Say, Isn't It Schmo?

In post-debate analysis of the finances of Joe the Plumber--it turns out Joe the Plumber's hypothetical small business will not pay more taxes with Obama's economic plan. Joe is not falling for that. His feeling: show me the money. Wall Street meltdown be damned, Joe the Plumber is his own man, he wants to handle his social security money himself. John McCain's surprise when Obama said that Joe the Plumber would pay zero penalty for not providing insurance to his would be employees was supposed to be mocking, but McCain just looked nonplussed instead. The debate was won by Obama according to the polls, so McCain's mugging throughout the debate must have turned quite a few people off.

In my favorite moment, McCain, in answering a question about "Free" Trade, accused Obama of "not understanding" that signing the Columbia Free Trade agreement was a "no brainer." I thoroughly enjoyed Obama's response. He said he was concerned about the worker's human rights. Workers, he said, are being targeted and murdered for standing up to management. This is a new mindset for an American presidential candidate... expressing concern for worker's rights outside of the U.S.! It was a nice comment for the folks in Columbia to hear. I listened to "First Voices Indigenous Radio" this morning and a Columbian spoke to Obama's comment and expressed gratitude for the positive support. Columbians are being terrorized right now for standing up for their indigenous rights.

John McCain's theatrics in naming Bill Ayers and questioning Obama's association was a moot point given that McCain preceded his statement with the comment that he didn't "care about an old, washed-up terrorist." This so reminded me of George W. Bush saying that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11--surprising to some since Bush had accused Iraq of aiding in the attacks therefore justifying an invasion of Iraq.

How do you become "an old, washed-up terrorist"? I guess that's why Bush doesn't think about Bin Laden.

Hat tip to Angry Asian Man

Speak Softly: John McCain Carries a Big Stick

What did McCain really mean during the debate last night when he said that he identified with his hero Teddy Roosevelt who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick?"

"Big Stick Ideology, or Big Stick Policy, is a form of hegemony and was the slogan describing U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The term originated from the phrase “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,” a West African proverb. The term is used to describe the foreign policy of the U.S. At the time, Roosevelt claimed the U.S. had the right to oppose European actions in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S., he said, also had the right to intervene economically and militarily in the domestic affairs of its neighbors if they proved incapable of maintaining peace and sovereignty on their own. The U.S. has Stick diplomacy several times, particularly during Roosevelt’s presidency and when the nation wanted to build a canal across Central America."

Bid Stick Ideology
Wikipedia

Traditionally, U.S. politicians have used the "Big Stick" phrase to indicate reactionary U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. Now, with the advent of the so-called Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, a new, more expansive role is assumed by the U.S. that calls for geopolitical transformation. This new world view is articulated by the small group of right-wingers who formed Project for a New American Century.

During Bush Sr.'s administration, members of PNAC advocated the outright invasion of Iraq ("the first battle of the fourth world war" --James Woolsey of PNAC), seizure by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the toppling of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

PANIC's (sic) principle commitment is "dedicated to building up the power of the United States to unparalleled levels." Many of the PANIC men (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad and Elliot Abrams) came to hold positions of power and influence in George W. Bush's administration.

"The new National Security Doctrine suggested that the U.S. had the right to discourage other nations from building up their military power and could act "to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." This included the new explicit policy of "pre-emptive" war whenever the U.S. feels threatened: "America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed." What is more, the new American edict told other nations that the conservative economic objectives of the Republican Party were policies that should be implemented throughout the whole world. The list included the following requirements: "pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity; tax policies-particularly lower marginal tax rates-that improve incentives for work and investment... strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use; sound fiscal policies to support business activity... and free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity."

This new foreign policy was the basis for the speech that Bush made to the United Nations in September of 2002. He told them that the United States was ready to go it alone in the world if the U.N. did not join his preemptive war. The U.S. would take any action that it deemed necessary, against Iraq or anyone else. His administration was making preparations to act quickly and decisively by shedding its various multilateral constraints.

Robbing Us Blind
by Steve Brouwer

PANIC's quest "to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles" has no doubt been primarily responsible for the deregulation, privatization and trade policies that are currently negatively impacting the world financial markets.

John McCain appears to be pulling back from this "total world domination" doctrine for a nostalgic time when U.S. foreign policy operated undercover, so to speak. The "Big Stick" corollary for John McCain is to use his mate and running mate to personally attack his opponent Barack Obama as McCain attempts to climb back up in the polls.

It is ironic that the Monroe Doctrine's purpose was to prevent intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American countries by Europeans. What it really did was give the U.S. "justification" to intervene and "police" Latin America. The Roosevelt "Big Stick" corollary sought to justify U.S. intervention whenever the American government thought it was necessary.

For Haitians, this intervention saw their democratically elected president isolated by an aid and loan blockade, and ultimately the Haitian president was intimidated and kidnapped. Haiti was declared a "failed state", facilitating a brutal UN military occupation.

When you look at the world economic crisis that has resulted from the U.S. doctrine of "total world domination", the instinct is to say--how the mighty have fallen, on their big stick.

Sarah Palin's 18 Million Cracks –Repackaging McCain As An Agent of Change

Sarah "Barracuda" Palin attempts to steal the ball from an opponent in high school. Sarah Palin has demonstrated how closely the McCain campaign is tied to the Bush administration. Her attack speech on Wednesday night was penned by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. The speech switched gears from pushing McCain's experience to appropriating Obama's message of change. Sarah Palin read the material in a mocking and sarcastic manner -- with all the acquired aplomb of an experienced TV personality. Below are a few of the cracks she made at the expense of the Obama team -- ten million more to go? PALIN: “There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform – not even in the state senate.” Known as the backhand compliment, this tactic is designed to raise your opponent above your head before you slam them to the ground. On the other hand, it is instructive to learn that the McCain campaign will lie to the American people with the same impunity that the Bush administration displays. One major bill that Barack Obama co-sponsored with Republican Senator Richard Lugar is now law. In Dec. 2006, the Senate passed the Lugar-Obama bill to restrict the global spread of conventional weapons. PALIN: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.” The usual refrain from Republicans, who accuse democrats of "taxing and spending" – well we know who the real spenders are, because everytime a Republican gets elected, they proceed to grow the deficit, borrow from Peter (China) to pay Paul (Iraq war) and put this country in debt, while reducing the tax burden for corporations and the wealthiest one percent of the population. PALIN: “Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems - as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.” Palin Said She Would Beg to Disagree With Candidate Who Said We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of Our Problem. Asked by Invester’s Business Daily “Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can’t drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What’s your best guess of the impact on prices?” Palin responded, “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it’s impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices.” [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08] PALIN: “Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them.” Palin Supported Increasing Wasilla Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent to Build $14.7 Million Sports Center. “Wasilla residents have given the go ahead to building a new multiuse sports center in town and to raising the city sales tax to pay for it. With the final votes counted Friday, residents voted 306 to 286 in favor of a measure to raise the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of building the center…Mayor Sarah Palin, who supported the measure, said the tight vote will motivate city officials to keep a close eye on the budget for the center.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/9/02] PALIN: “As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment.” McCain was for Roe v Wade before he was against it. In 2000, John McCain was for abortion in cases of rape (unlike Palin, who is against abortion in all circumstances). However, in 2007, John McCain voted to repeal Roe v Wade. McCain was for immigration reform before he distanced himself from it. McCain was against torture before he voted for waterboarding. McCain claims to be an advocate for veterans funding, yet he voted to cut veterans funding. McCain believed that the confederate flag was a "symbol of heritage" in 2000, but in 2007 he stated that "the confederate flag on top of the capital building" was wrong; in front it was ok. McCain is only an agent of change, if you count the number of times he has flip flopped on the issues. Surely, Hillary Clinton will have something to say about the attempt by the McCain campaign to appropriate her "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" remark and her electorate. HRC and Sarah Palin's stands on the issues are diametrically opposed. HRC the ball is in your court.

Barackmeter to November Elections

Taking the reigns of the Democratic party. Barack Obama has impressed many with his implementation of the "no lobbyist" money rule for the DNC. He has also been praised for aligning with Howard Dean's vision of a 50 states strategy for winning the November election. Finally, many see his backing of Joe Lieberman against the wall during a Senate vote for an impromptu tete-a-tete as a show of leadership talent a la LBJ.

Undoubtedly, Barack Obama has political talent, but only time will tell whether he is a political genius as some have suggested. I reserve judgment. I am particularly disturbed by his pandering to the Israeli lobby (Jerusalem will remain the capital of the Israeli state -- from his address to AIPAC last week; a real blunder and step in the wrong direction, away from mediation to authoritarianisms).

Continuing the US foreign policy of Israel = US proxy in the Middle East is disastrous. The US cannot be an honest broker of peace between Palestinians and Israelis when its policy is to back whatever Israel does -- making the US hated and feared as a hypocrite and a warmonger.

Many have their political barometers poised and predict a win for the Democratic candidate...

"In an article last week on University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball Web site, Abramowitz declared that “it appears very likely that the Republican Party is dealing with the dreaded 'triple whammy' in 2008: an unpopular president, a weak economy and a second-term election.”

Abramowitz has tracked the effect of those variables on the last 15 presidential elections and found that they accurately predicted the popular-vote outcome in 14 and came close in the 15th.

...The Abramowitz barometer is a shortcut variation on American University professor Allan Lichtman's famed “13 Keys to the Presidency,” which adds such factors as wars, candidate charisma, scandal and the incumbent party's performance in off-year elections to the economy and incumbency.

When Lichtman published the latest edition of his book early this year, he flatly predicted that “the Democratic candidate will capture the White House in 2008 no matter the choice of a nominee."
McCain needs vision to beat Obama
by Morton Kondracke

Maybe John McCain is alarmed by such predictions. Senator McCain used the word change 33 time in his speech introducing his campaign's new slogan -- "change we need right now." In his attempt to co-opt Obama's message "change we can believe in" McCain is hoping to gain some Obama-mentum for the upcoming November election.

An insider produces a book describing "high incompetency and low deceit in the White House"... that sounds like a description of Scott McClellan's book "What Happened..." but it's not. It was a book (IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK) written about the Reagan presidency by Reagan's former budget director David A. Stockman; reviewed by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times in 1986. Reagan advocated "small" government via budget cuts and tax cuts and this refrain is oft repeated by the Republicans.

John McCain is not deterred by the Reagan presidency incurring a huge national debt using just such a formula as he has proposed or by the Bush administration having surpassed all other administrations combined in the amount of debt owed by the US government. He's voted with Bush 95% of the time.

John McCain's eyes glaze over when he discusses the economy (he knows nothing about it, he's admitted -- the so-called "straight shooter, shot himself in the foot on that one!). He's no genius and his tax plan is wrong for the US economy.

Why don't the Republicans ever learn from history? Didn't they learn from the hurricane Katrina ineptitude and embarrassment? The US needs to invest in its public infrastructures to avoid such disasters happening to levees, roads, bridges, highways, schools, etc.

There's ample proof that McCain's plan to reduce the size of government to the infamous size "where we can drown it in a bathtub" is ill advised and delusional. There is no merit to his "...corporate giveaways and phony freezes and scrubs, McCain's tax agenda undermines his core political appeal" (from McCain's Delusional Tax Plan by Robert Gordon and James Kvaal).

No matter what barometer the political pundits use to gauge the political winds, it is still possible that John McCain will be our next president. I was shocked when Reagan was elected. I will be mildly amused when and if McCain is. For many reasons, but chiefly because the American "electorate" is predictably ill-informed.

Hillary Raises mcCAIN

When was the last time a Democratic candidate endorsed a Republican rival? This has to be a new low in Democratic politics.

Here is the quote from the Huffingtonpost:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Keith Oberman pilloried Hillary on his show:

"Tonight on his show, Keith Olbermann eviscerated Hillary Clinton for a good ten minutes for promoting John McCain's presidency over her fellow Democrats. He compared her to Joe Lieberman. He asked "is she equating her time in the East Wing with McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton?" You have got to watch these videos. They're devastating in only the way that Keith can be."

Hillary makes the case that it should be her as the Democratic nominee or no other Democrat should win. It's a very short sighted tactic. She is making Obama's case for having a corner on vision and inspiration. In light of this remark, it's really curious that Bill Clinton is the latest Clinton to evoke a Clinton/Obama ticket. Hillary Clinton hinted at a ticket:

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me," she said on CBS."

Obama responds:

"Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate -- you know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count -- but you know, what I’m really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country."

Paul Abrams who blogs on The Huffington Post questions the Clinton's tactics; "Have the Clintons Outsmarted Themselves? If Hillary Might Choose Obama as VP, Doesn't That Mean SHE Believes He's "Ready" to be President?"

The Obama campaign is contemplating trips to Europe, Israel, Asia. Why no Africa... I've got my theory; maybe someone will try to get Obama into one of those Muslim get-ups; then that image will be used again to "smear" him.

What about this question of inexperience, is it a legitimate charge? Are John McCain and Hillary Clinton more "experienced" than Barack Obama. The media watchdog FAIR points out that "...on what most would call the most important recent issue of "national security"--Iraq--McCain was stupendously wrong. The same is true of Hillary Clinton. Additionally, McCain when he was asked a question about the eminence of an attack on Iran displayed a dismal lack of leadership.