Hypocrisy?

I wanted to wait a few days before this post to make sure all (five) of you had an opportunity to read through the four post-debate posts I put up on Saturday. Ironically, that one was just a teaser for the grudge match coming up this Thursday. I will be watching that one with bated breath (as will the SNL writers, if last week's Palin bit was any indication).

This week, it appears the McCain camp is looking to share the title of "hypocrite" around a bit. Here's one of their newest ads...



So, of course, my Spidey sense told me something was amiss with that clip. Like, maybe they were TAKING OBAMA'S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT???? A little Google investigation and I found this site that provides context around the McCain edit. Here's what Obama actually said:

I have said it before and I’ll say it again: we need to pass, after this immediate crisis is over, an economic stimulus plan. Right now. For working families – a plan that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, that can save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and our roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits. For those Americans who have lost their jobs and have been working hard to find a new one, but haven’t found one yet. That’s part of the change we need. And then after this immediate problem, we’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows. Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses that deserve it. As president I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. That’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

It's not even a nice try, McCain. I understand that campaigns will take statements by the candidates and their surrogates out of context for the point of trying to undermine the opponent's position (the linked site mentions an Obama ad that pulls a similar stunt), but to go so far as to call Obama a hypocrite when McCain completely switched positions on the state of the economy 4 times in as many days is just despicable.

Speaking of hypocritical statements, here's another clip of Palin with Katie Couric...



Is it just me, or did she just succinctly present an argument to vote for Obama ("fresh face", new ideas) over McCain (20+ years of experience)!?!? You know, I'm starting to suspect that there may be something wrong with her - like, medically wrong. She seems to be missing some neurological filter or delay mechanism that allows her brain to review what she's saying before she says it. How else would it be possible for her to make an obvious joke about how old Biden is without turning the top of her ticket into collateral damage?! Geez...

UPDATE: TIME's Amy Sullivan had this to say about Palin's comments:

Okay. Shelving for the moment the question of whether age should be fair game in politics and setting aside the fact that if you read Palin's statement above she could easily be talking about either Biden or McCain... Does it make sense to frame the election as a choice between experience and change when your running mate is the old Washington hand taking on the young new upstart? (And McCain, by the way, is 25 years older than Obama, while Biden has 21 years on Palin.)

If she's using this line on the stump, this isn't Palin going off the reservation. But I'll be darned if I can see the point of it. Maybe there are voters out there willing to support the GOP ticket because they value newness over experience when it comes to Palin but not with Obama. I'm not sure all three of them will swing the election, though.

Full post and comments here...

Johnny Mac And The War In Iraq

There is no question that John McCain displayed a superior foreign policy knowledge and experience base at the first presidential debate. Still, there were some obvious points where Obama was able to call McCain out.

The first was on the issue of "tactics" and "strategies" as they pertain to the surge in Iraq. Here's what they said last night (I've removed some of the tangential discussion for length):

OBAMA: ... But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy... And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.

OBAMA: That's not true.

MCCAIN: They just passed an electoral...

OBAMA: That's not true.

MCCAIN: An election law just in the last few days. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity. That's what's happening in Iraq, and it wasn't a tactic.

Well, actually, it was a tactic. According to Joe Klein of TIME magazine (I really like them), "As for McCain's remark about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy—McCain was wrong. The counterinsurgency methods introduced by David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, a new means to achieve Bush's same strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq. If Bush had decided to partition the country, or to withdraw, that would have been a change in strategy."

McCain himself implied that the surge was a tactic when he suggested that a similar tactic would be beneficial in addressing urban crime...



The other issues McCain failed to rebut were his positions and predictions of how the war would play out...


Honestly, I think a lot of independent and undecided voters might feel less uncertain of McCain's judgment, especially as it pertains to the war in Iraq, if he would admit to the fact that he was wrong about the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it diverted our focus from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and it has increased Iran's influence in the region. Full post and comments here...

I Can See It In Your Face

A lot of the opinion polls following last night's match up show and increasingly negative view of Sen. McCain. I wonder why that is...



Could he have looked any more smug and glib? You can tell he and Sarah Palin have been hanging out a lot together. Full post and comments here...

So, Who Won?

At the end of the day, the question is, how did swing/undecided/independent voters view the debate. Here's a summary of some of the poll and focus group data...

TIME

"Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ran a dial-group with 45 undecided voters in St. Louis during the debate, polling them before and after to judge how the event changed their reactions to Obama and McCain. The group was mostly middle-aged, split evenly among education and class lines, and was heavily comprised of Bush 2004 voters. First things first, the group thought Obama "won" the debate (38 to 27%, with 36% saying that neither candidate walked away with a clear win).

CBS:

Immediately after the debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 500 debate watchers assembled by Knowledge Networks who were "uncommitted voters" - voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds. Thirty-nine percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Obama won the debate. Twenty-four percent said McCain won, and another 37 percent thought it was a tie.

Nearly half of those uncommitted voters who watched the debate said that their image of Obama changed for the better as a result. Just eight percent say their opinion of Obama got worse, and 46 percent reported no change in their opinions. McCain saw less improvement in his image. Thirty-two percent have improved their image of McCain as a result of the debate, but 21 percent said their views of him are now worse than before.

CNN:

A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top. Fifty-one percent of those polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey of Americans who viewed the debate say that Obama won. Thirty-eight percent of those polled say that John McCain did the best job.

“According to our CNN survey, McCain and Obama both exceeded debate viewers’ expectations tonight,” noted CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. “It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight. But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama. McCain is trailing right now; he needed a game changer. There are no indications he got that tonight.”

FOX:



Nuff said. Full post and comments here...

Spin City

So, debate #1 is over! It was a fairly rousing sparring match between two knowledgeable contenders on the economy and foreign policy. For those who didn't get a chance to view it, here's a video montage (yes!) put together by TIME magazine. The commentators and focus groups that I've heard on the matter don't seem to think last night was a game changer for either candidate, but flash polls appear to give Obama the advantage as far as performance.

Nevertheless, both camps are positively dizzy from the spin they've been putting on the debate. In my opinion, the Obama camp has a genuine charge to levy against McCain: in a time of economic uncertainty, he never once mentioned the middle-class...



The McCain campaign took a different approach to their spin.



Hmm, so you're saying that Barack Obama is going to vote McCain in November? More Kit Kat bar, please (give me a break)! Now, here's what burns my shorts about last night's debate, and previous debates, and politics in general. Somehow it is a grave, mortal sin to even acknowledge that your opponent or the other party is not the devil incarnate. God forbid that Obama show some level of bipartisanship in noting the areas where he and McCain do agree. What the McCain spinsters don't want the viewing public to realize is that after some of those statements Obama went on to point out where he and McCain differ in opinion (from the debate transcript).

On responsibility:

MCCAIN: ... But there's also the issue of responsibility... Somehow we've lost that accountability. I've been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We've got to start also holding people accountable, and we've got to reward people who succeed. But somehow in Washington today -- and I'm afraid on Wall Street -- greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, and corruption -- or certainly failure to carry out our responsibility is rewarded. As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.

LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street. ... because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

On earmarks:

MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It's completely out of control. It's gone -- we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the -- the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it's a gateway. It's a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption. And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending...

LEHRER: Senator Obama, two minutes.

OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up. And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.

But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion. Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.

And on the corporate tax:

MCCAIN: Well -- well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax. Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera...

LEHRER: Senator Obama, you have a question for Senator McCain on that?

OBAMA: Well, let me just make a couple of points.

LEHRER: All right.

OBAMA: My definition -- here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase. Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

Surprise, surprise. The McCain camp decided to be creative with their editing...again. Full post and comments here...

I Didn't Even Hear The Starting Bell...

...but the fight is apparently already over. Remember that intellectual plane north of logic I mentioned in a previous post? I think McCain may have traveled through it on his way to Old Miss. During his stop-over he and his campaign apparently had a vision of those things that have not yet come to pass and, filled with this new enlightenment, decided to proclaim to the world (via the Interweb) that which they had seen.

So, minutes before the campaign actually announced that McCain would, in fact, be participating in the debate, they ran this web ad.


Can we question his age now? Full post and comments here...

RE: I Can See Russia From My House!

Can you hear that? If you're quiet, and you listen very closely, you can hear the chorus of voices starting to call for Gov. Sarah Palin to step down from the Republican ticket. Now, anyone (of the 4 of you) who read this blog know that I won't soon be mistaken for a Palin fan. But I thought all of the speculation and fringe calls for her removal from the ticket were a little much - primarily because most of the grumbling was coming from Democrats who weren't happy about her effect on waning right-wing enthusiasm. But now that she's started to give interviews so we can hear what she has to say off-prompter there appear to be more and more conservative political minds who have come to realize that she may do more damage than good to their cause.

The latest voice is that of Kathleen Parker (apparently a big name amongst Repubs) whose analysis of Palin's recent performance is downright scathing. Here's an excerpt:

“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself," Parker also writes. "If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves," Parker writes. "She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

Ouch. Full post and comments here...

Bail out! Bail out!

So for the last couple of days I've been eagerly wanting to write about this whole bail out issue. But, as anyone who's following this debacle can attest, the status of negotiations has been so tenuous you'd think it was being handled by pre-pubescent high school drama queens. And the queen diva: John McCain. The gall this guy had to "suspend" his campaign and supposedly return to Washington to help fix things? Give me a break of that Kit Kat bar.

First of all, McCain did not go to Washington immediately as he indicated he would. How do I know this? David Letterman. And he is waaarm...


(Skip to around 6:36 to see McCain get caught red-handed)

I haven't counted myself, but estimates put the number of shots at McCain throughout the show at a whopping 31.

So, McCain basically bailed out on his professed urgent need to return to the Hill. By the time he finally arrived leaders of both parties had announced that there was fundamental agreement on the basic tenants of the bailout package modifications. Everyone seemed ready to get something signed by today or, latest, by the start of next week. And then, there was the White House summit with Dubbya, both presidential nominees, Paulson, and congressional leaders from both parties. Certainly now was McCain's time to shine, right? Here's the account from the New York Times:

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand...

Mr. McCain was at one end of the long conference table, Mr. Obama at the other, with the president and senior Congressional leaders between them. Participants said Mr. Obama peppered Mr. Paulson with questions, while Mr. McCain said little.

Well, I'm sure this alternative plan being considered wasn't John McCain's fault...right? (I think you know where this is going)

But a top aide to Mr. Boehner said it was Democrats who had done the political posturing. The aide, Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.

It's so hard. It is so hard to see the screen right now through the tears of sadness I weep for McCain. The big kids didn't let him participate in their deal, so now his real friends are coming to his rescue. People, this is the guy who might end up being IN CHARGE of a pending financial crisis!

So here's some speculation from TIME blogger Michael Scherer on how this whole situation may end up playing out in light of recent events (although this couple be completely upended by new developments, like McCain's new plan to get rid of money and return to a bartering system).

1. It is clear that Senate leaders and Democratic strategists have not fully anticipated the degree of revolt growing in among House conservatives, most of whom came to Washington on a platform of keeping the government out of the economy. Conservative leaders say that every hour that has passed since last Friday has emboldened the rebellion. Phone calls and faxes are bombarding congressional offices, with huge margins of voters demanding that the bailout be opposed. Activists are motivating their bases to oppose the deal.

2. It remains squarely within McCain's interest to get a deal before the markets open on Monday, both because that is what he said he would do on Wednesday when he announced he was returning to Washington and because the deal that leaders put together yesterday seems to address most of McCain's stated concerns. It is hard for McCain to demonstrate his leadership, experience and "country first" determination if he cannot find a way to prevent what everyone agrees will be, at minimum, a short-term collapse of the markets, once they realize no bailout is coming right away.

3. It is unclear how much pull McCain has with the House Republican holdouts. Though McCain is the leader of the GOP, he has historically not been on good terms with those ideological activists that form the core of its Congressional membership. It's possible that this final delay is just a gambit to win some compromise and allow McCain to declare a greater leadership and experience victory. It's also possible that Republican leaders have a populist revolt on their hands they cannot control. Most likely, it is a combination of both these things, though in what mixture it is difficult to divine.

4. McCain might win if he can (at least appear) to broker a deal and then appear victorious at the debate tonight. It might not be fatal for McCain if the negotioations continue into tomorrow, he can (at least appear) to broker a deal Saturday, and then the debate is rescheduled. McCain will lose if he appears at the debate tonight with no clear deal, or (as mentioned above) if no deal is struck before Monday morning. These are the standards he has set for himself.

5. The whole spectacle would be much more fun to watch if it wasn't for the fact that the nation's economy, the jobs of millions, the prosperity of a nation, hangs in the balance.

Full post and comments here...

I Can See Russia From My House!

Seriously? Seriously???

The economy:



Foreign policy:



You've GOT to be kidding.

UPDATE: Lydia has confirmed that she never actually said she could see Russia "from her house"; rather, she indicated that it could be viewed from "here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

I stand corrected. She's still clueless.

UPDATE 2: The quote, "I can see Russia from my house!" comes from the SNL sketch with Tina Fey (the video is in an earlier post). I knew I'd heard it somewhere before! Full post and comments here...

Sarah Silverman Wants "Jew"

Ha...get it...she wants you...she wants "jew"...right.





Think about it. Full post and comments here...