Note: First an appearance on Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word on this topic, below my weekly column at AJE
What does he want? Revenge. For what? Being born.
This is the way famous gunslinger Doc Holliday answers equally famous lawman and good friend Wyatt Earp's inquiry - in their depiction in the movie Tombstone - into why their sworn enemy, Johnny Ringo, is such a misanthrope.
Sadly, this description would be equally accurate in explaining the actions of another Arizona transplant filled with endless rage: Senator John McCain.
I first encountered the seething side of McCain when I was writing my 2008 book, The Real McCain, which was critical of him while pointing out a then-controversial fact, one no longer in dispute among those who lionised him back then. Namely, that the Led Zeppelin-groupie relationship he then enjoyed with many in the media was based on a faulty premise.
John McCain was not a maverick (which he has since admitted after long identifying with the title), but a man driven by a need to fight. To fight for his own redemption, to fight with those who dared disagree with him, and most particularly, to fight with anyone who had delivered him a perceived humiliation of any sort. Think Yosemite Sam on a bender, or Vladamir Putin in those half-naked martial arts pictures.
Sure, McCain was also motivated by the very same political expediency which drives too many politicos, as well as coveting an appearance on the Sunday morning talk circuit the way a twenty-something blonde does meeting Edward Pattinson, or marrying Hugh Hefner.
But the driving force for McCain has been pure vitriol and spite. When I first pointed out this inconvenient truth in my book, that many Republicans, including some willing to go on the record, were sure McCain was motivated by demons and not decency, I was criticised or dismissed in many quarters. Yet, it was obvious to me back then that his battles with fellow Republicans and Democrats had become personal, crusades for the eternally perturbed Abe Simpson stand-in.
I broke two stories in my book that spoke to McCain's temperament, that he had physically assaulted a member of his own party after taunting him (Republican Representative Rick Renzi) and had called his wife a very not-safe-for-work term of non-endearment. In perhaps an emblematic McCain moment, during a policy meeting with a fellow Republican, McCain "called the guy a 'sh-head.' The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, 'I apologise, but you're still a sh-head.'"
There's a reason the dude was nicknamed "McNasty" in high school.
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
After commanding the world's attention in 2010 with its cavalier stance on immigration, the Arizona state legislature is threatening-once again-to dominate national immigration discourse and policy.
You know, Johnny Mac really is bearing a striking resemblance of late to this guy:
Photo courtesy of Pixar
In that he keeps setting requirements to meet his own personal agenda for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and then says "Bah!" when they are met but not to his liking.
McCain dismissed Gates' claim that repealing the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members would have little or no effect on military readiness in an interview with NBC News yesterday by suggesting that Gates doesn't really know what ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell will mean for fighters on the ground. McCain, who continues to be opposed to repealing DADT, stated that Gates was not an objective expert on the matter because he's "a political appointee who's never been in the military."
Actually, I'm pretty sure that someone who's never been in the military and therefore is immune from potential biases would be an objective observer, but that's neither here nor there with Johnny Mac. But even so, wait, it turns out that:
A spokesperson for Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says the preeminent veteran in the U.S. Senate "misspoke" yesterday when he said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates never served in the U.S. military.
[...]
In truth, Gates served in the Air Force as a second lieutenant for two years starting in 1967. (That was the same year McCain, a Navy pilot, was injured in a fire aboard the aircraft carrier Forrestal in the coastal waters off Vietnam.)
Carl Fredrickson John McCain just didn't get his nap that day, or something. Whoopsie.
So what are Johnny Mac's requirements, anyway?
"I'm paying attention to the commandant of the Marine Corps," McCain told NBC. "I'm paying attention to the other three service chiefs who have serious concerns. They are the four guys who are directly in charge. In all due respect, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not directly in charge of the troops. The Secretary of Defense is a political appointee who's never been in the military. And the president, obviously, has had no background or experience in the military whatsoever. It was a campaign pledge to the gay and lesbian community."
This, of course, makes us recall his earlier statement:
"I listen to people like Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and literally every military leader that I know. And they testified before Congress that they felt the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was the most appropriate way to conduct ourselves in the military. A policy that has been effective. It has worked. ... But the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."
And then once Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates made it clear they support repeal, McCain moved the goalposts to:
"I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' at this time, but I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law. A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before moving forward."
And then once that was completed, McCain again moved the goalposts. Fortunately, Gates is having none of it.
So no doubt Johnny Mac will continue to pay attention to the service chiefs who have concerns, until they don't have concerns, at which point he'll angrily criticize them for not getting off his lawn, playing loud music, and flash dancing snapping to attention for his misbegotten agenda.
In the meantime, because there are a lot of fools who do listen to Johnny Mac, there are a lot of Senators who are still swing votes on this issue who could use an earful from you, your friends, family and colleagues. 202-224-3121.
Update: And I see Johnny Mac and his 41 buddies have now threatened to take their ball and go home if they don't get their tax cuts for the rich.
[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers...
With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.
But in fact, McCain was a deeply psychologically damaged man, who legislated based upon 3 simple principles: 1) Who John McCain hates at any given time and how he can try and screw that person 2) What gets John McCain the most press 3) What is in John McCain's political interest.
Most of McCain's brief period of sanity, which extended from about 1999-2003, saw him join Democrats on everything from campaign finance reform to a patient's bill of rights, opposing Bush's tax cuts to opposing the Christian Right, supporting CAFE standards to supporting closing the gun-show loophole. But the reasons behind this transformation, as I laid out in my book, had little to do with his being a responsible man of the people, as he was portrayedvirtually everywhere.
This week, Republicans in the Senate successfully showed their collective contempt for our men and women in uniform and in the process they made our military weaker and our country less safe.
Led by John McCain -- the upper chamber's cranky uncle -- Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay men and lesbians openly serving in the military.
If McCain's comments after the repeal effort failed are any indication, members of the Grand Old tea Party fail to grasp the finer details of the policy or how it has been implemented. Worse still, they are defiant in their ignorance.
(From Rachel Maddow last night. Maddow followed up with an interview of Mike Almy, whose testimony regarding being discharged outside official policy McCain heard in the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, the reality of which he is here denying.)
Angrily repeating himself over and over again, denying reality, and telling others around him that they are wrong, and he alone knows the truth. This is what a mental breakdown looks like. He does not belong in the US Senate. He belongs in a mental hospital. Perhaps there is no discernible difference between the two, given the exaulted status he enjoys:
And to think, this madman actually had a shot to become President of the United States. And to think, this is what Versailles tells us is the model of a sane, responsible Republican!
This really puts that whole thing about not knowing how many houses he owns in context. "Out of touch" does not begin to cover it. The only thing keeping him out of the loony bin is money.
What if only white females voted in the 2008 presidential election?
This is the type of question social scientists and individuals like me love to explore, and which everybody else presumably finds quite boring. More fascinating still, there is actually a somewhat reliable answer to the question. This is because, in every state of the union, there are exit polls of the white female vote in 2008.
It turns out that if only white females voted in 2008, Senator John McCain would have won the popular vote 53% to 46%, taking a comfortable eight-point lead.
Senator Barack Obama, however, would be president. He would win a razor-thin, 273 to 265 majority in the electoral college:
This is the first part of three posts analyzing the congressional districts President Barack Obama underperformed in. The second part can be found here.
Congressional Districts
By most accounts, Senator Barack Obama dominated the 2008 presidential election. He won an electoral landslide, winning Republican-leaning states such as Indiana and North Carolina which his campaign targeted. Compared to 2004, the nation shifted almost ten points more Democratic.
Mr. Obama improved from Senator John Kerry's performance almost everywhere. More than 90% of congressional districts voted more Democratic than in 2004. Yet this means that at least several dozen congressional districts were more friendly to Mr. Kerry than the Illinois Senator. I have mapped these districts below:
Though Arizona's SB 1070 went into effect without its most controversial provisions, the legislation's stated intent-attrition through enforcement-is nevertheless gaining traction among anti-immigrant legislators across the nation. In the wake of the law's enactment, other states are coming out in support of Arizona, some developing policy modeled after SB 1070. Others even hope to alter the U.S. constitution to deny "birthright citizenship" to children of undocumented immigrants.
News emerged this week that Tea Party favoured Arizona Senate Republican primary challenger JD Hayworth (pictured right, picture from TPM) had previously worked as a paid endorser for the "National Grants Conference" a company that purports to help customers get access to government grants and low interest loans. John McCain's campaign is pumping this story because they think it makes a conservative look bad to have been promoting use of government funded services and programs. While I can see that aspect of it, there's something even better going on here. Hayworth is not just fleecing marks for profit (though it is a scam), this is a kind of super conservative meta-con, a con built upon a con. That's some kind of achievement.
After an initial delay, Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square car bomber, stood up today in a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan and entered a plea of "guilty".
Though his expected court appearance had been widely publicized, there were no gunshots heard or bomb threats issued. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's warnings that bringing suspected terrorists to a U.S. federal courthouse can only cause chaos, the proceeding was orderly, calm and peaceful. The dozens of reporters from around the world who packed the courtroom quietly hurried out to file their stories across the globe.
And the story that they now have to tell is a simple one: the U.S. criminal justice is working.
Since it happened in May, critics of the Obama administration have heralded the failed Times Square bombing attempt as proof that Americans are under constant threat from a powerful foreign enemy and must, in our vigilance, treat all suspected terrorists as enemy warriors -- throwing them in an offshore military prison and either detaining them indefinitely or allowing them only a trial by military commission.
But the careful handling of Faisal Shahzad by New York City police and federal law enforcement is proof of just the opposite. Whether the attempted mass murderer sees himself as aligned with a group of foreign jihadists battling American imperialism is beside the point. What matters is that good old-fashioned law enforcement -- police officers quickly responding to the observations of an alert pedestrian, and skilled FBI agents using time-honored interrogation techniques -- successfully averted disaster and, thereafter, gained critical intelligence to help thwart future attacks.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was indicted last week on 10 terrorism and weapons charges that accused him of using money and training from the Pakistani Taliban to plot his failed car bombing. His plea of guilty to all 10 counts (five more than originally specified) could land the 30-year-old father of two in prison for life.
Shahzad's plot fizzled, of course, when the gasoline-and-propane bomb he tried to construct failed to ignite in the SUV he'd parked near a Broadway theater. That's typical, say many experts, of bombing attempts in the United States. Among the challenges of detonating a bomb on U.S. soil are the difficulty of obtaining high-powered explosives and of fashioning an effective explosive from the sort of products that are easily available.
That Shahzad wasn't successful doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, however. And what's critical about this case is that skilled law enforcement officials knew that even though his attempt failed, Shahzad was a potential treasure trove of information about the Pakistani Taliban and their operations. And they've exploited that well: after his arrest, Shaizad reportedly cooperated with law enforcement and answered their questions for two weeks before even requesting a lawyer. His arraignment was postponed several times even after a lawyer was appointed to represent him, indicating that even with a lawyer he continued to cooperate, with the process culminating in today's guilty plea.
Shahzad's cooperation has so far lead to the arrest of a Pakistani army major in Islamabad who was allegedly in contact with Shahzad by cell phone. Three men have also been arrested in the United States on immigration charges for allegedly helping Shahzad import money from Pakistan.
Administration critics such as John McCain insisted after Shahzad's arrest that he should never have been read his Miranda rights or treated as a common criminal. Indeed, a bill McCain introduced in March, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would have prevented that. The bill would require all terror suspects such as Shahzad to be turned over to the military for interrogation and possibly indefinite dentition without trial. There would be no Miranda rights, no right to a lawyer and no right to remain silent.
Although it's theoretically possible that military interrogators handling a suspect that way could get useful information, it's not clear exactly how or why that would work. For one thing, military interrogators are trained to gather information on a battlefield, not for future prosecution. That means the evidence can easily be compromised, making it impossible to prosecute the suspect later. That also means the interrogator loses the leverage a future prosecution can offer.
The administration, of course, has said that it can hold indefinitely any suspects it deems "alien enemy belligerents." But that also works against encouraging cooperation. After all, if a suspect knows that acknowledging his participation in the plot could land him in indefinite detention without charge or trial, what incentive does he have to cooperate?
One reason the FBI has been so successful is terrorism cases is that by following the federal court rules, it reserves its ability to criminally prosecute any terrorism suspect. It doesn't have to worry that the evidence won't be admissible later. The suspect, meanwhile, knows he's headed to court, and that the person interrogating him can influence what the charges and the sentence will be. That provides a strong incentive to cooperate and provide as much information as possible, in the hopes of getting some sort of a break -- a few decades in prison, say, instead of life.
Still, critics such as Liz Cheney and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman continue to argue that treating suspected terrorists as criminals isn't being tough enough, and demand military detention.
But just because something's run by the military doesn't make it any tougher. On the contrary, the military commissions created to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have managed to convict only three terrorists in eight years -- and two are already out free. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, has convicted some 400 terrorists since September 11, 2001.
Faisal Shahzad's guilty plea today is a perfect example of how the system works, producing valuable intelligence while still landing convicted terrorists behind bars.
The U.S. faces a very real threat of terrorism, whether at home or abroad. But the solution to the threat isn't to do away with the most effective means we have of combating it.
As lawmakers in Congress duke it out over whether the Times Square bombing suspect ought to have been read his Miranda rights, it's worth considering the real-life impact of reading a suspect his rights - and of withholding them. The consequences of not reading rights to terrorist suspects that we later want to prosecute are now on display at the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And it's not looking good for the government.
This week, John McCain, whose entire Versailles identity is based on casting himself-however questionably--as a "maverick" shocked any left capable of being shocked by declaring not simply that he was not a maverick, but that he had never considered himself a maverick. I immediately dubbed him "Post-Modern Maverick McCain" in a quick hit, and Chris quickly followed with front page post--"Only a true maverick would deny being a maverick"--playing out the same theme.
But the fact remains, it represented a level of idiocy on McCain's part that surprised even many of us who weren't the least bit surprised that he picked a flake like Palin to be his running mate with zero vetting, or that he didn't know how many houses he owned.
So I got to thinking, there is such a torrent of rightwing idiocy out there, why not try to pinpoint the idiocy highlights of other prominent political figures, be they elected officials, media figures or whatever.
WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and
Yeah, celebrating mass treason on behalf of slavery. That's the ticket!
Obviously, you don't compete with that. You stand in awe. But conservatives have said an aweful lot of aweful things over the years, so let's hear your nominations for the most idiotic thing said by your favorite conservative idiot.
My original thought was just to respond to a remarkably idiotic week by encouraging folks to help us collect all-time, world-class idiotic remarks. And that's what I want to do here. But this week it's clear that the Chatty Cathies are getting swamped with too much rightwing idiocy, and not enough true Chatty Cathy blather. So while I'm looking for all-time idiocy in the commnets below, I'm also giving fair warning. This same feature will return next week with a weekly focus, so stay alert for two different sorts of quotes this week--those that belong here in "Idiot Wind" and those that truly belong competing for the Chatty Cathies.
So, ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. Put your nominations in the comments, and let's see just how stupid things can get.
John McCain is claiming that he is not now, nor has he been, a maverick:
"Maverick" is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. "I never considered myself a maverick," he told me. "I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities."
In 2008, McCain's television ads described him as "the original maverick." When McCain and Sarah Palin would routinely take different positions during their national campaign, aides insisted this was to be expected from "a couple of mavericks." A quick search of McCain's Senate website turns up several dozen references to the senator being a "maverick" -- in some cases, press releases, instead of quoting McCain by name, would simply note, "The Maverick said..." McCain's website for his Senate campaign does the same thing, using "McCain" and "Maverick" interchangeably, as if they were practically the same word.
It is easy to point out an inconsistency as glaring as this one. However, it is also easy to miss how it is necessary to deny being a maverick in order to truly be a maverick. Otherwise, you are not being mavericky against the concept of mavericky-ness. In fact, it is necessary to be inconsistent about self-identifying as a maverick. Otherwise you are not being mavericky against the concept of consistency.
Only squares who have bought into the system adhere to concepts like consistency and coherence. Hell, if you are consistent and coherent, then you are probably, like, gay or something. Kind of like Iceman in Top Gun:
The bottom line is that if John McCain didn't deny ever considering himself a maverick, despite calling himself a maverick on dozens of occasions, then he wouldn't be a maverick. This is actually the final stage of master mavericky-ness. McCain is now such a maverick that he has acquired a glowing red aurora, just like Sho' Nuff in the Last Dragon:
In lieu of an actual ending, this sentence is the final sentence of this blog post.
Update: The last sentence is no longer the final sentence of this blog post.
Several days after the 2008 presidential election, the New York Times produced a famous map of voting shifts since 2004. Most politics buffs have seen this map; according to it, Appalachia "voted more Republican, while the rest of the nation shifted more Democratic."
There is something else occurring here, however, which the map hides - and which almost nobody has perceived. This trend goes strongly, strongly against conventional wisdom.
To unearth this trend, let's move back one election - to former Vice President Al Gore's 2000 tie with former President George W. Bush. Before going below the fold, I invite you to guess - which states did Mr. Gore do better than President Barack Obama?
STATE BLOGS
News emerged this week that Tea Party favoured Arizona Senate Republican primary challenger JD Hayworth (pictured right, picture from 