Evangelicals and Rural Americans Are Breaking Big for Obama

Evangelicals and Rural Americans Are Breaking Big for Obama
Consider, instead, three recent polls in the context of the Bush years. Obama and McCain are now in a "statistical dead heat" among born-again evangelicals, those Rovian foot soldiers of two successful Bush elections, according to a recent survey; and the same seems to be true in Sarah Palin's "real America," those rural and small town areas she's praised to the skies. According to a poll commissioned by the Center for Rural Strategies, in those areas which Bush won in 2004 by 53%-41%, Obama now holds a statistically insignificant one point lead. To complete this little trifecta, Gallup has just released a poll showing that Jews are now likely to vote for Obama by a more than 3 to 1 majority (74% to 22%).

If present projections come close to holding, this could prove to be a rare reconfiguring or turning-point election -- as Wall Street expert Steve Fraser first suggested might be possible at TomDispatch way back in February 2007. If so, the Republican Party, only recently besotted by dreams of a generational Pax Republicana, might find itself driven back into the deep South and deep West for who knows how long, "an extremist rump, reduced to a few stronghold states and obsessed with causes that seem not to matter to the general public."

Among the remaining unknowns in this election, of course, are the intertwined issues of class and race. In this regard, few places have been more closely examined than parts of Pennsylvania, a battleground state in which polls show John McCain significantly behind, but which he must capture if he hopes to win this election, and a place where working-class, as well as possibly racist, "Hillary voters" were supposed to be especially strong. Ever since the primaries, reporters have been tromping the state in search of them. Today, TomDispatch has an interesting twist on such articles. We've sent a home-town boy back to Pennsylvania to offer a more personal view of the race there -- and the news isn't good for the future of the Republican Party.

Drudge Wrong again, What Obama really said in 2001

What Obama really said in 2001
ohn McCain hit a new low Monday with his claim about a suddenly "revealed" interview with Barack Obama from 2001 proving that Obama favors "redistributive change" and that Obama is a "redistributor" (sorry, but that's not going to make it onto a bumper sticker). Did McCain or anyone in his campaign listen to the interview? Did Matt Drudge before linking to it? Open Salon's Kris Broughton broke it down in all its complexity earlier today, and Tom Schaller had it here.

Obama's interview with Chicago's WBEZ was specifically about the civil rights movement, and the best ways to remedy the conditions of black people after slavery and Jim Crow. When Obama talks about "redistributive change," it's in the context of what needed to be done for Americans who were slaves, who owned nothing; in fact, they were owned. Anyone who's honest knows that the legacy of African-American family poverty can be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow. Obama is not ranting wildly about income distribution in the interview; he's talking calmly and thoughtfully about the array of strategies needed to erase that legacy.

The greatest irony is that Obama sounds conservative themes in the interview. He says the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts, and not enough on legislation, community organizing and political will. This is exactly what conservatives have said about the movements of the 1960s -- that they relied too much on judges, rather than the legislative system. But what's really remarkable about the interview is listening to Obama talk with nuance and insight and compassion about issues that have moral, legal and political ramifications. Listen to it, and imagine having a president who talks this way.

The Truth About Barack Obama and the New Party

The Truth About Barack Obama and the New Party
Right-wing hatchet man and conspiracy theorist, Stanley Kurtz is pushing a new crackpot smear against Barack falsely claiming he was a member of something called the New Party.

But the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.

McCain must be affiliated with Al-Qaida since they just gave him their endorsement.

The 11 Dumbest Things Sarah Palin Has Said So Far

The 11 Dumbest Things Sarah Palin Has Said So Far
1. The News Makes Me Sad ... So I Don't Watch It

Sarah Palin at a North Carolina fundraiser:

At those times on the campaign trail when sometimes it's easy to get a little bit discouraged, when, you know, when you happen to turn on the news when your campaign staffers will let you turn on the news ... Usually they're like "Oh my gosh, don't watch. You're going to, you know, you're going to get depressed."

Maybe her handlers could put on a puppet show instead -- something fun that allows Palin to maintain her cheery optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence that the McCain campaign has imploded. There was once another politician similarly unconcerned with current events and the news: George W. Bush. That went well.

2. The People Don't Elect U.S. Presidents, God Does

Upon being asked by James Dobson if the McCain ticket's precipitous slide in the polls gets her down:

... [it] strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all.

... and I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation.

Ah yes, the always helpful "prayer warriors," whose appeals to the Almighty actually count for more than the average American citizen's vote. Apparently the next president of the United States will be handpicked by God.

3. Palin Believes in "Divided" States of America

At a fundraiser:

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Palin later apologized for the statement. But her backpedaling shouldn't get her off the hook for putting forth a deeply divisive vision of America. How would conservatives have reacted if, in an attempt to pander to yuppie liberals, Obama said "I love visiting the parts of the country where people aren't close-minded assholes"? Probably not well.

4. The Vice President Is Supreme Boss of the Senate

Here's what Palin said when Brandon, an elementary school student, asked: "What does the vice president do?"

That's something that Piper would ask me! ... They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

To be fair, Palin had no idea what the VP does the last time the issue came up, so this is almost an improvement. Except that saying the vice president is in charge of the U.S. Senate reveals an embarrassing ignorance of our government's system of checks and balances. Also, it's a bit disconcerting to hear someone running for VP endow that office with God-like powers over a separate branch of government.

5. Delusional Response to Troopergate

"Well, I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing ... any hint of any kind of unethical activity there," said Sarah Palin last Sunday, soon after she was found to have engaged in wrongdoing and unethical activity in the "Troopergate" investigation. Again, a propensity for denial and lies, a deep aversion to reality -- not the best ways to signal your commitment to "change" from "politics as usual."

6. Vicious Attack on Obama

The following quote needs little introduction. It's famous now, not only for its inaccuracy but also for how much this line of attack has fallen flat with voters and backfired on the McCain campaign:

Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.

Outright deception is probably not something the American voters are looking to put in the White House; pretty sure they've had enough of that in the past eight years.

7. The Lord is a Pollster

While speaking in North Carolina, Palin decided to take a moment to thank God for a very small bump she and McCain experienced in their otherwise sliding poll numbers.

We even saw today, thank the Lord, we saw some movement.

People often thank God for things that appear to be outside the realm of divine intervention. An incredibly small bump in the polls though? Seems excessive. Not to mention, Obama now has the widest lead he has ever had in the polls. Should God be given credit for that too?

8. America's Teachers' Rewards Are in Heaven (but Nowhere to Be Found on Earth)

In the vice presidential debate, Palin had this to say about Sen. Joe Biden's wife's career in education:

You mentioned education, and I'm glad that you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?

Governor, America's teachers should not have to wait until heaven; they should be praised and rewarded right here on Earth. Possibly with living-wage salaries.

9. I Read ... All the Publications

When Katie Couric asked Palin the complex trick question of where she gets her news, the two women had the following exchange:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this -- to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media --

Couric: But what ones specifically? I'm curious.

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

Couric: Can you name any of them?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

With all of the intensive reading Palin has done over the years, it's a wonder she's had time to do other important things, like govern Alaska and learn to play the flute.

10. Some of my best friends are gay, but ...

From the same interview with Couric:

One of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay and I love her dearly, and she is not my "gay" friend, she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made, but ... I'm not gonna judge people.

Stating in no uncertain terms that being gay is a choice is an odd thing to do on mainstream, national television when medical and psychological associations have contended for years that sexual orientation is biologically determined. Then, she slimily criticizes that so-called "choice" by saying it is not one she would make. But hey, some of her best friends are gay ...

11. A Little Wet Behind the Ears ...

During the vice presidential debate, when Palin was asked which policy plans proposed by the McCain-Palin ticket would have to suffer due to the current economic crisis, Palin gave a pretty dubious response: none. When pressed on the issue, Palin decided that an easy out would be to fall back on her inexperience:

And how long have I been at this, like five weeks?

Uh ... wow, that actually wasn't dumb at all. In that case, she was absolutely right.

The Big Difference Between a McCain or Obama Administration

The Big Difference Between a McCain or Obama Administration
If Obama wins, unemployment will average about 5 percent. If McCain wins it will average about 6 percent.

If Obama wins, real GDP growth will average about 3 percent per year. If McCain wins it will average less than 2 percent per year.

If Obama wins, poor families will see their incomes grow by more than $6,000 during the next eight years. If McCain wins their incomes will grow by less than $1,000.

If Obama wins, middle-class families will see their incomes grow by about $13,000 during the next eight years. If McCain wins their incomes will grow by about $5,000.

If Obama wins (hold on to your hats for this one), rich families will see their incomes grow by about $36,000 during the next eight years. If McCain wins their incomes will grow by about $32,000.

If Obama wins (hold on to your hats again), the stock market will perform better: the average return on stocks compared to Treasury bills will be about 9 percent. If McCain wins it will be about 4 percent.

If Obama wins, the national debt will grow about $150 billion per year. If McCain wins it will grow $400 billion per year. (For more, see Gregg Easterbrook, page 15.)

And no matter who wins, average annual inflation will be around 4 percent.

Palin's 'One of You' Pretense Insults Voters' Intelligence

Palin's 'One of You' Pretense Insults Voters' Intelligence by Molly Green
What is it about Sarah Palin that gets me so riled up?

Belinda Luscombe's recent article in Time, "Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin," gives several possible answers, including "She's too pretty" and "She's too confident."

But my Palin problem has nothing to do with the fact both of us are women, and I don't have a problem with her being pretty or confident.

I do have a problem with her being wildly unqualified.

Two years ago, Palin was mayor of a town with 1/25th the population of Lexington. She is now governor of a state whose population is less than Jefferson County's.

Palin's unpreparedness for national office is painful to watch. Her acceptance of the vice presidential spot on the GOP ticket and her belief that she has a chance of winning reveals her assumption that American voters are content to settle for a sub-par candidate.

But I'm not content to settle, and I'm not alone.

Palin tells us continually: "I am one of you." This façade is one of the few weapons in her political arsenal, and she just keeps shooting it off. Perhaps most frustrating is that she actually isn't one of us.

Her net worth is well over $1 million. When she isn't purporting to be poor or diverting questions with charm, she's engaging in "misery battles," contests in which candidates fight over who has endured the most hardship. Instead of discussing who is better prepared and who has the best policies, recent debates have featured "who really has it bad," as if suffering were in some way quantifiable.

Certainly candidates of both parties use this tactic. Trouble is, Palin doesn't have much else.

Palin supporters say she is getting flak for using a folksy approach that differs from that of the typical candidate. They say she is being discriminated against for using colloquialisms and "normal" language. They tell me Palin isn't stupid.

By no means do I think she is stupid. It is precisely because I believe she is a smart woman that her debating method and campaign rhetoric come across as patronizing.

Palin hopes that by using Joe Sixpack, hockey mom, pit-bull, you betcha' and darn, she will convince us that she doesn't have a personal hairstylist or own an airplane. She hopes to convince us that she doesn't support a party and policies that would work against her very own economic interests were she truly one of us.

She hopes that by winking she can hoodwink the American public into believing that a candidate's personal charm is somehow more important than experience and expertise.

What we forget is that our president isn't supposed to be one of us. There is a reason that the vast majority of Americans don't run for president: The vast majority of Americans are not prepared for the job.

Imagine meeting with a doctor to discuss your impending open-heart surgery. She tells you that she has never actually done surgery before, but she winks and says she got a B-plus on frog dissection in biology class.

I'd have dinner with that surgeon, but I wouldn't let her cut me open.

While I am happy to hear that our candidates are shining examples of the American dream, I don't want them to be Average Joes.

Palin has proclaimed that she is average in class and interests, but has not proven that she is above average in her understanding of critical domestic and foreign policy issues.

This isn't just unacceptable; it's dangerous.

Should Palin be elected, she, like President Bush, would be used as a blank page to serve the purposes of those in power behind the scenes, those upon whom she is totally dependent for counsel.

The most offensive part of Palin's condescending, self-conscious use of vernacular is that she thinks she must stoop to an unprofessional level to appeal to the middle class. The unspoken assumption is that the middle class isn't interested in a candidate who takes debate seriously.

But the truth is, we want a candidate who understands that different situations call for different behaviors -- that winks and colloquialisms are appropriate in a casual interview or in conversation with voters, but are inappropriate and disrespectful during a formal debate.

Americans want a candidate who understands struggle, and we want a candidate with a wide appeal. But we need to know that our country's representative will conduct herself with grace and professionalism when meeting with other world leaders and that she will be able to deal with any situation that arises with the appropriate respect, gravity and expertise.

The average American is capable of understanding serious debate. Palin doesn't need to pander to us. We're not choosing a pal, we're choosing a leader who will exert a huge amount of control over our sons and brothers, our daughters and sisters, our money, our bodies and our lives.

Every American wants and deserves a leader who is prepared to lead. And Palin is not.

McCain Tries To Blame Financial Crisis On Democratic Takeover Of Congress In 2007

McCain Tries To Blame Financial Crisis On Democratic Takeover Of Congress In 2007
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that “you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically” since President Bush took office. He then revised that argument in August, releasing an ad that declared “we’re worse off than we were four years ago.”

Now McCain is revising his timeline again. In an interview with right-wing radio host Michael Medved this past Friday, McCain agreed with Medved’s assertion that “the economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term” before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007:

MEDVED: Let me ask you one other thing senator, which again, I think is on the minds of lots and lots of our listeners. The economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term. Then the Democrats took over in Congress in 2007 and now we’re in this horrible crisis. Coincidence?

MCCAIN: No, it isn’t.

McCain went on to place the blame for the financial crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming that Democrats “were willing co-conspirators with this game of three-card monty that went on and then it collapsed.” Listen to it here:

Medved and McCain’s claim that “the economy was progressing really well” before Democrats took control of Congress is laughable. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Christian Weller’s economic snapshot from December 2006 shows, the economy was already in rough shape:

Famly Debt Was Rising: By September 2006, household debt rose to an unprecedented 130.9% of disposable income. From March 2001 to September 2006, personal debt relative to disposable income grew each quarter by 1.6 percentage points—almost five times faster than in the 1990s. In the second quarter of 2006, families had to spend 14.4% of their disposable income to service their debt—the largest share since 1980.

The Housing Market Had Slowed: The supply of homes for sale each month averaged 6.9 months of supply for the six months ending in October 2006—the largest supply since 1991.

Savings Had Plummeted: The personal saving rate of -1.3% in the third quarter of 2006 marked the sixth quarter in a row with a negative personal saving rate.

As for McCain’s claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the central cause of the current economic crisis, McClatchy thoroughly debunked it over the weekend, writing that “private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.” McClatchy notes that the “weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages” began in late 2004 while Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.

The “turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,” the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

“I don’t remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster,” said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don’t lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It’s a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party’s standard bearer, President Bush, didn’t criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

"More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That's a home ownership gap. It's a -- it's a gap that we've got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future. We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a home ownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families . . .

Home ownership is also an important part of our economic vitality. If -- when we meet this project, this goal, according to our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we will have added an additional $256 billion to the economy by encouraging 5.5 million new home owners in America; the activity -- the economic activity stimulated with the additional purchasers, the additional buyers, the additional demand will be upwards of $256 billion. And that's important because it will help people find work."

- George W. Bush, U.S. President, October 15, 2002 1:55 P.M.

The media's pro-McCain double standard

The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard
Let's start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain's efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s -- when Barack Obama was a young child -- Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama's first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close," and Obama has denounced Ayers' actions as a member of the Weathermen.

A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers -- more than 1,800 this week alone.

Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist's office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary." He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy's bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents ("Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: "Kill the sons of bitches.") During Bill Clinton's presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.

What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07," includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

New Evidence Shows Bush Had No Plan to Catch bin Laden After 9/11

New Evidence Shows Bush Had No Plan to Catch bin Laden After 9/11
New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the area to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept him, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

Franks apparently already realized that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the (Pakistanis) to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out," according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that."

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks' request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book Inside Centcom that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that" because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden's exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look, you are missing the point: There are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin." The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than were available.

Palin and McCain Purveyors of Modern Fascism

Palin and McCain Purveyors of Modern Fascism

Listening to a Sarah Palin rally is like visiting a museum exhibit of every empty, trite, manipulative right-wing political slogan from the last three decades. Today, an anti-war heckler interrupted her speech in Florida and this is how she responded, to cheers from right-wing throngs both at the rally and around the nation:

Bless your heart sir, my son is in Iraq fighting for your right to protest.

Right, because if Saddam Hussein had remained in power in Iraq -- or if we were no longer occupying the country -- then the U.S. would have been invaded by the Iraqi Army by now and we'd be living under the tyrannical rule of Ace of Clubs Qusay and Ace of Hearts Uday (and Five of Hearts Dr. Germ and cardless Mrs. Anthrax) and they would have abolished our First Amendment rights of speech and assembly. So that's exactly what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq: "fighting for our right to protest." And those who oppose that war, therefore, are unwilling to Fight for Our Freedoms. And Freedom is on the March.

That may be the motive driving many, perhaps most, citizens who join the military. But even under the most romanticized vision, whatever it is that we're doing in Iraq, fighting for our "right to protest" quite plainly isn't it.

And then there is the painfully immature sanctimony over Obama's argument last year that we need more ground troops in Afghanistan "so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." A new McCain/Palin ad all but calls Obama a traitor for that statement ("dishonorable"), and Palin has been sneeringly implying in every speech that this shows that Obama hates both the military and America.

For one thing, Obama's statement happens to be true. We have killed large numbers of civilians with air raids and that has -- rather unsurprisingly -- made both the Afghan population and the Afghan government increasingly angry with the U.S. (that tends to happen when you bomb countries and kill innocent people). It's for that reason that the British Ambassador to Afghanistan said just this week that "the presence -- especially the military presence -- of the coalition is part of the problem, not the solution." To demand -- based on some warped appeal to patriotism -- that this reality be ignored is just imbecilic, and is precisely the sort of see-no-evil mentality that led the Bush administration to spend all of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 telling everyone how great things were going in Iraq and depicting anyone who suggested otherwise as being a Friend of the Terrorist.

And then there's the fact that John McCain, with regard to the war in Kosovo, made the same argument that Sarah Palin is currently depicting as anti-military and anti-American: namely, that reliance on an air campaign rather than ground forces is resulting in the immoral and unnecessary deaths of civilians:

John McCain in 2000 said because of tactical decisions U.S. troops were put in the position of killing civilians in Kosovo -- something awfully similar to the comments he's now attacking Barack Obama for.

During a Republican primary debate in 2000 McCain called the Clinton strategy in Kosovo "obscene" because it forced troops into using tactics that meant civilians were going to get killed.

"In the most obscene chapter in recent American history is the conduct of the Kosovo conflict when the president of the United States refused to prepare for ground operations, refused to have air power used effectively because he wanted them flying -- he had them flying at 15,000 feet where they killed innocent civilians because they were dropping bombs from such -- in high altitude."

McCain was right about that, and Obama is right about what's happening in Afghanistan. The fact that McCain is producing ads and sending out Palin to accuse Obama of being a treasonous America-hater and military-hater for making comments identical to McCain's remarks about Kosovo tell you all you need to know about McCain.

Identically, the fact that Sarah Palin's husband -- for years -- belonged to, and Palin herself praised and embraced, an explicitly anti-American political party whose leader swore his hatred for the U.S. Government -- all the while she attacks Obama on a daily basis for supposedly "anti-American associations" -- tells you all you need to know about her and our press corps for allowing her to get away with that:



As Salon's David Talbot writes in his very well-reported piece today on the relationship between the Palins and this secessionist party:

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

The face that the McCain/Palin campaign is showing now has one significant benefit: it's a vivid reminder of who has left the country in the state it's in, the way they've done that, and why it is so urgent that, in four weeks, they not just be defeated, but crushed and rendered powerless for a long time.

* * * * *


UPDATE: Enjoy the bittersweet odor of irrational panic and desperation:

John McCain faces the "crisis of his career," says former House Speak Newt Gingrich, who predicted the Republican nominee will lose the election unless he makes a public break from the economic bailout proposal.

In a column posted on the Web site of the conservative Human Events Tuesday, Gingrich says it is impossible for McCain to catch up in the national or state polls unless he taps into the anger many Americans feel toward the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investment banks.

"If Senator McCain is not prepared to separate himself from the Bush-Paulson economic program, he has no opportunity to win," Gingrich writes. . . .

Gingrich is the latest prominent conservative to criticize McCain for supporting the bill, which Congress passed last week. Speaking on CNN last week, radio host Glenn Beck said the Arizona senator will lose the election over the vote: I think he lost the election — there was a moment here for somebody here to rise up as a leader," Beck said.

What Gingrich said might literally be the worst advice ever. Just two weeks ago, McCain created that whole melodrama of how he was suspending his campaign and skipping the debate in order to make the bailout happen. Then he voted in favor of the bailout. Now, a week later, he's supposed to base his whole campaign on railing against the evils of the bailout? Doing that would more likely result in McCain's being institutionalized than elected. But that's what desperation and panic create -- that, and the type of venom Sarah Palin is spewing to Munich beer hall crowds.

McCain Lobbyist Has Terrorist Ties

McCain Lobbyist Has Terrorist Ties
McCain campaign chairman Charlie Black has lobbied for corrupt dictators, despots, and corporations accused of mass murder over the course of a lobbying career that has spanned more than 30 years and seen Black pass through K St.’s revolving door to Republican presidential campaigns seven times. Black lobbied for US aid on behalf of foreign regimes notorious for human rights abuses, including Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Nigeria General Ibrahim Babangida, Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre, and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, whose government was cited in a congressional report as guilty of numerous “incidents of banishment, torture and detention without charge or trial.” Black earned more than $1.8 million lobbying for Occidental Petroleum, accused of complicity in mass murder in Colombia. Not only has Black assisted regimes and corporations that commit crimes against citizens of other nations, Black has lobbied for foreign companies linked to Iran, putting business interests ahead of America’s security.

McCain health plan 'radical'

McCain health plan 'radical'
“What John McCain doesn’t tell you is that his plan calls for massive deregulation of the insurance industry that would leave families without the basic protections you rely on,” Obama says.

“So here’s John McCain’s radical plan in a nutshell: He taxes health care benefits for the first time in history; millions lose the health care they have; millions pay more for the health care they get; drug and insurance companies continue to profit; and middle-class families watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes.”

How Palin Brings in the Christian Cash

How Palin Brings in the Christian Cash
t hasn't been all smooth sailing for these revived Swift Boaters. The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., a 527 formed in July by veteran anti-abortion attorneys James Bopp and Barry Bostrom, went after Obama with a pair of outrageous ads attacking the Illinois Senator on his abortion stance. The ads asserted that Obama would make taxpayers pay for all abortions, keep minors' abortions a secret from their parents and make "partial birth" abortions legal, and Real Truth sought to have the ads placed on Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's radio shows in September. When objections were raised by the Obama camp and PAC watchdogs, Bopp filed for an injunction against FEC spending and disclosure rules that prohibit 527s advocating against a candidate -- rules created in the wake of the Swift Boat Veterans actions in 2004. But a federal judge in Virginia ruled against Real Truth, upholding the FEC regulations, and the radio spots have yet to air.

That may be a minor setback for these forces, though.

In the Age of Palin, the traditional Christian right political powerhouses -- Focus on the Family and its affiliated Family Research Council Action -- are back in the game as well. As recently as February, Focus on the Family's James Dobson was threatening to sit out the November elections if McCain became the candidate, issuing a statement that said, "I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative and, in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party." But then along came Sarah, and in the first two weeks of September Dobson's political action arm -- Focus on the Family Action -- dumped $104,000 on radio spots and mailings taking on Obama and endorsing McCain. The political action arm of the Family Research Council also held off until Palin entered the picture, registering with the FEC in support of McCain just a week after the Republican convention.

And if any questions remain about how galvanized the Christian right GOP base is these days, that pit bull of culture warriors, Pat Buchanan, put paid to that the day after Palin's performance in Minneapolis. "The American Right has just died and gone to heaven," Buchanan crowed in the lede of his September 5 column, following up on a Palin rhapsody from two days before in which he wrote, "should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among Lifers, Evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives -- wholly independent of President McCain ... Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has."

Well, given the millions flowing into the religious right machine in the days since her arrival on the scene, not exactly priceless. The Swift Boaters and the Christian right knew Palin's price tag was high -- and they're proving themselves ready to pay up.