Mouthful of Politics

McCain Hires Swift Boat Charlatan

.

Here's the background:

• In May, 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) launched a smear campaign attacking Senator John Kerry's distinguished Vietnam war record.
• In August 2004, Senator John McCain said "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew mates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."
• After the spots aired, the men who actually knew and served with John Kerry repeatedly refuted the Swift Boat ads as a political sham.
• On November 6th, 2007, Texas billionaire and SBVT financier T. Bone Pickens announced that he would give one million dollars to anyone who could refute any of the SBVT allegations.
• On November 16th, 2007, Kerry took Pickens up on his offer. Hours after Kerry's statement, Pickens responded by saying he would need to receive every service record, movie, and tape made during Kerry's service from 1971-1978. In his letter, Boone also said he was concerned about political figures maligning the Swift Boat Veterans!
• Last week, a group of veterans sent Pickens a 12 page document along with 42 pages of military records and other support documents which proved the SBVT had lied at least ten times. Pickens sidestepped this evidence by saying "none of the information you provided speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads." Picken's original challenge was for anyone to disprove anything that the SBVT had said.

Today, John McCain hired Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the despicable SBVT campaign smear. Ironically, Bud was brought on board as part of McCain's "Truth Squad," a group created to counter attacks on the candidate's military record.

I used to like the old, 2004 John McCain. He was one of the few Republicans who frequently stood up against the misguided actions of his own party, but no longer.

The older, 2008 John McCain is a different beast altogether. He's made an end run to the right to appease his political base, and his scruples were lost somewhere along the way.

McCain: Four Years of Unpaid Property Taxes

.

When NEWSWEEK broke this story on Friday, I immediately wondered what had taken the press so long to find out about it. It turns out that one of Cindy and John McCain's seven homes has not had its property tax paid in over four years. That property, an oceanfront condo in La Jolla, California, is home to Cindy McCain's elderly aunt.

Tax bills sent to the address were returned by the post office, so the bank that manages the trust never received them. The McCains first learned about this on Friday, and they have since brought the account current.

How could the presumptive Republican nominee miss something so fundamental during the vetting process? Cindy McCain is reportedly worth about 100 million dollars, so cash flow was not an issue.

With the economy first on voters' minds this year, I'm sure we can expect this episode in personal mismanagement to come back and haunt Senator McCain in the fall.

Swift Boat Bull

.

The Challenge

In 2004, billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens offered one million dollars to anyone who could disprove any of the accusations the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) made against Senator John Kerry. Pickens provided partial financing for those detestable SBVT ads.

One of Kerry's vocal supporters at the time was the formerly moderate John McCain. In an August, 2004 statement to the AP, he said:

"I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."

.

The Response

Last week, a group of veterans took Pickens up on his challenge. The billionaire was sent a 12 page document along with 42 pages of military records and other support documents which proved that SBVT had lied about Kerry's service 10 times during its smear campaign.

Picken's response? Predictably, he sidestepped the issue by saying that "none of the information you provided speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads." He said this in spite of the fact that his original challenge was for anyone to disprove anything that the SBVT had said.

As exemplified in this Newsweek profile of Willie Horton ad man Floyd G. Brown, the 527s will be back in full force this year (minus MoveOn.org). My goggles are on, and the Truth-o-meter is green for go. Let the mud slinging begin.

.

On a Related Note

In a shameful example of quid pro quo by the Bush administration, billionaire Sam Fox, who was the primary financier for SBVT,  was rewarded with an appointment as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenifotentiary of the United States of America to Belgium on April 4, 2007. Bush made the appointment during a Congressional recess, which allowed him to bypass Congress completely.

Add this one to the long, long list.

In Pursuit of Unity

.

Together Again

Today in Unity, New Hampshire, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood on stage together to announce unity within the Democratic Party. The small northeastern town has significance beyond its name; citizens there voted in equal numbers for Obama and Clinton (107 to 107) during the democratic primary.

.

An Abundance of Sour Grapes

So, has party unity really been achieved? Recent polling suggests that 39% of former Clinton supporters still intend to stay home or vote for McCain in November. That number is down from 46% in April.

Many of these Clintonistas blog over at TalkLeft, where anti-Obama sentiment is still commonplace, although diminishing. Others have joined P.U.M.A. (Party Unity My Ass), a Facebook group created for Clinton supporters who vow not to vote for an Obama ticket.

Doesn't this seem just a little bit crazy?

If some former Clinton backers believe that John McCain, with all of his similarities to George Bush, would make a better president than Barack Obama, with all of his similarities to Hillary Clinton, then by all means they should vote accordingly.

However, I don't think the majority of these people believe that. They refuse to vote for Obama because their candidate lost, or because the primary system is flawed, or because of some perceived injustice done to them by the DNC, or even because they believe some of the right-wing smears about Obama and have failed to seek out the truth.

.

Reality Check

Obama won by inspiring a movement and out-organizing his opponent. He won against a candidate who had the party establishment firmly in her grasp and who was already well-known to the American people. This was no small feat.

If the rules had been different, Obama's superior organizational machine would have made the necessary adjustments, and he might have won anyway. That fact that he did win is all that matters now.

.

So Why Does It Matter?

There is far more at stake than sour grapes and bruised egos. Our great nation, and the world we live in, will be impacted for better or worse by the decisions our next president makes.

We cannot allow our nation to be further bankrupted with excessive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans while we continue to fight a costly war with no end in sight. We cannot allow our government to detain suspects without providing even a shred of credible evidence against them in a courtroom. We cannot allow our government to torture, ever, and we cannot allow our government to spy on Americans without cause, or to start wars and out covert agents for political gain.

It may be decades before we fully grasp the degree to which injustice and deceit thrived during the Bush-Cheney years. John McCain now stands firmly behind Bush-Cheney in almost every policy area, while Obama stands strongly opposed.

It's a no-brainer for me.

Barack's Secret Weapon: MTV

.

For the first time in 27 years, MTV has decided to allow political advertisements on its airwaves. The Obama camp, which was recently denied an ad buy on the network, should be ecstatic.

This new opportunity benefits the democratic contender in two ways. First, the youthful viewers that MTV attracts favor Obama over McCain by at least a 2 to 1 margin. Secondly, political commercials will help to motivate this group so that more of them actually register to vote and cast their ballots in November.

Traditionally, the 18 to 29 year old demographic has been apathetic during elections, but this year could really be different. MTV executives are determined to get out the youth vote, and I'm sure Obama will be delighted to assist them in their efforts. Rock on!

Do they even say that anymore? I'll have to call my oldest daughters to find out. One of them is 20 and the other is 19, so I think they'll know.

And the last time I checked, they were planning to vote for Obama.

.Smoking Gun at the D.O.J.

.

A special report issued by the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility detailed an illegal hiring process at the Department of Justice (DOJ) stretching back as far as 2002. The report was based on a 14 month investigation into allegations of politicized hiring of entry-level attorneys and interns at the DOJ.

A chart on page 22 of the report shows that 80 of the 100 liberal students who applied for full-time Honors jobs in 2002 were rejected, while 42 of 46 conservative candidates were hired that year.

A chart on page 25 shows a similar disparity-- of the 61 democrats who applied, only 18 were hired, while 41 of 46 republican candidates received a job offer.

Democrat Charles Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement about the Inspector General's report:

"This is the first smoking gun. We believe there will be more to come. This report shows clearly that politics and ideology replaced merit as the hiring criteria at one of our most prized civil service departments."

The list of transgressions committed by this administration continues to grow. This report is just the latest addition. It's a wonder that the president still has an approval rating as high as 25%.

Just how bad is it? Even John Dean, who was Richard Nixon's counsel in the 1970s, supports a presidential impeachment. Dean wrote a book called Worse Than Watergate about the Bush White House in 2004.

McCain Gas Plan: No Relief Before 2030

Blogger Adam Jentleson of The Wonk Room took John McCain's gas plan to task last week. He sought an answer to the following question: "Can John McCain find a single economist who backs his claim that offshore drilling will lower gas prices in the short term – or even before 2030?"

Even among McCain advisers, the answer so far has been no. Offshore drilling would make no difference in the short term, and even decades from now, the help provided would be minuscule.

Those pesky "facts" aside,  we can expect McCain to continue his crusade to remove the federal ban on offshore drilling as long as polls show that most people support the idea. Americans need relief at the pump, and he is willing to sell them the snake oil that doesn't provide it.

On Monday, McCain tiptoed around the issue in Fresno, California. He said it would be up to individual states to choose whether offshore drilling is right for them.

In truth, given the return on our investment, it's not right for anyone. Reining in oil speculators by closing the "Enron Loophole", working to develop alternative energy sources, and reducing our 9.4 trillion dollar national debt (which would help to inflate our floundering dollar) would all be more beneficial for the US economy.

The Return of Rovian Politics

.

Christianne Klein of ABC News reported that Karl Rove made an interesting statement about Barack Obama at breakfast with Republican insiders this morning:

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Was this a peek into the Republican playbook for the general election? If so, it shows that the politics of personal destruction are still alive and well. The unspoken label hangs clearly in the air. "Elitist."

In contrast to Rove's characterization, Obama's history is rooted far from the wealthy and upper crust. The presumptive democratic nominee had this to say about his upbringing earlier this year:

"But I also always remember that I was raised by a single mom. There were times where we were on food stamps in Hawaii. I lived in a small two-bedroom apartment with my grandparents for a long time. My grandmother still lives in that apartment."

After high school, Obama first went to smaller Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. After graduating from Columbia, he worked for five years before finally entering Harvard in late 1988.

In his first year at Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition. In his second year there, he was elected president of the Law Review. In 1991, he graduated magna cum laude with a Juris Doctor (professional doctorate in law).

This was no free ride.

It should be noted that Rove's breakfast took place at the Capital Hill Club, an exclusive Republican social club founded in 1951. Irony or hypocrisy?

Obama's Gas Plan

.

Later today, Barack Obama is expected to release a statement calling for the closure of the "Enron Loophole" and a crackdown on excessive energy speculation. This is the same loophole I referenced last week after seeing Keith Olbermann's story on June 18th.

The loophole was added on to an essential government reauthorization bill by Senator Phil Gramm in 2000, and it passed with little debate just moments before that year's Congressional Christmas break.

Congress heard testimony about the loophole on June 3rd. Investor's Insight reported:

"Professor [I. Michael] Greenberger argued that the “Enron Loophole” provision in the CFMA produced a change in the supervision of certain commodities (energy, for example) that had been in place since 1922 thereby enabling Enron to engage in their trading practices (with led to the electricity crisis in California in 2001) and the development of “dark markets” (Intercontinental Commodities Exchange in Atlanta, for example) enabling unlimited positions and limited transparency to be established by speculators. All outside the purview of the US regulatory bodies such as the CFTC."

Since this loophole took effect, speculators have been able to manipulate the price of oil and other commodities without oversight. According to Greenberger, closing the loophole would create a drop in oil prices of between 25 and 50 percent overnight.

By comparison, John McCain's plan to lower gas prices by lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling would take years to have even a minimal effect. From USA TODAY:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently estimated that drilling in the Arctic refuge would reduce the global price of oil between 41 cents and $1.44 per barrel [off the current price of $135 per barrel] and take 20 years to have much effect on the domestic oil supply. It would take about the same amount of time for offshore oil drilling to make any real difference, according to the EIA.

In response to Senator Obama's statement today, the McCain camp said that Obama is simply following John McCain's lead in working to close this loophole, and that McCain will work to address abuses in oil speculation.

In fact, McCain was once a champion of this cause. However, since beginning his presidential campaign, he has avoided the topic completely. Until today.

This might have to do with the fact that McCain's campaign co-chair and chief economic adviser is none other than Phil Gramm, the former Senator who originally introduced the loophole in 2000 at the behest of Enron CEO Ken Lay. Other possible zingers for McCain: Gramm’s 1992 re-election campaign was chaired by Lay, and Gramm’s wife, Wendy, earned $50,000 per year as an Enron director from 1993 to 2001.

Those Crazy Polls

Yesterday, a Newsweek poll showed Barack Obama surging ahead of John McCain by 15 points. By contrast, Rasmussen showed Obama up by only 5 points, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll showed Obama up by 6 points, and Gallup's latest daily tracking poll has Obama up by just 2 points. So who's right?

Putting aside for a moment that it's only June, note that every poll shows Obama in the lead. In each of these polls, the demographics favor the Democrat. USA TODAY shows Obama leading among women (+14%), independents (+12%), African-Americans (+99%), and younger voters (by a 2-1 margin), while McCain leads among men (+3%), whites (+6%), and seniors (+9%). According to Newsweek, Obama has pulled even among senior voters.

Given our electoral process, state polling is a more reliable indicator of general election success than broad national polling. Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight uses poll weighting, demographic regression estimates, and 10,000 election simulations per update to project possible electoral outcomes. Per Nate's assessment, if the election was held today, Obama would win 334.4 electoral votes to McCain's 203.6 electoral votes. Obama would also win the popular vote by a 52.5% to 47.5% margin.

Again, polls in June generally don't mean much, but they can show interesting trends. Obama's lead among women and independents is significant because McCain will have little chance of winning the general election unless he swings more of these voters his way. Keep a close eye on these groups as we inch our way toward November.

McClellan Testifies About C.I.A. Leak, Flip-Flops

Former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan testified before the House Judiciary Committee today about the administration's role in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press in 2003. In McClellan's new book, ''What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception,''  he says he was instructed to tell what turned out to be lies regarding the role some senior White House officials played in the leak.

.

Background

Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson. An investigation started in 2005 showed that high ranking members of the Bush administration intentionally leaked Plame's role in the CIA, probably as retribution for an op-ed piece Wilson wrote for The New York Times in July, 2003. Wilson's editorial criticized Bush's reasoning for rushing to war and disputed the administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the country of Niger.

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told McClellan that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly deny that Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had any involvement in the affair. It later turned out that both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had leaked Plame's name to reporters.

.

The Fallout

Plame told Congress last year that the leak of her identity as a covert operative "jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents." The leak enabled the identification of Plame as an employee of the CIA front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, and in doing so enabled the identification of other CIA agents who were "employed" there. Intelligence services in nations she had visited were also able to go back and check where she had been and to whom she had spoken.

.

End Run Around the Law

Under the National Security Act of 1947 and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, disclosing the identify of a covert agent is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years. These laws apply to almost all of us.

In this case, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are immune to these laws because they both have the authority to decide what information is classified and declassified. They also have the ability to authorize the disclosure of classified information.

Libby testified that he had authorization from Vice President Cheney to release Valerie Plame's identity. This means that he was given permission to out a covert CIA operative for political reasons, and no laws were broken in the process.

Libby could not be charged for leaking classified information; he was instead convicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, and his sentence was later commuted by President Bush so he would not have to serve any jail time. Karl Rove, who also talked with two reporters about Plame, was never charged.

.

Today's Flip-Flop

As reported by the New York Times, McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: ''I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there.''

Oddly, this directly contradicts an assertion McClellan made on the Today Show three weeks ago. From that interview:

McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enabled Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, were the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

You can hear this quote exactly five minutes into the interview:

.

.

So, was he telling the truth then or now? Perhaps a more relevant question would be: "Will it really make a difference?"

Obama Re-introduces Himself to America

Barack Obama has announced his first campaign ad for the 2008 general election. This 60 second spot, which focuses on family, background, and love of country, is meant to re-introduce him to the American people:

.

.

The ad will play in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

The mix of states, which includes some historically reliable Republican strongholds, shows that Obama intends to stretch the traditional electoral playing field between now and November. This would be in line with DNC chairman Howard Dean's "50-state strategy."

This strategy could prove to be a headache for opponent John McCain, who is expected to be outspent by at least 2-1 between now and November. McCain will probably have to focus most of his financial resources on a smaller number of close races.

McCain and the Price of Gas

You have to see this to appreciate it. From "Countdown with Keith Olbermann":

.

.

Yes, McCain's chief economic adviser is the same politician who was responsible for passing and defending the Enron loophole. From CNNMoney.com:

"But economic conservatives should take heart. McCain's chief economic adviser - and perhaps his closest political friend - is the ultimate pure play in free market faith, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm."

This story has been out there for a while now. Only time will tell whether it gains more traction with the news media at large.

Biden: My Favorite Attack Dog

Whenever I hear Joe Biden refute Republican attacks, I get the urge to stand up and cheer. He has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for over three decades, and he knows how to make a point.

In a statement yesterday, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani recited the usual Republican talking points about Democrats being weak on terror. An excerpt from this statement: "Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security. We need a leader like John McCain who has the experience and judgment necessary to protect the American people."

Obama's campaign responded swiftly to this charge, turning the argument around and accusing Republicans of failing to capture Osama bin Laden because of George Bush's misguided focus on the Iraq War. My favorite response to this attack, however, came from Senator Biden, who hit the proverbial nail on the head:

"It's no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush. The facts are that the policies President Bush has pursued and Senator McCain would continue have not made us safer. We're bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- have regrouped and are plotting new attacks. In fact, terrorist attacks around the world have increased since 9/11.

"When it comes to Guantanamo detainees, Senator McCain has been all over the map. A year ago, he recognized that Guantanamo was a stain on this country and joined me in advocating that it be closed down and recommending that the detainees be sent to Fort Leavenworth -- where there has never been a question that they would have Habeas Corpus rights. Now, Sen. McCain insists that Americans must choose between our values and our security. That's exactly wrong. Our values reinforce our security. Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool."

Biden is absolutely correct. These are the values that make us a great nation, and without them, we are diminished.

Habeas corpus does not protect the guilty; it protects the innocent by assuring that credible evidence exists to hold the accused. To quote one of my previous articles:

"To deny these detainees, or anyone, the right of habeas corpus or the right to a fair trial is unconscionable, unjust, and unAmerican. If there is credible evidence ... then they will certainly be convicted of their crimes by a jury of their peers."

Way to go, Joe.

McCain's War of Perception

In recent weeks, John McCain has been working diligently to distance himself from President Bush. His latest effort, released today:

.

.

As noted in this ad, McCain's stance on environmental issues has been out of step with the president and most of his Republican colleagues. He has taken a particularly strong stand against global warming. But what about other issues?

Today, the New York Times posted an article comparing McCain to the president. According to the Times analysis, McCain and Bush mostly agree with each other in fourteen of the nineteen policy areas listed.

This can only be bad news for the McCain camp. We can expect Obama to continue hammering away at McCain's similarities to the president, keeping the Republican candidate on the defensive as much as possible.

With Bush's approval rating hovering at about 30%, McCain knows he cannot afford to lose this war of perception. To make matters worse, every step he takes away from Bush is also a step away from the conservative base of his party.

The McCain camp, and the Republican party, face a great many problems heading into November, and the current president is chief among them. Bush's venomous coattails will be difficult to avoid. As heavyweight champion Joe Louis said, just before his 1946 rematch victory over the lighter, faster Billy Conn: "You can run, but you can't hide."

Gore Endorsement in Michigan Tonight

In his personal blog, Al Gore announced today that he will be endorsing Barack Obama in Detroit later this evening. While this endorsement comes as no surprise, it does beg the question: What role, if any, would the guru of global warming play in an Obama administration?

Gore has certainly found prominence outside the world of politics. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his efforts related to global warming, and he received an Academy Award for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. What's unclear is whether he would really be interested in returning to the political fray.

In April, ABC News reported that Obama was asked in a town hall meeting whether he would consider Gore for a Cabinet position. He answered in the affirmative. From that article:

"Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He’s someone that I talk to on a regular basis, I’m already consulting with him in terms of these issues," Obama said.

I suspect that Gore would jump at the chance to take part in US policy decisions related to the nation's role in the fight against global warming. What specific role that would be, however, remains to be seen.

Getting Serious About Bin Laden

.

It's been almost seven years since the twin towers were struck on that fateful September morning, and today the UK's Times Online reports that President Bush is finally getting serious again about capturing the man behind that attack. From this article:

Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. “If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source.

Shortly after 9/11, with Taliban forces weakened and Bin Laden thought to be hiding in Afghanistan or northern Pakistan, the President of the United States sought to focus the majority of his nation's considerable might on... say it with me now... Iraq.

According to former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the Iraqi war was simply a mistake by a president and advisers swept up in a grand plan of seeding democracy in the Middle East by overturning Saddam Hussein's regime. McClellan says Mr. Bush and his aides became so wrapped up in pushing the argument for war that they ignored intelligence that didn't fit the picture. (If you are interested in reading McClellan's memoir, please check my book carousel to the right.)

The fact that this administration intentionally "cherry-picked" the intelligence used as a justification for war is not a new revelation. And while some would argue that foreign intelligence agencies came to the same faulty conclusions about the danger Iraq posed, it should be noted that these agencies based their conclusions in part on intelligence received from the US.

Today, with the US military stretched so thin, it's no wonder that the president had to request help from British special forces. US intelligence reports that al-Qaida has rebuilt and is now stronger than at any time since their 2001 attack, so I hope this latest effort will be enough to bring Bin Laden to justice.

.

Habeas What?

General Burkhalter: "You will be given a fair trial, after which you will be shot!"

Major Kohler: "I demand a fair trial!"

General Burkhalter: "In Germany?"

.

.

.

I loved watching repeats of Hogan's Heroes when I was a kid. The prisoners always got the best of those incompetent Nazis. Funny stuff.

The Nazi take on justice always reminded me of how lucky I was to be living in the United States. Our nation has habeas corpus, meaning that a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. We also guarantee the right to a fair trial.

This changed in 2006 with the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which removed the right of habeas corpus from anyone deemed an "enemy combatant." This has effectively allowed the government to lock suspects away, in some cases for up to six years, without providing one shred of credible evidence in support of that incarceration. Combatant detainees do not even have the right to challenge their detention.

By a slim 5-4 margin on Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld habeas corpus for these prisoners. Glenn Greenwald from salon.com wrote a brilliant piece about the decision here. His analysis:

In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" process ("CSRT") offered to Guantanamo detainees -- mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures -- which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them -- "fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review."

I especially appreciated this 1953 quote from Justice Jackson regarding Brown v. Allen:

Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.

To deny these detainees, or anyone, the right of habeas corpus or the right to a fair trial is unconscionable, unjust, and unAmerican. If there is credible evidence against them, then they will certainly be convicted of their crimes by a jury of their peers.

It should come as no surprise that justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito were the four dissenters. One vote more and my appreciation of Hogan's Heroes would have gained a newfound relevance.

.

Governator's Household Warfare

The Harold Tribune posted a fascinating article today about California's first family and their dueling presidential allegiances. Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, supports McCain, while his wife, Maria Shriver, is a vocal Obama supporter. It's an entertaining read.

From the article:

On Super Tuesday, the governor awoke to a lawn full of Obama signs. Seeking fair and balanced landscaping, he immediately called his aides to procure an equal number of McCain signs. (Perhaps not the easiest request on the day when the Republicans were looking to deliver the state to McCain. Also not one, under the circumstances, to be farmed out to the first lady's office.)

I have just one question. If Obama loses, will the Governator be sleeping on the couch?

Russert Dead at 58

Tim's son Luke, "Big Russ", and Tim

Renowned journalist and former Demo operative Tim Russert died today after collapsing while recording voiceovers for his Sunday program, "Meet the Press." He was 58.

This news jolted me. He was one of my favorite commentators. Russert was one of the best political analysts in the business, and his opinions were well respected on all sides of the political spectrum.

Tim, and his father "Big Russ", made the news themselves last month when Clinton campaign co-chair Terry McAuliffe insinuated that Tim's father was dead. His father is, in fact, still alive and was just moved to a nursing home last week. The clip here from Huff Post is definitely worth watching one more time.

We'll miss you Tim.

Hillary's Diehard Supporters

Recent polling now suggests that Barack Obama has won over a majority of Clinton supporters in every key demographic, but there are still a sizable number of hold outs. I spent some time trolling over at TalkLeft, a popular blog for her staunchest allies, and I admit that I was surprised by the antipathy many of the posters still have toward the presumptive Democratic nominee.

As far as I could tell, none of the regular posters like McCain very much either. So, between the personal attacks on Obama and his supporters ("Obamacons" drinking "Obama Kool Aid"), and the critical suspicion of every statement and decision he makes (one poster thought it was just "creepy" that he moved the DNC operation to Chicago), I got the distinct impression that many of these people are suffering from a severe case of sour grapes.

I know, these things take time.

For these staunchest of Clintonistas, I have a suggestion. If you like John McCain best, then VOTE for him. If you think McCain is the worst candidate, then VOTE for Obama. And if you decide to stay home, then you're a just a sore loser putting your own bruised feelings above the well being of our nation.

Sorry, but it had to be said. Let's just get on with it, please.

Vice Presidential Predictions, Part Two

Some of the names on Barack Obama's short list for VP were leaked on the Huff Post yesterday. One of the following people will probably become his running mate in the coming weeks:

• Retired General James Jones
• Hillary Clinton
• John Kerry
• John Edwards
• Evan Bayh
• Kathleen Sebelius
• Ted Strickland
• Mark Warner
• Tim Kaine
• Jim Webb
• Bill Nelson
• Jack Reed
• Joe Biden
• Chris Dodd
• Tom Daschle
• Sam Nunn

Now, a few days ago, I went out on a limb and predicted that Obama would probably have to choose Clinton in the end. From my previous blog posting:

"If Obama does choose Clinton as his running mate, many of her ardent supporters who might otherwise stay home or vote McCain will instead be drawn to the Democratic ticket. The democratic rivals garnered over 35 million votes between them, and that is a formidable base to build upon."

I am now revising my prediction (or further expanding upon it, as a politician would say, or hedging my bets, as anyone else would say).

I think that once a few weeks have passed, and the troops are calm, the Obama campaign will conduct massive internal polling to determine what percentage of Clinton supporters are willing to vote for him without her on the ticket.

If that number is high enough, he can go his own way and choose someone who reaffirms his message of change. Consequently, if the number is too low, we can expect to see Obama-Clinton bumper stickers peppering the nation by mid-July.

Kathleen Sebelius is my favorite pick from the list above. She is popular in her home state of Kansas, her ideology and his are a good match, and, let's face it, she will look great next to him on those campaign pins. The message for change could hardly be clearer with this matching.

Will some of Clinton's supporters be offended if Obama chooses a woman other than their candidate? Perhaps, but I think having any woman on the ballot will be a great thing, even if that woman is not Hillary Clinton.

The Truth About Taxes and Republican Pandering

.

Another Installment in the "Mouthful of Right-Wing Drivel" Series

.

driv - el: 

1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.
2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.
3. to talk childishly or idiotically.

In this series, I shed some light on the drivel that often comes from the fringe right-wing of American politics. The lies are out there, and I mean to expose them.

.

Let the Pandering Begin

Every election cycle, we hear the same predictable mantra from Republican politicians: "I promise not to raise taxes!" or "I will lower your taxes!" Doesn't it sound peachy? Unfortunately, in making these pledges, economic realities are often conveniently ignored.

Our nation has an enormous budget deficit, record debt (up to 9.4 trillion dollars and counting), deflated currency, and is still in the midst of a costly war. In spite of these facts, John McCain and the Republican Party think we should decrease the government's revenue stream even further.

.

A Simple Formula

Let me emphasize this for anyone in the rear seats, and for those on the right:

We need to have as much money coming in as we have going out, or our debt will continue to grow.

Please reread the above statement as many times as necessary until it sinks in.

.

.

Our incoming revenue comes from taxes. It's that simple.

Now, where is this money spent?

.

Government Spending

Are there issues with government waste, corruption, and pork barrel spending? Certainly.

Does this mean our government as a whole does not legitimately need our tax dollars? Of course not.

Among other things, our tax dollars pay for:

• Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Homeland Security.. the big DoD.
• Veteran's Affairs
• Social Security
• Public Schools
• Police Departments
• Fire Departments
• Post Offices
• Courts and Prisons
• Maintaining our Roads, Bridges, and Transportation Infrastructure

These areas all require funding, and they should never be shortchanged.

.

The Bottom Line

Given the state of our economy, it makes sense to reverse the excessive tax breaks and loopholes now in place for the wealthiest Americans. Even Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, thinks that these tax breaks are hurting our economy.

The long-term health of our nation should always be the determining factor when resolving whether to increase or decrease tax revenue. Blanket promises to lower taxes, regardless of economic realities, can only be perceived as blatant pandering or plain ignorance.

Package it any way you like, but drivel is drivel.

Addicted to Morning Joe

.

I admit it. MSNBC's Morning Joe has me hooked.

As a west-coaster, this means I either stay up very late or get up very early to catch the show since it airs from 3:00am to 6:00am in my time zone. During the commercial breaks, I usually flip over to CNN's American Morning, the only other political fix available at that ungodly hour.

The commentary from former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough and team is surprisingly balanced. The most insightful comments often come from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, who is refreshingly honest about the failings of the Bush administration and the difficulties now facing the presumptive Republican nominee.

Pat, you've come a long way from your days in the Nixon White House.

The Gas Price Blame Game

.

The First Installment of the "Mouthful of RIght-Wing Drivel" Series

.

driv - el:

1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.
2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.
3. to talk childishly or idiotically.

In this series, I shed some light on the drivel that so frequently comes from those on the fringe right-wing of American politics. The lies are out there, and I mean to expose them.

.

The Gas Price Blame Game

I found an article this morning, on a right-wing website, entitled "Morning Bell: Liberals Want Americans to Suffer at the Pump." If I had been drinking coffee at the time, I would have spit it out.

Since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, gas prices have shot up by more than a dollar. Because of this, the article argues, rising gas prices must be their fault.

And it gets even better. The final paragraph states:

"This is the energy policy Pelosi and Schumer are forcing on the American people: punishing poor and rural Americans with high gas prices so wealthy San Franciscans and New Yorkers can take Alaskan cruises to see their precious polar bears."

Oh, where to begin.

.

Wiping the Drivel

Congress has done nothing to impact the price of oil over the past 16 years, and during all but two of those years, Republicans held sway.

Gas prices have been soaring for four well-known reasons:

• Worldwide demand for oil has risen, especially in places like China and India.
• OPEC refuses to increase oil production, which would help to drive prices back down.
• The shrinking value of the American dollar is inflating the price of gas and other goods.
• Price manipulation by greedy oil speculators.

Now, let's read that last paragraph again.

"This is the energy policy Pelosi and Schumer are forcing on the American people: punishing poor and rural Americans with high gas prices so wealthy San Franciscans and New Yorkers can take Alaskan cruises to see their precious polar bears."

The Democratic party, the party of civil rights, welfare, social security, universal health care, and champion to a shrinking middle class, wants to punish poor Americans? And the Republican party, with its support of special tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest Americans, the party of trickle down economics, is looking out for the poorest of Americans? That's novel.

Next, the names of two strongly Democratic cities were evoked to somehow imply that Democratic policies only favor the wealthy. Is there any logic to that whatsoever?

Finally, about the bears. The "precious polar bears" are at risk of extinction because of global warming. Unfortunately, there are still some closed-minded people on the right who don't believe in global warming, so they also fail to acknowledge the truth about these animals.

Who needs facts or science when you have right wing talking points? Maybe some people just don't like polar bears.

Since taking office, the Bush administration has appointed more lobbyists to important governmental positions than any other administration in recent memory, perhaps ever. Before Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, some industries actually wrote the legislation which now affects them. Does anyone remember the $1.5 billion dollar giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas?

More recently, the current head of the EPA and former director of drug development company Hazelton Laboratories, Stephen L. Johnson, is attempting to block the efforts of 17 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. This stance doesn't help poor Americans, but it's consistent with Bush policy over the past seven and a half years. Oil industry interests have been well protected during that time.

Package it any way you like, but drivel is drivel.

The Great Debate -- Who's in the Catbird Seat?

According to this article from ABC news, the Obama and McCain camps have indicated their willingness to have the first presidential debate in historic Federal Hall in New York City. The debate would be in the form of a town hall meeting.

Am I the only one under the impression that both camps think they have the upper hand here?

After McCain's dismal speech on Tuesday night, I suspect his advisers are willing to do just about anything to steer him away from large crowds and into smaller, more casual speaking venues. The McCain camp probably feels that their candidate has an advantage over Obama when discussing nitty-gritty policy points.

On the other hand, the Obama camp undoubtedly feels that any face-to-face match-up will work in their favor. Youth and charisma do have their advantages.

So who's right?

I think Obama might just have the catbird seat, and it all comes down to preparation. More to come on this...

UPDATE

While both candidates have agreed to a town hall style debate, they have both rejected the Bloomberg-ABC proposal because they do not want it broadcast by only one network or news organization.

And I say... Bravo!

I'll dig into this matchup again once the candidates have actually worked something out.

Vice Presidential Predictions

Barack’s Dilemma

Will the lady in the pants suit get the vice presidential nod? For good or ill, I think Barack Obama will conclude that he has to pick Hillary Clinton when the time comes.

Finished chuckling yet? That's it, get it all out. Now, as I was saying...

She has negatives to be sure.

Is it possible that having her name on the ballot will motivate more Republicans to come out and vote against the ticket in November? Perhaps.

Would Bill Clinton’s presence in the White House be an impediment to Obama? That depends. If the former President is given diplomatic duties, and works as part of team Obama, his presence could easily be transformed into a huge positive.

Of course, traditionally, voters come out to support the person at the top of the ticket and not the vice presidential candidate. But this year has been anything but traditional.

If Obama does choose Clinton as his running mate, many of her ardent supporters who might otherwise stay home or vote McCain will instead be drawn to the Democratic ticket. The democratic rivals garnered over 35 million votes between them, and that is a formidable base to build upon.

.

McCain’s Slam Dunk

On the Republican side, my money is on Mitt Romney for John McCain’s running mate. He really is an obvious choice.

Romney can help McCain shore up support with his conservative base, and he brings with him executive experience, business experience (to help boost McCain's standing on economic issues), relative youth and good looks, the ability to give a good speech, and, perhaps most importantly, his father George was a popular governor in Michigan, an important swing state that McCain hopes to win over in the fall.

We’ll see if I’m right in a few weeks. And stop laughing already.

Whatever Happened to John McCain?

Maverick McCain

Just a year ago, when candidates began announcing their runs for the presidency, I viewed John McCain with a glimmer of hope. Of all the electable Republican candidates (apologies to Ron Paul– I did say “electable”), McCain stood out as an independent thinker who had no qualms about standing up to the traditional Republican machine.

Maverick McCain was one of the few voices on the right to criticize Don Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war. He spoke out against global warming, called Bush’s tax cut proposals irresponsible, pushed hard for less lobbyist influence in Washington, and sponsored a bill in 2005, approved 90-9, which prohibited the inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

He stood up for what he believed in, and his views were more moderate than most of his Republican colleagues.

How things change.

.

A Maverick No More

At some point after beginning his 2008 presidential run, McCain lost touch with his old self- the independent maverick who had garnered so much respect from both sides of the political aisle. His views on a number of major issues “evolved” in an effort to appease those on the fringe right and solidify his base.

.

Lobbyist Influence

In May, McCain made a show of purging five lobbyists from his campaign. Was this true ethics reform or just a show for the media? According to some watch groups, including mccainsource.com, he still has 134 lobbyists working on his campaign, including some senior advisers.

An up-to-date diagram highlighting his top lobbyist advisers and fund-raisers can be found here. Also, check out this new video from the DNC about McCain’s lobbyist ties:

.

.

Tax Cuts

In both 2001 and 2003, McCain stood up to his Republican colleagues and opposed the Bush tax cuts. Explaining his opposition in 2001, he said “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.”

When the 2008 presidential campaign began, this view quickly changed to mirror that of the Republican base. He is now in favor of keeping those same tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. In February of this year, he promised to extend them during his presidency, regardless of economic circumstances.

.

Torture

If ever there was one issue you would expect McCain to stand firm on, regardless of political affiliation, it would be his opposition to the use of torture. A former prisoner of war himself, he sponsored the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill in 2005, which prohibited the inhumane treatment of prisoners and confined military interrogations to the techniques used in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. He has also called water boarding a “horrible torture technique” which “should never be condoned in the U.S.”

As presumptive Republican nominee, his stance on the issue wavered. In February, he voted against a bill which prohibits the CIA from using water boarding and other forms of torture. He also encouraged President Bush to veto the bill after Congress had passed it.

.

McCain the Candidate

Whether you call it pandering or political posturing, McCain has certainly taken a hard step to the right. Now that the new John McCain is finally receiving the same media scrutiny as his rival, I suspect chants from the left warning of a third Bush term will begin to sound more and more plausible.