Gregarius » Crooks and Liars

Crooks and Liars (14 unread)

Late Night Music Club with Dogzilla

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 11:30pm EDT by bluegal

Enclosure: [download]

The Beantown band and their classic hit “Lunch! With! Ed!” from 1989.
John McCain says No to Choice: I will be a Pro Life President!

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 10:57pm EDT by John Amato

Enclosure: [download]

This is something that he can’t run away from anymore. Ladies, he’s not your man. He said he will run a pro-life—or—anti-choice White House. Apparently—the innocent Iraqis that have been killed didn’t get a chance to share in his vision for America.

Thanks Jed for the vid…
Quick Impressions on the Forum

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 10:09pm EDT by John Amato

The Rick Warren forum really tells you all you need to know. Obama tried to be thoughtful in all his responses, some people say he takes too long to answer, but I think he’s just trying to think before he responds. In the debates he will have to be quick on the draw and powerful, but he looked comfortable and sincere. I may not agree with all his positions, but he seems right at home on Warren’s stage. The crowd was warm to him, but clearly on the Republican side.

On the Supreme Court he attacked Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but I wish he pointed out that they have made the bench a complete right wing activist mill instead of judges deciding cases on facts.

McCain is very good in these intimate settings. Put him on SNL or Jay Leno and he does very well. That’s something that shouldn’t be taken lightly by us or the Obama camp. When he gives a speech or appears in a debate, he’s out of his element and looks lost. He can get quite nasty too. Republicans can give very basic answers in Evangelical settings. McCain proclaimed, I’ll be a pro life President. The crowd was warmer to his positions which we all knew would be the case. Tonight he just recited his stump speech. When he responded to a thoughtful position change he’s made in the last ten years, it was -drll, drill, drill. All he talked about in the beginning were stories form Vietnam and being in a POW camp. He opened by praising Gen. Petraeus and then went on from there. My God, he had no shame when it came to that.

McCain refused to address the classes when it came to wealth. What constitutes being rich and so forth. Obama was very clear on that issue.

It will be interesting to see how the media reviews both of them. Will they call out McCain’s pandering to his own military record? I understand that’s what he’s running on, but to me he trivialized his experiences there.

UPDATE: David Gergen brought up the point that Obama was able to connect with Evangelicals and addressed the Muslim smears pretty effectively. He thought McCain’s POW stories helped him the most and was effective as well.
Mark Warner will deliver Democratic keynote

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 9:00pm EDT by SilentPatriot

Great choice.

HuffPo:

Barack Obama chose Mark Warner, Virginia’s Senate candidate and former governor, to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic convention, underscoring Democrats’ all-out effort to win the Southern state for the first time since 1964.

The move announced Wednesday also raises questions about the prospects of Obama choosing Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate.

Warner is to speak on Aug. 26, the second day of the convention in Denver, while the yet-to-be-named vice presidential nominee is slated to address delegates a day later on Aug. 27.

Veep speculation (and concerns about lobbyist money) aside, choosing Warner to deliver the keynote is pretty smart. Not only does it give Warner further exposure, it reinforces the Obama’s commitment to winning Virginia (which Bush carried by 260,000 plus votes in 2004) this fall.
Obama-McCain-Warren Presidential Forum: Open Thread

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 8:31pm EDT by John Amato

Obama has begun. McCain follows in the second hour….

Wow, McCain mentioned Petraeus, the Military and being a POW in about a minute so far. Oh, and drill, drill, drill.

You may not agree with all his positions. but Obama was thoughtful throughout. He bashed Scalia and Clarence Thomas which I enjoyed, McCain is just stumping. That’s what Republicans do.
How The Democrats Can Blow It …In Six Easy Steps

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 8:00pm EDT by John Amato

Michael Moore gives Obama a little advice:

In an effort to help the party doofuses and pundits — and the candidate himself — spare all of us another suicide-inducing election night, as the results giving the election to the Republican pour in, here is the blueprint from the Democrats’ past losing campaigns. Just follow each of these steps and you, the Democratic Party establishment, can help elect John Sidney McCain III to a four-year extension of the Bush Era.

Read more….
When you’re right you’re right

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 6:30pm EDT by John Amato

Via The Next Right on Jerome Corsi:

The French Revolution produced the saying “no enemies to the Left” - a mindset that has poisoned both the Left and the Right in American politics. As a result, some figures who should be repudiated have, instead, become prominent representatives. On the Right, in particular, the “go along to get along” approach has created a Movement where the bad guys are protected, and the people who get promoted are those who make friends, not waves.

It’s wrong, and it needs to stop. So, with that said…

The continued tolerance and prominence of Jerome Corsi - his books, columns and appearances - is just embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the Right, embarrassing for Republicans, embarrassing for conservatives and libertarians, embarrassing for all of us.

It’s not just that he’s frequently, remarkably wrong - something pretty well documented and acknowledged by both the Left and (while less enthusiastically) the Right. (and the Obama campaign (PDF), of course) Both the Obama campaign and Hugh Hewitt acknowledge that Jerome Corsi is “fringe”.

Bad as his gross errors are, though, it’s not just that. It’s also about who Jerome Corsi is…read on

(h/t Matt Stoller)
No More Liebermans – Obama Should Pick a Progressive for Veep

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 5:00pm EDT by Kathryn Kolbert

The Right Wing has a mantra about Supreme Court nominations: No New Souters. They’re talking about Justice David Souter, who was nominated by the first President Bush but left conservatives feeling burned. They thought he would be another Scalia or Thomas but were apoplectic when he failed to go along with the program - in fact, he often stands up for the rights of individuals against the powerful business and government interests favored by the Right.

Progressives, on the other hand, have had the unfortunate experience of watching this play out in reverse. Senator Joe Lieberman arrived on the national stage as the running mate of Al Gore, whose campaign stressed support of the people over the powerful. But he has gone down a reactionary path in the years since, and seems destined to become the next Zell Miller.

We can’t afford to have another VP nominee who would undermine the progressive movement from within. When we talk about Barack Obama and his coming decision, we ought to have a mantra of our own: No New Liebermans. Instead, Obama must choose a running mate who shares his - and our - progressive values and is firmly committed to pursuing them.

To help get the message across, People For the American Way has launched a petition that calls on Obama to choose a progressive. You can sign the petition and enter your preferred VP nominee here. Next week we will present the petitions and top three VP vote-getters directly to the Obama campaign. Now is the time for progressives to make their voices heard!

(By Kathryn Kolbert, President of the PFAW)
Mid-day Open Thread

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 3:46pm EDT by bluegal

Enclosure: [download]

“Dick Cheney Blues” by Danny Cox. h/t RF. Open Thread below…
An odd example of ‘putting country first’

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 2:28pm EDT by Steve Benen

In late June, the McCain campaign was aggressively pushing the line that John McCain has taken political risks by working with Dems on important issues. Pressed for a recent example to bolster the claim, a campaign spokesperson said, “It’s fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party,” adding that he “reached across the aisle despite a heated primary campaign.”

And this week, as the McCain campaign began to push the line that Barack Obama doesn’t put “country first,” the same team relied on the same example. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman reported:

I asked McCain’s closest advisor and friend, Mark Salter, for an example of a time when Obama did not “put the country first.” His answer: the Senate maneuvering of immigration legislation.

In his view, Obama did big labor’s bidding by helping to kill the chances for a grand compromise on immigration reform.

“His campaign came before his country,” Salter told me in an e-mail.

In other words, if you weren’t for McCain’s deal, you didn’t put the country first.

Fineman’s right to find Salter’s argument foolish, but the argument is actually even worse than Fineman suggests: McCain wasn’t for McCain’s deal, which suggests McCain didn’t put country first, either.

To follow Salter’s logic, “putting country first” means supporting the compromise immigration package. As it happens, Obama did support the legislation, but disagreed with McCain on a vote on a specific amendment, which apparently means Obama doesn’t really love America. Or something. It’s hard to tell with these guys.

But let’s not lose sight of what McCain did here. To his credit, McCain took a risk working with Dems on a comprehensive immigration reform measure during the Republican primaries. His efforts failed — McCain couldn’t get his bill through the Senate, and his poll numbers tanked when GOP voters learned of his efforts.

But what happened next? McCain said, over and over again, that he disapproves of his own legislation. He conceded in a nationally televised debate that he wouldn’t even vote for his own bill. McCain has reiterated his opposition to the compromise he personally struck throughout the presidential campaign.

So what on earth is the McCain campaign talking about? If Obama failed to “put the country first” on immigration, doesn’t this mean McCain has completely given up on “putting the country first”?
McCain’s lobbyists have raked in nearly $1 BILLION in fees

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 1:26pm EDT by SilentPatriot

But John McCain is the “anti-lobbyist” candidate, right!?

HuffPo:

The non-partisan group Campaign Money Watch has come up with another startling figure for those who follow the presidential money chase.

According to an analysis performed by the group, McCain’s top fundraisers and aides have collected nearly $1 billion in fees from U.S. companies in the past decade — specifically, $930,949,819. Using numbers provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, the group also found that officials of those very same companies have given nearly $12 million to McCain’s presidential campaign, so far.

How’s that for a talking point?
GAO Study: Most US corporations avoid income tax

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 12:00pm EDT by SilentPatriot

…which is precisely why John McCain’s plan to give them more tax breaks is exactly what our ailing economy needs, right?

Reuters:

Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

[…] During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

Unfortunately the report failed to name names. Hopefully some intrepid reporters will get to the bottom of it. I wonder where the oil companies stand in this whole mess. I can’t imagine it being good for John McCain’s case if, say, ExxonMobil was getting huge government subsidies while also avoiding paying income taxes.
Mike’s Blog Round Up

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 11:00am EDT by Mike Finnigan

Jerry Wexler, RIP: I’m proud and grateful that Jerry was a friend of mine, beginning the day in 1975 he called me, out of the blue, and said, “I like the way you sing. Let’s make a record.” I couldn’t have been more surprised and thrilled if I’d received a phone call from God. I’d grown up listening to Jerry Wexler-produced records. He’s one of the reasons I’m a musician. He took me to Muscle Shoals, Alabama and we did an album for Warner Brothers. Being around Jerry was a constant joy. He was a walking encyclopedia of popular American music, especially R&B and jazz. Aside from his important contributions as a genuine musical pioneer, and his unique talents as a producer, he was a wonderful raconteur, a man of exquisite taste, a tough businessman, but a gentleman, and a soft touch for musicians.

I could ask him something like, “tell me about Solomon Burke…” and he’d do an hour of lively, informative and often hilarious commentary on that subject and related topics, one story sparking another. I spent countless hours with him in New York before and after our project, in Alabama while we were recording, and on many occasions in the succeeding 30 years, pestering him to talk about his life in music, which he was always happy to do. I learned a lot. About his experiences with everyone from Ray Charles, to Willie Nelson, to Wilson Pickett, to Aretha Franklin, to Bob Dylan, and on and on. The last time I spoke with him several weeks ago, I opened the conversation by asking how he was doing. “How the hell you think I’m doing,” he replied…”I’m 91…!!” What an honor it was for me to have had the opportunity to work with Jerry Wexler. I lost a friend. American music lost one of the greats.

Thought Theater: Compare & Contrast: Family Values and the 2008 election

Frameshop: What America needs to hear about Jerome Corsi, and the denialists riding the slime machine.

Pam’s House Blend: Do your homework or Teach might pop a cap in your ass.

The Big Picture: Financial Innovation
Would McCain consider a pro-choice running mate?

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 8:30am EDT by Steve Benen

Just a few months ago, Chris Matthews asked John McCain if he would consider a pro-choice running mate, such as former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. “I don’t know if [his position on the issue] would stop him, but it would be difficult,” McCain said.

McCain is saying something different now.

Republican John McCain says he has not ruled out choosing Pennsylvania’s popular former Gov. Tom Ridge as a running mate despite his support for abortion rights, a hot-button issue that could inflame some voters among the party’s conservative base.

McCain appeared to be testing the issue — weighing the benefits against the costs of picking Ridge, who could help the Arizona senator win Pennsylvania. […]

“And also I feel that — and I’m not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together,” McCain added. “You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily would rule Tom Ridge out.”

Chatting with the Weekly Standard, McCain was pressed a little further, and reminded that he told Republican primary voters that he wouldn’t consider NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the ticket because he’s pro-choice. McCain told the Standard that Republicans should be inclusive, and the party’s voters could find Ridge more palatable because Bloomberg “is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”

In other words, the GOP should be open to voters who support abortion rights, but not gay rights. Republicans should be tolerant, but not too tolerant.

How open minded of him.

I should add, by the way, that McCain’s remarks about considering a pro-choice running mate might lead some to believe that McCain is some kind of “moderate” on reproductive rights.

Sarah Blustain had a great item in The New Republic this week, explaining just how big a “zealot” McCain is on this issue.

During his political career, McCain has participated in 130 reproductive health-related votes on Capitol Hill; of these, he voted with the anti-abortion camp in 125. McCain has consistently backed rights for the unborn, voting to cover fetuses under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allowed a “child in utero” to be recognized as a legal victim of a crime. He has voted in favor of the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. funds from going to international family-planning clinics that use their own money to perform abortions, offer information about abortion, or take a pro-choice stand. And he has voted to appoint half a dozen anti-abortion judges to the federal bench, as well as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. During the Bork hearings, McCain attacked the Court’s creation of a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade: “Whether one is pro-or anti-abortion,” McCain said in an October 1987 hearing, “it is difficult to argue that the Court’s opinion is not constitutionally suspect.”

Some of these votes were, politically speaking, no-brainers for anyone vaguely in the pro-life camp. But McCain also joined efforts supported only by the radical wing of his party. He voted, for instance, with only one-fifth of the Senate to remove family-planning grants from a 1988 spending bill and with only 18 senators that same year against allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

In 1994, the year after abortion provider David Gunn was killed outside a Florida clinic, McCain voted with 29 members of the Senate against establishing penalties for violent or threatening interference outside abortion clinics. Many solidly pro-life Republicans–Mitch McConnell, Kit Bond, John Danforth–voted in favor of the bill, called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). “We tried to get as many co-sponsors as we could, and we postured the thing as anti-vigilante violence,” recalls Judy Appelbaum, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy at the time and the lead Hill staffer on the bill. “We argued that, even if you oppose abortion, you should not condone these actions.” According to Appelbaum, law enforcement officials, newspaper editorialists, health care providers, and law-and-order politicians all supported the bill. “There were a number of very anti-choice senators who voted for FACE,” she says, “and [McCain] wasn’t one of them.” Instead, McCain joined senators like Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms in opposition.

Conservative writer Charlotte Allen summarized McCain’s congressional career well last year in The Weekly Standard, noting, “[He] has never failed to cast his vote in favor of whatever abortion restrictions are arguably permitted under Roe v. Wade: bans against partial-birth abortion, abortions on military bases, transporting minors across state lines to obtain abortions behind their parents’ backs, and government funding for abortion both in the United States and abroad. … In addition, McCain has voted to confirm every ’strict constructionist’ judge … appointed by the various Republican presidents who have served during his tenure.” And, she added, “Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America…consistently award him ratings of absolute zero on their scorecards.”

If your concern is for women’s rights and reproductive freedom, McCain is a nightmare. Don’t let the running-mate trial-balloon fool you.