Dubya Versus The U.N., Again

I think Max Bergmann at Democracy Arsenal is being a bit too kind to President George W. Milhous Bush here when he touts Dubya’s record for fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa (a related post appears here, as well as this news story). However, Bergmann does note that the preznit, in typical bait-and-switch fashion, has cut funding for U.N. peacekeeping efforts…

According to White House figures quietly released this week, more than $193 million for U.N. troops would be cut for missions in Liberia, Rwanda, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire and elsewhere.

...

Most people don’t realize that the UN has the highest number of troops deployed abroad than anyone else besides the U.S. The UN has 90,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the world in 17 different missions in some of the most dangerous hot spots, including Kosovo, Congo, East Timor, Haiti, and Lebanon. While the favorite conservative talking point is that UN missions are ineffective, because of the failure 15 years ago in Bosnia when the Dutch were held hostage by Serbian forces and unable to stop genocide (sic). This argument is still made, despite RAND having shown that UN peacekeeping has been highly effective compared to U.S. efforts (pdf). UN forces however do fail, but this is often the result of either too few troops or too little money. And sometimes the peacekeeping forces are placed in a security environment where little could reasonably be expected. However, the fact is that, while our forces - since end of the Cold War - were constantly reinventing the wheel each time they engaged in peacekeeping operations, the UN instead, learned from each of its missions and in the process developed a high degree of knowledge and expertise.

Also…

"I don't view Africa as zero-sum for China and the United States," Bush said during a joint press conference with Ghana President John Kufuor. "Do I view China as a fierce competitor on the continent of Africa? No, I don't."

Well, you’d better, President 19 Percent Mandate, because, as noted here…

Despite Sudan's political turmoil, and history of decades of civil war, the lure of oil and other natural resources, and access to the third largest country in Africa, has proved irresistible for China. In addition to Chinese investment in Sudan's oil industry, which supplied China with 7 percent of its energy needs last year, China has also invested $2 billion in the Merowe hydropower dam project. When it opens in 2008, the Merowe will meet Sudan's entire demand for electricity, and allow it to sell the excess to other African neighbors.

...

While Darfur rebel groups welcome the world's attention, one senior opposition leader says that the West's preoccupation with Darfur could be counterproductive, and even dangerous.

"I consider the West naive," says the opposition leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity from his home in Khartoum. "Instead of being involved in the oil business, and putting pressure on the dictator of the day, they have abandoned us. And believe me, when you abandon us to the hands of the Chinese, you are leaving Sudan quite naked."

The more the West pushes Sudan into a corner over Darfur, the more the Sudanese people will learn to hate the West, says Professor (Abdul Rahim Ali Mohammad) Ibrahim. "In my opinion, neither the US nor the Europeans can compete with China on its trade and development policies, so they want to push China out."

But that's not likely to happen any time soon. China's famous reluctance to intrude on other countries' sovereignty and its long-term investment approach allows it to overlook disagreements with the current government, says Ibrahim.

"China is very farsighted. Nothing is lost because of their cooperation with one regime. If that regime is overthrown, they work with the next government, too. They may offer advice, but they continue to invest, and this sustainability is the result."

Am I saying we should be silent and do nothing while civil war rages in Darfur? Of course not. However, we cannot claim any moral high ground whatsoever in Africa or anywhere else while we continue to wage war in Iraq for reasons that have long since been unmasked as lies (and speaking of Iraq, let’s hope and pray al-Sadr renews the cease fire of his Mahdi army due to expire tomorrow – how pathetic that we find ourselves in such a position, hoping for an enemy to do our bidding to somehow make the war more palatable to many in this country and thus delay the eventuality facing the next presidential administration).

Update: Good news...

A "Pax" On McCain?

I just wanted to point out that, with all of the stories now floating around concerning "Senator Honor and Virtue" (including this one) and his unparalleled shilling for the telecoms (notably, the access he granted to lobbyist Vicki Iseman of Paxson Communications), I don't think it has been pointed out that Ion/Pax TV (so named in honor of founder Lowell Paxson, pictured) was once the network that catered to family friendly programming such as "Touched By An Angel," "Alice," and "Mama's Family" (though Ion seems to be more secular, if you will, featuring fare such as "The Drew Carey Show" and "The Wayans Brothers," with "Baywatch" coming in March).

I would argue that PAX TV’s wholesome image stands in contrast to Paxson himself, who has benefitted from congressional intervention by McCain on at least two occasions: during the period from 1998 to 1999 as well as 2003 to 2004, when Paxson lobbied to delay passage of a bill that would have forced all broadcasters to stop transmitting via analog television by December 31, 2006 and slowed the transition to digital broadcasting, which, as noted here by Drew Clark, presented public safety risks particularly for Florida residents (with Paxson also a resident of Florida, ironically enough).

I'll add, though, that there's nothing illegal about lobbying to save one's company, but I think Paxson's actions – in particular, working to hang onto the analog spectrum channels of 63, 64, 68, and 69 for obsolete television purposes instead of allowing New York Fire Department Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeiffer and special operations chief Ray Downey to use those channels for firefighter communication – had a broader impact that ended up jeopardizing the FDNY firefighters.

And I happened to come across the following parody which I thought was a bit amusing, and that is a version of “The Sopranos” for PAX TV edited in an appropriate manner for that station (though a couple of bad words did slip by).



Update: More from Atrios here...

Thursday PM Stuff

Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson take on Falafel Boy over his remark about "a lynching party" for Michelle Obama (and during Black History Month, of course; real nice - Dubya actually is a bit sympathetic for a change, but I still think he's imbibed in something here)...

...and Jacob of Why Tuesday asks a good question about President's Day (yes, I know it passed already, but George Washington's official birthday is tomorrow, so there).

Thursday Stuff

Posting is a big question mark today, so here's a video promoting the movie "Shut Up And Sing," featuring Red State America for the whole world to see (McCain looks a bit sympathetic here, but of course his little alleged escapade with a certain telco lobbyist was still "under the radar" at that time)...



...and speaking of "Senator Honor and Virtue"...

"What Not To Wear" And Other Africa Follies

(Hat tip to Democracy Arsenal for the pic – so many punch lines, so little time…).

The Philadelphia Inquirer worked really hard today to find a way to compliment President George W. Milhous Bush, who of course is out of the country touring in Africa (as I noted over at Take It Personally earlier, maybe Dubya should stay on the road permanently in light of this truly embarrassing approval rating, now into the teens – h/t Atrios and Prof. Marcus; will we see single digits one day?).

The Inky tells us the following…

Some might say Bush has purchased the adoration some Africans give him. In Tanzania, the road ahead of his approaching car was layered with flower petals. He reciprocated by announcing a $698 million foreign aid grant to the East African nation.

But Bush's largesse to the African continent may well be the part of his legacy that ultimately gives him the most pride. The wartime president will be remembered as a humanitarian in sub-Saharan nations that have benefited from his personal commitment to fight HIV-AIDS.

A “commitment” with strings attached all over the place, it should be noted; this post tells us that Dubya established The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) rather than pledge full support to the already established and internationally acclaimed multilateral initiative known as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. By doing so, Dubya created a duplicate bureaucracy with lower funding versus the Global Fund (lots of good stuff in the article, and I’m highlighting only some major points here).

And due to an earmark in the PEPFAR legislation that privileges abstinence-until-marriage programs, we are treated to sad spectacles such as the one noted here…

NAIROBI, Kenya -- On July 5, Beatrice Were, the founder of Uganda's National Community of Women Living with HIV and AIDS, stood before hundreds of other HIV-positive women in Nairobi's vaulted city hall and denounced the Bush administration's AIDS policies.

Like many in attendance, Were contracted HIV from her husband, a common occurrence in a region where women make up the majority of new infections and marriage is a primary risk factor. For those like her, the White House's AIDS prevention mantra -- which prescribes abstinence and marital fidelity, with condoms only for "high risk" groups like prostitutes and truck drivers -- is a sick joke.

"We are now seeing a shift in recent years to abstinence only," she said. "We are expected to abstain when we are young girls and to be faithful when we are married to men who rape us, who are not necessarily faithful to us, who batter us." The women in the audience, several waiting to share their own stories of marital rape, applauded.

Were exhorted her audience to "denounce programs that are not evidence-based, that view AIDS as a moral issue, that undermine the issues that affect us, women's rights. I want to be very clear -- the abstinence-only business, women must say no!" Again, there were hollers and applause.

And concerning the prescribed PEPFAR medications…

In 2006, brand name manufacturers produced 73% of the lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs purchased with PEPFAR funds, totaling 20% of all PEPFAR funding that year. While PEPFAR does not explicitly forbid money from being spent on generic anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs, the Bush administration refuses to accept World Health Organization (WHO) evaluations of drug purity, safety and efficacy, instead relying solely on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s screening process to choose which drugs are PEPFAR eligible. This unnecessary procedural bias means that few of the cheaper, internationally produced generic drugs can be purchased for PEPFAR treatment programs, reducing the efficiency of U.S. taxpayer dollars and placing fewer Africans on life-saving ARV-treatment.

And as also noted, Dubya likes to tell everyone that his proposed $30 billion of PEPFAR funding over the next five years represents a doubling of existing funding, but with $6 billion currently spent per year, the $30 billion is basically flat funding that doesn’t keep up with the demand for treatment.

And the Inky closed its editorial with the following…

Bush deserves credit for fighting HIV-AIDS, and for his focus on malaria, another bane on life in Africa. He uses a biblical quote to explain why America should be so active: To whom much is given, much is expected. He's right.

Boy, am I sick of anyone conferring upon Dubya some sort of religious pretext for his actions that clearly is not warranted; this individual is possibly the most irreligious person I have ever seen.

But as long as the Inky is quoting Scripture here, allow me to do so also…

“Work hard and become a leader; be lazy and never succeed. (Proverbs 12:24)”

Yep, I think that's a lesson for President 19 Percent Mandate, all right.

Patrick’s Book Debuts At Long Last

This story in the Bucks County Courier Times yesterday tells us that Patrick Murphy’s memoir, “Taking The Hill: From Philly to Baghdad to the United States Congress,” hit the market yesterday (here). Some particular items that are discussed in the book include the following…

A call from Bill Clinton on election night 2006 (when running against Fitzpatrick the incumbent for his U.S. House seat) where Murphy “…gave (Clinton) the numbers and asked his advice,” (given the fact that the election was so close, and) “The former president was clear: "Don't let those bastards take away your victory. You go down to that hall and declare yourself the winner. Let the press sort it out.' ”

Murphy’s split with his then-fiancée when he returned from Iraq.

When he married his wife, Jenni, in June 2006, his parish priest refused to bless the marriage in a Catholic validation ceremony because of his public pro-choice views. As his campaign heated up, he wrote that a group of Fitzpatrick supporters harassed him and his wife as they left Sunday Mass.

Such good, upstanding “Christians” – and here is another insightful excerpt…

The whole campaign (against Fitzpatrick) was a baptism by fire. Every kind of attack was leveled at me. My stammering Chris Matthews interview was used in a negative ad. Because I had been single when I moved to New Hope, where there was a large gay community, my opponents began whispering that I was gay. Because the row house I grew up in was a couple hundred feet outside the Eighth Congressional District, maybe two city blocks, I was accused of being a carpetbagger, even though my apartment, some relatives, my grade school, church, hockey rink, and community college were all located within the district. Because I had voted for George W. Bush by military absentee ballot in 2000, having been duped by his “compassionate conservative” agenda, I was accused of not being a real Democrat. Because I didn't vote in the primary and general election every year, or even in the majority of elections since I had reached voting age, I was accused of not being a good citizen. Because I was pro-choice, I was accused to being a bad Catholic. Because I was Catholic, I was accused to not being pro-choice. The attacks were surreal. Sometimes I wondered what I had gotten myself into.

And in case anyone has a doubt as to whether or not the Repugs are priming their “fear and smear” machine at this moment (and why would you?), take note of the following from the Courier Times article…

Mike Walsh, a spokesman for Tom Manion, a retired Marine from Doylestown Township who also hopes to run against Murphy in November, said the book is a glaring example of the freshman congressman's “misplaced priorities.”

“Here we have the lowest rated Congress in history and [Murphy's] priorities are writing a book and, now, publicizing it,” Walsh said. “The people in Bucks County didn't send him to Washington to write a book.”

First of all, Repugs, Patrick signed the book deal before he was sworn into office, so we’re done there.

Second, as far as this “lowest-rated Congress in history” garbage goes, read this.

And this story tells us that Patrick opposes granting immunity to the telecomm companies as part of the FISA fiasco orchestrated by Dubya and the Repugs…

“His scare tactics have grown thin,” Murphy said Friday. “We can absolutely, positively continue to have surveillance on American phone lines if people are talking to a foreign entity … and anyone who says differently is lying to the American people.”

And so how does prospective Repug challenger Tom Manion respond?

“I just can’t see how Congress has time to vote on congratulating the [New York] Giants and not the time to vote on this before they leave,” Manion said. “I would have stayed there all night and worked with the Republicans and the Democrats to get this thing done.”

Murphy was one of 10 Democrats to vote Thursday evening to cancel the congressional recess and try to reach a compromise solution on the legislation.

I see that Manion is going to play “good cop” while all of the other Repugs play “bad cop.” They really have no other shot but to do that (and as long as Manion mentioned that phony-baloney vote congratulating the ‘Jints, I have to note once more this great move by Patrick on that).

And I can also detect another line of attack for the Repugs coming up here on FISA, by the way;

The legislation, known as the Protect America Act, was passed by the House in August. Murphy, along with 180 other Democrats, voted against the act then. Murphy voted against the bill because it didn’t ensure proper oversight of President Bush’s executive authority, according to Adam Abrams, a Murphy spokesman.

Murphy did vote for a similar surveillance act, known as the Restore America Act, in November because it “struck the right balance between keeping American families safe and protecting the Constitution,” Abrams said.

Both Pennsylvania senators, Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Bob Casey, voted for the Protect America Act.

(And I’ll plan to have some words for Mr. Casey Jr. in a couple of days regarding his most recent FISA vote; it represented a step back after a step forward, which isn’t good enough as far as I’m concerned.)

So to reply when the Repugs say, “Murphy voted against the terrorists before he voted for them,” or some such idiocy, Patrick voted for the Restore America Act because it provided the proper constitutional safeguards while allowing us to wage the legitimate war on terror intelligently, but he voted against the Protect America Act because it was yet another cave-in to Dubya at our expense.

Any questions?

Update 2/28/08: And here's an interview (h/t Atrios).

The Anthrax Charade Continues

The New York Times tells us here today that, absent a legitimate case against a suspect in the Anthrax scare of 2001 (remember that?), Judge Reggie Walton has ruled that USA Today reporter Toni Locy is in contempt of court for refusing to reveal her sources in a story she wrote about a former Army scientist’s possible role in the attacks (the last we heard of Judge Walton, by the way, he was presiding over the Scooter Libby trial). Walton has also said that a second reporter, Jim Stewart, may be held in contempt also.

As noted in the Times story…

The two journalists are being pressed to reveal their sources by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a onetime bioterrorism expert for the Army, who is suing the federal government, saying his reputation was ruined by leaks to the news media from law enforcement officials linking him to the attacks. In 2002, the F.B.I. and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, described Dr. Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the investigation into the attacks, which killed five people and remain unsolved.

Judge Walton said Ms. Locy’s testimony was important to help Dr. Hatfill pursue his civil lawsuit against the government, but advocates for the news media said his order was the latest of recent rulings that could hamper the work of journalists.

“Of all the federal court sanctions on reporters for refusing to reveal confidential sources over the past several years, this is perhaps the most disturbing,” said Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

“Toni Locy is being punished for doing what reporters are supposed to do: making sure important information gets to the public about whether the government had the investigation into a major public health threat under control,” Ms. Dalglish said.

It is important to note, by the way, that Dr. Hatfill has not been charged.

One of the things I’ve always wondered about, though, concerning this story is the following from this CNN story from June 2002 (embedded in this great post by The Bulldog, who was all over this a long time ago)…

Last weekend, a senior government official who wished not to be identified said testing has determined the deadly anthrax mailed to various places last fall was no more than two years old.

This discovery lends credence to the theory that whoever mailed the finely milled anthrax spores -- known to be of the Ames strain -- has a current connection to a sophisticated laboratory.

However, this 2005 story from the International Herald-Tribune tells us that Hatfill worked at the Army’s biodefense research center at Fort Detrick, Maryland from 1997 until 1999 (The Bulldog explains how the Ames-strain Anthrax could only have been produced at Fort Detrick).

So, assuming that Hatfill had some role in the scare (and again, he has vehemently claimed his innocence), it’s highly dubious to assume that he acted on his own (I can’t imagine someone managing to secure a quantity of Ames-strain anthrax and then keeping it in their possession for two years before mailing it, which resulted in the deaths of five people, let’s not forget). I think the scenario noted in this post by Ed Lake in 2002 (describing two individuals at a minimum involved in the scare: one would be the “supplier” from Fort Detrick and the other would be the “refiner/mailer” who delivered the anthrax-laced letters from Trenton, New Jersey after 9/11 and early in October, 2001) is highly plausible.

Lake also notes, by the way, that The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention had ended in turmoil in July/August 2001 and indecision resulted when the United States failed to agree to any plan that included international inspections of US government laboratories, implying that that played a role in the timing of the anthrax attacks.

Given all of this, it is typically beyond ludicrous for John Ashcroft and Bushco to name a single individual as “a person of interest” assuming that this individual could somehow have acted on his own, when in fact he had not worked at the facility that manufactured the anthrax for two years prior to the mailing of the deadly anthrax-tainted letters.

The only thing that this sideshow with the reporters and Dr. Hatfill will do is hinder any legitimate investigation into the Anthrax attacks, which perhaps is the ultimate goal anyway.

Tuesday Stuff

Just a reminder about what "good friends" the Saudis are from NBC correspondent Lisa Myers...



...and "The Pap Attack" takes on Dubya and the Repugs over some of the ways that they hide the truth (though noting all of them would necessitate running this video for about three hours instead of about three minutes, at least).

The Same Old Beef With Bushco

This tells us that Hallmark/ Westland Meat Packing Company of California recently recalled all of its beef produced since February 1, 2006, amounting to 143 million pounds, because of a video filmed by the Humane Society of the U.S. that showed…

…(plant) workers (using) several abusive techniques to make animals stand up and pass a pre-slaughter inspection. These included ramming cattle with forklift blades and using a hose to simulate the feeling of drowning.

Great, so now we’re “waterboarding” cows, huh? As noted here by Kerry Trueman of HuffPo, however, the Hallmark workers used other tactics to get the so-called “downer” cows (those too sick to move on their own) to the slaughterhouse, and since I’m eating my lunch at the moment, I’ll let you read about them in Trueman’s post instead of mentioning them myself.

And are you ready for the “good” news in all of this?

Most of the meat, raw and frozen beef products, probably has already been consumed, said USDA officials at a briefing. Some 37 million lbs were bought for school lunches and other federal nutrition programs. USDA said there was only a minor risk of illness from eating the beef.

I’d feel better about that guess if it weren’t for the fact that, as noted by Lou Dubose and the eternal Molly Ivins in “Bushwhacked” here…

…(the authors) charge that the Republican Party “is the party of unregulated meat and poultry.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) undersecretary for food safety, former Texas A&M professor, Elsa Murano, does not believe in testing food products (Murano stepped down in 2004). She also helped to kill off the Clinton administration regulations that dealt with the deadly bacterial form of food poisoning, listeria. The authors accuse the Republicans of paying off their wealthy contributors from the cattle- and chicken-processing states with the lax enforcement of USDA regulations.

Among the many diseases that could be transmitted through tainted meat, “Mad Cow” would have to rank as the worst (as noted here). And though brain and spinal cord tissue from cows is not used to feed cattle, sheep and goats…

…the government now allows meal containing brain and spinal tissue from cattle to be fed to chickens. One concern is that the government allows mixing chicken waste into cattle feed, another possible route for spreading mad cow disease that critics say should not be dismissed.

And this links to a press release from Sen. Dick Durbin’s site in which Ted Kennedy notes that he is working with a coalition of groups to call on Bushco to “increase FDA’s food safety resources.” And this notes that Bushco actually is proposing an increase in FDA funding from $510 million to $545 million, which is a pittance when compared with that money pit in Mesopotamia.

This should be surprising to no one after all this time living under Bushco, by the way. Our ruling cabal has waged actual war halfway around the world for oil, it has waged economic war through the continued offshoring of our jobs, it has spied on us with impunity thus far, it has refused to work on behalf of universal healthcare for those most in need, and it has done nothing while our planet continues to suffer the effects of global warming, among other ways it has harmed us. Why would it possibly choose to act on our behalf against those who would poison us as well?

BoBo Tries To Deflate Obama-rama

(Note: Currently having technical difficulties – don’t know if this is permanent or not.)

David Brooks offers us a glimpse today of the type of attacks Barack Obama will face in the ever-more-likely event that he emerges as the Democratic Party nominee, to wit…

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

A typical cheap shot from someone who claimed that Obama should “go visit a factory for once” and speak there, presumably as opposed to college-audiences only; the problem is that Obama did just that days earlier, as noted here (h/t Atrios).

And speaking of keeping his word, it’s important to note the following about “Straight Talk” McCain on public campaign financing, namely that he didn’t want to be held to public financing limits if he ended up winning the nomination, but had no problem abiding by those limits if he lost (here).

And Oliver Willis notes here that the only reason why McCain is hammering Obama on the public financing issue is because of the vast fundraising edge enjoyed by the Democrats in this campaign. If the opposite were true, McCain would be silent, I assure you.

Also, Brooks snidely notes the following…

If (Obama) values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

Somehow I don’t think anyone affiliated with PFAW would have worked with Tom Coburn, of all people, on the “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act” (here) to create “a Google-like search engine and database of federal spending," as Obama did.

Brooks derides voters favoring Obama by stating that they’ll experience “Obama Comedown Syndrome” (an acronym of OCS) when they come to believe that their man has thin qualifications for the presidency. However, I think many more voters will experience “OCMCIC” (Oh Crap, McCain Is Crazy) syndrome the first time he has a profanity-laced meltdown at the worst possible moment (here) before then.

Nick Kristof, Meet Kevin Ferris

The New York Times columnist takes "McCain love" to absurd new extremes in his column today (in "concern troll" mode), echoing this earlier post...

Consider torture. There was nary a vote in the Republican primary to be gained by opposing the water boarding of swarthy Muslim men accused of terrorism. But Mr. McCain led the battle against Dick Cheney on torture, even though it cost him donations, votes and endorsements.

Yes, we know that McCain has a perspective on this that no one else has among the presidential candidates. The problem, however, is that, as Kristof's colleague Michael Cooper noted here today...

Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid.

The bill, which the Senate passed Wednesday by 51 to 45, would force the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods.

...

Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First, said given the administration’s refusal to clearly ban abusive techniques, it made sense for Congress to be more explicit about what should and should not be allowed. Requiring the C.I.A. to follow the Field Manual, Ms. Massimino added, would be a welcome step in that direction.

“We’re very disappointed in his vote,” she said of Mr. McCain. “Because of his personal history and his leadership on this issue, it sends a terrible message to the rest of the world, to Americans, to the troops.”

And McCain's defense is that, although he has professed to oppose torture, he has no problem with exempting the CIA from the Army Field Manual requirements and thus allowing them to conduct it (which, happily for him, ties in nicely to Bushco's refusal to ban torture altogether, notably water boarding).

And I neglected to mention this earlier, by the way, but how's this for setting the bar so low that there's really no point to having the bar at all (from Kristof)...

In short, Mr. McCain truly has principles that he bends or breaks out of desperation and with distaste. That’s preferable to politicians who are congenital invertebrates.

I know I'm just a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger, but somehow I fail to see the difference.

As Barack Obama has said, if you like George W. Bush, you'll love John McCain (and here's some more of our "straight-talking maverick" in action)...

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (2/16/08)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (a day late, I know).

House

$170 billion stimulus: In a 380-34 vote, the House sent President Bush an economic stimulus package that will deliver one-time payments in the hundreds of dollars to 137 million U.S. households. The bill also will provide at least $46 billion in one-time business tax breaks.

A yes vote was to approve the package (HR 5140).

Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.) Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), H. James Saxton (R., N.J.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Not voting: Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.).

As you can see, Joe Pitts did the best thing he could for his constituents this week (and to help Bruce Slater, by the way, click here).

Higher education: In a 354-58 vote, the House passed a bill renewing the Higher Education Act through 2012 at a cost of $97.4 billion. The bill would use federal Web sites and other publicity to hold schools publicly accountable for their overall costs and tuition increases. It would also seek to control textbook costs and penalize states that reduce student aid.

A yes vote was to pass the bill (HR 4137).

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Saxton, Schwartz, Sestak and Smith.

Not voting: Pitts.

More about Patrick Murphy’s involvement with this bill is noted here (a post from earlier this week).

Senate

$170 billion stimulus: In a 81-16 vote, the Senate passed a $170 billion antirecession bill that will provide 137 million households with one-time payments of $300 or $600 plus $300 for each dependent child. The bill also will grant $46 billion in business-tax breaks.

A yes vote was to approve the economic stimulus package (HR 5140).

Voting yes: Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D., Del.), Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) and Arlen Specter (R., Pa.).

But the Senate version removed the 13-week unemployment extension approved in the House, as noted here (heckuva job, Harry).

Four-year FISA extension: In a 49-46 vote, the Senate failed to get 60 votes for advancing a bid to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for four years rather than six years.

A yes vote backed a four-year sunset.

Voting yes: Biden, Carper, Casey, Menendez and Lautenberg.

Voting no: Specter.

Here is more on this amendment; I believe it was the first FISA-related amendment voted on in the Senate as part of the process that led to passage of that rotten bill that received Jay Rockefeller’s approval before it was returned to the House (a hazmat bag would have been appropriate for it).

This week, both chambers sought to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before it expired on Friday. At week's end, Congress began a weeklong Presidents' Day recess.

Wolf “So Poor And So Black” Blitzer Returns to NOLA

More anguished ponderings from one of our country’s pre-eminent corporate media shills thus ensues (here).

And as noted here, the NBA will hold its All-Star game in New Orleans this weekend, where the Hornets, the home team, are actually playing some pretty good basketball.

And according to legendary New York Knicks great (and Louisiana resident) Willis Reed…

“…sometimes you read, look at television, I see the same footage every time. Every time it comes on the air, I see New Orleans still under water. New Orleans is not still under water. But people think that.”

That’s important to note, sure, but it’s also important to note how far New Orleans has to go; kudos to the NBA, though (including LeBron James here) for trying to give the city a shot in the arm, as opposed to the snub it received from the Commission on Presidential Debates last year (here).

And this New York Times editorial today tries to “light a fire” under FEMA and get that beleaguered agency to find new housing for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who lived in trailers contaminated by formaldehyde fumes. The editorial also notes the results of the trailer testing (519 out of 140,000, with 35,000 still occupied) conducted by the CDC at FEMA’s request, though this notes that there are “no federal guidelines or scientific standards on formaldehyde levels in such trailers.”

As the Times editorial also tells us, though, FEMA head R. David Paulison “pledges to find these people new housing before the summer months, regardless of cost. He’d better. Louisiana’s summer humidity will make formaldehyde accumulations far worse.”

Update 2/18/08: Wow, class move, Wolf (seriously here).

Forever Fretting Over The Repugs - How Sad

In an otherwise highly sensible column in the February 11th-18th issue of The New Yorker, columnist Hendrik Hertzberg gives us the following analysis of the Democratic presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (links to The New Yorker site are really flaky, by the way)…

For some Democrats, a final straw has been the Clinton campaign’s sudden interest in changing the rules. In Nevada, where the state’s Democratic Party had provided special caucus sites for casino workers, Clinton allies tried to get them shut down after a union representing many of those workers endorsed Obama. The Democratic National Committee warned the Party’s affiliates in Michigan and Florida that if they moved their primaries ahead of Tsunami Tuesday (2/5) they would lose their convention delegates. They did so anyway, and now Clinton – whose name was the only one on the Michigan ballot and who carried Florida, where no one campaigned – is demanding that the two states’ delegates be accredited. Those delegates, added to the bulk of the unelected “Superdelegates,” could conceivably put Clinton over the top if Obama arrives at the Convention with a slight edge in delegates chosen by voters – a scenario that would bear an ugly resemblance to Florida, the popular vote, and the Supreme Court, circa 2000.

Sure, the Clintons have always played rough politically, but within the rules as far as I could tell, notwithstanding some of the recent missteps blown way out of proportion by Frank Rich, among others, here. And yes, Hillary’s acquisition of Michigan and Florida’s superdelegates in a primary where no one else ran would be a tawdry move, but again, a legal one as far as I can determine.

But to compare such a move to the Florida voting fiasco in November 2000?

How did the Clintons purge the Florida voting rolls in their favor as the Repugs did under Katherine Harris? (here). How did the Clintons pull a maneuver like staging a riot as the Repugs did in Miami-Dade to stop the hand recount requested by the Gore campaign? (here). How have the Clintons sought redress in the courts from like-minded partisans to achieve their goal of winning the Democratic nomination? (here).

To compare anything the Clintons have done in this campaign to the events that allowed Dubya and his minions to seize the executive branch is truly a joke.

Also (more tied to the post title here, I'll admit)…

Nothing would energize the dispirited, disoriented Republicans like running against Hillary Clinton. And a late-entry challenge from (NYC) Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions would be far less likely if Obama became the Democratic nominee.

I wish I could communicate how truly fed up I am with the notion that Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be the Democratic nominee because the Repugs and their acolytes would be energized somehow and less offended by the nomination of Barack Obama. Despite the odious presence of Mark Penn as well as some deep-pocketed campaign contributors, she is easily the most qualified individual of all of the candidates on either side to serve as president; if our corporate media had any sense of fairness at all, they would match her work in the White House and the U.S. Senate against everyone else and realize how formidable it truly is.

Is she the candidate of the status quo? Yeah, in a lot of ways, but the “status quo” of the Clinton presidency in the ‘90s was pretty good for yours truly and his family. Sure, there was triangulation, equivocation, and overall some stuff that didn’t make me happy (NAFTA, the supposed welfare “reform,” repealing Glass-Steagall), but at least we had balanced budgets, job growth, and responsible adult leadership, as opposed to our jobs disappearing, our economy collapsing, and war without end in Iraq as the only certainty (to say nothing of 9/11, which happened under Bush’s watch of course).

And David Sirota posts here about the reality of a potential presidential run by Michael Bloomberg; my attitude towards the notion of an automatic Bloomberg candidacy as a response to Hillary winning the Dem nomination is to sit back and have a good laugh.

Besides, as formidable as Obama is on the issues that matter to yours truly (Iraq, the economy, education, the environment, etc.), Hillary Clinton is all of that and more (as I glance at the Issues pages of either candidates’ web sites, though, I should note that I’d like to see a category called “Protecting The Constitution”; Clinton has a link called “Strengthening Our Democracy” tied to cleaning up the voting mess in this country, but as important as that is, that’s something wholly other).

And Hertzberg concludes with the following…

Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.

I’d love to believe that, but notwithstanding the comparative free ride enjoyed by Obama in his campaign’s press coverage lately (which will end, I can assure you, regardless of what he does), I should just remind everyone of what Mike Papantonio said last night about what happens when Democrats attempt conciliation with the Repugs.

The Dems lose, that’s what happens. And subsequently, our corporate media will continue to portray them as weak and divided.

As a political party, the Repugs are flailing away in the water trying to stay afloat in the hope that their “fear and smear” machine will save them in November. Given that, you don’t toss them a life preserver. Do what they would do and toss them an anvil instead.

With John Edwards now sadly absent from the race, I should note that that’s something Hillary Clinton understands also. And even though he is formidable and highly qualified in his own right, as Hertzberg notes, I’ll take that over Barack Obama and his “transformative conciliation” any day of the week.

K.O.'s Special Comment on FISA Last Night

Spot-on as usual (here).

Thursday PM Stuff

What I posted earlier related to Valentine's Day was a joke (however funny or unfunny is up to you), but unfortunately, this is serious (h/t The Daily Kos)...



...and even though Steny Hoyer did a good deed today in the House, this "Pap Attack" provides a cautionary history lesson with some interesting thoughts, as well as a warning for the here and now, about what happens when you try to "buddy up" to the Repugs (this should be required viewing for Barack Obama, among others).

Happy Valentine's Day '08

And who else could capture the spirit of this Hallmark holiday like Sam Kinison (God rest him, and Johnny too) - have to turn the volume up slightly.



(A repeat from last year, I know, but I think it still works.)

An ’08 Dot-Bomb Blows Up For Good

Primarily for folks in this area, I should note what appears to be the passing into history once and for all of Worldgate Communications in Bensalem, Pa., noted in this Bucks County Courier Times story from last Friday.

As the article notes, the company was founded in 1995 to provide Internet and Email access through cable TV and set-top boxes provided by Motorola noted here (a company closely tied to Worldgate) and this May 1999 press release touted that its service (using its Channel Hyper Linking technology) was being deployed in thirteen countries on five continents, with nineteen cable companies signing either trial or deployment agreements with Worldgate (and as the ’97 link notes, Worldgate was portrayed in the trade press as some kind of a daunting rival to Microsoft – such heady days).

I remember Worldgate in particular because I interviewed there for a job, and you have to understand that they, along with Vertex the next exit up on the PA Turnpike, were supposed to be the leaders in the PC-Internet renaissance that was intended to establish Bucks County, Pa. as some kind of a hub of software development.

And the interview experience was one of the more interesting ones that I can recall; the hiring manager demonstrated the company’s product by pointing this rather large and cumbersome keyboard at a 19-inch T.V. screen, linking to TV programs and web addresses and accessing Email. The product actually did work reasonably well, but I thought to myself that there’s no way Mr. and Mrs. Delbert and Norma Jean White Bread America is going to bother with a contraption like this when they decide to settle down for an evening of Full House, Roller Derby or Robert Schuller’s Hour of Power.

And apparently, I was right, though based on this article, interactive Internet TV is a reality in Belgium courtesy of Siemens (ugh), and the menu selections of Verizon FIOS TV, by the way, are kind of Windows-ish in the use of drop-down lists and nested selections.

Anyway, back to Worldgate; by 2002, things were starting to slide (here, also noted in the Courier Times story), and the company dumped everything into developing the Ojo personal video phone. That never panned out either.

It’s a shame in a way because Worldgate was a comparatively minor player that made a big splash at first that they could not build upon, though they will not be around to see the eventual integration of television and the Internet; this surely will happen, though that is a bone that will be chewed upon, if you will, by much bigger “dogs” than they could have ever hoped to become.

And I guess this also means that I can definitely kiss my interview writing samples goodbye once and for all.

Huckabee’s “Own Personal Hero” Strikes Again

If I approved of violence against anyone at this site besides that Osama bin Forgotten guy, I would say that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia deserves a head slap or two (or three) for these observations noted here…

(Scalia) said Tuesday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, like a hidden bomb about to blow up.

In such cases, “smacking someone in the face” could be justified, Justice Scalia told the British Broadcasting Corporation. He added, “You can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, ‘Oh, it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.’ ”

I’ll tell you what, Your Honor; stop watching "24" for awhile and take a look instead at this article from The Washington Post, in particular this excerpt...

When it comes to torture, however, the handbook advised that "the threat to inflict pain . . . can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain."

"In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility and further defiance," the (CIA counterintelligence interrogation) manual said.

Intense pain, interrogators were taught, "is quite likely to produce false confessions concocted as a means of escaping from distress."

And did you think Scalia was actually done? Why, of course not…

(He also) ridiculed European criticism of the death penalty in the United States.

“If you took a public opinion poll, if all of Europe had representative democracies that really worked, most of Europe would probably have the death penalty today,” he said.

I’m not even going to try and diagram the thought process behind a statement like that, but I’ll only note that I never thought I’d get an opportunity to link to the Sunday New York Times Magazine article of January 27th by Parag Khanna titled “Who Shrank The Superpower” (haven’t actually gotten all the way through it yet – maybe someday), but Scalia’s astonishingly stupid remarks give me an excuse to do so here, highlighting this excerpt...

...Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn’t educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region’s answer to America’s Apec.

Just file this under more misinformation from Scalia, who has a penchant for engaging in this sort of thing every now and then, as he also did here.

Update: Daily Kos blogger smintheus has more here - man, is Scalia "losing it," or what?

Today’s Edition Of “Opinion Writing For Dummies”

In typical fashion, Maureen Dowd again today makes a feeble attempt to generate sympathy for either Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama before sticking in the shiv, as it were, with a slap down at the end here, reinforcing the narrative that Obama is merely some kind of golden boy living a charmed life and Hillary is this utter pretender for the White House who has achieved absolutely nothing without the assistance of her husband.

Here is a laughable excerpt…

Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says she’s learned from her mistakes, but that’s not a compelling pitch.

As a senator, she was not a leading voice on important issues, and her Iraq vote was about her political viability.

To make it easy for Dowd, I’ll provide this link to Clinton’s web site where she touts her accomplishments as a U.S. Senator as well as this link that discusses her activities as first lady.

And it really isn’t that hard to pick one or more topics at either location and do some independent investigation. Dowd could try a variety of online searches for different key words (Hillary Clinton, health care, 9/11, Iraq) and see what she comes up with and follow up the leads accordingly. And dare I say it – she could actually pick up a telephone and call some people for actual facts from interviews instead of spreading around utterly uninformed gossipy innuendo.

As Dowd might put it, to do any less would be her failure, not ours.

Wednesday AM Stuff

"Straight Talk" McCain had better get used to stuff like this, because he's going to hear it from now until Election Day...



Update 2/16/08: Uh oh, sounds like it's time for another blogger ethics panel based on this (h/t Atrios).

...and "The Pap Attack" tells us how our government is now targeting citizens media sites (of course).

Patrick Fights “Sticker Shock” On College Costs

This article in today’s Bucks County Courier Times notes the following…

At a press conference at (Bristol Borough Junior/Senior High School) Monday, Congressman Patrick Murphy, D-8, discussed his plan to put a “sticker price” on a college education.

The plan, called the Truth in Tuition measure, was an amendment Murphy added to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act that passed in the House by 354-58 Thursday. That amendment needs Senate approval and will need to be signed into law by President Bush.

“It's time to be straight with American families about how much college is going to cost,” Murphy said Monday, alongside a dozen high school and college students and their parents.

Murphy's proposal would essentially force all colleges and universities, both public and private, to publicly explain the reasons behind a tuition increase.

Oh, and before you digest the latest lie from White House flak Dana Perino that the 110th is a “do-nothing Congress,” consider that the House not only passed the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, but as noted here…

…On January 18, 2007 the House passed legislation that would halve interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next five years. This would affect the 5.5 million students who borrow Stafford loans[13] every year. The lower interest rate would save incoming college freshmen thousands of dollars over the course of their college career.[14] This plan is a drastic change from recent efforts to overhaul student loans. Only a little more than a year ago, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), then Chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, assured a roomful of loan-industry officials by saying, "know that I have all of you in my two trusted hands."[15]

The House also passed the Student Loan Sunshine Act as noted here last May; I don’t know if that was a precursor of sorts to the bill passed in the House last Thursday or not.

Given all of this, I think we should “reward good behavior” as Atrios says, and to do so on Patrick’s behalf, click here.

Update 2/15/08: I really don't have anything else to say about this, but I thought it was too cool to be ignored; nothing really against the 'Jints, since they knocked off Belichick and the Pats, but it shows that Patrick never forgot where he came from.

Getting A Grip On The Clintons And Race

I thought Paul Krugman had a couple of really good posts on his blog here and here yesterday about all of the Clinton hate currently out there in the progressive blogosphere, as they say, noting the following…

It really makes me sad to see so many people get played by the media on this. If you prefer Obama, fine — but the evil, race-card-playing Clinton campaign is no more real than Al Gore’s claim that he invented the Internet.

And to Obama supporters, just remember: these people are not your friends. After they take down Hillary Clinton, if they can, your man will be next

…

Folks, you’ve been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons. They tried to take Hillary down over her clothes, her voice, her tears. When none of that worked, they invented a race war.

There are some perfectly good arguments against Hillary — Iraq, the presence of people like Mark Penn, the big-money Dems in her circle. But this really is Al-Gore-says-he-invented-the-Internet stuff. And it’s deeply depressing to see so many progressives fall for it.

And I hope that Krugman's fellow columnist Frank Rich, among others, read what Krugman had to say; I wanted to take note of this particularly screechy excerpt from Rich's latest on Sunday…

The (Clinton) campaign’s other most potent form of currency remains its thick deck of race cards. This was all too apparent in the Hallmark show (a national call-in show Hillary appeared in before Super Tuesday broadcast on the Hallmark Channel). In its carefully calibrated cross section of geographically and demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one gay man, one vet, two union members — African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics.

Aside from that demeaning characterization of the fine journalist Carole Simpson, Rich is alleging here that African Americans were purposely excluded from the Clinton broadcast; of course, proof of such an odious charge would be nice, wouldn’t it?

So in light of this, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit the legacy of Bill Clinton and African Americans because, while it may turn out that they as a voting group have decided on Barack Obama for president as opposed to Hillary, I would argue that the Clinton fealty towards blacks is due to a lot more than “a cold, political, cost-benefit calculus.” And with that in mind, I came across the following interview with DeWayne Wickham of USA Today here, and I’d like to note the following…

A lot of people talk about his early missteps -- one of them being withdrawing his nomination of Lani Guinier for assistant attorney general -- but one of the things your book really lays out is his appointments of blacks. He appointed so many more African-Americans than any other president.

It's amazing. It goes so deep. I'm talking about Clinton and blacks, a recent Washington Post story was talking about Bush and minorities. Disproportionately, Bush's appointments are Hispanics. If you simply compare black appointees in the Clinton and Bush administrations, you will find that there is no comparison. You have to go beyond the White House staff, as I did, and look at the whole range of appointments throughout the administration.

The amazing thing about government is that the White House, the president and his staff at best can control about 10 percent of what happens in government. When they send appointees over to Treasury or Agriculture or Labor or wherever, they can focus in on the top two or three issues from the White House. The rest they have to leave to the appointees. When you have a large number of African-Americans in those positions, you can understand why in the Clinton administration, black unemployment went down, black home ownership came up, black business ownership grew. You had so many people in place dealing with a broad range of issues that impacted the ability of African-Americans to achieve in those areas.

Even though Bush did not appoint as many African-Americans, he did appoint more minorities. Did Clinton set a precedent that future presidents will have a hard time reversing?

Oh, absolutely. He broke the mold. The mold from Lyndon Johnson to George Bush I was one black in your cabinet at a time. Every president from LBJ forward had at least one: "OK, we appointed all the important people, now let's find one black who can be secretary of HUD or of HHS." Clinton, on the other hand, had many blacks in major positions in the White House. The chief of White House personnel, his budget director, his director of public outreach, his deputy chief of staff were all African-American. His liaison between the White House and the Congress -- Thurgood Marshall's son -- was African-American.

Was there a sense of sadness in the black community when he left office?

In fact, what I got from the interviews was that there's a sense of great loss more than sadness. The feeling is that we really became players in Washington politics. We weren't in the stands, we were on the playing field. Before, the struggle was to get into the arena. And now, we're back in the stands.

And more than that, I would argue that an African American presidential candidacy is the next logical step in a long-overdue process of political integration in this country that was greatly accelerated due to the achievements of people of color in general, as well as African Americans, under Bill Clinton.

Let’s consider that the next time anyone accuses the Clintons of holding “a thick deck of race cards,” OK?

Tuesday AM Stuff

Hat tips to every "A" lister in the world for these first three videos - first, the Barack Obama "Yes We Can" clip (late on this, I know)...



...and here's the sequel starring "Straight Talk" McCain...



...and a sequel to the sequel, if you can believe that...



...and as a tribute to Roy ("You're Going To Need A Bigger Boat") Scheider, here's an excerpt from "Jaws" in 1975 - sorry the volume is a bit low; in addition to being an extremely hard-working actor, he was also a vocal opponent of the Iraq war.

Putting Another Lie To Rest

I took note of the following paragraph in this article by New York Times reporter David Herszenhorn that appeared yesterday about the stimulus package that just passed out of the Senate without an extension of unemployment assistance (as noted here)…

(Harry) Reid’s critics say he can now be accused of playing politics with the nation’s economy, and of clinging to partisan differences at a time when voters across the country are clamoring for collegiality and cooperation.

Now I’m not necessarily blaming the writer here for just repeating a standard right-wing war cry without any proof (though further examination of that specious claim is certainly called for), but I should note that I can find no polling data anywhere to indicate that this country is unhappy with Dubya and/or Congress because they don’t practice “collegiality and cooperation” (a desirable state, sure, but implying that that can be measured is a bit much).

However, if anyone wants to express disapproval with Dubya or Congress on other matters, most notably the war and the economy (as noted here) – well, that’s something else entirely.

A minor point, I know, but I just wanted to make that clear.

Pundit Looniness From "Across The Pond"

Tim Hames of the Times of London proposes the idea here that Gen. David Petraeus should be named as the vice-presidential candidate for Repug presidential all-but-nominee John McCain, an idea also endorsed by Bill Kristol of the New York Times here back when he imagined Fred Thompson at the top of the ticket (Steve Clemons of The Note, though, anticipates Petraeus at the head of the Repug ticket in 2012 here).

This of course would be a total “diss” to the “values voters” who flock to the GOP in droves, for whom Mike Huckabee is plainly their man. And as at least one commenter noted, it assumes that the Mahdi Army will continue its ceasefire indefinitely in Iraq, thus providing some measure of illusory “success” concerning “the surge” (and speaking of which, it turns out here that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is delaying the “draw down” of troops here).

And as long as we’re talking about “St. McCain” here, I should link to this Daily Kos post from Kagro X with this new video – I’ll check it out and try to embed it later.

Update 2/12/08: And I meant to note earlier that things aren't going as swimmingly in Afghanistan as Hames would have us believe either (here).