More From The John McCain PR Agency

David Brooks thus sayeth the following from his ivory tower perch at the New York Times today…

In 2000, (John) McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway. A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. Unlike, say, Barack Obama, McCain still opposes ethanol subsidies.

Saying that ethanol consumption leads to global warming is fudging a bit; to say that ethanol production increases global warming according to the Science study cited by Brooks is more accurate, though I have to grudgingly admit that he has a point (has more to do with the use of the land harvested for the ethanol than the actual ethanol itself, it should be noted).

However, that “straight talking maverick” once openly embraced ethanol, hardly considering it a “wasteful giveaway”…

In a flip-flop so absurd it'll be a wonder if it doesn't get lampooned by late-night comedians - not to mention opponents' negative ads - McCain is now proclaiming himself a "strong" ethanol supporter.

"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects," he said in an August speech in Grinnell, Iowa, as reported by the Associated Press.

"Well, at least now we know he's serious about running for president," quips Brown University presidential politics expert Darrell West, upon being told of McCain's ethanol about-face.

And by the way, this takes you to a page listing other energy-related initiatives proposed by Obama, including encouraging the development of other biofuels aside from “cellulosic” ethanol (meaning ethanol that comes from other natural sources besides corn, including switchgrass).

Also…

In 1998, McCain championed anti-smoking legislation that faced furious opposition from the tobacco lobby. McCain guided the legislation through the Senate Commerce Committee on a 19-1 vote, but then the tobacco companies struck back. They hired 200 lobbyists and spent $40 million in advertising (three times as much as the Harry and Louise health care reform ads).

I know Brooks is counting on all of us to forget this, but the so-called “Harry and Louise” ads were attack ads aimed at the Clinton health care initiatives of 1993. They did not support the Clinton plan in any way.

And speaking of health care, I should provide information regarding McCain’s initiatives, which you can sum up as increased tax deductions for expenses (assuming the money to deduct for out-of-pocket care is there to begin with, which it frequently isn’t) and somehow finding a magical way to ensure greater competition among private carriers and greater selection choices among health care consumers (and don’t get sick if you read this – coverage may be denied in the event of any subsequent stress).

The Cockroaches Mount A Counterattack

Not much to say here, but only a reminder that the ideological goons at Freedom’s Watch have definitely not gone away – quite the opposite in fact, as noted here…

According to its website, the organization's four "core issue areas" are:

• The dangers of radical Islam and the emerging Iranian threat
• Advancing a conservative agenda and market-based solutions to pressing domestic problems
• Standing up to Big Labor's radical agenda
• Preventing the degeneration of our society by stopping the legalization of controlled substances.

"While initial reports suggested a budget of $200 million, people who have talked to the group in recent weeks say the figure is closer to $250 million, more than double the amount spent by the largest independent liberal groups in the 2004 election cycle," the Washington Post reported. "There is a sense among those contributing to Freedom's Watch that MoveOn powerfully filled a void in the left, that rallied support in the left, that raised money from the left, that mobilized the left," (Ari) Fleischer (pictured) told the Post.

So as you can see, the FW lickspittles have moved beyond mere warmongering and are now trying to attack a broad menu of left wing causes (real or imagined, and it’s hard to tell sometimes with these characters).

The group’s clout, however, is a fact. And one of its most noticeable propagandists is familiar in these parts…

A year ago, (Ed) Patru, then the House Republican Conference spokesman, attacked Pennsylvania Democrat and Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy, who had spoken out on the need to end the war in Iraq. According to the blog Brendan Calling, Patru sent out the following quotes (with Patru's commentary) from freshman Rep. Murphy:

Mr. Murphy said in a speech on the House floor Tuesday: "I served in Baghdad from June of 2003 to January of 2004, walking in my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration's failed policy in Iraq."

That is true. Mr. Murphy, according to his Web site, served with the 82nd Airborne in Iraq.

However, Republicans dug up a quote from Mr. Murphy in the Widener University School of Law Magazine, Fall 2004 edition.

There, Capt. Murphy said: "We are really making a difference here in Baghdad. These people haven't had a sense of justice in such a long time. We're rebuilding schools and parks, and I am working with the Baghdad judiciary on rebuilding their court system ... For those of us who joined the legal profession to make a difference, this sure is the place."

In an attempt to find out more about his record of service, Brendan Calling phoned Patru's office:

No one could connect me to Patru, but a person named Shane spoke to me. Had Patru ever served in the military? Shane wasn't sure. Had Patru served in Iraq? Shane was pretty sure that wasn't the case. How old was Ed Patru? Shane didn't know. Was he over 42, was he past the maximum age of enlistment? Shane didn't know. Did Patru support the war in Iraq? Shane couldn't answer for his boss.

Of course not – Patru had already put his message out there. Why should he have felt any need to explain further?

Thus goes the M.O. of the Freedom’s Watch cockroaches, living up to their foul pedigree by flourishing in garbage (including this cretin, let’s not forget).

The Pointless Fight Over The “I” Word

So it appears that our nation’s governors have met with President George W. Milhous Bush about more funding for infrastructure projects and come away empty (here – more of the same from the Bushco cabal)…

Bush this month signed an economic stimulus package to send $300 to $1,200 rebate checks to millions of Americans and to offer tax incentives to businesses. He opposed including infrastructure projects because “it's not really a stimulative way to get the economy going,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Monday.

I can see that Perino knows as much about economics as he does concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis (here).

To get an example of a country investing in infrastructure and experiencing economic growth as a result, this tells you the following about Thailand…

The Thai economy has been stalled due to a crisis in confidence, owing largely to the political and policy uncertainties that followed the Sept 19, 2006, coup. ''Many are not spending, because of uncertainties about the economy, uncertainties about their jobs and future earnings,'' Mr Surapong said.

''How will we rebuild confidence? The state has to start the process.''

The pro-growth policy stance comes after the state planning agency yesterday raised its growth forecast for 2008 by a half-point to between 4.5% to 5.5%.

The National Economic and Social Development Board said that the economy last year grew 4.8%, up from earlier forecasts of 4.5%.

New investment in basic infrastructure will be the main engine for growth, with the Samak Sundaravej government pledging hundreds of billions of baht in new programmes in five areas: Bangkok mass transit; logistics; water management; education; and public health.

Mr Surapong (Thailand’s finance minister), a medical doctor by training, said the megaproject investments would not only boost growth, but also would strengthen the country's long-term competitiveness.

And as the story notes, Thailand’s economy grew by 4.8 percent last year, which outperformed this country as noted here (not sure of the math, but I believe that’s close enough).

And Jim Hightower tells us here how we arrived at this sorry state…

The first W--George Washington --was on board with using public funds to provide the new country with a solid infrastructure, including an extensive system of postal roads and canals. Jefferson stepped up with tax dollars for the Louisiana Purchase. Even in a time of civil war, Honest Abe saw the need for a transcontinental railroad, the Homestead Act, and a public system of land-grant colleges. Teddy Roosevelt--a Republican-- pushed for our sterling network of national parks and created the National Forest Service. FDR put America to work building courthouses and dams, planting windbreaks and arbors, creating music and plays--jewels that are still with us. Ike, a fiscal conservative, saw the need to launch the Interstate Highway System. Lyndon Johnson fought for crucial investments in hospitals, schools, water systems, and parks.

From the early 1950s into the 1970s, total public spending on America's physical plant (including money put up by local, state, and federal agencies) amounted to about 3% of our Gross Domestic Product. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, this investment in the public good fell victim to posturing budget whackers and dropped well below 2% of our GDP--a cut of more than a one third.

The situation has worsened under the Bushites, who are sworn enemies of public investment in anything but the military and their corporate cronies. While federal infrastructure outlays in the 1960s were equal to the amounts spent by state and local governments, locals are now putting up three times what the feds spend, with the federal investment shrinking this year to an abysmal 0.7% of GDP.

Of course, George W has a fib to fit every figure, including this deceit: "Infrastructure is always a difficult issue," he said recently. "And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our responsibility at the federal level with the highway bill." Well, frankly, George, you haven't. Not even close. Experts point out that your $286 billion bill is more than $30 billion short of the bare minimum needed simply to bring America's once proud highway system up to the low standard of "adequate." And what you provide is way short of what's required for rail, mass transit, smart highways, and other transportation needs.

Believe it or not, though, there actually is a tiny bit of good news here, and it is that the only veto by Dubya overridden by the 110th Congress thus far (pretty sure about that; can’t find any others) was for a water resources infrastructure and environmental protection bill last November here. So at least those on Capitol Hill know about the importance of keeping this country from utterly crumbling (more so about keeping their jobs, though, I'll admit).

Of course, it’s hard to do that when the money is going somewhere else, and this tells us where (as if we didn’t know already).

Malkin-izing Michelle Obama

I cannot possibly imagine why The Bucks County Courier Times granted column space to Michelle Malkin last Sunday, but they did here (and for whatever it's worth, my opinion of that paper thus plummeted to new depths).

I respect the fact that the Courier Times prints opinions from all over the political spectrum, which is commendable actually and important to foster ideas and formulate opinion. But while I would never harm the right of someone to make known a point of view that could be inflammatory to others, I still have to wonder why they did this.

The excuse for Malkin’s written regurgitation was an attack on Michelle Obama, the wife of one of the Democratic candidates for president. And what exactly was it that Obama had done wrong, in Malkin’s view? She had said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because (her husband) Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

And that was all Malkin needed to begin a harangue of Mrs. Obama, calling her part of “a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot,” among other choice adjectives, in the most patronizing manner at her disposal. And in so doing, Malkin managed to extol herself, recounting her experiences witnessing the soaring of The Blue Angels Navy flight team, the launching of the space shuttle, and partaking in respectful remembrance of those entombed in the U.S.S. Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

It’s hard to communicate the peculiar dementia of Malkin’s universe, but I will attempt to do so here. She propagates innuendo and personal attacks on anyone who dares to speak up against her, and judging from the popularity of her web site, her success is a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse.

Consider Graeme Frost, for example, the 12-year-old boy who had suffered head trauma and spoke out against the failure of the Republican Party to support SCHIP funding last fall, which he needed due to actual financial hardship. In response, Malkin and her legion of like-minded right wing bloggers encouraged their minions to harass the Frost family by calling them personally to get information about their private lives.

Malkin also claimed that Air Force Senior Airman Jonathan Schrieken of Willingboro, NJ was shot by an Iraq war “peacenik” last July 4th, though Willingboro police categorically stated that that was not true. Malkin was also one of the Iraq war bloggers who alleged that the Associated Press manufactured a police source in Iraq to generate “insurgent friendly propaganda,” though the source was later identified as a real-life Iraqi police captain.

Another “golden oldie” from Malkin is her reference to the Democrats as “the white feather party” for attempting to include troop withdrawal timelines in Iraq supplemental war funding. Malkin also accused those who opposed the Iraq war of staging a “party” to mark the 2,000th casualty suffered by our service people, when in fact what was staged was a candlelight vigil by the American Friends Society for this infamous milestone (here).

Malkin has also been vocal against Barack Obama’s opponent for the Democratic nomination, in case you’d wondered, encouraging “ethnic profiling” of Asian-American donors to Hillary Clinton, described by Malkin as “smellier than stinky tofu” (here). She also misrepresented a Pew Research study that showed Muslim Americans as largely repudiating Islamic extremism, telling her audience just the opposite (here).

And finally, no discussion of Michelle Malkin should exclude the sad story of Denice Denton, the former UC Santa Cruz chancellor who, in Malkin’s eye, failed to expel or punish students who angrily protested and kicked military recruiters off campus (here). Malkin encouraged her audience to “take a stand” against this “capitulationist chancellor” and contact Denton, who subsequently took her own life. And while no one has said that Malkin was responsible for the death of this troubled woman (and I do not do so here), the absence of any remorse from Malkin subsequent to the Denton tragedy is telling.

I sincerely hope that the Courier Times gives us advanced notice when it decides to publish any future screeds from Malkin (who, it should be noted, approved of Japanese internment by President Roosevelt during World War II). That way, if I happen to come across her bilious rants by accident over breakfast, at least I will do so on an empty stomach.

Monday Stuff

Hillary's attack (God, I hate to give a nod to Kornblut and Murray, though - nice work by JedReport)...



...and to be fair, here's Obama's barely audible response (wow, that iShowU Demo legend sure is annoying, and I definitely think HRC has more of a commitment to health insurance than Obama)...



...here's another spot-on video from that Stranahan guy on FISA (h/t The Daily Kos)...



...and I don't know who Lee Camp is, but kudos for this...



...also, I don't think I've ever embedded this VoteVets ad before aimed at "Straight Talk" McCain, so here goes (another "phony soldier," no doubt)...



...and speaking of the all-but-anointed Repug nominee, here's a history lesson courtesy of "The Pap Attack."

Edwards Returns To The Fight

This post from ABC’s Political Radar site tells us that John and Elizabeth Edwards are lending their voices to the Iraq/Recession Campaign, which is…

…an effort organized by several groups, including the Center for American Progress, USAction, MoveOn.org, SEIU, VoteVets.org and Americans United for Change. The coalition fights for a halt in war spending to bring focus to economic issues at home.

Speaking from his home in Chapel Hill, N.C., Edwards and his wife Elizabeth said they are proud to throw their support behind the campaign.

"The war in Iraq at least from my perspective needs to be brought to an end for a lot of reasons--including reestablishing America's moral authority in the world and making America a force for good again," said Edwards on a conference call launching the campaign.

"I don't have the empirical data I just know what I've heard over and over and over, is people don't understand why we're spending $500 million dollars and counting in Iraq at the same time that we've got 40 plus millions of Americans who don't have any health care coverage, 37 million living in poverty. People are terrified about being able to pay their bills. It doesn't make sense to them and they see no end in sight."

And just as a reminder, here is the 2005 Op-Ed piece that Edwards wrote disavowing his vote for the war.

This gives me an opportunity, by the way, to venture into wingnuttia courtesy of yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, in particular Mark Bowden’s column, in which he says that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should “start making sense” about Iraq.

See, even though Bowden, like Edwards, now sees that the invasion was wrong, the problem as far is Bowden is concerned is that liberal opinion has “congealed and dried” on withdrawal (actually, Bowden should consult Fareed Zakaria, who has basically said that the war is over despite stories like this one – I think someone needs to start making sense all right, but it’s not Clinton, Obama or anyone else who supports withdrawal – and not to be outdone, “Senator Honor And Virtue” says here that the war will be over “soon,” no doubt trying to create a distraction from that little dustup with a certain lady lobbyist).

Here are more rose-colored prognostications from Bowden…

It is certainly possible that these gains are illusory and temporary, and that hopes for lasting stability and a working democracy will unravel, but it is also reasonable to suppose that moderate Iraqis have glimpsed the abyss and are backing away from it.

The war is not won, but failure no longer appears inevitable.

Wow, what a great motto for an Army recruiting ad; I can hardly wait for the quick-editing, video-game simulation of soldiers storming an enemy compound, rounding up insurgents and handing out candy to ever-so-grateful Iraqi children while the words “The war is not won, but failure no longer appears inevitable – be all you can be” splash across the TV screen in just under 30 seconds!

And I’ll just blow off much of Bowden's remaining propaganda – it actually would make me ill to dissect his entire column and refute the same arguments over and over and over and over (including the highly unserious notion that somehow, Incurious George has “changed course” in Iraq, leading to our present “success”)…

Talking sense about Iraq for Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would mean acknowledging the remarkable and courageous achievements of Petraeus and his troops, and admitting that their efforts have opened an unexpected door to a happier ending.

In which “failure no longer appears inevitable,” let’s not forget (and to take a stroll down memory lane, as it were, here is a link to the background on the MoveOn “General Betray Us” ad with many, many links to news sources that totally undermine the credibility of the head of our forces in Iraq).

Oh, and did I mention that Bowden has absolutely nothing to say about the Iraqi “government” and its total inability to meet any of the milestones projected for it by George W. Milhous Bush, among others, here?

And finally, here is some polling data that Bowden should read, assuming he hasn’t done so already (and these numbers don’t appear to be trending anywhere; possibly down, but certainly not up).

So I suppose the majority of the people of this country need to “get serious” about Iraq also, as far as Bowden is concerned.

How serious is this, then?

Update 2/26/08: And by the way, the legacy lives on.

Hillary's Shock Troops To The Rescue?

I have to admit that I’m starting to reconsider the respect I once had for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. I was willing to overlook the presence of individuals such as Mark Penn and the campaign’s reliance on other well-heeled politicos to sell the Hillary “brand” to its audience of Democratic consumers, and I was even willing to overlook some of the clumsy attempts by former president Bill Clinton to separate his wife’s campaign from that of Barack Obama (which continues to impress me with its organization and efficiency, by the way, to say nothing of the candidate himself – and yes, to a certain extent, he is getting a free ride from our corporate media which I expect to end abruptly at any moment).

And I am continuing to reconsider HRC after this New York Times op-ed today by former Congressperson and vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro in which she claims that the so-called Democratic Party “superdelegates” should be allowed to choose the nominee (I don’t think anyone is arguing against that, exactly, as long as the superdelegates act in accordance with the popular vote of the party – and by the way, you can also read this op-ed from Hillary Clinton’s web site if you so choose, which to me amounts to a tacit endorsement).

Here is an excerpt…

These superdelegates (formed in 1982 as a result of the Hunt Commission)…are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.

It worked. In 1984 I headed the party’s platform committee. We produced the longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce. It generated no fights at the convention. It was a document that no one would walk away from. We lost in 1984, big time. But that loss had nothing to do with Democratic Party infighting.

All well and good so far, but then we get to the following…

…the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

Well then, I think that, based on this from Media Matters about the 2008 primaries, Ferraro should prepare herself to be shocked…

In New Jersey, Democratic primary turnout of 1,104,000 was 69 percent higher than the previous record turnout with 99 percent of precincts reporting. In Massachusetts, the turnout of 1,170,000 was 48 percent higher than the previous record turnout, with 98 percent of precincts reporting. In New York, the turnout of 1,744,000 was 11 percent higher than the previous record turnout with 99 percent of precincts reporting. States in other parts of the country also had record turnouts among Democrats. According to the Political Ticker, Missouri exceeded its prior record by 47 percent (and voters in the Democratic primary outnumbered voters in the Republican primary by 200,000. According to the Political Ticker, the prior record for Democratic votes in an Arizona primary was 239,000, a number it had already surpassed by 31 percent with 67 percent of precincts reporting).

And as Media Matters also tells us, a Feb. 6th article in the Hartford Courant noted the following…

Turnout among Democrats exceeded the previous record of 43.3 percent in 2006, when anti-war challenger Ned Lamont denied Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman the Democratic nomination in a primary. Turnout in the March 2, 2004, presidential primary, when John Kerry cruised through a depleted field, was 20 percent.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said she expected turnout to be around 50 percent.

Note: the actual turnout ended up at about 53.4 percent.

And get a load of this from Ferraro’s column today…

Because (Florida and Michigan) went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in (those states) would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

No one that I know of is suggesting that the delegates of those states not be seated because their state legislatures stupidly voted to move up their primary dates against the objections of the DNC. The question is merely how the delegates should be apportioned between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

So what kind of a solution does Ferraro then recommend to the question of the superdelegates? Does she state that they should be allocated proportionately to the winner and loser of the Democratic primary in a way that represents the overall vote?

Why, no…

As it happens, the superdelegates themselves can solve this problem. At this summer’s Democratic national convention in Denver, the superdelegates could assert their leadership on the credentials and rules committees.

And thus work on behalf of Hillary Clinton to make sure she gets all of the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan where she ran uncontested, let’s not forget (though I should add this post by Chris Bowers of Open Left as a caveat of sorts; basically, there’s nothing stopping the superdelegates from doing almost anything they want).

I’ve run hot and cold, as it were, on the Times and much of our corporate media in this election partly because of their treatment of John Edwards’ candidacy, but also because of their continual reinforcement of the “Obama Good, Hillary Bad” narrative at every opportunity. However, I thought Frank Rich made some good points in his column yesterday on the many missteps of the Clinton campaign in the face of that of Barack Obama, which has operated with precision and economy and helped propel his candidacy almost to the point where the nomination is secured (almost).

That is the reason why the Clintonites find themselves in this silly fix over the superdelegates (and don’t forget Ferraro’s paranoid supposition that the “supes” are switching from HRC to Obama because they believe they’ll face primary contests the next time they run for office if they don’t – reminiscent of the “chauvinism” charge of Ferraro here; it’s truly startling to contemplate the unreal world in which HRC’s campaign seems to operate).

Update 3/10/08: All class, Gerry - sheesh.

Update 5/19/08: That's OK, Gerri; we don't need your vote anyway - WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Update 5/21/08: Wow; I can hardly wait to hear what Bob Herbert has to say about this, assuming he chooses to even dignify the comment by responding.

Sunday Stuff

Metaphorically speaking, he should be crushed as the insect that he truly is for this (here - kind of a dig at Edwards I know, but it's true)...



...and K.O. discusses the latest shenanigans with "Senator Honor And Virtue," who apparently doesn't know which version of the "truth" to spin for the sake of his fluffers in the media (here, joined by David Shuster, who I hope has rebounded from that idiotic flap he generated over the Chelsea Clinton remark).

Saturday Stuff

A man named Eric Byler directed this video on behalf of Barack Obama intended to reach a primarily Latino audience, though its message resonates for all of us (hat tip #1 to The Daily Kos and blogger 5oclockshadow)...



...and this video describes the pleas from our forces in Afghanistan running out of ammunition and forced to use enemy weapons, believe it or not (and of course, John Warner is claiming today that he didn't know about this matter, but this video was sent to Warner from Brandon Friedman and VoteVets last May - hat tip #2 to The Daily Kos).

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (2/23/08)

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.

House

Bolten, Miers citations. In a 223-32 vote, the House approved the filing of criminal contempt-of-Congress citations in federal court against Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, over their refusal to comply with House subpoenas concerning the alleged systematic infusion of partisan politics into hiring, firing and prosecutorial decisions at several U.S. attorney offices.

A yes vote backed the contempt citations (H Res 982).

Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.) and Joe Sestak (D., Pa.).

Voting no: Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.).

Not voting: Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), H. James Saxton (R., N.J.) and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

At least among the Repugs, LoBiondo actually had the guts to go on record as being categorically wrong, as opposed to the others who were too chicken to make a stand and probably made a bee line for that strategically placed podium full of microphones on the Capitol steps during the walkout in response to this vote, led by minority rep John Boehner (pronounced bo-ner, as noted here).

Spy act extension. In a 191-229 vote, the House defeated a 21-day renewal of a version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted last August. That temporary measure then expired as House leaders refused to accept a Senate bill (S 2248, below).

A yes vote backed a 21-day FISA extension (HR 5349).

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Holden, Schwartz and Sestak.

Voting no: Castle, Dent, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Murphy, Pitts, Saxton and Smith.

The Repugs voted no because there was no provision for telecomm immunity, nor should there be, and my guess is that Patrick Murphy voted no because he quite rightly did not vote for the original Protect America Act anyway (as noted here, and here is more on the bill).

Senate

Torture ban, intelligence budget. In a 51-45 vote, the Senate sent President Bush the conference report on a fiscal 2008 intelligence budget that requires CIA personnel to obey the Army Field Manual's ban on torture of prisoners. The manual outlaws harsh techniques such as waterboarding.

A yes vote backed the conference report (HR 2082).

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

Voting no: Arlen Specter (R., Pa.).

Kudos to the Dems for doing the right thing here, though Dubya will never sign off on it (and as always, screw you, Arlen).

Government spy powers. In a 68-29 vote, the Senate passed a bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and grant retroactive immunity to certain telecommunications firms. The bill would permit warrantless surveillance on totally foreign communications passing through U.S. switching points.

A yes vote was to pass the bill (S 2248).

Voting yes: Carper, Casey and Specter.

Voting no: Biden, Menendez and Lautenberg.

And just as quickly as the Dems do the right thing, too many of them then cave on FISA led by the utterly compromised and hopelessly inept Jay Rockefeller (here).

A friend of mine forwarded a video of Casey defending this vote on C-SPAN, with Casey stating quite correctly that he voted against telecomm immunity but voted for this bill because he thought there were improvements over existing FISA law, most notably concerning civil liberties issues. However, the issue of telecomm immunity trumps everything, and Casey should have remained consistent in his opposition to this terrible bill; if the telecoms get immunity today, it will only be a matter of time before Halliburton asks for it tomorrow.

(Congress is now in recess until the week of Feb. 25, when both chambers will resume efforts to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.)

Friday Stuff

More fun with lobbyists from "Senator Honor And Virtue"...



...and good stuff from "Crooks and Liars" (way to go, House Dems).



(...and I haven't forgotten about the weekly congresssional post - probably tomorrow.)

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)...