John McCain's Arizona

Idiot Wind

The WaPo editorial for today calls out McSame for yet another "vile smear:

WITH THE presidential campaign clock ticking down, Sen. John McCain has suddenly discovered a new boogeyman to link to Sen. Barack Obama: a sometimes controversial but widely respected Middle East scholar named Rashid Khalidi. In the past couple of days, Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have likened Mr. Khalidi, the director of a Middle East institute at Columbia University, to neo-Nazis; called him "a PLO spokesman"; and suggested that the Los Angeles Times is hiding something sinister by refusing to release a videotape of a 2003 dinner in honor of Mr. Khalidi at which Mr. Obama spoke. Mr. McCain even threw former Weatherman Bill Ayers into the mix, suggesting that the tape might reveal that Mr. Ayers -- a terrorist-turned-professor who also has been an Obama acquaintance -- was at the dinner.

For the record, Mr. Khalidi is an American born in New York who graduated from Yale a couple of years after George W. Bush. For much of his long academic career, he taught at the University of Chicago, where he and his wife became friends with Barack and Michelle Obama. In the early 1990s, he worked as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in Madrid and Washington sponsored by the first Bush administration. We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis -- or even to Mr. Ayers -- is a vile smear.

For his part, Mr. Khalidi, an academic of the first degree, squashes McSame like a bloated cockroach and even throws the clammering, allusion-hungry masses (that would be us) a bone:

Which reminds us: We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." That's good advice for anyone still listening to the McCain campaign's increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks. Sadly, that wind is likely to keep blowing for four more days.

"Idiot Wind"? Definitely. That's a 1974 Bob Dylan tune:

Someone's got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they'd cut it out but when they will I can only guess.
They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy,
She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me.
I can't help it if I'm lucky.

People see me all the time and they just can't remember how to act
Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts.
Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at,
I couldn't believe after all these years, you didn't know me better than that
Sweet lady.

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

Yes, as the song concludes, it's a wonder we can even feed ourselves. There are 4 audio versions of this wonderful song here (click on left margin), and, of course, a beautiful video from 1976:



And so, on October 31, 2008, with 3 full days before election day, McSame brings us yet another boogeyperson and demonstrates yet again that his campaign is nothing more than "idiot wind." And you thought that he had already emptied his clown car of all of the evil creatures and boogeypersons. Wrong. Doesn't he realize that we're already on fear and loathing overload, and have been for 8 long years, and that we're now averting our eyes from his parade of cardboard horrors, that we're saying, "Sorry, McSame", we're moving on? I guess not.

Family Guy Disses McSame

Trance Politics, Part Deux: Joe The Republican Entrepreneur

Pink might be the new Black, Thursday might be the new Friday, and Joe The Plumber (JTP) might be the new Sarah Palin. In other words, yet another gigantic distraction. One with little political or economic substance. Exactly the kind of distraction that diverts us from the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, universal health care, AIG, the DJIA, Gitmo (remember Gitmo?), renditions and torture and empire and the gaping hole in your 401k. In other words, yet another gift from the sinister mind of Rove and the Traditional Media^TM. Put simply, who gives a damn about anything important when we can play around with bald headed JTP?

Do we need a 12 step program for addiction to political distraction? for addiction to trance politics? for watching the repeated re-re-runs of McSame jumping the shark over and over again? I'm beginning to think we I (it's more therapeutic to remain in the first person) might have a problem that requires some serious, time consuming, expensive shrinkage, the kind that's uncovered by my health insurance. And I think the electorate should line up behind me and take a number. I'm not the only addict in the nation. Far from it.

A brief, but petulant review of my most obvious symptom: researching fallacies and writing about them. I learned the following: JTP is not a plumber. He has no plumbing license. He's never been an apprentice. He doesn't belong to the union. So, the NY Times concludes, ta da!, he's not a plumber. Yes, he runs a plumbing and heating business. Put another way, he is yet another, 34 year-old Republican entrepreneur with serious issues and an axe to grind. And, of course, I care, I really do about his "issues." Not. I bet you do also.

What are Joe's issues? Well, it turns out his name isn't "Joe." It's "Sam". And, he says, Obama "can tap dance - almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr." Source. I said he has issues. Like not using his real name and being a racist pig and not paying his f*cking taxes. But I digress. Digression and distraction go hand in hand.

And what about the alleged business that he was so "interested in buying?" Who knows about that? Nobody's got the details of this possible deal. The Times says he wasn't thinking about buying a brand new business for himself. Or starting one. No. He was "thinking about how to expand his plumbing business." So it turns out that the big fat question he asked Obama was actually nothing more than a hypothetical, nothing more than some more Republican talking point, AM radio BS. And his big question was really vague. So vague, in fact, that you still don't know and can't tell from the reporting whether he was going to draw a $250,000 salary (which would increase his taxes the munificent sum of $300 under the Obama Tax plan from what they would be today if he made that much, which he doesn't) or increase his gross revenues by $250,000, which might result in wages to him of far, far less than $250,000, a circumstance under the Obama plan which would actually decrease his taxes. What kind of moron argues against his own tax benefit in this Republican fueled economic crash?

But never f*cking mind. None of the facts matters. Why? Because we're not talking about facts. We're talking about generalizations and garbage. We're talking memes and talking points and BS. Look. Any half-assed accountant, in fact, anybody with a desire to do so and a pencil could figure out to the penny what the difference in tax consequences would be for this guy. Except for one thing. I bet we all almost forgot what it was: there are no details because the supposed "deal" was entirely, completely, utterly hypothetical. There is nothing to figure out. You don't know, precisely, even now, exactly what he was planning on doing, so you can't figure out what the taxes would be under McSame's regressive, voodoo economics plan or Obama's plan or any other plan including the present one.

That, of course, is incredibly helpful to the doleful McSame (does he remind you of Bob Dole, even a little?). Because, folks, we're talking about talking points. We're arguing about the significance of hypothetical circumstances. And most important, we are not discussing what a douchenozzle McSame is. No, and we're not talking about the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, AIG, the DJIA, Gitmo, or renditions. Did I mention torture? We're not talking about anything that matters. We're talking about some rightwing crank plumbing entrepreneur, about whom, frankly, I could give a rat's ass, and the vague, hypothetical question he asked Obama, which McSame turned into florid flatulence in a debate and made this the new, reigning distraction for this Thursday.

The best part of this wonderful exchange between Obama and JTP, who is really JTRE:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" [JTRE] asked. Mr. Obama told him, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you - that they've got a chance at success, too."

"Because you're successful, you have to pay more than everybody else?" Mr. Wurzelbacher said on Thursday. "That's a socialist view and it's incredibly wrong."

But he also acknowledged he earns substantially less than $250,000, which would make him eligible under Mr. Obama's plan for a tax cut.

And if Mr. Wurzelbacher bought his plumbing business and began earning more than $250,000, Mr. Obama's campaign said he would get a 50% tax credit to pay for his employees' health care and have a zero per cent capital gains rate.

During Wednesday's debate, the Republican candidate John McCain lashed out at Mr. Obama for fomenting "class warfare" against Joe the Plumber.

That would be "class warfare" against this Republican Entrepreneur. That's rich. That is cut from the very same cloth as criticism of Clarence Thomas is a "high tech lynching." And crticism of Sarah Palin is "sexist." And now, it's JTRE's turn to play Republican victimhood to the fullest, and claim that alas, that rabid socialist Barack Obama is waging the class war against poor, old him, and all the other, rich Republican Entrepreneurs.

Would that it were so.

Out Of Touch

This is really funny.

Echoes: "Country First" and "America First"

Cartoon By Dr. Seuss

It's been more than 65 years. But the slogan of the RNC and of the McCain Candidacy, "Country First" consciously evokes a slogan from America's recent, right wing, isolationist, antisemitic past, "America First." It's troubling, and it's not an accident. The Republicans might appear at first to be tone deaf. Or maybe they don't recall history. But I doubt it. The phrase "Country First", echoing "America First", is a blatant signal to the far right, the very same people to whom the Republicans offered the Palin nomination, that a McCain candidacy shares their extremist ideological goals.

The history is ugly. The America First Committee (AFC) was formed in 1940 and focused primarily on keeping the US out of the Second World War. A primary spokesperson for AFC was Charles Lindbergh.

You will recall Lindbergh's famous, solo flight across the Atlantic. You might not recall that in 1938 Luftwaffe chief Herman Goering presented Lindbergh with a medal in behalf of Adolf Hitler. Following Kristallnacht, Lindbergh sparked enormous controversy by refusing to return that medal.

Lindbergh declined to return the medal, later writing (according to A. Scott Berg) "It seems to me that the returning of decorations, which were given in times of peace and as a gesture of friendship, can have no constructive effect. If I were to return the German medal, it seems to me that it would be an unnecessary insult. Even if war develops between us, I can see no gain in indulging in a spitting contest before that war begins."

Two years later, Lindbergh, who still had the medal, remained a spokesman for AFC:

On June 20, 1940 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as "Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. He proclaimed that the United States was in a position that made it virtually impregnable and he pointed out that when interventionists said "the defense of England" they really meant "defeat of Germany." Lindbergh's presence at the Hollywood Bowl rally was overshadowed, however, by the presence of fringe elements in the crowd.

However, nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, and the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better. He said in part:

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution the Jewish race suffered in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them.

Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.

For a full text of the Des Moines speech, go here. To hear it, go here.

And who were the fringe elements in the crowd in Hollywood? Newspaper headlines before the speech announced, "L.A. NAZI'S PREPARE FOR LINDBERGH RALLY." And it has been widely written that in addition to the Nazis, Lindbergh shared many followers with Father Coughlin.

Later, Lindbergh was on the defensive, claiming that he wasn't really an anti-semite. And the bombing of Pearl Harbor forced the end of the AFC and its arguments for "neutrality."

That's the relevant history.

The RNC's use of the phrase "Country First" clearly echoes the phrase "America First." Both are extreme. Both seek to imply that those who disagree are, if not outright traitors, unacceptably less patriotic, and that those who disagree find primacy instead in foreign, alien, liberal values, values that are unpatriotic, instead of American.

This isn't a dog whistle only the right can hear. As buhdy pointed out in a comment recently, this is a bull horn. And it's typical, old time, right wing Republican politics. This isn't about change, it's about atavism.

And then there's this:

Obama: Stop Pandering To Barbarians

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this week that Louisiana's statute permitting the death penalty for child rape was unconstitutional. The decision was a step against extending the barbarianism of the death penalty to crimes in which the victim was not killed.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion, saying, in essence, that the crime, awful as it is, does not merit capital punishment.

"The incongruity between the crime of child rape and the harshness of the death penalty poses risks of over-punishment and counsels against a constitutional ruling that the death penalty can be expanded to include this offense," Kennedy wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. source

Put simply, a majority of the Supreme felt that as a substantive matter, the death penalty for child rape was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and could not be permitted.

And now, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, says that he disagrees with the ruling. This from AP:

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

Further explanation:

Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, said that had the court "said we want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision."

Obama's view boils down to this: if the death penalty is "done in a careful and appropriate way" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one) it's ok for a state to expand the crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed. This is logic that would have Obama arguing that the 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), a "blanket prohibition" of execution for adult rape was incorrectly decided. Or that the decision in Roper v. Simmons, imposing a "blanket prohibition" against executing children was incorrectly decided. Didn't Georgis and Kentucky think that these were appropriate cases for death that they would impose "in a careful and appropriate way"?

In fact, Obama's argument sounds an awful lot like the 4 dissenting, conservative, pro-death penalty views in the Supreme Court:

The four members of the court's conservative wing also sharply criticized the ruling, saying a small but growing number of states had determined that the rape of a child deserved the death penalty; they said the court majority was interfering with that judgment.

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

Alito was joined in his dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. source

How wonderful. A states' rights argument about state killing advanced by 4 conservative judges and Barack Obama.

And of course, John McSame, never to be left out of espousing barbarian views has the same position as Obama on the ruling:

His probable Republican opponent in the presidential race, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, also objected.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime," McCain said. "That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."

Both candidates for president and 4 justices of the Supreme Court all espouse an expansion of the crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed by states. This is not "hope". This is barbarism, plain and simple. In a world in which the opinion is that the death penalty should be curtailed, the Democratic candidate is arguing for its expansion.

Obama's just not going to have a Dukakis moment on the death penalty. If it would get him elected, he'd suggest that we use electric bleachers for mass executions of child rapists.

I'm deeply saddened but hardly surprised by Obama's pandering. I only wish there were others who were as disgusted as I am who would call his campaign to task.