quick thought on Sarah Palin

I can't even really process this decision. At first I was confused about the choice but now I am just angry, extremely angry. At no time in modern American history has a person been selected for office who is so under qualified. There is no need to judge the political merits of this decision. It is dangerous, cynical and disgusting.

Good time for a rollout

I was wondering if the Democrats were going to hit McCain on his well known temper.

Looks like they have.

This is the line that needs to get burned into the minds of voters:

“He has a huge anger problem,” Boxer said. “And he never hid that. ... I have seen it happen on the Senate floor many, many times. … He has exploded at me a couple times.”

Boxer said McCain has always apologized after the dust-ups. Nonetheless, she insinuated that McCain’s temperament makes him unfit for the White House.

“It’s all well and good to apologize,” Boxer added, “but if you are in charge of that black box, I worry about that.”

That's more like it

Awesome.

Straight Talk!

At the Saddleback Forum, John McCain stated that he would heavily rely upon Congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis of Georgia for advice if he were to become president.

Which is funny, because after 22 years of serving together in Washington- McCain has NEVER reached out to him before.

Odd.

2002 all over again?

Watching the current presidential campaign makes me feel like I have traveled back in time as I have the sinking feeling that we are headed to same type of disaster which led us to war in Iraq. However, this time we run the risk of electing John McCain. Back then, every time I watched, listened to or read the news it seemed that we could never have an honest discussion of the issues because certain rhetorical tricks were being employed by those who wanted us to march to war. Unfortunately, a lot of those same tricks are being used right now to push for McCain's candidacy. Here is what I see so far:

Back in 2002, the rationale for going to war was incredibly flimsy. If you looked at the case that was presented by the Bush administration and weighed the evidence thoughtfully, there was very little reason to support the war. There was no terrorist connection, there was no link to 9-11 and the existence of stockpiles of WMDs was doubtful. Similarly, McCain is an exceptionally weak candidate. If you look at what he offers, it becomes abundantly clear that he is simply not a good fit for this country. Many of the policies that he embraces are ill conceived (e.g. gas tax moratorium), downright destructive (e.g. harsh stance towards Russia) or unpopular (e.g. support for Bush Tax cut).

However, just like in 2002, it is nearly impossible to get at the meat of the issue. One thing that the McCain campaign does is exploit personal tragedy to avoid criticism. Case in point, when asked whether McCain was in the 'cone of silence' during the forum at Saddleback, the campaign response was:

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,”

This is not the first time that the McCain has used this tactic during the campaign (see here), and it brings to mind the tragedy of 9-11 to thwart criticism of the war. We were constantly reminded of the 3,000 deaths suffered on that day, especially when anyone would point out that the rationale for the war was not as strong as it should have been.

Another tactic is the impugning of motives for those that oppose McCain's candidacy. As noted by Josh Marshall, McCain has repeatedly stated that Obama is committing treason so that he can win an election- which is eerily similar to the tactic commonly used by war supporters in 2002. While now it has become a joke (i.e. "Why do you hate America?"), many commentators would ask why 'opponents would want to undermine the troops' or 'let the terrorists win'.

Lastly, there is the suggestion that questioning McCain's credentials means that you are unpatriotic. As we all learned from the Wes Clark dust-up, asking whether McCain's military background matters is strictly forbidden. We have also had no mainstream coverage of the Solzhenitsyn issue which, as I noted yesterday, is to be expected since asking about it would mean that you are unpatriotic. This matches perfectly with what happened to many critics of the war in 2002 (e.g. Phil Donahue, Dixie Chicks), as they were vilified for opposing the war and speaking their mind.

My hope is that this trend can be reversed, but in all likelihood, public discourse will remain unchanged. I see no evidence that the traditional media will change their ways and fight through the BS. I only hope that voters are wise enough to see the difference.

McCain as plagiarist

I think the evidence for McCain stealing another's story for his own personal gain is solid, but as Michael from Balloon Juice rightly notes- no one will call him on it for fear that it will seem like we are questioning his patriotism.

On and on it goes...

Mediocre men needing to believe they are great

I touched on this the other day- but Josh Marshall does a really nice job of expanding on the point:

One of the great threats we face is the personal sense of grandiosity of the lead foreign hands who shape the course of our role in the world. Not national grandiosity, but personal grandiosity. Because if you're a foreign policy hand or political leader your own quest for greatness is constrained by whether or not you live in times of grand historical events.

There's a lot of this nonsense floating around today by pampered commentators who want to find a new world historical conflict to write bracing commentary about before we're done with the one from last week. But John McCain might be president in six months. And whether it's his own shaky judgment, temperament or just the desire to find a campaign issue, this loose cannon is a real threat to this country.

As I have been watching this all unfold, I have gotten increasingly worried that the press will fall into the McCain as leader meme that he is just itching to play. They so much want to believe that they are all living in a grand historical moment, and all they need to complete this is a grand historical figure that can lead us through it.

Paging Maureen Dowd

I wonder if she and the rest of the commentariat will breathlessly write about how McCain is an out of touch pretty boy since he wears $520 shoes (to put that number in context, that is more than what my wife and I spend in a month on groceries). I think we all remember how the traditional press behaved when they found out that John Edwards got a $400 haircut and even then it made sense. In a time where politics is largely driven by image- you need to look good for the cameras. McCain's shoes, however, are not often going to be seen when he gives an interview- which seems incredibly indulgent.

Yet, as we have seen time and time again- the narrative for McCain has already been created. He is a man of the people. It doesn't matter if he owns nine homes, travels in a private jet or has credit card debt which is more than triple the value of my home. He knows what it is like for the common man. Obama, on the other hand, shops at Whole Foods- which is a clear indicator that he is out of touch.

McCain has officially jumped the shark

I think there was a time, a long time ago- where John McCain was a sensible, honorable man.

That time has passed.

Wow...just, wow

The next person that says the media is in the tank for Obama, I am going to beat with Disco's beard.

Keeping his bitches in line

Apparently, to John McCain, if members of the media are not openly cupping his James Westfall and Doctor Kenneth Noisewater (google these names if you don't understand the joke), they are showing overt bias towards the other guy. It's kind of funny that when the press gives some favorable press to Obama that McCain turns on his 'base'.

Must...maintain...campaign...narrative...

As I noted yesterday, the press has almost completely ignored the McCain rape joke. But there was another item that came out a little under a week ago that has also not gained any attention from the mainstream press. In this instance, Cindy McCain gave an interview to CNN where she said that the only way to get around Arizona was by 'small private plane'. Now, I am not an expert on the modes of transportation available to the average American; but I am going to guess that the vast majority (99.99%) of the American public does not have ready access to a plane.

So, here we have an instance where the McCain's reveal their ridiculously favorable financial status and their complete ignorance of how most of us live- but there is nary a mention in the elite press. Now if Barack or Michelle Obama had said this, you can be pretty damn sure that the media would have hopped all over it.

There is a simple, but tragic, reason for this discrepancy- reporting on the McCains' elite status would go against the already decided upon narrative for them. As ThinkProgress detailed, much of the media has determined that McCain and his wife are 'regular people'. As such, we can easily sketch out the rules for how the McCain narrative is to be handled-

Rule 1: McCain is a straight-talkin' man of the people, who is just as regular as you and I.
Rule 2: If any story reveals that he is not a straight-talkin' man of the people, who is not as regular as you and I- then refer to rule 1.

If they don't report about it, I guess it didn't happen

I am sure that if Obama had made the same joke about a woman getting savagely raped, there would also be no press coverage of it too.

Straight Talk- horrible misogyny version

That McCain fellow is certainly a classy guy. ThinkProgress recounts a joke that he told in 1986:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

You see, its funny because it is about a woman getting savagely beaten and then sexually assaulted. Hilarious. Although, you can really just count this as the mistake of a young man. McCain was only 50 when he told the joke (4 years older than Obama is now). Kids will be kids.

Magic!

I am really starting to think that one of my friends is messing with me. This is all an elaborate ruse, just like in the movie The Game- as there is no way that one candidate can get away with this kind of stupidity and live to tell the tale. Here is the McCain deficit reduction plan:

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit.

But wait...it gets better. As Josh Marshall notes:

But here's the thing. McCain doesn't have any numbers. None. Not vague numbers of fuzzy math. He just says he's going to do it. Any other candidate would get laughed off the stage with that kind of nonsense or more likely reporters just wouldn't agree to give them a write up. But this is all over the place.

He then gets the McCain campaign to answer some questions about how they would do this, and this is their explanation:

It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It's really the logical extension of Senator McCain's position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort.

Well, duh.

I mean, I have the same kind of plan for making $5 billion dollars. You see, I am going to cure all forms of cancer. How am I going to accomplish this masterful plan? Well...when I cure cancer, lots of people are going to be interested in cure. They will then pay me for it. The plan is really quite genius.

Saint McCain

via John Cole, we have the following:

Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, responding to John Kerry stating that McCain has completely changed his position on a large number of issues:

“Are you attacking John McCain’s integrity?”

This quote is really just covered in irony. John Kerry, who will forever be known as a serial flip-flopper, brings up the fact that McCain has repeatedly changed positions on a number of issues, and the response from Schieffer is that bringing up such issues is an attack on his integrity. Wow.

The way the guardians of the discourse see it, just noting that McCain has changed his mind is beyond the pale and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why that is. I don't know of another figure in American politics who is consistently painted in such a favorable light by the media and is afforded as much room for error.

The only other person that even comes close is Colin Powell, so it may be a military thing. Yet, if it was, people like John Kerry, Wes Clark, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Hagel or Max Cleland would also be afforded the same privileges by the media- but they aren't. It could be that McCain's history as a POW has set him apart from others, so that he is viewed as having integrity than any of the others. But should his experience be valued more than triple-amputee Cleland or Medal of Honor winner Kerrey?

Could it be his support for Campaign Finance Reform? Probably not. If it was, a bevy of liberals would get the same favorable treatment from the press.

At the end of the day, I think the simple reason for this deference to McCain is part of a vicious circular logic. The press loves McCain because he is a maverick. Why is he a maverick? Because the press says that he is.

All Aboard!

This piece makes me angry on so many levels, it is hard to see straight. Here is the intro:

Straight Talk Express Gets an Upgrade

Sen. John McCain and his wife Cindy walk off his campaign plane after arriving in Allentown, Penn., June 30, 2008. (Associated Press)

By Juliet Eilperin
ABOARD THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS -- The Straight Talk Express has gone airborne.

Hmm...I wonder if there is any straight talk on that express? But wait, the media fawning gets worse- a hell of a lot worse...

McCain senior aide Mark Salter quipped this morning that "only the good reporters" would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. "You'll have to earn it," he said.

You wonder if the press will ever realize how their mancrush on McCain impacts the lives of everyday people and our standing in the world. Once again, we have an election that will be decided, not by policies or ideas, but on which candidate is cooler to hang out with.

End of June prediction

You might notice that I have added a link to the right-hand side for the blog 538. This is a really great place to go for polling info and for predictions and, as of now, the folks over there are predicting a big win for Obama in November.

I, however, am not so optimistic. I think this is going to be an incredibly close election with a very good chance that McCain pulls it out. Why? Because McCain enjoys a relationship with the press that no other major politician enjoys. They love him and will not cover him in a critical light. This is very reminiscent to the way that the press treated Bush, except they managed the press through fear and not through camaraderie.

We have already seen a few examples of how this is working itself out on the campaign trail. For example:

1. The post below- McCain's military record cannot be questioned
2. Similarities between Bush and McCain- Josh Marshall has a lovely rundown on how the media has made it clear that McCain is not like Bush
3. McCain's dust up with the FEC- He has broken campaign finance law but there is barely mention made of this.
   
4. McCain's wife- Terry Heinz had to report all of her income in 2004, but Cindy does not have to offer full disclosure.
   
5. C@#tgate- while this is a rumor, the press has happily spun thinner ones against Obama.

In an election where everything should point to a landslide, we would be foolish not to focus on the press coverage of either candidates. It is going to play huge in November.

The Great Wes Clark Treason Comment of 2008

Oh my f-ing word. I really don't have much to add to this, in terms of what exactly Clark said or what the reaction has been. I think any sane person will recognize that this is just all very silly.

The part that is a little more interesting is how the media reaction to this comment differs from the reaction to the rumors regarding Obama's background. Wes Clark made no disparaging comments about McCain's service (in fact, he praises him at length earlier in the interview), all he was saying was that McCain does not have any command experience during wartime. Which (I think) is an important contribution to the debate, and if the press had half a mind to treat the American populace like adults, we could reasonably discuss the merits of the claim. Like it or not, McCain is campaigning heavily on his military background, so he the first one to make it an issue. However, the press has gone batty over what Wes Clark said (here, here, here) and has equated the comment to swiftboating McCain.

Now, contrast this reaction to the one provided by the press over whether Obama is a secret Muslim, Marxist, homosexual, America hater- which are actually still talked about as potential problems for Obama. Instead of leaping all over these baseless claims, the great Commentariat sit and wonder if it is going to be a problem for Obama.

Hence, if you are keeping score at home:

Asking if John McCain's military background is actually something that relates to his performance as president: TOTALLY OUT OF BOUNDS
Wondering aloud if the baseless rumors regarding Barack Obama's background are going to damage his chances in November: A-OK.

awesome.