Required Reading

Everyone needs to read this post by Phillip Butler, a Vietnam vet who was a POW with John McCain.  It's probably the single most effective piece I've read on McCain's personality, temper, and time as a POW.  He phrases his arguments far better than I can, so I won't bother summarizing him here.  What's important, though, is that this is how Democrats can breach McCain's "shield" of military service.  It's similar to what Wes Clark said a few months back, but loses the brash, confrontational tone.  While he's obviously partisan, the most effective parts of the writing are when he simply states the facts about John McCain's life, without any opinion.  Get this story out on TV, and maybe we can finally start to have a real debate between the candidates, and not this "You can't question me since I was a POW, but I can make insinuations about the other guy's patriotism all I want since he looks different" crap that's characterized the campaign so far.

Awesome

MSNBC now has the best two hours of liberal coverage on TV, with Countdown at 8 and Rachel Maddow's new show at 9.  I hate to make the comparison, but MSNBC seems to be realizing that the way for them to overtake CNN is to become for the left almost what Fox News is for the right (minus the lying, the slimeblags, and the lying slimebags).  Although they still employ Tucker Carlson, for some unknown reason.

GA-Sen: Woah! Chambliss at 50%, Dem Martin within 6

I follow the Senate races pretty closely but I have to admit this surprises me. Rasmussen has Sen. Saxby Chambliss of GA (the man who, you may recall, beat Max Cleland in one of the most depressing elections ever six years ago) just clinging to the magic 50% number, with challenger Jim Martin rapidly closing the gap. Who would have possibly expected this race would be competitive?

Of course, Rasmussen is right to point out that this could just be a bounce produced by Martin's finally winning the primary, and we are talking here about just one poll. But look how well it fits the trend:

And it's also true that Chambliss has like eighty bajillion dollars in his campaign account and Martin has, I don't know, $10. Which, regardless of close polls, makes the odds of a Democratic win here pretty microscopic. But it could happen if Martin picks up momentum (and remember, the presence of Bob Barr might cause screwy things downticket in Georgia)... keep an eye on this one.

--Another indicator of growing dissatisfaction with Republicans in unlikely areas: Oklahoma. A DSCC poll (and, yes, consider the source) has Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) at that same 50% mark, up 9 against his opponent Andrew Rice. Even if national numbers do now appear to be stalling, the picture in downticket races just keeping looking better for Democrats...

"Buy American, Vote Obama"

I like this.

More from the Department of Irony

George Bush on Russia's invasion of Georgia:

Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.... Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.

Robert Gates on the consequences of the invasion:

What happens in the days and months to come will determine the future course of U.S.-Russian relations. But by the same token, my personal view is that there needs to be some consequences for the actions that Russia has taken against a sovereign state.

And:

My guess is that everyone is going to be looking at Russia through a different set of lenses as we look ahead.

Speaking from experience, perhaps?

(For a previous update from the Department of Irony, see here.)

The Great Pop Culture Showdown

Last week’s issue of Entertainment Weekly contained an article entitled “The Other Presidential Debate.”  It’s basically a pair of interviews with Senators Obama and McCain regarding their pop culture proclivities.  Given the recent discussion about the candidates’ musical tastes here on the blog and on Dems-Talk, I figure I’d provide some analysis regarding their favorite films and TV shows, and decide which senator wins this showdown.  Let’s have a gander!

Favorite movie or TV president.  This is probably my favorite question, as it’s one I’ve mulled over many a time (is it Josiah Bartlet or Andrew Shepherd?  Hmmm . . .).  John McCain selected Dennis Haysbert’s David Palmer from the TV series 24.  Since I’ve never watched the show, and because the plots seem too often to veer into the ridiculous, he loses points.  Obama, on the other hand, provided an absolutely fantastic selection:

“You know who was a great movie president?  Jeff Bridges in The Contender.  That was a great movie president.  He was charming and essentially an honorable person, but there was a rogue about him.  The way he would order sandwiches – he was good at that.”

Terrific answer!  Bridges’s Oscar-nominated President Jackson Evans in the underrated political drama is a great performance and a wonderful character.  Just watch this clip:

Obama clearly wins this round.

 Best movie about the Vietnam War.  This query was posed only to McCain.  His answer?  We Were Soldiers.  Wrong.  While the Senator from Arizona acknowledged the existence of Full Metal Jacket, Coming Home, Born on the Fourth of July, and Apocalypse Now, all of which were critically-acclaimed, he stuck with the okay Mel Gibson picture as the best.  Since Obama wasn’t asked this question, we won’t hold it against McCain.  But still, not the best choice by a long shot.

Last movie seen in theaters.  McCain, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  Obama, Shrek 3 (he has kids; what can you do).  McCain wins.

Favorite movie.  McCain scores some major points here not only for his unique response, but also for giving some good cinematic history.  Director Elia Kazan worked with Marlon Brando on three films.  Rather than choosing either of the two more famous collaborations, A Streetcar Named Desire or On the Waterfront, he goes with the lesser-known Viva Zapata!, a chronicle of the Mexican revolutionary co-written by John Steinbeck.  Obama wasn’t asked this question in this particular interview, but his Facebook lists five films as his favorites: the first four, Casablanca, The Godfather Part I and II, and Lawrence of Arabia are all great films, but are a bit overdone on favorite films lists.  He gets a few extra marks for his fifth choice, the edgier One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, but I think McCain’s interesting response earns him a win here.

First film seen as a kid.  The older McCain picked an older film: Bambi, released in 1942, sixteen days before the candidate’s sixth birthday.  Obama recalled the lion cub-themed tearjerker Born Free (released in 1966 when Obama was also five).  Obama wins the round because while Born Free’s ecological message may have inspired Obama’s pro-environment stance, the tragic murder of Bambi’s mom clearly has not impacted McCain’s views on gun control.

Favorite TV show.  OK folks, this is it.  Obama and McCain are virtually tied going into this last category.  McCain scored a huge initial blow by declaring that he “really likes” Curb Your Enthusiasm.  Senator Obama, do you have a response?  The Gentleman from Illinois did not disappoint: he countered with M*A*S*H.  By the rules of the Hawley Guide to Pop Culture, anything with Alan Alda automatically gives the contestant one million bonus points.  Not even McCain’s Seinfeld, Dexter, and The Wire come close to touching Obama’s Aldaholic lead (he further pulls ahead by saying that one of his kids’ favorites, SpongeBob SquarePants is “pretty funny” because, let’s face it, it is).

And the winner is . . .  Thanks to some help from Hawkeye Pierce, the award for Best Overall Taste goes to Senator Barack Obama.  But due to McCain’s strong performance (hopefully a fluke), I have to say that even without any mention of The West Wing, the two candidates both demonstrated some genuine pop culture acumen.

Obama, McCain Reveal Favorite Songs, and I am Snarky About it.

Obama and McCain recently revealed to Blender magazine their favorite songs:

So What IS on their ipods/Victrolas?

Not a lot of surprises there - McCain's list has a few songs that absolutely dare you to dislike them (who hates As Time Goes By), and Obama's is slightly more interesting, with the upsettingly risque "I'm On Fire", for one.

Now, I was inspired to compile a list of Five Chutzpah Songs. As in, a presidential candidate would have to have cojones visible from Alpha Centauri to pick them, but they do have major stature as songs, so they'd be legit picks for people's top ten.

Presenting: My fantasy Presidential Song Pick List!

Goodnight Saigon - Billy Joel
Of course, it would be even ballsier to tout this song in a campaign against McCain...
Billy Joel Runner-up: Captain Jack

American Idiot - Green Day
I think this one speaks for itself - talk about opening yourself up to "elitist" attacks.

Cocaine - Eric Clapton
Despite that it might have been appropriate for George Bush, probably not the best song to choose.

Born in the USA - Bruce Springsteen
And you can't hide behind the "I only listen to the chorus" idea since Reagan already used that excuse.
Bruce Springsteen runner-up: Murder Incorporated

Down and Out in Paradise - John Mellencamp
Wonderful song that reads like a description of campaign speech examples (Jimmy here had this horrible stuff happen to him... vote for me), showing that America is hardly a pure paradise. I actually would have liked to see this song on one of their lists, since it's so powerful a message, and really relevant to the presidential cause.

There are other songs that would take major chutzpah, but none that I can think of are nearly legit enough, unfortunately...

~M.

When Thomas Friedman is Right

After peering at Eva's post, which talked about the failures of the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, I decided to take a look at Thomas Friedman's column for this week.

And yes, despite his many failings, he does occasionally write a solid column. While his latest piece is a bit late, he definitely came up with a respectable critique of McCain's so called support for renewable energy and gave a solid justification for why production tax credits are necessary. Many Republicans don't realize that renewable energy projects that would mean thousands of well-paying jobs are literally on hold because companies don't know what to expect with the production tax credits.

While most of his column was old news, there was one bit that made me chuckle and cry:

Roger Efird is president of Suntech America — a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. They’ve been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: “Don’t set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we don’t have stability in the incentive programs.”

Yes, that's right: Chinese-owned companies are trying to create jobs into the US, but we won't let them. I don't think middle America knew about that one, but boy, that's an ugly twist of fate.

While I am tangentially ranting, I must also say that McCain's recent response to Obama's first national ad made me puke. In fact, any time he pretends to support renewable energy makes me cringe, as it does when almost any Republican says he or she does. If you really support renewable energy, then you could have bothered to show up to vote one of the EIGHT TIMES the bill came to the floor, as Thomas Friedman mentioned. No, renewable energy is not John McCain, even if you hire someone to say it in that dark and scary attack ad voice. That is assuming, of course, that we won't figure out how to produce electricity from personal character attacks and politically convenient lies.

Friedman did take a tiny shot at Obama for only showing up for three of the votes (which is unmerited, considering that it was obvious that Obama would come back if his vote would make a difference), but I'm willing to give it to his desire to appear to be "fair and balanced", for whatever that's worth.

When someone unfairly attacks Obama for voting present, remind them of the tough votes that Obama managed to take his time for this year that McCain somehow missed, from the War Supplemental with the GI Bill to the bill that saved Medicare. Talk about being afraid to take a stance.

T-shirts for McCain

Eugene Kane, one of the more interesting columnists in my esteemed local paper, has been on a kick recently about a blog he discovered called "Black Men for McCain." Kane, a black man who is pretty clearly not for McCain, is puzzled about this phenomenon. I am not surprised the website exists, but I'm not totally mystified as to why McCain doesn't seem to have attracted a particularly large following among African-Americans. Among other reasons, apparently they're not even trying. As our mysterious blogger points out, a quick perusal of the McCain Store's t-shirt section reveals apparel catering to all kinds of ethnic groups: Irish for McCain, Asians and Pacific Islanders for McCain, Jewish Americans for McCain, Arab Americans for McCain, and Hispanics for McCain. Dads, moms, women, sportsmen, business leaders, first responders, future leaders, veterans of all five services (yeah, that's right, the Coast Guard made the cut), and Americans with disabilities can all proudly display their group-specific allegiance to John McCain. There is no Obscenely Wealthy People for McCain shirt, but you can buy a $200 fleece jacket - MORE EXPENSIVE THAN NORTHFACE - to showcase your status and poor judgment with one all-weather garment. And Bikers for McCain - truly his favorite constituency - get not only a t-shirt but also a bumper sticker, a helmet sticker, and a bandanna. But there is no T-shirt for African-Americans for McCain.

Subsequently, commenters pointed out that African-Americans for McCain can, in fact, purchase a T-shirt, a key chain, a button, or a bumper stickers - but you have to search the store for them. I smell a conspiracy.

You would think he would get it after 7 years...

But no.
The Huffington Post points out that Bush can't always figure out how the American flag works.
I mean, it's pretty complicated. Almost like rocket science. Only without the rockets. Or the science. Mostly just with the observation skills...

Gunman Attacks and Seriously Wounds Chair of the Arkansas Democratic Party

Arkansas Democratic Party Chair, Bill Gwatney was wounded when an armed assailant forced his way into the party office in Little Rock today. While this is still developing news and no motive has been established it brings up a few interesting points that I have learned while working with the California Democratic Party this summer. 

First, many people actually call party offices and demand that volunteers and staff actually do something about some problem that has global reach and implications. I recall answering a phone to have someone say that I, personally, needed to fix my state's water problem and that calls to the F.B.I. and C.I.A. would be made if I did not comply. It's kind of obvious when people conduct themselves in this type of manner they are either not completely coherent of what they're saying or they simply don't know any better because of lack of a real civic education. These types of incidents take up our time, but have parallels that could be much more costly. The individual that called 911 because a Subway sandwich worker failed to put sauce on his Italian sub a few weeks ago is a good point to look to.

Secondly, I think that the media coverage of political groups has grown to be so negative in some cases that people are reacting because they believe that some party workers are inherently against what they believe to be best for this nation. When people like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter spew such vile in print and on the air, it's apparent that new lows have been reached. They're not simply stating that they disagree with certain groups, but launch accusatory ad hominem that depict people that have a slightly different mindset as people that would sell this nation short for a year's membership in the ACLU.

Civic dialogue needs to be restored, but before that can truly happen, substantive changes to our education model need to be made so that people are literate about their government. You can't have a conversation if you don't have a common vocabulary bank to draw terms and ideas from. I just might be over thinking this incident, but I think these two factors contributed to today's incidence in Arkansas. I sent my prayers to the Chair of that State Party and his family members, but it's our work, our continued work for progress that will hopefully one day prevent events like these from happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14arkansas.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin 

The bright side of the Georgia conflict

When I was in high school, I spent a significant amount of time participating in a semi-obscure activity known as Student Congress, in which high school students put on suits at unreasonably early hours, sort themselves into groups of 24 or so, and debate various issues with three-minute speeches as if they were members of Congress. In terms of social status, it's right up there with band camp. (Harvard hosts one of the better tournaments every February, in case you're curious.) I enjoyed a lot of things about Student Congress, but one exception was the mind-numbing omnipresence of Thomas Friedman references. In an attempt to have something to say about all foreign policy topics without having to do any actual research, most of us would skim The Lexus and the Olive Tree and horribly oversimplify Friedman's arguments. (Did you know Tom Friedman loves globalization? And Bangalore? Me neither!) The single most pervasive example of this habit is Friedman's Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, which posits:

No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's.

Cute the first time around, but over a four-year span, it became the bane of my debating life. I'm just now acknowledging that Friedman occasionally writes good columns.

So you can imagine, or maybe you can't, the great joy I felt this morning when I saw Matt Yglesias point out that the Russia-Georgia conflict disproves Friedman's theory. Perusing the comments (and, for that matter, Wikipedia, which has proved surprisingly useful in this conflict), I discovered that a number of other incidents have actually disproved Friedman long before me - NATO bombed Serbia, the US invaded Panama, Israel fought Lebanon. In any case, it's really good to know that sometime, somewhere, some Thomas Friedman-citing kid is going to get shot down.

House Republicans Continue Talking To Themselves In The Dark, Seriously!

For the past two weeks, House Republicans under the leadership of their slightly deranged leader, John Boehner, have gone onto the floor of the U.S. of Representatives and discussed energy policy. Ordinarily this would just entail, spewing the talking points of oil corporations on C-SPAN, but guess what, the lights are off (literally). House Republicans are continuing to attempt this, filming their efforts with personal video cameras (C-SPAN isn't covering it because the House is not in session) and using flashlights in many instances. Coverage of this is spotty and not too many newspapers or blogs are covering it. It's kind of entertaining though. House Republicans thinking their Jimmy Stewart or something. Wait a second though, Jefferson Smith actually tried to prevent the destruction of our environment, what a novel idea. These Members of Congress are just talking to themselves and the occasional tourist to attempt to force drilling in ANWR and on the coast's of state like my beloved California. These guys are a bit crazy, but I'll hand it to them, they got to be smoking something to be keeping this charade up.

Quote of the Day: The Distinction Between "Illegal" and "Criminal"

On his decision not to prosecute Monica Goodling and other Justice Department officials who illegally restricted career positions to Republican cronies (via NYTimes):

“Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute,” he said. “But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said. As the inspector general’s report acknowledged, the hiring violations were such a case, because the wrongdoing violated federal civil service law, but not criminal law, he said.

Let's reduce this to syllogism form.

P1: Major Premise.The politically-motivated violation of civil service law constitutes a violation of everything we hold dear, as well as the basic anti-corruption and anti-fraud laws I would be seriously astounded if we did not have right now.

P2: Minor Premise. It is inconsistent with federal civil service law to apply a political litmus test when filling career positions in the civil service, i.e. the Justice Department.

P3: Fact. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will not prosecute the people who committed these "non-crime violations."

C3: Michael Mukasey is also a partisan tool and is committing an offense to ethics, if not to law (this syllogism is leading me to lose my faith in law).

Correct me if I'm wrong on P1; I really do hope I am, because I'd rather think the code of the law itself is incomplete (despite its obvious suggestion of the question, "WTF were the Civil Service reforms good for, then?"), rather than become depressed over the apparent lack of importance it has for our government.

McCain discovers Wikipedia

Taegan Goddard passes on a tip from a Wikipedia editor that John McCain's speech on the crisis in Georgia bore some striking similarities to the country's Wikipedia entry.

For instance, McCain describes Georgia as

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion

where Wikipedia describes it as

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion.

Or, McCain says:

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.

Wikipedia says:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis.

Far be it from me to sling accusations of plagiarism - I leave that to Hillary Clinton - but this looks awfully sketchy to me. On the plus side, if McCain really is going to be the president, I'm glad he (well, his speechwriter) is at least getting his facts from somewhere, even if the average high school teacher would consider it unworthy of citation. Think how much trouble he could have saved himself if he'd just read the Wikipedia article for Czechoslovakia. Next step in the McCain Personal Technological Literacy Plan: realize that some blogger, somewhere, will rapidly catch on to the fact that you used Wikipedia to formulate your foreign policy.