Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The GOP Deals In Monopoly Money

Hmm...it looks like there's something fishy going on over at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and it smells like a big fillet o' liar.

Back on June 18th the Republicans made a big deal out of the $13.5 million that they raised for the NRSC at their annual fundraising dinner with Bush. They boasted that this was the most they've raised from the dinner in the last five years. They put a lot of emphasis on this money, for example this statement:
The $13.5 million we raised for the dinner shows people understand that Democrats are going to do more than just increase the price of gas.
Yet when they released their June fundraising numbers to the FEC, it turns out they only barely raised $6 million for the entire month of June. Hmmmmmmm...isn't that interesting. They try to make a big deal to the press about all their money and the "huge interest" in fighting the Democrats, and yet it turns out that this supposed $13.5 million, plus whatever they raised in the other 29 days in June, equals about $6 million. Sounds like the NRSC were lying through their teeth and talking a big game, when all along their fundraising numbers were nothing short of embarrassing, a good reflection of Bush's rock-bottom approval ratings and the 8 years of misery the Republicans have put this country through (yes, including high gas prices).

Monday, July 21, 2008

McCain Employs Parlor Tricks For The Media While Obama (And Reality) Thumps Him On Foreign Policy

John McCain has been running around the media telling everyone that Maliki (and the Iraqis) endorsing Obama's withdrawal plan, and the fact that McCain has flip-flopped on Afghanistan to follow Obama's lead there, doesn't mean a thing, because according to him "the Surge has been a success." The media, dutifully nod their heads in agreement, as they hang on McCain's every word with love filled eyes.

The only problem is, the Surge hasn't worked. It hasn't worked by a long shot. Read my previous blog on this subject. Basically the drop in violence in Iraq can mostly be attributed to three things. First, "successful" ethnic cleansing in Iraq under our watch. The fighting decreased because the militias largely finished their job in killing or expelling the opposing ethnic groups from mixed neighborhoods and areas. The result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, and around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees. If that is "success", then pop the champaign, but it wasn't the doing of the Surge. Secondly, the US started buying off Sunni militias and arming them, to get them to fight against al-Qaeda. Yes, we gave our previous enemies weapons and money in exchange for their temporary support. And when they eventually want to use those weapons and that money against us, or against fellow Iraqis again, I guess that'll be written off as an "oops". But certainly that wasn't part of the Surge. Thirdly, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared a unilateral cease-fire to regroup, but has always remained on the verge of returning to violence, and it is certainly able to at any time.

For more on those, read my previous blog where I outlined the non-success of the Surge. What really led me to write this post, however, was how the media is eating all of this pro-Surge nonsense up. A fellow Kossack wrote an epithet-laden diatribe against the media, specifically aimed at Andrea Mitchell, and I think it was absolutely appropriate. He or she, like many others, including myself, is absolutely sick of how absurdly biased in favor of McCain. This Kossack shares my exasperation. It is beyond ridiculous. It is insanity at this point.

Luckily not everyone on MSNBC is as incompetent, so I'd like to give kudos to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who both hit the nail on the head on Countdown just now when reviewing how wrong McCain has been on Iraq and Afghanistan, and really how perfectly everything is falling behind Obama during his trip overseas. Keith made an excellent point when he highlighted the paradox that McCain insists that the Surge has been a success, yet we can't withdraw for years to come, even though the very goal of the Surge was to be able to leave a sovereign Iraqi government in place! He can't have it both ways, yet the vast majority of the media seems to want to let him have it both ways. Maddow quite aptly pointed out that McCain and Bush are now defining success in Iraq by us staying in Iraq, while Obama is defining success by getting out of Iraq.

Perhaps the best part was Rachel Maddow pointing out exactly what I pointed out on Saturday, that both Bush and McCain have previously committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq when a sovereign Iraqi government tells us to leave, which is exactly what their Prime Minister just said the Iraqis wanted. I'd like to think she reads my blog, but that probably isn't very likely (psst, Rachel, leave me a blog comment if it's you!). Looking back, here was Bush:
"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice," the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."
And McCain:
QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
Yeahhh....

Anyway, I'm going to watch Maddow tear McCain up on his lies about oil prices... (You see, McCain is blaming Obama for high gas prices because he doesn't support offshore drilling, never mentioning that HE didn't support it either, until his recent flip-flop, and never mentioning that every economist and even Bush acknowledges that drilling out have no effect on gas prices for many many years, and even then it would have no effect. This is a perfect example of how the mainstream media gives McCain a free pass on his absurd lies and distortions, while only a very few, like Maddow, actually set the record straight. This isn't anti-McCain or pro-Obama, it is pro-reality. Sadly most of the media is committed to expunging all reality from their reporting. Oh, and for the record McCain, the price of oil increased nearly 600% since Bush took office, after being relatively flat for decades. Now who is responsible? Furthermore, who supports the exact same policies that led to those skyrocketing oil prices? Here's a hint: It isn't Obama.)

I'll put up some video if I can find it. (Got it:)



Now THAT'S journalism (disregard Howard Fineman's fallacious conventional wisdom about the Surge "working", and once again, read my previous blog on this, because "improvements" in Iraq have next to nothing to do with the Surge). And here's some more journalism:







It is time for MSNBC to get rid of Joe Scarborough or David Gregory and give Rachel Maddow their time spot, because neither of them hold a candle to Maddow, especially Scarborough, he himself is a former Republican congressman, so it is not surprising he is nothing but a Republican shill pumping the GOP propaganda on MSNBC. In fact, be proactive, sign the petition calling for MSNBC to give Maddow her own show!

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Negative Consequence Of War #844: Broken Families

You know, a good way to support the troops is to not keep sending them into the war zone over and over and over again until their personal lives fall apart around them. You know, divorce, domestic violence, infidelity, PTSD, kids having nightmares, not to mention the worst-case scenario, suicide, or rather, murder-suicide. Yeah, it's just great what the Republicans are doing for the troops, heckuva job!

Monday, July 14, 2008

John McCain's War On Geography

McCain really has no idea what is going on in the world. I still think a lot of his lies are lies, meant to deceive voters into falling for his version of reality, but there is definitely a large amount of ignorance mixed in. Sometimes it is hard to know which side of the line many of his false statements land, but in this case, there is no question: John McCain is incompetent. From Huffington Post:
At a press availability today, John McCain expressed concern about relations between Russia and a country that hasn't existed for quite some time:
"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech's agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern."
Czechoslovakia, of course, split into two separate countries in 1993.

It isn't the first time McCain has made this mistake, as TPM's Greg Sargent points out:
Around three months ago, McCain told Don Imus that he would "work closely with Czechoslovakia and Poland and other countries" to install the European Missile Defense System in Poland, according to the Democratic National Committee. (The slip-up was referenced elsewhere, too.)
And during a GOP debate in October 2007, McCain said: "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don't care what his objections are to it."
There are more: in 1994, he suggested NATO be expanded to include Czechoslovakia. At an IRI dinner in 1999, McCain "twice thanked the ambassador from 'Czechoslovakia' for his efforts," according to the Washington Post.
And here comes the best part...
In fact, George Bush himself dinged McCain for this blunder back in the 2000 primary. Steve Clemons writes:
Second, before Republicans condemn Dems for being picky on this, let's not forget that in the 2000 campaign, when McCain also screwed up Czechoslovakia, it was none other than George W. Bush who said it deserved to be a campaign issue: "A guy gets up and quizzes me [on world leaders] ... but John McCain says something about the 'ambassador to Czechoslovakia.' Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia [there's a Czech Republic and a Slovakia], but yet it didn't make the nightly national news."
This longstanding confusion persists despite McCain's numerous visits to both the Czech Republic and Slovakia (he described his 2001 meeting with Czech President Vaclav Havel as "an Experience . . . I can tell my Grandchildren about.") In fact, the former U.S. ambassador to Slovakia endorsed McCain's candidacy for president. Maybe he should offer the candidate some geography lessons too.
Hahahaha, Bush even knows better, now THAT'S saying something. McCain, got schooled by the dumbest president in US history. The worse part is that McCain keeps making the same mistake, over and over and over again, no matter how many times he catches hell for it, even after Bush makes fun of him for it, he keeps doing it (kind of like when he repeatedly mixed up Sunni and Shia, even though his keepers kept correcting him--but hey, no big deal, it isn't like anything important happens in the Middle East). You'd think after getting called on it once or twice he'd make a mental note, "You know, John, make a mental note, Czechoslovakia is not a country!" But nope, keeps doing it. He's been going strong for almost a decade and a half now, and there are no signs he is going to stop. Talk about stubborn, in addition to dumb as a rock.

And this idiot is running on foreign policy??

One last thing, it is interesting that Bush mentioned this, because apparently he was as frustrated as Democrats are with the media's love affair with John McCain. He can screw up over and over again, continually proving he is ill-equipped to be president, yet the media is completely silent. That love affair has been going on for years and years, I wonder if it will ever end.

Update: I think a long time ago McCain hit a critical mass with his "misstatements", and I think there are so many that they definitely warrant a new term to describe them. So, for the sake of organization, I'm adding a new tag to my blog....as soon as I figure out a good one.

Update (7/15): McCain did it yet again today. He really is in his own little world, and his handlers are apparently asleep at the wheel because someone needs to be reminding him, daily, that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed since for 15 years. Maybe they could make a ritual out of it, you know, he takes his pills, brushes his teeth, and a staffer makes him repeat after him or her, "Czechoslovakia is not a country, Czechoslovakia is not a country, Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country in 15 years."

Update (7/21): I can't believe it (ok, I can), but for the third time in a week, John McCain brought up "Czechoslovakia" again. This time it was while he was trying to attack Obama's foreign policy experience while he is overseas touring the world. Instead of catching Obama in a gaffe, McCain is gaffing it up himself. Of course the media doesn't care. Can you imagine if Obama had made the exact same mistake THREE times in a week, no matter how much ridicule these mistakes create on the internet, and had a long history of making the exact same mistake? The media would be jumping all over him trying to paint him as inexperienced or naive. But when McCain does it, over and over and over again: nothing. Anyway, once again (and certainly not the last time), do we really want someone who CANNOT figure out that this country hasn't existed for 15 years as our president? How do you think he is going to handle the economy, or Iraq, or global warming or health care or anything when the man can't figure out this simple thing? And I can't imagine that after all of the ridicule he has received over time for this gaffe, from the left and even from Bush, that he hasn't been made aware of it. Could he seriously be so sheltered, so out of touch, that he is impervious to all the buzz about these mistakes? If that's the case then add an incompetent campaign organization to the list of problems, because he should have MANY people monitoring the internet and the news media and everything looking to pick up on what is being said about him, and they should be relaying that information to him so he can make changes accordingly. If that isn't happening, or if he just isn't getting it, either way, he is failing a basic test of basic Commander-in-Chief skills (and grade school geography).

Update (7/21) #2: On Good Morning America this morning McCain managed to screw up geography again! This time it wasn't Czechoslovakia; instead he referenced the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border. Yes, those who know even a little bit about the Middle East might be aware that Iraq doesn't even come close to sharing a border with Pakistan, indeed the entirety of Iran is between them. What an idiot. And this guy is supposed to be Mr. Foreign Policy? C'mon media, enough with the crap, can we give up the charade now?

Bush & McCain The Same On The Economy

Haha, this is delicious. Top McCain VP prospect Mark Sanford totally embarrasses himself trying to push McCain's "I'm different!" talking points. When asked to name a major economic policy that President Bush and McCain disagree on, he can't do it. Of course he can't do it, because Bush and McCain agree on all of the policies that messed up our economy in the first place! But the best part is, he starts off saying he can name one, then can't go back, so he struggles, he stumbles, he blurts out "NAFTA" because that's a word he knows related to the economy, amazingly Wolf Blitzer points out that McCain and Bush are the same on NAFTA, and the guy starts talking about earmarks, which are part of the federal budget, not the economy. Now this is good TV:

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Impeachment, Where You At?

Give this a read:

The Real-Life ‘24’ of Summer 2008
by Frank Rich, The New York Times

Saturday, July 12, 2008

McCain's Top Economic Advisor: Americans Are Whiners

A couple days ago McCain's top economic advisor (and likely pick for Treasury Secretary) former Sen. Phil Gramm said:
"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years. ...

"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."
Wow. Really? McCain's top economic advisor is telling Americans that all of the problems they are facing are psychological?? It's all in their heads? They aren't actually having trouble making ends meet, it's a figment of their imaginations? They aren't really paying over $4/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits? And the record number of home foreclosures is just imaginary! Yeah, it's just like The Matrix, you think your home is about to be taken away, but that's just because you believe that's what is happening (probably because the bank told you), but if you really just realized that it was all fake and in your head, the foreclosure process would just stop, and gas would cost $1.50/gal again, and we wouldn't be losing millions of jobs, and you could fly, and know kung-fu, and you could stop bullets with your mind! Woah. Isn't life wonderful when reality is just all in your head?? It must be great to live in a fantasy world where Americans aren't saving the lowest amount since the Great Depression (next to nothing). It's all in our heads! But hell, don't take my word for it, or the economic data, or all the Americans that are just trying to hang on, let's hear it from an expert:
The United States has already slipped into a deep recession that could be the most serious since World War II, said Martin Feldstein, president of the Cambridge group that is considered the official word on economic cycles.

"The situation is bad, it's getting worse, and the risks are that the situation could be very bad," Feldstein said in a speech yesterday at a financial industry conference in Boca Raton, Fla.

Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a professor of economics at Harvard University, said the chief causes of the shrinking economy are sinking housing prices, months of job losses, and turmoil in the financial markets.
Yeah, and that was back in March. The DNC responds:
What John McCain, George Bush and Phil Gramm just don't understand is that the American people aren't whining about the state of the economy, they are suffering under the weight of it -- the weight of eight years of Bush-enomics that John McCain and Phil Gramm have vowed to continue. How dare John McCain and his advisers so callously dismiss the challenges the American people face. No wonder voters feel John McCain is out of touch, he and his campaign don't even understand the everyday issues Americans are dealing with.
And Obama:



And this from his campaign:
One of Senator McCain's top economic advisors may think that when people are struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages, and the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, it's merely a 'mental recession'. And Senator McCain may think it's sufficient to offer energy proposals that he admits will have mainly 'psychological' benefits. But the American people know that our economic problems aren't just in their heads. They don't need psychological relief - they need real relief - and that's what Barack Obama will provide as President.
And McCain's response:
Phil Gramm's comments are not representative of John McCain's views. John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they'll pay their mortgage. That's why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.
And that response is weird, because earlier McCain's own campaign said that Gramm was speaking on behalf of McCain on his economic policy:
The McCain campaign is working hard to distance itself from statements made by economic adviser Phil Gramm describing the current economic downturn as a "mental recession" and saying America had "sort of become a nation of whiners."

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm's remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator's economic agenda.

"Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week," the piece quoted a "McCain official" as saying. "The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We're laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it's been a great success so far."

Only after the fallout from Gramm's statement did the McCain campaign fully backtrack.
And then the Washington Post:
Speaking today from New York, where he was meeting with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board on McCain's economic policies, Gramm said the nation's economy was initially thought to have grown by an anemic 0.6 percent in the first three months of the year.
What is funny is that McCain can even claim that the views of his top economic advisor, who drafts McCain's economic policy (in addition to Bush of course), and speaks for McCain on the economy, wasn't providing McCain's view of the status of the economy. In fact....:



And that's the thing that the media doesn't seem to understand (or want to report), that these comments are directly in line with not only McCain's views, but the views of all conservatives. It is shocking how out of touch Republicans are with the American people, and how indifferent they are to their suffering. But how is this a surprise coming from the party that through administration after administration cuts taxes for the rich, while cutting social services for the not-rich. Almost every single choice they make can be broken down to "Does this help the rich while screwing the poor?", and if the answer is yes, you can be sure that the Republicans support it. And the sad thing is, I'm not even exaggerating. The problem is we never have a honest discussion of the policies and ideology of the Republican Party, even after it has devastated our economy and the lives of so many Americans for the last 8 years, and then decades before that. Don't expect that discussion to come from the media, it is owned by rich Republicans.

And that's the sick part about the Gramm thing, the media briefly picked it up, but not because his insistence that the recession was all in our heads, but because he inartfully called Americans "a nation of whiners". That is why it got a little bit of coverage, not because of how messed up and out of touch Gramm, McCain, Bush and all Republicans are, or how horrible their policies have been for this country.

Why can't we have that candid discussion in this country? If people woke up and just had some basic understanding of politics, current events, and the economy the Republican Party would be dust, because a party with such greedy and worthless (for everyone but the rich) policies and priorities could not survive if it weren't for extreme ignorance and apathy, which are the only renewable resources we have a limitless supply of in this country.

Update: I should also note that the "nation of whiners" comment was a thousand times more offensive than Obama's "bitter" comment, which was actually the exact opposite, as Obama was actually acknowledging that people are hurting financially, and are sick of being left behind by Washington year after year. Obama caught hell for weeks over those empathetic comments. Yet McCain's repeated comments showing how completely, callously out of touch he is with the plight of everyday Americans results in next to no coverage.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Bush's Big Farewell

Jesus Christ, just when you thought Bush couldn't embarrass the United States any more, he leaves this week's G8 meeting with the world's "top leaders" with these parting words:

Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!


From the UK's Telegraph:
The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush, whose second and final term as President ends at the end of the year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world's richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.

One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: "Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America's record on pollution."
Seriously? He is proud of America's unparalleled contribution to perhaps the worst global crisis in the history??

Urg, that piece of shit...

What else can you say at this point?


I couldn't find a picture of him "punching the air", but I think this sums up the mood.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Obama Ad Hits McCain On Energy

Obama has released an ad hitting McCain on energy policy, correctly branding him as part of the problem, not the solution:



I think he could hit him a lot harder on the offshore drilling, and he should, because people need to know that not only will we not get a drop of oil for 7 years, we won't hit peak production for about two decades from now, and even at peak production, the price of oil would decrease less than $2 a barrel, which isn't enough to change the price of gasoline, especially given that just a few weeks ago the price of oil jumped $16.50 in 48 hours, and McCain is trying to make Americans think dropping the cost by a dollar or so over a couple decades is a solution. He is playing them for fools, and the Democrats need to work harder to highlight that.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Obama Vs McCain (Economy Edition)

Obama's campaign delivered a smackdown, memo-style, against McCain on his economic policy, or lack thereof. Essentially McCain's "economic policy", for those who aren't familiar with it, is a nice mix of do-nothing, and continue and expand on Bush's horrible policies that landed us in the mess we are in right now. Basically, when McCain finds himself in a hole, he calls on Americans to dig faster. Check out the memo (its a good read):

Earlier this year, Senator John McCain said that the nation had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of George W. Bush. On the eve of John McCain’s "Jobs First" economic tour this week, one thing is clear: the McCain economic plan represents a continuation of the same economic policies we have seen for the past eight years.

As currently constructed the McCain plan does not address the immediate challenges facing our economy, like the 438,000 jobs that have been lost in the past six months, the 400 percent increase in the cost of gas at the pump, and a massive contraction in the housing market. The McCain plan offers no hope of relieving burdens for middle-class families struggling with wages that have been stagnant for a generation and household incomes that have fallen $962 in this economic "expansion." Instead, the McCain plan would continue the economic policies of the last eight years that have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit, primarily with tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who did not need and did not ask for them. Indeed, McCain’s plan proposes to double down on these policies, with tax cuts that are more expensive and stacked against average Americans than anything President Bush has ever proposed.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the McCain campaign plans to spend the week "repackag[ing] proposals he has already outlined" rather than improving on their economic plan. But no amount of repackaging can alter three basic facts about the McCain plan:
  1. Senator McCain has no plan for immediate fiscal stimulus to help struggling families or jumpstart our economy. In January Senator McCain said the economy was not slipping into recession and said he was "skeptical" about the stimulus measures being considered. His top economic adviser said stimulus plans were typically unnecessary "junk." That same month Barack Obama proposed a fiscal stimulus plan centered on rebates to workers and seniors, a package similar to what was ultimately passed on a bipartisan basis. At the same time, Senator Obama warned that if the economy worsened further another round of stimulus would be needed. On June 9th, Senator Obama called for a second stimulus, with at least $50 billion in immediate measures to help jumpstart our economy. On July 3, in the wake of news that our economy has now lost jobs for six straight months, Senator Obama asked Senator McCain to join him in passing an immediate stimulus plan. However, since January when John McCain announced during a debate that he thought Americans were better off because of George Bush’s economic policies, he has failed to propose any immediate measure to give our economy shot in the arm by putting more money in the pockets of Americans hit hardest by the downturn.

  2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including those working and middle-class Americans hardest hit by this downturn. In contrast, Senator Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers and their families. The principal middle class tax cut proposed by John McCain is an increase in the dependent exemption that will not be fully in effect until 2016. Most households without children would see nothing under the plan – a total of 101 million households, including 67 million households currently paying income taxes but who would not benefit because they have no dependents, and 34 million low-income households with no income tax liability but generally paying payroll taxes. Nearly all seniors (37 million out of 38 million) would be left out. Even for families with children, the increase in the dependent exemption provides only a modest tax cut. In the first year of the plan, it would be worth about $125 to a middle-class family with two children. That same family would eventually see their taxes increase under the McCain plan, because his health care plan would raise taxes on middle-class families over time. This is completely inadequate, and will not help the very people whose reduced spending is contributing to our slowing economy. The Obama plan offers more generous tax relief for middle class families, including a "Making Work Pay Credit" that would benefit 95 percent of workers and their families, providing $1,000 for a typical working family. Obama’s plan would also expand tax credits to help families save, send a child to college, pay for childcare, and afford their mortgage, while eliminating income taxes for all seniors making less than $50,000.

  3. McCain’s plan continues the Bush policies of tax cuts that are not paid for, which will push our deficits higher and further weaken our economy. His plan continues giving tax cuts to those who need them least and didn’t ask for them, including the wealthiest 2 percent of households and large corporations – including big oil which gets $4 billion in new tax breaks from John McCain. Although economists generally agree that short-run stimulus measures should not be paid for, it is critical that sustained policies like middle-class tax cuts be paid for in order to avoid economic damage in the short run and inevitable tax increases in the future. Currently, McCain’s budget plan "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more" annually to the deficit according to the New York Times. If McCain cut back on his more than $100 billion in annual corporate tax cuts – including $1.2 billion for Exxon-Mobil alone – plus other tax cuts for the most affluent, he could afford to pay for more tax cuts for middle class families.

1. Senator McCain does not have an immediate plan to jumpstart our economy, and has failed to support Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan.
In this campaign, Senator McCain and I are having a robust discussion about our different visions for what we’ll do as president. But when it comes to creating jobs and brokering relief for families who are struggling, we can’t wait six months for the next president, and that’s why today I’m calling on Senator McCain and all members of Congress, to come together and support this 50 billion dollar stimulus package. Let’s show the American people that we can come together, Republicans and Democrats, to ease the burden on working families let’s not wait another 6 months for more bad news.

- Barack Obama in Fargo North Dakota, July 3, 2004
The economy is facing a serious downturn: Our economy has lost 438,000 jobs in 2008, six straight months of job loss. In May, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.0 percent to 5.5 percent – the largest once month increase in more than 22 years. Our housing market continues to deteriorate and consumer expectations for the future have fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. Experts from Lawrence Summers to Robert Shiller agree that another round of fiscal stimulus is warranted.

John McCain missed the chance to push for the first stimulus: John McCain already missed the chance to push for the first round of stimulus. In a debate on January 10th, McCain said "I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong" and went on to argue that spending reductions were needed to help the economy. That same month, top McCain economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that McCain was "firmly" opposed to sending out fiscal stimulus rebate checks, likening it to "borrowing money from the Chinese and dropping it from helicopters." At about the same time top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, "that for short-term fluctuations in the economy, the best course of action is to let the Fed handle it" and called the stimulus plan emerging from the President and Congress "junk." John McCain himself said he was "skeptical" about the fiscal stimulus measures being proposed. In fact, while McCain eventually voted for the final version of the stimulus package, McCain failed to show up for a key vote to expand the relief in the package to 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans. That expansion was defeated by one vote, and McCain was the only Senator absent. At the time, he explained that he was "too busy" and "focused on other stuff."

After six months of consecutive job loss, Senator McCain’s economic plan still includes no near-term strategy to help our economy create jobs and provide relief for struggling families. Instead, his "stimulus," originally announced in late January, is focused on a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate that would not even be fully effective until 2015. Experts across the political spectrum agree that such a permanent corporate tax cut would do next to nothing to jumpstart our economy in the near-term. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that a cut in the corporate tax rate was among the least cost effective, least fast-acting and least certain approaches to stimulate the economy available to policymakers. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post graded McCain’s "stimulus" plan as a D+, explaining that McCain "proposes permanent tax cuts – cutting corporate rates, increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax – masquerading as a stimulus plan." Since the first stimulus package passed, Senator McCain has not presented any new or additional plans to jumpstart the economy. In April, he told Bloomberg TV that we had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Senator Obama championed the first stimulus and is calling for a second one: In contrast, Senator Obama first proposed a fiscal stimulus centered around sending checks to workers and senior citizens on January 13th. A plan along these lines was agreed to on a bipartisan basis and enacted in February. Obama’s original plan included a contingency that should the jobs situation deteriorate a second round of stimulus would be triggered. On June 9th Obama explicitly called for a second round of stimulus, including at least $50 billion for:
  • An additional round of rebate checks for working families to help offset the impact of $4.00 a gallon gas and skyrocketing food, health and college costs;

  • A $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide struggling homeowners with pre-foreclosure counseling and refinancing assistance to help them stay in their homes; and
  • $10 billion in relief for state and local governments hardest hit by the housing crisis to prevent cuts in services such as health, education and infrastructure.

2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including virtually all seniors – and provides only $125 in the first year to a family with two children. Eventually the McCain health plan would raise taxes on families. In contrast, Sen. Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers, and provides the typical working family with at least $1,000 in tax cuts.
I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I’ll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I’ll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95 percent of workers and their families. I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect.

- Barack Obama in Raleigh, North Carolina on June 9, 2008
Families are struggling in the economy: We have just gone through the first economic "expansion" on record where typical household income actually fell, by $962 from 2000 to 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available, incomes have likely dropped further since 2006). During this period, the cost of healthcare has increase by 67 percent in inflation adjusted terms, college costs are up 23 percent and the price of gas at the pump has increased by 400 percent. As middle class families have watched the value of their largest financial asset – their homes – plummet by record amounts, they have been left with little margin for error.

John McCain’s "middle class" tax cut leaves most families behind: To put our economy back on track, we must ease this intense financial squeeze on middle class families. Yet John McCain’s tax plan would provide an extraordinarily small amount of upfront relief for middle class families – and would eventually raise their taxes. John McCain’s corporate tax cuts would provide no direct benefit for middle-class families, they would have to hope that a small portion of the benefits trickle down to them. McCain’s plan to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would provide very little benefit for middle-class families beyond what they are getting from the tax law in place in 2008. Essentially the only tax cut McCain is proposing that would directly benefit middle-class families is his proposal to increase the dependent exemption by $500 a year until the exemption reaches $7,000 in 2016. That proposal would:
  • Provide $0 in tax relief to 101 million households. Senator McCain’s dependent exemption increase only benefits taxpayers who can claim dependents on their tax forms (e.g. parents with dependent children). Therefore, single workers or married couples without dependents would receive no benefit from the proposal. Based on an analysis of IRS data, 101 million households would receive $0 in relief under the McCain proposal in 2009. Those households include:
    • 67 million households paying income taxes but with no dependents. More than two-thirds of income taxpayers get no benefit.
    • 34 million households struggling with low income incomes and in many cases paying payroll taxes.

  • Provide $0 in tax relief to nearly every senior citizen in the United States – 37 million out of 38 million would be left out. Senator McCain’s proposal would not benefit the vast majority of elderly households because they generally do not have children or other dependents. As a result 37 million individuals over 65 would get zero tax relief from the McCain middle-class tax cut.

  • Provide $125 in tax relief to a middle-class family with two children in the first year of his plan. The McCain plan promises to increase the dependent exemption that a married couple could claim for each of their two children by $500. However, the dependent exemption would rise by about $90 per year anyway, because the exemption is already indexed to inflation. Therefore, the McCain plan reduces that married couple’s taxable income by about $410 per child –or $820 overall – in the first year of the plan. For a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, that translates into a $125 tax cut (i.e. $820 multiplied by 0.15).

  • Taken as a whole, the McCain plan would raise taxes on middle class families in future years. While the McCain plan increases the dependent exemption between 2010 and 2016, middle class families would actually face higher taxes in later years of the plan. This is because the McCain health care plan finances its new tax credits by requiring individuals to pay taxes on the health insurance premiums they pay. As premiums grow the tax increase that pays for this plan would grow as well. As a result, by 2013 the typical family would pay $1,100 more in taxes from the health plan according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress – more than offsetting any benefit they get from Senator McCain’s middle class tax cut.
Barack Obama is proposing a tax cut for virtually all middle class families: In contrast, Senator Obama has proposed broad middle class tax relief that would provide at least ten times the benefit for typical families in the first year of his plan (see Table 1 below). When the two plans are fully in effect, and ignoring the tax increases Senator McCain proposes to finance his health plan, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the tax cuts under Obama’s plan are three times larger than the tax cuts under McCain’s plan for families in the middle quintile.

Senator Obama’s Making Work Pay tax cut will provide a tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family to offset the payroll taxes they pay. This tax cut is fully available in the very first year of his plan. His universal mortgage credit will provide an average tax cut of $500 to 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their taxes. His Automatic Workplace Pension program will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable. And he will provide a fully refundable $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for working families.

Given the record high energy costs, high health care costs and stagnant wages that middle class families face, Senator McCain’s plan to leave out 101 million households, and to provide only $125 a year in tax relief for middle-class families with two children, is simply insufficient to relieve their financial burdens.

Table 1: Middle Class Tax Cuts Under the Obama and McCain Plans

Married couple without children making $60,000

Obama Plan: $1,500
[includes $1000 Making Work Pay tax cut and $500 universal mortgage credit]

McCain Plan: $0

A 70 year-old widow making $35,000

Obama Plan: $1,900

McCain Plan: $0

Married Couple making $90,000

Obama Plan: $1,000

McCain Plan: $125

Married Couple making $60,000 with two children, one of whom is in college.

Obama Plan: $3,700
[includes $1000 Making Work Pay tax cut; $500 universal mortgage credit; and $4,000 college credit net of current college credits]

McCain Plan: $125
Source: Campaign calculations based on IRS Statistics of Income. Obama tax savings does not account for up to $500 in savings from expanded Savers Credit and the $2,500 in savings per family from the Obama healthcare plan.

3. Senator McCain’s tax plan provides a $1.2 billion tax cut for Exxon-Mobil and additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will drive up the deficit by the at least $200 billion to $300 billion per year.
[McCain] hasn’t detailed how he would pay for this new give-away. There is nothing fiscally conservative about this approach. It will continue to drive up deficits, force us to borrow massively from foreign countries, and shift the burden on to working people today and our children tomorrow. Meanwhile, John McCain will shortchange investments in education, energy and innovation, making the next generation of Americans less able to compete. That’s unacceptable. It’s time to make tough choices so that we have a smarter government that pays its way and makes the right investments for America’s future.

- Barack Obama in Flint Michigan, June 16, 2008
The Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit and inequality is growing: Over the last eight years, we have witnessed the most dramatic deterioration in our nation’s finances in history. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $635 billion surplus in 2008. Instead, CBO is now projecting a $357 billion deficit – a nearly $1 trillion swing in a single year. Bush’s tax cuts are the single largest cause of this fiscal deterioration, contributing twice as much as increased defense and homeland security spending. In total CBO data show that policies signed into law by President Bush have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit from 2001 through 2008. Over this period, workers’ wages have stagnated and typical families’ income has fallen by $962. We are experiencing levels of income inequality unrivaled since the 1920s.

The McCain plan would provide tax cuts that work against average, working Americans and add to the deficit: Senator McCain, by his own campaign’s estimates, includes close to $400 billion annually in new tax cuts. But the same candidate who in 2001 said he could not "in good conscience" support the Bush tax cuts because "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief" has now proposed a new set of tax cuts that are twice as regressive as what President Bush signed into law. Likewise, Senator McCain criticized President Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline by failing to show how he would pay for his tax cuts, explaining "[w]e Republicans, I think, were for balanced budgets and lock boxes." Yet now, Senator McCain has taken a page out of Bush’s fiscally irresponsible playbook by promoting regressive tax cuts without any credible explanation for how he would pay for them. McCain has repeatedly refused to identify specific spending cuts or tax increases he would support to offset his tax plans ; his top economic advisor recently justified this lack of detail by explaining "it’s just June."

Although experts agree that a stimulus plan should not be paid for in order to provide the maximum short-run boost for the economy, Senator McCain cannot responsibly scale up his middle-class tax cuts without also scaling back his tax cuts for corporations and the most affluent. Even then, the plan would still leave a large increase in the deficit to be paid for by unspecified future tax increases and reductions in critical programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Some of the current, expensive tax cuts in the McCain plan:
  • A $1.2 billion annual tax cut for Exxon-Mobil, $4 billion for the five largest U.S. oil companies combined, and $2 billion for America’s largest health insurance companies;
  • More than $100 billion per year for corporations;
  • An average tax cut of more than $269,000 per year above and beyond the Bush tax cuts for the top 0.1 percent of households – that is families making over $2.8 million annually.
  • Less than one-quarter of the benefits go to the 80 percent of households who make up the bulk of the middle class in America.
In total the New York Times estimated that these proposals "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more" annually to the deficit. Although full details of the McCain tax cuts are not available and there are inconsistent and contradictory descriptions and cost estimates put out by the campaign and others, Table 2 below outlines some illustrative examples of proposals that have been supported by Senator McCain and posted on his website over the course of the campaign.

Barack Obama would pay for his proposals for middle class tax relief: In contrast, Barack Obama has made it a priority throughout this campaign to show how he would pay for all of his proposals without increasing the deficit. He will achieve this by ending the war in Iraq, reducing unnecessary and wasteful government spending, closing corporate and international tax loopholes, and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. Independent analyses like the Wall Street Journal has confirmed that Obama’s numbers add up – that his plan will generate enough revenue to pay for his middle class tax cuts, healthcare plan, and other key domestic investments while bringing down the deficit significantly from its current record levels.

Table 2: Estimated Cost of Selected McCain Tax Proposals

Annual Cost: Corporate tax cut $100 billion Source: Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08: "the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin."

Annual Cost: Complete Elimination of the AMT $60 billion Source: McCain Economic Plan: "Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year." http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

Annual Cost: Increase the dependent exemption $18 billion Source: Tax Policy Center, 6/25/08, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf, p. 13.

Annual Cost: Eliminate expensing At least $200 billion Source: The U.S. Department of Treasury estimates that a partial expensing proposal under which businesses would be able to expense only 35 percent of new investment would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. ("Approaches to Improve the Competitiveness of the U.S. Business Tax System for the 21st Century," December 20, 2007, p. 50, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/hp749_approachesstudy.pdf.

Annual Cost: Gas Tax holiday $10 billion Source: McCain campaign estimate, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/1460e6aa-fbb6-4cf5-9241-e5df4f303c8a.htm

Friday, July 4, 2008

McCain Taps Bush Campaign Official To Run His Campaign, Bringing Us Full Circle

Every single day McCain moves closer and closer to Bush. He already supported the majority of Bush's disastrous policies, and the ones he didn't support he flip-flopped on until he supported them. Now McCain's policies are essentially the same as Bush's, and in some cases worse. He has also surrounded himself with Bush's loyalists, notably saying that he would love for Cheney to play a major role in his administration. The day before yesterday it was announced that former top Bush-Cheney campaign official and Rove-spawn Steve Schmidt is going to "take over the day-to-day operation of John McCain's campaign", essentially becoming McCain's campaign manager. The old guy kind of got the Mark Penn treatment--he is still around, but doesn't matter as much. It is funny that they decided to shakeup his campaign, as if the reason he is so far behind Obama is because of [former?] campaign manager Rick Davis, and not because he embraces Bush's horrible (and greatly unpopular) policies, or because he is running against a much stronger candidate, or because he is about as exciting and inspiring as a lump of tapioca pudding, and kind of looks the part. Anyway, you can expect more unchecked aggression out of the McCain campaign now, because Schmidt has a reputation for it.

I have a feeling this is only the first of many campaign shakeups, as McCain gets more and more desperate the closer we get to November and the farther he falls behind Obama in the polls.

Friday, June 27, 2008

McCain's Tax Plan Gives Top Corporations $45 Billion In Tax Cuts

You can tell a lot about a society by its taxes, and how it allocates money. Our society throws an incredible amount of money into sustaining our ability to kill people, while putting very little into education.

Our society also used to have a much more progressive tax code, yet the tax burden has shifted from the rich to the middle and lower classes over the last couple decades. At the end of World War II the top tax bracket was 94%. Then from 1964 until Reagan took office the rate was in the 70-80% range. Then Reagan came into office, bringing with him the new Republican philosophy of helping the rich and screwing the rest. In 1982 the top tax bracket was cut to 50%. In 1987 it was 38.5%. In 1988 it was cut again to 28%. Today it is at 35%. Over the years corporate taxes have been cut as well, to say nothing of the countless loopholes that let corporations evade the vast majority of their taxes. Taxes are about giving back to society, they are about the common good. When we cut taxes for the rich, we aren't just saying we think the rich aren't rich enough, we are saying that the rich being richer is more important than society having that money to invest in education, or health care, or alleviating poverty, or program that money had supported before. The modern Republican Party is about three things, helping the rich get richer, leaving the poor to fight for survival against the market, and cutting government revenue to the point where the government can't function properly. They achieve most of this through taxation, and the rest they achieve through stuffing the only part of government they care about, the part that kills people, with as much money as possible (which then gets transferred to corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, to make them and their CEOs/shareholders wealthier--do you see a pattern here?).

You can also tell a lot about a politician by their priorities.

John McCain is no exception. He wants to double Bush's tax cuts for the rich, which have contributed to the largest budget deficit in history (also began with Reagan) and led to a starving of public services (you may recall the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, this is a direct result of this conservative pro-rich, anti-government ideology). Think Progress exposes McCain's warm embrace of Bush's corporate-loving policies that have done so much to screw up the country for the last 8 years:
If you’re a CEO of one of America’s largest corporations and have enjoyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, a contribution to the McCain campaign is looking like a pretty good investment.

A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.

Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank ƒƒof America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.

The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCain here:

MCain Corporate Tax Cuts


These giveaways are just one part of McCain’s doubling of the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy which would create the largest deficits in 25 years and drive the United States into the deepest deficits since World War II.

A recent analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund found that John McCain’s campaign has received $5.6 million from the PACs and executives of the Fortune 200.

Over the past eight years, under George W. Bush, American workers have seen their wages stagnate as corporate profits have skyrocketed. John McCain’s misguided priorities show he’s more of the same: the same $45 billion in tax cuts for America’s 200 largest companies could be used to lift over 9 million Americans out of poverty.
How exactly does McCain intend to fool Americans into believing that he isn't planning 4-8 more years of Bush's failed greedy conservative policies? You also have to realize what this means for our country. We have a record budget deficit, we waste over $400 billion on paying interest on our national debt every single year, and McCain wants to take more money from the government and give it to rich corporations and their rich CEOs. And which public programs are going to be cut because of McCain's $45 billion corporate tax gift? Is it going to be Head Start? Medicare? Investment in alternative energy? All of the above? McCain also voted against raising the minimum wage, and a bill that would have increased educational benefits for veterans. McCain opposed health care for children because he said it cost too much ($35 billion over 5 years, or just about 15% of his tax cut to the rich). Now what does that say about John McCain's priorities? We have enough money for a $45 billion dollar a year tax cut for the richest corporations, yet we can't spare 15% of that for uninsured children to get health care. It is disgusting. But that is John McCain, and that is Bush, and that is the Republican Party.

It's all about priorities.

And clearly McCain doesn't care about the national debt or programs that help millions of people, especially those who weren't born with a whole dining set of silver spoons in their mouthes. He is just like Bush. All his talk to the contrary is nothing but more lying to voters, also just like Bush.

Update: Oh yes, and that GI Bill McCain opposed? He is now taking credit for it on the campaign trail, isn't that interesting?:
I'm happy to tell you that we probably (probably? does he not know?) agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.
Yes, a bill he actively spoke out against. How shameless.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Osama Bin Laden As Emmanuel Goldstein?

So here's an interesting theory I just came up with. You remember how McCain campaign advisor and superlobbyist Charlie Black recently said that another terrorist attack, like the one on 9/11, would be a "big advantage" for McCain? Well McCain has also made a similar comment right before the 2004 election about a tape from Osama bin Laden that had just been released:
But as McCain greets two breakfast-eating business partners, one from Stamford and the other from Bridgeport, the topic turns to the presidential race. The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"....

The two men, who requested anonymity, nod their heads in agreement. Later, while riding with Shays on an RV to a rally at the Stamford Government Center, McCain further explains, "(The video) is helpful to President Bush because it puts the focus on the war on terrorism."
(Read: It makes people afraid, and Republicans benefit when people are afraid)

Alright, so it is pretty obvious that Republicans believe terrorist attacks and threats, and anything that can scare Americans into voting against their own self-interest benefit Republicans. One could say they welcome such events, from the perspective of political strategizing. Do they welcome them enough to "accidentally" let a terrorist attack "slip" right before an election when it looks like their party is heading for their second landslide defeat in a row? Perhaps. Personally, I think you would have to have been living under a rock for the last 8 years to dismiss the possibility outright.

But here is something else I thought up, in light of this 2004 quote from McCain, what if they don't want to catch bin Laden? Does it serve the Republican interest to have him always lurking in the periphery of the voters' consciousness? Does he play the role of Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's 1984, the omnipresent evil, the target of the Three Minute Hate, the ready propaganda tool to overwhelm citizens with fear? We know the Republicans created this idea of the War on Terror, the war without bounds, without objectives, without an end, an infinite war against a tactic, an emotion, so that they can perpetually exploit this fear of terror to justify extraordinary violations of civil liberties, and an extraordinary expansion of the military-industrial complex which pumps the likes of Halliburton and DynCorp with floods of taxpayer money for their own profits.

But if we actually caught or killed bin Laden, wouldn't that make it much harder to keep the public fearful of the omnipresent War on Terror? It seems to me that politically, capturing bin Laden would be the worst thing for the Republicans, which may explain why they haven't done it in the 7 years since he killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Or it could just be appalling incompetence, as they clearly have more than enough of that to go around. It could be that they really just can't hunt down a single person despite the most powerful military and most advanced intelligence service in the history of the world, and it could be that needlessly dumping resources into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror, contributed to our failure to ever capture our public enemy number one.

Or maybe they just want you to be afraid.

Maybe they want to play political games with American lives, so they keep the terrorist mastermind alive and well so he can do to Americans what he does best: terrorize.

Monday, June 23, 2008

A Terrorist Attack = McCain's Miracle?

In an interview with Fortune Magazine Charlie Black, McCain's chief advisor, said something rather off-putting:
On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.
Alright, now let me do a little prefacing here first. First, the article starts off with a lie, "On national security McCain wins." This is no doubt in here because Fortune is a conservative, pro-business publication. Does John McCain really win on national security? Does one of the Iraq war's biggest supporters win on national security? Given that the Iraq war has stretched our military to its breaking point, fueled anti-American sentiment around the world, no doubt greatly increasing terrorist recruitment and anti-American fanaticism in the Middle East, took our focus off the real terrorists like Osama bin Laden whom we've failed to find 7 years after 9/11, enabled al-Qaeda to build up even stronger than its pre-9/11 levels, and made Americans less safe all around (according to every intelligence agency including the CIA), I really wouldn't say that McCain "wins" on national security. McCain simply wants to continue the same failed policies of Bush that have made America less safe and more hated. No, on national security McCain most definitely loses.

Alright, now the bad part. Charlie Black, someone who would essentially be the Karl Rove of a McCain administration (that is if McCain didn't tap Karl himself, which he probably would), said that he thinks another terrorist attack on the United States, like the one on September 11th, would be a "big advantage" to McCain's campaign. What is worrisome, beyond that he would make political calculations like that, is that Republicans actually think another terrorist attack would help McCain beat Obama.

And then you have the recent Newsweek poll that shows Obama with a strong 15% lead over McCain nationally, and all of the electoral calculations showing Obama with a clear path to victory and McCain with a huge uphill battle. And then you have this running through their heads. Yes, they need a miracle. Yes, they need a deus ex machina to win this election and keep their greedy grip on power for at least another four years. Yes, a terrorist attack may be such an event, and probably the only event, that could give McCain better odds of winning on November 4th.

Now the scary part: Who is in charge of keeping a terrorist attack from happening now? George W. Bush. The same George W. Bush who ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, and literally vacationed while he was letting Osama bin Laden strike.

Now imagine its October, McCain is still down in the polls by 15% or more, you can picture the media grudgingly writing his political obituary, and all looks grim for the GOP. Then Bush gets another one of those pesky intelligence warnings about an impending terrorist attack and Cheney/Rove/McCain/Black or someone else whispers in his ear "George, just look the other way", and suddenly another one slips through his fingers, and McCain gets his miracle. The Republicans spring into action with their fearmongering and attacks on Obama, they ramp up the jingo machine and drape themselves in the flag and pray that their poll numbers go shooting up just like last time they exploited a terrorist even for their political gain. Maybe it would boost McCain to a win, maybe it wouldn't, its hard to say, but the scary part is, the Republicans might believe it will. Would you seriously put it past them? Seriously.

This is what worried me about the recent FISA battle. FISA is a perfect tool to use in such a shadow plan to paint the Democrats, specifically Obama, as weak on terror. The FISA bill that just moved through the House is crap, plain in simple, it expands the president's power to spy on Americans and violate Constitutional protections over privacy, and even worse it gives telecom companies that knowingly violated the law retroactive immunity from prosecution. The presidential power part can be undone by the next, more Democratic, session of Congress and President Obama. The immunity can't be undone. Of course