Saturday, October 25, 2008

Civil War on the Right


This is one time a circular firing squad is in order!


By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19


Conservatives are at each others' throats, and here's what's revealing about how divided they are: The critics of John McCain and the critics of Sarah Palin represent entirely different camps.

Surprise, surprise!

One set of critics, skeptical social conservatives, are precisely the people McCain was trying to mollify by picking Palin as his running mate. This includes the faithful of the religious right who remember McCain as their enemy in 2000 and parts of the gun crowd who always saw McCain as soft on their issues.

That McCain felt a need to make such an outlandishly risky choice speaks to how insecure his hold was on the core Republican vote. A candidate is supposed to rally the base during the primaries and reach out to the middle at election time. McCain got it backward, and it's hurting him.

A Pew Research Center survey this week found that among political independents, Palin's unfavorable rating has almost doubled since mid-September, from 27 to 50 percent. Whatever enthusiasm Palin inspired among conservative ideologues is more than offset by middle-of-the-road defections.

Even on the right, she hasn't done the job. In The Post tracking poll released yesterday, Barack Obama drew 22 percent of the vote from self-described conservatives. That's a seven-point gain on John Kerry's 2004 conservative share.

Yet the pro-Palin right is still impatient with McCain for not being tough enough -- as if he has not run one of the most negative campaigns in recent history. This camp believes that if McCain only shouted the names "Bill Ayers" and "Jeremiah Wright" at the top of his lungs, the whole election would turn around.

Much more of the religiously insane and I would vote for Bill Ayers!

Then there are those conservatives who see Palin as a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party" (David Brooks), as someone who "doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin" (Kathleen Parker), as "a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics" (Peggy Noonan).

These conservatives deserve credit for acknowledging how ill-suited Palin is for high office. But what we see here is a deep split between parts of the conservative elite and much of the rank and file.

For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against "liberal elitists" and "leftist intellectuals." Suddenly, the conservative writers are discovering that the very anti-intellectualism their side courted and encouraged has begun to consume their movement.

The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity -- and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces.

And then there is George W. Bush. Conservatives once hailed him as creating an enduring majority on behalf of their cause. Now, they cast him as the goat in their story of decline.

The conservative critique of Bush is a familiar rant against his advocacy of big government and huge deficits -- now supplemented by horror over his embrace of actual socialism with the partial nationalization of big banks. And, yes, a fair number of conservatives were never wild about the adventure in Iraq.

Things are so bad that the internecine warriors on the right have begun copying the rhetoric of the old left. In a Washington Times column this week upbraiding dissidents such as Brooks and Noonan, Tony Blankley, the conservative writer and activist, fell back on an old left slogan, asking them: "Whose side are you on, comrade?"

This is a revelatory question. It arises when a movement has lost its sense of solidarity and purpose, when the "sides" are no longer clear. There is no unified "right" or "center-right," which is why we are no longer a conservative country, if we ever were.

Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush's apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the "real America" is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin's speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts.

Conservatives came to believe that if they repeated phrases such as "Joe the Plumber" often enough, they could persuade working-class voters that policies tilted heavily in favor of the very privileged were actually designed with Joe in mind.

It isn't working anymore. No wonder conservatives are turning on each other so ferociously.

postchat@aol.com

Read more from E.J. Dionne on washingtonpost.com's political opinion blog, PostPartisan.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Polls Show Bleak Outlook For McCain-Palin

I might be ecstatic if I didn't know about the voter roll scrubbing that's going on in battleground states. A huge turn-out will be necessary along with exit polls in order to make a stolen election obvious to a blind man.

People like Joe "the puke" Scarborough are already laying the groundwork. Double digit leads don't matter because of the "Bradley effect." No one knows what the numbers really are. So says Joe, this morning. He's not alone. Other far-right wingnuts are claiming the same.

Vote early, says Bobby Kennedy, Jr. Make sure you have a government issued I.D. Raise mortal hell if they turn you down because of your name being different on voter rolls than on your I.D.. for example Robert F. Kennedy on one and Robert Francis Kennedy on the other. This is total b.s. and we all know it. Let these Democracy thieves know that it isn't over until we. the people, say it is.

No taxation without representation!

INDIANAPOLIS — A series of new polls released Thursday found a bleak outlook for John McCain, even in traditionally Republican states, and a potential landslide victory for Democrat Barack Obama on Nov. 4.

The polls found McCain trailing Obama in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and suggest that he's behind even in solidly red states such as Indiana, and they also suggest that his talk about "Joe the Plumber" has done little to help his cause.

"Senator Obama is no longer the candidate of the young, the well-educated and minorities. He is now virtually the candidate of the 'all,'" said Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which conducted one of the polls. "He is winning among all age groups in all three states. He wins women by more than 20 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania and is competitive among men in all three states. Whether voters went to college or not, they are voting for him.

"If these numbers hold up, he could win the biggest Democratic landslide since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," Brown said.

A new CBS News/New York Times poll found that a number of groups that supported President Bush in 2004, including married women, suburban voters and white Roman Catholics, now prefer Obama to McCain. Even white men, long solidly Republican, favor Obama, according to the poll, which overall found Obama leading McCain by 51 percent to 38 percent.

In Florida, where a Mason-Dixon poll earlier this week suggested that talk of the economy had helped McCain, a new Miami Herald poll Thursday found the Arizona senator trailing Obama by 49 percent to 42 percent.

The Herald poll, done in conjunction with the St. Petersburg Times by Republican and Democratic polling companies, was one of four surveys out Thursday that found the election map becoming more unfavorable to McCain.

Perhaps the most alarming of all, from a Republican perspective, was one sponsored by universities in the eight states that make up the Big 10 Conference of college sports teams. That survey found Obama ahead in all eight Big 10 states, including Ohio, Indiana and Iowa, three states that Bush carried four years ago. That was a dramatic shift from September, when the Big Ten Battleground Poll found the race a dead heat in all the states except Illinois, Obama's home state.

Now Obama is leading by double digits in all eight states, including Indiana, long a GOP stronghold, where the new poll found Obama ahead by 10 points. The last Democrat to carry the Hoosier state was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

"If the Republican is only winning Indiana by 1 or 2 points, he's in serious trouble," said Charles Franklin, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and the director of the Big Ten Battleground Poll. "McCain still has a chance to get to 270 electoral-college votes, but it's a narrow one."

The Big 10 poll found Obama up by 11 points in Pennsylvania, 12 points in Ohio, 13 points in Wisconsin and Iowa, 19 points in Minnesota and 22 points in Michigan. In his home state of Illinois, according to the poll, Obama is up by 29 points.

The Quinnipiac survey of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania found similar results. That survey found that:

  • In Ohio, Obama leads by 14, up from 12 at the beginning of the month.
  • In Pennsylvania, Obama leads by 13, down slightly from 14 points.
  • In Florida, where Obama led by 8 points at the beginning of October, he now leads by 5 points.

Obama's lead in the Quinnipiac and Miami Herald polls is too small to say with certainty that he leads McCain in Florida, but the Herald poll found some key indicators that McCain may be falling behind in that key battleground:

  • McCain trails Obama in Southwest Florida, long a reliable Republican base, and he leads in only one region, conservative North Florida — by 7 percentage points.
  • Obama has tied McCain among Florida voters over 65 years old. McCain had a 7-percentage point lead in the over-65 group a Herald poll taken last month, just as the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy precipitated the economic crisis.
  • Only 35 percent of Floridians said that McCain has demonstrated more leadership during the crisis and has a better plan to fix it, while 45 percent said Obama has demonstrated better leadership and 49 percent said the Illinois Democrat has a better plan to fix the economy.

The Herald poll also found that Obama's biggest boost in Florida came from independent voters, who now back him over McCain by a 57 percent to 22 percent margin. That's a 38-point shift toward the Democrat since the last poll in September, which was also conducted for the Herald, the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9 television by SEA Polling and Strategic Design and The Polling Co.

The fate of McCain's campaign in Florida and elsewhere was damaged by troubles that are out of his hands, said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican who owns The Polling Co.

She said the ''superseding events" of the financial crisis hurt McCain, who led by 2 percentage points last month. But, she said, McCain's campaign is also to blame for his troubles because it's focused too on attacking Obama for his alleged ties to a Vietnam-era radical terrorist.

''Trying to connect Barack Obama to Bill Ayers rather than trying to connect McCain to the average voter on the economy has also been dubious," Conway said.

The growing importance of the economy and Obama's success in talking about the issue appear to be deciding factors in winning independent votes, which comprise about a fifth of Florida's electorate. Independents have grown increasingly worried about the economy, making them more like Democrats than Republicans.

Compared with about half of all Republicans, just under two-thirds of independents and Democrats reported experiencing big financial troubles — from losing a job to missing a mortgage payment. Of those who've experienced economic duress, 55 percent back Obama and 34 percent support McCain.

Tom Eldon, a Democrat and pollster with SEA, said that Obama has used the economy to improve his standing with nearly all types of Florida voters. In the case of senior citizens, it was his ''pounding" of McCain in television ads about Social Security, Medicare and health care. Obama has outspent McCain on advertising in Florida by 3-1.

McCain's initial response — rapping Obama for his ties to Ayers and the vote-registration group ACORN — missed the mark, Eldon said, because the attacks were geared toward firming up the Republican base, but they alienated independent voters, to whom the self-described maverick once appealed.

"He served up red meat for his base but he starved independents," Eldon said. "McCain has run a base campaign and it's a race right now that is all about the independent voters."

The McCain campaign also took heavily Republican Southwest Florida for granted, Eldon said, by not doing enough to appeal to the region's elderly voters who've lost a lot in the stock market. Obama opened up field offices in the Republican area to keep the pressure on McCain, a tactic that the Republican Conway said was an example of Obama's nearly "flawless" campaign.

However, Conway cautions, "Florida's still in play" in a politically and financially volatile atmosphere. Indeed, though the Quinnipiac poll's findings resembled those of The Miami Herald survey, three statewide polls this week found Obama losing momentum in the face of McCain's renewed attacks over the Democrat's recent statement that he wants to "spread the wealth around" by raising taxes on families that earn more than $250,000 a year.

(Caputo reports for The Miami Herald.)

ON THE WEB

Poll: Independents boost Obama in Florida

Quinnipiac University poll

Big Ten Battleground Poll

CBS News/New York Times poll

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Obama's lead widens in latest Ipsos/McClatchy poll

Obama and McCain vie for working-class voters

Palin's wardrobe expenses prompt complaint to FEC

Health care: Both candidates' plans promise radical change

Veterans: Candidates agree that VA is broken



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


McCain Volunteer's Claim of Attack Unravelled, Online and Off

By Jose Antonio Vargas

Online, no one has control over presenting an event. If something smells fishy, all the bloggingheads are on deck.


Just ask McCain-Palin volunteer Ashley Todd.


Less than a day after Todd's story of being mugged by a dark-skinned man first hit the Web, the student from College Station, Tex., told police that she'd made it all up. At a news conference this afternoon, assistant police chief Maurita Bryant said the 20-year-old said she had prior mental health problems.


Too bad all of the desperate citizens of Wingnuttia can't get help for their mental problems.


But on Wednesday night, Todd claimed, she had been robbed at an ATM in Pittsburgh. After seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car, she said, her assailant -- enraged -- had pinned her down and cut a backwards "B" onto her cheek. Todd, who is white, described the robber as a tall black man.


The Drudge Report picked up the story from a local television Web site and gave it a big headline Thursday afternoon. A photo of Todd's face soon surfaced. Gov. Sarah Palin gave her a call; the McCain campaign issued a statement, as did the Obama campaign.


Palin really is an idiot! Did it never occur to her to resist the urge to pick up that phone until the police gave this woman some credibility? Yep, she would listen to a drunk guy named "curve ball" and start a freaking war.


And, it seemed to many, a combustible moment rife with political, racial and class tension had arrived. "It had to happen," John Moody, a news executive at FOX, wrote on his blog Thursday night.


"If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee," Moody wrote. "If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."


No matter how this thing turned out, I hate to think that the election could be determined by one loon in Western Penn. I must say that I doubt seriously that the McCain campaign put Todd up to this. Palin is just an idiot that fell for it. Just another example of Palin's poor judgment and her not being ready for prime time, let alone the presidency.


But the moment Todd's tale -- and especially its accompanying photo -- went viral, the Web went into typical vetting mode. Is she for real? Where's her MySpace page? (Bloggers found it.) Her Facebook profile? (That, too.) How about her Twitter feed? (Yep.)


Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin was skeptical. One of her readers wrote Malkin: "Notice how the 'B' is backwards on the right cheek ... if you were looking in a mirror and put it on your own face ... she put it on her own face but forgot it would show up backwards." When Malkin posted her blog item at 6:43 p.m. Thursday, she wrote: "Why that McCain volunteer's 'mutilation' story smells awfully weird." Then she updated it later, after police reported inconsistencies in Todd's story. "Police to administer polygraph; conflicting evidence at scene," Malkin wrote.


The backwards "B" is why we never reported on the incident. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.


Steve Huff at True Crime Report said he smelled "a rat" when he saw the photo. He started blogging about Todd on Thursday afternoon, minutes after reading about her on Drudge. By 1:06 a.m. Friday, he wrote: "Will Ashley Todd's Story Implode Tomorrow?"


"Before the Internet age, her story would have had traction for weeks. She could have spun this out for a while, even if the cops said they don't believe her," Huff told The Trail. "But on the Web people started investigating her right away. And it wasn't just bloggers on the left doing it. It's bloggers on the right, too."


This is Sooo true. Bloggers have made a tremendous difference in many ways, often forcing the ACM to report on issues they would rather not.


"But here's a fact -- Todd set up her own crash."


This is one in a series of online columns on our growing "clickocracy," in which we are one nation under Google, with e-mail and video for all. Please send suggestions, comments and tips to vargasj@washpost. com.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Standing Amid The Ruin Of Regressive Politics

Of all the statistics among all the political polls released this week, this rather obscure one, from Pew Research, spoke loudly and, to me, most unambiguously about why the presidential race stands where it stands:

"Voter interest in the campaign remains extraordinary: fully 81% continue to say that they have given a lot of thought to the presidential election, the highest ever measured at this stage in a campaign."

There you have it. Like Samuel Johnson's observation about hanging, it seems that nothing concentrates the electorate's mind like an acute recession and the threat of a chronic depression.

We tell ourselves that foreign wars are indeed a matter of grave concern, what with all their bloody loss of human life and public treasure, but let's face it: one's own pocketbook trumps other people's far more horrendous problems any old election year.

And it's then that the electorate runs home to mommy, the Democrat.

If only we had seen rude upticks in the price of gas and crashing home values and creeping layoffs and etc., etc., etc. in 2004 rather than 2008, perhaps we could have spared ourselves this needless surfeit of economic pain.

But we didn't see it then, even though virtual platoons of high financial analysts were frantically clanging the bells of alarm. Hey, as long as we had what's ours, everyone else -- including our country's sons and daughters marooned in desert or mountainous wastelands of tribal conflict -- and everything else could just by-God wait on the sidelines.

Meanwhile, half-attentively we'd stick with old tough-love dad, the Republican.

I generalize and simplify -- but not, I think, oversimplify -- to highlight a distressing but demonstrable point: Americans are "exceptional" all right, just like Sarah Palin insists we are. But our exceptionalism isn't always in the form we'd care to confess: we are, that is, exceptionally self-interested, self-centered and self-absorbed.

It takes something like this -- a gargantuan global crisis of concentric design in which we, individually, are the bull's eye -- to slap us into that greater reality. Two insanely conducted foreign wars -- three, if you count the amorphous one against a tactic -- weren't enough to quite do the trick.

By and large we were willing to just stumble along with that apodictically clueless stumblebum in the White House, he of historic inattentiveness and downright epic in curiosity. Problems? What problems? Everything was humming right along. We could take his word for it. And we did.

Which, in 2004, forever painted the American electorate itself historically and epically irresponsible.

The question now isn't whether we'll change course (unfortunately, within the inexorable constraints handed to the next president). That, it would seem, is an arithmetical given. Mommy has daddy backed into an electoral-count corner whose already narrow territory continues to shrink by the hour. Talk about your concentric circles and the ultimate bull's eye.

No, that's no longer the question, or should I say, the trick. Because the trick is going to be whether or not we concentrate our minds to learn something from all this pain -- that of the past, present, and even predictable future if we don't.

In short, we have got to grow up. We have got to accept that we are not the biggest kid on the block or the smartest kid in the class any more. We forfeited all claims to those exceptional honorifics -- if real they were -- some time ago.

In fact we threw them away. We were too engaged in self-celebratory, infantile chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" to notice that the good old U.S.A. was going down the tubes. And it was headed south because we weren't paying attention to what our leaders were doing, or, rather, what they weren't doing -- looking down the track.

Because we -- most of us -- had ours. Everything was just peachy, as long as both we and our leaders kept our eyes tightly shut and our minds hermetically closed to that blinding light of that oncoming train. Just permit us our iPhones and cable tv and toss in the occasional "U.S.A.!" and all would remain well.

Or so we thought. But as the conservative intelligentsia (such as it is) began insisting decades ago, "ideas have consequences." And now we're paying the consequential price of years of mostly its ideas, which we fecklessly signed off on, because, simply, we weren't really paying attention to anyone but ourselves.

There were many a voice in the wilderness standing athwart our unfolding history, just as Bill Buckley encouraged us to do, "yelling Stop!" Excuse me, pardon me, coming through -- can't anyone else see that big ugly train speeding our direction down the track? We heard that aplenty, but shut it out.

Maybe, this time, we'll learn. There's always hope, however much hope itself stands athwart the history of human folly.

Maybe we will grow the hell up and not need Mommy or Daddy anymore. What are the chances?

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

NYT Endorses Obama


New York Times endorses Obama for president

reuters.com — NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for U.S. president on Thursday, saying he had ''met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change.'' The Times...More… (World News)




The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Gates Warns Of Dire Consequences In Iraq

SecDef Gates has stated that there will be dramatic consequences if the Iraqi government fails to sign on to the security agreement (status of forces agreement) which allows the U.S. military to remain in Iraq for another three years.

The U.N. Mandate expires this December.

Gates did not elaborate on what he means by "dramatic consequences."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012748415

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Do U.S. Elections Matter?



Linda makes some very good points. There was a a time I would have agreed with her on even more of them. That was before 2000. Can anyone really say that election 2000 didn't matter? If Al Gore had won that election would we be embroiled in Iraq and nearly bankrupt, morally as well as economically? If Al Gore had won the election, would there have even been a 9/11? I guess we'll never know with any certainty about the last question.

I would bet that we would be well on our way to more eco-friendly life-styles and less dependent on middle-east oil. Instead, we're just getting started with the long hard slog of finding better ways of producing energy, in earnest. Never mind that we have known what the continued use of fossil fuels would eventually do to the planet and our health since the early 70s.

Well paid lobbyists will kill us all if we don't change this lousy, corrupt system in Washington and on Wall Street.


Instead, many of us saw no difference in Gore and Bush. Bush was the compassionate conservative, remember? By now all but the most intellectually challenged among us know what an oxymoron that is, but it's way too late.

It's true that no matter who is elected this November it will take years to clean up the mess Bush, Cheney and a Republican majority have made. It is also true that that process won't even begin if we are, as a nation, insane enough to elect them again.

So, I would beg, plead and cajole...vote for Obama/ Biden and give them a congress they can work with and then, as Linda says, raise hell about the issues you care about. If the Democrats can't get the job done, let's organize a third party. As a matter of fact, why not start now? When a third of the eligible voters are too disenchanted or disgusted to bother to vote, something is very, very wrong. Part of what's wrong is the corrupt duality of the two party system.

Maybe this year will be the turning point. It's for sure that Barack Obama has excited the electorate to a degree I haven't seen in my lifetime of close to 60 years.


100 million nonvoters send a stinging message of disenchantment

By Linda Averill


October 22, 2008 "
FSN" - -Legions of people opt out of voting in the U.S. But they are not civic slackers. They’re on to something. Whether disinterested or disgusted, they are casting a vote of no confidence in the electoral system. And it is entirely justified.


The real point of elections is to get enough people voting to legitimize the authority of politicians. Then, they can drag us into wars, bail out bankers in the middle of an economic meltdown, and “earmark” tax dollars to their biggest donors. It happens at every level of government, from City Hall to the White House.


Just as riot is the language of the unheard, abstention has become the vote of the unrepresented. In a debate on voter apathy, blogger Bud Wood put it this way: “It just doesn’t make much difference who or what gets into office. The results are more of the same.”


Whose democracy? There are 100 million nonvoters in the U.S., and they are overwhelmingly people who are economically disenfranchised. They are poor, young, disabled, unemployed and foreign-born, especially Asian and Latino.


Only 48 percent of folks in the bottom income bracket go to the polls. Compare this to 77 percent among those with annual incomes above $50,000. Those earning over $100,000 per year make up 15 percent of eligible voters, but 19 percent of actual ballot-casters. And this percentage rises on up the wealth ladder.


But even active voters are turned off. A study called the “Vanishing Voter” showed disenchantment among voters and abstentionists alike. More than 75 percent felt that “candidates will say almost anything to get elected.” Over one third agreed that “most politicians are liars or crooks.” The only statement that doubled in support among nonvoters was that “Republicans and Democrats are alike.”


It’s true. Big bucks dictate the agendas of both parties. In 2008, Obama and McCain will set new records for spending —over a half billion dollars. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, champions of banking and investment deregulation, are top donors to Obama and Biden, a darling of credit card sharks. Exxon and Chevron back McCain and Palin, a proselytizer for drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.


Even new Democrats and Republicans find it difficult to enter government. In 2006, 407 House seats were up for reelection, with 383 held by incumbents. Of these incumbents, 94 percent prevailed, because they got all the money and media. A good many ran unopposed! This helps explain why turnout drops well below 40 percent during midterm elections.


Meanwhile, workingclass voters are kicked to the curb. Take Latinos for example. Voter forums showed that their concerns include basics such as “buying gas or buying food,” insufficient medical care, soaring war costs, and immigration. So what do both parties offer? Nothing.


In June, the Senate voted 92 to six for $257.5 billion in unrestricted war funds. The House vote was 416 to 12.


On healthcare, McCain and Obama leave untouched the sacred profits of the medical/pharmaceutical industry. On immigration, they offer more crackdowns.


It’s rigged! Actually, many abstainers would vote if they could. Other countries give people a day off to go to the polls, but not the U.S.


In 2004, 45 percent didn’t vote because they were too busy or exhausted, disabled or ill. Another 12 percent were stopped by registration problems, inconvenient polling locations and transportation issues. Translation? This means millions of workingclass voters face insurmountable obstacles, from electoral incompetence to outright dirty tricks on the part of politicians.


In Florida, the notorious ballot software is still flawed, and polls close by 7 p.m. A county in Virginia recently misled students to believe they could lose dependent tax status — and the benefits that bestows — if they registered to vote at their school address. In Wisconsin, the attorney general wants to cross-check every voter who registered since January 2006. This means long voting lines and disenfranchisement for those who can’t resolve discrepancies, including typos.


The list goes on. And systemic, undisguised racism explains why the overwhelming majority of those denied the vote each election are workingpeople of color.


Another 4-5 million are disenfranchised by states that deny the vote to ex-felons, 36 percent of them African American. Non-citizens have no representation, even though they are affected by everything the government does and may have lived here for years.


Minor parties? With such a gap between politicians and people, third parties should flourish. Instead they are blockaded by the money and might of the Democrats and Republicans. Election laws, written by the major parties, make it extremely difficult for minor parties even to appear on the ballot.


Outrageous rules, media censorship, private financing of campaigns, and sheer thuggery have marginalized political parties that compete with labor’s fake friend, the Democratic Party. This includes even parties like the Greens, who simply want to reform capitalism.


It’s not people who vote socialist or Green who throw away their votes. The system does it! U.S. elections are “winner take all.” If a socialist gets 20 percent of the vote, a Green gets 15 percent, and a Democrat gets 51 percent — all votes go to the Democrat.


Things weren’t always so sewn up. At the start of the 20th century, socialists ran on explicitly pro-labor, anti-capitalist platforms. And they won seats — more than 1,200 offices nationwide.


To eliminate the threat this posed, the Democrats and Republicans launched a political witch-hunt. Socialist party offices were raided, pro-labor representatives were denied their seats, radicals were tossed in jail, and restrictive ballot laws were passed.


Raise hell, whoever wins! After this country revolted against the English king, only a few white men with money and property could vote. The fight to gain the franchise by workers without land and Blacks and women was long and brave. It presumed that voting equals democracy and is the path to making society better.


If only it were true. Instead, wealth has concentrated into the hands of fewer people, alongside political power.


The economic elite write the laws to meet their needs. Karl Marx called it bourgeois democracy: by and for the capitalists. Its opposite is democratic socialism: the economic and political rule of the majority, the working class.


Today, politicians may look and sound more like ordinary working people; history is being made with the first Black Democratic presidential nominee and female Republican vice-presidential candidate.


But the empire under the make-over hasn’t changed.


Both parties put on quite a spectacle during elections to persuade voters of how different they are. Election 2008 is no exception. And true, there are minor differences. But whoever wins, things keep getting worse for working and poor people — whether they vote or abstain.


The answer is ringing in a whole new social system, and the way to get there isn’t at the ballot box. The route is through mass radical action that will settle for nothing less.


But your vote isn’t worthless. Send a message — use it to protest your false choices and demand real ones!



Then follow the advice of union organizer Mother Jones. More than a century ago, she declared, “I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don’t need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”


Linda Averill, a bus driver and union activist, has twice run for Seattle City Council on the Freedom Socialist Party ticket. Email her at LindaEAverill@peoplepc.com .



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Maybe We Should Have a Yard Sale


Russia could buy back Alaska or perhaps Canada could pick up sunny Florida



By Eric Margolis


October 22, 2008 "
Toronto Sun"-- At the end of Second World War the British Empire still ruled nearly a quarter of the globe. But the war bankrupted Britain. Its once mighty empire quickly collapsed and the United States inherited much of the British Imperium.

Six decades later the United States is close to bankruptcy thanks to a national orgy of borrowing, the replacement of manufacturing by financial manipulation, ruinous foreign wars and a government whose stunning incompetence and arrant stupidity was exceeded only by its reckless imperial arrogance.

The financial panic now gripping the planet, and the ignominious collapse of Wall Street, showed the American colossus had feet of clay. Washington's furious printing of untold billions of new dollars to prop up its sinking economy, finance this year's $1 trillion deficit and pay debts may unleash a storm of dangerous inflation.

The world balance of power is already shifting. For example, Pakistan's new president, Asif Zardari, went cap in hand this week to China, seeking up to $6 billion US in emergency loans. Pakistan is on the verge of bankruptcy and may shortly default on its debt.

But Pakistan's patron, the United States, which has been renting that nation's politicians and army for $1.2 billion per annum to support the occupation of Afghanistan, can't spare any cash for Pakistan. So Pakistan is turning to China, which has $19 billion in foreign exchange reserves -- the world's largest. The U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan is likely to be adversely affected by Washington's new pauper status.

Bankrupt people, companies and nations have to sell assets to meet their debt obligations. China and Japan alone hold over $1.5 trillion of U.S. government securities (IOUs).

Their nervous central bankers now want real assets rather than more paper.

So there is talk of America's Asian creditors converting their IOUs into shares in U.S. corporations and property.

Sovereign wealth funds from the Arab oil states and Singapore may soon demand chunks of such assets.

In the 19th century European imperial powers used to force loans on China and local rulers in the Mideast and Latin America. When the locals could not pay off their debts, parts of their territory were seized. Russia was forced to sell Alaska to the U.S. for next to nothing when it could not repay its debts.

China's coast was carved up by the British, French, Germans, Russians, Americans and Japanese. These imperial foreclosures created the trading"concessions" of Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, Tianjin, and Port Arthur.

Now, it's payback time for China. How ironic that the Chinese Communists have ended up with a so far sound financial system while the Wall Street bandit capitalists have gone bust.

To help pay its monster debts, I suggest Washington consider selling Louisiana back to France. Canada, whose banking system remains solid thanks to being what Americans called "boring and stodgy," ought to pick up Florida for a song. Canadians have a manifest destiny for sunshine.

Mexico will want to buy Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. Russia, of course, will buy back Alaska and Washington State. China will purchase California; San Francisco will become "New Beijing."

Japan will buy up Washington State, Oregon, Montana, and Hawaii. Holland will repossess New York State, and Germany will buy Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

JUST LIKE BRITAIN

Pakistan's move into China's financial embrace is a harbinger of things to come. Unless the U.S. quickly repairs its economy, its world power could slip away as quickly as post-war Britain's, leaving China, Japan, Russia, the EU and India as the world's new super powers.

This may not be so awful. All power, as Lord Acton famously said, corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As the world's sole superpower, the U.S. under the Bush administration became totally corrupted by imperial hubris, financial fraud, lust for resources and greed.

A world with more balanced, diffused power may be preferable. But what if cash-rich China steps into America's imperial boots much sooner than anyone expected?


BOOM! That's all she wrote, folks!


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

We Don't Rest Until Nov. 5.....

....and maybe not then, if there are more shenanigans of the sort we saw in 2000 & 2004.

Hey, Goopers! If you are seriously thinking about trying to steal this one, DON'T! You might lose more than one election.

This Race Goes to 11 - Powell Helps with Indies


Barack Obama is up 11 points on John McCain among likely voters in the new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, 54 to 43 percent. Though little changed from yesterday, Obama's national lead is now his biggest of the campaign in Post-ABC polling.


Former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement provides a new boost for Obama, who has made significant progress with voters as a leader in international affairs. But Obama also continues to be lifted by more fundamental advantages, including a 2 to 1 advantage on "helping the middle-class."


First on Powell - Two in 10 independent voters said they are more inclined to vote for Obama because of Powell's backing; 4 percent said they were nudged the other way.


In polling after the Powell nod, Obama trails McCain by 19-points on the question of who would be a better commander in chief. But McCain's advantage as prospective commander in chief is sharply diminished from early September, when he held a whopping 43-point lead on the question coming out of the nominating conventions.


Of course, the intervening period also includes the three presidential debates and other events that have turned what was then a roughly even race into one with Obama clearly ahead. And the Powell endorsement does not carry the weight it would have in the 1990s. In the new poll, 77 percent of voters said it will not sway them this year; in late 1995, 55 percent said it would have had an impact during that campaign.


Nevertheless, among those who said Powell sways them toward Obama, nearly six in 10 said the Democrat would be the better commander in chief, while a similarly large proportion of those unmoved by Powell side with McCain on the question.


On the broader question of who would be better on international affairs, it is close to even, with McCain at 49 percent, Obama at 46 percent. That is only marginally different from a poll a month ago, but significantly worse for McCain than the 14-point advantage he had following the GOP convention.


Elsewhere in the new poll - Obama leads by about 2 to 1 on health care (which nudged into the double-digits on the most important issue question) and on helping the middle class. No headway on either for McCain as he and the GOP have stepped up their criticisms of Obama on this front.


Obama's 17-point advantage on dealing with the economy (which remains the breakaway top issue) ties high for the campaign. He also maintains a lead over McCain on handling taxes, 51 to 43 percent. At eight-points, Obama's edge on this question is identical to the one George W. Bush held over John F. Kerry at this stage four years ago. Eight years ago, Bush was up 13 points on Al Gore in late October.


McCain-Bush - After ticking below 50 for the first time two days ago, the percentage of voters who see McCain as a continuation of Bush is back to 51. Voters again split 51-46 on the question of whether McCain would mainly continue in Bush's direction or chart a new course.


Obama-experience - 56 percent of voters said Obama has the kind of experience it takes to be an effective president, 42 percent said he does not. Those numbers match his best of the campaign, and are a touch better than the split on Bush's experience on the eve of the 2000 election (52 percent said he had enough experience to be a good president, 44 percent said not).

Full trend from today's release is here.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


McCain: Only The Last Victim of Junior's Fragile Ego

With apologies to Churchill (who owed a few of his own): Never have so many been so wrong about so much.


There are few things you’d less rather be right now than a conservative/regressive, and that is why. It’s like the old Firesign Theater bit: Everything You Know Is Wrong. “Dogs flew spaceships! The Aztecs invented the vacation! Men and women are the same sex! Our forefathers took drugs! Yes! That's right! Everything you know is wrong!”


And, what’s worse, everybody knows it except you. America is turning decisively away from its tragic thirty-year experiment with Reaganism-Bushism, and for very good reason. Regressives have ruled the country more or less unabated (Democrats, the supposed carriers of the liberal torch, were during these last three decades either frightened, centrist or irrelevent – and usually all three at once). Moreover, during the last years especially – the Cringe Decade – the right was particularly forceful, particularly unfettered, particularly successful at having its way, and particularly arrogant in the self-righteous belief in its authority on all things.


Once small problem, though. If you sat down with a pen and paper and tried to invent a more thorough litany of failure on the right’s watch, you’d be hard pressed to top what they’ve actually done. I suppose inadvertently nuking all the major cities of the United States would be worse, but I can’t think of much else. The simple truth is that the regressive movement took a great and proud and prosperous country and ran it into the ditch at 130 miles an hour. Worse yet, for them – and unlike the bad old years of Willie Horton, or invading Panama, or Clinton’s faux scandals – the public isn’t fooled anymore. They had already caught on to the game, in large part, a few years back, which is why Bush has been moribund in the absolute cellar of job approval ratings for almost the entirety of his second term. Things were already tough for the black hats, but then this economic crisis came and walloped people severely, right in the wallet. One thing about Americans – they’re seriously selfish. You take away their reputation and their liberties and their democracy and they might – might! – vote against you. You take away their money, they’ll rip your fucking lungs out, Bro.


And if John McCain seems particularly short on breath of late, that’s why. There’s nothing quite like the total absence of breathing organs to put a crimp in your respiratory function.


But this crackup is way, way bigger than the righteously deserved toilet training of one John Sidney McCain the Third. This is the end of an era, and not a moment too soon. It now looks like Democrats will win a 1932-style, landslide, realigning election (as I predicted one year ago), smashing McCain in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, picking up double-digit seats in the House, and possibly even gaining a filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the Senate. Even Mitch McConnell, a smug horror story of a minority leader for his decrepit party, looks like he’ll be losing his seat, along with such smarmy dreaded incumbents such as Elizabeth Dole and Norm Coleman. This has all the makings of a serious and even perhaps lethal spanking for the hated GOP.


That would leave wishy-washy sometime-conservative Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as the sole remaining bulwark of regressivism in the American government. Which is to say none at all. It used to be said that ‘justices read election results too’, and never was that more true of anyone than of Kennedy, well before this year, but especially now. Even as we speak (and as I also predicted), we’re seeing many on the right scrambling now to reinvent themselves as progressives (for some, like David Brooks or Coleman, who had been lefties back when that was trendy, this represents a reconversion conversion). Anthony Kennedy will surely be on that list. In the 1930s, this same scenario developed, and a troglodyte majority on the Supreme Court started striking down New Deal legislation in a time of massive duress, only to have an angry public, Congress, and highly popular president turn on them. Kennedy won’t make that mistake. He ain’t gonna sacrifice his personal legacy to keep Clarence Thomas pure, that much we can guarantee. Can you imagine, for example, a Democratic Congress vigorously moving national health care, or jobs, legislation, and a Democratic president ceremoniously signing it into law, only for Kennedy to provide the swing vote on the Court striking it down as unconstitutional? Fat chance. The guy’s not suicidal, and he doesn’t want 300 million angry Americans trying to Google his address.

The trajectory of the regressive movement over the last thirty years has led us to this horrid place. At least you could say that their little mini-revolution began with some ideas, however disastrous those were, and however much they always masked the true kleptocratic purpose of the movement. Reagan had his Cold Warrior shtick, along with some notions of political economy he was peddling. Greedy and stupid Americans, their post-war prosperity already perceptibly beginning to slip away in the late 1970s, foolishly bought the whole package – anything to keep the wallet stuffed and the bloated car out of the hands of the repo man. Reagan surely did not win the Cold War, but he surely did exacerbate the steady unraveling of the middle class. The national debt was tripled, while the burden of taxes was shifted from the rich to the non-rich, and organized labor was undermined at every turn. Surprise, surprise – the rich got a lot richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class stood still.

By the time we got to 2004, the bogus ideas were no longer even bothered with, as the regressive electoral appeal was reduced down to pure lies and a patent appeal to fear. The marketing genius Karl Rove managed to fool all of the people some of the time, and turned war hero John Kerry into someone to be feared and doubted, while war avoider George Bush became GI Joe. That’s a hell of a lot of political detergent to move off of supermarket shelves, but – along with some old-fashioned electoral fraud in Ohio, of course – it worked one last time. Bush bragged about winning political capital to spend in his second term, but you’d have to be as stupid and disingenuous as the little toad himself (the same guy who declared the Iraq war over before it actually began, and who said “You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie”) to have believed that nonsense. The truth was that 2004 was the last gasp of the old black magic, and it just barely worked. Use lies, racism, homophobia, xenophobia and national security bogeymen to scare pathetically ill-informed Americans, and in non-recessionary times you could win another election. Back then, at least.


That game is over now, exhausted for a generation or more, though a shamefully and embarrassingly desperate John McCain is still trying to play it. And why wouldn’t he? If he doesn’t care about his honor and integrity and reputation – and he evidently doesn’t, at least compared to how much he cares about winning the presidency – what else is there for him to do? He can’t run on issues, he can’t run on solutions, he can’t run on his wonderful VP choice, and he can’t run on the peace and prosperity his party has delivered. Indeed, he has to run from all those things. That leaves only one other option, which is for McCain and his team of Rove proteges to do to Obama what Rove himself did to Kerry – that is, sow enough doubt about his trustworthiness in the minds of voters to make them hold their noses and default to the seemingly (but not really) safe choice of the seemingly (but not really) known quantity.


But it’s just not working anymore. In fact, so much is it not working anymore, that nowadays you have regressive politicians and pundits renouncing their own team for trying it. Where were these folks back in 1998 when a group of serious and serial philanderers impeached a president for lying about a blow job? Where were they when Rove and Bush told South Carolinians that McCain had fathered a child with a black mistress, or ridiculed Al Gore for supposedly having claimed to have invented the Internet? Where were they in 2002, when Saxby Chambliss, another Vietnam war avoider, ran ads morphing the face of triple-amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland into those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? And where were they when Rove and Bush were swift-boating Kerry in 2004? I’ll tell you where. They were cheering it all on.


Not so much now. Dylan once said you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but in 2008 you’d have to be an inter-galactic astronaut or the doorkeeper for Cheney’s underground bunker to not know. And so the regressive right blovitoriate is splitting before our very eyes, into two camps. One is the unreconstructed Neanderthal set, like William Kristol and Victor Davis Hanson, who can’t quite believe what they’re seeing (“But this can’t be right – we own the presidency!”), who thought the Sarah Palin pick was just plain inspired, and who are encouraging McCain to stop pussyfooting around already. Kristol, for example, watching it all just melt away, has been furiously trying to find a gambit to keep the regressive dream alive. First he advised McCain to go all Rove on Obama, which McCain did, sending Palin out to describe That One as having ‘palled around with terrorists’. Unreal. You know you’re in deep shit when Sarah Palin is your voice of moral authority (her best line yet has been her claim this week to be relieved that she has been fully exonerated by the Alaska legislature’s corruption probe, which in fact flat-out accused her of breaking the law by abusing power for personal gain).

Anyhow, having realized that Ayers accusations are actually diminishing McCain’s popularity rather than enhancing it, Kristol is now calling for McCain to fire everyone on the staff and for the “competent” McCain and Palin to just do constant press conferences until election day. Nevermind that allowing Palin to talk to the press or public in any unstructured environment would put McCain in danger of being on the ugly side of a fifty-state sweep right now. (You think I’m kidding? McCain is up a whopping six percent in Georgia at the moment, eight percent in Mississippi, and one percent in North Carolina, home of Jesse Helms. He’s currently losing by two points in that bastion of leftist fomentation, that revolutionary hotbed, the People’s Republic of North Dakota.) Perhaps the most amusing line of this entire election cycle came from the McCain campaign staff, (perhaps slightly miffed by the suggestion that they all lose their jobs), who claimed that Kristol, of all people, has now drunk from the cup of Obamania. Wow. Who needs a dictionary definition for paranoia when you’ve got that to work with?


The other great line that Kristol floated as a rationale for voters to choose McCain, and a theme of late among the drowning right-wing punditocracy, is that McCain should argue for votes by saying that he will be there to block what is sure to be a Democratic and – wait for it now – liberal (oooooooh!!) Congress. Let’s leave aside the obvious and traditional solution to such a quandary, which is that McCain could instead simply encourage voters to choose Republicans all up and down the ticket (could there be something toxic about the R-word in 2008?). But even apart from that rather obvious bit of logical lunacy, what sort of frighteningly vapid bonehead do you have to be to think that divided government is a winning notion in 2008? I mean, raise your hand if you think that what Americans want right now, in the middle of multiple crises, including one which is destroying their retirement savings and threatening their jobs, is a gridlocked government in which Congress passes legislation shot down by the president’s veto pen, and the president proposes solutions ignored by a Congress controlled by the other party. Do they really pay these guys big bucks to pen this sort of drivel? These morons are the pundicratic equivalents of Wall Street’s equally brilliant masters of the universe, only in six figures instead of nine.


Take, for example, Victor Davis Hanson, who says that, since the campaigns of previous GOP nominees – ranging from the racism of the Willie Horton project to the swiftboating of war heroes – were worse than the present transgressions, therefore “McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race”. Yeah, Cindy McCain said that too, arguing that Obama has run “the dirtiest campaign in American history”. I suppose if you find trouncing her husband to be dirty politics, she’s right. But the notion that a campaign which is trying to win by tying the other guy to an unknown former radical who blew stuff up when the candidate was eight years old is somehow not running a vicious campaign is so big a stretch that not even a lot of regressives will make it anymore. Nevermind that the education commission that both Obama and Ayers served on was a project of the Annenberg family, huge supporters of Reagan and, yes, one John McCain. And nevermind that that means that the Annenbergs, and McCain, and all the conservative members of the commission have, by the same logic, palled around with terrorists at least as much Obama. Oops.


But, for my personal favorite, there’s that famous political philosopher, Ted Nugent (better known to some as a horrid screaming shred-metal rock singer, or an enthusiastic murderer of animals), who advises McCain to go all Reagan and tell the people once again that government is the problem, not the solution. Yep, just as every American is scrambling for a lifeboat in an economic Category 5, and even the Bush administration is doing its very best impression of V. I. Lenin by plunging the government deep into economic interventions, he literally advises McCain to “Tell us the federal government has no business in the home loan industry and that you will take our economy away from the Treasury Department bureaucrats and give it back to the bankers, stockbrokers and company leaders that have made our economy thrive since Alexander Hamilton served at Treasury.” Hey, Ted, you forgot pedophiles and serial murderers on your list of popular people right now! Stockbrokers? Yes! CEOs? Yes! Oh please, John McCain, please. Please sing their praises in the closing weeks of the campaign. Just because Ted Nugent seems like the very antithesis of a thoughtful political theorist, just because he seems like a metal-headed rocker who has turned it up to eleven once too many times, I guarantee you, John, that he is not. Your can win the presidency if you’ll just follow his advice and talk incessantly about all the heroic stockbrokers and CEOs you’ll put in your cabinet! This will really resonate with American voters right now!! Maybe you could even pardon some of those Enron guys and put them to work running the country. (Again.)


Meanwhile, the other faction of the wrong-wingers are leaving the sinking ship as quick as they can and hoping nobody notices. Like David Brooks, for example, who called Palin “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party” and is otherwise similarly leaving behind his old comrades on the right in article after article he authors. Or Frank Schaeffer, who describes himself as a “lifelong Republican, [who] worked to get [McCain] elected instead of George W. Bush” in 2000, but who now writes: “John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as “not one of us”, I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.” Ouch. Or, Christopher (son of William F.) Buckley, who has endorsed Obama, only to be driven out of the National Review, the conservative journal famously launched by his father back (to the future) at a time when no one was listening to such gibberish. According to Young Buck, he’s “been effectively fatwahed by the conservative movement” ever since his act of great apostasy. That’s a great line, as was the entirety of Buckley’s hilariously accurate and embarrassingly realistic script for “Thank You For Smoking”. Memo to regressives: It’s not a real good idea to piss off people with such sharp skewering knives. Meanwhile, welcome to the sanity club, Chris. We hope you’ll stay a while. You’ll always be welcome among the fast-exploding ranks of the reality-based community.


So grim has the McCain campaign become, and so diminished are the fortunes of the regressive right, that people are jumping ship now as if they owned stock in General Motors. And why wouldn’t they? This last week in particular has been one of the most horrible ever in American politics. You could start with the fact that a grossly under-qualified nominee for Vice President is already nearly being indicted for abuse of power, and she hasn’t even hit Washington yet. So far, that’s just a reflection on the grossly under-honorable man who selected her, purely to benefit his own career aspirations. But when you add in the fierce devotion that Palin engenders among the legions of the scary right, you can really get depressed.


All of this was on such full display this week that even John ‘Say Anything’ McCain seemed taken aback at one or two events. I think he realized just who it is that his campaign is attracting nowadays. I think he realized his complicity in fomenting such visceral hatred that we now see people attending rallies of one of the two mainstream parties in America screaming out “terrorist” and “kill him” with respect to the man they’re introducing as Barack Hussein Obama. I think he was a little shell-shocked that not only members of his own party were publicly rebuking him, but civil rights hero John Lewis compared him to the racist monster George Wallace. This would be especially devastating if it had occurred in an America where people paid attention to politics, since McCain had just recently named Lewis as one of a few people whose advice he would seek out were he president. That comment, uttered just last August, was already an odd remark, since Lewis is a liberal Democrat, and McCain once opposed making Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday, and because Lewis let on directly afterwards as to how McCain had never sought him out even for small talk during the two decades they’ve both served in Congress. But now, of course, it’s even more absurd, because the first bit of advice Lewis offered caused the McCain camp to go insane and demand that Obama rebuke Lewis, even though the two have nothing particularly to do with one another.


The truth is that a guy who once possessed a broad reputation for decency and integrity, deserved or not, came to grips this week with the realization that he is not only losing his last bid ever for the presidency, but that he is losing his honor as well. McCain knows that he will not only go down in history as a two-time presidential loser, but also as yet another hate-mongering, horror-show, thug graduate from the McCarthy/Nixon/Atwater/Rove/Schmidt school for the criminally insane. The once proud John McCain, filled up with generations of military values extolling the crucial importance of gentlemanly honor, has become just another ill-smelling hack. Worse yet, he’s a loser hack, who will never have the chance to rehabilitate himself. At least when George H.W. Bush pissed all over his country he won the race, and got to join that most exclusive club, and then he had four years to make people mostly forget about Willie Horton. McCain, on the other hand, has bungled his way into the full-on nightmare vision of a lost election coupled with lost integrity.


But McCain owns this Shakespearean tragedy in full. Part of me is a bit sad to say that, remembering the John McCain who once had the honesty to note that “America has the best Congress money can buy”, or who called the freaks of the religious right “agents of intolerance”. But most of me is no longer sad. George W. Bush and the regressive movement have devastated the country and planet where I live, and their motive for doing so was ultimately just simple greed. McCain has spent the past eight years facilitating that monstrous and monstrously lethal mass rape. It is therefore fitting that a man who was once highly respected should experience ruin not once, but twice, at the hands of a moral dwarf like George W. Bush. In 2000, Bush used the scummiest of scummy techniques to emasculate John McCain, a man who was infinitely his better in every respect. Now again today, the Chimpster-in-Chief sits in his Oval Office, smirking as ever, sociopathically oblivious as the legacy of his two terms – both of which McCain actively helped him win – sealing the senator’s fate for a second time.

The number of sacrificial victims to the fragile ego of one George Walker Bush is astonishing to contemplate. It’s staggering to imagine that one individual’s personal childhood inadequacies could wreak so much havoc on an entire planet, but indeed they have.

From Tony Blair’s career to the lives of a million Iraqis. From Americans’ wallets to their country’s very honor. From environmental destruction to the Republican Party itself. All relegated to the ash heap of history.

John McCain is only the latest to be added to that list.


David Michael Green

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


McCain's push may not budge Pennsylvania

Let's hope not! Come on Pennsylvanians! Early Vote for Obama!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign22-2008oct22,0,5359086.story
From the Los Angeles Times


The Republican's campaign is struggling to win the blue state to offset potential losses of former red states.

By Peter Nicholas and Bob Drogin

October 22, 2008


Reported from Washington and Bensalem, Pa.John McCain's efforts to snare Pennsylvania appear to be faltering despite a substantial commitment of his time, leaving him with a narrower path to the magic number of 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.


McCain
is targeting Pennsylvania in hopes of winning at least one state that voted for Democrat John F. Kerry in 2004. With 21 electoral votes, a victory in Pennsylvania could offset possible losses in smaller states captured by President Bush in the last contest.


Yet by any number of measures, McCain's prospects are dimming. An aggregate of public polls shows Barack Obama with a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 1.1 million, about twice the gap in 2004, state figures show.


What's more, prominent Republicans worry that McCain's message is flawed or is being drowned out by waves of Obama ads.


McCain
aides insist that they can still win Pennsylvania. Recognizing the stakes, McCain is spending much of the dwindling amount of time left on the campaign trail traversing the Keystone State.


Depriving Obama of a win here is essential for McCain. If Obama holds Pennsylvania, he can clinch the presidency by winning various combinations of states that voted Republican four years ago but are now tilting Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia and North Carolina among them.


A look at McCain's schedule attests to his predicament. He is largely playing defense, trying to hold Republican territory. Apart from Pennsylvania, he has campaigned since Friday in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Missouri -- all states that backed Bush four years ago. Polls show Obama leading or nearly tied in each of them now.


Pennsylvania
Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat, said of the McCain campaign in an interview Tuesday: "Pennsylvania is essential to their victory plan, though it's a long shot. If you assume Iowa is gone and New Mexico is gone and Virginia is gone, they have to win a substantial blue state. And we're the best choice out of a lot of bad choices."


But Rendell added that an Obama victory was no sure thing.


Race may be a complicating factor. U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said last week that some in western Pennsylvania may be reluctant to vote for Obama because he is black. "There's no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area," Murtha said. He later apologized for the remark.


Rendell
said he pressed for former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, popular figures in Pennsylvania, to make return visits before election day. "I'm fighting hard to get our principals back in," Rendell said. "Virtually anything can happen in two weeks."


Tuesday marked the 18th day McCain had visited Pennsylvania in the general election contest. He planned three rallies in the state, crossing east to west from Philadelphia to Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. His wife, Cindy, made four stops in the Philadelphia area and York, Pa., on Monday, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, appeared in Lancaster over the weekend.


Asked whether McCain might return to Pennsylvania in the 13 days left in the campaign, senior advisor Mark Salter said: "Quite possibly."


For all the commitment McCain has made, some Republicans worry that he faces mounting difficulties.


Richard L. Thornburgh
, a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, said in an interview that barring a "November surprise," the chances of a McCain victory in the state were small. "That's the only thing that could turn it around, and I don't know what that could be," said Thornburgh, who was attorney general under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.


Explaining McCain's plight, Thornburgh added: "The economic situation is no help to him. It's always produced an anti-incumbent feeling, and try as he might, McCain can't seem to distance himself from the president on that."


Even so, Thornburgh said, McCain needed to do a better job of fixing responsibility for the financial crisis on Democrats, who've controlled Congress for the last two years.


Kate Harper
, a Republican member of the state General Assembly from the Philadelphia suburbs, said McCain's outreach to state voters had been hurt by a lack of money.


"He's having trouble getting his message out," Harper said. "The Obama ads are overwhelming. You can't turn on the radio without hearing Obama ads. I switch to music and he's on all the stations."


Undaunted, McCain aides said they wouldn't give up on the state. "We feel we're going to be successful" in Pennsylvania, Mike DuHaime, political director of the McCain campaign, insisted Tuesday, calling McCain the strongest Republican in the state since Reagan.


In a conference call with reporters, he argued that because Kerry won the state by only 140,000 votes, McCain "needs to flip" only 2,000 votes in each of the state's 67 counties. "You're talking about moving a couple thousand votes per county," he said.


He said the campaign was operating three dozen offices in the state and was making hundreds of thousands of phone calls a week to identify and persuade potential GOP voters.


But if they are generating excitement for their candidate, it is hard to see it at McCain's events.


At a rally in the blue-collar Philadelphia suburb of Bensalem on Tuesday morning, fewer than 500 people showed up. The tiny turnout inside the hangar-sized Technology Creativity Manufacturing center underscored the apparent lack of enthusiasm that dogs McCain. Local GOP offices had promoted the rally, and some in the crowd said they had heard about it on TV news.


The event provided a sharp contrast to a pair of Obama's weekend rallies in Missouri, attended by 75,000 and 100,000 people.


Nicholas
and Drogin are Times staff writers.

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

bob.drogin@latimes.com

Times staff writer Maeve Reston contributed to this report.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


More Democrats Casting Early Ballots, Data Show


A thought occurred to me, after McCain's amazing comeback in the primaries. Is it possible that the Bush machine wanted the GOP to lose this year, dumping all Junior's problems in Democratic laps while planning to run Jeb in 2012?



October 22, 2008

With as many as one-third of voters expected to cast their ballots before Election Day, preliminary data from several key battleground states show more Democrats than Republicans have voted early.

While the information should hardly be considered predictive of how the election may turn, accounting for just a fraction of the vote, it does offer a window into the loyalties of this growing segment of the electorate. The early tabulations of party affiliations seem to bolster polling that shows Senator Barack Obama’s campaign on the electoral offensive in states that President Bush won in 2004.

Significantly more Democrats than Republicans have cast ballots at this early stage in Iowa, North Carolina, New Mexico and Ohio, according to data analyzed by The New York Times.

Information from counties representing more than 90 percent of Nevada’s population show Democrats also holding a commanding advantage in early voter turnout.

In Florida, however, Republicans appear to hold the upper hand, while in Colorado, early voting is about evenly split among Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Bush won all those states in 2004.

The dates when early voting begins and ends vary by state. Experts cautioned that the full impact of early voting cannot be known until the choices of those without party affiliations become more clear on Election Day.

In years past, however, early voting has tended to favor Republicans, according to voting experts. Mr. Bush won the early vote in 2004 in his race against Senator John F. Kerry, 60 percent to 40 percent. Mr. Bush won early voters by a similar margin in his 2000 run against Vice President Al Gore. As a result, the preliminary data from some states has surprised certain experts.

“In the past, what you’ve seen is early voters tend to be older, had higher incomes and lean more Republican and that trend has held over the past elections,” said Paul Gronke, executive director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Oregon. “But what we are seeing now when you look at the numbers is that they are more African-American, Hispanic and the young. I look at this and I go, ‘Wow!’ This is quite different. It is a lot different from what we’ve seen before and it has to raise concerns for the G.O.P.

The early voting is part of a broader transformation in the way Americans vote. In the past, absentee voting was reserved mainly for those unable to make it to the polls on Election Day, whether because of sickness, business or military service. Now more than 30 states allow voters to cast early ballots either in person or by mail without requiring an excuse.

In 2004, 22 percent of voters cast an early presidential ballot; in 2000, 16 percent voted early. But a national poll of 2,500 registered voters conducted from Oct. 16 to 19, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, indicated the number could grow in 2008, with 24 percent saying they planned to vote before Election Day and 7 percent indicating they already had.

Both figures were up significantly from a survey conducted in the same period in 2004. The poll found Mr. Obama held a commanding advantage among early voters, which Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew center, said could be problematic for Senator John McCain.

“If one candidate has the momentum at an early stage before Election Day, it’s going to favor that candidate,” Mr. Kohut said. “If there’s a last minute surge because of some event to the trailing candidate, well, the train has left for an awful lot of people these days.”

Some of the most detailed early voting data examined by The Times came from North Carolina, a state Republicans have rarely had to defend but Mr. Obama is vigorously contesting. More than 481,000 ballots have been cast in the state, a significant increase from this time in 2004.

At this point, 56 percent of the early voters in North Carolina are Democrats, compared with 27 percent who are Republicans and 16 percent unaffiliated. Democrats also had a slightly larger share of white voters and represented more than 90 percent of the black vote, which could help turn the tide in a state that last voted for a Democrat for president in 1976.

“From our perspective, it looks very good,” said Jerry Meek, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party.

Michael McDonald, a voting expert at George Mason University, who has examined early voting data in several states, said the data from North Carolina was stunning.

North Carolina, in particular, is off the charts,” Mr. McDonald said. “This is outside of what we expected.”

In Iowa, meanwhile, more than 200,000 ballots have already been received by the state. Democrats have returned about 52 percent of them compared with 20 percent for Republicans.

But Caleb Hunter, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party, played down the disparity, pointing out more Democrats than Republicans voted by absentee in 2004 but President Bush still won the state. He said Democrats in the state have tended to focus more on early voting than Republicans.

“A bit of it is culture,” Mr. Hunter said. “Our voters like to go to the polls on Election Day. That’s part of their citizenship, filling out the registration, standing in the line, so we focus a lot of our efforts and time and energy on that program.”

In New Mexico, the breakdown so far has been: Democrats 55 percent, Republicans 35 percent, independents 11 percent. In Ohio, it has been: Democrats 46 percent, Republicans 24 percent and independents 30 percent.

In Colorado, Republicans represented 40 percent of the combined early vote, while Democrats had 38 percent.

In Florida, more than 785,000 ballots have been cast, with Republicans accounting for about 47 percent of them, compared with 39 percent for Democrats and 11 percent for independents.

“We are essentially implementing the same successful program that Bush-Cheney used to win Florida in 2004,” said Buzz Jacobs, the southeast regional campaign manager for the McCain campaign.

In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Mike DuHaime, political director for the McCain campaign said the Republican candidate was working to turn out early voters across the country by sending them mailings, calling their homes and directing canvassers to their doors.

The Obama campaign has also worked to capitalize on early-voting laws. Pitching early voting has become a mandatory part of Mr. Obama’s message, which he employed as he campaigned Tuesday in South Florida.

“Whoever comes and sits in that chair, tell them to early-vote,” Mr. Obama told the proprietor of a barbershop he visited in Fort Lauderdale. “No excuses.”

The Obama campaign has built databases on all of their supporters, focusing specifically on encouraging early voting among people who have long commutes or children or other potential obstacles to voting on Election Day. “The early data,” said Jim Messina, chief of staff for the Obama campaign, “says we have been even more successful than we had hoped.”

Jeff Zeleny and Michael Cooper contributed reporting.



Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)



The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Did McCain Campaign Tamper With Witnesses

Why don't we just out law the Republican Party and be done with it?

In a new front for Gov. Sarah Palin’s “Troopergate” troubles, a top Alaska Democratic lawmaker has called on the state’s attorney general to appoint an independent investigator to probe whether operatives in Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign broke Alaska’s criminal witness-tampering laws.

In a letter to Attorney General Talis Colberg, state Rep. Les Gara alleges that McCain’s campaign staffers influenced witnesses close to Palin to get them to withhold cooperation from a legislative inquiry into whether Palin abused her authority in pursuing a vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper.

“I am concerned that the state’s criminal witness-tampering laws have been broken by certain staff for Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign,” Gara wrote to Colberg on Monday.

Gara said the McCain staff arrived in Alaska after Palin was picked as McCain’s running mate on Aug. 29 and spent the next month and a half trying “to stall or stop” the investigation by getting several senior Palin aides and her husband Todd to balk at giving depositions.

Gara noted that Palin’s aides had agreed in July to be deposed about allegations that Palin improperly fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan after he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten. However, after Palin’s selection as the GOP vice presidential nominee, the aides reneged.

Colberg, a close Palin ally, rebuffed Gara’s request on Tuesday, urging that the lawmaker instead take his concern to the state personnel board and ask that the board expand its existing review of Palin’s actions.

“You suggest that my department may have a conflict of interest in investigating or supervising the investigation of the matter directly,” Colberg wrote. “Since the scope of the [personnel board] investigation ,,, has greatly expanded, investigator Timothy Petumenos ... may be willing to add the federal witness-tampering criminal allegations to his inquiry.”

Despite resistance to the subpoenas from Palin’s aides and from Colberg, the legislative inquiry on “Troopergate” was completed on Oct. 10 with a finding that Palin had abused her authority and violated the state ethics law that bars officials from using their positions to further personal aims.

Gara began his push to have the witness-tampering issue addressed last month with a letter to Colonel Audie Holloway, director of the Alaska State Troopers.

"Something has caused, or in the words of the statute, may have ‘induced’ these witnesses to change their position," Gara wrote. "It seems a witness would not risk possible jail time that comes with the violations of a subpoena without advice of others."

Holloway responded in writing to Gara on Oct. 2, agreeing that the witness-tampering concerns were a “serious issue” but declining to pursue an investigation because of the unusual situation surrounding the possible crime.

“Although the Alaska State Troopers are mandated to enforce criminal and regulatory laws throughout the state, investigations into reported violations are always subject to certain practical limitations even in normal situations. The current situation is anything but normal,” Holloway wrote.

Holloway noted that the underlying dispute involved his state troopers -- and that Attorney General Colberg had been party to the Palin administration’s efforts to contest subpoenas served on Palin’s aides.

Given these concerns, Holloway concluded, “The short answer is that I cannot dedicate resources at this time.”

But he suggested that Gara might seek a directive from the legislature and the executive branch for the state troopers to hire an “unbiased investigator for this type of sensitive investigation.”

Earlier Investigation

The “Troopergate” investigation has centered on whether the governor, her husband and several of her senior aides pressured Public Safety Commissioner Monegan to fire Trooper Wooten, who was in an ugly divorce and child custody dispute with Gov. Palin's sister.

Besides faulting the Palins and the governor's associates for applying this pressure, the Oct. 10 investigative report by special counsel Steve Branchflower criticized Attorney General Colberg for not turning over e-mails to assist the probe, further suggesting that Gara's letter will receive a cool reception from Colberg.

In his letter to Colberg, Gara cited a pattern of behavior by the Palin administration “suggesting our criminal laws may have been broken.”

“Until Aug. 29 [when Palin was tapped by McCain as his running mate] no witness ever refused to comply with a request by the Independent Investigator [Branchflower] for an interview,” Gara wrote.

“Starting Aug. 29 witnesses who had never objected to the investigation suddenly refused to voluntarily show up for interviews with Mr. Branchflower. After refusing to show up voluntarily, these witnesses then refused to show up for subpoena’s issued by the Legislature.

“It is hard to believe that witnesses who had never previously objected to appearing for testimony would risk, without outside advice or pressure, the potential jail time that comes with a refusal to comply with a subpoena.

“Between Aug. 29 and the release of the Independent Investigator’s report on Oct. 10, approximately 10 witnesses failed to show up before the Senate Judiciary Committee for their subpoenas. After failing to show up for subpoenas, these witnesses did later provide written statements.

“Their later decision to submit to written questions, after failing to show up for their subpoenas, doesn’t cure this violation, or any criminal conduct by any person who attempted to induce those witnesses from showing for their subpoenas.”

Gara said, “It appears there has been contact with witnesses, previously willing to cooperate in this investigation, and that persons may have ‘attempted’ to ‘induce’ them not to comply.”

In another development, an attorney hired by Alaska’s personnel board to investigate whether Gov. Palin violated state ethics laws in the “Troopergate” case is expected to depose the governor and her husband this week at an undisclosed location in another state.

Timothy Petumenos, the attorney hired by the personnel board, will spend about six hours interviewing Palin and her husband, Todd, according to Thomas Van Flein, an attorney representing the Palins. It’s unknown whether Petunmenos will release a report prior to the Nov. 4 election.

Petumenos's investigation is said to include at least two other ethics complaints filed against Palin, one of which is believed to be a complaint filed by the Public Safety Employees Union alleging Palin and her aides illegally accessed her ex- brother-in-law's personnel files and improperly and illegally tried to get him fired from his job as a state trooper.

Citizen watchdog Andree McLeod filed the only other publicly known ethics complaint against Palin. McLeod alleges the governor secured a state job for one of her fundraisers.

On Sept. 2, just a day before accepting the GOP nomination, Palin took the unusual step of filing an ethics complaint against herself, a move that was designed to head off the legislative inquiry.

Palin and her campaign advisers appeared to be betting that the personnel board would clear her of wrongdoing in the firing of Commissioner Monegan. The board’s three members are appointed by the governor, although two are holdovers from her Republican predecessor, former Gov. Frank Murkowski.

Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Trending Obama



Diving into the morning news cloud, you can discern an emerging thread threatening to become conventional wisdom -- the election appears to be breaking toward Obama now. As the Huffington Post has reported, there is all sorts of evidence coming from the McCain camp that they see the Electoral College slipping away. Early voting numbers show significant advantages for the Democrats, even in vital swing states. After trending toward McCain a bit late last week, the national polls are now trending Obama, and surprisingly the movement is two way -- toward Barack and away from McCain.

Increasingly, we will start to hear quiet talk of realignment, blowout, rout, coattails, new political era. For if the trends continue, we are headed toward a true blowout with the top of the Democratic ticket getting its highest vote share since 1964, Democrats having more ideological control of Washington since the mid 1960s and Democrats having the makings of a new very 21st century majority coalition they could ride for the next 30-40 years of politics.

Their opposition, the conservatives and Republicans, have become intellectually exhausted, politically discredited and temperamentally reactionary and angry. This is a movement and party that prospered in the 20th century but now seems lost, adrift and resistant to the new politics of the 21st. In these last few weeks in particular, the GOP looks like a party that could be out of power for a very long time.

For those on the American center-left, these are heady political times. But they are also sober and serious times, as the Democrats begin to confront the enormity of the governing challenges facing the next Congress and President.

As is custom now, DemFromCT has an excellent analysis on all these new polling trends this morning over at Daily Kos.

Crossposted at the NDN Blog.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Palin, the Energy Expert? Oh, Puleeze!


If Sarah Palin is an energy expert who can get us off foreign oil, I'm an astronaut



Gov. Sarah Palin’s claim of energy expertise – and her promise to send Alaskan natural gas through a new pipeline to heat homes in the Lower 48 – may be as dubious as her boast about foreign policy expertise based on Alaska’s proximity to Russia.


“If John McCain consults his running mate on energy issues — as he said in a recent NPR interview — Americans are in deep trouble,” an Alaskan energy official told me. The official, who requested anonymity, called Palin’s energy expertise “illusory.”


Let’s fact-check one of Palin’s key claims – that she is responsible for Alaska “building a natural gas pipeline.” As of today there is not a single inch of that pipeline. This central achievement of her 20 months as governor is more hyperbole than substance.


In 2008, under Palin’s leadership, Alaska gave $500 million to TransCanada, a Canadian corporation that builds and operates pipelines, to start the permitting process, which might lead to such a pipeline. But it will be at least seven years before a drop of concrete is poured. If it’s poured.


Although Palin asked members of her former church, the Assembly of God, to “pray for the pipeline,” it’s too soon to count those chickens.


Moreover, the Alaskan energy official told me that the $500 million may have been an unnecessary “giveaway,” since BP and Conoco-Philips recently formed a partnership to build a gas pipeline to the Lower 48, without the incentive.


Besides her role in the $500 million pipeline plan, the official said Palin’s experience with energy issues rests largely on her 11-month stint as the appointed chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates oil/gas reserves and drilling.


But the official said even her brief tenure there wasn’t distinguished.


“Insiders knew she wasn’t interested in the job and she even stated publicly that her post could be cut, claiming it was more important to keep the slots for the technical experts,” he said.

As for her short time as governor (before John McCain picked her to be his running mate), her one other energy-related act was, with state Democratic legislators’ help, to raise taxes on oil and gas profits, the official said. But he added, “this says little about her grasp of global energy issues, which is zero.”


Energy Independence


And, as for her oft-repeated claim that her work on the proposed pipeline will help the United States become energy independent, the official told me, “not likely.”


Although Alaska has massive known natural gas reserves — over 35 trillion cubic feet — the gas may never find its way to the Lower 48.

Why? The first answer lies in the pipeline route. As proposed, it would travel south from Alaska’s North Slope into Canada, where it would connect with the natural gas grid in Alberta Province — which happens to enjoy the world’s second-largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia, 173 billion barrels. So far, only 2 billion have been produced.

The problem with the Alberta oil is that it is embedded in oil-sands extending over a forested area larger than Florida. While the viscous oil-sands are relatively easy to extract from the ground, they must be heated to separate the oil from the sand.


That separation process requires enormous amounts of energy. Alaska’s natural gas, via the pipeline, could fire the flame.


Eddy Isaacs, with the Alberta Energy Research Institute, said this scenario of Alaska’s natural gas helping to produce Canadian oil is “improbable,” because Canada has “enough natural gas of its own” to heat the oil-sands.


But Chris Severson-Baker, national policy director at Pembina Institute, a sustainable energy think tank headquartered in Alberta, disagrees, noting that the oil companies in Alberta now produce over one million barrels of oil a day, but plan to up the number to 3.5 millions barrels by 2011 and 5 million by 2030.


“If the consortium of oil companies that lease the oil land decides to hike production, it might well need Alaska’s gas,” Severson-Baker said.


And this brings us to the second issue – who holds the leases, both to Alaska’s natural gas land and Alberta’s oil-sands.


Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips and BP, among others, lease the Alberta land. As luck would have it, they also lease the gas land on Alaska’s North Slope. This means the same companies can pump their gas through the pipeline to Alberta and use it there to heat the oil-sands — instead of heating homes in Illinois and Indiana.


Why? Because the price of oil is much higher than the price of natural gas, producing oil with the natural gas makes sense for the corporate bottom line.

Once the consortium produces the oil, they’ll sell it to the highest bidders. Maybe in the U.S. Maybe anywhere.


Thus, while Palin’s promise of Alaska’s natural gas for the Lower 48 sounds great, profits may trump national needs.


Finally, some critics of Palin’s gas pipeline believe that, if built, it will lead to an environmental nightmare, both for Alberta and for global warming, as oil producers use the clean natural gas to produce dirty oil.


According to a 2008 Rand Corporation report, greenhouse gas emissions from producing this type of oil are 20 percent higher than for conventional oil.

Severson-Baker said the oil-sands process already has spewed toxic wastewater ponds over 130 square kilometers in Alberta — doubling in size since 2004 — while also fouling land, marshes and river basins, and ripping up forests that clean the air.

However, since Palin has said she’s not sure humans cause climate change, this probably won’t lose her any sleep.


Barbara Koeppel is a free-lance investigative reporter based in Washington DC.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


With Surrogates Like This.......

I can't say I have ever been a big fan of Donna Brazile. What Newtie said was preposterous; Hannity and Limbaugh stand to lose their right to free speech? Good Lord, why didn't she swat that down? No one can shut either of these guys up. Their bosses can fire them, but all that does is take away the huge megaphone and no one has a Constitutional right to a huge megaphone. As long as these guys continue to make money for their radio and Teevee stations they aren't going to lose their huge megaphones. Remember this is America and if hate and diversion sells, so be it.


As far as the "Liberal" hoo-hah goes, as an independent moderate, I must say that it's time the country swung back to the left. We have moved so far to the Right in the last 40 years, and especially during the Bush/Cheney years, it will take a liberal swing to re-balance the nation.


Seriously, where are all these scary liberals? Obama is not nearly as liberal as the Right would have us believe. Neither is Harry Reid. He's a Mormon for Gawdssake! Pelosi is considered fairly moderate in San Francisco.


Brazile is right about one thing. If Obama wins, he will be prevented from doing much of what he would like to do because of the humonguous mess, both international and domestic, Junior and Vice will be leaving him.

If I really hated Republicans I would vote for McCain, but I love my country too much for that. I will vote for the man who is the smartest and shows the best judgement, the man who has the most energy, because he is going to need it. I will vote for the man for whom every American should be proud to vote, the man who will electrify the world, if we elect him; Barack Obama

TW-Newt-Brazile-101908
icon Download | Play icon Download | Play


I've complained about the Democratic TV surrogates before so this is just a follow up. Donna Brazile, you have to do better. Please, Obama needs your help. The Newties are trotting out their "Pelosi-Reid" liberal deck of cards to try and intimidate Americans to not vote for Obama. "Don't vote for Obama because the Democratic Party may control the White House and Congress and America can't afford that!"


Right, because as we've seen, Conservatives really know how to govern this nation. Gingrich---for the most part is running McCain's campaign already (with Hannity's help of course) and gets enough time on FOX already so why is he on ABC? OK, let me stay on point. When I watched ABC's THIS WEEK, I wondered why Donna was already throwing cold water on Obama's head if he actually does win the election in November.


Newt Gingrich: If Obama won and had a moderate House and a moderate Senate, he would probably be a moderate president. His temperament would lead him to be much more like Richard Daley than like Reverend Wright. He's not gonna have that. he's gonna have card check to take away your right to a secret ballot. He's going to have an effort to eliminate freedom of speech for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He's going to have a congress that wants to raise taxes, that wants to increase government --- is he really going to veto and fight with Pelosi and Reid? ... As the Wall Street Journal said on Friday, here is what their promising their allies they're going to do.


Donna Brazile: Yeah, but they're not in office Mr. Speaker. Senator Obama will inherit a 10 trillion dollar deficit and he's going to have to put things on the table that perhaps many of us would not like to see a Democratic president put on the table in terms of cutting back on spending, freezing hiring and making some real tough decisions. So, I think he will be constrained by the deficit and also by the fact that we're still in two major wars.


God forbid that policies we believe in should get a legitimate shot at trying to heal this great nation after it has been ravaged by Newt, Bush and Conservatism. And Gingrich actually brought up that protecting Sean Hannity was more important than getting you a job...Yikes. I won't even get into all the obstructionism that will go on by the Blue Dogs and the GOP, but I'll let Digby explain it.


That's a relief. No need for anyone to worry that Obama isn't going to govern like a Republican. Except, you know, Republicans are really unpopular.


Gingrich is playing for 2010, here, preparing his troops to run against the already unpopular congress. He's calling Obama a wimp for being unable to stand up to his crazed, radical base. It's a natural move for the Republicans.


But there is no excuse for Brazile to fall into the rhetorical fetal position and help him. My God, we are in the final two weeks of a presidential campaign which is taking place in the middle of an economic crisis and is this the best she can do? He gave her the most perfect opening in the world --- "the Republicans are more worried about a non-existent free speech threat to multi-millionaires like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity than they are about the real threat to average Americans financial security. Obama is going to be dealing with real problems of average people and will do what it takes to get this country back on the right track after the Republicans drove it off the rails over the last eight years."


This defensiveness is going to kill any mandate Obama gets before he even gets in office.


Continue reading »



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Chris, Rush and Colin

icon Download | Play icon Download | Play (h/t Heather)


Above all else, Chris Matthews loves the game of politics. As show after show prove, he makes no value judgments, applies no moral compass. Playing the game well is admirable, even if your character is not. But every once in a while, reality creeps into the discussion and Matthews reacts to the net result of treating life as a game of partisan one-ups-man-ship. Such as it was on Monday, as Matthews spoke to conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish -- who rather surprisingly endorsed Obama last week -- about Rush Limbaugh's racist reaction to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama.


I don't know how you get into this tribalist talk. We could make all kinds of assumptions, but we have no knowledge of a person's inner beliefs. ... You know what drives me crazy? When somebody says 'well, I know you're Catholic, so you must believe this.' Or 'I know you're Jewish, you must believe this.' Or 'I know you're black, you must believe this.' Give us all a break, Rush. Let us think. Let us think. Let us decide.


I'd like to think that he is waking up to the nastiness of the right but sadly, as my buddies at MM's Country Fair point out, Chris Matthews has a history of "tribalist talk" himself.


Chris is an authoritarian follower, as described in John Dean's book. That should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Matthews. If he wasn't he would know that the big mouth pervert, Limbaugh, is not on the radio to teach people to think for themselves. His purpose is just the opposite. His purpose is to spout ideology which causes brain-death for all practical purposes.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)



The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Your privacy is an illusion: UK attacks civil liberties

What surprises me is that anyone thought there would be any privacy left after 9/11 and the patriot Act in America. Apparently, some of have more faith in our government than I and my friends do. But, then, we all endured co-intelpro back in the day. The Church Committee was suppose to change all that. Yeah, right.


After an "attack" like 9/11?


Here's the deal, folks. Brave up and say what you want to say, speak or type your mind or shut up, out of fear.


Give me liberty or give me death!


I don't give a royal rats arse if Cheney himself is listening to what I say or reading what I write. I believe in the first amendment and I believe it was meant to protect political speech above all else. So, if they want to storm my house for disagreeing with them, I say, "BRING IT ON!

By Peter Bright | Published: October 20, 2008 - 03:00PM CT


Last year one of the more troubling provisions of the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) finally came into effect. This piece of legislation made it a criminal offense to refuse to decrypt almost any encrypted data residing within the UK if demanded by authorities as part of a criminal investigation. The penalty for failure to decrypt is up to two years imprisonment for "normal" crime, and up to five years for "terrorism."


As two men accused of "terrorism" discovered last week, the long-standing right to silence does not trump the RIPA powers. The UK's Court of Appeal judged last week that the pair, named only as "S" and "A," could not depend on their right of silence to refuse to provide decryption keys. In the decision, the Court stated that although there was a right to not self-incriminate, this was not absolute, and that the "public interest" can supersede this right in some circumstances.


Further, the court also drew a distinction between making a statement that is incriminating, and evidence that happens to incriminate. Encryption keys, and encrypted data itself, exist independently of the accused men, and although the data may be incriminating, the men were not being asked for the data; they were being asked for the decryption key. As such, there was deemed to be no question of self-incrimination; the decryption keys are neutral, neither incriminating nor exculpating.


Though the decision is unsurprising—British courts are loathe to gut legislation, even if it is poor legislation—it is nonetheless unfortunate. The court argued that a decryption key was no different from a physical key, something harmless and incapable of incriminating, but there are significant differences between the two. Most obviously, one cannot be compelled to hand over a physical key; if the police or intelligence services should find it then they can use it, but if they cannot, they must work around its absence. That workarounds are considerably harder for encryption than they are for physical locks is unfortunate for law enforcement, but surely should not diminish the rights of the accused.


More fundamentally, the legislation is useless against criminals who know what they are doing, because such criminals can use encryption software that gives them plausible deniability. The best-known program achieving this is TrueCrypt. TrueCrypt allows the creation of encrypted disk with two passwords, with each password providing access to different data, one set harmless, the other truly secret. The would-be criminal can then disclose the password to the harmless data, thereby keeping the truly secret data secret. There is no way to tell from the encrypted data itself that this scheme is in use, so it should provide ample protection against investigations.


Orwell's Britain



Moving swiftly on, the British government has outlined a number of options it is considering legislating next year. Chief among these is the creation of an immense database containing information about every phone call and Internet connection made within the UK. Unsurprisingly, this has been widely branded as an Orwellian, Big Brother database.


ISPs and phone companies within the UK already keep voluntary databases of mobile phone calls (recording dates, times, durations, and locations) and Internet traffic (web pages visited, e-mail addresses used). These databases contain 12 months of data, and requests to view the data can be made by law enforcement as part of their investigations into crimes. The new proposal is to centralize and consolidate this database, making it government-owned and operated. This upside is that this would increase the information available, and make it far easier for law enforcement agencies to look at. The downside, of course, is that this would increase the information available, and make it far easier for law enforcement agencies to look at it.


The justification for the database is, of course, terrorism. Terrorists use mobile phones and e-mail to coordinate their activities, so clearly the government—specifically, GCHQ, the service responsible for SIGINT, which devised the plans—needs to know about all the e-mails and phone calls that people are making. They're stopping short—at the moment—of demanding the actual contents of the e-mails and phone calls, but, if such a database were implemented, that would surely be the next logical step.


At this stage, the database is not legislation, nor even proposed legislation. The proposals are an indication of one direction the government will follow, but so far nothing has gone before Parliament. Even within the Home Office, however, there has been considerable backlash; a memo leaked to the Sunday Times expressed grave misgivings about the plans among senior Home Office officials; the database was decried as "impractical, disproportionate, politically unattractive and possibly unlawful from a human rights perspective." Coming from civil servants, that's harsh criticism indeed.


Passport, please


Knowing that a phone call has been made doesn't do much if you don't know who owns the phone numbers. In the days of land-lines, this wasn't a problem; just look up the addresses that the numbers correspond to and Bob's your uncle. Mobile phones are another matter; prepay phones offer great anonymity, as they can be bought for cash.


If the UK government gets its way, that practice will come to an end. The plan is to demand that anyone buying a phone will have to show their passport. Vendors will collect this information, and it will be entered into a national registry. With 72 million mobile phones in the UK, some 40 million of which are prepaid, this measure is necessary if GCHQ's database is to be of any value. A database that could not identify the majority of mobile phone users would fill this gap.


Future privacy, or, rather, the lack thereof


All this paints a pretty sorry picture of the future of privacy in the UK. We here in Airstrip One already have an unparalleled density of closed-circuit TV, but CCTV is a different animal to the proposals here. CCTV has one fundamental difference from Orwell's telescreens; CCTV records what we do in public, whereas the telescreens recorded us in our own homes. We might not like our public behavior being recorded by the government, but in a sense, it is merely a scaled-up version of what the police and MI5 can already do.



Image credit: JapanBlack; CC licensed


These database proposals are a different kettle of fish. They cross over from monitoring of public behavior into monitoring of private behavior. That the phone company knows who I call is a necessary feature of the technology (the phone network obviously needs to know where the endpoints are, and I have itemized billing), but the government has no such justification. The underlying argument—that terrorists use encryption, mobile phones, e-mail, and that to stop terrorists we have to be able to monitor these technologies—can be used to justify just about anything. Once the hardware was in place to perform the monitoring—and GCHQ trials of interception hardware have already begun on the Vodafone network—it would be easy to argue that it was necessary not just to record that calls were made and e-mails were sent, but that it had become necessary (for national security, naturally) to actually listen to those calls and read those e-mails.


Slippery slopes aside, the most likely outcome is not that more terrorists are caught, but simply that they use alternative means of communication. Perhaps they will be able to import phones from abroad (roaming is expensive, but surely a small price to pay if the alternative is being caught up in the government's net), perhaps they will depend more heavily on stolen phones (pity the poor sod whose stolen phone links him to the next terrorist attack), or perhaps they will simply rely on other communications mechanisms. Mobile phones are convenient, but if they're unsafe for conducting terrorist operations, terrorists will just stop using them.


It would not surprise me to see Skype, and other VoIP systems, as the next subject of government scrutiny. Likewise, many e-mail services offer SSL connections to non-UK servers for mail transfers; any terrorist concerned about the government monitoring could use one of these. Just as there are data encryption systems that can defeat RIPA, there are communication systems that defeat the proposed database, and which do so before the legislation has even been passed to create the database in the first place. This is truly pointless legislation that will make us no safer.


These flaws are compounded by the government's rampant inability to run IT projects successfully, and to properly safeguard sensitive data that it has collected. These databases will be expensive to create, the monitoring hardware expensive to deploy, and leaks are, given this government's track record, inevitable. Even if we were convinced by the need for such databases, should we not at least demand that the government puts its house in order first? They cannot properly manage the data they already have; giving them more data is asking for trouble.


Though these plans are dismal, there is a slight glimmer of hope. The British government has suffered some legislative setbacks recently; its legislation to allow suspects to be held for 42 days without charge did not get through our (unelected, undemocratic, but absolutely priceless) upper house, and it looks like the government does not have the support or the will to force the legislation through. A similar backlash against any new proposals is not out of the question, and that they have already been preemptively panned by Home Office employees could be an indication of a broader rejection of greater government intrusion. For the good of our civil liberties and wallets alike, let's hope that our elected representatives take the same view.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Attack on Iran Off the Table?


On Sept. 23, the neo-conservative chiefs of the Washington Post’s editorial page mourned, in a tone much like what one hears on the death of a close friend, that “a military strike by the United States or Israel [on Iran is not] likely in the coming months.”


One could almost hear a wistful sigh, as they complained that efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program have “slipped down Washington’s list of priorities … as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb.”


We are spared, at least this go-round, from images of “mushroom clouds.” But racing to a bomb?


Never mind that the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a formal National Intelligence Estimate last November that work on the nuclear weapons-related part of Iran’s nuclear program was halted in mid-2003.


And never mind that Thomas Fingar, deputy for national estimates to Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, reiterated that judgment as recently as Sept. 4. Never mind that the Post’s own Walter Pincus reported on Sept. 10 that Fingar added that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons work.


Hey, the editorial fellows know best.


The good news is that the bottom line of the Sept. 23 editorial marks one of those rare occasions when the Post’s opinion editors have managed to reach a correct conclusion on the Middle East.


It is true that the likelihood of an Israeli or U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has receded in recent months. The more interesting questions are (1) why? And (2) under what circumstances might such an attack become likely again?


The Post attributes the stepping back by Israel and the U.S. to “the financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” These are two contributing factors but, in my judgment, not the most important ones.


Not surprisingly, the Post and other charter members of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) omit or play down factors they would prefer not to address.


Russia and Deterrence


More important than the bear market is the Russian Bear that, after a 17-year hibernation, has awakened with loud growls commensurate with Russia’s growing strength and assertiveness.


The catalyst was the fiasco in Georgia, in which the Russians saw the hands of the neo-cons in Washington and their Doppelganger of the extreme right in Israel.


You would hardly know it from FCM coverage, but the fiasco began when Georgian President Mikhail Sakashvili ordered his American- and Israeli-trained Georgian armed forces to launch an attack on the city of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 6-7, killing not only many civilians but a number of Russian observers as well.


It may be true that our State Department officials had counseled Shakashvili against baiting the Russian Bear, but it is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention to such things, that State is regularly undercut/overruled by White House functionaries like arch-neo-con Elliott Abrams, whose middle name could be “F” for “fiasco.” (Or f-up)


Abrams’ encomia include those earned for his key role in other major fiascos like the one that brought about the unconscionable situation today in Gaza. (Perhaps none of Abrams’s later fiascos would have happened if the current President’s father had not pardoned Abrams in 1992 over his conviction for misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra fiasco.)


In any event, it is almost certainly true that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin saw folks like Abrams, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts as being behind the attack on South Ossetia.


For centuries the Russians have been concerned — call it paranoid — over threats coming from their soft southern underbelly, and their reaction could have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history — or, by analogy, those familiar with American history and the Monroe Doctrine, for example.


Even neo-con Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain and former lobbyist for Georgia’s Sakashvili, would have known that.


And this lends credence to speculation that that is precisely why Scheunemann is said to have egged on the Georgian president. Russia’s reaction was totally predictable. McCain could then “stand up to Russia” with very strong rhetoric and not-so-subtle suggestions that his foreign policy experience provides an important advantage over his opponent in meeting the growing danger of a resurgent Russia.


Russia’s leaders are likely to have seen something else -- in Sakashvili’s provocation, in the attempt to get NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in the deployment of antimissile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and in hasty U.S. recognition of an independent Kosovo -- indignities that Russia should no longer tolerate.


I can visualize Russian generals telling Putin:


“Enough! Look at the weakened Americans. They have destroyed what’s left of their Army and Marine Corps, spreading them out and demoralizing them in two unwinnable wars. We know how bad it is with just one unwinnable war. It has not been that long since Afghanistan.


"But, Vladimir Vladimirovich, before we indulge ourselves with Schadenfreude, consider what such actions betoken — total recklessness of a kind we have seen only rarely in Washington.


“Who can assure us that ‘the crazies’ — the Cheney-Abrams-Bush cabal — will not encourage the Israelis to precipitate the kind of armed provocation vis-à-vis Iran that would ‘justify’ America’s springing to the defense of its ‘ally’ to bomb and missile-attack Iran.


“You are aware of the importance of the Israel lobby, and how American politicians vie with one another to prove themselves the most passionately in love with Israel.


Can someone please tell me why????


“Periodic attempts by Congress to require President Bush to seek congressional approval before ordering a strike on Iran have failed miserably. So his hands are free for another ‘pre-emptive war’ before he leaves office.


“After all, Bush has publicly promised the Israelis he will deal with the ‘Iranian threat’ before then. Besides, our political analysts suggest that Bush and Cheney might think that wider war would help the Republicans in the November election.”


No big bear likes to have a nose tweaked. But the Russian reaction to Georgia was not merely one of pique. It became a well-planned strategic move to disabuse Israel and the United States of the notion that Russia would sit still for an attack on Iran, a very important country in Russia’s general neighborhood.


After Georgia, the Russians were bent on sweeping such plans “off the table,” so to speak, and seem to have succeeded.


The signs of new Russian assertiveness are in the public domain, although the FCM has not given them much prominence. What is more telling is the effect on Israel and the United States.


Since August – when the Russia-Georgia confrontation played out and the latest “ultimatum” to Iran over its nuclear program expired – there has been a sharp decline in the formulaic rhetoric against Iran’s “path toward nuclear weapons,” especially among U.S. policy makers and in American media.


The change in official Israeli statements was the most pronounced. After a consistent hawkish stance toward Iran, Israel’s president, Shimon Peres told London’s Sunday Times in early September:


“There are two ways [to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat]; a military and a civilian way. I don’t believe in the military option — any kind of military option … an attack can trigger a bigger war.”


And then came the bombshell from outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his valedictory interview appearing in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on Sept. 29. Olmert argued that Israel had lost its “sense of proportion” in believing it could deal with Iran militarily.


Not Russia Alone


It is a curious twist, but to their great credit, our senior military officers – Admiral William Fallon, who quit rather than let himself be on the receiving end of an order to attack Iran, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – fought and continue to fight a rear-guard action against the dreams and plans of “the crazies” in the White House to attack Iran.


GO NAVY!


Fallon famously declared that the U.S. military was not going to “do Iran on my watch” as commander of CENTCOM.


As for Mullen – in addition to his outspoken opposition to opening a “third front” in the area of Iraq and Afghanistan – the JCS chairman has done much behind the scenes to talk sense into the Israelis.


From the Israeli press we know that Mullen went so far as to warn his Israeli counterparts not to even think about another incident like the one on June 8, 1967, when Israeli jets and torpedo boats deliberately did their utmost to sink the intelligence collector, USS Liberty, off the Sinai coast.


For Mullen a gutsy move. The Israelis know that Mullen knows that that attack was deliberate — not some sort of unfortunate mistake. Mullen could have raised no more neuralgic an issue in taking a shot across an Israeli bow than to cite the USS Liberty to discourage some concocted provocation in the Persian Gulf.


With friends like this who the hell needs enemies?


Hats off to today’s admirals who outshine predecessor admirals who bowed to pressure from President Lyndon Johnson to portray the Israeli air and torpedo strikes on the USS Liberty as a mistake in the fog of war — despite unimpeachable evidence it was deliberate. The attack took the lives of 34 U.S. sailors and wounded more than 170 others.


More lost lives and injuries than Al Qaeda managed to wreak on the U.S.S. Cole.


Hats off, too, to the grassroots movements that succeeded in quashing resolutions in both houses of Congress calling for the equivalent of a blockade of Iran.


Several members of Congress actually withdrew their earlier sponsorship of the resolution in the wake of public pressure. Many of them came to realize that facilitating a new war might open them to charges of poor judgment — the kind of charge that hurt Sen. Hillary Clinton who, ironically, thought she had made the politically smart move in voting to give the President authority to attack Iraq.


Not Completely Out of the Woods


There remain as many “crazies” among the Israeli leadership as there are here in Washington — crazies who continue to believe that Iran must be attacked while the going is good.


And it will never be as good as it is with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House. If the Randy Scheunemanns of this world are capable of goading the likes of Sakashvili into irresponsible action, they can try to do the same with a wink and a nod to the crazies in Tel Aviv.


The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign seems to be in serious jeopardy provides still more incentive for recklessness. If, as all seem to agree, a terrorist event of some kind might give the edge to McCain, many could argue that the same result could be achieved by a wider war including Iran, requiring senior, seasoned leadership of one who has “worn the uniform.”


And there is still more incentive for Bush and Cheney to look with favor on an attack on Iran, a very personal incentive.


It is a safe bet that if John McCain loses, Bush and Cheney and others will be plagued by various legal actions against them for the war crimes for which they are clearly responsible. Such would also be possible under a President McCain but much less likely.


But attacking Iran would be crazy, you say. Not for nothing have many of the folks around Bush and Cheney been referred to as “the crazies” since the early 1980s. Some are still there – and they have proven again and again that they do things.


In April 2006, one of my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues asked retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni if he thought the U.S. or the U.S. cum Israel would attack Iran.


Zinni shook his head vigorously, saying, “That would be crazy.” Then he stopped and quickly added, but you are dealing with “the crazies.”


Ray McGovern was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch at the beginning of his 27-year career as a CIA analyst. He is co-founder of VIPS, and now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.