Wednesday August 13, 2008
The Liberal Media Myth (I)
Every time someone claims the media is just too damn liberal, God probably kills a puppy and clips an angel's wings. And I die a little inside.As I previously mentioned, I think this is in part due to the fact that the political center has somehow moved to the right. So regardless of whatever fairly benign, moderate positions newspapers and television shows take on education or transit or foreign alliances, conservatives can scream that it is liberal according to their interpretation of the political spectrum.
But that is definitely not the whole story. The media has lost a great deal of independence, as corporate owners are definitely in favor of keeping the present incarnation of the GOP in power. It's no great secret as to why big business wants Republicans in power; after all, how else would you manage to rig the system so that gains are capitalized (profit motive, capitalism, etc.) and losses are socialized (and yes, that's a crappy link, but the bailout window opened a few weeks ago and I hate digging through old news).
And what happens in the political race? The same guy who did a baseless, factually deficient hit job on Kerry in 2004 is pushing a baseless, factually deficient hit job on Obama in 2008. Yet television stations give the guy a pulpit to spread his lies. It wouldn't be as bad if there were more people on television like Bob Costas, who put more pressure on Bush in an interview for the Olympics than news anchors and hosts whose job it is to ask tough, investigative questions and avoid the entire "gotcha" journalism crap.
It's kind of sad that our "liberal" media's best critics of conservative stupidity are sportscasters.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( August 13, 2008 09:05 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Monday July 07, 2008
A Must-Read for All
Jamison Foser's latest Media Matters (3 July) is something everyone should read.Here's one part I find particularly damning (with regard to that whole Wesley Clark hissy fit a few weeks ago):
Clark has made similar comments in the past, and various media figures said much the same thing about John Kerry in 2004. Morton Kondracke, for example: "It does not qualify you to be the commander in chief of all the Armed Forces because you were a Swift boat commander." And Kathleen Parker: "[M]ilitary service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office." That same year, Bush campaign spokesperson Steve Schmidt -- now John McCain's de facto campaign manager -- dismissed the relevance of Kerry's military service, noting that it had occurred decades earlier.
Nobody much cared when people said John Kerry's military service didn't qualify him to be president. But the media have different rules when it comes to John McCain. And so Clark's comments were met with a firestorm of media criticism. Never mind that Clark hadn't criticized McCain's service; that he hadn't said McCain served poorly or dishonorably -- in fact, Clark called McCain a "hero." Never mind all that; the media quickly, relentlessly -- and falsely -- jumped all over Clark.
This is bias. This is subjectivity. This is disgusting.
As a newspaper person myself (section editor for Viewpoint in the N.C. State student newspaper Technician), I admit that I have my opinions. But I also like to see if the facts fit my opinion, and if they do not, I modify my opinion.
Case in point: I once thought torture was acceptable in ticking-bomb situations. But then I looked up countless accounts that said torture doesn't work, regardless -- in fact, the best interrogators established rapport with captives as the "good cop" and got valuable information. The latest news that a number of our techniques were based off Communist Chinese tactics to elicit false confessions is that final nail in the coffin. FALSE CONFESSIONS! False confessions elicited under duress are a double whammy: we become horrible violators of the human rights we claim to champion and we get bad intelligence that could get people killed.
This is why I've stopped watching television news and am considering a move out of this country.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 07, 2008 08:55 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Thursday July 03, 2008
Columbian hostage rescue
Recently, the Columbian government rescued 15 hostages, including former Columbian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt.To me, the rescue seems like the intelligence community's version of the hidden ball trick -- the Columbian agents got in close and sold the FARC guerillas on the notion that the rescue was unlikely as it would lead to the hostages' deaths. FARC took the bait, hook, line and sinker and the Columbians rescued the hostages without firing a shot.
Could the American government have pulled it off?
No way.
As this Washington Independent column points out, American intelligence personnel are increasingly finding themselves unable to establish the basis for an active group of field agents, in great part due to the fact that they are locked up in their compounds to protect themselves:
Old hands will recall the case of the CIA Beirut station chief, William Buckley, taken hostage in Beirut in 1984 by Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, and held until his death there in 1985. An operational assignment to Beirut after the Buckley affair was a personal security nightmare -- but the heightened concerns were limited to that rough neighborhood. CIA officers could still do abroad what they did best -- move around and understand, perhaps as well as any, the lay of the land.
Today, for CIA officers, and literally all U.S. officials abroad, much of the world resembles Beirut in the mid-1980s. A look at any U.S. embassy must be through crash barriers and razor wire. These serve not only to keep America?s adversaries out, but to keep American officers in, crippling the intelligence and any foreign-policy missions at the worst possible time.
It may be impossible for the next administration to fix what has happened to the CIA in the last seven years. It may be a broken brand. Perhaps the only way to proceed next January will be to start over afresh, with a new intelligence structure and new institutions.
The American military should heed the advice of Lou Gerstner, the ex-CEO of IBM, in his book Who Says Elephants Can't Dance? It's pretty compelling, considering Gerstner walked into a company on the verge of disaggregation in 1993 and turned it around into a hugely successful player in the IT service field with a revived corporate culture that eschewed the balkanization of the company prior to Gerstner's arrival.
We need a similar approach to gear our military for modern warfare; unfortunately, I don't think George W. Bush is inclined to or capable of such a drastic turnaround.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 03, 2008 06:55 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Wednesday July 02, 2008
Wesley Clark's statement (updated)
I hesitate to weigh in on this, but after seeing the Talking Points Memo Veracifier video on the MSM's absolute hissy fit on Clark's remarks, I feel I should point this out on this forum.Wes Clark never questioned John McCain's war record. I think Digby best summarized what we had to look forward after Clark's remarks: the mother of all hissy fits.
Here's what Clark said (in context):
CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded ? that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don?t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
(emphasis mine)
He basically said that McCain never had to make the executive decisions, e.g., bomb target A, target B or target C, move the troops in or make a strategic withdrawal, etc. And then he said that McCain's experience is not indicative of the executive experience required for the Presidency, which is correct (otherwise, by right-wing logic, any Marine who ever held an M-16 has adequate experience to control the American military).
The MSM's hissy fit is exactly why I only watch my primetime dramas/comedies, sports and the occasional soap. If I have to watch the news, I turn on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.
UPDATE: Rhetorical question -- why is it acceptable for the (ex-) military people the right hires to impugn on (ex-) military people on the left when it is unacceptable for those liberally-aligned military people to even suggest that a conservatively-aligned general might have forgotten to brush his/her teeth?
John McCain's got a Swift Boater on his side now. I now plan to never watch televised news until further notice.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 02, 2008 09:46 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Tuesday July 01, 2008
Go back Jack and do it again
Wow.The title of this blog post kills me: Six Years Later, McCain Says He Still Would've Invaded Iraq -- Presumably For The Hell Of It.
It may just be my macabre sense of humor, but that title makes me chuckle. But on the serious side of things, what psychoactive drugs is John McCain on? A country that had no ties to al Qaeda, had no WMDs nor a program to develop them and a populace that now wants America to get the hell out of their country, and McCain STILL would have invaded?
While we're at it, can we invade...Canada and Britain? (insert Canadian/British jokes of choice here)
No invading Burma though -- even though the military junta is a bad dictatorship, we cannot, CANNOT fall into the classic blunder of land war in Asia.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 01, 2008 03:36 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Monday June 30, 2008
Three blog posts
These three blog posts have me worried:Testosterone Nation (Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan)
Shanghai Cliff Diving (Calculated Risk)
Unleash Fiscal Policy Now, or More Severe Recession Ahead (Robert Reich's Blog)
The first covers some recent analysis of the consequences of China's one-child policy and the country's prediliction for male children. This is going to be huge in the future, particularly when the workforce of today's PRC has to retire. Without women, a population simply cannot grow.
The second is obvious: the Shanghai Stock Exchange has essentially jumped off a cliff since start of 2008. Considering how much economic power the Chinese have gained over the past 20 years, this will have profound, global effects on the world economy.
Taking both of these aspects into consideration, we're talking about severe economic crises facing China in both the short and mid-term intervals.
The last is about America's recession, and how the US government must recognize the wisdom of Keynesian deficit spending as the supplier of demand of last resort. For people who aren't economists, policy wonks like myself or people who had to write papers about Keynes (also myself), let me explain: Keynes basically said that Say's Law (supply will create its own demand) is not necessarily universal, particularly in times of economic downturn -- in Keynes' lifetime, that was a little something called the Great Depression, and it's apparent in our current recession.
Thus, the government is the last resort of stimulating the economy via government spending on infrastructure (which is usually deficit spending, but that goes too deep into the economics). And infrastructure is just the sort of thing our country needs. Given the high price of oil, it seems very important for our nation to invest in mass transit systems, levees and alternative energy sources.
Still, I'm not optimistic about any of it. There are going to be rough times ahead for almost everyone except the ridiculously wealthy. And it's almost to the point where I don't see any proposed solution working.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 30, 2008 08:01 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Friday June 20, 2008
We surrendered
Well, it's official: we've surrendered to terror.I've spoken enough on FISA amendments, and I'm increasingly agreeing with some very libertarian blogs about how this capitulation is of no surprise.
How we managed to surrender our liberties and laws over to an idiot named George Walker Bush and his war criminal cronies is truly saddening. It's the real day the music died.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 20, 2008 11:15 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Sunday June 15, 2008
Russ Feingold = Awesome
Russ Feingold is one of those AWESOME Senators.He stands up for our rights on something called principle, which is sufficiently admirable in today's world of spineless political opportunists.
As a North Carolinian, I don't think I can say the same about our Senators -- the craven, pro-war, pro-idiot-GOP-policy Burr and the detestable rubber stamp Dole.
Oh Russ Feingold, why could you not be a Senator from North Carolina?
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 15, 2008 08:57 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Sunday June 08, 2008
Hugh Hewitt = Moron
Hugh Hewitt is a moron (or, for the verbally-challenged out there, a moran).You see, Hewitt managed to get his hands on (gasp!) a bulletin from Obama's old church, the Trinity United Church of Christ!!! That's right -- Hewitt has some of the evil, anti-American, Communist propaganda that Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama are trying to impose on normal Americans!
The horror!
Reverend Wright is trying to clue his parishioners into giving money and aid to Communists! Wait! I meant Katrina victims! And how to determine if you qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit! But the most dire news: he's trying to find a parishioner a new kidney!
Teh blacks are stealing our organs!
Or, Hugh Hewitt is a moron. Honestly, I just went to his blog at TownHall and felt my intelligence drop by approximately 200 IQ points into the...you know...the line thing before the numbers that means they are...not big...oh, wait, that's right...IT FELL INTO NEGATIVE NUMBERS.
Some of the horrid things Jeremiah Wright is saying, according to Hewitt, include the typical pastor's request for contributions for new church buildings, a letter inviting people to show up to Bible study, a scholarship opportunity, a call for people to contact their senators about increasing funding for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and a congratulatory note on a parishioner whose had a poem included in a national teen magazine.
By that standard, my pastor is clearly a flag-burning, pot-smoking, Communist-loving, anti-America, pro-Islamofascist hippie who should be waterboarded in the Eternal Fires of Gitmo.
Or Hugh Hewitt is a MORON raised to the 9185032480123985th power, and his blog (and all of TownHall, for that matter) should be considered a public health risk.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 08, 2008 09:36 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Saturday June 07, 2008
Can we fire the media?
Seriously, I think that's a good strategy for Barack Obama and his ideas about changing Washington: fire about 70 percent of the media.Glenn Greenwald, who is one of the bloggers who routinely documents the blatant double standard in the media, tells us of David Broder and his casual dismissals of people who think George W. Bush and his cronies deceiving the nation is an impeachable offense. This part best sums up the past 15 years of the media's misconduct:
The only news made by that Senate report is that, in our country, a report like this -- documenting that the Government lied us into a war -- is no longer news at all. Extraordinary conduct of that type has been converted by the David Broders of the world into commonplace "policy disputes." As a result, our press corps -- which literally spent hours and hours on the air Thursday night pitifully staking out Hillary Clinton's house and breathlessly reporting on the movement of every SUV and have spent days (with no end in sight) sharing with each other their moronic fantasies about what Clinton and Obama might have said to one another -- have ignored almost completely the issuance of that Senate report, as well as the fact that John McCain now says he embraces the extremist theories of presidential power that have led to the panoply of these abuses.
Of course, there are some good reporters, journalists and columnists out there who have been on top of nearly every act of malfeasance the Bush administration has committed. But they are but a blip compared to the massive media filth machine that spews out nonsense about John Edwards's haircut, Barack Obama's church and Hillary Clinton's laugh while ignoring the criminal actions of the current administration.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 07, 2008 10:07 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Monday June 02, 2008
Bill Kristol...again
I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this, but Bill Kristol is an idiot chickenhawk who should start every morning by actually shoving his foot in his mouth and tying his hands behind his back so he can say or write nary a stupid thing.Kristol rips Obama's Wesleyan University commencement speech for not mentioning the military as a form of public service.
Steve Benen (Carpetbagger Report) sums it up rather nicely:
Second, I?ve seen many criticisms over the years of the Bush-Cheney White House ? led by two people who avoided military service during a war ? not encouraging Americans to enlist in the Armed Forces. Indeed, when Bush has delivered big speeches on national service, he?s neglected to emphasize military service as an option, too. Somehow, Kristol neglected to criticize the president for the same ?sin of omission.? I can?t imagine why.
I don't see why people who never served in the military are so gung-ho to see others fight in their wars for them, save for some pathetic need to "feel like a man" and "fight" a war. I've never served, nor do I plan on serving. And because of that, I never plan on advocating war unless a nation bombs us and hands us an official declaration of war.
And even then, I'd probably still be against a war.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 02, 2008 01:15 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Monday May 26, 2008
The N.Y. Times Op-Ed page
The New York Times no longer seems to be part of that blasted meddling "liberal" media.There are any number of reasons for this: Thomas Friedman, who managed to get a new unit of time named after him for his constant remarks that the war would be decided in the next six months; Maureen Dowd, who seems to be less and less coherent as time goes by (focusing on trivialities like Obama's beer problems the "macho manliness" of Democratic presidential contenders); and of course, Bill Kristol.
I previously discussed Kristol's incompetence as he penned a column that warranted his third correction in almost as many months as he's worked there. Now he has a Memorial Day column out sounds like the typical neoconservative spiel about Iraq -- there will be setbacks, we need to stay there, we are going to win, we have to stay strong here in Washington, today we honor the troops, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Needless to say, those neocons don't seem to be honoring or supporting the troops. President Bush threatened to veto a hugely popular modernization of the GI Bill (yes, that's an editorial, because the news is a bit old now) and a small pay raise for the troops. This is absolute nonsense, coming from a party and a president who insist that we need $165 billion more to keep fighting the war.
But not a penny for the troops!
This is disgusting hypocrisy: support the troops by not paying for their education, not increasing their pay and not getting them out of an increasingly unpopular war.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 26, 2008 12:17 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Sunday May 25, 2008
This is disturbing information
In the past week, I've managed to read one extremely disturbing post by Digby about "Main Core," which is a disturbing part of the entire "Continuity of Government" plan to be implemented in emergency and establish a de facto martial law.. In short, the reason why FISA and telecom immunity are so important is because Main Core is something out of Eric Arthur Blair's (a.k.a. George Orwell) nightmares: a database of supposedly subversive individuals that can be seized in "national crisis."Yet to me, this pales in comparison to a Harper's article from March 2003 I'm currently reading about the American theocracy. This organization is is so reactionary and pro-authoritarian that I've had to stop reading that article several times. The author of that article now has a new book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, out detailing this organization. The most disturbing thing I found was that The Family apparently views democracy as a construction of man's pride, and feel that the men (it is a very homogenous, male-only group, which disturbs the feminist/equality for everyone person I am) in The Family are the new chosen of God, and their beliefs represent the theocratic base of rule for the future.
If anything, this proves why we need to get the neoconservatives and their ultra-right-wing allies as far away from governmental power as possible; these people are the shadow of totalitarian rule that Orwell so gloomily predicted, and it's in all our interests to ensure that those dystopic predictions are never fulfilled.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 25, 2008 06:05 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Friday May 23, 2008
Disgrace and appeasement
I meant to add this in my previous post, but I forgot. Thus, here's what I meant to include (and have to make a separate post for because it won't fit where I want it to).The notion of calling Barack Obama a weak, un-American candidate due to his willingness to talk with nations like Iran is somewhat ridiculous. Memo to Mr. Bush: your own Secretary of Defense is calling for negotiations with Iran.
"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.
How is Mr. Gates different from Mr. Obama?
And then Fox "Faux" News puts Ollie North on air saying that Obama is a Communist, un-American appeaser. Yes, Ollie North of Iran-Contra fame is on air saying Barack Obama is negotiating with terrorists. This is the same Ollie North that sold weapons to Iran in the 1980s without precondition.
So who's the appeaser now?
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 23, 2008 12:46 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Disgrace to editorial writers
In my new capacity as Viewpoint Editor for the Technician, I've found that I take immense pride in writing decent editorials for the paper (by decent, I mean ones that have a modicum of fact and research behind them).This is why I find Op-Ed pieces like this one by Michael Gerson or Charles Krauthammer's latest sleeze or the Titanic-esque disaster that is Bill Kristol's column in the NYTimes to be incredibly disgraceful to opinion and editorial writers (and editors) so disgraceful.
Gerson and Krauthammer are both in WaPo today, and both make the ridiculous premise that Barack Obama is somehow a weak candidate, with Krauthammer detailing Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran, North Korea and other "bad" nations as giving them undeserved status.
Krauthammer's premise is flawed by the assumption that the world actually respects us these days. Gitmo? Illegal wiretapping? Hugely unpopular war that the administration lied to the world about? Torture? Inane statements about getting cheap oil because you are an awesome guy? This list goes on, and the bottom line doesn't change -- America has lost a lot of respect and status in the world.
Gerson, on the other hand, is just talking with the part of his anatomy that most people sit on. Part of his argument hinged on the same premise Krauthammer operated on (reaching out and trying diplomacy = bad). But the two things that bothered me the most were the arguments about that awful e-word (electability) and crazy religious people associated with candidates. The electability issue is stupid, mostly because Obama isn't struggling with working-class voters -- he's struggling with Appalachia voters, which is a problem rooted in the history of that geopolitical region. And as far as crazy pastors associated with the candidates, John McCain has, or rather, had, two far bigger problems: John Hagee and Rod Parsley. I'll take the time to note that Hagee had crossed the Rubicon (not to mention Godwin's Law) by saying that Hitler's Holocaust was part of God's plan for Armageddon.
And I don't know why the New York Times hasn't fired Bill Kristol yet; for that matter, I don't even know what psychoactive drugs they must have been on to even consider Kristol as a contributor to the Op-Ed section of the paper.
Kristol's incredibly asinine and unresearched column and its assertion that Obama cannot win because he was blown out by 41 points in West Virginia can be rebutted by facts found with a few minutes on the Google.
I think John Cole had the best way of summing up Bill Kristol as a person:
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 23, 2008 12:45 PM ) Permalink | Comments[1]
Saturday May 17, 2008
Golf
In life, we all have to make sacrifices of some sort. For some, it's trading career for a strong family (or vice-versa); for others, it's giving up a principle for practical reasons.Yet on occasion, our soldiers are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice: their lives. The least you'd think our President could do for that sacrifice is update the GI Bill to adjust for rising college tuition prices or provide free health care and mental health care for every veteran. Of course, he's done none of this and has filled the VA with people who are want fewer diagnoses of PTSD because it costs less. So what did he give up?
Golf.
This is about the point where sane people on television and in newspaper offices and at their computers with their Interweb hit the ceiling as they jump up and roar a number of profanities. Soldiers are dying for a war in a nation that had no connection to the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil AND YOU *#$($)@! GIVE UP #*$@)^& GOLF?!?! Even worse, the far more likely explanation for Dubya quitting golf is his knee.
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment is probably the most appropriate response for the MSM, and his closing remark is the best advice for the President: SHUT THE HELL UP!
As Wilifred Owen put it: To children ardent for some desperate glory/The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est/Pro patria mori.
Update: Morbo, guestblogging at Carpetbagger Report, has a nice Letterman style top 10 list of the "sacrifices" George W. Bush has made for the troops
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 17, 2008 09:22 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Friday May 09, 2008
Mother's Day
I never thought Mother's Day would become part of the political arena -- until now.Steve Benen at Carpetbagger Report notes how House Republicans managed to take a stand against Mother's Day, all in the name of finding small, petulant ways at annoying House Democrats and disrupting Congressional business to the point of delaying votes on important things, like mortgage and war spending bills. Here's probably the richest part:
The problem isn?t that 178 Republican lawmakers suddenly decided they no longer like mothers ? though, with this bunch, one never knows ? but rather that the House GOP has decided they prefer procedural tactics to allowing the chamber to function.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked why 178 Republicans (including him) switched their votes to oppose the resolution, said, ?Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother?s Day.?
Except, they all voted against the resolution in support of Mother?s Day. Only congressional Republicans could be this dense.
Indeed, it doesn?t generate a lot of headlines, in large part because
no one really expects responsible governing from House Republicans
anymore anyway, but Boehner & Co. have decided to bring the
chamber?s ability to function to a slow crawl of late. As Boehner
whined yesterday, he feels justified using delay tactics because it?s
?time for Democrats and Republicans to work together.? (emphasis mine)
So in order to get actual bipartisanship, the House Minority leader decides to be completely uncooperative and act like a six-year old holding his breath and plugging his ears. If a Democratic leader in Congress pulled this stunt, we'd be hearing all sorts of crap on CNN and the rest of the MSM about how obstructionist and elitist those damned Democrats are.
Seems like the old rule is still in play: IOKIYAR (It's O.K. If You're A Republican).
It's because of stuff like this that make drinking in despair a rational course of action.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 09, 2008 01:01 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Idiot Economists
Via Krugman (parenthesis mine):McCain offers the most responsible fiscal policies? Notice that this wasn?t about who you think will be most economically sound in general, or who you think would be better at fiscal management in practice ? although even there, nothing in the Republican party?s past 30 years offers any reason to believe that it would be responsible in any way shape or form. But this question was about what the candidate is offering ? and McCain?s proposals are, demonstrably, wildly irresponsible.
Yes, John McCain is McResponsible as well. Or not. Unless you consider a tax plan that puts us $5 trillion further in the hole and creates an idiot gas-tax holiday to be the height of fiscal responsibility.Other fantastic examples of the "reality-based community" of the media: Michael Goldfarb, chickenhawk extraordinaire, says Americans shouldn't care about what implications our foreign policy has (h/t Yglesias).
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 09, 2008 08:59 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
Wednesday May 07, 2008
Flip-Flop McCain
Do you know who really is a flip-flopper? It's a Vietnam veteran, but not the one the MSM told you. The flip-flopper is John McCain, not John Kerry (h/t Steve Benen @ Carpetbagger Report):* McCain is both for and against a ?rogue state rollback? as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain considered and did not consider joining John Kerry?s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won?t commit to supporting a regulation bill he?s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris? former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
* McCain?s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn?t be ?rewarded? for acting ?irresponsibly.? His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* McCain?s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign?s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty?s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants? kids who graduate from high school. Now he?s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving ?feedback? on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, ?We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.? Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was ?probably going to be long and hard and tough.?
* McCain said he was the ?greatest critic? of Rumsfeld?s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as ?a mission accomplished.? In March 2004, he said, ?I?m confident we?re on the right course.? In December 2005, he said, ?Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.?
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn?t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as ?an agent of intolerance? in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans ?deserved? the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush?s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were ?too tilted to the wealthy.? By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending ?dirty money? to help finance Bush?s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he?s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn?t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he ?would taint the image of the ?Straight Talk Express.?? Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
That's the latest list as listed in Steve Benen's post on the topic. These are all real flip-flops, as opposed to John Kerry's alleged flip flops (which were mostly principled stands, like voting to pay for Iraq by taking money out of the tax cut for the wealthy and then voting against measures by taking money from working-class families).
So where the hell are Russert, Tweety (Chris Matthews, for the non-blog addicts out there) and Faux News on this damn flip-flopper?
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 07, 2008 06:42 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]
The "If Only" Jokes
The following bit (h/t Andrew Sullivan) is extraordinarily depressing:I'm a pretty easygoing guy, and I often avoid confrontation like the plague, but that last one sent me straight out of my comfort zone. From my booth across the dining room, I piped up and objected, saying that he wasn't a Muslim, that it was an email smear, and blatantly untrue. I was prepared to deflect any bullshit defenses hurled my way. But I never got one. What I got in response was depressing (but expected) in its illogic: "Well, I can't take that chance."
How do I know this? Mostly because our despicable news media has managed to broadcast 24/7 coverage of his CHRISTIAN PASTOR REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT ON TV, RADIO AND INTERWEBS FOR THE PAST MONTH!!!
Let me reiterate: HIS CHRISTIAN PASTOR.
Let me express what I can't take a chance with: idiot people who look at the evidence saying that Option A is far superior by a factor of 250000000 to Option B, then pick Option B anyways. And by saying that you'd vote for McWorse, you pretty much have demonstrated that you fall under the category of the aforementioned idiot people, given that St. John apparently wants to become very standoffish with two of the prominent world powers, Russia and China (h/t Crooks and Liars, based on piece by Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria):
In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil-but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.
We have spent months debating Barack Obama?s suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain?s proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous-that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.
This leads me to three "if only" jokes, one of which is a bit off-color:
- If only Barack Obama's Christian pastor was a Muslim imam, then Obama would be a Muslim.
- If only John McCain knew what the hell he was talking about, he'd be a decent candidate.
- And last, and quite colorfully, if only your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( May 07, 2008 09:33 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]