Patrick Ruffini:

For all the left has done to move bodies and build infrastructure, there’s one area in which they remain woefully lacking: message. Nowhere is this more apparent in their central charge against McCain: that he’s a Bush clone from top to bottom.

[...]

The problem is that it runs counter to some deeply ingrained perceptions about McCain, the most transparently un-Bush candidate Republicans could have nominated.

Uh, Pat?

[WOLF] BLITZER: When it comes to domestic economic issues, what is the major difference between President Bush’s policies, what he wants to do, and what John McCain would do if he were president?

[REPUBLICAN HOUSE WHIP ROY] BLUNT: Well, I think what John McCain wants to do is continue these pro-growth tax policies that our friends on the other side have been talking…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But that’s what President Bush wants to do too.

BLUNT: And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

[Emphasis Added]

Yeah, Pat, we’re the ones with the messaging problem. With geniuses like this at work, no wonder the GOP’s electoral chances are in the toilet.

This clip is from O’Reilly’s Inside Edition days–watch him scream at his crew over a dysfunctional teleprompter (from The Huffington Post):

O’Reilly is the embodiment of the modern Republican Party–an old man in a suit flying into spittle-flecked rages at the slightest provocation.

UPDATE: YouTube took the clip offline but you can see O’Reilly’s rage at Crooks and Liars.

In 2000, John McCain didn’t vote for the Republican candidate for President.

In 2001, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party.

In 2004, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party again, this time to be John Kerry’s running mate.

How does it feel to know that, instead of nominating a principled conservative, you nominated yourselves a political opportunist? If I were you guys, I would be suffering some serious buyer’s remorse right now.

Media Matters is taking the media to task for their hypocritical treatment of Cindy McCain.

As I wrote a few days ago, the media heaped huge amounts of scrutiny–and scorn–on Theresa Heinz-Kerry in 2004 due to the role her wealth played in her husband’s Presidential campaign.

Now–just four years later–the media can’t seem to muster the same skepticism when it comes to Cindy McCain.  McCain is an heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, which is worth well over $100 million.  In addition, Anheuser-Busch was one of John McCain’s biggest and earliest supporters–he owes much of his political career to their financial support.

This is just another sad, shameful case of “It’s okay if you’re a Republican.”  A Democratic Presidential candidate gets massive amounts of scrutiny for benefitting from his wife’s personal fortune, while a Republican Presidential candidate who does the same gets barely any notice.

When is the shameful double standard going to end?

Today brings us this headline from Think Progress:

McCain Aides Say Hagee Endorsement Was The Result Of ‘Poor Vetting’

More:

McCain’s aides attribute the Hagee controversy to poor vetting. But even some Republicans (not affiliated with the campaign) privately wonder how the pastor’s extreme views slipped through without notice. McCain personally wooed Hagee for more than a year.

[...]

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

John Ashcroft. Alberto Gonzales. Donald Rumsfeld. Michael Brown. Tom Ridge. Michael Chertoff. Dick Cheney.

After eight years of a President who surrounded himself with some of the worst advisers in Washington, I’d like a President who will take the time to actually vet someone before adding them to his/her inner circle.

Is it too much to ask for someone who wants to become leader of the free world to spend a few minutes actually looking up the people he/she relies on for guidance? Or are the American people supposed to accept overwhelming incompetence from our government?

John McCain is not fit to be President of the United States. America can’t take four more years of George-Bush-style government. We just can’t.

Feingold writes a letter to the Government Accountability Office inquiring about the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit.

Excerpts:

The Pentagon is free to air its views on any military operation but it should do so openly.
Potential covert production of press materials by the Defense Department would
undermine full and open public debate on one of the most important matters facing this
country, the war in Iraq. Such debate is essential to our democracy.

According to the article, the documents suggest that the Pentagon supplied retired
officers serving as analysts for several major American broadcasters with private
briefings with Sec. Rumsfeld, talking points in anticipation of appearing on TV, and
commercial airfare. Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly
describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Basically, the Pentagon supplied pro-war, pro-administration retired army officers to news outlets for the purpose of providing what was advertised to the public as unbiased analysis of the war in Iraq.  On-air, these officers’ connections to the Pentagon was undisclosed, and the American people were misled into thinking they were getting analysis based on field expertise, not political bias.

We know the Republicans sold their war to the American people with lies; we just didn’t know how far and how deep those lies went.  Now, at least, we have a little more of the whole picture.

A.J. is right:

While right-wing pundits furiously try to spin Rev. Wright’s comments as speaking for anyone other than Rev. Wright, it’s vital that progressive observers and commentators remember that their machine will do anything — anything — to confuse people and divert attention from the failures of conservative governance. On the economy, on values, on social policy, and, perhaps most of all given the current situation in Iraq, on foreign affairs.

Our policies in Iraq — not to mention places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Iran, North Korea — make America and the world a more dangerous place. Expert upon expert and report after report say so, and they’re correct. The right wing wants to tie this common-sense argument to controversial figures so they can marginalize ideas along with individuals, and it’s a smear tactic that can be devastating if people don’t stand up and identify it for what it is. They’re not making substantive critiques, they’re using the politics of destruction and distraction.

The politics of destruction. The politics of distraction. That’s what fuels the Right-Wing Noise Machine–conservatives know that if the election hinges on the issues, they’ll lose. So they try to distract the American people, paying ‘gotcha’ and distracting us from the very real problems we have to face every day.

This is why the right is pushing Wright above the fold day after day:

Bush — not Wright or Bill Clinton — is voters’ main concern

[...]

According to the poll, 73 percent of respondents disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy and 81 percent believe the United States is in a recession.

[...]

What is your preference for the outcome of this year’s congressional elections––a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?

Republican-controlled Congress ……34

Democrat-controlled Congress ……..49

And then there’s this:

The current data show that the most commonly mentioned characteristics about McCain are that he is “too old,” that he is a “good man”/”likable,” that he would give the country more of the same/be another George W. Bush, that he had a good military background, and basic dislike of him.

Interestingly, enough, “Good military background” has actually dropped from 11 percent to 8 percent. His age and the George Bush connection are quickly overshadowing his military service.

The politics of distraction give us headlines like this one:

While Malkin & Co. Continue Endless Circle Jerk On Wright, Deadliest Month Of 2008 In Iraq Gets Worse

The stakes in this election are the highest they’ve been in decades. The economy’s in ruin. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Gas prices are at record highs. America is in the midst of a health care crisis. Our deficit is the highest it’s ever been. Our enemies are stronger and our defenses are weaker. We as Americans face some of the biggest issues and the toughest battles of our times; we can’t afford to be distracted.

As I’ve said time and time again, Republicans can’t govern. They controlled all three branches of our government for years–we saw the effects of Republican control, and they were disastrous. They can’t win on the issues, so the GOP fires up the Right-Wing Noise Machine to distract us from the issues and focus us on trivial, pointless nonsense.

This time we can’t afford to fall for it. This time we can’t afford to fall for the politics of distraction. This time we have to stand up and tell them that this will not be tolerated. This time we must stand up and change our country for the better, and we will not let these right-wing charlatans stand in our way.

Enough is enough. Once and for all, enough is enough.

UPDATE: Bob Cesca nails it:

Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?

If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it’s very likely we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they’ve spent on Wright, we wouldn’t necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.

If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran’s so-called nuclear program as they’ve been about Wright, there wouldn’t be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking — or entirely obliterating — Iran.

[...]

So I have to ask the appropriate network executives the familiar yet appropriate question: Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

John McCain and George W. Bush’s Iraq war: 5 years down, 95 years to go.

Shorter John McCain: I am all in favor of pay equity for women just as long as I don’t actually have to do anything about it.

UPDATE: Also, there’s this:

McCain has topped both candidates, missing a staggering 58 percent of his votes during the 110th Congress, according to the Washington Post’s congressional votes database.

To put this in perspective, McCain has now missed more votes than Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who suffered a brain hemorrhage in December 2006 and was unable to return to the Senate until fall of last year. McCain has now missed nine votes more than Johnson.

John McCain can’t be bothered to even show up to the Senate anymore; how can we trust him to do any better as President?

The last thing America needs is another Bush term, another out-of-touch President who spends more time going on vacations than solving America’s problems.

Recently, John McCain has promised to eliminate all Congressional earmarks, no questions asked.

Sounds like a good plan to eliminate wasteful spending, right? Wrong. As it turns out, there are some important programs that are paid for with earmarks.

Like military aid to Israel and Egypt:

Some observers define earmarks in a more limited way, identifying only provisions that direct spending for items not requested by the Administration or in excess of levels proposed for activities or countries. Although many Foreign Operations earmarks fall within this more narrow definition, congressional directives specifying spending amounts that are the same as shown in the Administration’s illustrative listing for country distributions also are regarded as earmarks. Annual earmarks for economic and military aid to Israel and Egypt are examples of such directives.

Earmarks also pay for military housing:

The Congressional Research Service analysis counts not only the [military] family housing units added by Congress as earmarks but also those requested by the Pentagon and the White House.

CRS identified $6.6 billion in spending in the 2005 Military Construction Appropriation bill associated with earmarks. This included 205 units at Fort Huachuca at a cost of $41 million and 250 units at Davis-Monthan Air Base at a cost $48.5 million—both in McCain’s home state of Arizona.

So either McCain is going to cut aid to Israel, military housing, and other important programs that are funded by earmarks (all to pay for his corporate tax cut), or he’s going to break his campaign promise.

As Politico’s Ben Smith says, “That’s one thing about spending cuts: Much harder when you get to the details.”

McCain can’t even be bothered to read his own plan–how is he supposed to be President, again?

Progress Media USA–the independent progressive organization headed by Media Matters for America’s David Brock and Democratic strategist Paul Begala–is out with their first ad, called ‘Out Of Touch’:

More from Talking Points Memo:

The ad, called “Out of Touch,” will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC — which is to say, it’s a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.

With the Democratic primary dragging on, progressives are going to have to tell the truth about McCain on their own.  Personally, I’m glad groups like Progress Media USA are out there to set the record straight.

I just can’t understand how any Democrat can support Hillary Clinton anymore.

The latest line of attack coming from her campaign is–get this–that Barack Obama is an elitist.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton is using one of the most tired, overplayed but ubiquitous right-wing smears against a fellow Democrat. Thankfully, her attacks aren’t playing well among Democrats in Pennsylvania, but it’s still a dangerous line of attack.

Back in 2000, the right-wing tried to portry Al Gore as a nerdy, intellectual elitist. Back in 2004 they tried to do the same to John Kerry; Kerry was born to a middle-class family on a military base in Colorado, while George W. Bush was born into one of the wealthiest, most poweful families in America. Yet it was Kerry–not Bush–who got painted as elitist. More recently, the right-wing tried to portray John Edwards as elitist; John Edwards, who was born into a poor southern family, who was a self-made man who earned every single cent he ever had in his life.

If anyone in this Presidential election is elitist, it’s not Barack Obama. Obama went from being a low-paid community organizer and part-time professor to being a state senator and then a U.S. Senator; the only major source of income he’s ever had were his bestselling novels. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have both penned bestselling novels of their own, and I’m sure Bill’s speaking fees alone have provided the Clintons with more income than most Americans hope to earn this year.

But then there’s John McCain.

You might not know this, but John McCain is one of the wealthiest man in the Senate. His wife, Cindy McCain, is the heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, a family inheritance worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, Anheuser-Busch was one of McCain’s earliest and biggest political supporters. What does this mean? Well, for starters, McCain and his wife own no fewer than eight houses.

Take a look for yourself:

Budweiser, then NASCAR’s official beer, is brewed by Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., whose products have made Cindy McCain and her family a fortun

[...]

The McCains’ marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains’ ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.

As heiress to her father’s stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career — even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm’s-length distance between McCain and his wife’s assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

[...]

Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 House race, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money — tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts — helped him survive.

Anheuser-Busch’s political action committee was among McCain’s earliest donors. Cindy McCain’s father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain’s campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign’s bills.

[...]

Cindy McCain’s assets go beyond the family beer company.

She and her children own a minority stake in the Arizona Diamondbacks. The professional baseball team’s chief executive, Jeff Moorad, and former majority owner Jerry Colangelo are McCain fundraisers. Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, a former Diamondback player, appeared in a New Hampshire campaign advertisement for McCain.

Assets held by Cindy McCain alone or with her children also include Anheuser-Busch stock; two condominiums along the California coast worth a total of at least $3 million and Arizona investments in rental medical offices and a parking lot, according to property records and John McCain’s latest financial disclosure reports.

John McCain has seven ch1ildren: two stepsons and a daughter from his first marriage, and two sons, a daughter and an adopted daughter from his second. McCain’s financial disclosure reports do not identify the children who share assets with Cindy McCain.

Arizona is a community property state, so McCain may share possessions his wife didn’t inherit, such as their primary home. Cindy McCain, through a family trust, sold the family mansion in Phoenix for $3.2 million and bought a $4.6 million Phoenix condo in 2006. The couple may also jointly own a condo in Arlington, Va., assessed at $847,800. McCain’s campaign and Hensley declined to say whether the couple has communal property.

John McCain held a barbecue recently for reporters at a two-story cabin near Sedona, Ariz., that sits on 15 acres owned by his wife’s family trust and a real estate partnership in her name. The property includes four single-family homes and is worth nearly $1.8 million.

If anyone’s an elitist in this election, it’s John McCain. The sad thing about Hillary’s misguided attack is that McCain is now echoing her remarks, trying to portray a self-made man like Barack Obama as an elitist. But at the end of the day, John McCain will fly home to one of his eight houses on his wife’s corporate jets.

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to drop out; at this point, she’s throwing fuel on a fire that’s going to be hard enough for we Democrats to fight as it is.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Recently, Barack Obama went to a Pennsylvania bowling alley; during the campaign stop he bowled 7 frames and scored a 37. In other words, he made a typical campaign stop, met some voters and had a good time.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the media saw it:

Deriding Obama’s score, [MSNBC's Joe] Scarborough said: “You know Willie, the thing is, Americans want their president, if it’s a man, to be a real man.” He added, “You get 150, you’re a man, or a good woman,” to which Geist replied, “Out of my president, I want a 150, at least.” After guest Harold Ford Jr. said that Obama’s bowling showed a “humble” and “human” side to him, Scarborough replied, “A very human side? A prissy side.”

And then there’s this:

On Hardball, discussing Sen. Barack Obama’s bowling performance at a campaign stop, Chris Matthews said to MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard, “You know, Michelle — and this gets very ethnic, but the fact that he’s good at basketball doesn’t surprise anybody, but the fact that he’s that terrible at bowling does make you wonder.” While showing the video of Obama’s bowling, Matthews asserted, “[I]t isn’t the most macho form there.”

And this:

Discussing Sen. Barack Obama on the April 1 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Let me ask you about how he — how’s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?” Earlier in the show, referring to Obama’s bowling performance at a March 29 campaign stop at Pleasant Valley Lanes in Altoona, Pennsylvania, Matthews teased the segment with McCaskill by asking, “[C]an Obama woo more regular voters — you know, the ones who actually do know how to bowl?”

Now, I’m an avid bowler and I’m terrible on the basketball court. But if you had to choose which of the two sports was more macho, I’d have to go with basketball, hands down. And when it comes to basketball, Barack Obama excels:

(Obama’s in the green jersey, number 23. Yeah, he misses the free throw, but he puts up an excellent shot and does a great job on defense).

Seriously, though, this is the kind of nonsense we’ve come to expect from our media. Time after time, conservative pundits try their hardest to portray Democrats as weak, feeble, effeminate, etc. They portrayed Al Gore as a nerdy, know-it-all adademic; they portrayed John Kerry as an effeminate, wealthy playboy.

Putting aside the irony that rich pundits with massive national audiences pretend to know anything about regular Americans, people like Scarborough and Matthews matter. Their take on the news influence a lot of people; they have the potential to move public opinion and even change people’s votes. What we’re seeing with the bowling strategy is the conservatives’ favorite strategy–death by a thousand cuts. They create a meme about a Democratic candidate, then they repeat it as often as possible to reinforce it in the minds of voters.

This is how ridiculous our political discourse has become. Pundits ignore the issues, they ignore the things real Americans actually worry about, instead obsessing over a Presidential candidate’s bowling score. The American people are suffering, but our lazy political press inside their D.C. bubbles wastes their time attaching over-inflated significance to Barack Obama’s 7 frames of bowling.

I mean, haven’t we learned our lesson from George W. Bush? Haven’t we learned that idiotic, fake-significant culture war garbage like bowling scores or what kind of coffee you drink or who people want to have a beer with isn’t the best judge of who would be a good President?? After 8 years of George Bush–the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with–you think the press would look more a candidate’s record, or their positions, or anything else of actual substance. Are we going to have to suffer through the same media nonsense this time around, resulting in (at l east) 4 years of disastrous Republican governance?

When is this nonsense going to stop, once and for all?

So, since John McCain has all that foreign policy experience, what does he think of the recent violence in Iraq?

McCain ‘Surprised’ by Iraq Developments

[...]

As he launched a tour here designed to highlight his family’s long tradition of military service, Senator John McCain said Monday that he was surprised by the latest turn of events in America’s current war in Iraq.

“Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,’’ Mr. McCain said on his campaign bus as it rolled through downtown Meridian, saying that the move showed independence but that he had expected the military to focus on Mosul.

“I just am surprised that he would take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive,’’ he said. “I had not anticipated that he would do that.’’

You have got to be kidding me.

71 years old. 25 years of Washington experience. 5 trips to Iraq. And John McCain couldn’t have predicted that the government’s crackdown on Mahdi Army members would lead to the collapse of their tenouous, self-imposed ceasefire? Especially since the Mahdi Army is known for starting violent insurrections against the government?

McCain didn’t even entertain it as a possibility? Even I–a 21-year-old college student–considered what would happen if Al-Sadr’s ceasefire ended, all the way back in December.

So John McBush has no judgment and his much-touted experience doesn’t seem to be worth anything. What, then, makes this guy fit to be our next President?

I’ve been sitting on this post for a long time. Mainly, I didn’t want to call the election too early; I wanted the democratic process to play out and run its course.

At this point, though, the reality is undeniable.

I know a lot of Clinton supporters, and they’re all great people. Smart, engaged, passionate, hard-working Democrats through-and-through. And I know the situation they’re in—I know what it feels like to know that your candidate is losing. I know what it’s like to dig your heels in, to vow to stay in to the bitter end, to sit and wait for every last single vote to be counted and until every last bit of hope is gone.

But it’s time. It’s time to face the facts and acknowledge that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. It’s a painful realization—it would be painful for me if I had to acknowledge that Obama would not be the nominee—but it’s necessary. We have to do this.

Let’s look at how Clinton could—or could not—become the nominee.

(All delegate calculations use Slate’s Delegate Calculator)

• Hillary Clinton wins enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, and thus the superdelegates won’t matter.

This outcome is impossible at this point. Even if Clinton wins every remaining primary with 100% of the vote, she’ll have 1821 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1413. No matter what, the superdelegates will end up choosing the nominee.

• Hillary Clinton wins enough pledged delegates to take the lead, and the superdelegates go along with the popular vote and give her the nomination.

Even if Clinton wins every remaining primary with 60% of the vote, she’ll still trail Obama by 42 pledged delegates. It’s obvious that Clinton won’t win every remaining primary, let alone with a 20% margin of victory.

And there’s Clinton’s problem. No matter how the rest of the primary turns out, she’ll still trail Obama in terms of pledged delegates.

Now, the superdelegates are free to vote how they please. But barring the massive, unprecedented collapse of the Obama campaign, they’re not going to throw her the nomination.

See, if they give the nomination to Obama, he’ll have a certain measure of legitimacy—he won the popular vote, which is why the superdelegates supported him. If the superdelegates were to give the nomination to Clinton, they would be directly contradicting the will of the Democratic electorate, and there would be a massive backlash. The superdelegates know this, and they’re going to do everything they can to avoid that backlash.

The argument that the superdelegates can give the nomination to the loser of the popular vote is inherently undemocratic. It assumes that the electorate are idiots, and that we need elites to protect us from selecting the ‘wrong’ candidate. We are the Democratic Party, and the heart of democracy is that the people decide, right or wrong.

Should Clinton drop out? Yes. She can’t win, and all she’s doing now is hurting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Yes, the long primary means that our base, our activists and our donors are more engaged than ever, and that we Democrats are paying attention to states that almost never get any attention. But those benefits will only go so far, and I think we’ve reached the limit. At this point, Clinton will have to retract a lot of her statements and eat a lot of crow once this is all said and done, and some of her attacks on Obama have left lasting damage.

Some people may allege that I’m saying PA, NC, KY and the other states who haven’t voted don’t matter. No, of course they matter—people voting, participating, and letting their voices be hears always matter. But what I am saying is that they won’t choose the nominee, just like no other state to date has chosen the nominee. That’s just a fact.

This has gone on long enough. Obama is the only one who has any realistic paths to the nomination; Clinton’s paths are all based on assumptions, unrealistic expectations, or outright ludicrous scenarios. It’s time for us to get together and focus our efforts on the real threat to America: John McCain and his supporters in the media.

We already know John McCain isn’t a maverick–he’s a pure Washington insider, steeped in 25 years of D.C. culture.

In fact, not only does McCain have inappropriate relationships with lobbyists, but his entire Presidential campaign is run by special interest lobbyists.

Need proof?Take a look at just how far special interests have infiltrated the McCain campaign (a handy visual analysis is here):

How can thus guy claim to be some maverick standing up for the little guy while paying millionaire special interest lobbyists to run his campaign? How does McCain get away with being so two-faced? Well, because the media lets him get away with it:

The media is particularly fond of the myth that John McCain is the senatorial thorn in the side of Washington lobbyists. This myth is pervasive and it suggests that McCain is the “maverick, moderate reformer” that he claims to be. Despite all of his posturing, McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign is rife with lobbyist connections.

Not only does the McCain campaign have more current and former lobbyist bundlers than any other candidate, but McCain has more current and former lobbyists working on his campaign staff than any other candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

The conservative press loves John McCain. Too bad their skewed representation of one of America’s most corrupt Senators leaves the American people in the dark.

Want to fight back? Demand accountability and honesty here.

Day 1 ♦ Day 2 ♦ Day 3

From the BBC:

More than 130 people have been killed and 350 injured since a clampdown on militias began in Basra on Tuesday.

Today, the Iraqi government extended the deadline for disarmament they placed on the insurgents a few days ago from 3 days to 10.

According to BBC analyst Magdi Abdelhadi, the extension shows either the fighting is proving more difficult than the Prime Minster predicted, or there are behind-the-scenes peace negotiations. The former seems more likely–the Iraqi government can’t put down the armed rebellion themselves, and they don’t know where to proceed after the deadline expires, so they’re extending it in the hopes a solution will somehow present itself.

Iraq’s progress in the 5 intervening years since the start of the war has been absolutely abysmal. The Iraqi government and military are nowhere near prepared to deal with the deep sectarian divisions in their country, and this most recent uprising shows it. Predictably, when the efforts by the Iraqis did nothing to stop the violence, U.S. forces had to intervene:

American military forces conducted air strikes on targets in Basra late Thursday, joining for the first time an onslaught by Iraqi security forces intended to oust Shiite militias in the southern port city.

Two American war planes shelled two targets in Basra, entering the battle at the request of the Iraqi Army, which asked the American and British forces to make the strikes, according to Maj. Tom Holloway, a spokesman for the British Army in Basra.

The air strikes are the clearest sign yet that the coalition forces have been drawn into the fighting in Basra. Up until Thursday night, the American and British air forces insisted that the Iraqis had taken the lead, though they acknowledged surveillance support for the Iraqi Army.

More from The Washington Post:

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army’s AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.

The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.

This has been the story of Iraq, day in and day out, for years. Whenever things get tough, the Iraqi government leans on the United States to solve their problems for them. It’s been five years since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government–five years to negotiate, to build a military, to stabilize the country and begin making progress. Unfortunately, due to George W Bush and the Republicans’ disastrous policies, the Iraqi government hasn’t made nearly as much progress as they should have. And now, whenever violence breaks out, American soldiers end up getting caught in the middle.

That’s why this war needs to end as soon as possible. As long as we’re there propping them up, the Iraqi government and military will never need to actually deal with their country’s problems. They’ll never be independent problem-solvers. And whenever things get tough, they’ll use us as a crutch.

That’s why I’m glad to see that 42 Democratic Congressional candidates have signed onto “A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq.” Iraq needs independence, not co-dependence. Iraq needs to be able to stand up and lead on their own, without the United States holding their hands every step of the way. The sooner we start to withdraw our troops, the sooner we can send a signal to the Iraqi government that we’re serious about leaving and the sooner we can begin preparing them to be independent once and for all.

UPDATE: Fred Kaplan puts the present strife in perspective:

The fighting in Basra, which has spread to parts of Baghdad, is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. Rather, as Anthony Cordesman, military analyst for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes, it is “a power struggle” between rival “Shiite party mafias” for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country.

Yesterday, President Bush portrayed the intense fighting in Iraq as a return to ‘normalcy.’  While I agree that massive  amounts of violence and bloody sectarian fighting have become the norm in Iraq, that’s not exactly the kind of progress I would tout if I were him.

John McCain has some problems to deal with.

First, his latest FEC report shows his campaign violating the $54 million fundraising limit set by campaign finance laws. McCain opted into the public financing system months ago; by exceeding this limit, he has broken the very campaign finance reform laws he shepherded through Congress in 2002.

Then again, this isn’t unexpected. On this issue, McCain declared that the laws don’t apply to him–that he’s no longer restricted by public financing limits. Unfortunately for him, this isn’t his decision to make–McCain opted into public financing (receiving benefits such as money and ballot access) and he can’t pull out until and unless the FEC agrees.

A month ago, the FEC sent McCain a letter:

The nation’s top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.

[...]

The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain’s campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio

[...]

By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party’s nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.

[...]

Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.

In response to John McCain breaking campaign finance laws, the DNC filed an FEC complaint. In addition, a number of progressive bloggers also filed an FEC complaint; they’re coupling it with a petition, which you can sign here.

Second, McCain gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech yesterday. Unfortunately for him, it was light on specifics, and the policies he actually proposed were more than lacking.

McCain echoed George W. Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq, casting the war as a choice between staying the course and winning or ‘cutting and running’ and surrendering to Al-Qaeda. Middle East expert and former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg had this to say about McCain’s false choice:

The trouble with this set up is that McCain’s core premise is dead wrong. By our own senior commanders’ accounts, Al Qaeda is but a minor player in Iraq, and there is no way the U.S. presence, surge or not, that will keep a lid on sectarian tensions. Just look at what is going on in Iraq at the very tragic milestone of 4,000 Americans killed: the worst sectarian violence in months has broken out with hundreds of lives lost despite a McCain’s surge that he continues to tout as the fire extinguisher that will stop sectarian strife from igniting once again.

McCain proposed forming a ‘League of Democracies,’ a new international institution that would provide political cover for whatever disastrous foreign policies a McCain presidency would come up with.

But the League of Democracies would be the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ by a different name, made up of countries trying to curry our favor by rubber-stamping our foreign policy decisions, no matter how idiotic or ill-fated. In other words, it would be the exact kind of wrong-headed ad-hoc alliance that helped get us into Iraq in the first place.

In addition, the League of Democracies would be a formalized version of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy–it would institutionalize our current foreign policy, which ignores and marginalizes any country that doesn’t follow our foreign policy directives. Much like the Bush presidency, this plan will both galvanize and unite America’s enemies, creating a dangerous, unstable bi-polar world.

Ambassador Ginsberg says it best:

What is so strikingly and inherently wrong with McCain’s world vision is that America’s global leadership will not be restored by ignoring adversaries that, left to their own devices, may further challenge and undermine America’s national security.

If this is the kind of foreign policy insight 25 years in Congress gets you, then I’d say Barack Obama has a point.

Third, McCain’s speech invoked this gem from his childhood:

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.

Good God, John McCain remembers Pearl Harbor. Nothing like reminding the American people that, if elected, you would be the oldest President in American history.

Along those lines, take this quote from a McCain staffer:

If America is looking for a second term of the Jimmy Carter Administration of high taxes at home and weakness abroad vote Obama. I doubt they are.

Looking over the 2000 census numbers, roughly half of the voting-age population in the United States is 40 years or younger. If you’re 40 today, that means you were born in 1967 or 1968; since Jimmy Carter left office in January, 1977, it stands to reason that if you’re 40 or below, you probably don’t remember very much about the Carter administration.

So the McCain campaign is invoking the Carter administration, despite the fact that nearly half of America’s voting-age population aren’t old enough to even remember it. (Hell, I wasn’t even born until the Reagan years)

Of course, there’s a good way to re-work that quote to make it more recent…and more accurate:

If America is looking for a second term of the [George Bush] Administration of [economic devastation] at home and weakness abroad vote [McCain]. I doubt they are.

There. Perfect.

BREAKING: CNN brings us this headline:

A U.S. government official was killed today when militants fired rockets into the Green Zone in Baghdad, the U.S. Embassy says.

Today, violence has continued to rage in Iraq:

Forty-two people were killed Thursday in Kut, southeast of Baghdad, Iraq’s Interior Ministry said, the latest casualties in three days of clashes between militias and Iraqi security forces.

[...]

Since Tuesday, clashes in Basra and throughout Iraq’s Shiite heartland have left more than 100 dead and many wounded in Basra, Baghdad, Hilla, Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya.

[...]

Thursday, a car bomb explosion killed three people and wounded five others near a police patrol in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. There are no apparent links to the violence in the Shiite regions.

Witnesses in Basra report smoke rising and gunfire and explosions ringing out across the city, where Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. and British troops, have been taking on fighters using grenades, mortar rounds and machine guns.

There was fighting Thursday in Jamhouriya, one of five neighborhoods the Mehdi Army controls, and Muqal, according to an official from Basra province and witnesses.

In addition to the recent death of an American official, an Iraqi government official has been kidnapped:

A spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, Tahsin al-Sheikhly, was kidnapped from his Baghdad home by armed men on Thursday, security officials told AFP.

The officials said Sheikhly, who spoke on civic matters related to the security plan launched in February last year, was abducted from his home in Baghdad’s al-Amin neighborhood at around 2:30 pm (1130 GMT).

“Armed men stormed his home at a time when there were clashes in his neighborhood,” a security official with the interior ministry said.

“They burnt his home and stole two cars and weapons before fleeing with him.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is saying that the end of Al-Sadr’s ceasefire and the violent armed rebellion by his Mahdi Army is a good thing:

The fighting in Basra, and rocket attacks on Baghdad’s Green Zone by members of the Mahdi Army militia, have led some analysts to believe the unilateral ceasefire called by the militia’s powerful leader Moqtada al-Sadr is falling apart. Among those analysts is Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of the National Security Network, a frequent critic of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.

“It looks like it’s breaking down. If it is in fact breaking down, and not just a temporary blip, then you could have a major increase in violence,” he said.

That’s not how the Pentagon sees it, according to Press Secretary Geoff Morrell. “I do not think at this stage, at this stage, which is mere days into this operation, anyone is prepared to stand here and tell you that they feel as though the gains we’ve made over the past several months are in jeopardy,” he said.

[...]

Goldenberg sees the situation very differently. “Realistically, this is a massive power struggle between the two strongest segments in the country, at least in the Shia’ south. I can’t see this as being a good thing especially since you already see it spreading to other cities, like Baghdad and Kut and Najaf. What you’re looking for here is potentially an all-out breakout in Shia’ civil war. I can’t really see how that’s a wonderful sign,” he said.

That’s the standard Bush administration/Republican line for you: no matter what happens in Iraq, it’s good news.

If violence goes down, they say it means that our strategy is working and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home since they’re the only thing keeping violence down.

If violence stays the same, they say it means we’re stabilizing the country and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home since they need to maintain the stability and make further progress.

And if violence goes up, they say it means we’re doing so well that the anti-American forces are desperately lashing out against us (in what is inevitably their ‘last throes) and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home because they have to put down the uprisings and bring stability.

What does this show us? Well, that–in the eyes of Republicans–spin trumps reality.  Right now, though, the reality on the ground is undeniable: violence is going up in Iraq, and it’s bad news no matter who you are.

Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal explains the connection between the Mahdi Army’s ceasefire and the reduction of violence in Iraq:

The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasfire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

It’s hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush Administration will tell you it’s all about the troop levels. I’ve tended to believe it’s more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

[...]

If you look at the graph that MNF-I has been using on civilian casualties [available here] it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed

[...]

The second drop in violence came in September. By that time the full surge had already been in effect for 2-3 months and the Awakening had been going on for a year. The Sadr ceasefire occured on August 28 and suddenly boom a big drop in violence. That could be a coincidence and it could be that all four factors came together. But the data seems to point to the fact that the Sadr Ceasefire more then anything else is what caused the drop in violence in the early fall.

[Emphasis added]

So data from the Multinational Force in Iraq (MNF-I) shows that, to a large extent, the Mahdi Army’s ceasefire played a major role in the drop-off in casualties and violence since the end of summer. Now that they’re once again clashing with both U.S. and Iraqi forces, will violence go up to where it was in August?

The major question is, what sparked the Mahdi Army to take up arms once again after over seven months of a successful ceasefire? Well, Iraqi’s security forces began cracking down on Sadrists for, ostensibly, political & sectarian reasons. Eric Martin explains:

It is no secret that America’s main ally in Iraq (and Iran’s), the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), is likely to lose ground to the more popular Sadrist current in the upcoming provincial elections (the Sadrist current boycotted the 2005 round). Absent some extracurricular activities to level the playing field that is. As Cernig noted quoting an AP article on Friday, ISCI, whose Iran-trained militia (the Badr Corp.) has heavily infiltrated Iraqi Security Forces, has been moving aggressively (in tandem with US forces) to help overcome what it lacks in popular appeal:

A Sadrist member of parliament alleged that the crackdown in Kut and elsewhere in the south was part of a move by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party and [ISCI] to prevent al-Sadr’s followers from winning control of key southern provinces in provincial elections expected this fall.

“They have no supporters in the central and southern provinces, but we do,” Ahmed al-Massoudi told the AP. “If the crackdown against the Sadrists continues, we will begin consultations with other parliamentary blocs to bring down the government and replace it with a genuinely national one.”

So the Iraqi government, fearful of losing ground to the Sadrists in the upcoming election, implemented a crackdown in order to reduce their influence in the upcoming elections, particularly in their strongholds in southern Iraq. Unfortunately, that crackdown pushed the Mahdi Army too far, leading them to violently revolt against the government.

Recently, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki gave the militia three days to lay down their arms:

Clashes continued Wednesday between Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra, as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki laid down a deadline for gunmen to surrender and fresh rocket attacks hit Baghdad’s Green Zone.

[...]

According to wire service reports, Maliki issued a statement giving gunmen in Basra three days to give up their weapons and renounce further violence. Those who don’t, said a Maliki aide, will be targeted for arrest in the ongoing security operation.

[...]

In a sign of the offensive’s importance, Maliki flew to Basra on Monday to oversee operations.

By Tuesday evening, Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias had also clashed in the cities of Kut and Hilla, as well as outside Sadr’s Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. Dusk-to-dawn curfews were imposed on at least six cities in southern Iraq, police said.

The head of the Mahdi Army, Moqtada Al-Sadr, hasn’t officially lifted the ceasefire yet, but he has told his followers that they can attack Iraqi and American forces in self-defense. While it’s good news that the ceasefire technically still stands, the bad news is that he gave his followers orders to use violence when necessary. The ceasefire is already crumbling, and it will continue to do so with or without his explicit endorsement–the violence will rage on regardless of what he does.
This is a key test at a critical time in Iraq. While the administration and their Republican allies claim that progress is being made in Iraq, the level of violence remains abysmally high. The fact that Iraq’s security forces went after the Sadrists for political reasons shows that sectarian interests are trumping Iraq’s national interest in the eyes of the government. If Iraq’s security forces can’t put down this armed rebellion, there will be no question that the Republican policies in Iraq have failed.

This is exactly why we need to end the war in Iraq–the Iraqi government has become too reliant on American troops to keep them safe. Five years after the start of the war, the Iraqi government’s crippling dependence on us is shameful; we should have been pushing them towards independence a long time ago. We need to teach the Iraqi government to solve their own problems, and we need to show them that the United States of America isn’t going to stick around and protect them forever.

Iraq has extensive problems and deep divides that can’t be solved with bullets–there needs to be political reconciliation that brings all of Iraq’s major players to the table and charts a course for the future of the country. They need to be able to manage their own factions, to hold their own country together, to provide basic security and stability to their people. Unless we give the Iraqi government a wake-up call and start pushing them in the right direction, every violent flare-up in Iraq will consume more American lives.

UPDATE: More news from the battlefield:

The day saw street battles in Baghdad and Basra, mortar attacks by Shiite rebels against Baghdad’s Green Zone, bombing by U.S. aircraft and encounters that left government tanks in flames. More than 97 people were reported killed and hundreds were wounded since the operation began early Tuesday.

In Baghdad, at least nine Iraqi civilians were killed and 42 were wounded in mortar attacks, police said. The Mahdi Army, loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, opened fire on civilians in downtown Baghdad and clashed with Iraqi security forces in Kadhemiya in north Baghdad.

In Baghdad’s Shiite Sadr City neighborhood, clashes between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi security forces supported by U.S. forces left at least 20 dead and 115 were injured. By early afternoon, people took to the streets in protest of the Iraqi government.

Mortar rounds crashed into the heavily fortified Green Zone for the third straight day, injuring three U.S. government employees, all U.S. citizens, said U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo.