Cross-posted at Daily Kos, Docudharma, and MyDD
-------
In the Wall Street Journal on September 13, the two Repubs and one former Democrat wholeheartedly endorsed sending more of our troops to eat $#!t sandwiches in Afghanistan.
We are confident that not only is it winnable, but that we have no choice. We must prevail in Afghanistan.
snip
However, we need more than the right team and the right strategy. This team must also have the resources it needs to succeed-including a significant increase in U.S. forces.
Sarah Palin's departure from the forefront of American politics is just part and parcel of the continuing kaleidoscope of chaos on the right. In my opinion, her selection as a Vice Presidential candidate was nothing more than a political stunt aimed at capturing the disappointed female supporters of Hilary Clinton. As the current article in Vanity Fair reveals, prominent McCain staffers say that her being picked as a running mate was the single biggest mistake that McCain made in his bid for the presidency. Her selection may have actually led her to think that she had the heft and substance to be a major player on the national scene, but her comments and analytical viewpoints show that she was clearly out of her league and well off of the mark in possessing what it takes to be Vice President of the United States, or Chief Executive. During the 2008 race, Fred Thompson lauded Palin for her prowess as a hunter, saying that: "She could field dress a moose". That would be a great leadership credential if we were living in the Stone Age, but it is nothing more than an interesting personal anecdote in the twenty first century.
Sarah Palin may well rile up the base of the Republican Party. That could be a liability as the base can actually derail the G.O.P. in upcoming elections. Republican strategist Mike Murphy recently said: "If the Sarah Palin we perceive today wins the nomination in 2012, the G.O.P. will lose. Most Americans don't think Palin is ready to be President. The base loving you is not enough to get you elected." Conservative columnist Michael Gerson, speaking on the News Hour said of Palin: " She was not ready in 2008" and that," She really alienated women and the college educated on both coasts and that is not how you rebuild the Republican Party." The cold, hard reality is that the Republican Party cannot hope to win without the support of independent voters, whom Palin clearly alienates and whose ranks are now at a seventy-year high as a proportion of the electorate. Based on her chronic foot-in-mouth problems, it is not all that far fetched to say that Palin would be more likely to gain votes among independents by posing naked in Playboy than by taking the stage to promulgate her political views.
The real question is if Governor Palin has not just committed political suicide by leaving the political stage at a time when most political observers have suggested that her political future hinged on saying less and studying more so as to get up to speed with regard to the issues and substance that the top job in this country requires. After eight years of George Bush that" aw shucks" approach just doesn't cut it anymore, unless your only goal is to appeal to the base of the Republican Party.
Last Friday, 13 people were killed at the American Civic Association in Binghamton, New York. The event shocked the nation and was "the worst mass shooting in the United States since the 2007 massacre at the Virginia Tech college," as New America Media reports. Because the violence erupted at an immigrant service center, the immigrant community has been especially affected, and immigration opponents are predictably using the tragedy to justify, or at least voice, their vitriol toward the undocumented population.
Yesterday, I published a couple of diaries dealing with William Black, his criticism of the role of criminality in the financial meltdown and his prescriptions-along with James Galbraith-for a minimal program of what ought to be done to clean up the mess. Quite a bit of energy went into responding to a DKos-sourced attempt to discredit him, and while it's certainly important not to ignore the substance of the narrow charge against him (a charge of misrepresentation that increasingly seems anything but clear-cut), it's even more important to maintain our focus on the bigger picture-that being the role of the financial industry in wrecking our economy, and how to save ourselves from it.
It's important to note three things right off the bat: (1) There is a long-standing history of demonizing finance, which in the Western World has repeatedly been intertwined with anti-Semitism. (2) There is a similarly long-standing history of finance being involved in recurrent economic catastrophes. (3) There is no good reason in the world why responsible figures in the world of finance should want to bring about financial ruin. Above all, the anti-Semetic narratives implicated in (1) are utterly nonsensical, based on a demonic narrative about the nature of the Jews. Yet, the unreal, even hateful nature of the narratives referred to in (1) in no way serves to invalidate the historical reality of (2). We need to be able to walk and chew gum here, people. PArticularly given the enormous growth in the size of the financial sector over the past few decades:
Naturally, this has enormous implications in terms of political money and power as well--as we'll examine more closely on the flip.
Not using the word "narcissism" (though she has before), digby is instead focusing on the issue of temperament in a recent brief post, "Finger On The Button", but the two are clearly related. She begins:
I think one of the things I find most reprehensible about the Republican Party and their Big Money backers is that they think it's ok to play Russian Roulette with the country (and the world) by nominating people to power who have completely inappropriate temperaments for it. George W. Bush, with his thin skinned, shallow understanding of the world, bottomless need for flattery, is a good case in point.
At one point, McCain reportedly began referring to Hispanics as "you people":
"He was angry," one source said. "He was over the top. In some cases, he rolled his eyes a lot. There were portions of the meeting where he was just staring at the ceiling, and he wasn't even listening to us. We came out of the meeting really upset."
McCain's message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama's pace on the issue. "He threw out [the words] 'You people - you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,' " the source said. "It was almost as if [he was saying] 'You're cut off!' We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that.
Some "outreach" huh? But that's how it's done amongst the narcissistic set. "You may kiss my ring.... No, on second thought, you're not worthy!"
The same neocons who orchestrated the war in Iraq and undermined US efforts in Afghanistan the first time around are at it again, determined to sink us deeper into the costly Afghan quagmire. They have resurfaced in the form of the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington think tank headed by Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, and Dan Senor. As Sam Stein reported last week on The Huffington Post, the FPI will hold a summit today titled "Afghanistan: Planning for Success." And slated to attend the event are powerful Republicans and Democrats like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY), and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). What's particularly troubling about McCain and a think tank like the FPI is that they are trying to manipulate President Obama's plans for military escalation into a massive, limitless war of Iraq proportions.
We already know where McCain stands on Afghanistan. He and fellow warmonger Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) celebrated the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war by urging the Obama administration to support an all-out military commitment in Afghanistan, regardless of cost. McCain clearly shares the FPI's warped notion of "success" in Afghanistan, which he has discussed everywhere from the Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post to his recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute. He envisions a Utopian outcome to this war, one in which our military engages in a broad-based, long-term counterinsurgency to create "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary." Compounding that highly improbable scenario is the fact that McCain and the FPI are getting away with defining "success" in Afghanistan because not enough mainstream journalists or members of Congress are contesting their views.
How did Senators John McCain and and Joe Lieberman spend the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war? Did they apologize for cheerleading the Bush administration's pernicious lies that led our country into and have kept us mired in Iraq? Did they show remorse for a war that took the lives of over 4,000 US soldiers and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, while costing us $3 trillion when all is said and done? No, instead these Senators brought us the sequel to their twisted buddy comedy, escalating the war in Afghanistan.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed yesterday, McCain and Lieberman urged the Obama administration to go all in after completing its policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "minimalist" or "reductionist" path would be, in their view, "dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it." As with the Iraq war, McCain and Lieberman believe it's in our national interest to win in Afghanistan at all cost, which they even define as establishing "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary."
How do McCain and his ideological Benedict Arnold of a sidekick propose achieving such a lofty goal? Well, that part they don't get into. No need to be bogged down with the specifics; suffice it to say our country needs a broad counterinsurgency and we need it now! The maximalist approach, which is ironic, considering McCain and Lieberman criticize and fear-monger about those who use "loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan." The thing is though, and I never ever thought I'd write these words, McCain and Lieberman are absolutely right.
Hey folks, I wanted to share my latest column with everyone here at OpenLeft -- a review of Bernard Goldberg's latest book, "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media".
-K
That certainly didn't take long. Just shy of a week after Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming America's 44th president, the nation's foremost right-wing publishing house has released a new tome by Bernard Goldberg that seeks to trash the supposedly liberal "mainstream media" for being in the tank for Obama.
The three-ringed circus of liberal media bias cryptozoology is nothing new for Goldberg. He's been part of this factually challenged freak show for years. This isn't even his first book on the subject -- he wrote 2001's creatively titled, Bias.
It turns out that one variable that does a good job explaining how well Obama did in a state is how many people identify as white evangelical or born-again christian. Below, we see that Obama's support in a state is closely related to the percentage of voters identifying as white evangelical; on the right, a map of Obama's support among white evangelicals (purple shows the lowest support for Obama):
Click to enlarge.
Below, more details, more maps, more relationships, and how some of this fiddling with numbers might show that the reason Obama underperformed in certain areas is because he didn't campaign there.
The election is over. It's time for America to move forward. Time to come together for the good of the country. Time for Republicans and Democrats to forget their differences and reach out to one another. But not to Joe Lieberman!! It's in this spirit of half-hearted bi-partisanship we present our latest parody. Think of it as a musical olive branch. Or maybe it's more like a stick in the eye.
Who was not moved by the sight of hundreds of thousands of people of all colors gathered in Chicago's Grant Park to cheer Barack Obama's election as the 44th president of the United States?
Obama needed to win by a big enough margin that the Republicans couldn't steal the election again, and he did it with a campaign that harnessed the populist power of the Internet and an indefatigable army of young volunteers. Now the corporate pundits are trying to limit the damage Obama can do if he follows through on his promises.
Before the election John McCain and his right-wing allies were saying that Obama was a "socialist" with plans to soak the rich and "redistribute wealth." But after the election, the right's revisionists denied that Obama's impressive victory gave him any sort of mandate to enact socialist reforms or redistribute wealth. They claimed that the US remains a center-right nation.
As progressive writer David Sirota notes, the "center-right nation" phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba's Ministry of Information.
After revealing that Obama and Hillary Clinton have met to discuss the Secretary of State position, the change team let out this release today:
"On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain will meet in Chicago at transition headquarters. It's well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality. They will be joined in the meeting by Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Rahm Emanuel."
Is there a cabinet position in play here? Is there some other kind of involvement that Obama will offer McCain in the Administration?
On November 4th and 5th, Democracy Corps conducted a post-election poll that, among other things, looked at the reasons why voters supported and opposed Barack Obama and John McCain. The results offer real insight into the why Obama won, and also into just how deep a hole Republicans have dug for themselves.
Beyond even the anti-Republican political environment, in an election when McCain was forced to try and win voters who do not traditionally support Republicans, McCain found himself trapped by an activist base that both demands social conservatism and which has failed to elected a significant number of women and minorities to statewide and other leadership positions. The net result was that, in his necessary attempt to appeal to voters who usually do not support Republicans, McCain was practically forced to pick Sarah Palin. However, she ended up undermining his most effective campaign messaging--"experience vs. inexpereince"--presented Obama with a free line of attack, and overall became a net drag on the Republican ticket.
As Media Matters pointed out, Brent Bozell is a little confused over whether Obama is a socialist or a Reaganite Conservative.
Socialist (From the October 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends):
BOZELL: This is the arrogance, I think, of the Obama campaign, but it's a well-placed arrogance in the sense that they've gone through this entire campaign without being questioned seriously by anyone except for this news network, the Fox News network, which is why they studiously avoid the Fox News network. But when you go through the entirety of the campaign saying the kind of things that you're saying in the debates, where on, for every question, you've got a redistribution of wealth answer, where you've got socialism, where you've got the government controlling every aspect of life. You don't expect a reporter to ask you, "Is this socialism?" Because the media don't ask that question. Well, some uppity reporter did -- and look what happened, they cancelled her. And, by the way, she won't be going to the ball, either.
Reaganite Conservative (From the November 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom):
BOZELL: There's a lot of work that needs to be done. But here's the key thing, Bill, that really isn't being reported: Anyone who looks at the exit polls this year will find two fascinating results. Number one, this country remains every bit as center-right as it's been for a generation. And number two --
HEMMER: You don't think that's changed -- you don' think that's changed at all?
BOZELL: No, it hasn't. Look at the exit polling. The number one issue was the economy, nothing came close. The American people are fiscally conservative, and the fascinating thing, Bill, is that Barack Obama ran as a Reaganite and won over the fiscal -- the public as a fiscal conservative. That's what the polling data shows.
HEMMER: You said there were two things. What was number two?
BOZELL: Well, number one is that the public is conservative; number two, Barack Obama won as a conservative. That means that Barack Obama does not have the mandate to enact the left-wing agenda he wants to enact. He didn't run on it, he ran from it. So, this is not necessarily bad news for conservatives.
But what happens if we just ignore the confusion, and go with #2? What does a Reaganite Conservative look like these days?
The first places in the country to vote, towns in New Hampshire, have given the lead to Obama.
In Dixville Notch, Obama won 16-5.
In Hart's Landing, Obama won 17-10, with 2 write-in's for Ron Paul.
Both areas are traditionally Republican but went heavily for Obama in the primary (with cross-over votes).
Weirdly, Dixville Notch has 75 people but only 21 registered voters. In 2004, Bush took the vote 19-7, so the number of registered voters dropped from 26 to 21 in four years. In other words, Obama won the town and converted some Republicans, but turnout went down.
I imagine that two apathetic semi-libertarian towns in New Hampshire are not representative of America, but maybe it's all the firm data we'll get until tomorrow night. I call the election for Obama!
The final update of the poll average of seven daily trackers brings some firsts:
1. This is the first time in the months long history of the tracking poll average that Barack Obama has exceeded 51 percent. He broke through 50 percent many times, especially in the last month, but never exceeded 50.7 percent until today.
2. The number of undecided or third party voters has dipped below 5 percent for the first time ever. If John McCain converts all of them to his side he will still be behind.
3. The lead is at 7 for the first time in November (ha ha).
Significantly, while the number of undecideds has fallen in this average from 7.5 percent recently to 4.8 percent today Obama's support has actually moved upwards. McCain moved up a bit last week but as the graph above shows he appears to have hit a 44 percent ceiling. That's also the number the final Gallup poll estimates he'll finish at. Based on these last six days it appears the latest deciders may be breaking for Obama.
What do you think the final percentage gap will be?
As suspicious as I am of the motives of the conservatives jumping ship to support Obama (like Powell and Buckley), I am equally suspicious of the Cheney endorsement. Much like Osama Bin Laden's 2004 "endorsement" of John Kerry, Cheney simply has to know how his endorsement would play. So why do it? All I can come up with is simple revenge. Inside, I'll present the evidence.
So, John McCain has taken to calling Barack Obama a "socialist". Why? Because Obama wants to "redistribute" the wealth. Of course, every time you tax someone, you redistribute wealth. And every time that government spends some money that benefits someone, that, too, redistributes wealth. By McCain's criteria, every government that ever existed in human history was "socialist." You might think that's sort of a whacked-out extremist position, somewhere two football fields to the right of the John Birch Society. And you'd be right. Because by John McCain's standards, I'd like to introduce you to four of the most prominent members of the Republican Socialists of America:
John McCain is a blithering idiot, much like G.W. Bush, but every once in a while he manages to tell the truth, as when he confessed, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." He should have stuck with that, because his recent attempts to sound knowledgable have been cringe-worthy at best.
McCain recently attacked Obama's alleged "socialism," using the narrative trope of "Joe the Plumber" supposedly unmasking Obama's "hidden plan". This trope, of the simple everyman unmasking the "so-called experts" is a perennial favorite of rightwing populism, and McCain got lots of jollies from using it. Just one problem: the "hidden plan" he unmasked wasn't hidden, wasn't socialist, and wasn't even new. It consisted, quite simply, in some folks getting tax credits beyond the taxes that they owe. And, as this chart from Visualizing Economics makes clear, many low-income taxpayers already pay negative income taxes, largely thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit, first signed into law by that old Marxist, Gerald Ford, and later expanded by Comrade Reagan.
Two days to go til the election and, surprise surprise, McCain is doing everything from criticizing Obama's patriotism in speeches to pamphleteering many unsubstantiated charges... like Obama favors criminals over police.
