Rajen Shah

HCR Far From Perfect, But Necessary

2010-03-10T12:28:00.001-08:00

For several months now, there has a been a persistent layer of resistance to health care reform amongst liberals who say that what is now on the table is not enough. There needs to be a single-payer system, they say, or at least a solid public option, in order for it to even be considered real reform. And this is based on logic that is difficult to argue with, since a public insurance option would operate outside the bounds of a for-profit industry. Without focusing on increasing revenues, attention could be focused on saving costs instead. Presumably, this plan would be cheaper than private plans and would be attractive to tens of millions of Americans who either can't afford their current plan or can barely make ends meet. Subsequently, private insurers would be forced to bring their costs down too, in order to compete. If this logic isn't convincing, then there is plenty of evidence showing that this already works. Medicare has already proven it can hold down costs better than private insurers, and "substantially public systems employed by every other industrialized nation cost less and cover more than the American model."

So yes, the public option is very attractive and the single-payer system even more so. But the real question in the debate right now isn't what is ideal for the American people - it is what is politically feasible at this moment to improve the lives of millions of Americans that are now suffering under the current system. The plan on the table right now is far from perfect but if one is to just look at the sheer numbers, it simply saves Americans a lot of money. So when progressives like Kucinich say that they oppose the current bill because it doesn't contain a public option, one has to ask, what exactly do they hope to achieve by having the current bill not pass? As Obama likes to say, seven presidents have tried and failed at reforming our health care system. The last attempt was almost two decades ago. Who's to say that it won't be another couple of decades before this issue is taken up again? How many lives will be ruined in the process? I love Kucinich and believe that his heart is in the right place. But it seems that his belief that blocking the bill will help improve the bill is rooted in the same place in his brain that has him believe in UFOs. If the current bill is indicative of jumping into bed with private insurers, as he says, then why are these insurers fighting against it?

Anyone who has been following Washington over the past year knows how ugly and complicated a legislative process of this magnitude can be. Keeping the public option alive is great, but demanding it is another thing altogether. Besides, it isn't as if the public option can't be taken up again once we've locked the current legislation. There are already good ideas being drawn up on how to address it. But not having it shouldn't prevent us from supporting a decent bill that is inches away from being passed. And for Kucinich, who has a vote on the matter, doing so would be irresponsible.

No Refuge For Sudanese Refugees

2009-09-29T22:03:00.000-07:00

I'm nearly finished reading Sheryl Wudunn's and Nicholas Kristof's "Half The Sky." To say that it's having a profound affect on me would be an understatement. But I'll save that for another post for when I'm done. For now, I'll just say that any news involving female oppression in the developing world has gone up tremendously on my news radar. So it should come as no suprise that this article, regarding Sudanese women who continue to be raped and victimized in their supposed refugee camps, has caught my eye. In particular, this quote from the deputy director of Amnesty International's Africa program is difficult to grasp:

"What people don't realize is that there is little safety inside the camps for these same women," said Hondora in a statement. "They face the risk of rape and other violence at the hands of family members, other refugees, and staff of humanitarian organizations, whose task it is to provide them with assistance and support."

Unfortunately there have been too many times in the past where I would have read this and thought, "Wow what a fucked up situation it is there. Wish I had time and/or money to help." Now I'm asking questions like, "To what extent is there little safety? Why is rape being inflicted by family members and fellow refugees, and how widespread is it? Which humanitarian organizations are these, and where do they get their staff? Is there truly no escape for these women and girls, or are there at least some ways to improve there lives?" Most importantly, I'm thinking of this incredibly complex conflict from a much more critical and analytical approach than I ever have. A person like me, who knows next to nothing about rape and female oppression throughout the world, is thinking of paths toward potential solutions or at least toward the alleviation of the conflict. That is the real beauty of Wudunn's and Kristof's book. It's an inspiration and a call to arms. It's safe to say that I recommend it.

Malaysian Woman Sentenced To Caning

2009-09-28T20:44:00.001-07:00

For being an alcohol drinking female Muslim.

Foreign Policy Shift

2009-04-16T09:33:00.000-07:00

When I took a quick scan of the front page of the New York Times today, I was informed by the paper's Peter Baker that Obama's foreign policy is really not all that different from George Bush's. He starts out with the example that Hillary Clinton recently tied our responsibility and appetite for drugs to the related conflict in Mexico.

The remarks were interpreted as a departure from the previous administration, another sign of a new day in foreign policy under Mr. Obama. Forgotten in the discussion was the fact that President George W. Bush said virtually the same thing in Mexico two years ago. “The United States has a responsibility in the fight against drugs,” he said, because “when there is demand, there is supply.”

He then points out that Obama will bring to Mexico "the same American interests as his predecessor, even if they are wrapped in a different package." Further evidence of the Obama/Bush brotherhood lies in the fact that Obama favors "the same six-party talks begun under Mr. Bush in 2003, intended to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons." With regard to Iraq, Obama is of course in line with W. because his plan allows 50,000 troops to remain as of August of 2010, and Bush "signed an agreement with Baghdad before leaving office to remove all American troops by the end of 2011." Obama's Afghanistan troop buildup? According to Baker, since his predecessor had begun a "more modest buildup" and since there is broad bipartisan support for such a thing, this is indication of more Bush (because we all think of bipartisanship when we think of Bush).

Baker does point out two differences at the end: Obama's unwillingness to talk about spreading freedom worldwide in the same way that Bush did, and his willingness to engage diplomatically with so-called enemies. Of course, in painting Obama's foreign policy as the same as Bush's foreign policy with just these two exceptions is incredibly misleading.

The gotcha at the beginning of the article - Clinton's drug remarks being remarkably the same as Bush's - is hardly a gotcha. That the Bush administration and the Obama administration are both probably in favor of reducing drug abuse in this country could have been predicted by just about any educated person. It's the approach where we may find significant differences. Indeed, the Obama administration has signaled that that "it was ready to repudiate the prohibition and 'war on drugs' approach of previous presidents, and steer policy towards prevention and "harm reduction" strategies favoured by Europe.' This is a big change! Regarding North Korea, Baker alludes to Bush's failed first-term approach in a half-assed way toward the end of the article. But this fails to underscore the big difference here - that Obama wants a multilateral approach from the beginning, while Bush steered clear of such an approach toward the beginning of his administration. It took him until his second term to realize how destructive the anti-diplomacy road can be. With Iraq, the huge difference is that Bush began an idiotic preemptive war. Just because he had an approach toward the end of his second term that is sort of similar to Obama's now doesn't erase this massive blunder, which contrasts their foreign policy (thus far) immensely.

It's difficult for me to believe that any educated person would take such an article seriously, let alone write such an article. Which leads me to believe that Baker is intentionally misleading his readers.

The Magic Negro

2008-12-27T23:18:00.000-08:00

I don't know why these things still surprise me, but they really still do. A candidate for the RNC Chairman position has distributed a music CD which includes a song called, "Barack the Magic Negro." As far as I can tell, this has gone largely unnoticed. Not that there aren't more important things going on in the world, but as citizens we don't have as much direct power in controlling those other more import things. Take what's happened in the Middle East these last couple of days. It's terrible, and we should be paying a whole of attention to what is happening and how our government responds. But it would take a tremendous amount of effort to influence our government to putting pressure on the peace process. In contrast, it would take either the media to give more attention to this clown of a candidate, or us as citizens to dig beyond the front pages of our news, or both, to filter him out of power. This is someone with potentially a significant amount of political power, and he shouldn't be entitled to gain any more. When Trent Lott gestured a few years back that we would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency (the guy who ran on a segregationist platform) half a century or so ago, the blogs and subsequently the media payed attention. As a result, he might have retained power, but at least he lost his role as majority leader. Something similar should happen with this guy.

Free Societies

2008-12-15T11:05:00.000-08:00

Is he really encouraging shoe-throwing as a way to gain attention for one's cause?

Cholera in Zimbabwe

2008-12-10T09:45:00.001-08:00

Having seen some crazy news stories out of Zimbabwe, I decided to wikipedia the country and came away thoroughly fascinated by the brief history I read. I didn't realize, for instance, that it has a 90% literacy rate, good for one of the highest rates in the world. I also didn't realize, however, that the power-hungry Mugabe and his government are responsible for having created a sort of living hell for the people of Zimbabwe, with the help of a number of his policies. One result is that cholera cases have recently jumped, and the WHO says 60,000 people could be infected in the weeks to come.

Surge Myth

2008-12-02T12:09:00.000-08:00

It has become conventional wisdom that the surge strategy in Iraq has largely been a success. Even Obama has admitted unforeseen progress that has come of the strategy. But he has also not conceded error in his opposition the surge in the first place, and rightly so. I've always thought that it has been a marginal success because it hasn't achieved political reconciliation. At www.icasualties.org, you can see that US and Iraqi deaths are consistently now a fraction of what it was before the surge. But it's not a tiny fraction. It's maybe one-fourth or one-fifth of pre-surge levels. That's still a significant death rate. And now the New York Times reports that according "to the latest data from the military command in Baghdad, violence in Iraq has been rolled back to the levels of early 2004." Who knows what the answer is to the mess we made over there? Our military presence might be a cork on a bottle of chaos, but that is no strategy of getting at the root of the violence. That's why the success of the surge has always been somewhat of a myth.

See Slumdog Millionare

2008-11-16T17:44:00.000-08:00

I went to see it last night and it was thoroughly entertaining and touching. While it wasn't without some minor plot holes, it exposed in an incredibly creative way what it might be like to live in Mumbai's slums.

57 and Maybe Counting

2008-11-05T18:47:00.000-08:00

Republican Senator Gordon Smith will be defeated by Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley, according to The Oregonian. That just leaves Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska.

In Georgia since no candidate reached 50%, the race is going to a runoff on December 2nd for another election. That leaves time for Democrats to reorganize (and maybe even to get Obama's help) in the meantime. Furthermore, runoffs typically get less turnout and only the most motivated voters get to the polls. This could bode well for the Democrats in the end.

In Minnesota, looks like we'll be having a recount. That's not too reassuring, but this race is definitely not over.

In Alaska, Ted Stevens may be calling it a victory, but with a lead of less than 4000 votes and almost 50,000 absentee and early ballots yet to be counted, it may not be over.

At this point, the chances for 60 seats aren't wonderful. But there still seems to be a chance, which is better than how I felt about it when I woke up this morning and checked out the results. Now to wait and see.

Welcome Back, America

2008-11-05T14:37:00.001-08:00

I still can't believe last night happened. I celebrated in the streets of Berkeley:

Racism Barrier Myth

2008-11-05T14:29:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal:

While Mr. Obama lost among white voters, as most modern Democrats do, his success is due in part to the fact that he also muted any politics of racial grievance. We have had in recent years two black Secretaries of State, black CEOs of our largest corporations, black Governors and Generals -- and now we will have a President. One promise of his victory is that perhaps we can put to rest the myth of racism as a barrier to achievement in this splendid country. Mr. Obama has a special obligation to help do so.

Indeed, it's a myth that racism has been a hurdle for blacks in this country. The only rational explanation for why Obama won and black people are recently successful is that they only recently have worked hard enough to deserve such prestigious positions. So yes, Obama has a special obligation to quiet those progressive calls for more racial equality. We're already there. Those statistics that tell us that blacks earn significantly less than whites? Only a myth.

Congo Hunger

2008-11-03T14:16:00.000-08:00

It seems people who haven't eaten for five days were excited about U.N. workers delivering aid, only to find out that the aid consisted of soap.

Punch Up at a Wedding

2008-11-03T13:16:00.000-08:00

My cousin is convinced that this Radiohead song is directed at the Bush administration from the world community. I think it could be directed at any hard-headed person not inclined to compromise (even Ralph Nader) or admit to error. At the very least, I can agree that it fits quite well with Bush.

Lyrics:
i don’t know why you bother
nothing's ever good enough for you.
(by the way) i was there and it wasn't like that.
you’ve come here just to start a fight
you had to piss on our parade
you had to shred our big day
you had to ruin it for all concerned
in a drunken punch-up at a wedding
yeah
hypocrite opportunist
don't infect me with your poison
a bullet in a china shop
when i turn ‘round you stay frozen to the spot
you had the pointless snide remarks
of hammerheaded sharks
the pot will call the kettle black
it’s a drunken punch-up at a wedding yeah

Why Prop 8 Matters

2008-11-03T00:29:00.000-08:00

A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing gay marriages "necessarily involves (the) degradation" of conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than execration."

These are indeed the words of a Georgia representative, but this was from several decades ago and it was regarding interracial marriage, not gay marriage. In 1996, Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune laid out twelve quotes of a similar nature against interracial marriage, and simply changed the subject to gay marriage. Today, when we're on the verge of electing a man of mixed race, if we were to read such statements in the original context we wouldn't hesitate to shake our heads in disapproving fashion. But it was only four decades ago that this country finally rid itself of legal race-based discrimination of marriage. And it could conceivably be another four decades from now before gay marriage is as widely accepted as interracial marriage is now.

I've heard just about every reason in support of prop 8. Oftentimes people invoke religion, but that's easy to rebuke, what with the First Amendment to the US Constitution regarding the separating of church and state. Sometimes people talk about how homosexuality is a choice, and that civil rights only apply to unchangeable human traits. I've never understood this debate. I'm pretty sure I'm heterosexual because I am not and have never been sexually attracted to men. When someone suggests that homosexuality is a choice, does that mean that that person is actually attracted to people of both the same and opposite sex, and that he or she simply makes the correct choice of being actively heterosexual? Regardless, whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. My understanding is that civil rights are rights to protect a wide variety of people from discrimination. The one thing all these people do have in common is that they're all presumably peaceful and non-violent. The underlying sentiment regarding the debate around proposition 8 is that of fear and resentment towards homosexuals, and towards homosexuality in itself. This is at the heart of the debate. And the one question proponents of prop 8 need to be asking themselves is: what logical reason do I have for denying my gay brothers, sisters, cousins, and neighbors one of the most beautiful and important things a human being can experience in life - marriage? Is it because gay people should not be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their peaceful and non-violent nature? Is that what it is? Gay people are dangerous? How so? By promoting other people to be gay? If that's the logic, then we heterosexuals are way better at that, what with the way we reproduce and all. Is it because two gay people can't conceive a child, and you're worried about the disappearance of the human race? Is that a concern that really needs to be addressed? Homosexuals have been in existence for as long as heterosexuals, and homosexuals probably only comprise about 3% of the population today. So what is it? If you can't think of a good answer, then it's time to stand up against discrimination and vote no on 8. If it wasn't for people standing up against discrimination, we quite simply wouldn't be the country we are today, about to elect the first black man as President in all of our history.

Coco Tea: Barack Obama

2008-11-01T20:35:00.001-07:00

"STOP" by Karmacy

2008-10-31T12:12:00.001-07:00

We All Know Who We're Talking About

2008-10-30T16:07:00.000-07:00

This guy really wants to bring up Rev. Wright but knows it's not a good idea.

Villainous Seductive Salt

2008-10-30T12:54:00.000-07:00

My cousin, who is a topnotch doctor, recently made me aware of her concern over high salt intake. My parents, although they have taught me the important power of salt in the making of Indian dishes, have also helped ingrain in my head that salt is indeed a villain. I then read an indicting article on the two-faced mineral, regarding blood pressure and health in general. Now I'm reading an article about how kids are increasingly getting kidney stones, and salt is one of the cited leading factors?

Salt, I love you. I can't live without you. So why you gotta scare the shit out of me?

Reverse Qaedology

2008-10-30T12:38:00.000-07:00

After al Qaeda's endorsement of John McCain last week in which they reasoned that McCain "is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," it seems they are utilizing reverse psychology in an official follow up saying, "O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him":

An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing any party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to a video posted on the Internet.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, one of the top al Qaeda commanders believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first comments from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.

Internal Migration

2008-10-30T10:57:00.000-07:00

I knew Mumbai was the place to go to for work for many in India, but didn't realize the extent to which violence has been inflicted on them.

Don't Vote!

2008-10-29T14:30:00.001-07:00

Yes on 8, Because Haven't We Conceded Enough Civil Rights?

2008-10-29T12:56:00.000-07:00

The Suicidal Right

2008-10-29T12:40:00.001-07:00

Conservative writer Robert Stacey McCain:

"I've got news for the Christopher Buckleys of the world -- if Sarah Palin is enough to make you decide you're not a Republican, you're not a Republican."

Overconfidence

2008-10-28T17:22:00.000-07:00

Spencer Ackerman

You remember how you felt in 2000 and 2004, right? And you remember how you felt on 9/11? And how you felt after the invasion of Iraq? And how you felt after Abu Ghraib? And how you felt after Katrina? And you felt when you found out how expensive a COBRA plan was when you had no job? And how you feel when you see the names of the fallen troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? And how you feel when you see the faces of free men like Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri?

Obama McCain Dance Off!

2008-10-28T12:10:00.001-07:00

Bloodbath

2008-10-27T15:33:00.000-07:00

It's amazing the Republican party has only started to implode in the last couple of years, with the whole with-us-or-against-us mentality that has thrived within the party for the past several years.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

I'm not sure what Nuzzo precisely means by "excommunicated" but what he is essentially saying is, there is no room for disloyal members in the party. This has nothing to do with the content of criticism that these three conservatives, among others, have laid out against Palin. It has everything to do with loyalty. It doesn't matter that they have recognized that not only is Palin not qualified, but that the country now knows this to be true. It doesn't matter that they might be saying all they're saying because they are interested in revitalizing and changing the Republican party in order to save it from extinction. When you've got those us-vs-them lens on, none of that matters. You're either with us or against us, and we'll be destroyed before we compromise. They even admit it. Conservative columnist Tony Blankley: they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country."

Alaska Sen Ted Stevens

2008-10-27T15:23:00.001-07:00

Guilty on seven accounts for false statements regarding received gifts. He's the longest serving senator in office, he's 84 years old, and he's only one of five sitting senators in all of history who has been convicted of a crime.

Scrambling

2008-10-27T11:48:00.001-07:00

McClatchy reports McCain needs to win five of six states where he is trailing, to have any chance of winning.

Age Baiting

2008-10-26T23:29:00.001-07:00

Wassup 08

2008-10-24T16:31:00.000-07:00

Via Andrew Sullivan:

1/15,000

2008-10-24T14:51:00.000-07:00

It seems that for the last couple of months 200,000 people have been displaced from their homes in eastern Congo, due to renewed violence, which brings the total to 1 1/2 - 2 million displaced since 2007. With so many being displaced, food and resources naturally become a problem. Charles Vincent is the director of the World Food Program:

The World Food Program is short 33,000 tons of food aid needed for the country through March, Vincent said. The agency needs $46 million in donations to prevent "severe breaks" in the food supply line in the coming weeks, he said.

In light of the $700 billion bailout, these numbers seem hardly significant. Yes, we were pretty reluctant to let our government just spend like crazy all of a sudden. But we were told that something had to be done, or our nation would face something crazier than a $700 billion hole. So we gave in. But I'm not sure a situation gets any more dire than people dying of hunger, and that's exactly what Vincent is saying is already happening and will happen on a larger scale in the near future in east Congo. The money they're short is $46 million, which is about one fifteen-thousandth of a fraction of the bailout we approved.

Dragging Every Ugly Ghost Out

2008-10-24T14:36:00.000-07:00

Commentary by Joseph L. Galloway, of McClatchy:

This is an autumn of great discontent as not just the United States, but the entire world trembles on the brink of an economic recession that may bring the kind of pain that's known only to the oldest among us.

With days to go before Election Day, the nation watches as a presidential candidate and his political party unravel, frantically dragging every ugly ghost out of the closet in an attempt not only to fool everyone, but also to scare everyone.

...

Is it any wonder that Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin and the Republican Party are sinking like the Titanic? Do they take us all for complete morons?

The Hoax

2008-10-24T14:25:00.001-07:00

Not sure what to make of the story of the 20 year old McCain worker who at first claimed was assaulted for being a McCain backer, but has now confessed to making it all up. But I thought it was interesting that Fox News executive vice president John Moody said this before the confession:

"If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."

Meanwhile...

2008-10-24T00:26:00.000-07:00

It's astonishing to learn things have actually been able to get worse in Darfur, but according to a BBC article, that's exactly the case. Amber Henshaw says she met Khaled Abdel Muti Ali at a refugee camp in North Darfur a year ago:

Last time I had taken a little blue taxi to the camp, and was able to wander around Abu Shouk uninterrupted.

This time I was forbidden from even entering.

It's impossible to imagine living in such a trapped, fearful world. But the moments we spend ridiculing Palin's shopping habits are the same moments many in Sudan spend being raped, murdered, and living in fear. For whatever reasons, I'm just as guilty as the rest of us for letting this go on for so many years. It's disturbingly easy to not think about what's going on over there, to not do anything about it.

I took a look at Obama's website, and he doesn't have anything extraordinarily inspiring or hopeful to say about the situation, but at least it took me less than sixty seconds to find what he did have to say. I took a look at McCain's site and after about five minutes or so gave up looking.

Perhaps we can start paying attention after the election.

The Bradley Myth

2008-10-23T23:42:00.000-07:00

Dumeetha Luthra of BBC News visited Uniontown, Pennsylvannia and asked some questions of residents regarding which candidates they're are leaning on, and why. One thing that is evident, from her interviews, is that people are at least somewhat reluctant to bring up race at all when discussing the factors behind such leanings. This idea - that people won't openly discuss race but will factor it in their decision nonetheless - has been all over the press. It's the Bradley Effect, they say. But is there any reason not to be extremely skeptical here? I haven't done a great amount of research or anything, but I have trouble believing that there is or has ever been anything like a Bradley Effect. If Bradley was white, what would the alternative title have been? Haven't there been other elections in this country where the polls have been wildly off? Aren't there all kinds of factors, and margins of error? Of course it might be true that there is a significant number of cautious folks who won't want to be caught on camera or tape, saying that race might be a factor for them. But couldn't they lie and say they'd vote for the white dude for other reasons, not race related? Aren't there already a number of people doing this already? And when polls are being conducted, aren't they anonymous? Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd be interested in being corrected, but this theory just doesn't make sense from a purely logical standpoint.

More Angry Mob Fun

2008-10-22T16:21:00.000-07:00

As Yglesias notes, "Vote McCain, Not Hussein," actually has a nice ring to it.

What Is It That the Vice President Actually Does?

2008-10-22T15:57:00.000-07:00

According to Governor Palin:

"A vice president has a really great job because not only are they there to support the president's agenda, they're there like the team member, the teammate to the president," Palin said. “But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job."

This was in response to a third grader asking what the role of Vice President is. Some are trying their best to spin this as if she was trying to simplify things for the third grader, but I think it's safe to say no one would have a problem with simplifying an explanation to a kid. Let's say, in response to an eight-year-old's question as to what the sun does, Palin responded with: "The sun is the closest star to our planet and keeps us warm." That'd be much preferred over a long explanation of the gases the sun is comprised of, how exactly heat and light from the sun gets to us, how our planet orbits the sun, etc. What would be unacceptable is if she were to say, "The sun is a big ball of heat that goes 'round and 'round Earth." Because that'd be giving false information to a third grader.

Al-Qaida: McCain '08!

2008-10-22T13:07:00.000-07:00

Pamela Hess of the AP:

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

Oh man, imagine if an extreme group that's sponsored terrorism had ever expressed their support for Obama. I wonder if McCain would exploit that. Oh, wait...

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

2008-10-22T11:26:00.000-07:00

"Proposition 8 in plain english"

It's unfortunate that we're in a position where gay rights advocates find the only winning strategy (understandably) is to avoid saying "gay" and "homosexual" if at all possible, and where "Yes on 8" advocates feel like their best bet is to avoid saying, "We don't want our children and friends to become gay, because we think being gay is a bad thing." Then again, when is there ever an honest debate in politics?

Bachmann and Clintonian Parsing

2008-10-21T17:02:00.000-07:00

Rep. Bachmann, in her written words:

Despite the way the blogs and the Democratic Party are spinning it, I never called all liberals anti-American, I never questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism, and I never asked for some House Un-American Activities Committee witch hunt into my colleagues in Congress.

Rep. Bachmann, seen and heard:

Of course the Congresswoman never said that she called all liberals and anti-American, and of course she never asked for some witch hunt committee to investigate her colleagues. But it'd be near impossible to argue she never suggested something along these lines. However, she did question Obama's patriotism when asked asked, "What is it really that Barack Obama believes," in the context of discussing anti-Americanism. This isn't just spin, it's on the verge of denial. I suppose her opponent raising a million dollars since her comments has something to do with the regret.

McCain's Other Bush

2008-10-21T16:12:00.000-07:00

A poll finds that Palin is a bigger liability for McCain than Bush.

Powell and Sea Changes

2008-10-19T23:42:00.001-07:00

I really don't know what kind of affect Colin Powell is going to have on Americans, but there are a lot of people saying that he still holds a lot of credibility with independents and moderate Republicans. I can believe this, despite the fact that his role in the run up to the Iraq war deeply disappointed many. Yes, he dropped the ball with the Iraq war, and his judgment was justifiably questioned. But the difference between him and those who were just as responsible, if not more, is that this is a seemingly contemplative and thoughtful man. Here is a man who rarely goes out of his way to vehemently support or oppose any politician or issue on the political front. There is reason to believe he really thought out his role, in advance, in presenting the case against Saddam before the United Nations. It's possible he could have contemplated the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that this was what was best for the country and the world. This is in stark contrast with the likes of Rumsfield, Cheney and Wolfowitz, who are consistently in favor of war as the number one prescription to an array of obstacles. No matter what they say or do, there is every reason to believe that war and aggression is always on their minds. Perhaps, then, it should be no surprise that Powell has decided to endorse Obama. In doing so, he did not come out and regurgitate Obama's or the Democrats' talking points in favor of the Democrat and against the Republican. He came out and explained the long and thoughtful process by which he came to a decision.

The most striking thing about his explanation is his underlying view of the direction in which the Republican party is currently headed. This is a man who has served under numerous Republican presidents, and has at points even been considered a potential candidate himself. And here he is explaining that the party is moving more rightward than he would like to see it. It is almost as if he is saying, regrettably, that the Republican party is leaving him and not vice versa. He cites the examples of the Palin choice and two more potential conservative Supreme Court nominees. But most importantly, he seizes on the disturbing rhetoric that "senior members of [his] own party" have been using in painting Muslims as non-American. It's not true that Obama is Muslim, he says, but so what if he is? I have trouble believing that most Americans are predisposed to believe that Muslim Americans are less Americans than the rest of us. But when it becomes okay for senior politicians to smear a religion, either directly or indirectly, then it's important we have more people across the entire political spectrum aggressively denouncing such a notion, anyway. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Powell hit on key points in indirectly arguing that the Republican party needs to make a serious shift back towards decency. I also don't think it's a stretch to say that we might be already witnessing the roots of such a shift.

Whatever It Takes

2008-10-17T17:31:00.000-07:00

Instead of talking about issues or even actually investigating Obama's associations and bringing hard facts to the table, Republicans feel that their best bet is to just keep Americans questioning Obama's judgment. But this woman is out of control, aggressively and directly questioning the patriotism of Obama and other liberal members of Congress.

Spreading the Wealth

2008-10-17T11:07:00.000-07:00

During the debate Wednesday, Obama explained that he wanted to spread the wealth:

"For folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who's -- things are slow and she can barely make the rent.

My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

McCain responded to this with the following:

"You know, when Sen. Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Sen. Obama, and let him spread the wealth around.

I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around. You told him you wanted to spread the wealth around."

Of course, that's not what Obama was saying at all. As Hilzoy points out:

He did not say that he wanted to spread Joe's wealth around. He certainly did not say that he thought he was entitled to simply expropriate Joe's wealth and distribute it to poor people, like Robin Hood. He said he wanted to spread the wealth: i.e., to have a tax code that is less skewed towards the wealthy. That's Obama's radical idea: progressive taxation.

And this makes a lot of sense when you take a look at the numbers and see by what rate each income group's income has risen in the past few decades, after taxes. It turns out, surprisingly, it is incredibly lopsided:

Of course, one could argue that the people in the highest income bracket are actually earning more and more because it's actually deserved. They must be working harder and smarter than those in the lowest bracket in order for such income increases to be merited.

DOJ and ACORN

2008-10-17T10:57:00.000-07:00

There's something fishy about the DOJ's involvement in the FBI investigation into ACORN. As always, TPM Muckraker is doing a good job reporting it, while it's currently largely being ignored by the media:

It's not just David Iglesias who thinks the Bush administration has inappropriately politicized the Department of Justice.

Paul Hancock, a former top official with the DOJ's civil-rights division, told TPMmuckraker that during his tenure, the department responded in an independent and non-partisan manner to outside pressure to bring politically sensitive cases. But "I think we might have gotten away from that in this administration," he said.

Hancock, who left the department in 1997, stressed that, in his view, it's too soon to know whether the FBI's investigation into ACORN is politically driven, and said that such investigations are not unusual. But they usually would not be aggressively carried out so close to an election, for fear of their existence being made public, and thereby affecting the election.

It remains unclear how far along the ACORN investigation is.

Reality Check

2008-10-16T17:03:00.000-07:00

I got an email from Joe Biden, saying not to forget what happened in 2000, when Gore was up by double digits in October too. I didn't realize that. I guess it goes to show that anything can still happen. But the economy isn't going to miraculously improve over the next three weeks, and McCain has arguably lost in all three of the debates. Furthermore, the time Gore was up in double digits was Oct. 2-4, before their debate. Bush caught up afterwards. Still, it ain't over till it's over. Looks like the McCain campaign is unleashing a blanket of nasty robocalls in contested states.

Classy

2008-10-16T14:19:00.001-07:00

When you're the Republican Party, and you've got nothing going for you, this is apparently the flier you put out, the solution to all your problems.

Debate Thoughts

2008-10-16T10:37:00.001-07:00

My initial thoughts were that Obama won big because McCain came off, as most have noted, as angry and condescending. I don't think it's impossible the come off as angry and condescending, as long as voters could potentially trust you and you are speaking to the voters' concerns. Indeed, I think a big reason for McCain's success in the past probably has had to do with connecting with voters with his "straight talk." But when he gets all hot headed about ACORN, Ayers, or pork barrel spending, I don't think that will resonate very well, especially with swing voters who don't really rate all that stuff high among their concerns.

A few polls see him winning big too:

CNN: Obama 58%, McCain 31%
CBS: Obama 53%, McCain 33%

Caetano Veloso

2008-10-15T23:04:00.001-07:00

I'm already imposing my opinions on you, why not impose my favorite artistic pieces on you?:

Hate and Fear Out in the Open

2008-10-15T16:15:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure these clips tell us anything we don't already know about many parts of our country, but like Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'm still "transfixed":

Those Aren't Attacks We Can Believe In

2008-10-15T11:53:00.000-07:00

With McCain's sliding numbers coinciding with his campaign increasingly going negative and the economy dropping, it wasn't very clear which had a bigger impact. The economy is probably a heavy factor, but yesterday's NYTimes/CBS poll suggests that it wouldn't be wise to underestimate the damage done by McCain's constant attacks. That, coupled with Obama's focus on minimizing discussing the attacks and maximizing discussing policy issues:

So, something to think about while watching the debate tonight is whether or not McCain will follow through with his vow to "'whip' Democratic rival Barack Obama's 'you-know-what'" tonight. And does that mean he'll talk more about Ayers (and maybe even bring up Wright)? Or does it mean he'll dazzle us in policy talk? Call me skeptical, but I'm having trouble believing the latter.

The Death Penalty

2008-10-14T15:34:00.000-07:00

I'm sort of on the same page as Ta-Nehisi in believing that law should not be used "as a tool of vengeance. And often that's all the death penalty is--societal vengeance." But while I agree with him that the death penalty is largely about societal vengeance, I'm not sure that that is the intended focal point for death penalty advocates. Rather, I think these people would probably rate deterrence as a higher priority than vengeance. If we make sure to kill those who commit heinous crimes, then it will deter others from committing those same crimes. I could definitely be wrong though. Either way, I personally am against the death penalty for a number of reasons, the biggest being that it is simply morally wrong to kill fellow human beings. I know this might seem extremely simplistic and lacking in logic, and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who might see it this way. I guess I just count this as one of the very few things that I feel I don't need logic to back up. I just think it's a powerful enough stance to take on its own. Don't kill any humans. No exceptions. Of course, there are going to be countless thought-up hypothetical situations to counter such a notion. Like, what if someone has a gun to your children's heads, and you have the option of taking the gunman's life away to undoubtedly save your children's lives. Of course, I would go against my belief in certain situations, and I'd consider myself a hypocrite. And I do also have other reasons, backed by logic, as to why the death penalty is unnecessary and impracticable. But I still think killing is wrong, in itself.

Arab and Muslim Americans

2008-10-14T15:00:00.000-07:00

When the lady at a McCain rally last week had the microphone, she told McCain that Obama is an Arab, only to have McCain interrupt and correct her. McCain then went on to say that he only has fundamental disagreements with Obama, that Obama is a decent, family man. To me, this was a sad reflection of the cultural reality we live in. When someone say, "He's an Arab," and a politician can safely reply, "No, he's a decent, family man," then this country has a serious issue at hand. I don't doubt that McCain knows that Arabs and Muslims in the United States are just as normal and respectable as the rest of us. But what happened is he understood what was behind this woman's words. The atmosphere, the tone of her voice, and just the first few uttered words immediately suggested to McCain, without a doubt, that she was informed of Obama being less than a decent man - an Arab. He didn't feel the need to address the issue of her perception of Arabs because, from a purely political perspective, he really didn't need to. The country has largely ignored that aspect of the exchange. So it's comforting to see Campbell Brown of CNN taking on the issue, herself:

Putting it in Perspective

2008-10-12T15:36:00.000-07:00

Many are saying that Kerry was up in the polls at this time too. Not sure where those numbers are coming from:

Anything can happen. But this at least somewhat reassuring.

Onus on McCain

2008-10-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

Frank Rich:

...we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

Intelligent Conservatism

2008-10-11T13:28:00.000-07:00

Nicola Karras has a very thought provoking essay describing her path to conservatism. One passage, in particular:

The fundamental political problem, I’ve concluded, is in how we think about the state. If we look to it as arbiter of legitimacy, safety, or morality, we have already neglected the sources of real meaning in our lives. State intervention is dangerous not because it’s “coercion” (I don’t mind coercion), but because of its inhumanity. The more we depend on government, the less connection we have with one another. My burning hatred for both major Presidential candidates is due entirely to their New Deal liberalism, their conviction that if something is wrong it must be the government’s job to fix it, their utter disregard for limited government.

I have to agree with much of what she is saying here, but only on the condition that we are referring to particular aspects of state intervention, and not simply big government in general. I am largely against state intervention because I think it it can easily chip away at each person's potential to independently become a moral being. My understanding of the civil rights movement is that it was a success, partly due to large groups of people acting nonviolently, thereby triggering a certain amount of self-reflection in other groups of people. Government intervention played a role too, but it wasn't at root of the success. Having said that, I think there are plenty aspects of society where a big, efficient government could and should be helpful: postal service, running water, social security, roads, public transportation, health care, education, etc. We may have our disagreements as to how we should be running and organizing these nuts and bolts of society, but at the end of the day they shouldn't be very divisive issues. And going beyond these basic necessities, we should probably have good corporate oversight too. No amount of hard work and connections should earn the richest one percent of the nation to make twenty percent of the nation's income. And that probably has less to do with the malicious intentions of the rich, and more to do with our government letting it happen.

More than anything, it is refreshing to read essays and articles from conservatives that are actually thought provoking and debatable. I hope this essay is part of such a trend.

Palin Abused Power

2008-10-10T19:09:00.000-07:00

According to an investigation by the Alaska Legislature.

Auntys For Life

2008-10-10T17:13:00.000-07:00

This video is awesome. Via Deepa at Devis With Babies:

Toning It Down

2008-10-10T15:38:00.001-07:00

I was beginning to wonder whether or not we'd see this happen before the election, but it seems McCain has finally realized his crowds have taken it too far. From Ben Smith:

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"

"If I didn't think I'd be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn't be running for President of the United States."

If it's not the Times editorial board jeering him, it's his own crowd.

McCain is a politician who will do anything to win. But his reputation is at stake too. He's already suffering the repercussions, but I'm sure it'll just take a few months after the election for the nation to forgive him.

UPDATE: Apparently, being an Arab means that you cannot be a decent family man and a citizen? McCain said it.

More Angry Mob Fun

2008-10-10T13:21:00.000-07:00

Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall have been suggesting that the conservative media knows defeat is within sight, and that they're doing everything they can to sow the seeds of bitterness and anger, with ACORN, Obama, and his terrorist friends stealing the election from them. I don't know, as well as they do, how true that might be. What I do know is that McCain has every right to run as sleazy a campaign as possible, if that is what he feels he needs to do to win. If he feels that he shouldn't be denouncing the terrorist associations and just the general level of anger and hostility being displayed at recent events, then that's his choice. But if we let ourselves ignore this about McCain, then we are not doing our job, which is to use the information that we have access to in order to judge the candidates. McCain is deliberately letting that information be muddied up with rumors and propaganda. Let's face it, the man is as shallow as they come.

Women and Number 2

2008-10-09T23:43:00.001-07:00

Via Jessica at Feministing:

And to some (only a few of course) of my female friends: I encourage you to refrain from letting the faucet run to hide any potential noise. Anyone who would be less of a friend because of that shouldn't be a friend in the first place. Plus it's bad for the environment and all.

Room to Breathe

2008-10-09T22:31:00.001-07:00

After the last couple of Presidential elections, it's difficult to have any sort of confidence. Having said that, I can't see this trend abruptly reversing itself. If you take a look at Ohio and Florida, Obama is up by at an average of around five points, and the trend is in his favor. His rise and McCain's fall directly coincides with the economy going to shit and McCain's negative campaigning. I don't see those things turning around in the next twenty-six days either. Of course, this doesn't say much about breathing room regarding the economy itself. But I, like most Americans apparently, would rather have the guy in charge fixing it having the right foresight and temperament.

Change

2008-10-09T18:14:00.000-07:00

I've seen too many signs which suggest something along these lines, that it's hard for me to believe it ain't coming:

What McCain doesn't seem to know -- yet -- is that he's a dead man walking. He'll learn it definitively on Nov. 4, when he's going to lose the election -- and the polls increasingly suggest that he'll lose big. The GOP as a whole will also lose big. We're in the middle of an epochal shift in U.S. politics. A global economic crisis, two wars and an ongoing nuclear and terrorist threat have left most Americans disgusted by the recklessness of free marketeers and by unilateralist, militarist approaches to foreign policy.

The Terrorist Factor

2008-10-09T13:21:00.000-07:00

Over at the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan and Ta-Nehisi briefly debate the revealing nature of the following clip:

Coates:

I'm sympathetic to white folks on this one. This is like when some fool from your local news affiliate goes to interview someone in a black neighborhood and they pick out the most ignorant fool they can find. That dumbass is then taken as representative for us all. Seriously White people, having seen this, you guys should have some idea of what we go through.

Sullivan:

The point of posting the video was to remind people why the McCain-Palin campaign allows speakers at its rallies to describe their opponent as Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, these people are not typical of all white people, or Obama would be at 15 percent in the polls. But the cultural resonance of the name matters. And McCain is certainly not above deploying it. That's the point.

I think they both have valid and reasonable points here. Of course this isn't representative of white people, but Coates has a side point here - that it's worth considering what black Americans might be going through when the media chooses the most ignorant people to represent them. Going back to the original point, Sullivan reminds us that it's not below McCain and Palin not to discourage the sentiment that Obama's middle name is relevant. My take is that if McCain expects to gain more voters than he loses with this strategy, then that's his call. As a result, I'll go ahead and judge him as nothing more than your average, whatever-it-takes politician. What's interesting, though, is taking a peek at the recently angry McCain/Palin mobs:

Is it too much of a stretch to say that this is at least somewhat representative of the far right Republican base, while at the same time allowed, and even maybe encouraged, by the McCain campaign? Maybe, but this seems to be difficult to measure. I know more than a few very intelligent people who are planning to vote for McCain right here in California, where he will lose substantially. I get the feeling that it's all about taxes for these people, but I could be wrong. What I do know is that they have nothing in common, whatsoever, with the people in these clips.

Obama, No Bill Clinton

2008-10-09T12:19:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports that Obama is different than Bill Clinton in that he is more steady and doesn't appear quite as empathetic, which was one of Clinton's biggest strengths in an economic crisis. According to Ruth Sherman, a political communications consultant, one of Obama's biggest problems is using his voice to connect: “It is a beautiful voice, with lots of highs and lows of pitch, but the general tone is always the same. There is much, much more he could do, just with his voice, to increase his impact.” On the one hand, I agree with this notion that Obama could connect more emotionally with voters, and gain a huge advantage as a result. That's just me wanting to see Obama put McCain away. On the other hand, his temperament reassures me that he will be cool and steady as President, which couldn't be contrasted to a greater degree with the temperament of McCain.

But I think this is also a testament to Obama's faith in the common voter. I have a feeling that he is rather capable of eliciting more emotion but maybe feels that it'd appear phony to overact while voters can infer, through his words, that he's got the upper hand on issues. Whether or not this faith in voters is merited, I don't know. If one thing is clear, though, it's that this is quite the perceptive man. David Brooks, a conservative New York Times columnist recounts the following story:

...he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.

Deep Thoughts

2008-10-09T12:02:00.000-07:00

What a strange country we live in, where we continuously elect Republicans to physically defend the country until the they screw up the economy, at which point we run to Democrats. Of course, the economy was only a side project for the GOP. They screwed up foreign policy too. Big time. When are we going to learn?

Talking to Your Enemy

2008-10-09T00:24:00.000-07:00

Spencer Ackerman attended a talk that General Petraeus gave to the Heritage Foundation, and reports that the General indirectly contradicted McCain's strategy in dealing with evil enemies like Iran and North Korea:

Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

It's worth noting that Petraeus has consistently gone out of his way to speak professionally and in a nonpartisan way. He claimed, according to Ackerman, he didn't even watch the debate and never explicitly endorsed any of Obama's or McCain's positions. For many, it doesn't make logical sense that talking to your enemy isn't counterproductive. Of course, a purely logical discussion on this issue might understandably not lead anywhere. On the other hand, taking into consideration the experience Petraeus has in dealing with enemies might add substantive value to such a conversation.

Stuart Smalley's Opponent

2008-10-08T16:51:00.000-07:00

Norm Coleman, the Republican Senator from Minnesota facing reelection, is under scrutiny for whether or not he has received illegal gifts in the form of clothing, while in office. Ben Smith has a clip of Coleman's campaign manager giving "one of of the most painful avails I've ever seen to the polite, but persistent, Minnesota Capitol press, who force him to give the same non-answer over and over to the question of who's paid for Coleman's suits."

Meanwhile, it seems Al Franken is holding on to a small lead over Coleman. He was up by more a few days ago, so this scandal isn't damaging at all, apparently.

Barack "Hussein" Obama

2008-10-08T16:22:00.000-07:00

Steve Benen observes the use of Obama's middle name at McCain rallies these days, even though Rove and McCain, themselves, openly thought it was a bad idea back in February. Apparently, they thought it might reinforce the view that Republicans are bigoted, thereby turning off swing voters. McCain and Palin still aren't using the name, but many are noticing a trend since the weekend, where those introducing Palin and McCain at rallies are using the name. There is good reason to believe that the campaign is deliberately either directing the use of the name, or letting it happen. Whether or not that is true, I noticed a McCain surrogate on one of the cable news shows today, saying that it's simply the name given to him at birth. Surely there is nothing wrong with using his full name, he went on to say. But when it was pointed out to him that it was McCain that distanced himself from any association with the use of that name back in February, he didn't disagree, saying McCain is taking the high road. This is nonsense. I agree that there should be nothing wrong with using someone's full name, regardless of whether there are parts of the name that are Muslim. But it was the McCain campaign that acknowledged a problem with using "Hussein," whether it was for a political or honorable reason. When you say that McCain is "taking the high road" here, then you are implying there is something wrong with using the name too. You can't have it both ways.

Friedman on Palin

2008-10-08T15:44:00.000-07:00

Today's column:

I only wish she had been asked: “Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

There are many aspects of our tax system that suck. But taxes in themselves are essential for a functioning government. Can that really be argued against?

Debate Thoughts

2008-10-08T00:16:00.000-07:00

Like the first debate, putting my Obama bias aside, my initial thoughts were that anyone coming away from viewing this debate wouldn't have a clear idea of who actually won. And, like the first debate, it seems Obama won anyway.

CNN poll: Obama: 54% McCain: 30%
CBS poll: Obama: 40% McCain: 26%

I'm not all that surprised that McCain didn't bring up Ayers for two reasons. One, there was no convenient opening for him to bring it up.

Voter: "Senator, what is your solution to the current economic crisis?"
McCain: "Thank you, that's a good question. My friends, we have to hold Wall Street accountable. Oh and by the way, did I mention 'that one' is associated with terrorists?

It just doesn't flow very well, you know? Two, I'm skeptical that the McCain campaign is prepared to have that discussion. It is one thing to tie Obama to Ayers at rallies, where you get to say anything you want without being held immediately accountable. But to say it to his face in a debate is something else altogether. They surely know that Obama will not only defend himself well, but will have a strong counterattack in bringing up the Keating Five scandal. I wouldn't put it past them to prepare for this and to bring it up at the next debate.

Lastly, I thought McCain's humor simply fell flat, as usual. He was the only one laughing at his jokes. I thought the weirdest thing he said, as many have already noted, was in response to Brokaw's question on who he would consider to head the Treasury Department: "not you, Tom." Strange. He's just an awkward man sometimes.

The Great Schlep

2008-10-07T16:05:00.001-07:00

"Americans Want a Respectful Campaign!"

2008-10-07T15:09:00.000-07:00

TMPTV, asking, how low can he go?:

It's Bush, Stupid!

2008-10-07T13:16:00.000-07:00

With George W. Bush hitting a new low - now the least popular President in the history of Gallup polling - it is more vital than ever to continue the debate on what kind of change the candidates are vying for. With Bush at a 25% approval rate, and McCain at about 40-45% in the polls, it seems key groups either don't disagree with Bush's policies or don't see that McCain's policies are largely the same as Bush's. If the former is true, then these people presumably think that competency is significantly more important than policy, and they see McCain as much more competent than Bush. But with Democrats poised to win big in both the Senate and the House, it is probably more likely that they disagree with the policies. For whatever reason, then, people are under some illusion that McCain will provide significantly different policies than the policies brought about under the Bush administration. Either way, I think the Obama campaign is doing a good job at consistently pressing the point that he is more of the same, as this is completely valid.

No one seems to have a good answer as to how McCain will provide significant policy changes. They seem to only be able to talk about how he is a maverick, has stood up to his own party, has supported the surge from the start, etc. There are holes in these claims to begin with, but that's beside the point. What significant policy changes will he bring in regards to foreign policy, the economy, and energy? Who is answering this anywhere?

"It May Get Kind of Rough"

2008-10-07T10:02:00.000-07:00

What do you do when you're a Republican and slipping in the polls to a black man? According to the McCain campaign you utilize your base's fears and prejudices, you tie your opponent to terrorists and tax increases, and you question his patriotism on all fronts.

As Palin says, "Okay, so, Florida, you know that you're going to have to hang on to your hats, because from now until Election Day, it may get kind of rough."

McCain, during a rally, asks, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" He gets his answer from someone in the audience: "Terrorist!" McCain, even if a little surprised to hear that answer, continues undisturbed.

Palin got the memo too. For the past few days, she has been talking about Obama's relationship to Ayers and Wright. Her crowds seem to be eating it up and getting angry. Dana Milbank, today:

In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

Welcome to the Republican base.

The Maverick Myth

2008-10-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

Many believe that McCain is an honorable man, but what does this mean exactly? In judging the person who has been a POW and a longstanding politician who has stood up to his own party on numerous occasions, this could mean that he is a truly remarkable figure who has consistently prioritized his convictions over all else. Out of respect for the common person, though, I'm more inclined to believe that most people have a somewhat less flattering image of McCain. This kind of person understands that McCain has been a successful politician and has sacrificed at least some integrity for the sake of advancing his career. Nevertheless, this person might say, he is a war hero, he never gave in to the demands of those who tortured him for years, and he has taken politically unpopular stances for the sake of honor.

In 2000 and in subsequent years, I certainly bought into this image. But what if such a narrative is largely fictional? I only started to seriously question it in 2006, when he apparently gave in to the GOP on the issue of torture, a personal issue for him. Ever since, I have read a number of things that really made me embarrassed that I ever bought into the myth. I shouldn't be that embarrassed, though. My understanding is that McCain has made himself accessible and charming to many key reporters over the years. That, combined with several other key factors, has allowed the myth of his character to endure. Rolling Stone (thanks Aiwa) has a terrific article explaining how such a myth was created and how it lives today. If you don't have time to read such a long article (it can take an hour), then the LA Times has a good article that might help chip away at the myth (although it isn't quite as revealing). Before you say something along the lines of, "but of all the Republicans, at least it's McCain... he has stood up to his own party," I strongly recommend reading one or both of these.

Whatever It Takes

2008-10-06T14:34:00.001-07:00

Not that it hasn't already gotten ugly, but it's about to get uglier.

AFL-CIO, Obama, and Confronting Racism

2008-10-02T11:22:00.000-07:00

From Andrew Sullivan:

A pretty amazing speech by the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka. To see a white union man take on racism this way is very moving. Something truly profound could happen in this election, if we want it to:

Happy Birthday Gandhi

2008-10-02T09:20:00.001-07:00

I've always looked up to Gandhi for the same reasons many others have, but it wasn't until I took a course on him that I came to realize how powerful his ideas were. As a philosophy major in college, I read a lot of deep and complicated stuff from some of the most brilliant minds in the history of civilization. But coming away from this particular course, Gandhi became, for me, the single most inspirational and powerful public figure of the past several hundred years, and that still holds true for me today. Everyone knows that he was smart, charming, and a leader in active nonviolence which helped gain India's independence. But it's an understatement to say there was a lot more to him than that. On the surface, his ideas might seem primitive compared to the greatest intellectual minds in history. But when one really meditates on them, and digests them properly, it is only then that one can come to realize his ideas hold more weight. Not that he is not influenced by great minds. Indeed, some of biggest influences included Socrates, Tolstoy, Ruskin, and Thoreau. But I think what stands out in Gandhi is that his ideas are fundamentally tied to action, in the same way that it was for Socrates and Jesus.

There are countless reasons why Gandhi is relevant to the world's challenges today. I had a conversation recently with my cousin about who Gandhi might endorse in this important US election. He kind of suggested no one. I can understand that. There are many things about Obama that I fundamentally disagree with, and many of these have to do with Gandhi's influence. When Obama talks about killing Osama bin Laden when we get the chance, it makes me uncomfortable. I also disagree with him when he says "that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes.” And I don't like that he wants to increase the size of our military. These disagreements have to do with Gandhi's idea that means and ends are intricately connected. When any form of violence is endorsed and taken, then it makes sense that we will probably reap what we sow. Again, this idea may seem simple. But isn't this exactly what happened with Osama bin Laden? We taught him and others how to kick the Soviets out by teaching them efficient forms of violence. It's no wonder what happened when that group of people realized their anger toward us.

But Gandhi was also very much about getting things done, and compromise. This is what attracts me to Obama. Although I can disagree with him on many issues (I do agree with him on many more issues), I know that he doesn't look at the world through a dichotomous lens. I know that he thinks about things carefully and looks to bring everyone together, friends and enemies alike, to discuss common interests. Gandhi, as an attorney, prided himself in the fact that he settled most things outside of court. This is the sort of philosophy that, in a sense, transcends good and evil for the sake of progress. That is, all of our views on good and evil differ to varying degrees, but surely there are common interests to be discovered. Unfortunately, the alternative to this philosophy has been tested for eight years now, and we can see the results. There is deep unrest in the world, and there is angry partisanship on both sides within this country. What we need now is someone who will at least try to unite us instead of coercing us into his own vision. It is vital to have someone in the White House that knows, according to Michelle Obama, "that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them." I know it might seem shallow to politicize Gandhi, but these are just my own honest thoughts. Happy 139th, Gandhi.

Don't Vote!

2008-10-01T17:43:00.000-07:00

This is a little obnoxious, but I'm always entertained by Sarah Silverman taking her bra off. And that guy from Superbad. And it's not a bad message, I suppose.

Ashwin sent me something written by Mark Kaplan in the Huffington Post, reminding us that one of the most important factors in any election is voter suppression. The blog I read most, Talking Points Memo has done a great job documenting voter suppression over the past eight years. Most of you readers(all six of you) are from California, so this probably won't matter. But if you notice anything in the news or in person, I highly suggest sending your example to talk@talkingpointsmemo.com.

Palin and Supreme Court

2008-10-01T17:17:00.000-07:00

It's pretty obvious now how unqualified Palin is for office. But every one of these clips just further reinforces this notion. Just when you think it couldn't get any worse...

The Palin Interviews

2008-10-01T13:55:00.001-07:00

Talking Points Memo has put together an entertaining (and painful) series of Palin interview clips.

"Like a Really Bad Disney Movie"

2008-10-01T13:10:00.001-07:00

It'd be funny if it weren't potentially a true story.

No, no, it's still pretty funny.

Condom!

2008-10-01T12:41:00.000-07:00

Ashwin Sodhi points me to a new ringtone promoted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is one of the best songs I've heard in a while.

Condom Condom! The a capella ringtone

Igor Belogolovski finds the commercial too. Ah beta.

Genius

2008-10-01T12:28:00.000-07:00

Clinton has been campaigning on behalf of Obama for the first time today, and he's been making quite the case against McCain-Palin. The most interesting thing he saying is, since the economy is going to be taking so much attention from the president, the vice president's responsibilities will be unusually greater. It seems like this will be an effective use of Palin's unpopularity.

Bailout Thoughts

2008-10-01T11:53:00.000-07:00

When Republicans in Congress rejected the new bailout compromise two days ago, I didn't know exactly why they rejected it, but it seemed like their open reasons for doing so consisted of childishness. They complained about socialism, Pelosi's evil partisanship, etc. There may be some truth to this, but according to Krugman, this only falls into one of two narratives, which both have some truths but are still fundamentally wrong.

There seem to be two prevailing narratives about the bailout plan(s). Both have elements of truth, but are fundamentally wrong.

One narrative is that of the Wise Men and the Destructive Yahoos. According to this narrative, men who Understand What Needs to be Done put together a plan to save the world, but they did a bad job of communicating, and a mob of ignorant people stands in their way.

The other narrative is that of the Evil Plotters and the Righteous Uprising. According to this narrative, the same people who sold us the Iraq war have tried to bully Congress into adopting a plan that is, in essence, a cynical ripoff — a scheme to transfer vast wealth to the rich and cripple the next administration.

Krugman believes that Paulson never had a good case because he "should have been seeking to expand bank capital, taking an ownership share in compensation, rather than trying to push up the value of toxic paper." Which brings us to a new compromise. But while Krugman would like to see the Dodd-Frank-Paulson plan pass, after watching Kucinich on the Rachel Maddow show, I'm wondering if we're just being taken for a ride, the way we were in 2003 to Iraq. The whole country and all of the "experts" seemed to agree on a plan of action back then as well. Kucinich here is talking about a bottom-up approach instead of top-bottom, so that we would be helping the homeowners out instead of wall street.

In the end I still trust Krugman only because I'm skeptical that what Kucinich and Defazio are trying to sell doesn't have the necessary political support, even though Kucinich seems to imply that there are many conservatives who are sharing his courage in standing up to the administration and the leadership.

Obama Up Big in Electoral Votes

2008-10-01T11:22:00.003-07:00

Considering this race has been all over the place in a matter of months, this could obviously change pretty quickly. Having said that, I can't imagine any huge positive news cycles for the McCain campaign happening this month, and it just won't be enough for McCain to try to win the news cycles by small margins (by lying, exploiting the POW status, etc.), what with the economy in the tank and Palin's newfound unpopularity. So barring any major negative news cycles for the Obama campaign, this might be a good indication of what to expect.

Amazon Destruction Up

2008-09-30T11:33:00.001-07:00

The Amazon is being destroyed at three times the rate than this time last year. The global rise in food prices, elections, and a popular desire for illegal logging have much to do with it. I don't know if this implies that the locals are enticed by making more money, or if it's more that they want to spend less on their own food. I'm guessing it is a combination, but either way, this is another good reason why we should be minimizing the distance our food travels.

"We Are Not Babies"

2008-09-30T10:38:00.001-07:00

Think Progress has a good mix of clips, showing the progression from House Republicans blaming Pelosi's highly partisan speech yesterday to backing away from the claim today.

GOP Meltdown

2008-09-30T09:57:00.000-07:00

From Brooks, a conservative writer of the New York Times:

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

More Mavericks

2008-09-29T19:02:00.001-07:00

From the New York Times Editorial:

After nearly eight years of voting in virtual lock step with President Bush on everything from tax cuts to torture, House Republicans decided on Monday to break ranks on the survival of the nation’s financial system.

Like I've said before, like most non-economists, I don't know exactly what all this means in my own head. But if we are to trust economists from all over the political spectrum, then surely there were good reasons for this bailout to have passed. Or if not passed, then as Matthew Yglesias says, an alternative should have at least been offered by the newly courageaous conservatives. Simply "bleating vaguely about socialism and saying mean ol’ Nancy hurt your feelings doesn’t really cut it."

Breaking: Severe Adult Drought in Congress Leads to Bailout Rejection

2008-09-29T11:36:00.000-07:00

In an effort to avoid a financial collapse, some children in Congress did their best adult impersonations. The majority leader said that, on behalf of him and the minority leader (the two are often prone to hissy fits), they "speak with one voice" for passage of the bailout package. A Republican senator from New Hampshire said, "If we don't pass it, we shouldn't be a Congress." Even Bush got in on the action, praising both sides for coming to an agreement that will “help keep the crisis in our financial system from spreading throughout our economy.” But their efforts were no match for the likes of Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, who whined about the "slippery slope to socialism," and another Republican Congresschild of Texas, John Culberson (pictured to the left), who started to throw insulting names around, like when he called the Treasury secretary "King Henry." Ultimately, the package failed to pass, 228-205.

Eloquent Palin

2008-09-26T14:00:00.000-07:00

Could be worse indeed:

UPDATE: Sorry! Wrong one. Here's Palin:

Bailout Viewpoints

2008-09-26T12:52:00.000-07:00

A friend pointed me to an article in the Economist, which seems to do a decent job describing what is entailed in the bailout, and all the viewpoints within Congress and the administration, and even the public. I only say it seems to do a decent job because I can't pretend to have even a basic knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the economy. And so I end up simply trusting those who I think I have sufficient reason to trust. One such figure is Krugman of the New York Times. Based on what I've been reading from him, the Economist article largely overlooks an important aspect of a new agreement, beyond Paulson's original plan - the share in ownership of the taxpayers. Here's Krugman's explanation on equity sharing:

Why is that so important? The fundamental problem with our financial system is that the fallout from the housing bust has left financial institutions with too little capital. When he finally deigned to offer an explanation of his plan, Mr. Paulson argued that he could solve this problem through “price discovery” — that once taxpayer funds had created a market for mortgage-related toxic waste, everyone would realize that the toxic waste is actually worth much more than it currently sells for, solving the capital problem. Never say never, I guess — but you don’t want to bet $700 billion on wishful thinking.

The odds are, instead, that the U.S. government will end up having to do what governments always do in financial crises: use taxpayers’ money to pump capital into the financial system. Under the original Paulson plan, the Treasury would probably have done this by buying toxic waste for much more than it was worth — and gotten nothing in return. What taxpayers should get is what people who provide capital are entitled to: a share in ownership. And that’s what the equity sharing is about.

The Congressional plan, then, looks a lot better — a lot more adult — than the Paulson plan did. That said, it’s very short on detail, and the details are crucial. What prices will taxpayers pay to take over some of that toxic waste? How much equity will they get in return? Those numbers will make all the difference.

Like I said, I can't pretend to know much about this. But I can't wrap my head around giving away three quarters of a trillion dollars, without any share in ownership whatsoever.

The Real McCain

2008-09-25T22:59:00.000-07:00

Brooks doesn't like McCain's campaign, not because of how low it's gone (since that apparently is necessary in a presidential campaign), but because of the lack of a central message. Nevertheless, he is asking us believe, like many in the media have been continuing to do, that the real McCain is not what we've seen in the last several months:

...when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney. I saw him. A half-century of evidence is there.

If McCain is elected, he will retain his instinct for the hard challenge. With that Greatest Generation style of his, he will run the least partisan administration in recent times. He is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, but he is a good judge of character. He is not an organized administrator, but he has become a practiced legislative craftsman. He is, above all — and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign — a serious man prone to serious things.

It's fine and understandable to believe that the recent McCain is the less sincere and more politicking McCain. But it is silly to completely dichotomize the two people - Congressman McCain and Candidate McCain. A presidential campaign is a highly stressful and complicated process. This is precisely the kind of thing we should take into account when judging a candidate. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't take into account all other accomplishments and experience in his life. But looking at some of the things he has done in this campaign, one can come away concluding that this is a man who makes reckless decisions. But don't take my word for it, here's McCain in his 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For":

I don't torture myself over decisions. I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is my mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.

Is this the real McCain? Because it sounds an awful lot like Candidate McCain. Take his VP choice. He had met Palin once before choosing her, and either he did not vet her properly, or he accepted the fact that she was not nearly as qualified as other potential candidates. Either way, it is a big gamble. Take into consideration all the explicit lying he has done. Take into consideration his decision to proclaim that "we are all Georgians now" during the Russian-Georgian conflict. Take into consideration his decision to unilaterally suspend his campaign and call for a debate delay, and the subsequent forty-eight hours in which it took him to turn around 180 degrees on that move. Maybe one can argue that he does not take the presidential campaign all that seriously, and these reckless moves are then acceptable. He would never gamble like this while president, the argument would say. But if it really were the case that he didn't take this campaign very seriously, wouldn't he refrain from throwing away all the integrity he has gained over the past few decades, within a matter of months? There simply is no good reason to ignore Candidate McCain's actions, and he may "live with the consequences without complaint," but the entire country will have to suffer with him if he becomes president.

Negotiating vs Antagonizing

2008-09-25T17:43:00.001-07:00

In a presidential campaign that is somewhat marked by a distinction between the effectiveness of negotiating versus that of antagonizing, it is worth considering the significant things that can get done by organizing and talking to your adversaries. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit environmental advocacy group, went public today with an announcement that they'll serve as an "environmental partner in [Walmart's] Global Plastic Shopping Bag Waste Reduction Commitment." There is no shortage of reasons to have conflicting views on the ethics of Walmart's actions and policies. But at the end of the day, EDF has partnered with them and will help them reduce the production of about 9 billion plastic bags a year. Contrast that with any progress that's come about by simply demonizing the corporation..

Country First?

2008-09-25T16:52:00.001-07:00

Many on Capitol Hill are regretting that presidential politics have been injected in the bailout plan. McCain obviously has a lot of power over conservative lawmakers right now, and he appears to be using it. According to Ambinder, during the meeting, "it appears that Sen. John McCain had an agenda. He brought up alternative proposals, surprising and angering Democrats. He did not, according to someone briefed on the meeting, provide specifics." It will be interesting to see if he successfully stalls this plan, and if he'll use it as an excuse to ditch the debate. Such a strategy might already be in the works. Here he is explaining that Obama is to blame for the current debate stress, and leaving the door open for a deadline on a deal:

GIBSON: Do we have a debate tomorrow night?

MCCAIN: Well I'm hopeful, very hopeful that we can. I believe that it's very possible that we can get an agreement so that -- in time for me to fly to Mississippi. I understand that there is a lot of attention on this but I also wish Senator Obama had agreed to ten or more town hall meetings that I had asked him to attend with me. Wouldn't be quite that much urgency if he agreed to do that, instead he refused to do it.

GIBSON: What is the practical deadline? There would have to be an agreement -- a bill that could be signed off, bipartisan, bicameral by tomorrow morning, by tomorrow noon?

MCCAIN: I don't know exactly, Charlie. But again I'm hopeful we can get the outlines and the specifics that a lot of people want to see and get it done quickly. In -- members of Congress very aware that the markets are watching very carefully what we do. And I see nothing but optimism amongst the many people, colleagues of mine, both Republican and Democrat that I talked to today that we'll reach a successful conclusion, I confident we will.

Pathetic

2008-09-25T15:03:00.001-07:00

McCain doesn't have time to debate tomorrow night because he's saving the world, but has all the time in the world for multiple major broadcast interviews tonight when, presumably, there will not yet be a need for world saving.

McStake

2008-09-25T13:40:00.000-07:00

After McCain's move yesterday (announcing campaign suspension, calling for debate delay), I had a feeling he was actually doing something smart, from a purely political perspective. There is no reason to think Obama won't benefit from the debates and the current state of the economy, and he has retained a consistent lead for over a week now, however slim it may be. So without a distraction in the news, McCain is surely to continue a downward slope in the polls. His announcement yesterday was designed to do just that - shake up the headlines and distract the public from the debates and the economy. It is a desperate move, but there don't seem to be too many other good options at this point. But this is only a good move insofar as the public is willing to follow you. Unfortunately for McCain, the public overwhelmingly wants the debate to move forward. It might be the case that he just went too far with this one, and Americans understand that.