mostly palaver

So, it's Biden

Can't really say I'm surprised.  Think it's a good choice, certainly one of the better of the names I'd heard batted around for a while.  Biden does a few key things for Obama, the primary one right now is that he is the guy who is going to go out there and aggressively push against McCain.  Biden single-handedly ended the Guiliani campaign and wasn't even in that race. 

What's going to be funny to watch is how quickly all us Democrats start to explain away his bankruptcy bill vote. 

Gaffe of the election?

This one should hurt McCain badly.  Whether is does is another question.

John McCain said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

It's an amazing thing to say, worse than Bush Sr. "not knowing" how a grocery scanner works, worse than inventing the internet, worse than windsurfing.  Sure everyone aspires to be rich, but I'm certainly not sure that Americans want to be led by someone so rich that they can't keep track of their real estate portfolio.  The Democrats should make sure that this gets blown up, bigtime.

Joe made it easy

I've been arguing for a while that Joe Lieberman should be stripped of his committee chairs regardless of the Dem count in the Senate next year.  Thismakes it a no-brainer:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, one of Senator John McCain’s closest confidants and a frequent companion of his on the campaign trail, has earned a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention, according to a G.O.P. official.

So long Joe.  It'll be interesting if the media still finds him as important once he becomes a Republican.  I don't think they will. Enjoy your anonymity and good luck with the re-election fight in 2012.  Perhaps retiring to Florida will be the order of the day?

Oh, and there was no way that McCain would pick him to be his VP, the speaking slot confirms it. But I'd be willing to bet that Joe would get a cabinet slot somewhere, Defense Secretary perhaps?  Joe is betting his entire political future on a McCain victory.  We'll see.

Enough

I've been seeing a ton of posts like this around the lefty-blogosphere lately:

But now I'm watching [McCain] in 2008, his desperation for the presidency driving him to conduct a campaign that's carefully but relentlessly testing ever more contemptible depths of squalor in its attacks on Barack Obama ("he made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops" is just the latest), and I wonder how he's going to feel when it's all over. Not only will he lose the election, but he's going to wake up one morning and realize that he abandoned his dignity in the process. That's obviously something that's important to him, and even for someone who was never much of a fan, it's kind of sad to watch him give it up so readily.

I don't think it's "sad" and I don't feel bad for John McCain.  He is a grown man making very calculated decisions not some 16 year old kid running for junior class president.  So he loses his dignity? Why should we care? 

I'm serious about this, why should Democrats care how John McCain feels on the inside?  Will McCain feel any less dignified if he wins this way?  Somehow I don't think he will. 

By the way, I'm not even saying that McCain is even surrendering all (but is surrendering much of his public persona), regardless, Democrats should be fighting that much harder to keep him away from the White House, not engaging in speculative pity parties for him.

Hmm...

Compare this article in today's NY Times:

In a recent interview, Michael Chertoff , the homeland security secretary, cautioned against using domestic security programs to help pay for day-to-day policing needs. “I don’t think we want to take a program designed for one purpose and slowly massage it into another purpose,” Mr. Chertoff said. “If you are pursuing street crime, I don’t think all the organs of national security should be involved in that.”

With this article in today's NY Times:

The Bush administration plans to shift nearly $230 million in aid to Pakistan from counterterrorism programs to upgrading that country’s aging F-16 attack planes, which Pakistan prizes more for their contribution to its military rivalry with India than for fighting insurgents along its Afghan border... The financing for the F-16s would represent more than two-thirds of the $300 million that Pakistan will receive this year in American military financing for equipment and training. Last year, Congress specified that those funds be used for law enforcement or counterterrorism. Pakistan’s military has rarely used its current fleet of F-16s, which were built in the 1980s, for close-air support of counterterrorism missions, largely because the risks of civilian casualties would inflame anti-government sentiments in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

I get "surveys"?

Today I received a "survey" from the Republican National Committee, specifically from Carly Fiorina.  According to the letter from Carly:

Your registered Survey is one of a select few being mailed by the Republican National Committee into your area. 

Because of your high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party, your personal input on the questions presented in your VICTORY 2008 CRITICAL ISSUES SURVEY are essential to our Party's ability to maintain control of the White House and recapture our majorities in the U.S. Congress. (emp. in original)

Obviously Carly doens't read mostly palaver. Here are some selected questions from the "survey", answer choice in all is "Yes", "No" or "Undecided".

Do you believe our economy will grow if we cut taxes and put more money in the hands of hardworking Americans who pay taxes?

Should America surrender in Iraq regardless of the consequences in the Middle East?

Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field?

Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench?

Do you think that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients?

Are you concerned about the vast sums of campaign funds being stockpiled by the Democrats and their liberal allies?

Of course, at the end of the survey, they ask you to make a political contribution which was, I suspect, the goal of the mailing.  But perhaps I'm being too cynical.

And before you jump on me, I am aware that nonsense like this happens on both sides of the aisle.  That doesn't prevent me from laughing at stuff from the other side of it.

Presidential Succession

The probability of something happening to both the President and Vice President is vanishingly small (I hope and assume), so for the most part this is a non-issue.  I only bring it up because if something does happen to both, it could be a very big issue.  This is an area where we don't need a top-secret executive order, in fact a top-secret executive order is the worst course of action.  If both leaders of our country are killed, it is going to be very important that we all know who is in charge, with no ambiguity. 

Oh my

Is this worse than Obama's bitter comment?

In an interview with the Washington Times, Phil Gramm, a former Texas senator who is now vice chairman of UBS, the giant Swiss bank, said he expects Mr. McCain to inherit a sluggish economy if he wins the presidency, weighed down above all by the conviction of many Americans that economic conditions are the worst in two or three decades and that America is in decline.

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

Phil Gramm is saying that it is all in our heads.  Wonder how that will play in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 

So, in 3 days the McCain campaign has called Social Security a disgrace and the American people a bunch of whiners.  That's a good week's work.

Thoughts on Obama

Profoundly disappointed with the FISA reversal (but hey, at least he voted, right?) because it cuts to the core of why I liked him so much.  Part of why Obama appeals to me is that I have (had?) the sense that he played by a static set of rules - that is that he didn't try to re-write or bend the rules when it was advantageous to do so. I liked him because I believed he was the most trustworthy, the most likely to use the expanded Executive responsibly (and legally).

The FISA vote calls that into question.  One vote doesn't make a trend, but I am very disappointed in the vote.  Disappointed for the reasons above but also because it is now abundantly clear that there will be no interest in investigating the Bush administration once Obama takes office.  Not that I thought there was a big chance that it would happen, but I enjoyed believing that it could happen.

The rest of what I've read is much more fluff than substance.  I don't see that he's tacked to the center (except on FISA), and I think that much of what we are seeing is a furious attempt by others to cast him as a typical politician in an attempt to demoralize his base.  We'll see if it works.

John McCain is turning out to be a very dangerous candidate

It is rapidly becoming obvious to me that the man doesn't really grasp many of his stated policy positions.  For example, there's this on Social Security (from an interview with John Roberts):

ROBERTS: Senator, I'm sure you're also hearing from them about social security. Because part of this plan, if you're going to balance the budget, is to reform social security. You've talked about the idea of private accounts, as President Bush tried to get through and couldn't. What else would you do to reform social security?

MCCAIN: I would sit down with Democrats and Republicans the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in 1983. And they said, okay, we've got everything on the table here, let's come to an agreement. The approval rating of congress right now is 12% last time I saw. I know how to work across the aisle, I've done it with Democrats and I've done it for many, many years. We'll sit down across the table with the backing of the American people.

ROBERTS: Do you have any idea --

MCCAIN: On the privatization of accounts, which you just mentioned, I would like to respond to that. I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it in an account which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for younger people, it would not affect any present-day retiree or the system as necessary. So let's describe it for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of president-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it. We can do it together, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Social Security is a good place to start because the whole issue is a giant bamboozle.  There is nothing wrong with Social Security and if you'd like to be super cautious some tinkering around the edges will set the fund up in perpetuity.  Please remember that, when you hear about private accounts and Social Security, think "They want to give away all my money." Because that's what they want to do.  But that's not what I came here to talk about (and for background on the Social Security bamboozle, read this).

Anyway, back to the McCain quote above.  Either young workers are going to have their taxes raised ("take part of their own money, which is their taxes") or they are going to divert some of their Social Security contribution away from Social Security which would leave it with a huge funding hole - either taxes would have to be raised on everyone else, or the Social Security benefit would have to be cut (or, I guess, the US could borrow the money to make up the gap but since McCain's agreed to balance the budget by 2013 that option goes out the window because the borrowing would be pretty huge).  He doesn't seem to grasp this. 

And he is not just mis-speaking here.  He has said repeatedly that Social Security needs to be privatized (although he takes pains not to call it privatization) but never says how he'd do it, or what he'd do to close the funding gap.  Here he is at a town hall yesterday:

"I'd like to start out by giving you a little straight talk. Under the present set-up, because we've mortgaged our children's futures, you will not have Social Security benefits that present-day retirees have unless we fix it. And Americans have got to understand that.

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.

Now, how do you fix it? Now, how do you fix it? You fix it by reaching across the aisle, and you say to the Democrats, "Sit down with me at the table. Sit down with me, the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did the last time that Social Security was in deep trouble, and that was way back in 1983."" (From CQTranscriptions, "SEN. JOHN MCCAIN HOLDS A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER AT A TOWNHALL MEETING", July 7, 2008. Accessed via Lexis/Nexis.)(Via Obsidian Wings)

The current system is a disgrace. He can't be more clear about his intentions, and he can't be any more wrong on the substance.  As an aside, he WON'T have the "backing of the American people" here - they HATE the idea of Social Security privatization, so much so that they couldn't even be scared into it a couple of years ago.

And it happens again and again. He is very sloppy in his thinking and that makes it very dangerous for all of us.  Look at his economic plan (curiously number free), his belief that cutting taxes raises revenues (it doesn't), that cutting capital gains taxes increases revenues (it doesn't in anything other than the short run), his failure to fully understand what a cap and trade system is (and how it is useless if the number of permits isn't actually CAPPED).  And that's just his economics, off the top of my head. And he is supposedly the experienced one who has had time in government to think all of this through.   He hasn't.

Remember the last time we elected someone to the White House who was not particularly "intellectually curious"?  We are suffering through that decision right now and we cannot make that mistake again. Have a rudimentary knowledge (at best) of your positions or, worse, only being familiar with the talking points used to sell those positions is a recipe for disaster because it opens the office up to manipulation.  If nobody thinks the President cares about, or comprehends, what is being proposed people will take liberties. 

He is a very dangerous candidate for the country.