debate. In other words, after 14 years of opportunity on this issue (longer, if you consider that McCain was first elected to the Senate in 1982), by his own standards McCain's record on this issue is one of silence and failure. And, yet, this is all the fault of Barack Obama, who in 1994 taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Equally brazen are Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and notably execrable Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). McConnell says "I just don't think the time is right" for immigration reform. Well, Mitch, if not now, when? This wouldn't have anything to do with you wanting to be majority leader, would it? After all, immigration reform would help Harry Reid's tough reelection campaign in economically ravaged Nevada.

As for Saxby Chambliss' demurral that "we've" got a lot of work to do, work on what? All the Republicans do is vote no and filibuster. How hard can that be? Ah, the audacity of dopes...

You think Rachel was through? Are you kidding? Yesterday was a huge day for Republican hypocrisy as they piously emoted about the need for financial reform while filibustering debate on the issue. That's right: They want to parade their self-righteous indignation in front of cameras while unanimously refusing to discuss the matter on the Senate floor. The Democrats, though, sense public opinion on their side and plan to pressure the Republicans by forcing a vote every day. At last!...

Songs of innocence...

United States counties protected by levees (Thanks, Editilla)...

Jon Stewart explains the Arizona law so that even an spelling-challenged teabagger who thinks immigrants should larn American can understand it. Read on for the account of a white supremacist opening a youth club in Odessa, KS...

The law polls well, but that's because of the difficulty of devising a neutrally-state question about a hot button issue that is nonetheless complex. I wonder what the poll results would be were the question put like this:

Should a majority ethnic group pass an immigration law with serious fairness, constitutional, and economic implications purely out of frustration with a minority, 80% of whom reside legally in the affected area?

What do these numbers tell you?...

The most sensitive man in America?...

Utterly Hilarious Dept: Like...like...like a quitter...on the roof.

Lazyboy asks the hard question: If everyone grows up with self-esteem, who is going to dance in our strip clubs?

The Best Lack All Conviction

It's been long apparent that John McCain has sacrificed every conviction he ever had on the altar of preserving his political skin. If that weren't already evident, his craven and pandering call for President Obama to militarize our southern border confirms the worst: The man who stood up to the brutal tortures of his North Vietnamese captors now runs like a rabbit from the teabaggers and the right-wing crank radio talk show host challenging him for the Senate seat McCain has held for 24 years. Said McCain at a Phoenix news conference:

If the president doesn’t like what the Arizona Legislature and governor may be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the dispatch of 3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000 additional Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well. And that way, then the state of Arizona will not have to enact legislation which they have to do because of the federal government’s failure to carry out its responsibilities, which is to secure the borders.

McCain, who at one time favored comprehensive immigration reform that included amnesty for illegal immigrants, did not note that National Troops are deployed at the discretion of state's governor; that Border Patrol arrests in the Tuscon and Yuma sectors exceed arrests in Texas, New Mexico, and California combined; that from 2002-2006 Border Patrol agents apprehended 1.8 million migrants crossing into Arizona; or that heightened security in California and Texas (Operations Gatekeeper and Hold the Line) diverted the immigrant traffic into Arizona.

Big John speaks loudly but wields a mighty small stick. For one thing, it's hard to see what he expects to accomplish by adding 6000 National Guardsmen and BP agents to the 3000 already in Arizona. The Arizona-Mexico border is 351 miles long. Even filling his request (which would require diverting agents from other border areas, leaving them more vulnerable to crossing) would place one soldier or agent every 205 feet, or two-thirds the length of a football field. It won't take LaDanian Tomlinson to run through that hole.

Not only that, experts argue that an immigration policy based only on security is counterproductive. Directed at the most heavily trafficked points of crossing, security crackdowns succeed in diverting immigrants to remote and dangerous areas. Not only does this result in more immigrant deaths (not that the people who enacted this law care about that), it encourages illegal immigrants to stay put once they are here and to bring their families over.

No matter what the teabaggers and vigilantes think, the United States is not about to round up 12,000,000 people and deport them. The affront to civil liberties and the cost in dollars is too immense to contemplate. Even if Big John and colleagues wanted to spend the money, their own fiscal policy has rendered that impossible.

The fundamental issue is one that any free marketeer can understand: The United States per capita income is $46,400; in Mexico, it's $13,500. Unless and until there's a more equal balance, people from the south will come to El Norte even for low wage jobs that Americans traditionally haven't wanted to do at any pay. Some of them will smuggle drugs along the way, and why not? The supply is there and the demand is here, it pays, and it's not like they're welcomed into this country with open arms. Moreover, we can't expect much help from Mexico because it is a desperately poor country that depends on the money sent back by the migrants.

Some claim that the employment issue has become more complicated. Says one BP agent:

It’s a flat-out lie that illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t do. American companies are hiring skilled workers at low wages compared to US wages. We’re now catching welders, auto mechanics, heavy equipment operators, even nuclear power-plant workers. The strawberry pickers are a thing of the past. These people don’t live in wigwams. They have stuff, and want more stuff.

Which makes them different from Americans how?

According to the same article, over 8,000 American companies of all sizes have undocumented workers on payrolls. But if this is the case, doesn't it make more sense to go after the employers and not the workers?

One thing I am not is an expert on immigration matters. But I don't see an answer here as long as the income disparity exists. We can initiate an amnesty program for workers already here, but that does nothing to remove the incentive for others to cross the border. And they'll come for the same reason immigrants have always come to America: For the money and the opportunity.

We could try to build a fence, I suppose, but at what cost? A 2006 non-partisan study estimated a cost of $49 billion for 700 miles of fence (the entire border is 1,952 miles long) that would last for 25 years before needing replacement. Another study found that "the $49 billion does not include the expense of acquiring private land along hundreds of miles of border or the cost of labor if the job is done by private contractors -- both of which could drive the price billions of dollars higher." And the price hasn't gotten cheaper since 2006. Plus, a fence is unlikely to work: When you're talking about a 4:1 income disparity, people will figure out ways to go around, over, or through a fence to get on the 4 side. Anyway, do we really want to fence ourselves in? It seems like an expensive idea driven by paranoia and frustration and doomed to failure. Then where will we be?

We are in grave danger of a policy that will be expensive, fruitless, frustrating, and as futile as the War on Drugs. It's time to face facts: If the United States wants to significantly reduce illegal immigration, then it must recognize a national interest in Mexico raising its standard of living. How we go about assisting in that without provoking a political upheaval at home is another story.

If you want to take the long view, we're harvesting the fruits of Manifest Destiny and imperialism. The Mexican War, which was essentially a land grab, established an artificial political border that never took into account the indigenous populations. A young officer named Ulysses S. Grant served in the Mexican War and later wrote that it was "one of the most unjust ever waged on a weaker company by a stronger." Maybe it's true: As ye sow, so shall ye reap...

Nicholas Lemann analyzes the new discipline of terrorism studies. According to Lemann's readings of these books, everything works and nothing works: The same tactic that works in one locale can fail so dismally in another as to be counterproductive...

Robert Creamer writes optimistically that the Arizona of 2010 is the Alabama of 1963, meaning that the obvious injustice of the law will cause decent people to speak out. I wish I shared his optimism. In 1963, white America outside of the south tended to view Civil Rights as a southern problem; that America was never enthusiastic about addressing race issues in its own back yard. Maybe people will see the Arizona law as an outrage; I hope so. But I fear that too many whites will regard it as a necessary step to stemming a brown horde that they see as overrunning the country. As long as it doesn't raise the price of lettuce...

Robert Kuttner thinks it's a good thing that Obama has rejected a bipartisan approach to health care reform. Along with Paul Krugman, there is no better writer about economic policy than Kuttner...

Freddy Fender sings Ry Cooder's "Across the Borderline" (music starts about 1:20 in and includes an effective montage):


Bruce Springsteen's tender "Across the Border" is one the Boss's best songs:

Scorecard

I found this great picture of Barack Obama at a recent rally in Pennsylvania at Change Your World. There are more here, plus a partial transcript and video of last night's infomercial here...

The infomercial pretty much succeeded on its own terms. It seemed intended to spur on committed supporters and allay any lingering fears of leaners. I doubt that it changed any minds or won over anyone truly undecided, but it wasn't trying to accomplish that, either...

BTW, the infomercial did not delay the World Series. In some time zones, it preempted the pre-game show, thus sparing millions of  Americans from the pontifications of Joe "This Is Really, Really, Really Serious" Buck and Tim "Flab Lip" McCarver. Republicans and Democrats alike should be grateful for that...

With less than a week to go, here's h0w some pundits and prognosticators see the electoral vote count:

FiveThirtyEight

Obama 344

McCain 194

Pollster.com

Obama (strong) 272

Obama (lean) 039

Obama total 311

McCain (strong) 123

McCain (lean) 019

McCain total 142

Toss-up 085

Daily Kos

Obama 357

McCain 181

Karl Rove (!)

Obama 311

McCain 157

Toss-Up 070

Bill O'Reilly (!!)

Obama 286

McCain 163

Toss-Up 089

CNN

Obama (strong) 203

Obama (lean) 088

Obama total 291

McCain (strong) 122

McCain (lean) 041

McCain total 163

Toss-up 084

Socialist Orator Draws Over 100,000 Denver Dupes

I wonder how many of them are plumbers. According to Rachel Maddow on Air America, a John McCain rally the day before -- also in Denver -- attracted 4,000 true believers.

John McCain has become unhinged. Watch:

Now, why would anyone cheer -- make that cheer wildly -- a remark like this? How many of them would be o.k. with a nuclear reactor in their town? That's the big flaw in his plan for 45 new nuclear reactors: Who would take them? Who would take the waste?

Similarly, I heard a radio clip of a McCain crowd booing a McCain accusation of Obama's desire to "spread the wealth." Johnny, that's just not a winning theme, especially when Republican tax policies have been spreading the wealth up for the last eight years. As Hendrik Hertzberg points out here, McCain's point is pretty silly:

The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent.

Deliciously, Hertzberg has uncovered a quote of McCain arguing that the wealthy should pay higher taxes and of Sarah Palin bragging that in Alaska, "we share in the wealth." It's great reading; don't miss it...

I loved 'em, my kids loved 'em, and it's nice to know that my grandsons probably will, too. Thanks to Hot Wheels, Mattel has a higher market valuation than General Motors. More here, and great pix of vintage models here...

Change Your World has taken the time to collect transcripts of nine McCain robocalls and exposing the lies and half truths. Great work...

Molly the Dog of the blog Caterpillars and Butterflies is a nurse at an inner city clinic. Here, she writes of her encounter with an aging construction worker who can't afford his meds for high blood pressure and diabetes...

Joe the Rat prepares to desert the sinking ship...

Here's the worst idea since John McCain picked Sarah Palin: Led Zeppelin considers touring without Robert Plant. Think of The Who touring without Roger Daltry. Or Pearl Jam touring without Eddie Vedder. Or George Bush being interviewed without Dick Cheney. Or Santa delivering presents without Rudolph. Or the Army Corps of Engineers without an excuse for every gallon of water that broke through the New Orleans levees. Don't do it, guys...

Debate III: The Wheels Come Off

I hate to admit it, but McCain started off well last night: He was uncharacteristically crisp and engaged. Obama, on the other hand seemed to be somewhere else. In fact, an early split screen caught him staring into space during one McCain statement. Then came the question about negative campaigning, specifically was either candidate prepared to say to the other's face what their ads had been claiming. (Unsurprisingly, neither man took up the opportunity.)

Instead, McCain started whining about John Lewis, and at the same time tried -- not to sound like Joe Biden, but it fits here -- literally incredibly to claim that his campaign had taken the high road of jobs and the economy. At this point, the wheels came off. In a near Muskie moment, the former POW and 26-year veteran of national politics whimpered that Lewis' comparison darker aspects of the McCain campaign to George Wallace's race-baiting to be "hurtful." This is the guy who "knows how" to capture Osama bin Ladn and "win" in Iraq?Meanwhile, Obama remarked that while it was in fact a tough campaign, he could take three more weeks of negative campaigning but the American people couldn’t take four more years of Bush economics.

McCain didn’t do himself any favors by sneering at protecting the health of a woman as being a necessary part of any abortion legislation. This is a line Democrats, independents and more than a few Republicans simply won't cross. By deriding it, McCain not impugned the ethics of millions of voters, he all but said that they hadn't given the matter serious thought. By now, I'd say that if there's one thing Americans have given a lot of thought to, it's reproductive choice. Not a shining moment for the Straight Talk Express.

McCain is all over the place. He talks about a spending freeze on one hand and building 45 nuclear power plants on the other (estimated cost 9 bil per, and I’d like to know what nuclear power plant ever came in at its estimate. Plus, who will take them?). He invoked Trig Palin as an example of the need for Americans to "dig deep" to find a cure for autism (Trig actually has Down's Syndrome, not autism) while averring time and again that throwing money at problems was not the way to solve them.

McCain's closing — which might have been effective eight years ago — was counterproductive. He basically said “trust me because I”m a McCain and I know how to...” but that’s what we’ve been hearing from Bush for two terms. Right now, people aren’t going to buy that from anyone, no matter how well-intended.

Obama had his good moments and weak spots — he was kind of slack at the beginning — but basically he ran the ball into the line to kill the clock. To me, his finest moment came when he steadfastly defended his policy toward Colombia ("our closest ally" in South America McCain called it) on the basis of that country's poor record on human rights and labor. When it comes to Central and South America, the Unites States does not have a proud history; it was inspiring to hear a presidential candidate put human rights and decency ahead of realpolitik. 

I was a little surprised that the snap polls showed Obama winning so handily, although maybe that isn’t so surprising when you consider the lead he’s built up. Plus, McCain's claims that he was running a positive campaign based on issues strained credulity to the point that the few remaining voters may well conclude that he is a liar. And once that happens...

When the debates began, I thought that Obama had a tendency to miss openings. Now, I've come to believe that he chooses the ones he wants to blow through. McCain offers so many, and the last thing Obama needs is to look like he's mugging an old white guy...

I'm not going to say much about "Joe The Plumber" other than something that started out as condescending swiftly became comical...

For those of you unfamiliar with the name of John Lewis, the 21-year Georgia congressman began his career in public life as a Freedom Rider. Beaten by an Alabama mob in 1961, he rose to leadership of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and spoke at the famous Washington March of 1963, the event at which Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream..." speech. Although a Hillary Clinton supporter, Lewis had this to say about Obama's nomination: 

“If someone had told me this would be happening now, I would have told them they were crazy, out of their mind, they didn’t know what they were talking about ... I just wish the others were around to see this day. ... To the people who were beaten, put in jail, were asked questions they could never answer to register to vote, it’s amazing.”

You know, if John Lewis says your campaign has taken on elements of segregationist hate, perhaps you ought to listen. It's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about...

Has the McCain campaign taken the low road? And if not, what to make of supporters like these:

To wash the bad taste from your mouth, here's the TV ad version of Ralph Stanley's endorsement of "Barack." And dig Ralph's accent when he pronounces "Virginia"!

Debate II

I went to bed feeling good about the debate and woke up feeling even better. Barack Obama came across as a poised and independent thinker who has considered the issues and developed cogent policy responses. McCain -- especially on domestic policy -- often spoke in fragments and non sequiturs until he could steer the response to stump remarks, and as a result often sounded incoherent. While he may have known what he was talking about, it's not clear to me that anyone else did. 

Obama, on the 0ther hand, took the same approach to this debate as he has to his campaign. He reminds me of the Bjorn Borg, the Swedish tennis star and five-time Wimbledon champion. Borg remained unflappable at all times, pounded away relentlessly from the base line, and collected points as industriously as an ant laying up supplies for the winter. Suddenly and imperceptibly, he was in control of match. To say Obama "hasn't closed the deal" or didn't land a "knockout punch" fundamentally misunderstands how he has gone about his campaign. Last night was no different: He answered the questions respectfully and articulately and let his persona sink in while his lead accumulated. It's no surprise that the post debate snap polls had him winning handily (here, here, and here)...

The format supposedly favored McCain, but after watching his performance it's hard to see why. His strongest moment came when he answered the question posed by the former Chief Petty Officer. McCain was in his element and his appreciation of the man and his service was obviously sincere. However, the more removed the questioner was from a white male with military service, the less certain McCain appeared. It occurs to me that he may have performed better in previous town hall-style debates because the attendees were mostly Republican...

The early CW is that tonight's debate was not a game changer and that the polls will remain the same. I disagree: I think this was a strong night for Obama and that he will continue to build on his lead. This is now Barack Obama's election to lose...

Top moment: A presidential candidate (Obama, natch) stating directly and unambiguously that health care in this country is a right...

Most irritating moments: McCain repeatedly using Joe Lieberman as an example of his capacity to work with Democrats. One of my fondest hopes for Election Day is that Democrats win enough Senate seats to drum the Benedict Arnold of the Connecticut out of the party...

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight thinks its time to start wondering what Obama's ceiling might be...

The New York Times reflects on the debased state of the McCain-Palin campaign: "It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember." The rest is here...

Finally, the great Ralph Stanley -- a national treasure if there ever was one -- endorses Barack Obama for president. Listen here...

Why Shouldn't I Gloat?

So, I'm gone ten days and what happens? Conservatism collapses as a viable ideology. A new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama trouncing McCain in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and he leads in every national poll, often by numbers that can't be explained away as a "statistical tie." Sarah Palin wilts under the relentless questioning of Katie Couric. (Tina Fey dined on Palin's carcass with exquisite gusto.)  In fact, the only remotely sour note for me personally was actually finding myself on the same side as ultra-right Republicans in opposing the bailout...

One columnist tut-tutted his fellow liberals for gloating over the Wall Street collapse and the disarray among Republicans. This is serious business that should be treated seriously; it's no time for schadenfreude. Well, I beg to differ. I'm quite capable of feeling concern for the middle- and l0wer-class people hammered by financial deregulation while at the same time enjoying the implosion of the malignant ideology that visited this mess on my country. For over thirty years, conservatives have ridiculed liberals, impugned our patriotism, and attacked us savagely at every turn in a effort to polarize the country to their political benefit.

Now, a month before the election, their economic philosophy has been exposed as a fraud, their foreign policy based on military might lays in tatters, and they are in grave danger of losing the presidential election to a black liberal. Why shouldn't I enjoy the moment? I'm not made of stone, you know...

The Audacity of Hype: I'm published! And by a publication I respect and that I've been reading for twenty years! The new issue of Rock and Rap Confidential, an e-zine edited by Dave Marsh and Lee Ballinger, includes a version of my blog entry "Tom Joad Lives". For a free copy of RRC -- available only via email -- write to rockrap@aol.com. Thanks to Stupid & Contagious for his support. And to Premium T. for getting me to write again...

"Dukes" Fan Cries Foul: Dave Archer writes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

I am so incensed by Bill Maher's recent incendiary comments about Sarah Palin that I can barely hold my hands steady enough to type this letter. To say that the only type of people dumb enough to vote for Palin are the people who would wait in line to watch a "Dukes of Hazzard" movie is totally offensive and untrue. You are free to call me a dumb hillbilly who was weaned on the hilarious adventures of those good old Hazzard boys -- just don't insinuate that someone like me is dumb enough to vote for Sarah Palin.

We Report, You Decide Dept: A typical example of the "fair and balanced" reporting exclusive to Fox News:

We had a great trip to New York. I'll list the restaurants, the menus and review the highlights tomorrow, In the meantime, we're going to hit the ground running tonight when we see Alison Krause and Robert Plant:

The Scent of Fear

William Greider writes:

For the first time in this unfolding financial crisis, I felt personally scared by the news. Not about my money, but about the potential for catastrophe. The Federal Reserve's lightning rescue of AIG has the smell of systemic fear. The house of global finance is on fire and everyone is running for the exits, no sure way to turn them around. What's next? The question itself is ominous, because there are no good answers.

The rest is here. I've heard Greider speak. He's neither a bomb thrower nor a polemicist. He's a thoughtful, low-keyed man not given to alarmist pronouncements. If he's scared, the rest of us might want to take heed...

John McCain is simply not up to this challenge. He's too hidebound and too invested in a discredited approach to the economy. What has he proposed? Forming a commission and firing Christopher Cox evade the issue, which is that the problem arises from a systemic and wrong redefinition of the financial markets that has privatized profit and socialized risk. And John McCain committed to this with one vote after another. 

Obama needs to say more and soon, but at least he’s on the right track by calling for a return to regulation and taxpayer protection. The time is ripe for him to make a major speech about the economy replete with detailed proposals of what he will do as president. I would make it apolitical, other than “inviting” his opponent to do the same. 

Everyday People

The New York Times reports on the unprecedented nature of a major financial crisis arising toward the end of a presidential campaign. As the Treasury secretary and the chairman of the Fed brief each candidate daily, their responses are telling: Barack Obama consults daily with his financial advisors to develop a measured response that protects taxpayers, John McCain lurches daily from one contradictory position to another: 

On Tuesday, Mr. McCain said he would oppose a federal bailout of the insurance giant American International Group, only to endorse it as unavoidable the next day when the Federal Reserve took over A.I.G. to prevent its losses from infecting other financial institutions. Also on Tuesday, Mr. McCain proposed a “9/11-style commission” to study the problem and recommend solutions for the long term, then switched Thursday to propose the creation of a government agency as soon as possible.

It's easy to poke fun at McCain (see cartoon above), but there's a deeper theme at work, namely that this is a panicky reaction from a guy who doesn't know what he's doing. His sudden conversion to government regulation of financial markets has all the credibility of George Bush announcing progress in Iraq. It's also instructive that McCain didn't even express concern (remember the fundamentally sound economy of last week) until there was a demonstrable impact on major investors. But between mortgage foreclosures and tightening credit, everyday people have felt the pain for months now. Demanding that Bush fire SEC chair Christopher Cox might feel good, but what qualifications does McCain want a potential replacement to have? We're watching the presidential candidate of a major party lash out, hope that he hits something, and that if he does it will make everyone feel good. This is a governing philosophy?...

In truth, the macro solution to all of this is simple enough: Pay our bills and reinstate the Glass-Steagall constraints on the banking and finance markets. Assuming they have the will to do so, both candidates can muster popular support for the latter, although Obama can go about it with more credibility. But who has the courage to tell the truth about the former? Of course, we'd have more money as a nation were we not pouring billions of dollars a month into the gluttonous maw of Iraq...

Helen Thomas, octogenarian, reporter, and national treasure, continues to write with the boldness of youth. Here, she sums up the McCain-Palin ticket with insight and perspective and--- as usual -- without mincing a single word:

"In accepting the nomination as veep, she [Palin] invoked the greatness of President Truman, based on their small-town origins. But anyone who was around during Truman's era knows there is a world of difference between Palin and Truman. Take, for example, humility..."

Obama is more suited than Hillary Clinton to address regulatory needs: Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which is at the regulatory root of this mess, into law...

Premium T. and I light out to the east coast for a few days, to visit my father in Maine and take in the sights and sounds of NYC. I doubt we'll have internet access in Maine, so we'll be reporting next from the Big Apple!

Friday's Choice: Sly & The Family Stone perform "Everyday People":

McCain Truth Watch: He Was Against Them Before He Was Against Them

This morning, John McCain attempted to blame the Wall St. meltdown on a failure of the SEC to enforce some obscure regulations. What he didn't say is that the Bush Administration began to hamstring the SEC's regulatory abilities as far back as 2002 by cutting its budget. Nor did the s0-called party maverick add that he was silent on the matter, or that as a "fundamental deregulator," he no doubt supported Bush's efforts anyway...

McCain cites his membership on the Commerce Committee as proof that he has the experience to manage the economy. A few days ago, McCain ran against the "old bulls" of Washington. Now, he's running as one. Problem is, the Commerce Committee specifically does not handle legislation involving credit, financial services, and housing -- the very areas now in crisis...

Katha Pollit has ten questions for Sarah Palin, starting with this one: "Suppose your 14-year-old daughter Willow is brutally raped in her bedroom by an intruder. She becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the parents of America why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapists' babies?"....

Joe Biden thinks that it doesn't matter what committees McCain is on or not on: When it comes to the economy, the guy just doesn't get it  In other words, most people know that their house is on fire before they fire engines pull up outside, sirens blaring. Unless, of course, they were at one of their other seven houses at the time...

You can't fool all of the people all of the time...

Duh Dept: Michael Kinsley writes that no matter which set of numbers you use or how you slant them, Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans...

Who does she think she is? Sarah Palin?...

Trivial Pursuit: Sarah sez "If you want specifics and specific policy or countries, go ahead, you can ask me. You can even play stump-the-candidate if you want." Great. Running Trivial Pursuit's "Geography" category now qualifies you to be President of the United States...

It turns out that you can see Alaska from Russia. What that has to do with foreign policy, though, is less clear than a foggy day on the Bering Strait...

McCain Truth Watch: The Great Regulator

An open letter to John McCain:

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act removed Depression-era safeguards banning banks from offering investment, insurance, and commercial banking services. Gramm-Leach-Bliley also reduced the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulatory oversight of financial markets. This set the stage for the subprime mortgage crisis that led to the current financial meltdown on Wall Street, which you describe as an economy in crisis.  Senator McCain, you supported this bill, a bill with provisions that created what one of your television advertisements calls a betrayal of the American worker. My questions are these: As a senator, was your support of Gramm-Leach-Bliley a betrayal of the American worker? As president, will you act to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley?...

I haven't written much about music lately because of the election. But I'd be remiss in not recommending Patricia Barber's The Cole Porter Mix. Barber is not only that rarity in jazz -- a gifted songwriter, singer, and pianist -- she has a special place in my life because I took Premium T. to see her quartet on our first date. She's at the top of her game on Cole Porter, where she and her quartet perform ten of the great man's songs as well as three written by Barber in the Porter style. And if you think that's hubris carried to a ridiculous extreme, judge for yourself. On "Snow," she conjures Porter's inimitable wit:

Do you think of me like fat

Irresistible as cream

On your lips, on your hips

Like chocolate, like a dream?

On "The New Year's Eve Song," she captures Porter's remarkable emotive power by echoing his brilliant "So In Love," one of the greatest songs in the history of musical theatre:

will He kiss her on New Year's Eve
after the last guests leave
then kiss her again, will He
peek in the mirror while She

knowing he's watching her tease
stripping the gown with ease
bare as the New Year She
so in love with her is he

Barber's lovely, unique contralto is in splendid form throughout, as is her always tasteful piano playing. Superb from beginning to end...

Finally, don't miss this assortment of campaign ads past, presented by John Dickerson of Slate:

McCain Truth Watch: Blinded By The Light

Somewhere on the road to Tampa, John McCain decided that the economy was not "fundamentally sound," as he had claimed. A searing light knocked him off of his elephant, and it came to pass that he had a vision. And he saw that the economy was in crisis. And it came to pass that he knew that the cause of the crisis was the deadly sin of  "unbridled greed" of Wall Street. Elect me, O People, he cried, and I will clean up the mess...in Washington.

He didn't explain how cleaning up a mess in Washington created by himself and his fellow Republicans would address problems with Wall Street. Nor did the man who describes himself as "fundamentally a deregulator" mention that, as a deregulator, he helped remove the bridles of greed by supporting legislation to reduce the SEC's oversight of financial markets. Nor did the candidate who claims to be maverick explain his lemming-like fealty to Republican free market orthodoxy. Nor did the so-called straight talker show enough respect to the American people to offer any actual proposals. Instead, the self-styled scourge of bureaucracy says that Wall Street greed is best bridled by forming a committee! If his convention speech is any indicator, the committee will serve as a smokescreen while McCain "solves" the problem by applying the same measures that brought it about. Go figure...

Wasilla, the crystal meth capital of Alaska...

E. J. Dionne exposes the real elitists...

If ever there was a prophet without honor in his own country, it's Bob Herbert. An excellent columnist with an unfailing nose for the powerful screwing the middle class and the poor, here he exposes the McCain health plan as being " right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone..."

What Did She Say? According to McCain advisor and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin may be qualified to run the country, but she's not qualified to run Hewlett-Packard:

He Was Against Them Before He Was For Them

I watched some of John McCain's town hall meeting this morning at the gym. God, but the man is dull as dirt! And, it took him forever to get around to making anything resembling a point. And when he did...

...He blamed the current financial crisis on the New Deal banking and financial regulations of the 1930s and on the failure of federal regulators to do their jobs. Problem is, conservatives have been chipping away at those regulations practically since their inception. The pinnacle of their efforts came in 2000, when then Senator Phil Gramm, a long-time McCain friend and advisor, succeeded in passing legislation that not only greatly deregulated the banking and financial businesses, but underfunded the Securities and Exchange Commission to the point that they couldn't enforce what regulations remained. This legislation created the base for the finance business to get involved in the mortgage business and encouraged the predatory loans that have spelled grief for home buyers and that are crippling Wall Street. That's the source of the problem. David Corn explains it here...

How McCain will repair this when he has by his own admission paid little attention to the economy and when his chief economic advisor is the author of the current catastrophe, he doesn't say. Nonetheless, in the same town meeting, he assured us that he "knows how" to fix the economy. Well, if that's the case, why hasn't he done more as a senator?...

McCain also bragged about how he has "bucked" his party, then ironically moved on to the topic of immigration reform. I say "ironically" because here is an example of an issue where he started off in opposition to his party, then changed his views when the blowback from the right became too strong. For that matter, he wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate, only to bow to pressure from the right that he choose someone else...

Sarah Palin didn't go to Ireland on the same trip that she didn't go to Iraq. It's becoming plainer and plainer that she has as tenuous as link to reality as George Bush. The great E. J. Dionne wonders whether the media will be as tough on her about this as they were when Hillary Clinton claimed she had come under sniper fire...

The Man Who Would Be President

Roberta Riley writes: 

On top of the overall financial insecurity squeezing middle-class families, women still earn only 77 cents to every dollar made by men. Despite strong evidence that some women are segregated into low-paying occupations, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a Bush economic adviser from the Independent Women's Forum, voiced the administration's opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, arguing the wage gap stems from women's different "choice of occupation." While there might be some truth to that, it's not the whole truth. Lilly Ledbetter worked for decades at an Alabama Goodyear plant doing the same job as her male co-workers. After she learned the men received better pay, she sued and a jury awarded her fair compensation. Rather than pay a modest sum to a wronged employee, Goodyear pursued the case all the way to the Supreme Court. There Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Bush II appointees approved by McCain, reversed the verdict. Their decision paves the way for companies to commit rampant pay discrimination. With the devil buried in the details of a lengthy court decision, McCain and Bush cloak their complicity in the economic harm that Ledbetter v. Goodyear will cause women for years to come. When pressed on the subject, McCain did admit he supports the ruling and opposes reparative legislation. He also promises to fill future court vacancies with "clones of Alito and Roberts.

In short, Bush-McCain put corporate interests -- no matter how slimy or unjust -- ahead of ordinary citizens. Supporting Lily Ledbetter's suit should have been a slam dunk; the injustice is clear and unambiguous. Yet the Bush Supreme Court -- and the next president may get to appoint up to three new justices -- ignored that in favor of a questionable technicality. The remainder of Riley's excellent article about the impact of the Bush Administration on women and why we can expect more of the same from John McCain is here...

Where does John McCain stand overall on women's issues? You can't find out from his web site, although it does have a discussion of "Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life." (I looked, and "Human Dignity" does not include such trivialities as equal pay for equal work.) Otherwise, there is no heading or link to women's issues. On the other hand, Barack Obama's site puts forth his positions on women's issues in detail. These include the health care, reproductive choice, preventing violence against women, economic issues (including pay inequity), national security, poverty, and education.

One candidate has thought through in detail the interrelationship of overarching issues as they relate to woman as well as issues of specific concern to a constituency that comprises half of the country. The other hasn't even bothered to put lipstick on a chauvinist pig...

As Homer Simpson would say, it's funny because it's true:

9/11 And After

Andrew Bacevich discusses the lessons and legacies of 9/11. He points out that the war has been a complete failure based on the Bush Administration's own stated goals:

More from Bacevich here...

The Seven Minutes:

Keith Olbermann on the Bush/McCain/Republican exploitation of 9/11:

Olbermann makes a good point: If John McCain really knows how to capture Osama bin Laden, why doesn't he fill the Administration in on it now instead of waiting to see whether he gets elected president or not...

As for the men and women who have given their bodies and their sanity for the hubris of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, and Wolfowitz, the organization formed to support them is more interested in its bureaucratic prerogatives than in meetings their needs...

Meanwhile, the Coalition of the Willing is becoming a Coalition of One...

Change Strategies

The McCain strategy is now apparent: Market "change" as occasional opposition to party orthodoxy, bring a fresh young face to the ticket whose marginal credentials as a change agent are obscured by her looks and demeanor, and deploy this face as a firewall to the gender gap and as a distraction from his and her actual policies (which are not change). Selling this idea of change is both the most critical and risky tactic, so any discussion of Palin serves as a distraction to undecided voters and thus heightens the chances of them accepting his definition of change.

The target voters are not white women. They are white men without a college education, specifically ones who are reluctant to vote for a black candidate but who -- like most people -- are at the same time fed up with Republican rule. McCain's bet is that there are enough of them in the right states to tip the election to him, especially if he doesn't mention the fact that he's a Republican. That's why he runs inflammatory commercials like this, implicitly portraying the black candidate as a wolf stalking a white woman:

It's designed to appeal to every base, subterranean fear whites have of blacks and black sexuality. There's no other way of viewing it. And yet the MSM focuses on Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark (Fox News called it "mudslinging") and treats seriously the McCain accusation of Obama playing the so-called gender card.

As for Obama, he's definitely been thrown off guard by the Palin selection and the response to it. I don't have any problems with the "lipstick" remark other than wondering why he talks about her at all. At the convention, he did a fine job of defining change as a departure from the policies of the last eight years. The competing definitions of change are the battleground, and he can't allow McCain to steal a march on him. 

At the end of the day, it's McCain's definition of change that is lipstick on a pig. He cuts a fine figure, Obama can say, but what does he actually propose. More of the same, it turns out. So, if you like the state of the economy, if you approve of record foreclosures and the collapse of a key part of the financial market, if you think there are no problems with health care access,if you want to be stuck in Iraq for a hundred years, then fine: Vote for John McCain. Otherwise, I'm your man. He's used this approach to great effect in the past, and he must get back on that message.

Let The Games Begin

I listened to about half of John McCain's speech on the car radio. Quick takes:

1. He did not once say either the words "Bush" or "Republican." 
2. For all the talk about change, the policy portion of the speech was tired, failed Republicanism.
3. The line about "we wanted to change Washington but instead Washington changed us" landed with a thud audible in the Pacific Northwest. Not what the delegates wanted to hear.
4. The peroration was effective. Even I was moved. But...

What's going on here? McCain has set himself up as a man apart from his party even though he's leading it. He promises change but proposes more of the same. The strongest rhetoric in his speech was in the part most devoid of substance. In many ways, he took a page out of what he has been decrying as Obama's playbook: Long on words, short on substance. By divorcing himself from his party, by keeping its policies unchanged, and by adding Sarah Palin to the ticket, he's creating the same cult of personality that the right claims is the essence of Obama's campaign. It's an interesting gambit, one fraught with contradiction and paradox. I think it will collapse under it's own weight, especially when you consider...

...this, the most significant development of the week. It's never good for the party in power when unemployment reaches a five-year high. Especially for the candidate who -- no matter how hard he's running from the party brand -- proposes more of the same...

"The cause is the thing," says Neville bro Cyril, lately of the Wetlands All Stars...

John Gourley of the indie rock band "Portugal. The Man" grew up in Wasilla, Alaska. Here, he explains why Sarah Palin does not represent true Alaskans any more than does the governor of Hawaii...

The New Orleans Daily Photo returns home from Hurricane Gustav. Be sure to check out his August photos of the evacuation. BTW, this blog regularly features amazing photos of Gulf Coast bird life...

Friday's Choice:  The Rolling Stones perform "Sweet Virginia" in 1972 at Fort Worth's Tarrant County Convention Center. Listen to the chorus and you'll know why I'm dedicating this Friday's choice to the Republican National Convention:

There They Go Again

Well, I didn't think much of Palin's speech -- I switched over to "Project Runway" after a half hour -- but then I'm hardly her target audience. What I did hear was yet another Republican struggling with the rudiments of pronuciation ("pundints" and "childern") and showing a blase disregard for the facts. The "pundints" mostly agree that she made a great impression, although it does seem as as if they have some responsibility to point out at the howlers in her speech. For example, it is not even remotely the case -- as she implied here -- that the petroleum reserves in Alaska's North Slope offset the combined output of Iran and Venezuela. But that's the MSM for you: Focus on sweeping Lincolnian rhetoric like "Take it from a gal who knows" and ignore the nonsense that comes after...

It's not like McCain campaign manager Rick Davis hasn't spelled it out: "This election is not about issues...This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." In other words, we're going to our level best to make people ignore the last eight years of perfidy and incompetence to focus on what is really important. Which is: Who do you want running the country? An uppity black and an old bull Democrat, or a military hero and the beauty queen next door? Well, Barack Obama is an exceptionally able politician, so won't be like running against Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. But the strains of racism run deep in this country...

The Daily Show has the forgotten story of Hurricane Gustav: