If McCain Had Been Elected... Would We Have a Climate Bill?

Allow me to posit an extremely radical hypothetical. If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, would the United States have its first federal law aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions? I might be crazy, and it pains me to say this, but I think the answer might actually be yes.

Watching John McCain over the last year and a half has been terribly disappointing. As soon as J. D. Hayworth threatened to challenge him in the Arizona Senate primary, McCain abandoned the "Straight Talk Express", abandoned many of his prior views and principles, and started positioning himself as an arch-conservative who supports a border fence, wants to extend Bush's tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, and scorns the notion of capping our climate pollution. Despite some of the most overt flip-floppage we've seen this year, McCain's strategy appears to have paid off with the GOP, as he trounced Hayworth in Tuesday night's primary.

Republicans Who Once Supported Carbon Cap Renounce Former Positions

Has there been any notable change to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change since Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and John McCain (R-AZ) supported an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions a few years ago? Actually, yes. The consensus has grown stronger, and the certainty of climate change's human cause has increased substantially.

McCain: "I Never Considered Myself a Maverick"

In a move that clearly shows McCain's desperation stemming from a challenged primary for his Arizona Senate seat by former Congressman J. D. Hayworth, McCain told Newsweek in a recent interview that he "never considered [himself] a maverick." McCain, who very much owned that term during the 2008 presidential election, seems to have completed the decimation of his image as an above-the-fray politician to a pandering, willing-to-say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite.

He cannot honestly think that the American people are as dumb as his former running mate. It's only been a little more than a year since the presidential campaign when he was using the word "maverick" with impunity. Until Saturday, that is, when he disavowed himself of the word as casually as one would an buzzing gnat; a small annoyance. But unfortunately for McCain his attempt to indulge his base by denying that the majority of 2008 ever happened is well off the mark. And it's also going to piss off this guy.

Offshore Drilling Proposal Solves Nothing

Today, President Obama announced a proposal to greatly expand offshore drilling in the United States. He has already received a good deal of flak, with environmentalists attacking him for leaving our oceans open to environmental assault by the oil industry, and conservatives arguing that this doesn’t go far enough to open our waters to reap the benefits of oil wealth.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Joe the Plumber Resurfaces, Epitomizes Republican Party Problems

It turns out the fairytale that was Joe the Plumber was merely that: a fairytale. Sam J. Wurzelbacher, better known by his misnomer Joe the Plumber (in reality he was an unlicensed contractor before becoming the McCain campaign's "regular guy" spokesman), told Glenn Beck on his syndicated radio program (really, people listen to Glenn Beck?) that the actions of the McCain campaign - and McCain himself - sickened him and made him want to "get off the bus after I talked to him."


What happened after that? Wurzelbacher continued to campaign for McCain, despite the fact that he made Joe feel "dirty." Now that's sticking to your morals!

When asked why he remained on the campaign if he did not like what he saw, he gave a classic wingnut response: "The thought of Barack Obama becoming president scares me even more." Ahh, the good ole' scare tactic approach. We've seen this before (Bush saying that America loses if the Democrats win in the mid-term elections of 2006, perennially misinformed columnist Bill Kristol begging people to be scared of Obama, etc.), but clearly it did not work in this year's election (at least not enough to keep Obama out of the White House). As the adage goes - old habits die hard.

If the Republicans want any chance of salvaging their hemorrhaging party in the next 5 years, they're really going to have to make some major changes. This would include finally dismantling the "moral majority" and the religious right that has, as Kathleen Parker said three weeks ago, been "killing the Republican Party." There's nothing wrong with religion (when practiced in a responsible way i.e. not like the FLDS or the Westboro Baptist Church or radical Islam). The problem is that when you pander to a religious group, you tend to alienate a lot of the rest of the population. Some Republicans have said (McCain included) that America is a Christian nation. This is not true. The First Amendment states that there is not a national religion, and from the letters of Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s and subsequent Supreme Court cases, we have seen the codification of the separation of church and state. Like Adams alluded to (and I have quoted this quote often on this blog): we are a nation of laws, not of men. The supreme law in America (the Constitution) states that there is no national religion.

There are other changes, and Colin Powell gets into a lot of what needs to be done with the Republican Party in his interview with Fareed Zakharia that will air this Sunday. In it, Powell says that the party needs to stop polarizing the country with their talk of small-town values' supremacy and need to not just try to pander to the black, Latino, and Asian vote, but genuinely listen to them and try to understand how they can better serve them (a politician's first duty is, after all, to serve his constituents).


Powell also says that it wouldn't hurt to stop listening to nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh.

So while Joe the Plumber seems to be a symbol of the current, stagnant Republican Party, those who claim to further the right-wing agenda, such as Glenn Beck, are more than willing to give him a mouthpiece. This even after Wurzelbacher proved his lack of logic by saying - and then defending - that a vote for Barack Obama would be a vote for the death of Israel (again with the scare tactics).


It is just another example of the Republican Party (and its radio host mouthpieces) not knowing when to stop with something/someone. For example, why is David Vitter speaking for the party at all? This is a man who frequented prostitutes yet is in Washington on a pro-family platform. Vitter recently went on a diatribe against the auto bailout, calling it "ass backward." Jay Leno said last night that Vitter should know "ass backwards" because he used to pay extra for it. It's funny, because it's true! This just shows to hypocrisy of the Republican Party at times.

It's funny that Joe the Plumber claims to be shocked at how dirty politics really is after being whored out by the McCain campaign. Did he live in a fantasy world where you don't need a license to practice contracting and Barack Obama was the devil incarnate? Maybe the Republican Party is in that same fantasy world, where America is a Christian nation and Sarah Palin is qualified to be president of the country. Either way, both need to wake up. Peace.

Photos - Republican Party brand (Buy Costumes)

Romney to Big Three: Drop Dead

If you read the opinion page of the New York Times today, you would have noticed a curious thing in the Op-Ed contributor section. Mitt Romney - yes, the golden child of Michigan - arguing to let Detroit go bankrupt. While his piece was insightful and I agreed with a lot of what he said (as it was in similar vein to my ditty about Detroit on Monday), the problem with Mitt is best summed up by a friend of mine: "He has no backbone and will say anything to placate the people in front of him." This is true given his campaign speeches in Detroit back in January.

Specifically, the speech he gave in front of the Detroit Economic Club on January 14, 2008 during his failed campaign for the Republican nomination. In his speech, he lamented over the fact that Washington saw what was happening in Detroit and in Michigan as a whole, and rhetorically asked, "And the question is, what has Washington done with this looming, not looming, this existing crisis, this recession, what has Washington done to help? The answer is not very much at all." He goes on to say that "A lot of Washington politicians are aware of the pain, but they haven't done anything about it. And of course, I hear people from time to time say, 'Well, that's Michigan's problem.' Or, they say something like, 'Well, it's the car companies. They just brought it on themselves. But that's where they're wrong."

Romney also went out of his way to criticize John McCain who told Michigan voters in his characteristic straight talk that was missing from the general election, "Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back. They are not. And I am sorry to tell you that." Romney attacked McCain in the South Carolina debate and said that he disagreed with McCain's assertion and that he was "not willing to accept defeat like that." He also asked "Where is Washington?" while campaigning in front of a GM plant during the primaries.

So all of this rhetoric about Washington saving Detroit and the Big Three, with all those jobs lost in Michigan coming back in Romney's view, and the Washington politicians ignoring the problem because they think the car companies brought it on themselves was Romney's tone in January. November? Romney is a new man, calling for Washington to ignore the pleas of the Big Three and allow the companies to go bankrupt.

But why? Why the sudden turnaround? He says that the labor agreements are a burden on the American manufacturers and benefits like retirement should be reduced. Secondly, he says that the management of the companies must go. That must be because the management brought this disaster upon themselves. Romney also calls for investment in fuel saving designs - despite criticizing an energy bill signed by Bush increasing the measely MPG requirements for cars and trucks in the US. Romney says that a "managed bankruptcy" might be the only path to save these companies as it would allow them to do a multitude of things, one of which is to "shed excess labor." So I guess those jobs that Romney promised Michigan that would be coming back to their state are really just excess labor that need shedding.

So it appears that Romney may just say anything to placate those in front of him and that my friend is right. Obviously Mitt wants to stay in the spotlight because campaigning for 2012 should be starting any day now, but writing Op-Eds in the New York Times that completely go against what you said earlier this year is not a good way to start. The populism streak amongst Republicans is a fad right now, because it helped McCain garner some votes in the election, but it just does not suit most of them. So the question Mitt needs to start asking himself is not "Where is Washington?" but "Have I no shame?" Peace.

Photos - Mitt Romney (Wikipedia), Car executives begging for money in Washington (BBC), Romney at the GM exhibit at the Detroit Auto Show the same day he gave a speech in front of the Detroit Economic Club (Daylife)

American Covert Raids Extend Beyond Pakistan

The New York Times this morning published an article about "Al Qaeda Network Exord," an executive order signed by then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld back in 2004 that greatly expanded the military's power to secretly enter sovereign territory of other nations if they felt that terrorist activity was going on there. While Rummy signed the order, it was apparently approved by President Bush and used to justify numerous covert attacks in nations like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (in all 15-20 countries are listed in the order).

Beyond the PR nightmare that this should bring to the White House (though at this point I think many people are jaded by the Bush Administration's use of the Constitution as toilet paper and are more than ready to move on to President Obama), this brings up many questions both philosophically and diplomatically. To begin with, there is American exceptionalism. I'm down with American exceptionalism; I think this country has something that others do not (namely a heterogenous population that, for all of its issues [racism, xenophobia, etc.], is unique and culturally enriching), as well as a Constitution that goes farther than any other state document in protecting freedoms such as speech and religion for its people. This is something to be proud of. However, because we have these things does not mean that we can conduct secret missions without the approval of the government who rules over the land we conducting covert attacks on. If something like this were to happen in America can you imagine the response? If a Zapatista cell were in Texas or Arizona or New Mexico and Federales crossed the border into America without Washington's approval to take out the Zapatistas, how would Bush and Company respond? Do you think they would just let it slide because Calderon had signed some executive order? Doubtful.

Diplomatically this brings up serious issues, as well. When you choose to go behind a government's back to get things done, you lose all bargaining power with that government. What incentive would Zardari have to compromise with the U.S. on certain diplomatic items if he knows that his power will be worked around with secret executive orders? The way that he, or any leader of the 15-20 countries on that list, sees it they lose either way: either they bargain with the U.S. and allow these strikes to happen, or they do not bargain (or take a hard-line stance that is non-negotiable) with the U.S. and the strikes occur anyway behind their backs. So while publicly Bush and his administration will refer to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as allies, in private they clearly do not trust them enough to take care of what they deem as threats to America and will violate those countries' sovereign borders to do what they think is right.

With Obama coming in in January, one would hope that he would bring an end to this kind of thing. One's belief that this would happen may be heightened by the reports that Obama wants to reverse a lot of the executive decisions made by the Bush Administration. However, his stance on cross-border raids into Pakistan from Afghanistan during the campaign suggests that he will more than likely not repeal this portion of the Bush Adminstration's strategy. In fact, it would politically harm him to repeal it because of Senator McCain's attacks on Obama that he is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief and is not hard enough on terrorism. We saw this with another young president who came from the Senate and did not want to appear soft on Communism. Let's hope that history does not repeat itself.

All in all, these types of secret raids into others' territory is not a good step in healing the wounds America has brought to the world with its blatant lying about the Iraq War in 2003. Many in America may not realize the distrust that other countries have for American leadership due to this egregious error. Instability in the Middle East has been underscored by the American invasion of Iraq. Just today there were mulitiple bombings in Baghdad. This country most certainly has the ability to return to diplomatic greatness and be seen abroad as something to emulate rather than fear or scorn. We have it in us, and hopefully Obama's administration has it in them. Peace.

Photos - Map of the region where many of the countries mentioned in "Al Qaeda Network Exord" lie (New York Times), An October 27 funeural for a person killed in an American cross-border raid into Syria (New York Times), The guys who made it happen (Wikipedia)

An Historic Election: Barack Obama Wins the Presidency

As people wake up after celebrations both in America and around the world, the fact remains: Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States of America. Slightly more than 50 years ago blacks and whites could not sit down at the same lunch counter together, and today the next president of this nation will be black. It is truly an historic moment, and one to appreciate no matter who you voted for. But Obama's acendency to the presidency does not solve all of our problems; the Red Sea has not been parted and we still have severe issues to deal with when it comes to America.

To begin with, I want to address the media's coverage post-election results. Nearly every video feed or interview was that of a minority. Very rarely did I look at the television and see a white person (unless they showed McCain's concession speech or the newscasters). While I understand and appreciate the historic moment of Obama's trailblazing, I also consider Obama's campaign to be predicated not on race or physicalities like that, but a togetherness and a united front moving forward. By highlighting only the minorities celebrating Obama's win it only increases the racial dichotomy that has plagued this country and goes against Obama's creed of one country united. I want to stress that there is nothing wrong with discussing the historic significance of this election because of the victor's race, but we also have to understand that Obama's victory is not ONLY a victory for minorities in this country, but a win for the country as a whole as well and an excellent example of how people came together to vote for Obama (because his victory cannot be attributed to one race or one group of people, but a diverse mix of the electorate).

Secondly, it is important to note that Obama's victory does not solve any of the problems this country is facing. We are still hemohrraging money with a $10 billion a year war overseas in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a financial mess that stretches from the most obese of the fat cats on Wall Street to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has a mortgage on a home declining in value, and a health care system in tatters. These problems will not be easy to solve. I am also relieved that the Democrats did not get the 60+ Senate seats needed for a filibuster-proof majority. One of the tenets of this country is checks and balances, and while my vote was on the issues and not whether or not the Democrats would get that magic number of 60 Senate seats, I was a bit relieved to know that the executive would not have an extremely strong majority in the legislative branch of his same party (because we saw what it did from 2000-2006). And if, for whatever reason, Congress becomes a rubber stamp for Obama, 2010 will see a lot of Democratic seats upended (like in 1994).



The problems facing Obama are very serious. Iraq is officially a quagmire. Thanks to the severity of the situation caused by the Bush Administration, we cannot leave just yet. We have to turn things over to an Iraqi government that is a few assassinations away from civil war. Unfortunately we have to participate in nation building there, which will be difficult because no other nations want to help because of the way the war was begun (i.e. bold-faced lies). I think Obama plans to get out by the end of his first term, and this is possible, but everything must go well and no unknown variables can arise. Again, it is certainly possible, but I will not be surprised if we still have a large troop presence (50,000+ with numerous bases) in 2012.

Then there is the health care system. Obama's plan is ambitious, and will probably be passed as a watered-down version. In any event, if Obama does not make a significant amount of headway (in lowering premiums and insuring a large amount of currently uninsured folks), his popularity will severely wane. While we are in a state of euphoria right after the election, we have to remember that a lot has been promised to the American people. I feel Obama can fulfill a good amount of these promises (if I did not, I would not have waited two and a half hours to cast a vote in this election), but it will take a lot of hard work and dedication.

One promising thing that is not getting a lot of press time is McCain's concession speech. I thought it was a great speech and emblematic of the pre-election McCain who reached across party lines, had a pragmatic approach to politics, and was willing to work with others who were willing to work with him. One thing I was dissapointed to see (and I think McCain was dissapointed to have done) was the attacks on Obama when it came to Ayers and Wright and socialism. That's not the John McCain I knew a year or two ago. The John McCain I knew a year or two ago popped up at certain points in the campaign (the Alfred E. Smith dinner, for one), and certainly made an appearance last night in a very good concession speech:



It was dissapointing to hear the crowd boo and cat call when Obama's name was mentioned (especially because the event was invitation only), but McCain handled it well and his classiness showed during the speech. An important thing to remember in this campaign is that John McCain is one of the only Republicans who could have done as well as he did with, in Chris Shays' words, the "tsunami" of Democratic support following a disastrous Republican presidential administration. You put any other Republican up there (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson) and we're looking at a Nixon-McGovern situation (with Democrats winning). While McCain's campaign has been marred by the last few months and the attacks, he still did well given the circumstances.

No one knows what the next four years have in store for us. We are an anxious country right now (and would be no matter who was elected). While Obama certainly did very well in the electoral college, his mandate is not as large as the ridiculous numbers system assigned to states would let on. Obama won 52% of the vote, with McCain gaining 46%. This is a large victory, but not a landslide. If Obama wants to make government work, he is going to have to work with both parties (something I am confident he will do). At the end of the day, while Obama's election does not solve our problems, it is a good first step, in my opinion, to fixing them. Given his campaign promises, Obama has a lot to live up to and hopefully he can. I am confident he will make a good president and will do this nation proud. Congratulations, Barack Obama.

Photos - Obama giving his acceptance speech in Chicago (Bloomberg),

Bill Kristol's Logic: McCain Victory Good for Liberals

Reading Bill Kristol's column today made me wonder, "How does this stuff make it past the common sense police?" Kristol goes into an argument about how a McCain victory would mean good news for liberals, while at the same time painting everyone on the left as anxiety-ridden crybabies when it comes to electing a president. He even cites a young woman from Denver who put her relationship on hold while she awaited the results of the election. Are there people like this in the Democratic Party? Yes. Are there equally nutty people on the right? Given what we've seen at McCain/Palin rallies, you bet there are. Yet Kristol continues to pool all liberals into one group, saying that he's here to help us in the case of a McCain victory (it's just like the Second Coming!).

But maybe Kristol's right. Maybe those conservatives supporting McCain and Palin are actually nice people, voting on the issues and not rumors like Obama is a Muslim or hangs out with terrorists. Maybe, as Kristol says, "conservatives will greet the news [of an Obama victory] with [their] usual resolute soicism or cheerful fatalism." Or, maybe not:





But it's unfair to pool all conservatives into one group like Kristol did with liberals. There are obviously fringe elements on both sides, though it just seems that one side is basing their anger on 8 frustrating years of Bush/Cheney and the other side is basing their anger on rumors of terrorist ties and religious affiliations (did I mention one of the candidates is black?). As one reads more of Kristol's article, however, it becomes apparent that the man has no idea what he's talking about. His first point as to why an McCain victory would help liberals is that it would be a win for an underdog. Yeah, because a 70+ year old white man who's been in Washington for almost three decades beating an under-50 black man in Washington for less than a full Senate term is an underdog victory.

His second point was that a McCain victory over Obama would be a defeat for the establishment. Because cheating on your first wife with a woman whose family is worth over $100 million, and then marrying her and launching your political career with her father's money and connections really says, "Fuck the establishment."

His third point: a McCain victory would be a victory for the future. He says that, "Liberals should therefore welcome a McCain win as a triumph of hope over fear, of the future over the past." Seriously? Voting a well-educated, qualified black man into the White House only 50 years after the Jim Crow era would be a triumph of the past over the future? Are some of Obama's votes from white guilt? Sure, but he's also qualified and I think more votes come from his qualifications than his skin color (I would even argue his skin color does him more harm than good in the eyes of the electorate). But apparently McCain, with the whole Keating Five scandal and decades of Washington experience, is the candidate of hope and the future.

Fourth point: A vote for McCain is a vote for freedom. Beyond the fear-mongering and the not-so-subtle "Obama is un-American" tone this has to it, Kristol's primary citation is McCain's defense of the surge and Obama's continued criticism of it. Do we forget that Obama was against the war before it was cool? That's like someone saying, "Here, play with this snake, it won't bite." And despite your unwillingness to do so, you are forced to play with it and it bites you. Then your friend says, "Well, it's actually a really poisonous snake and now we have to cut your leg off so the poison doesn't spread." Then somehow your friend is baffled when you want nothing to do with him after you lose a leg thanks to his ignorance. But he was right about cutting off your leg!

Fifth (final and most desperate point): Executive and legislative control by one party usually creates a political superstar for the other party (citing Carter and Reagan, Clinton and Gingrich). Then the scare tactics: it might lead to a Palin presidency in 2012! Reagan must be rolling in his grave and Gingrich must be angrily e-mailing Kristol for comparing them to Sarah Palin. Reagan may have been highly misguided, but he was no Sarah Palin. He was smart, and while Gingrich is similarly misguided, the two have done more good for their parties than Palin ever will. If Obama wins this election, you will see public attitude toward Palin change drastically, as she will be cited as one of the main reasons McCain could not pull it off in November. Plus, why is it a bad thing for the other party to have a qualified political star who increases public debate on the issues? If anything, that's what we'll need if the Democrats dominate the executive and the legislative branches (I'm already assuming a strong Republican showing in the 2010 midterm elections in the event of an Obama victory).

In his little wrap-up describing what McCain needs to do to win, Kristol pens an emblematic line about the McCain campaign. He says, "It's an inside straight. But I've seen gamblers draw them." The entirety of the latter-half McCain campaign has been a gamble. Palin to win PUMA voters, going extremely negative (trying to tie Obama to Ayers and Khalidi), and praising Joe "Obama = Death to Israel" the Plumber as McCain's role model. But the thing with gamblers (and this is one area where Kristol is right) is that sometimes they win big. Nothing is written in stone and until all the votes are tallied and all the hanging chads are counted, we do not know who the president-elect will be on November 5. No matter what your political affiliation or who you are voting for, this is America and it requires the people's participation. So please, go out and VOTE!

Photos - Bill Kristol (nytimes.com), Barack Obama (en.wikipedia.org), John McCain (en.wikipedia.org)

Palin's Loose Grasp of Reality Continues: Freedom of Speech Infringement?

Anyone who heard about what Sarah Palin said to Chris Plante, host of a conservative radio show, must be confused (as I am). She thinks that because the media has called her attacks on Obama regarding Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Rashid Khalidi negative (was she trying to paint them in a positive light? If not, then it's negative) her right to freedom of speech that is guaranteed in the First Amendment is in danger of being infringed upon.

Full interview, Part I:

Part II:

(Skip to 0:50 in part 2 to hear Palin's comment on freedom of speech)

It is quite clear that Palin is in troubled waters with this comment. To begin with, a private entity (like the media) cannot illegally infringe upon one's freedom of speech (at least if that person is not an employee; you enter a grayer area when it comes to the EEOC) because that right is guaranteed under the Constitution and thus requires a state action to even to be considered as an infringement of that right. Secondly, in the type of open environment that we as United States citizens and residents are lucky enough to enjoy, there is what is called a "marketplace of ideas," to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes. One person says something, another person can respond, others can join in and rebuttals and such can be offered up. That is part of the beauty of America. Debate is necessary to bring out the truth.

So to say that because you are criticized your freedom of speech is being infringed upon is ridiculous. The same tenet that gives one the right to say whatever he/she wants gives someone else the right to criticize you (add freedom of the press guaranteed by the same amendment and the media's ability to call something negative is enhanced). To say that because someone rebuts what you say or paints it in a way that you do not find favorable it infringes on your freedom of speech (and thus the party who criticized you should not do so for the greater "good" of the people's first amendment right) is ridiculous and totalitarian.

Additionally, there are many people in the world who would love to be in Sarah Palin's shoes when it comes to free speech. To people in nations like China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea (to name a few) if some criticism were all that accompanied speaking out against the government (which Palin is certainly doing when she talks about the Washington elite, etc.) they would be ecstatic. Instead they must deal with beatings, imprisonment, even death for exercising their human right to free speech, and they still manage to use that right whenever possible. For Palin to say that the media calling her attacks on Obama negative (again, there are no positive attacks) a potential infringement on her freedom of speech is insulting.

If Palin is feeling bullied by the media for calling her ridiculous assertions that Obama's policies will be shaped by some hippy like Bill Ayers negative, she needs to either begin talking about the issues or, if she wants to continue to try to smear Obama, deal with it. Freedom of speech goes two ways, and to say that the first amendment's dichotomous nature is preventing the utilization of the right in the first place is ludicrous. Is Palin under media scrutiny? You're damn right. When you're a heartbeat away from the presidency and your own running mate does not vet you and all you have to talk about is Obama's acquaintances instead of the issues, what can you expect? Obama, McCain, and Biden have gone through the same process, though it was months and months ago and people seem to forget it (Stephanopoulos anyone?). It also does not help that she has made many missteps so far in front of the nation (I can see Russia from my house!). Palin likes to say that she calls them like she sees them. It seems as if the media is doing the same thing with her. Peace.

Photos - Palin (Wall Street Journal), Oliver Wendell Holmes (Wikipedia)

Joe the Unlicensed Contractor, Sarah Palin, and McCain's Hypocrisy: A Trifecta of Scare Tactics

While the main headline grabber yesterday was Obama's 30 minute informercial (which was done surprisingly well and not as schticky as I thought it would be), the McCain campaign yesterday still managed to make waves in the news world. The newly minted McCain campaign's Sabbatai Zevi (read: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor) dropped a bombshell yesterday at a McCain campaign supported bus tour in which he agreed with a member of the audience asking questions who stated that a vote for Barack Obama would mean the death of Israel. The scare tactics continue.

Later when Joe the Unlicensed Contractor was on Fox News with Shepard Smith (of Jenny from the Block Blowjob fame) he was pressed to explain why he felt that a vote for Barack Obama was a vote for the death of Israel. He could not explain why he felt that way beyond saying that Obama has stated that he would sit down with the President of Iran without preconditions (something "Joe" mistakenly labeled as an action and not just words when, in reality, saying you will do something manifests itself in the form of words):



Joe said an interesting thing in the phone conversation. When asked what Obama's stance on Israel was, he avoided the question and stated, "Let people go out and find it...Find out why they would think that I would say that...You don't want my opinion on foreign policy; I know just enough probably to be dangerous." I think I know why Sam would say something like that. It's probably because he has no idea what he's talking about and cannot state Obama's stances on Israel. And Joe/Sam is right, we don't want his opinions on foreign policy.

All of this continues with the scare tactics of the McCain campaign (who, after Joe/Sam's recent fear mongering put out a statement essentially backing Joe's comments). But rule number one when trying to smear a distinguished professor in order to get a barb or two in about your political opponent: know how to pronounce the guy's name (skip to 2:25 if you don't want to watch the whole thing).



If Sarah Palin knows so little about Rashid Khalidi that she cannot even pronounce his name correctly, why are we supposed to listen to her assertions that Khalidi was a former PLO spokesman? Additionally, as the Olbermann tape above mentioned, in 1998 the International Republican Institute (IRI) gave $448,873 in a grant to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies (CPRS) (page 14 of the PDF, grant # 5180). The interesting thing about 1998 is that John McCain was the chairman of the board of the IRI and Rashid Khalidi was one of the founders of CPRS. In a statement yesterday the IRI stated that, "We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some (unclear) amount of time a board member. IRI did not in the 1990s conduct background checks of grantees’ founders or board members. IRI did on a number of occasions vet CPRS as an organization, including, as was our custom, with the Israeli government, and we were given no cause for concern." No concern, of course, until John McCain can try to use it as a smear against Obama.

So while Joe/Sam the Unlicensed Contractor seems to be Sarah Palin's male counterpart (not vetted properly, entirely unready for national attention, saying stupid things in front of the media, and embraced by the McCain campaign), a bigger McCain issue is his own hypocrisy. I understand that McCain could not have possibly remembered giving money (albeit half a million dollars) to Khalidi's organization, but don't the speechwriters at the McCain campaign factcheck or make sure there are no conflicts of interest or overt hypocrisy? If this is the competency level of the campaign with less than a week to go until Election Day, it makes you wonder how ready any member of that camp, nevermind the higher-ups, would be to run one of the most powerful countries in the world. Peace.

Photo - Joe the Unlicensed Contractor (who apparently may be in line for a country music deal) (popwatch.ew.com)

Straight Up Scare Tactics

One quote from a CNN article struck me in particular as being emblematic of the McCain campaign lately. The McCain campaign has been desperately grasping at straws since they have determined (but also have inadvertently strengthened) the stigma that the media and the country have "written them off." The latest is taking it to a new level. Back in April (yes, APRIL) the LA Times wrote a piece about a farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a UChiacgo professor who was slated to leave to go to Columbia, and Obama's attendence. The paper reported that at that dinner, a young Palestinian-American woman read a poem that was highly critical of the United States policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The paper had also received footage of the dinner, which Obama was at, and promised the source of the tape that it would not air it (read: journalistic integrity). Some have pointed to the LA Times and said that this is an example of media bias. Unless the source that the LA Times has does not exist or has not requested that the tape remain unaired, the LA Times is doing the right thing. McCain decided to bring this up anyway today in a last ditch effort to scare people away from Obama.

The quote I was referring to earlier, the emblematic one, came from a McCain aide who replied, after being asked why this was being brought up 6 months after the report, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama." If that's not a fear-mongering quote for the ages, then the Celtics aren't better than the Lakers. We saw something similar from another McCain campaign participant - Bill Kristol - but no one listens to him anyway.

What is unbelievable is that - and I did not think this was possible - Rashid Khalidi is more irrelevant than Bill Ayers when it comes to Barack Obama. I cannot even believe that we are talking about this guy. If he were a PLO spokesman, why wouldn't Bush and Co. ship him to Gitmo? If Jose Padilla can be locked away like he has, and Khalidi was as dangerous as McCain/Palin want you to believe, he'd be in Cuba or some CIA black site. Instead he is teaching at a university. And just as a quick sidenote: I took a class with Khalidi (and according to McCain/Palin that makes me a dangerous person). This is what I took from his class: Western imperialism in the Middle East had unintended consequences which led to increased instability in the region that was furthered by Western action. Oooooh, dangerous.


What is important to remember in all of this is that if McCain's goal is to boost his own poll numbers, he should know that this is not the way to do it. While tactics like this may cause a temporary dip in Obama's numbers (as it seems to have done briefly when the Ayers madness reached its peak), it does not raise McCain's numbers (which is what he really needs right now). Experimenting with the Ayers connection (which did not work) and spending time debunking the myth that Obama is an Arab (as if there is anything wrong with that in the first place) among his own ignorant supporters has distracted McCain from the real issues of the election and, in the process, truly hurt his campaign for president. If McCain and Palin want to start talking about the issues at their rallies instead of tenuous relationships Obama held with academics, socialism, or how Palin has "gone rogue" I (and the media) are willing to listen. If not, then the media is just going to hop on the attacks (that's what gets viewers and, in turn, ad revenue) and his campaign will continue to suffer. It's up to you, McCain. You can begin to focus on the issues, possibly win the White House (or, if you end up losing, it will be with a shred of dignity left) or you can continue to focus on the bullshit and probably end up losing the election and your reputation. Peace.

Photos - Sarah Palin (Rockford Register Star), Barack Obama (Daily Nation)

The Election Has Not Happened Yet

Just a quick reminder to the media: the election is a week from now and has not occurred yet. With all of the reporting lately on Obama's poll numbers and that 60+ Democratic Congress, one would think that November 4 has come and gone and Obama was president-elect and Pelosi and Reid the two most powerful people in Washington. Not so fast.

While it may be true that Obama's lead in the polls is a very high 16 points, he also led by 10 points (which is considered a sizable margin) against Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primaries. For those of you who forgot, Obama lost that state. Why? Numerous factors were involved - a good ground game by Clinton, an outpouring of female voters, and other unknown variables.

So who is predicting all of this Obama and Democratic-led hoopla? The media, the pundits, and also the McCain campaign. Obama and his staffers like to remind themselves of what happened in New Hampshire and say that they are playing it like they are 10 points down, not 16 up. Obama reminded his supporters in New Hampshire that you have to run through the finish line and not let up during the last portion of the race:



But McCain seems to be jumping on the fact that many people have "written him off." He continues to point to the poll numbers, reminding people that he is down by a lot:



While McCain's strategy of playing the underdog may work, it also is a big gamble (like most of his campaign since picking Palin). While it may get some voters to go to the polls because they think they can help give McCain a surge in the election, it could also get people to either stay home (thinking that it is a lost cause to vote for him when he is down by so much) or vote for Obama (for the same reason). A gamble, but like McCain's other gambles (see: Palin), it may not work out.

Through all of this we have the media fanning the flames from the sidelines. With headlines like "Republicans scramble after Stevens conviction" and "Polls show McCain not making up ground in Ohio," it's hard to imagine that many in the media do not forsee an Obama victory next Tuesday. The words "scramble" and "not making up ground" seem to be based on the assumption that Republicans are panicked and McCain is desperately seeking to catch up to Obama. We do not know if these things are true (though, to be fair about the Stevens article, some Republicans are asking Alaskans to vote for Stevens even if they think he's guilty because if he steps down the Alaskan governor (a Republican) will be able to appoint a conservative replacement - that's just desperate). Polls are not 100% accurate, and we still do not know the full extent of the Bradley Effect. Many pundits will say, "Oh, well a lot has changed since then there are plenty of excuses that people can come up with to not vote for Obama than they could have with Tom Bradley." I just do not buy this. If someone is embarassed to say that they do not want to vote for Obama because he is black, are they going to say that they don't like him because he is a Muslim or is buddy-buddy with Bill Ayers (two things that have been definitively debunked)? The Bradley effect assumes that those who take part in it have shame; people who claim Obama is a Muslim or is going to take advice from some hippie like Bill Ayers have none of it.

We should all take Obama's advice and not count the chickens before they hatch. The media simply wants to paint a big picture of a landslide victory (the whole divided America, red state blue state crap is a little played out). It's not liberal bias (though one could argue it is a backlash against Bush who played the media big time leading up to Iraq - don't forget that the media didn't treat Carter too well when things were looking bad for the country). If the roles were reversed we would be talking about what went wrong in the Obama campaign (is it because he's black? Too liberal? Was it the Ayers/Wright stuff?). Election Day is seven days away and anything could happen, so don't play along with the media's assumptions. Peace.

Photos - McCain and Obama under a polling logo (ABC News), Obama and wife Michelle after the Senator conceded the New Hampshire primary (LA Times)

Still Not Talking About the Issues: Ashley Todd a Distraction

The story of Ashley Todd, the 20 year old McCain campaign volunteer allegedly attacked in Pittsburgh due to her political affiliations, has been making the national news rounds. As with any story making national news (see: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor), media scrutiny can sometimes lead to fact-checking (unless it's the Iraq War). As it turns out, Todd was not attacked by anyone and it appears that she inflicted her injuries upon herself (including carving a "B" into her cheek - backwards).

This would have little to no political consequences if it were left untouched by both campaigns. People would have written it off as some looney in western PA looking to seek attention. The reality of the situation is, however, that both campaigns took notice of Ashley Todd's allegations. Barack Obama's campaign simply said that they hoped Todd would recover quickly. The McCain campaign went a little further.

John McCain actually called the woman up, and Sarah Palin talked to the woman's family. While going a little further than the average campaign statement wishing the "victim" well, still not a horrible thing to do. The main issue is the fact that many reporters who first reported on the story say that their source was not the police department, but the McCain campaign itself:


While I do believe that the McCain campaign had something to do with injecting the story into the national news spotlight quicker than normally would have happened (if something like this would have reached the national news anyway), I do not think that they did it knowing it was false. Their main error was pushing the story before all the facts were out.

But now the McCain campaign ends up with egg on their face. While the McCain camp may not have participated in overt race-baiting, Fox News did not waste time attributing the unidentified black male's actions against Ashley Todd to the Obama candidacy:

"Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee."

So because a black man allegedly attacked a white woman in Pittsburgh (classic racial fear, right Woody?), it should make people rethink their support for Barack Obama as a black president because they do not know enough about him? Unless Barack Obama himself attacked the woman, I do not see how it should bear on him at all. Linking the two due to race is racist (even Murtha would tell you that).

Ironically, in the same post, John Moody (VP of Fox News), admits that not all of the facts are out and says that the McCain campaign will be ruined if this turns out to be a hoax (maybe he was privy to the McCain campaign pushing the story...?): "If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting." Never mind that Moody himself was blatantly race-baiting in his misguided remarks about how Obama, as a black man, should be doubted in light of an imaginary black man in Pittsburgh.

The fact of the matter is, the story should not have been pushed by the McCain campaign. In an election where issues of race have been highlighted due to Obama being black, one would think that a large black man attacking a young white woman (and sexually assaulting her) supposedly due to her allegiance to the McCain campaign would be off limits, with the exception of the "get well soon" statements, until all of the facts were 100% verified (and even then it may be unwise to discuss it). Alas, the McCain camp clearly needs to brush up on its Tawana Brawly and Francisco Nava knowledge. Of course, they could always talk about the issues... Peace.

Photos - Ashley Todd (Times Online), Ashley Todd, this time in handcuffs (Faniq)

Real vs. Fake America?

Palin's comments last week, when she referred to the "pro-America" places that she and McCain visit as the "real America, have touched off a rhetorical firestorm. In her comments at a fundraiser in Greensboro, North Carolina, she said that "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom." Apparently Palin thinks that big city folk do not possess the kindness and goodness of everyday Americans and that they do not fight in America's wars. In other words, the large cities (which, by no small coincidence, tend to lean democratic) are not pro-American.

Palin has since apologized for the comment, realizing how dumb it was to say. Of course, in the same interview she expressed how inexperienced Barack Obama was and rattled off her experience as being a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska as one reason she is more ready for the Oval Office than he is. Jon Stewart sent a correspondent to Wasilla to find out about its "realness" and also get an inside look into the mayor of Wasilla's duties:

No social services? Really? I guess they're too busy signing the checks over at Wasilla town hall.

But Sarah Palin is not the only one on the McCain campaign who sees different parts of America as "real" and other parts as "fake." Nancy Pfotenhauer, a McCain campaign adviser, dismissed an MSNBC anchor who, when discussing the state of Virginia and its vital importance to McCain come November 4, stated that the northern portion of the state, which tends to lean democratic, had recently strengthened in terms of its electoral power statewide. This was Pfotenhauer's response:

So it seems that anything liberal or sympathetic to the Democratic Party is not "real." Earlier this month McCain's brother Joe stated that northern Virginia was "communist country" while at one of the candidate's rallies. This pales in comparison to what North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes (R) said at a McCain rally in Concord, North Carolina. While first denying that he said it, Hayes finally admitted that he stated, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

It's clear what this is. The old "Us vs. Them" idiom. The only problem is that the "Us" and the "Them" are on the same side: they're both American. It is idiotic to try to divide this country at a time when we are at war with two nations and as soon as one war seems to go well, the other falls apart (Afghanistan to Iraq, then back to Afghanistan) and the stock market is in turmoil because neither party stepped up to the plate to try to regulate the Wall Street leviathan. Instead of talking about these issues, we talk about what parts of the country are real and which are not, Joe the Unlicensed Contractor who brought the tax debate to the forefront despite his own tax liens, and how liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives (a move straight from Karl Rove's dirty little book). One congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann (R - MN), has even suggested that the news media do a "penetrating expose" on anti-Americans in Congress because she feels that Barack Obama may not be the only one:

Somebody wake up Joe McCarthy from the dead and get the old HUAC hacks, apparently their job is not done because there are still liberals in the United States.

If I could describe the way that this race has been going the past couple of weeks, I would choose pathetic. The country's economy is in the shitter, we are fighting two wars, the Bush Administration has used the Constitution as toilet paper the past few years, and we're talking about "real" parts of America and small town "pro-America" (never mind that 9/11 happened in the biggest city in the nation), anti-Americanism in the halls of Congress, and BILL FUCKING AYERS. Bill Kristol said in his column on Monday that he did not think that anti-intellectualism was "rampant in the land." Given the way that the McCain campaign and a lot of others in the Washington elite have been acting lately (Robocalls are not exactly intellectually stimulating), I would have to say McCain and company are banking on Bill Kristol being wrong (yet again). Peace.

Photo - Sarah Palin (www.foxnews.com)

McCain Cannot Let Go of Joe the Plumber

The McCain campaign strategy seems to be invoke something, find out it was a big mistake, but try to go with it and convince the American public that your mistake was actually part of the plan (see: Sarah Palin). So it is with Joe the Plumber. Without looking into Joe's credentials (or lack thereof), McCain decided to thrust the guy into the national spotlight in a an ill-advised debate style which hinged on him. Once the media looked into the guy (as McCain or any other sane individual knew they would) they found out some interesting facts.

Joe the Plumber's real name is Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher and, in reality, he is not really a plumber. Despite insisting that he does not need a license to practice his trade, the folks who run Toeldo, Ohio say that he does. And his claim that he is about to buy his employer's $250,000 plumbing business may not be true, either. In any event, it is worth watching Obama's answer to Sam (Joe), because instead of brushing him off, he takes the time to explain his plan to him and makes sure that he understands it:

Wurzelbacher seems to get it and to appreciate Obama's time to answer his question. Now, beyond McCain's initial incantation of Joe the Plumber at the third debate, his campaign seems to be grasping the idea of Sam (Joe) the Plumber (probably in their attempt to portray themselves as populists). McCain has even gone so far as to call up Joe (Sam) to ask him to come out to some campaign rallies. Rather than let the Joe the Plumber fad die, McCain seems to want to embrace it despite the recent revelations of the real Joe (Sam).

Palin also seems to be embracing Joe the Plumber. She has said that he had the courage to stand up to Obama and that should be commended. Indeed, it should, because politicians do not get asked legitimate questions (it is too bad that this time it seems that the questioner was not the best person to be asking the question given his tax history). But Palin should not be praising Joe the Plumber, for when she faced a similar incident in Philly and was called out on it later, she said that Katie Couric was participating in "gotcha journalism": (you can ignore the interview with the guy who asked the question, because he seems like a pompous ass)



So, isn't Palin caught in "gotcha politics" (isn't that a pizza place?) when she invokes the Joe (Sam) the Plumber question? Is it not hypocritical for Palin to say that she should not be called out on her answer to a random voter (in which she agreed with Barack Obama's ill-advised plan to enter sovereign Pakistani land to get terrorists without Pakistani approval, which is in direct opposition to John McCain's position), but that Barack Obama's answer should be scrutinized? Or is it still sexist to ask Sarah Palin about things she has said and what she believes?

All of this Joe the Plumber stuff is getting annoying. He asked Obama a good question, and Obama answered him quite well. The McCain campaign, looking for anything to bring attention off of their policies and anything else that may mean something to the voter before the election, have continually brought up Joe the Plumber to show, "Hey, look, I own eight homes, but I still care about your average Joe; I'm a populist! Greed and corruption on Wall Street!" Once Joe's 15 runs out, it'll be back to the Ayers non-connection. But while McCain and Palin continue to use the image of Joe, I propose a name change . I think we should call him Joe the Unlicensed Contractor. Peace.

Photo - Obama and Sam (Joe) (www.timesonline.co.uk)

Final Debate: The "Joe the Plumber" Showdown

Every pundit in the world said before this debate that all Obama had to do was not, in polite terms, defecate the bed. He metaphorically woke up feces-free. McCain needed to do some Criss Angel magic, and he ended up looking like Gob Bluth. While I think the debate was relatively close (at least compared to what we saw the last two times), this is because McCain performed better in the second half of the debate than the first. However, McCain certainly did not "whip Obama's you-know-what" in this debate like he promised he would.

McCain was the first to speak and it seemed that he was nervous as hell (which he probably was, knowing that his campaign is in tatters and he needed a "game changer." He repeated words a few times, said "Fannie and Freddie Mae," and recycled some of those stump speeches he's been using the for past few weeks. This nervousness wore off, but the fact that Obama opened up the debate very well (middle class tax cut, let people dip into IRA early with no penalty - why hasn't this been brought up before, a good idea) only highlighted McCain's weak opening.

Then there was the government spending issue. McCain said that he was going to issue an overall spending freeze; in other words, no new spending. In McCain's words, he wants to take a hatchet to the problem, and then clean up with a scalpel. Not a great surgical analogy (if that's what he was going for, with the whole introduction of the scalpel). Obama's answer gave me a little hope because he seemed to be focused on the long term issues, rather than some short-term fixes to placate the people (*COUGH* $700 billion bailout *COUGH*). Health care for everyone now to ensure they are healthy in the future (driving Medicare and Medicaid costs down), solve dependence on foreign oil (to drive down oil imports in the long-term), etc. I've said numerous times that one major pitfall of this country is its lack of foresight, and tonight Obama gave us a glimpse of foresight. Not only that, he also discussed individual responsibility, which many politicians don't like talking about because it reminds people of a grim reality: at the end of the day, you are ultimately responsible for yourself and no amount of government action will drastically improve your life, only you can do that.

McCain had a good one-liner and I thought he was going to capture a large part of the debate with it, but unfortunately I thought he followed up with little substance. He and Palin have been faulting Obama and Biden for looking toward the past when America needs a solution for the future, and McCain echoed this sentiment when he said, "I'm not George Bush and if you wanted to run against him, you should have run four years ago." McCain followed this up with unimpressive rhetoric and Obama was able to turn the phrase back on McCain by taking the time to highlight the similarities between the current president and McCain (in slightly more impressive rhetoric, though not much better). After that, McCain did not have any other memorable quotes that really stung Obama.

And a big thank you to Bob Scheiffer, who asked the candidates to grow a pair and say what they have been saying to each other through ads and press conferences like gossiping high school girls to their face. Obama started off by admitting that the two campaigns had certainly put out ads that were less than honorable, but the American people deserved better and they should put it behind them and talk about the issues. McCain began to agree, before blaming Obama for the way the campaign had devolved into a passive aggressive showcase by not agreeing to do the town hall debates McCain wanted to do months ago. At this Obama needed to respond, did, and the talk went to Ayers, which I think Obama refuted even better than before (pointing out Reagan's friend Annenberg funded the board and other prominent conservatives served on it). McCain just threw out the old, tired half-truths of how "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' living room," etc. Then the ACORN thing, which I think both candidates exaggerated (I think Obama had done a bit more with the group, but not to the extent that McCain would like you to believe). And McCain got very emotional when discussing John Lewis' recent remarks about him, saying that segregation and the church bombing of four little girls was the worst part of America's history (if only; I would have picked the enslavement of an entire people based on the "one drop rule" and the color of one's skin, but to each his own). Obama repudiated Lewis' comments, and brought up the fact that members of McCain and Palin's rallies have deemed him a terrorist and have expressed a desire for his murder. McCain did not explicitly repudiate this and instead made excuses for it, then tried to insinuate that Obama had insulted veterans of all major 20th century wars. Obama played Bob's question well, tried to push it away, but McCain couldn't resist and while he may have scored points in the Republican base, McCain's continuing accusations probably did more harm than good in the eyes of the undecided.



While talking about their VP choices, McCain did a curious thing. He brought up special needs and the need for a better focus on it. Obama agreed, but reminded McCain about his spending freeze and how, under his hatchet to scalpel plan, special needs programs would also see no new spending. This would not be a big deal, but McCain brought up autism later in the debate while talking about education and special needs, and then mentioned it one more time in the context of Palin and her "knowing more than most" about autism. This made me think, is McCain saying that Palin knows more about autism than most because her son has down syndrome (two unrelated conditions), or is he framing the entire special needs argument (an incredibly diverse range of conditions, depending on whether one is discussing mental or physical special needs, or both) in the incredibly complex condition of autism? I thought it was weird that McCain kept bringing it up, and I won't speculate here about his motives. He also sounded paternal when discussing Palin, saying he's "proud" of her. As someone I spoke to after the debate pointed out, that's what a father says to a daughter. Hopefully many Americans did not share that view, because it shows that Palin is young and McCain is old, two things that the McCain campaign does not want to highlight.

As a last major thing I want to say, there was one point in the debate where I thought McCain was going to go apeshit. It was when Obama began discussing the assassination of labor leaders in Colombia after McCain discussed NAFTA. It looked like pure, unadulterated rage was building inside of McCain before he rolled his eyes and wrote something down on his legal pad. In that span of 4-5 seconds, I was legitimately worried. It was scary to see McCain's eyes like that. That's really all I have to say on that, just wanted to point it out to see if other people thought the same thing.

In conclusion, McCain needed a "game changer" and he didn't create one out of his own doing and Obama did not give him one through a major gaffe. Obama did well, but did not completely dominate McCain. McCain did OK, but could not make up the deficit he lost in the first half of the debate. My roommate pointed out that on InTrade, Obama is favored to win the presidency by 4:1 odds (80 points to 20 points). It will be interesting to see what happens after this debate. However, being a Red Sox fan for my entire life, I never say that something is a sure thing, even if many others do. While I think that Obama just might win the election, this is American politics and, like the 1990s Red Sox, anything can happen and expecting an outcome as a certainty only worsens the blow if it doesn't come true. Peace.

Photos - McCain, Scheiffer, and Obama at the final debate held at Hofstra University (www.chinadaily.com.cn), Bob Scheiffer (www.columbia.edu)

McCain Appears to Reverse Course of Campaign; Is it Too Late?

It appears that the McCain campaign - after a week of personal attacks and smears against Obama - wants to play nice again as his poll numbers begin a sharper decline than we have seen in the past few months. The most current poll puts Obama well above McCain (50%-43%) with just over three weeks to go in the election. A month ago today, McCain was leading Obama 47%-45%. Many pundits and political insiders have pointed to the McCain campaign's tactics of the past week (namely to use personal and character attacks on Obama rather than discuss the issues in an era that, while precedented, nonetheless has people very worried), as one of the reasons for this fall in the polls.

It now appears that the negative campaigning that the McCain campaign has employed - whether through Palin and her "palling around" with terrorist accusations against Barack Obama or surrogates like McCain campaign co-chair Frank Keating (no relation to the Keating Five) bringing up Obama's experimental drug use while in college - did not have the effects that McCain and company had been hoping for. This led McCain to quickly try to calm down his hostile crowds by saying that Obama was a "decent" man when people attacked him and spread rumors that he was an Arab. While not distinctly refuting the Arab mischaracterization, he has tried to, as the Globe says, "restore civility" to his campaign.

This, of course, does not mean that he is going to denounce other disrespectful attacks on Obama from within the Republican party or at his own rallies. This video, which has been circulated around the internet for a few days now, shows a McCain/Palin supporter with a Curious George doll with an Obama bumper sticker wrapped around the doll's head. When he realizes that he is being captured on videotape, he tries to surreptitiously stash the Obama sticker away and give the doll away to a confused child in the audience:


Of course you can't take one racist that looks like a pedophile from a Sarah Palin rally and apply it as the model to all those who attend McCain/Palin rallies. You also cannot take the folks who yell out "terrorist" or "kill him" when Barack Obama's name is brought up at these rallies as representative of the entire group. But notice that when McCain attempts to take the moral high ground and repudiate these comments, he uses generalities and vagueness. Maybe he doesn't want to admit that the same people making these comments are wholeheartedly supporting him and he desperately needs their votes; alienating them would alienate a Republican base that he has worked so hard to win over following initial doubts to his loyalty to the party line. But as McCain and his aides realize, when you pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican party, you lose moderates and independents who may very well lean toward the other candidate (as we have seen with Obama's surging numbers and McCain's stagnant and slightly falling numbers).

Sometimes, however, McCain does not even turn to the vague repudiation of ridiculous attacks on Barack Obama. That was the case with Virginia GOP leader Jeffrey Frederick when he compared Obama to Osama bin Laden, saying that both had friends who bombed the Pentagon (he was referring to Bill Ayers, who Obama met later in life as they both served on a Chicago board for education but in a previous life had organized a domestic terror group that bombed a toilet in the Pentagon, which injured no one). When pushed on the comparison, Frederick stuck to it. When asked about what he thought of Jeffrey Frederick's remarks, McCain not only did not say that they were inappropriate, saying that we needed to know the full context (I wonder what context would make that appropriate), but took the moment to repeat his attack on Obama for being on the same board as Ayers:

It seems that while McCain doesn't want to find himself in Lady Macbeth's shoes, trying to wash the blood from his hands when it is already too late, he has little problem with others doing some dirty work at arms length. That way, McCain can make it look like he is above the fray, while others make the attacks on Obama that tend to alienate moderates and independents in this country. McCain is in desperate territory; some advisers and previous supporters are beginning to distance themselves from the campaign so as not to be sucked into the collapse should McCain lose November 4. Will McCain's "honorable" turn-around be enough to help him overcome a large deficit in less than a month? I'm leaning towards no, but as I've said before, the Democrats cannot get too cocky, because the sole fact that this race is even within the ten point margin with one of the candidates backing an immoral and incredibly unpopular war, among other unpopular stances, is telling. Peace.

Photo - Two supporters at a McCain rally in Virginia Beach (blog.indecision2008.com)