MC CAIN THINKS INVESTIGATION OF TORTURERS "WILL AID TERRORISTS"

John McCain opposes an investigation (and prosecution) of the torturers. He claims revealing all the dirty little secrets "will aid the terrorists." Oh, yeah! They will all go and be waterboarded 83 times and try to extend their endurance beyond 10 seconds. Here's the link to the AP story.

And to think that this guy McCain could have been elected president.

MC CAIN/LIEBERMAN WANT U.S. EXPANSION OF WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

In today's The Washington Post, Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain write an op-ed arguing that the U.S. should not be scaling down military operations in Afghanistan.

Write Lieberman and McCain:

"As the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a "minimalist" approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. They warn that Afghanistan has always been a "graveyard of empires" and has never been governable. Instead, they suggest, we can protect our vital national interests in Afghanistan even while lowering our objectives and accepting more "realistic" goals there -- for instance, by scaling back our long-term commitment to helping the Afghan people build a better future in favor of a short-term focus on fighting terrorists.

"The political allure of such a reductionist approach is obvious. But it is also dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it. Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success -- a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary -- can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever "middle way" that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security."

Lieberman and McCain are notorious war mongers who think that all problems can be solved by dropping cluster bombs and shooting people with tank shells. These guys believe that the U.S. needs a war every ten years so that it can kill people who speak different languages and have different skin colors. Thank the stars we don't have McCains or Liebermans running the country. They would involve us in multiple wars, multiple lives lost, multiple civilians killed, blinded, maimed, multiple adventuristic invasions and occupations.

THROW JOE LIEBERMAN UNDER BUS

Think Progress has a report today that Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) wants to let "bygones be bygones" with turncoat Joe Lieberman. Instead of kicking him out of the Democratic Senatorial Caucus, Bayh wants to let him remain, notwithstanding that Lieberman sided with John McCain against Barack Obama in the presidential contest in which he said some very bad things about Obama.

This is unbelievable and outrageous. Lieberman freely chose to endorse and assist McCain in his presidential quest. Lieberman was a constant companion of McCain on the campaign trail. It was Joe Lieberman who sided with McCain in his unyielding position of no compromise with the Palestinians. And it was Lieberman who constantly tried to demonize the Iranians, hoping, I think, for a military confrontation.

I say, kick Lieberman out. He is not a Democrat, he is a Republican. And Bayh is not much better.

BILL MOYERS' GUEST IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE OBAMA'S AD ON MCCAIN'S PLAN FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

I saw and heard Kathleen Hall Jamieson's analysis of various campaign ads last night on Bill Moyers Journal. Jamieson said that Obama's ad on McCain's proposal to create private accounts in lieu of Social Security retirement income was "dirty politics." I strongly disagree with Jamieson.

I found Obama's take right on, contrary to Ms. Jamieson's description. Those private accounts favored by Bush and McCain would divert contributions of younger workers to their own private accounts, thus depriving older retirees of monies necessary to pay for their SS retirement benefits. While it would take some time for this to affect current SS recipients, it still would occur sometime in the future. Furthermore, in today's market meltdown, all types of assets have been decimated. That includes bonds as well as stocks. So 1) Jamieson is not correct in saying that certain types of accounts would protect against market melt-down, or 2) that McCain/Bush SS privatization would not have an effect on retirees or future retirees.

NO THANKS. SARAH PALIN NOT READY TO BE V.P.

Do we really want Sarah Palin a heart beat away from the highest political office? I don't think so. Yeah, she's savvy on talking into a TV camera, she memorized her talking points, she made no big mistakes.

But . . . she knew nothing about stuff like how Cheney has exercised secret powers as VP "on the dark side," what relief could be offered on home mortgages under water for those in bankruptcy, or the causes of the current financial crisis in the credit markets (other than "predatory lenders" and/or those evil-doers on Wall Street).

It shows what a gambler McCain is and was for having selected her as his running mate.

BARACK OBAMA MUTE AS MC CAIN SLIMES IRAN FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND IEDS

I was especially unhappy with Barack Obama's comments last night about Iran. He seemed to go along with everything McCain said, such as that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, that it is an "existential" threat to the region, and that Iran is responsible for the super lethal IEDs inside of Iraq.

First of all there is no evidence from the IAEA that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If there was evidence, that would be another thing, but to date there is none. Yet the neo-cons and war mongers like McCain and Lieberman insist the opposite. So why would Barack Obama go along without raising a peep?

The same for the IEDs. This was the talking point of the Dept. of Defense under Rumsfeld. Yet when called upon to produce evidence, the DOD had nothing. Yeah, the Army laid out a whole bunch of IEDs that it said came from Iran, but the proof could have just as well come from some Iraqi's basement on a home made tool and dye.

During all of this bull****, Barack Obama offered no objections. His performance on Iran was truly depressing.

OBAMA NEEDED MORE PREPARATION FOR DEBATE, ALWAYS ON DEFENSIVE, FAILS TO WHACK MC CAIN ON CIA TORTURE, GEORGIA OR WAR WITHOUT END

The New York Times reports in today's paper that after John McCain said that he was breaking off his campaign to return to D.C. for the bail-out talks and that he wanted to cancel last night's debate, Barack Obama too stopped preparing for the debate. Apparently, the Obama camp had set up an elaborate training site in Florida with stand-ins for the moderator Jim Lehrer and for McCain. Maybe this is what McCain's transparent ploy had in mind.

Obama last night seemed flat and not well-prepared. For example, he said nothing to contradict McCain's claim that he always opposed torture in interrogations even though McCain sided with Bush in voting to allow the CIA to continue that abominable practice.

Obama failed to point out that it was Georgia and Saakashvili who started the Russian/Georgian war by lobbing lethal shells and missiles at the mostly Russian civilian population in South Ossetia. And he stayed mute even when McCain derided him for saying at the beginning of the conflict that both sides need to exercise restraint.

Obama said nothing when McCain said he was naive for saying that he would have talks with world leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (whose pronunciation McCain slaughtered along with Ahmadinejad of Iran) and Cuba's Raul Castro.

Obama was too laid back, too placid, too boring. I attribute all of these failings to his suspension of debate preparation. If I was a campaign adviser, I would read him the riot act.

BUSH RE-EMERGES FROM HIS CACOON, PLEADS FOR BAIL-OUT OF BANKS & WALL STREET FIRMS

So now Bush is front and center in pushing his bailout of the Wall Street firms and banks. And, according to Barney Frank, a deal looks promising that includes caps on executive compensation for those firms that take advantage and sell their toxic debt to the government, protection for homeowners in bankruptcy proceedings in being forgiven the amount their mortgage loan exceeds their equity, and Congressional supervision. So much for Bush and Paulson arguments that caps on executive salary would force some banks to refuse to "participate." Oh yeah, right! The government stands ready to buy their toxic worthless debt at 100% of face value when it is worth zero on their companies' books. Yet Bush and Paulson led us to believe that then the executives would "refuse to participate." Not in your wildest dreams!

And how about that John McCain. What a statesman. He is foregoing campaigning to return to Washington where he will single-handedly solve this whole mess. What a patriot? As Barney Frank said, however, he hopes McCain does not gum up the agreement that has nearly been finalized between Democrats and Republicans.

And maybe, John McCain can avoid that foreign policy debate with Barack Obama on Friday night in Mississippi. This way, on his strongest suit, where McCain can describe how he was a patriotic prisoner of war in VietNam and ask Obama what he ever did, perhaps McCain can delay the debate to more closer to the election on November 4th.

REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON OBAMA FOR LIPSTICK REMINDS ME OF SOUTHERN RACISTS ATTACKING BLACK MEN FOR DISRESPECTING WHITE WOMEN BY LOOKING AT THEM

This tempest in a teapot that the McCain people are stirring about Barack Obama and his remark about lipstick reminds me of the experience of many a black youngster in the deep old South. A young white lady walks by, a black man happens to look her way, and all of a sudden, the white Ku Klux Klan is accusing the man of disrespecting the white woman.

There is little difference between McCain coordinator Steve Schmidt's campaign against Obama and the white domination and denigration of blacks in the South.

The lipstick on a pig comment was clearly not directed against Palin, but what if it was? It is harmless enough. She was the one who originally said that lipstick made the difference between a hockey mom and some mean attack dog.

The Republicans under Schmidt are trying to belittle and embarrass Obama into apologizing. But Obama is right, there is nothing to apologize for. It is John McCain and Sarah Palin who should apologize to Barack Obama.

McCain's people are like the racists in the old South who were always trying to put down the uppity Negro.

MANY MCCAIN SUPPORTERS WANT "CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATOR"

Sandy Levinson has an intersting analysis on the legal blog Balkinization on why McCain is still considered by many to be more presidential than Barack Obama. Many people want a "constitutional dictator" in the footsteps of Bush who even now assumes dictatorial powers in the "fight against terror."

Writes Levinson:

"[T]he undercurrent of the McCain candidacy, as has been true of the Bush Administration, is that we need a strong-man President, the equivalent at times of a "constitutional dictator," in order to "stand up," which means, among other things, playing fast and loose with legal constraints on the President. (Indeed, the Bush Administration position is basically that there aren't any legal constraints on the President when acting as Commander-in-Chief.)"

Levinson points out that Hillary Clinton's 3 AM ad really was touting herself as more dictatorial and power-arrogating than Obama possibly could be. Levinson writes:

"As I've argued earlier, the tacit message of Clinton's notorious "3AM" ad was the existence of a dictatorial president who would make unilateral (and instantaneous) decisions to respond to America's enemies. A truly serious debate would explore the extent to which McCain (and Obama) agree with such a picture, as against their concession that presidential authority is considerably more limited (though, of course, we might all support the idea of "unlimited" authority in some extreme situations). Followup questions could include whether any of the law-breakers in the Bush Administration will be held accountable, including the possibility of prosecution and punishment upon conviction for participating in war crimes. I would be shocked beyond belief if any of the media stars who will be running the debates will be interested (or capable) of asking such questions. Jim Lehrer wasn't even willing to ask about Abu Ghraib four years ago in the first Bush-Kerry debate, and I see no reason to expect better of him this time around."

Levinson bemoans the mindless way many voters go about choosing their preference, not based on issues but on raw impressions. This is the same point made by George Lakoff about whom I posted several days ago. The race will not be won on issues but on personality impressions and code words and phrases.

So I second Levinson's wish that TV moderators ask the candidates what they think about presidential power and the constitutional limits imposed. The vast body of American voters should not be allowed to form impressions about the candidates without seeing and hearing what Obama and McCain think about Bush's "unitary executive" and whether they judge it in conformity with the U.S. Constitution.

COMMENTS ABOUT SARAH PALIN WERE SEXIST IN RETROSPECT BUT CHILDREN NEED PARENTING

I remarked several posts ago on why I thought it was improbable and desperate for John McCain to choose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. I wondered about how Palin could do this with five children.

I recognize this comment now as sexist and inappropriate.

However, I still do believe that parents have an obligation to be parents to their children. So I would fault both Sarah Palin and her husband in the event they both took jobs that took away their parenting role to their children.

I think Sarah Palin has just as much right as her husband or any man to take a job and pursue a career. But there must be someone in Palin's family who can be a parent. In view of Sarah's choice to hold political office, Todd, Sarah's husband, needs to commit himself to be the parent at home raising the children, and especially to take care of the four-month old who has Down syndrome.

POLL FINDS 63% REPUBLICAN VOTERS APPROVE GEORGE BUSH'S PRESIDENCY

Yesterday's The New York Times carried the a report written by Jackie Calmes and Megan Thee on the results of the latest NYTimes/CBS poll.

Democrats should focus on the poll's results because they clearly show that many if not most Republicans are extremists in their views towards the most important questions facing the electorate.

For example, 79% of Republican convention delegates approve of the way that George W. handles his job as president. But how about Republican voters? Some 63% approve George Bush. I find this amazing and at the same time troubling. How could anyone approve Bush or his management of the White House? This means that most Republicans approve George Bush's use of waterboarding and torture, his predilection for extraordinary rendition, his denial of Constitutional rights, his locking up prisoners without trial or charge, without benefit of counsel, without access to the federal courts. And how about Bush's sexing up the evidence to justify the War in Iraq? How can anyone, even a Republican, approve these un-American ways, practices and values?

Yet these same Republicans are nothing if not consistent. As to the war in Iraq, 70% of Republican voters approve taking military action in Iraq. Republican delegates approve 80%. Do these guys every read the papers? Do they really believe the Bush bull that Iraq is and was the center of the "war on terror?" Even though Saddam had nothing to do with bin Laden and even though Saddam was more secularist than Islamist, people like Dick Cheney still try to claim a connection. Like Dick Cheney, these Republicans must get all their news from FOX. Together with their energy mantra, Drill, drill, drill," they also seem to shout, like John McCain, their militaristic "Bomb, bomb, bomb," in response to the world's problems.

ATTACK SARAH PALIN AS ANOTHER MEAN REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST

This is my third post today on Sarah Palin. But I want to bring to your attention a perceptive blog by George Lakoff on The Huffington Post today.

Lakoff believes that Democrats misunderstand the whole electoral process when they stress issues and world realities. The election is not about objective realities but about voters' perceptions of code words. In other words, the Democrats must frame the issues in terms of voters' perceptions.

Writes Lakoff:

"Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview."

So it is not about Palin's supposed lack of experience or knowledge of foreign affairs, but about how voters perceive her. Lakoff believes that it is important for Democrats to correctly and accurately frame Palin as just another Republican extremist meany. Palin is just another Bush/Cheney clone who thinks everything can be solved at the barrel of a gun. Someone who wants to privatise Social Security because she chooses not to see people in need who need Social Security retirement income to just get by. Someone who thinks that the hospital emergency room is the answer to people who cannot afford health insurance.

Palin is a Republican mean extremist who would gladly deprive people of food stamps at the same time she gives upper incomes a tax break. Someone in the mold of Bush/Cheney who thinks that campaigners for civil rights are just uncivil troublemakers. Or like Phil Graham, McCain's economic advisor, who thinks those who complain about the economy and the housing crisis are whiners.

Talk about mean and extremist. Can anyone better fit the description than Sarah Palin?

UNETHICAL (?) DETAILS ABOUT SARAH PALIN TRYING TO FIRE BROTHER-IN-LAW AS ALASKA STATE TROOPER

Sen. John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his vice president running mate is bringing out seamy details about Palin's bizarre and probably unethical role as Alaska governor in trying to have her brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

The Washington Post reports today:

"The July firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan by Gov. Sarah Palin, who was announced as John McCain's running mate on Friday, has unearthed a stream of soap-opera-like details about Palin, her husband, her family and top state appointees. The controversy has also cut against Palin's reputation for holding an ethical line and standing up to colleagues in the Republican Party over matters of principle.

"Monegan, 57, a respected former chief of the Anchorage Police Department, said in an interview with The Washington Post's James V. Grimaldi on Friday that the governor repeatedly brought up the topic of her ex-brother-in-law, Michael Wooten, after Monegan became the state's commissioner of public safety in September 2006. Palin's husband, Todd, met with Monegan and presented a dossier of information about Wooten, who was going through a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly. Monegan also said Sarah Palin sent him e-mails on the subject, but Monegan declined to disclose them, saying he planned to give them to a legislative investigator looking into the matter."

BARACK OBAMA ON VACATION IN HAWAII - A BAD IDEA

While John McCain continues to ridicule Barack Obama as being elitist and snobbish, Barack is vacationing for nine days in Hawaii.

Now I realize conducting a presidential campaign must be extremely taxing, but Barack Obama should not be in Hawaii this whole week. He should be back in the continental U.S. attacking McCain instead of allowing himself to be attacked.

Where were Obama's advisors when he told them that he would take a nine-day vacation in Hawaii? One of them should have told Obama, this is a very bad idea.

We have already lost one election because John Kerry allowed Bush to portray him as a wimp, a girly man, even a faggot. I don't want to lose another.

Please, Barack, don't just take the slurs from McCain, fight back.

MILITARY SERVICE - NOT SUFFICIENT TO BECOME PRESIDENT

The Washington Post weighs in today with an editorial on Gen. Wesley Clark and his comments about McCain's readiness to be president.

All these secret pro-McCain forces seem to want to put down Clark because he said being a fighter pilot is not sufficient reason to be elected president. This seems self-evident. Surely even John McCain would not dispute that serving in the military does not prepare to lead the country.

For once, let's get someone elected president who is capable and intelligent and smart. Not someone who jokes around a lot and makes wise cracks like the president occupant of the office.

MEAN JOHN MCCAIN OBJECTS TO SUPREME COURT GRANTING HABEAS RELIEF TO GUANTANAMO INMATES

John McCain criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling that inmates at Guantanamo have a right to seek relief in federal district court. Why? Because McCain says they are bad people.

Nadine Elsibai and Hans Nichols report today in Bloomberg:

"McCain called the court's 5-4 ruling ``one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,'' warning that the court system would be clogged with petitions from the 270 inmates. He suggested that many inmates still present a threat.
"
``Thirty of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again,'' said McCain, 71.

"The court June 12 invalidated a 2006 law, backed by McCain, which stripped Guantanamo Bay inmates of the right to file so- called habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts. The court's majority opinion, in a rebuke to the Bush administration and Congress, held that inmates at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay are protected by the Constitution and may seek release in federal court."

McCain apparently feels that since 30 of the released detainees were later involved in attacks against American forces, none of the remaining 270 should have their day in court. Surely Mc Cain knows that the vast majority of the detainees got sent to Guantanamo because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many have turned out to be sheep herders or farmers, sold into the hands of the United States by Afghanis wanting to settle scores and/or revenge insults or injuries. Others ended up in Guantanamo because Afghan war lords collected thousands of U.S. dollars per head for each hapless "terrorist" turned in to the Americans.

The Great Writ, as it is called, traces all the way back to King John and the Magna Carta of the 13th Century. The king, or in this case, the executive, is not allowed to lock people up and throw away the key. There must be grounds, there must be due process, there must be a chance to rebut adverse evidence and/or witnesses.

Apparently John McCain thinks it is alright to up "enemies" and keep them in prison without any fair and equitable recourse. How will he explain this to fair-minded voters?

MC CAIN RECYCLE BUSH/LIEBERMAN RUBBISH ABOUT IRAN AS THE "ENEMY"

So John McCain believes Iran is an "implacable enemy," intent on destroying Israel and fostering terrorism attacks. Sounds like he has been listening too much to pious Joe Lieberman. Joe has been whispering in his ear on those trips to Iraq and the Middle East.

This is the same old Bush gunboat diplomacy, only now the U.S. wages war with guided missiles and cluster bombs instead of gunboats.

No country is the implacable foe of the U.S. Mc Cain is merelyrecycling the old Bush hogwash. Even during the Cold War, the U.S. maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

KRISTOL IN NYT MAKES ISRAEL BLAMELESS IN PALESTINE

The arch-conservative and Bush supporter Bill Kristol has a column in today's The New York Times on statements by Obama, Clinton and McCain commemorating this year's Passover. Apparently only McCain passes Kristol's muster because neither Obama nor Clinton apply the Passover of old to today's Israel fighting against Palestinian insurgents.

Writes Kristol:

"McCain’s statement is also the only one to mention current assaults on Jews. He asks us to reflect on three young Israelis — Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser — who were kidnapped in the summer of 2006 by Hamas and Hezbollah, and “who will celebrate this occasion, once again, in captivity.” McCain recalls his meetings with the families of two of these men in December 2006, reiterates his commitment to seek their swift release, and urges others to do the same.


"So if Clinton’s Passover message is liberal, and Obama’s is multicultural, one might call McCain’s Zionist. There’s a clear choice of worldviews here — and not just for Jews, but for all Americans."


The reader is left to pick the right choice, meaning the one favored by Kristol. But wait! We know that the families of the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped are going through agony, and everyone wants them to be released.

But how about the Palestinians? Specifically, how about the families of those two dead boys harmlessly riding their bicycle last week when they were cruelly killed by steel darts from an exploding tank shell fired by Israeli soldiers? How about that Palestinian photographer killed in the same attack. Why does Kristol omit the atrocities suffered on the other side?



Palestinians have done horrible things to Israelis, such as firing missiles indiscriminately into neighboring Israeli towns. But the Israelis have responded in kind. Shelling Palestinian homes, killing Palestinian children, shooting innocent civilians.

If Kristol is going to apply the lessons of Exodus, he should take into account that in today's world, Israel is not without Palestinian blood on its hands. It is not fair to quote Exodus and apply it to today's Israeli government in a way that makes today's conflict a story about Israel's righteousness versus Palestinians' darkness.

But this is what Kristol seems to do:

"Sacrifices for the sake of freedom, the triumph of good over evil — if John McCain was at a Seder this past weekend, he surely would have liked this passage: “In all ages they rise up against us to destroy us; and the Holy One, blessed be He, rescues us from their hands.”"

The Palestinians could, if they wished, take the same passage and use it to justify their own insurgency.

MITT ROMNEY WINS NEVADA, LOSES IN SOUTH CAROLINA

It looks like it is John McCain in South Carolina, Mitt Romney in Nevada, for the Republicans. And Hillary Clinton in Nevada for the Democrats.

What shall we say about Mitt's victory in Nevada? There are a lot of gullible people who must have come out and voted for Mitt in Utah's neighboring state. Because, who else is going to vote for Mitt? The more we see of him, the more his phoniness is apparent. Mitt will say anything, Mitt will do anything, Mitt will promise anything - just to capture someone's vote.

Mitt is the big supporter of George W. Yet now he is running on a platform of change. He says Washington politics and practices must be changed. Yet how does he square this with his sucking up to W? Not just a little sucking up, but a full 100%. As I said, Mitt will say anything.

It looks like he is coming in a distant fourth in South Carolina. I think in Nevada Mitt has won his last primary election because I doubt he will win another state primary.