Open Left - John McCain

McCain-Lieberman-Graham urge Obama for more war in Afghan

Hound Dog — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:49:23 GMT

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.

In the interim, the president and his allies-and we count ourselves among them on this issue-must invest significantly greater effort to explain why, as the president recently put it, Afghanistan is a "war of necessity."
snip
We are ready to stand with the president through the tough months ahead, and we believe that strong and steady leadership from the White House can rebuild public support for the war.

It looks as if it is fair to say that Obama's greatest congressional war allies are McCain, Graham and Lieberman. How do you trump THAT?

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin takes a teensy-weensy baby step.

On Sunday's Meet The Press, Sen. Durbin was asked by David Gregory if he supports sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Durbin replied, "No I don't."

Durbin said he agreed with Sen. Levin.

"I think at this point sending additional troops would not be the right thing to do," he said. "At this point we should follow Sen. Levin's suggestion. Let's get it right on the ground, let the Afghans bring stability to their own country. Let's work with them to make that happen."

What Durbin's agreeing with Sen. Levin about is not sending more troops to Afghanistan until the U.S. speeds up the training and equipping of more Afghan security forces. From this, Senators Levin and Durbin would presumably be just fine with sending more troops once the U.S. speeds up arming and training the Afghan army and police.

Of course, in a country spread out over harsh geography like Afghanistan, with layers on layers of corruption that blanket it top to bottom and side to side, how do you stand up a Boy Scout troop, let alone an army and police force?

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

The term Taliban gets disparate use, but it's important to remember that the Taliban movement was born in Kandahar province, and led from the beginning by Mullah Omar, originally as a rebellion against corrupt warlords. The Taliban movement was/is strengthed by Pakistan's ISI, which saw the Taliban as an effective means of keeping India out of Afghanistan. But the Taliban movement is accurately thought of as a Pashtun movement. Ethnic Pashtuns stretch across southern Afghanistan into large portions of Pakistan. The Durand Line which separates Afghanistan and Pakistan was concocted by British imperialists, and bisects an area that on ethnic grounds can be called Pashtunistan. They are historically a feudal culture, who constantly fight among themselves, but who unite to REPEL INVADERS.

Graham Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He contributed an article titled "Obama's Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan" at Huffington Post:

The Taliban represent zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists. They are also all ethnic Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader. In the end, the Taliban are probably more Pashtun than they are Islamist. [emphasis added]

Taking on the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan with a huge military footprint is the same as taking on ethnic Pashtuns in their homeland. Those who ignorantly call to defeat and destroy the Taliban are advocating for a fool's mission that is equivalent to the asinine idea of destroying the Pashtun people. Afghanis themselves seem to want to find a way to reach peace with the Pashtun Taliban.

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

But Russ Feingold has the guts to take a firm stance that is consistent with the realities of Afghanistan. Does this make him an enemy of the President, and McCain-Graham-Lieberman the President's friends?

We need to start discussing a flexible timetable to bring our brave troops out of Afghanistan. Proposing a timetable doesn't mean giving up our ability to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Far from it: We should continue a more focused military mission that includes targeted strikes on Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, and we should step up our long-term civilian efforts to deal with the corruption in the Afghan government that has helped the Taliban to thrive. But we must recognize that our troop presence contributes to resentment in some quarters and hinders our ability to achieve our broader national security goals.
Some may argue that if we leave now, the Taliban will expand its control over parts of Afghanistan and provide a wider safe haven for al Qaeda. But dedicating a disproportionate amount of our resources to the military occupation of one country is not the most effective way to combat the terrorist threat we face. Even if we invest billions more dollars annually for the next 10 years and sacrifice hundreds more American lives, we are unlikely to get a credible government capable of governing all Afghan territory.
snip
There is a very real possibility that our military presence in Afghanistan will drive militant extremists south and east into Pakistan, al Qaeda's primary sanctuary. Pakistan is a nuclear power beset by poverty, sectarian conflict, ineffectual government, instability and an inconsistent record of fighting militancy. It is a witch's brew of threats to our national security that we cannot afford to further destabilize. Yet we may unwittingly do just that. Especially before Pakistan's government has demonstrated a firm commitment to denying sanctuary to Taliban leadership it has long harbored, further destabilization could undermine our own security.
I'm not alone in being troubled by the prospect of destabilizing Pakistan. During hearings in May at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, whether our troop increases might worsen instability in Pakistan. Adm. Mullen candidly said he shared that concern.
Mr. Holbrooke went even further. "You're absolutely correct," he said, "that an additional amount of American troops, and particularly if they're successful in Helmand and Kandahar, could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability."
snip
Instead of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, we should start talking about a flexible timetable to begin drawing those levels down. It is time to ask the hard questions-and accept the candid answers-about how our military presence in Afghanistan may be undermining our national security. [emphasis added by the diarist]

Thank you, Russ Feingold.

--------
Special note to President Obama, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, and The American Public: Pssssst! Russ Feingold is your friend. McCain, Graham and Lieberman....aren't.
--------

The Political Suicide of Sarah Palin?

Steven J. Gulitti — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:35:55 GMT

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.

Steven J. Gulitti
July 3, 2009
New York City

Weekly Immigration Wire: Binghamton Shootings Impact all Sides of Debate

The Media Consortium — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:07:28 GMT

by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger

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.

The impact of the Binghamton shootings on the U.S. immigrant community, already aggravated by ICE raids that funnel them into an abusive system, evokes multiple concerns. One is of further violence. But a grim possibility has also emerged: Immigrant activists who want to become integrated members of U.S. society might stop patronizing the places that can help them do just that, as Public News Service reports. Facilities like the American Civic Association provide many services for the immigrant community, one of which is improving their English. It's hard enough for those with a limited grasp on a new language to navigate life in a new country. If immigrants fear the places that help them learn, it only makes their lives harder.

When issues like immigration become politicized, nothing is off-limits. Even the national census is "morphing from sociological project into a political one," according to RaceWire's Michelle Chen. Conservatives fear losing votes and political power to regions where "illegals" are counted as a part of the census (As if they didn't lose the Latino vote all on their own in 2008). Civil rights and immigrant advocates fear a worse miscount this year of the Latino population than 2000's 3 per cent under count.

Erin Rosa reports on possible census-count solutions for the Colorado Independent. Rosa writes of “Ya es hora! Hagase contar!" (It’s time! Make yourself count!), an "unprecedented media campaign" that encourages Latinos to participate in the census.

The Colorado Independent has a few interesting articles on immigration this week. In Bush Admin’s Environment Waivers Remain Intact at Border, a contrast is drawn between President Obama's recent speech in Germany about walls "between races and tribes" being "the walls we must tear down" with the controversial construction of a border wall in southern stated. Construction proceeds, despite President Obama's professed philosophy. And in Senate kills immigrant in-state tuition bill, Wendy Norris writes about Colorado's legislative "companion to the federal DREAM Act" that would have provided college tuition equity to undocumented Colorado high school graduates was lost on a 18-16 vote." One Democrat explained her vote against the bill as a practical one: Because children of immigrants are at risk for deportation, the bill is "at odds" with federal law.

This type of legislative deadlock doesn't escape Ezra Klein of the American Prospect, who comments on Senator John Mccain's "testy" rejoinder to a number of Hispanic business leaders who questioned when reform would come. "Where the reformers will turn," Klein asks. In 1986, a particular alignment of politicians enabled the last major reforms in immigration law to pass—a configuration of forces not currently in place.

So, who will reform immigration? It's an important question. The terrain is dangerous because there is no clear consensus or policy to rely on. In the legal gaps that this absence creates, questionable legislative bridges spring up, like agreement 287(g), which enlists local law in enforcing federal immigration violations. The most famous symbol of 287(g) is, of course, Sheriff Arpaio, who has left an entire community "terrified and afraid to call the police."

“We’re dealing with a climate of hate, people don’t understand they’re being moved by people who hate,” says Phoenix attorney Danny Ortega. “Then you’ve got the Joe Arpaio’s of the world making it politically popular to hate.”

The power that can be leveraged by law and political agenda is vast and must be closely monitored. Immigrants, especially women of these communities, have long been a target of such iniquities. National Radio Project reports on yet another instance in a long line of oppressive reproductive health policies that target women of color and the immigrant community.

Going back to RaceWire, Michelle Chen follows up on President Obama's Aunt Zeituni's fight for citizenship, and how anti-immigrant groups have fixed upon her case as a high-profile example of how immigrants "game the system." The article outlines precisely how ludicrous this stance is.

Finally, make sure to check out In These Times' thoughtful review of the new "immigration/baseball drama" Sugar, by Brooklyn-based filmmakers Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden. Reviewer Brandon Harris writes that "Sugar's experiences reveal the labors of all immigrants who struggle to adjust to the harsh realities of American life on the margins."

That phrase could apply to many today. And to many who paved the way for us today. It is a story we must not forget.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration.

Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

The Power Of Finance Is Killing America-It Needs To Be Stopped

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:45:00 GMT

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.
The simple resolution to the conflicting tensions embodied in the above three points is that historical cycles of accumulation lead to changed social circumstances in which the temper and judgment of entire populations grows increasingly unrealistic compared to longterm objective reality. In those circumstances, financial bubbles arise along with a bubble of self-referentially concsiousness that screens out the normal long-term reality that ultimately has the last word over everything. While the financial bubbles are the immediate causes of harm, it's the bubble consciousness, with it's wildly distorted sense of reality and perverted norms that stands as the greatest obstacle to tacking corrective action after the fact. And that is the situation we find ourselves in today.

So when I talk about the need to stop the power of finance, I am not advocating or endorsing a demonic view of that power. Yes, it has run amok. But its perniciousness is not, ultimately, inherent in finance per se. The problem lies in the balance of power-or rather the lack thereof. And it can be seen very clearly in the chart presented above.

Money In Politics

Back on March 11, I posted the following short diary

Obama's Donor Base--A Reminder By Industry

From Open Secrets:

Rank  Industry                         Total
1     Retired                          $44,524,860.00
2     Lawyers/Law Firms                $42,861,936.00
3     Education                        $22,342,123.00
4     Misc Business                    $15,457,514.00
5     Securities & Investment          $14,442,282.00
6     Health Professionals             $11,532,962.00
7     Business Services                $11,256,534.00
8     Democratic/Liberal               $11,120,392.00
9     Real Estate                      $10,351,779.00
10    Computers/Internet               $ 8,631,192.00
11    TV/Movies/Music                  $ 8,599,038.00
12    Civil Servants/Public Officials  $ 8,381,475.00
13    Printing & Publishing            $ 6,013,428.00
14    Misc Finance                     $ 5,599,284.00
15    Other                            $ 3,665,329.00
16    Hospitals/Nursing Homes          $ 3,205,041.00
17    Commercial Banks                 $ 3,167,003.00
18    Non-Profit Institutions          $ 2,902,041.00
19    Construction Services            $ 2,762,510.00
20    Insurance                        $ 2,211,348.00

The important fact, of course, is the enormous differences in how well organized different sectors are, plus how specific and how narrowly-targeted their asks are. That's what we're seeing play out now.

It was such a short diary, I was a bit surprised that it seemed rather hard for some to take in the simple message of the longest of the two complete sentences in the post, to wit: "The important fact, of course, is the enormous differences in how well organized different sectors are, plus how specific and how narrowly-targeted their asks are."

To get things started in the right direction, here's a chart (click to expand in a new window) that gives some sense of how tightly organized the financial sector is:

If you look again at the list of industry donations to Obama, you'll see that there's no trace at all of the automotive industry. No trace of transportation at all. In contrast, not only does a major chunks finance ("Securities and Investments") clock in at #5, real estate also makes the top 10 at #9. These constitute a good chunk of two of the three industry groups comprising the "FIRE" sector of the economy--Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. ("Commercial Banks," also part of finance comes in at #17, while "Insurance" shows up down in #20.)

In contrast, almost everything else in the top 10 is relative diffuse. "Retired" encompasses people from all walks of life. "Education", too, covers people in all manner of different fields, whose allegiences are often stronger to the fields they are in than it is to education per se. The same could be argued for "Lawyers/Law Firms," "Misc Business," and "Business Services" as well.

But, of course, that's a rather narrowly focused view of the role of money in politics. The concern here is with the big picture, and though presidential campaign contributions loom very large in the overall picture, they do not tell the whole story, and can even mislead us about the overall shape. So we need to take various other views into account. (All the other information below comes from Open Secrets as well.)

Let's start off with a big-picture look at the FIRE sector vs. the transportation sector, over the full history of records that Open Secrets has in its database:

Three things stand out immediately: (1) The transportation sector is overwhelmingly Republican, by more than 2-1, while the FIRE sector is more evenly balanced, even swinging over to the Democrats this past cycle. (2) The FIRE sector is MUCH larger in terms of contributions--almost an order of magnitude larger this past cycle. (3) The FIRE sector is growing in importance. It was 4 times larger in 1990. It grew to 8 1/2 times larger this last cycle.

But auto manufacturers are only a small part of the transportation sector. In fact, they aren't even the largest chunk of the automotive industry, as can seen by looking at the following three categories within that industry:

We can compare the automakers to just one part of the Wall Street complex, hedge funds, which literally came out of nowhere 18 years ago, to take a dominant position today:

In 1990, hedge funds accounted for 1/9th the contributions that automakers provided. They reached near parity in the year 2000, and this last cycle, hege funds accounted for almost 6 1/2 times as much in contributions as did automakers.

Is it any wonder Detroit gets no respect?

Let's go back to the sector level, and take a look at the list of top 20 contributors:

The top automaker within the transportation sector is Ford, at #10--beaten out by Enterprise Rent-A-Car! Chrysler and GM are right behind it, but still, all three automakers combined ($2,414,136.00) didn't contribute as much as #2 UPS. Put them into the FIRE sector and their combined total wouldn't even make the top 10--it would trail #12, Credit Union National Assn.

Now let's look at these two sectors in terms of recipients:

The order of the recipients here holds few surprises. We already know that transportation is overwhelmingly Republican, and McCain's been around forever, so he sweeps past Obama to come in #1. But in FIRE, Obama easily passes McCain by.

The real story, once again, is the relative sizes of the two sectors. There are NINE candidate who get more money from FIRE than McCain gets from transportation--including Norm Coleman! It's really not much solace that one of those nine is John McCain himself. Not much solace for the transportation industry, that is.

Transportation means even less to Obama. Heck, Joe Biden got more from FIRE than Obama got from transportation.

Breaking it down to the industry level, we compare the whole auto industry (incuding foreign and domestic dealers) to just hedge funds:

Obama gets more from hedge funds than McCain gets from the entire automotive industry. That alone says it all.

And, finally, looking at the two presidential candidates, we've already seen Obama, but let's look at him again, compared to McCain:

Like Obama, McCain's top two categories are retirees and lawyers--although unlike Obama, there's a much bigger drop-off from #1 to #2. But his next two categories are both from the FIRE sector. But despite that fact, Obama gets more from both the industries involved: $10,351,779 from real estate, compared to McCain's $8,858,237, and $14,442,282 from Securities & Investment, compared to McCain's $8,547,727. Thus, McCain is actually vastly more dependent on the FIRE sector than Obama is, even though he takes in less money.

This can be seen as well in our last view of the contribution picture, looking at individual corporate contributors for both candidates:

Here I've added another column, just make it easier to compare the top 5 contributors from finance for both candidates. In McCain's case, they are his top 5 contributors, period. You just couldn't ask for a more pure Wall Street candidate than John McCain. No wonder his head was spinning like a top as he tried to figure out what to do when the meltdown exploded. Even so, Obama got more than twice as much from the top five Wall Street firms on his list, even though they ranked lower down.

Summary

This part is simple: any way you look at it, finance crushes transportation. Period. End of story. That's all there is to it.

But, of course, that's not reflective of the real world. Not in the least. We need to totally remake our transportation system if we're to adapt and thrive in the face of global warming. But we can't even begin to do that if our political class has a neglectful and disdainful attitude toward the transportation sector. And we won't be able to do anything at all if they keep on worshiping Wall Street as it sucks every last dollar out of the real economy, along with IOUs that will last until the ice caps melt.

GOP Narcissists On Parade

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:00:00 GMT

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.

She then quotes from a Think Progress account, about another prominent example, "Report: 'Angry' McCain Referred To Hispanics As 'You People' During Outreach Meeting ". The most revealing part:

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!"
Of course, Media Matters' Free Ride, along with Glenn Greenwald's treatment of McCain in Great American Hypocrites gave us an up-close view of how the media facilitated McCain's narcissistic fantasies of his own ~~greatness~~ uniqueness as the man who could save America. But, alas, we made our choice during the election, now, didn't we?

Never fear, however, clawing his way back to the top of the GOP for a run in 2012 is no other than the twice-divorced, pro-war, pro-death penalty man who recently sought to school Notre Dame on "Catholic" values (Obama, like Kerry, doesn't got 'em!) in advance of his own conversion. It really seemed an act of humility, though, compared to how Newtie comported himself back in 1994/95, when he was styling himself as the virtual savior of American civilization. But it turns out Newt was only getting warmed up in his new role as the defender of all religion, as TPM reported ("Gingrich: Obama Waging 'War Against Churches'"):

In a new appeal to the Christian right, Newt Gingrich told OneNewsNow that President Obama's proposed changes to the charitable deduction for top earners amounts to a "war against churches and charities," deliberately designed to discourage the successful from donating money to churches and make us all dependent on the government.
"I think there's a clear to desire to replace the church with a bureaucracy, and to replace people's right to worship together with a government-dominated system," said Gingrich.

How anyone gets from a modest lowering in the tax deduction rate for charitable gifts to "replac[ing] people's right to worship together with a government-dominated system," would be an unfathomable mystery to me, were it not for the twin magicks of projection and narcissistic personality disorder.

Here's how it works: Newt is the savior of all mankind. He can't be bothered with petty details like budgets and stuff. And so when Obama makes a budget proposal, Newt must see in that act the same sort of sweeping megalomaniacal act that it would actually be if Newt himself had thought of it.

And then, of course, we have the angry would-be-President governors (Palin, Jindal, Stanford, Perry), stamping their feet about being forced to take stimulus money. There was a time, not too long ago, when a certain Texas governor was touted as just thing the country needed in the White House, because of his ability to bring his state legislature together across the aisle. Of course it was a bunch of hokum. But it was a good narrative. Now, though, we have GOP governors at war with their own Republican legislative leaders as a path to the White House!?

That only makes sense in a world where the GOP's narcissism thing has totally jumped the shark.

Digby concluded her piece:

McCain and Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Steele, all of them have "issues" in one way or the other. Indeed, the raps on Bill Clinton -- that he needed people to love him too much and that he screwed around --- seem positively inane compared to the violent, short tempered, intellectually hidebound freakshow that is the leadership of the Republican party.

But we need to be quite clear about this: this isn't a bug. It's a feature. In fact, one might well say it's the feature of the modern GOP: the triumphant of malignant narcissism as a governing philosophy.

Why Jim Hightower Shouldn't Be the Only One Debating John McCain on Afghanistan

ZP Heller — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:15:00 GMT

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.
You know your foreign policy is highly questionable if Bill Kristol goes on FOX News and says he supports it, which is what happened Sunday. Kristol was able to sweep Obama's plan into the neocon call for a major counterinsurgency, falsely claiming an all-out war is in the interest of national security and defeating al Qaeda. Kristol even managed to suggest Obama is now divided with his own administration on Afghanistan, and in a twisted retrospective kicker, Kristol compared the Afghan and Iraq surges to imply President Bush actually showed good leadership.

Because Obama is toying with escalation by sending 4,000 trainers (in addition to the 17,000 troops he already pledged), McCain, Kristol and their FPI cohorts are now taking that foreign policy to the logical extremes of military commitment. But where are the journalists to call out Kristol? Where are the members of Congress who will hold oversight hearings that bring in real experts to explain to us what escalation will mean for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States? More people ought to be picking apart McCain's wholly unrealistic notion of victory and reclaiming the frame of success in Afghanistan; just watch Jim Hightower show you how it's done.

The reality is that the kind of success McCain and the FPI dream of would require an commitment of at least 640,000 troops--a far fry from the 21,000 Obama has called for. And if the current rate of escalation could cost our country $1 trillion by the end of Obama's first term, as Tom Hayden has predicted in his must-read piece "Don't Go There, Mr. President," then you can only imagine how much this war could cost (and how exponentially difficult it will become to pull ourselves out of this recession) if we keep allowing McCain and his neocon pals at the FPI to manipulate foreign policy.

It's time to reclaim the frame on Afghanistan, and that starts with real debate in the mainstream media and the halls of Congress.

Either You're with McCain and Lieberman, or You're Against the War in Afghanistan

ZP Heller — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:38:41 GMT

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.
The type of success McCain and Lieberman dream of in Afghanistan would require at least 640,000 US troops, as Derrick Crowe has written, judging by the US military doctrine's rate of 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents. We already know the Pentagon is pushing for at least to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for a decade or more. So not only do McCain and Lieberman believe the Obama administration should engage in a long-term military commitment where the costs could very well exceed those of the Iraq war (both in terms of lives lost and tax dollars spent), but they want President Obama and the Democratic leadership to invest all their political capital to do so.

There's a good frame here that those of us who oppose the war need to use to our advantage: Let McCain and Lieberman champion an all-out war in Afghanistan. It means that if Obama and centrist Dems are not willing to side with this hawkish agenda and immediately commit over half a million troops long-term, then they have abslutely no business sending 17,000 troops or pursuing a half-hearted military agenda because clearly it will be insufficient and ineffective. It's either a broad-based counterinsurgency, or its regional diplomacy--you can't have it both ways. Now that McCain and Lieberman have set the rules, we can force the hand of the Obama administration: go all in or go home. Hopefully, Obama will opt to stand up from the table and leave.

Bernard Goldberg's "bias" against the facts

Karl Frisch — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:55:29 GMT

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.
Goldberg's latest screed, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media (Regnery Publishing, January 2009), though with a significantly longer title, preaches the same decades-old gospel of bias, refusing at all costs to let facts get in the way -- truth be damned.

Case in point.

In the first chapter of Slobbering, Goldberg writes that the media were "championing" Obama and cites as proof a June 2008 broadcast of CBS' The Early Show, which ran a segment called "Five Things You Should Know About Barack Obama," featuring biographical fluff on the then-Illinois senator. Goldberg goes on to contend that CBS' Jeff Glor sounded "more like Obama's campaign manager than a network news correspondent" during the segment. However, like so many other glossy television profile pieces during the long presidential campaign, CBS' report was only one-half of a set. Just days later, CBS would air a segment titled "Five Things You Should Know" about Sen. John McCain, featuring such trivia as McCain's high school nickname, television and movie cameos, and enjoyment of bird-watching and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen's fictional character Borat. Not surprisingly, Goldberg's book makes no mention of the McCain segment.

CONTINUE READING...

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center based in Washington, DC. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

Obama and White Evangelicals

dreaminonempty — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:39:56 GMT

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 White Vote

Charles Franklin recently showed us how Obama did among white voters as a function of the percent African-American in the exit polls, and compared this to how Kerry did. Here's that graph reproduced:

Click to enlarge.

To no one's surprise, both Democrats did terribly among whites in the Deep South (Kerry a little better than Obama), which has the highest percentage of African-Americans, and there was a decent relationship between the two variables in states with more than 20% African-Americans (see the right side of the graph). But in other states, there is a huge variation in the support for Obama, with no clear pattern on this graph. What is up with those crazy white people?

Moving on to White Evangelicals

Let's go back to the graph from the introduction, and add a map showing what percent of voters in each state were white evangelical:

Click to enlarge.

All data are from exit polls or election results. The dashed red lines show values from the entire country (43% of whites voted for Obama, and 26% of the electorate was white evangelical). Also, note that I'll be using 'white evangelical' as shorthand for 'white evangelical/born-again christian' (although the acronym, WEBAC, is kinda cool).

Most states fall pretty close to the blue regression line. DC is pretty high above the line. States where Obama performed worse than we might have expected based on the population of white evangelicals alone are Alaska and Arizona (home states for the GOP ticket) and Idaho and Wyoming (significant chunks of Mormons in the population). Utah would probably be an outlier on there too, but there's no data in the exit poll for white evangelicals in Utah. The states with the most white evangelicals are AR, WV, TN and OK, all with more than 50%. The states with the least are MA, HI, and NY. Remember, some states have no data.

Back to All Whites

Here's a map of how whites voted, and, in the middle, how the entire electorate voted using the same color scheme for comparison. On the right, the percent of whites in the exit polls by state.

Click to enlarge.

The base of Republican support is pretty obvious: whites in the Deep South, and the triumvirate of UT, ID, and WY. This map helps give a little perspective to the red tone on total vote maps, especially the county-by-county ones such as in my last diary. Whites in West Virginia, for instance, despite the state having trended quite red over the last 20 years, still gave Obama about the same percent of the vote as whites nationwide. Whites in Mississippi are about as solidly Republican as you can get, on the other hand, despite the state as a whole giving Obama about the same support as West Virginia.

Evangelical Whites as a Portion of the White Electorate

So the maps above show us that when comparing states we need to look at demographic composition. So let's redo the graph above, but this time as the y-axis we'll use Obama's support among white voters only, and we'll use on the x-axis the percent of white voters who are evangelical, not the percent of all voters. On the right it is a map showing what percent of whites are evangelical by state.

Click to enlarge.

We see a huge range here, from three quarters of all whites identifying as evangelical to almost none. Not surprisingly, we get a better regression than before: there is a very strong relationship between the proportion of whites who are evangelical and Obama's share of the vote among whites. We still have states with significant Mormon populations (WY, ID) and home states (AZ, AK) below the regresssion. We also see that LA is now pretty far below the regression, as the only Southern state with a substantial non-Hispanic Catholic population.

Down the Rabbit Hole

Let's get a little more complicated. Now that we know how white evangelicals voted, we can compare it with how whites who are not evangelical voted. Here's the two maps for the geographic comparison:

Click to enlarge.

There's clearly a huge difference, yet geographic trends are roughly the same. Indeed, it's interesting that Obama was able to get support up into the 30s among white evangelicals in some states. This could be partly because of geographic distributions of different evangelical denominations (or even denominations with 'Evangelical' in their name that are not by most definitions actually evangelical), some of which may be more conservative than others.

Here's a graph showing the same data:

Click to enlarge.

The dotted line shows a 1:1 relationship. Again, support among white evangelicals is much lower than among whites who are not evangelical. But there is also an excellent relationship between the two. And still, we see whites in the South - evangelical and non-evangelical - show the weakest support for Obama.

Above, we saw the South has the highest proportion of whites that are evangelical whites. Let's see how support for Obama varies with the proportion of whites who are evangelical:

Click to enlarge.

As the proportion of whites who are evangelical increases, support for Obama decreases among both evangelical whites and non-evangelical whites, although it decreases faster for non-evangelical whites. Which leads to looking at the difference:

Click to enlarge.

White evangelical and non-evangelical support for Obama tends to draw closer together (although the correlation is weak) as the proportion of whites who are evangelical increases. However, the ratio of non-evangelical to evangelical support is constant at about 2:1.

Anyone still with me?

Summary

As the proportion of voters who are white evangelical increases, the support for Obama falls. Not a surprise.

As the proportion of white voters who are evangelical increases, the support for Obama decreases among all whites, white evangelicals, and white non-evangelicals. The gap between white evangelicals and non-evangelicals also decreases.

The question is, why? Here's some speculation. Perhaps because the white evangelical culture influences the media and social opportunities available to non-evangelical whites in areas where it is prominent. And, as a corollary, where white evangelicals are a minority among whites, they are influenced by non-evangelical whites. If this is the case, it is not an even-handed phenomenon. If it were, we would expect white evangelicals in places where they are a distinct minority to be much closer in voting behavior to non-evangelicals. That is, we would expect the last graph above to have a peak, falling to small numbers at both small and large values. This is clearly not the case, perhaps because where white evangelicals are distinct minorities they are nonetheless able to function within a white evangelical social sphere centered around worship and limit contact with non-evangelicals. I've seen this happen anecdotally, but have no numbers to match anecdotes with data.

They Are Not Lost?

In the same post linked at the beginning of this diary, Charles Franklin has a graph that shows the only states that had more than a point or two decrease in support for the Democratic presidential candidate between 2004 and 2008 were MS, AL, LA, and AR. We know that in three of these states, evangelicals make up the vast majority of white voters, and in LA they make up 49%.

So let's look at how the evangelical vote has changed since 2004. Overall, the share of the total electorate increased from 23% to 26% (enthusiasm for Palin?), but whereas Kerry only won 21% of them, Obama won 24% (so much for the Palin effect, I guess). The gains were not uniform, however, and in the South generally Obama underperformed Kerry among white evangelicals. Let's look at the map:

Click to enlarge.

Don't worry about Iowa: the difference is actually zero. Looking at the darker green or purple states, we see that most but not all of the darker green states are states where Obama campaigned heavily: NC, CO, IN, and OR (primary). In ND and NE, Obama campaigned (but did not visit much) and McCain did not.

However, of the darker purple states, Obama has visited AR, LA, and MS 5 times or fewer, according to the Washington Post candidate tracker. Georgia logged 9 visits, and a campaign presence.

So we have Obama gaining in NC (and possibly gaining a little in SC) but losing support in MS, GA, LA and AR among Southern white evangelicals compared to Kerry. One possible explanation is differences between white evangelicals in the Carolinas and in the rest of the South. Another possibility is that where Obama campaigned, he managed to increase his support among white evangelicals compared to Kerry. This last idea would add to the evidence in my previous diary, which also was consitent with campaigning leading to improved results. And that leaves me encouraged that a Democratic presidential candidate could make some gains even among Mississippi's white evangelical voters.

Cross posted on Daily Kos.

"Why Can't We (at least pretend to) Be Friends?"

thincaboutit — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:35:29 GMT

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.
Election '08 really was the gift that keeps on giving. But now it's over. Let the post-election parodies begin!! I would've posted this sooner but a) I had to go away for a week to the lesser-known Kitty Dukakis clinic to break my addiction to cable news which had grown to full-blown junkie status over the past year , and b) it took me all this time before I was convinced there wouldn't be a recount. Now that's over, one final observation. ..
I don't know about you, but the last time I called a plumber to solve a problem, he had to come back three times 'til he got it right. I'm not exactly sure how that translates politically other than I guess there are some Johns even a plumber can't help...

Center-Right Socialism

jcullen — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:02:42 GMT

From The Progressive Populist

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.
In June 2007 Media Matters and Campaign for America's Future documented how the conventional wisdom that Americans are overwhelmingly conservative is fundamentally false. In fact, decades of public opinion data from nonpartisan sources show the majority of Americans hold progressive positions on a broad range of issues.

Among the findings:

• The role of government: 69% of Americans believed the government "should care for those who can't care for themselves"; twice as many people (43% vs. 20%) wanted "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" as want government to provide fewer services "in order to reduce spending."

• The economy: 77% of Americans thought Congress should increase the minimum wage; 66% believed "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes; 53% felt the Bush administration's tax cuts have failed because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs.

• Environment: 75% of Americans would be willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources to help reduce global warming; 79% wanted higher emissions standard for automobiles.

• Energy: 52% of Americans believed "the best way for the US to reduce its reliance on foreign oil" is to "have the government invest in alternative energy sources"; 68% of the public thought US energy policy is better solved by conservation than production.

• Health care: 69% of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage; 76% find access to health care more important than maintaining the Bush tax cuts; three in five would be willing to have their own taxes increased to achieve universal coverage.

If anything, the electorate is more supportive of government intervention to address the Bush recession this year than it was last year.

In truth, Obama is not a socialist and he doesn't propose to redistribute wealth. He is likely to pursue a centrist course not much different from what Hillary Clinton would have charted. But the voters who put Obama in the White House would support him if he would move follow his progressive instincts.

Campaign for America's Future noted that the Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans on Nov. 4 tended to support bold progressive economic positions to address the Bush recession. Twenty-six out of the 29 Democratic candidates who won seats previously held by Republicans in the House and Senate supported progressive reforms on health care, trade, energy, workers' rights, taxes and protecting Social Security. Only three of the winning Democrats chose to run on more conservative platforms. But the progressive candidates' victories represent a swing to the left of 42 votes in the House and 10 in the Senate, reflecting a clear mandate for progressive change to repair the damage done by 28 years of neocon economic policies that started under Ronald Reagan and culminated in the six years of misrule under Bush and the Republican Congress.

Positions that proved popular at the polls include:

• Health care: Progressive candidates supported universal health care (usually "quality, affordable health care for all").

• Trade: Progressive candidates supported "fair" rather than "free" trade, and oppose NAFTA-style agreements.

• Energy: Progressive candidates favored ending US dependence on foreign oil primarily by creating and expanding new and clean energy production (rather than "drill, baby, drill").

• Workers Rights: Progressive candidates favored the Employee Free Choice Act.

• Taxes: Progressive candidates favored an income tax cut for the middle-class and an income tax increase on the very top income earners.

• Social Security: Progressive candidates opposed private accounts as part of any Social Security reform.

Progressives cannot let up. The campaign now turns to pushing Democrats to enact the progressive agenda that they ran on and that the voters support. Democrats have two years to show that they can pass bills that will help working people.

They cannot expect help from the Republican minority. House Minority Leader John Boehnert (R-Ohio) called Obama a "chicken s**t" in remarks to Ohio college students before the election. The day after the election, he wrote his House GOP colleagues urging them to reject Obama's invitation to bipartisan cooperation.

Senate Republicans also will use every procedural tool at hand to block progressive bills, as they did in the 110th Congress. Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, warned that he would filibuster liberal nominees to the Supreme Court, complaining that Obama "believes in justices that have empathy."

Democrats should stop allowing the "gentleman's filibuster" that lets Republicans simply signal that they intend to filibuster a bill, forcing a cloture motion that requires a "supermajority" of 60 votes to proceed. The GOP abused that process in the last Congress, forcing 134 cloture votes. That more than doubled the previous record of 61 cloture votes in 2001-02. If senators want to filibuster in the next Congress, let them stand and speak as long as they are able, but 41 senators should not routinely block the business of the Senate.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., broke from the Democratic Party after he lost the primary in 2006, but he pledged to support the Democratic presidential nominee and he won the general election as an independent. Then he spoke at the Republican National Committee. While campaigning for John McCain, he questioned Obama's patriotism and suggested he might be a Marxist. Obama has sent word that he is willing to let bygones be bygones and he wants Lieberman to remain in the Democratic caucus.

We think Senate Democrats at least should remove Lieberman from the chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where he refused to probe the Bush administration. If the Dems want to let him caucus with them and perhaps let him lead a committee where he actually supports progressive policies, that's their business. Otherwise, let the Republicans have him and wonder when he will betray them.

Also, leadership of the House and Senate should send word to Obama that they intend to restore the separation of powers-and it really isn't up to the president how the Senate Democratic caucus organizes.

See the editorial at The Progressive Populist. Cross posted at DailyKos. Reprinted with permission.

What will Monday mean?

btchakir — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:04:28 GMT

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?
The fact that Lindsay Graham will be in on the meeting (offset, of course, by Rahm Emanuel) leads me to think that a "proof of offer" situation is in place. Certainly, nothing relating to the Iraq or Iran situations is n the offing... McCain's position on a warring America just does not tally with Obama's position.

The economy, however, has a more complementary aspect to it. I hope energy is not what they are talking about... McCain is too oil oriented - remember "drill, baby, drill."

It remains to be seen where Obama is going with this. His expressed reverence for "Team of Rivals", Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on Lincoln and his cabinet appointees, many of whom felt they deserved the Presidency more than Lincoln, but made his administration successful, has been widely discussed in the press.

In fact, McCain seems, at least in potential relationship to the President if not in this particular area of expertise, to be a lot like Licoln's Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase:

Chase never ceased to underestimate Lincoln, nor to resent the fact that he had lost the presidency to a man he considered his inferior. His frustration with his position as secretary of the treasury was alleviated only by his his dogged hope that he, rather than Lincoln, would be the Republican nominee in 1864, and he steadfastly worked to that end. The president put up with Chase's machinations and haughty yet fundamentally insecure nature because he recognized his superlative accomplishments at treasury.

I don't think McCain is planning to run again, but it was clear during the campaign that he considered Obama his inferior and my guess is that there is a good deal of resent here.

Monday will be something to watch with real interest. My guess? McCain will probably feel he can accomplish more as a Senator than as an underling of Obama.
Under The LobsterScope

How Republicans Trapped McCain

Chris Bowers — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:00:00 GMT

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.

Full explanation in the extended entry.
First, according to the Democracy Corps survey, take a look at the concerns McCain voters had about Obama (emphasis mine):

Q.49 (DO NOT ASK IF VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA AND DIDN'T CONSIDER IN CHCEJM) Let me read you a list of doubts about Barack Obama. Regardless of how you voted, which THREE describe the most important reasons NOT to vote for Barack Obama?

Too inexperienced and too big a risk to be commander-in-chief.............................................................41
Wrong on abortion, gay marriage and restricting guns.......32
Would redistribute wealth and introduce socialism.............29
Would raise my taxes..........................................................23
Would increase taxes on small business and hurt the economy..............................................................................21
Too ready to retreat in Iraq and weaken our national security................................................................................21
Associates with people and groups that make me uncomfortable......................................................................20
Would increase government spending................................14
His health care plan is too government-run.........................13
Would give Democrats too much control in Washington.....13
Would end up catering to minority groups and not working for all.......................................................................9
Is out of touch with working people......................................3
(All).......................................................................................6
(Other)..................................................................................1
(None)..................................................................................5
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................2

The negative attack on Obama with the most impact was his lack of experience. By comparison, the attacks on Ayers and Wright that the McCain campaign and Republican third-party groups engaged in during the final weeks had minimal impact, with less than half as many people citing that as a negative reason to vote against Obama. Further, most of the other attacks listed here focus on socialism, taxes and big government. However, as a campaign focal point, those were losing attack as exit polls showed a majority of the country in favor of government expansion. This is important because it shows just how deeply McCain wounded himself by selecting Sarah Palin. The winning attack was neither opposing "big government" nor Obama's associates, but rather Obama's lack of experience.

However, as we can see with the top concern Obama voters had about McCain, rather than reinforcing McCain's "experience" message with his vice-presidential selection, instead Sarah Palin emerged as the top concern about John McCain:

Q.50 (DO NOT ASK IF VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN AND DIDN'T CONSIDER IN CHCEBO) Let me read you a list of doubts about John McCain. Regardless of how you voted, which THREE describe the most important reasons NOT to vote for John McCain?

Picked Sarah Palin as his running mate..............................37
Would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations and not to the middle class..................................................35
Would continue Bush's policies...........................................34
Would stay in Iraq................................................................28
Would privatize Social Security and cut Medicare benefits................................................................................22
Would tax health care benefits and give insurance companies more power.......................................................22
Ran a negative campaign rather than say what'd he do.....20
Would help end a woman's right to choose on abortion......17
Is too old to be president.....................................................16
His erratic response to the financial crisis...........................14
Supports outsourcing and bad trade deals...........................8
Would cut government spending and services.....................4
(All).......................................................................................4
(Other)..................................................................................1
(None)..................................................................................2
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................2

The focus of Obama's negative messaging was McCain's ties to Bush and plans to deliver tax breaks to big corporations. While those lines of attack were clearly effective, Palin still narrowly emerged as the top concern. This was a serious problem for McCain, because it undercut his effective attacks on Obama's lack of experience, and because it was a "free" attack that Obama never really had to make himself. It even undercut the positive messaging from the McCain campaign:

[877 Respondents]
Q.47 (ASK ONLY VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN) Now let me read you a list reasons to support John McCain. Which THREE describe the most important reasons why you voted for John McCain?

Total
Is a strong leader and would be a strong commander-in-chief.................................................................................48
Would drill for oil and explore all energy sources for energy independence..........................................................30
Supported the surge and would not retreat in Iraq..............28
Picked Sarah Palin as his running mate..............................28
Was a P-O-W and has always put country first...................26
Is a maverick who works with both parties..........................19
Would cut taxes...................................................................17
Would end earmarks and pork barrel spending..................14
I just couldn't vote for Barack Obama..................................13
Would stabilize home prices and help fix the financial crisis....................................................................................11
Is a reformer who would lessen the influence of special interests...............................................................................11
His health care plan gives everyone a $5,000 credit and more choice...................................................................7
(All).......................................................................................5
(Other)..................................................................................3
(None)..................................................................................1
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................1

McCain picked Palin at least partially in order to appeal to voters who do not traditionally vote for Republicans. Given the unfavorable political environment for Republicans in 2008, appealing to such voters was necessary for McCain. However, Palin ended up as a net drag on the ticket, both because she undermined the most effective messaging from the McCain campaign ("experience"), and also because noticeably more people identified her as a concern (37%) than as a benefit (28%). The solution would have been for McCain to choose a woman or a minority with less baggage, more experience, and a higher level of campaign competence.

However, McCain was trapped on this front. With no Republican ethnic minorities holding statewide office, the obvious choice, Condoleezza Rice, refused consideration for the VP slot. Further, Colin Powell didn't even support John McCain. (Update: Rice and Powell might both be pro-choice, thus nixing them anyway.) Among women, all Republican Senators except for Elizabeth Dole are pro-choice. Further, this is also, at last by wingnut standards, the case for Jodi Rell and Linda Lingle, the other two women Republican Governors apart from Palin. Joe Lieberman fits this bill, too. So, as far as non-traditional picks go, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole (who was busy losing re-election at the time) and Mel Martinez (also inexperienced and favored immigration reform) were the only available options who had a chance to be approved by the hard, anti-choice delegate base at the Republican convention. Or, at least, those three were the only options that the theocons wouldn't despise, and cause them to turn away from McCain in large numbers.

Thus, McCain was simultaneously trapped by a political environment where he was forced to appeal to voters who are not traditionally Republican, by a party that has virtually no women and minorities in positions of power and also by a party which will not accept anyone but a social conservative at the top of the national ticket. In a search for socially conservative women or minorities in positions of power in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin was one of very few options for the job. Given that Mel Martinez was almost as inexperienced as Palin, and given Dole's general unpopularity and advanced age, even though Palin ended up being a drag on the ticket and undermining McCain's messaging, McCain didn't really have any better options.

It is possible, even likely, that if McCain had selected someone like Romney, he would have performed better in the election. However, he still would have lost, since Romney provides no new voters for Republicans, especially no new women. The socialist attacks were not enough, and neither were the "traditional values" voters. McCain needed to enhance his effective experience vs. inexperience attack, and combine it with an identity-based appeal to groups less likely to support Republicans. However, the profile of the Vice-Presidential candidate McCain needed--an experienced, campaign-ready, social conservative who could appeal to voters (mainly women) who do not traditionally support Republicans--simply was not available. If Condoleezza Rice had accepted the slot (always highly unlikely), and if she was accepted by the Republican base (again, highly unlikely) then--and perhaps only then--McCain might have had a shot. Otherwise, McCain was trapped by his party not only in terms of the anti-Republican environment, but also because of their lack of diversity in elected officials, and even further by the uncompromising social conservatism of their activist base.

To concern troll for a moment, if Republicans want to reverse this situation, they are going to have to start appealing to a wider array of demographic groups, and find a means to free their candidates from the hold of their theocon base. However, given that most Republicans want the party to shift even further to the right, don't hold your breath on that one.

If This Is Center-Right....

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:30:24 GMT

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?
First, the election. To restate the obvious: People elected the more liberal candidate and increased the congressional majorities of the more liberal party--in both houses. Doesn't sound too conservative to me.

Number one, this country remains every bit as center-right as it's been for a generation.

Well, it's true that the center-left popular vote in the 2000 election (Gore plus Nader) was similar to where we are today (51.1% in 2000, 52.6% in 2008). But in 2000, Bush didn't lose Florida by so much he couldn't steal it, and he didn't lose North Carolina, Virginia and Nebraska-CD2 at all.

Nor did Democrats hold an 80-seat majority in the House for a generation. Winning the House vote by 7.2%.

But, if that's what a center-right nation looks like.... Well, let's roll with it.

Second, the exit polls. Bozell is 100% correct that the economy was the number one issue. Fully 63% of the people said so in the exit polls, and of them, 53% voted for Obama, compared to 44% for McCain. Another 9% cited health care--a more specific economic concern, and those voters went for Obama by a much wider margin--73/26%. But does this mean "The American people are fiscally conservative"?

Well, 75% said the country was on the wrong track, and they voted for Obama 62/36%. Just 20% said it was going in the right direction, and they voted for McCain 71/27%.

On the economy specifically, just 7% said it was "excellent" or "good", and those voters went for McCain, 72/26%. A whopping 93% said it was "not so good" or "poor", and they went for Obama, 54/44%.

Neither of those sound too conservative to me, considering that conservatives have been running things for virtually all of the last 8 years.

Furthermore, 51% said the government "Should Do More", and they voted for Obama 76/23%, while only 43% said government was "Doing Too Much", and they voted for McCain 71/27%. Again, that doesn't sound too conservative to me.

Lastly, did the exit polls show that people thought they were voting for a conservative? Well, not so much. 42% said that Obama was "too liberal", compared to just 4% who said he was "too conservative", while 50% said he was "about right". What's more, 3.7% of the voters thought he was "too liberal", but voted for him anyway. Just 2% of voters thought he was "too conservative" but voted for him anyway.

But, hey, if that's what a center-right nation looks like.... Well, let's roll with it.

Third and finally, let's look at another poll , this one from Celinda Lake, polling for the Change To Win labor federation. This was a poll of working Americans--non-supervisory workers to be exact.

SUMMARY
In the 2008 election, workers soundly rejected the Republican economic frame of deregulation and government inaction, choosing Barack Obama to be their next President. Workers believe he is the candidate least influenced by corporations and CEOs (of whom they blame for the current economic crisis). They believe he would do a better job of improving their personal economic situation, improving wages and conditions, and that he is the candidate that best represents the American Dream.
An astounding 84 percent of working Americans feel the economy is on the wrong track with only ten percent saying it is on the right track. Among younger workers the gap is even starker, with 87 percent who feel the economy in America is on the wrong track, and just seven percent feeling it is on the right track.

This intensity carried over into working Americans' enthusiasm for voting in this election. Almost 7 in 10 working Americans (68%) felt more enthusiastic for voting in this election compared to elections past, fully 19 points higher from the fifth American Dream survey in September 2008. Only 12 percent felt less enthusiastic and just 18 percent felt the same. Among workers under 30, 71 percent felt more enthusiastic.

For working Americans, the single most important issue in deciding their vote for President was the economy and jobs (72%), followed by health care and prescription drugs (26%), and the war in Iraq (23%). Likewise, 81 percent said the state of the economy and jobs itself would influence their vote for President either a lot or a little (58% a lot, 23% a little), with only 18 percent saying it would make no difference. The state of the economy and jobs influenced younger workers even more, with 84 percent reporting it would influence their vote for President (59% a lot, 25% a little).

Barack Obama scored a decisive victory, winning working Americans 51 percent to John McCain's 39 percent, with 10 percent either not sure or voting for a third party candidate. Obama's victory was even more convincing among working Americans under 30, winning by 24 points, 58 percent to John McCain's 34 percent, with nine percent either unsure or voting for a third party candidate.

American workers recognized the role Republican anti-government policies had in creating the current economic crisis, and now soundly reject these same policies, signaling the end of the Reagan era. Sixty-eight percent agree that we need to reform government to make it work for us, and that our government has to be part of the solution, while only 27 percent agree with the Republican frame of government is the problem and not the solution.

A comfortable majority (56%) of American workers say the current economic crisis was actually the result of deregulation and a lack of corporate oversight that let greed run wild. They believe that we need more government oversight and enforcement to hold corporations accountable. Barely over a third (37%) believe too much government regulation interferes with the proper functioning of the free market, and that we need to let the free market function to create jobs to grow our economy. As a result, almost three-fourths of working Americans said it is extremely important to them personally that their candidate for President represents working people (73% rate 10 or "extremely important").

Despite the economic crisis and the problems in government, American workers believe the American Dream is still obtainable. Only 19 percent believe they may not or will not be able to obtain the American Dream while a solid majority (73%) either have obtained it (15%) or believe that it is still obtainable (58%).
The cornerstones of the American Dream in the eyes of workers remain having a job that pays enough to support a family (82% extremely important, 94% total important), being able to ensure children have the opportunity to succeed (79%, 92%), having a secure and dignified retirement (74%, 17%), and having affordable quality health care to depend on (73%, 17%).

Working Americans feel most strongly that the best steps the President and Congress can take to make the American Dream more attainable are making sure employers keep their promises to employees with regard to pensions and health care (72% extremely effective, 87% total effective), followed by enacting health care reform to guarantee that every American has access to quality affordable health care (66%, 81% total), cracking down on oil speculators and price gouging at the pump (62%, 79% total), and ensuring equal opportunity and equal pay for women and minorities (61%, 79% total).

Solid majorities believe it is Barack Obama over John McCain who has the best vision for restoring the American Dream (54% to 31%, and 64% to 23% for workers under 30) and who really represents the values of the American Dream (54% to 27% and 60% to 27% for workers under 30). Two-thirds of working Americans believe Obama can make a difference in helping people achieve the American Dream (43% a lot of difference, 23% a little).

Similarly, working Americans perceive John McCain as the candidate who is most influenced by big corporations and CEOs (46% McCain, 23% Obama, 15% both influenced by corporations and CEOs). Among workers under 30, forty-nine percent perceive McCain as more influenced by corporations and CEOs, with just 17 percent for Obama.

So, in short, focusing solely on American workers, Lake found even stronger manifestations of all the trends shown in the exit polling--and more explicit rejections of the conservative, Republican, Reaganite worldview. And, she found that voters were enthusiastic--not disappointed that they didn't have a "real conservative" to vote for.

But, hey, if that's what a center-right nation looks like.... Well, I say let's roll with it!

Obama Takes Dixville Notch 16-5 and Hart's Landing 17-10

Matt Stoller — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:10:20 GMT

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!

Some Firsts at the End: Final Tracking Poll Average:

tremayne — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:30:00 GMT

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?

The Cheney "Endorsement" - Cheney's Last Laugh?

Daniel De Groot — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:18:43 GMT

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.
First off, to cover the obvious, Cheney is grotesquely unpopular and has been for quite some time. Yes, I know Cheney's remarks were delivered in Wyoming, where people might still brake if they saw him crossing the street, but I don't think Wyoming's 3 electoral-votes were high on McCain's list of worries.

As for the Wyoming House seat that is in play, recent polling has Trauner 4-6 points down to the Republican. Even so, let's look at what Cheney actually said:

I'm delighted to support John McCain, and I'm pleased that he has chosen a running mate with executive talent, toughness, and common sense: our next Vice President, Governor Sarah Palin. (Applause.)

As Obama has quite ably been exploiting, when is Cheney ever delighted about anything? I doubt he has ever felt an emotion more positive than "smugness." Snark aside, this language is suggestive of Cheney deliberately trying to draw attention to this remark, so it wouldn't be missed. After all, much earlier in the speech, Cheney had said:

[...] but I do want to join my daughter Liz, who's with me today, and join us in casting your ballots for John McCain and Sarah Palin. (Applause). Our country cannot afford the high-tax liberalism of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. (Applause.)

That would have passed without notice, and was all anyone would expect him to say at a rally to support a threatened House candidate.

So how did McCain's camp respond? Here's their reaction/counterpoint when Obama started ribbing them over it:

The McCain campaign wasn't amused by the Cheney hoopla. "Barack Obama and Dick Cheney aren't just cousins, they've shared support for the Bush energy policy and the out-of-control spending that John McCain has fought to oppose," spokesman Tucker Bounds e-mailed reporters. (The e-mail included a handy fact sheet, citing an Obama speech in Iowa in January as the source to note Obama and Cheney's distant family ties.) Apparently the idea was to persuade voters that Cheney and Obama have more in common than Cheney and McCain. Chances are that one will fly about as well as the caged game birds Cheney likes to shoot.

I think the panicked flailing response tells you this wasn't something they were prepared for.

If Revenge, Revenge For What?

The most obvious/likely candidate is McCain's torture amendment from 2005, which generated headlines like this one from Dan Froomkin: McCain Defeats Cheney

President Bush's cave-in yesterday on Sen. John McCain's torture ban was embarrassing for him -- but it was a total debacle for Vice President Cheney.
Cheney had publicly taken the lead in trying to scuttle McCain's proposal. When that proved both unseemly and ineffective, Cheney was equally publicly pulled off the case.

While it's true Bush would win this fight via signing statement, there is little doubt the political fight with his own party's Senators seriously ruffled some feathers. Cheney in particular would not like being shown up like that, only able to keep 9 Republican senators on-side. As Froomkin further notes:

Cheney was conspicuously absent when Bush invited McCain to the Oval Office yesterday and announced his decision to embrace legislation that was in almost every way identical to what he had promised to veto five months ago.

Suffice to say Cheney wasn't happy.

Beyond that, both McCain and Cheney have long histories in government, and may have butted heads on any number of issues. Cheney's utter exclusion from the RNC probably didn't help.

I wonder if the paragraph preceding his endorsement was a veiled message from Dick to John:

In these decisive years, we've seen above all, the importance that leadership can make by making a decision and setting a course, and putting the interests of the nation ahead of any partisan agenda or personal advantage. Our nation has been fortunate to have that kind of leadership when we've needed it most. And in three days, we'll choose a new steward for the Presidency, and begin a new chapter in our history. It's the biggest decision that we make together as Americans, a lot turns on the outcome. I believe the right leader for this moment in history is Senator John McCain. (Applause.)

Which could be read as "John, even though you tried to embarrass us over doing what was necessary to defend America in your selfish grandstanding way, luckily we won out and the Office of the President is not diminished so the next worthy Republican will have a free hand to interrogate prisoners." Admittedly I am merely guessing here.

Whatever the reason, for once we are evidently the beneficiaries of Cheney's boundless social dominance. For one thing, it helps Obama, and for the other, it it a pretty ringing endorsement of Chris' belief that the election is already over. McCain was already going down in flames, so Cheney decided to get a parting shot in.

Republican Socialists of America

Paul Rosenberg — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:30:00 GMT

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:

Join me on the flip, and I'll tell about them.
Theodore Roosevelt

"I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold"
--John McCain, NYT, July 13, 2008

Where I come from, you'd never pass high school if you thought Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative. Sure, he was an imperialist. And he liked to conserve our wilderness areas. But he was in an almost constant state of war with the conservative bosses of the Republican Party, and when he felt that his protege, William Taft, had betrayed him by going over to their side after he left office in 1908, he ran against Taft on the Bull Moose ticket, and utterly destroyed the Republicans, reducing them to third party status at the polls.

So, Teddy Roosevelt, a conservative? Not so much. In fact, when it came to socialism, this is what Roosevelt said in his autobiography:

Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even to notice the epithet. I am not afraid of names, and I am not one of those who fear to do what is right because some one else will confound me with partisans with whose principles I am not in accord. Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers. They are oppressed by the brutalities and industrial injustices which we see everywhere about us. When I recall how often I have seen Socialists and ardent non-Socialists working side by side for some specific measure of social or industrial reform, and how I have found opposed to them on the side of privilege many shrill reactionaries who insist on calling all reformers Socialists, I refuse to be panic-stricken by having this title mistakenly applied to me.

So, it looks like Roosevelt would have voted for Obama, if he were still around today. And it looks that way even moreso, if think about his tax proposals. Although the income tax did not exist when he was President, Roosevelt was a firm proponent of it--as well as the estate tax. Talk about a tax-raiser, he was a tax-creator--or at least, he wanted to be. The following passages are from his 1907 State of the Union. First, on the income tax:

When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation. I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition it is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.

Next, on the inheretance tax:

The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax. Laws imposing such taxes have repeatedly been placed upon the National statute books and as repeatedly declared constitutional by the courts; and these laws contained the progressive principle, that is, after a certain amount is reached the bequest or gift, in life or
death, is increasingly burdened and the rate of taxation is increased in proportion to the remoteness of blood of the man receiving the bequest. These principles are recognized already in the leading civilized nations of the world....
A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

Roosevelt goes on to sharply distinguish this from socialist proposals ("In your face, McCain!" as noted Roosevelt scholar Homer Simpson would say):

We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country-a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories.

Of course, I'm not actually aware of any socialists of any real stature who actual made any such arguments. But, Professor Simpson does get easily enthused, and must be allowed to have his say from time to time.

Back to Roosevelt:

Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows.

So, Roosevelt quoting Lincoln to the everlasting humiliation of McCain/Palin Republicanism.

Sweet!

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower firmly rebuked the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. In a 1954 letter to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, he wrote:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

He did cut taxes, though. In 1953, when he took office, the top marginal income tax rate was 92%. Ike thought this was outrageous. He cut the rate to 91%. That's well more than twice the top rate that Obama proposes.

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon tried to implement a form of negative income tax as a way of substituting direct cash payments for bureaucratic forms of welfare assistance:

Nixon had experienced the sting of poverty as a child, and he never forgot it. But while he sympathized with the poor, he also shared many Americans' conviction that the welfare system had grown into an inefficient bureaucracy which fostered dependency and low self esteem among welfare recipients and contributed to the breakdown of families by providing assistance only to households which were not headed by a working male.
With the assistance of Urban Affairs Council secretary Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixon created the Family Assistance Plan. FAP called for the replacement of bureaucratically administered programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, with direct cash payments to those in need. Not only single-parent families, but the working poor would qualify for aid. All recipients, save the mothers of preschool age children, would be required to work or take job training.
Nixon revealed FAP in a nationwide address on August 8, 1969. Heavy criticism followed. Welfare advocates declared the income level Nixon proposed -- $1600 per year for a family of four -- insufficient. Conservatives disliked the idea of a guaranteed annual income for people who didn't work. Labor saw the proposal as a threat to the minimum wage. Caseworkers opposed FAP fearing that many of their jobs would be eliminated. And many Americans complained that the addition of the working poor would expand welfare caseloads by millions. A disappointed Nixon pressed for the bill's passage in various forms, until the election season of 1972. He knew a bad campaign issue when he saw one, and he let FAP expire.

What's more, as can be seen below, under Nixon, the tax rates--particularly on high earners--were as high or higher as they were under Kennedy and Johnson:

Ronald Reagan

Even more than Teddy Roosevelt, McCain likes to associate himself with Ronald Reagan. But though Reagan talked a good conservative game, when push came to shove, he often switched directions. In fact, he not only rolled up record deficits, he raised taxes, saved Social Security, and greatly expanded the same type of negative income tax measures (refundable tax credits) that McCain is railing at Obama for.

In my earlier diary, "John McCain Makes A Fool Of Himself, Again--Obama the Socialist Edition", I brought up the most successful form of negative income tax in US history--the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC). It was introduced under Republican President Gerald Ford, and then expanded under Ronald Reagan:

Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the more widely-publicized Reagan EIC expansion of 1986. The EIC was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001 regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support.

Reagan also helped save Social Security, in partnership with House Speaker Tip O'Neill, as Joshua Green explained in an article for Washington Monthly in early 2003, "Reagan's Liberal Legacy":

Reagan also vastly expanded one of the largest federal domestic programs, Social Security. Before becoming president, he had often openly mused, much to the alarm of his politically sensitive staff, about restructuring Social Security to allow individuals to opt out of the system--an antecedent of today's privatization plans. At the start of his administration, with Social Security teetering on the brink of insolvency, Reagan attempted to push through immediate draconian cuts to the program. But the Senate unanimously rebuked his plan, and the GOP lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections, largely as a result of this overreach.
The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of conservative ideology. It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. (As an added affront to conservatives, the tax wasn't indexed to inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it over time.)
By expanding rather than scaling back entitlements, Reagan--and Newt Gingrich after him--demonstrated that conservatives could not and would not launch a frontal assault on Social Security, effectively conceding that these cherished New Deal programs were central features of the American polity.

Ragan also raised taxes a lot more often and more freely than any conservative would dare to admit. Here's just a snippet of what Green has to say on that:

The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast. According to Wall Street Journal reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray, whose book Showdown at Gucci Gulch chronicles the 1986 measure, "the conservative president's support for an effort once considered the bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

What's more, when he was governor of California, Reagan faced a budget crunch, and responded by agreeing the the Democratically-controlled legislature to respond with a balance of spending cuts and tax hikes raising the highest tax bracket. That's a step that the so-called "moderate" Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger has been either unwilling or unable to take.

Ronald Reagan: Socialist!

Oh, and I almost forgot this one:

John McCain

Back in 2001, John McCain was one of just two Republican senators who voted against Bush's tax cuts. As the Washington Post recalled earlier this year:

In 2001, just days before Bush's first tax cut passed, McCain lamented on ABC's "This Week" that, "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans. . . . I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans."

John McCain.

Another Republican Socialist of America!

John McCain Makes A Fool Of Himself, Again--Obama the Socialist Edition

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:15:00 GMT

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.

Here's how the Boston Globe described McCain's use of [Not] Joe the [Not] Plumber to attack Obama as a socialist:

In his weekly radio address today, John McCain uses the ubiquitous Joe the plumber to all but accuse Democratic rival Barack Obama of being a socialist.
McCain reminds listeners of the story of Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who complained to Obama last weekend that his tax plans -- to end the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 -- would put a crimp his plans to buy a plumbing business.
In an exchange recorded for posterity on a YouTube video, Obama told Wurzelbacher that in the economic crisis it would be good to "spread the wealth around."
"Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism," McCain says in his radio address. "And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, 'spreading the wealth around' is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn't sound like a 'new kind of politics.'
McCain adds that the "spread the wealth" philosophy "would also explain some big problems with my opponent's claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?
"Well, that's the key to Barack Obama's whole plan: Since you can't reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe. In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

You know, it's just too bad that McCain never got the hang of Google or Wikipedia, because then he could have found this:

Earned income tax credit
The United States federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC) is a refundable tax credit.

And if he'd learned how to click on a link, he would have discovered:

Tax credit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Refundable tax credit)
The term tax credit describes two different concepts:
* The first is a recognition of partial payment already made towards taxes due.
* The second is a state benefit paid to employees through the tax system, which has the effect of increasing (rather than reducing) net income....
Tax credits as a form of state benefit
Tax credits may be characterized as either refundable or non-refundable, or equivalently non-wastable or wastable. Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax. Examples of refundable tax credits include the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit in the U.S., and working tax credits or child tax credits in the UK.

Hence, the chart above.

In the immoratal words of Nobel Laureate in Economics, Homer Simpson: "D'oh!"

McCain sinks to new lows at campaign's end...

btchakir — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:24:15 GMT

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.
Joe Biden commented on the McCain endgame in a speech yesterday:

"In my view, over the last few weeks, John McCain's campaign has gone way over the top," said Biden Saturday at an outdoor rally on Evansville's Main Street. "They are trying to take the low road to the highest office in the land. It's not only George Bush's economic policies that John McCain has bought hook, line and sinker. He's also bought Karl Rove's brand of political tactics."
"It is disappointing, I never thought I'd see this from a McCain campaign," Biden continued. "They're calling Barack Obama every name in the book. They are going out in a way that I don't recall it being more personally vicious."
As a supporter yelled, "They're scared!" the Delaware senator predicted that the tone would get worse in the last three days. (via CNN)

In reality, the early voting has stacked up in Obama's favor.

Just under 50% of the vote in Colorado, for instance, a swing state, is in already and it appears to be 2 to 1 in Obama's favor. This is a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats... but Independents are the largest group. That is where Obama seems to be doing very well.

Florida, which McCain must win if he is t be elected, has the Republican falling behind in many polls.

The NY Times pointed out yesterday that there are reasons for Democratic optimism in Florida:

Emblematic of the challenge was the experience of two Republican canvassers who appeared at Beth Moriarty's door in Orlando Thursday looking for her husband's vote. Her response was blunt.
"Y'all are totally at the wrong house," Ms. Moriarty said. "My husband, he's 62, he has never voted for a Democrat in his entire life. Until Tuesday."
Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, has a litany of structural advantages to help him. With only days to go, the Obama campaign has more of just about everything: offices (100 to Mr. McCain's 80); advertising money (outspending the McCain campaign four to one in some weeks); and voter registrations (a 660,000 Democratic edge over Republicans, up from 280,000 in 2006).

McCain senior advisor Nicole Wallace speaks for the Republican campaign, however, with the view that the polls are "tightening:"

"We have never been as convinced as others by some of the discouraging numbers. We are not saying we are moving ahead of him. But we are certainly encouraged by the tightening of the polls."

While this may be true, fivethirtyeight.com, a polling site, notes that it is very difficult to get accurate polling on weekends, especially when there is a holiday (Halloween).

So it's coming down to the wire. We have Dick Cheney giving McCain his nod, a scary thought in itself... the current VP is one of the least popular figures in American politics right now. And we have President Bush apparently keeping himself almost invisible in order not to effect the election.

But Sarah Palin continues as the negative voice of the Republicans, as she pushes through the swing states:

At a rally in central Florida for Mr. McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, supporters chanted "John McCain! Not Hussein!" Mr. Obama's middle name is Hussein, and some of his opponents use it to falsely suggest that he is Muslim. (via NY Times)

And McCain seems to beputting all of his chips in Pennsylvania, where the polls are heavily in Obama's favor.

We'll have to see where we go from here.

Under The LobsterScope