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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

They were wrong on Iraq then:

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

[...]

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be “weeks rather than months. There’s always the possibility of complications that you can’t anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops.” Cheney also predicted the fight would “go relatively quickly, but we can’t count on that.” That same day on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney said, “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle,” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.” Asked if Americans are prepared for a “long, costly and bloody battle,” Cheney replied: “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.” Cheney has spoken that way for months.

[Emphasis Added]

They’re wrong on Iraq now:

At a news conference, McCain said Iran has been supporting the Sunni group al Qaeda in Iraq, until he was corrected by a colleague. U.S. officials believe Iran has been backing Shi’ite extremists in Iraq, not a Sunni group like al Qaeda.

None of these people–Bush, Cheney, McCain–know anything about foreign policy. If the past few years have taught us nothing else, they taught us that Republicans don’t know the first thing about keeping America safe.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

First, a disclaimer: Eliot Spitzer deserved what he got. He broke the law by soliciting high-priced prostitutes. He hurt his wife and his family with his infidelity. Most of all, he was a hypocrite–cultivating a clean image by going after the corruption of others and hiding his own. It bothers me that Eliot Spitzer had to resign while another prostitute-loving hypocrite–David Vitter–gets to stay in office, but I prefer the double standard remain intact and Spitzer resign.

With that said, there’s something fishy about how Governor Spitzer was caught. The problem wasn’t that he got caught–he deserved that, and more–but that the way in which he got caught was extremely unusual; in involved numerous exceptions-to-the-rule.

This started as an IRS investigation of Spitzer’s finances. Legally, financial transactions of $10,000 or more will automatically trigger federal scrutiny. In order to avoid that scrutiny, Spitzer paid the prostitution ring with a series of smaller transactions. The problem here was that paying someone a series of small transactions to avoid triggering a federal investigation is illegal; it’s called ’structuring.’ Spitzer’s shady transactions tipped off at least one bank–Capitol One–who in turn tipped off the IRS. So this began with Capitol One flagging Spitzer’s finances to the IRS; that’s sensible enough in and of itself.

But why did the IRS to for the DOJ? How did this turn into an FBI sting operation? We’ve been told that the feds looked at Spitzer’s finances and suspected there was bribery going on, which lead them to start a wiretap on the Governor. But that charge doesn’t make sense–Spitzer is the heir to a large family fortune, so there’s no reason for him to take bribes, particularly bribes of such small amounts. Why would a millionaire take bribes of a few thousand dollars? Plus, what raised suspicion was money moving out of Spitzer’s accounts, not into them–that means they couldn’t have suspected him of taking bribes. Did they suspect him of making bribes? To who? He’s the Governor of New York; who would he need to bribe?

So, we don’t know why the inquiry went from the IRS to the DOJ. What we do know is that once the investigation began, the feds found out that Spitzer was involved in a prostitution ring. Now, in most jurisdictions the solicitation of a prostitute is a misdemeanor; these cases are almost always prosecuted on the state level, since they’re seen as relatively minor crimes. Yet, the FBI and DOJ set up a sting to catch Spitzer in the act; only after he was caught did this story leak to the press.

This just doesn’t make sense.

Paul Campos does some digging, and he comes to the same conclusions:

Be that as it may, it’s far more probable that what happened was something like this: An IRS office is tipped off by officials at various banks that Spitzer is depositing a few thousand dollars in different accounts within a day or two. Realizing it has a potential political tiger by the tail, the IRS then contacts the Department of Justice and the FBI.

At the DOJ, the Public Integrity Section launches an investigation. This unit itself has come under intense criticism during the Bush administration for investigating nearly six times more Democratic politicians than Republicans. Furthermore, many of the section’s investigations have seemed timed to coincide with elections and the like.

With a little digging, the feds soon establish that Spitzer is seeing high-priced call girls. This is a petty misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, but the DOJ goes ahead and constructs an elaborate and costly sting operation, for the express purpose of catching one of the country’s most powerful Democratic politicians committing a petty crime.

In the course of the sting, Spitzer makes a really big mistake: He pays a call girl to travel from New York to Washington. This puts him in technical violation of an 85-year-old federal law, the Mann Act, which has a long history of being used for politically motivated prosecutions of the worst sort, such as those of the boxer Jack Johnson and movie legend Charlie Chaplin.

Only then is the existence of the investigation leaked to the media.

[Emphasis Added]

The Wall Street Journal also picked up on the idiosyncracies in this case:

It isn’t clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases; search warrants usually suffice. Wiretap applications generally are reserved for serious crimes, such as drug, weapons and terrorism-related cases. There typically are no more than 1,400 wiretaps in use nationwide at any given time.

[Emphasis Added]

Remember, the DOJ is controlled by Republicans. And Spitzer was a thorn in the side of a lot of conservatives–not just corrupt politicians, but wealthy interests like CEOs, corporate executives and Wall Street financiers. In short, a lot of wealthy, well-connected conservatives had a high stake in taking Spitzer down.

And politically-motivated prosecutions are nothing new to the Bush DOJ; remember Don Siegelman, who was knocked out of the Governorship of Alabama because of a politically-motivated ethics investigation triggered by Karl Rove. And remember that a key part of the U.S. Attorneys Scandal was that many of the attorneys were fired for not aggresively prosecuting Democrats enough.

Simply put, this case leaves a lot of questions unanswered–why did the IRS turn the case over to the DOJ? Why did the federal government devote so much time, effort and money to investigating Spitzer? Why did they use a wiretap instead of a search warrant? And once they figured out he was involved with prostitution, why did they set up a sting instead of allowing the state to prosecute this, as they normally do? Why were there so many exceptions made in this one case?

Someone needs to answer for this. Because if any part of the investigation into Spitzer was politically motivated, then someone at the DOJ deserves to be punished just as much as Spitzer does.

UPDATE: The New York Times has more on this:

Bradley D. Simon, a veteran Justice Department trial lawyer who was federal prosecutor in Brooklyn throughout the 1990s, said that although it was rare for the department to use so many resources on the workings of a prostitution ring, the involvement of such a high-level politician must change the equation.

“If they’ve got some evidence of a high-ranking public official involved in violations of federal criminal code, it may not be unreasonable for them to pursue it,” he said. Still, he said, “I don’t think prostitution has been a high priority at the Justice Department.”

[...]

In defending their handling of the case, officials said that in the end, investigators chose to monitor his conduct but made no effort to set up a sting, or an arranged situation in which Mr. Spitzer might implicate himself. They did not surreptitiously record his activities inside the hotel or seek to obtain DNA evidence. It was not necessary, as Mr. Spitzer proved to be easy prey, according to the affidavit, which was signed by an F.B.I. agent.

It indicated that on Feb. 13 federal agents staked out his hotel in Washington, and it contained recorded conversations that amply demonstrated that he willingly had a sexual encounter with a prostitute. Afterward she was recorded on a wiretap telling an Emperor’s Club employee: “I don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s kind of like, whatever.”

On March 10, when Mr. Spitzer was first identified by name by The New York Times on its Web site, the affidavit was widely used by news organizations to describe graphic details about his conduct.

Several current and former federal prosecutors and prominent defense lawyers who reviewed the document said the inclusion of such salacious details about Mr. Spitzer’s encounter with the prostitute went far beyond what was necessary to provide probable cause for the arrests and for searches, the purpose of the affidavit.

The government has not accused Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, of any wrongdoing

[...]

Mr. Simon said it was unusual for the department to bring criminal charges in a prostitution case in which there was no allegation of the exploitation of children, human trafficking or some far more serious crime.

He said that in his eight years in the Brooklyn office in the 1990s, he could not recall a single major criminal case that centered on prostitution charges. “There were a lot of serious crimes — organized crime, narcotics cases, major financial crime investigations,” he said in an interview. “Prostitution was not a high priority.”

Law enforcement officials said the F.B.I. has about 450 active prostitution cases under investigation, almost all involving enterprises and some using techniques like wiretapping. In addition, since 2005, the F.B.I. has led an initiative known as Innocence Lost, which investigates prostitution involving underage women.

Justice Department officials insist that it has a strong record of breaking up large prostitution rings around the country, but many of the cases they cite involve case brought several years ago, especially before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks; after that, the department vowed to focus its attention on national security threats.

And for years, they acknowledge, the department has rarely, if ever, prosecuted or even identified the clients of a prostitution ring.

UPDATE II: TPM brings us this piece from McClatchy:

Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer ”used the services of high-priced call girls” while in Florida.

The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from ”a social contact in an adult-themed club.” It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn’t taken off his calf-length black socks “during the sex act.”

Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted.

There’s something incredibly suspicious about the investigation into Eliot Spitzer. With so many exceptions to the rule–along with the Bush administration’s history of politicizing the Department of Justice–this definitely warrants further investigation.

How can we get that to happen?

Easy–contact Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and demand an investigation into the DOJ’s takedown of Eliot Spitzer:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

Today was a big day in politics, so let’s get down to it.

NUMBERS:

The latest Rassmussen poll shows Clinton and Obama virtually tied in Ohio–Clinton now has 47% to Obama’s 45%. In addition, Reuters/Zogby show Obama widening his lead over Clinton in Texas, now carrying 48% to her 42%. ARG shows Clinton leading in Ohio, 50% to 45%, but trailing in Texas, 51% to 44%.

It’s clear that Obama is closing the gap, and by every indication he seems to be leading in Texas and trailing by a relatively small margin in Ohio. With just 4 days left until VOTR Day, Clinton is going to have to start making up ground–and fast–lest she walk away the loser.

DOLLARS:

It’s the last day of February, and the campaigns are releasing their monthly fundraising statistics.

Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in February, a considerable haul nearly equal to what Obama raised in January.

Obama’s exact fundraising numbers are unknown–they haven’t been announced yet–but his campaign advisers have said that it will be “considerably more” than $35 million.

And John McCain trails both Democrats, picking up a pathetic $12 million in February. After his victory on February 5th, it was clear that he would be the Republican nominee–after that, the floodgates were supposed to open up and he was supposed to start raking in the cash. Instead, it looks like the deep pockets and big wallets in the GOP haven’t opened up to him yet–possibly because of his shaky support among conservatives or his numerous scandals. Still, if he can’t start tapping into bigger reserves of cash–and fast–he’s going to get buried by the Democratic nominee.

Of course, even raising money at this point might be a problem for McCain–until the FEC releases him from public financing, he’s still technically in the system, and that means he can only raise and spend $54 million until this summer. Since his last FEC report shows him with over $53 million, it’s imperative for McCain to release his February expenditures as soon as possible–if he violated the $54 million, McCain’s campaign could very well end up in court.

SPIN:

In the wake of their flagging poll numbers, the Clinton campaign has released some of the most ridiculous spin I’ve ever read:

Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist Mark Penn today released a memo to the media, though, with the subject, “Obama Must-Wins.”

“If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem,” Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be “decisive,” according to the memo.

“Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear,” Penn continues, “Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.”

Obama has more delegates. Obama has won more states. Obama has raised more money. Obama has the support of a majority of Democrats nationwide. But if he fails to win every single state on VOTR Day, then Clinton should be the nominee?

This doesn’t make any sense. It’s well known that if the Clinton camp doesn’t win at least Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her candidacy’s basically over–and, in fact, Clinton campaign surrogates like James Carville and Bill Clinton have already said as much. TX and OH are her campaign’s self-declared firewall, and have been for weeks. But now, when it’s likely that they’re going to fall short of their goal, they declare that Obama has to win every single state? What kind of sense does that make?

And as I wrote about earlier today, the Clinton camp is trying to muck up Texas by filing a lawsuit over the Lone Star State’s delegate selection rules. Glenn Smith at Burnt Orange Report–a great Texas-based blog–tells us why:

There is method to the Clinton campaign’s mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.

This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion, plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.

It is widely assumed that Obama’s organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually “reserved the right to challenge” Texas law and Democratic party procedures.

Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.

[...]

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.

The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.

If Clinton loses Texas, it’s going to be over for her. The classy thing to do would be to drop out, let Obama assume the mantle as the nominee and focus on salvaging her political career. If her campaign continues to rely on ridiculous spin and tries to solder on, despite falling short of goals they themselves set, then there’s going to be a huge outcry (as well as significant damage to Clinton’s overall political career). We will not have a brokered convention, and I certainly hope the Clinton camp won’t force us any further down that road than we need to go.

Today, Obama picked up the support of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller today; that makes an even dozen sitting Senators in the Obama camp, while Clinton has the support of 13 Senate colleagues.

And in response to the John Hagee flap–where John McCain accepted the support of radical, bigoted preacher John Hagee–McCain released this tepid statement:

“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

“I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”

In other words, McCain will be glad to take the support of Hagee and his extremist followers, as long as he also gets to distance himself from Hagee’s more radical statements. Too bad he can’t have it both ways–either he sides with Hagee and his bigotry, or he denounces him and rejects his support.

Finally, the Roadblock Republicans are hard at work blocking funds to help communities struggling with the mortgage crisis as well as an independent Congressional ethics panel. They’re going to need a lot of spin to explain these decisions away before November.

John McCain doesn’t like children:

Today, the Children’s Defense Fund Action Council released its 2007 Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard. CDF reports some positive news, particularly that average scores for members of Congress “improved from the previous three years with more Members scoring 100 percent than in 2004, 2005 or 2006.”

Many, however, did not fare so well. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) received a 10 percent rating — the worst in the U.S. Senate.

[...]

McCain has missed 57 percent of Senate votes this session, being absent or voting “present” for 8 out of 10 children-related votes. McCain voted “yes” to increase the minimum wage; his only other vote was voting “no” on SCHIP reauthorization on Aug. 2, 2007

Furthermore, the rankings weren’t divided by party. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Gordon Smith (R-OR) received strong 70 percent rankings.

McCain’s CDF score has steadily declined over the years. In 2004, he received a 38 percent; in 2005, 22 percent; in 2006, 10 percent.

[Emphasis Added]

This study reveals two major problems–one, McCain routinely votes against pro-children legislation.  Two, he’s missed so many Senate votes it’s skewed his score even further downward.

It begs the question, which one’s worse? Senator Curmudgeon or Senator Gone? Personally, I wouldn’t want either man as President.

Today, Barack Obama is being attacked by the right-wing noise machine. His latest dreamt-up offense? Not wearing an American flag lapel pin, which apparently makes him unpatriotic.

Of course, anyone with $2 in their pocket can wear an American flag pin, regardless of what they believe. In fact, how many politicians have worn that pin while tearing down nearly everything this great country stands for?

Patriotism isn’t defined by what we wear–it’s defined by what we do. And through his actions, Barack Obama has shown us what true patriotism is:

Patriotism is standing up for our Constitutional rights against a corrupt, power-hungry White House.

Patriotism is bringing our troops home and making sure they’re taken care of when they get here.

Patriotism is standing up for America’s working class, giving them living wage and a good standard of living.

Patriotism is making sure Americans have access to health care regardless of their income.

Patriotism is standing up to polluters to preserve this beautiful country for future generations.

Patriotism is securing our borders while helping immigrants become citizens.

Patriotism is fighting for clean, open government that’s held accountable to the people.

Patriotism is helping Americans keep their homes by standing up to predatory lenders.

Patriotism is standing up to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorist groups.

Patriotism isn’t wearing a $1.75 American flag lapel pin made on a Chinese assembly line.

So, Barack Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin. But you know what? Neither does Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or John Boehner. Or Mitch McConnell. Or RNC Chair Mike Duncan. And neither did Newt Gingrich. Or Tom DeLay. Or Bill Frist. Or even Ronald Reagan, for that matter.

So let’s put this half-baked smear to bed once and for all, because America deserves better than right-wing gutter politics.

Image from The Washington Post

After 49 years as Cuba’s iron-fisted dictator, Fidel Castro is relinquishing power at the age of 81:

Fidel Castro announced his resignation as president of Cuba and commander in chief of Cuba’s military Tuesday, according to a letter published in the state-run newspaper, Granma.

[...]

“I will not aspire to, nor will I accept the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief,” Castro wrote. “I wish only to fight as a soldier of ideas. … Perhaps my voice will be heard.”

[...]

He also said he realized that he had a duty to prepare Cubans for his absence.

“My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath,” he said. “That’s all I can offer.”

Cuba’s leaders plan to elect a president within days. Castro’s brother, Raúl, the country’s defense minister, has been named publicly as his successor.

[...]

Although Raúl Castro has been named as his brother’s successor, the departure of the charismatic leader whose identity became inseparable from his revolution raises questions of how long his system can survive without him.

Raul Castro has signaled that he wants to make some modest economic reforms; his ambitions fall far short of move towards democratization that I (and many others) would like to see in Cuba.

Overall, I don’t expect much to change–Cuba will remain under an iron-fisted dictator who, like Fidel, will improve the people’s lives in some areas while continuing to oppress them in others.

Still, Raul Castro is nearly 77 years old. Within a few years, he too may also be unable to serve as the leader of Cuba. Once the Castros are gone, will Cuba go in a new direction? Will a young reformer step up to the plate and deliver that nation into the 21st century, or will the system Fidel built prove strong enough to endure without him?

Only time will tell. If Fidel taught us anything, though, it’s that isolating our adversaries is bad policy–it led Fidel to dig in his heels for nearly 50 years, engaging in brinksmanship with the United States at every opportunity.

Now, hopefully, the international community will take this opportunity to help Cuba nation modernize and reform, while taking every opportunity to provide assistance to the people of Cuba.

UPDATE: Some reactions:

Barack Obama released a statement on Castro’s resignation:

“Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba’s history. Fidel Castro’s stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.

“Cuba’s future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It’s time for these heroes to be released.

“If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together.”

John McCain, R-Ariz., also issued a written reaction to the media.

“Today’s resignation of Fidel Castro is nearly half a century overdue. For decades, Castro oversaw an apparatus of repression that denied liberty to the people who suffered under his dictatorship.

“Yet freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power. That is why we must press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections.

“Cuba’s transition to democracy is inevitable; it is a matter of when — not if. With the resignation of Fidel Castro, the Cuban people have an opportunity to move forward and continue pushing for the moment that they will truly be free. America can and should help hasten the sparking of freedom in Cuba. The Cuban people have waited long enough.”

Cross-Posted At Daily Kos

The media loves John McCain. They love portraying him as a maverick, as a straight-talker who never panders.

Now, it’s standard for candidates to play themselves up using positive labels and positive rhetoric, but this is one of the few times the media has bought the spin hook, line and sinker.

Too bad for our political press–and John McCain–that reality has a well-known liberal bias. When you scratch the surface of the gilded facade McCain has erected around himself, you’ll find a long history of flip-flopping, pandering and confusing rhetoric.

Remember, John McCain campaigned for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the fact that Bush’s dirty tricks denied McCain the GOP nomination in 2000. McCain knew he would need to win the approval of the GOP establishment if he was ever going to have a shot at being President, so he turned around and embraced the same people who smeared him so horribly before. That’s not being a maverick–it’s selling out.

Think Progress brings us some more of McCain’s pandering:

– Pander On Tax Cuts: In 2001, McCain was one of just two GOP senators to vote against Bush’s destructive tax cuts. Now, however, McCain makes a point of touting his support for making Bush’s tax cuts permanent.

– Pander On Stimulus: For the past few months, McCain has been declaring that passing an economic stimulus package is at the very top of his agenda. Yet when the Senate voted earlier this month on a generous bill providing increased assistance to seniors and veterans, McCain skipped the vote. The bill fell just one vote short of passage, a victory for the far right.

– Pander To Karl Rove: In the 2000 presidential campaign, Karl Rove launched vicious smear tactics against McCain on behalf of Bush’s campaign. Recently, however, McCain has embraced the right-wing political operative. He said that he has “always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics” and specifically refused to condemn Rove’s partisan smears.

In addition, check out this Think Progress piece on yesterday’s vote to ban waterboarding:

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding

Not only that, but McCain’s baffling justification is far from straight talk:

The bill yesterday would have restricted the CIA to the Army’s rules for interrogating detainees. McCain believes that the CIA should have a freer hand. That includes the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

[...] At the same time, he stresses that the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act, the bill he himself sponsored, prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and treatment that “shocks the conscience.” He hasn’t said which [techniques] meet that description. But he trusts that the Justice Department and CIA will arrive at a “good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible.”

Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave a taste of what that “good faith” interpretation is when he testified before Congress. What “shocks the conscience” depends on the circumstances, he said. Waterboarding might very well be OK, he argued, if the situation were dire enough.

But McCain says that waterboarding is torture. And as he says in his statement below, “It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding ’shocks the conscience.’” So he disagrees with the administration’s “good faith” interpretation. But apparently he still has faith.

Confused? It’s certainly not a position that’s easily summarized.

[Emphasis Added]

And McCain has also flip-flopped on immigration, while the media has been reluctant to report his shifting stance:

In endorsing Sen. John McCain’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The Baltimore Sun asserted that McCain has “stood his ground” on “immigration reform.” However, while McCain now says that border security must be addressed first, he previously said that border security could not be disaggregated from other provisions in the legislation on immigration reform. Similarly, the San Antonio Express-News claimed in its endorsement of McCain that his “advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform” is among the positions that may “be attractive” to “independent voters”; but McCain has said he “would not” vote for his own comprehensive immigration reform proposals.

It’s clear that, if John McCain was ever a maverick, he isn’t one anymore.

The question is, when will the media end their bizarre hero-worship and begin to report on the facts instead of the McCain hagiography?

I wouldn’t hold my breath…

UPDATE: More from Steve Benen:

* Pander On Immigration: McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now, to make the nativist elements in his party happy, he’s against it.

* Pander to U.N. Critics: McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now, to pander to U.N. critics, he opposes it.

* Pander to Abortion-Rights Opponents: McCain used to say he would not support a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Now, to pander to his party’s base, he’s said the opposite.

* Pander to the Religious Right: McCain condemned radical TV preachers like Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but once he began running for president again, he pandered to the religious right by cozying up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* Pander to Iowans: McCain was anti-ethanol before the 2008 campaign. Once on the trail in Iowa, he became pro-ethanol.

* Pander to South Carolinians: McCain was against official promotion of the Confederate flag, but in 2000, hoping to curry favor with South Carolinians, pandered shamelessly on the issue, and later conceded that his position was one of “cowardice.”

“McCain refuses to pander”? Given his record, I think he refuses to stop pandering.

[Emphasis Added]

John McCain–once considered a maverick Republican–stood today with George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans by voting against a Congressional ban on waterboarding. Think Progress has more:

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding

[...]

John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.

[Emphasis Added]

This is just the most recent example of McCain’s shameful Senatorial conduct. A few days ago, McCain skipped a key vote on the economic stimulus package, which would have provided much-needed fiscal relief to millions of Americans, particularly the unemployed and wounded veterans. What was John McCain doing that kept him from casting this crucial vote?

He was attending a campaign rally.

The stimulus package was filibustered by the Roadblock Republicans, and McCain’s absence sustained their filibuster by one vote; the final vote tally was 59-41. John McCain was the only Senator to miss that vote. Missed votes are nothing new for Senator McCain–he’s missed 55.5% of Senate votes this term, making him the most absent Senator in Congress (except for Tim Johnson, who spent months in the hospital after suffering a brain hemorrhage).

It’s clear that John McCain is a maverick no more. McCain’s willingness to put himself ahead of his country shows that he can’t be trusted to be our next President. The last thing America needs is another self-centered politician who to puts himself ahead of the rest of us; in other words, the last thing America needs is another George W. Bush.

Which is exactly what John McCain is shaping up to be.

Image from The Huffington Post

CNN reports:

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is dropping out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, CNN has learned.

The former senator has told top advisors about his decision. It is expected he will announce it at a speech in New Orleans, Louisiana, at 1p.m. Wednesday.

Edwards’ campaign Web site said he was to deliver an address on poverty and work on a Habitat for Humanity project in New Orleans on Wednesday.

Edwards has trailed former first lady Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the early primaries.

This was surprising–I figured that Edwards would stay in as long as he could, hoping to be a Kingmaker at the convention. It was a plausible scenario–if Clinton and Obama split the delegates while Edwards won just enough, he could have held both of them below the 50% mark and thus had a huge amount of influence in deciding who the nominee would be.

Edwards has no political office to return to, and it’s unlikely he’ll run for anything in his native North Carolina. With nothing else but his poverty center, I thought he would make the most of the Presidential race. Still, it’s hard to deny the harsh reality–Edwards only ever beat either of the two front-runners once, beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa to take second place. Ever since, he has finished third in every primary; his campaign was hoping to capture the silver in Florida, but they just couldn’t pull it off.

How will this affect the race? Good question–Edwards consistently pulls in a pretty big vote share, meaning that his support could give a big boost to either Clinton or Obama. On one hand, I always believed that Edwards and Obama both portrayed more progressive, idealistic visions than Hillary Clinton, thus appealing to the same demographic. On the other hand, I think Edwards has significant appeal among the Democratic rank-and-file, who would be more likely to back Clinton–the establishment candidate–than Obama–the underdog.

To some extent, it may depend on who Edwards endorses, if he endorses anyone–it seems likely that he would support Obama, though I wouldn’t bet on it just yet. If Edwards’ supporters were to go to Obama, they would easily put him on par with Clinton in a lot of states, turning this into a real two-way race. If his supporters were to go to Clinton, they would give her an even bigger lead, making her nearly unbeatable. Thus, Edwards’ decision could end up deciding this campaign.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the media’s shameful coverage of John Edwards–they decided a long time ago that this was a two-way race between Clinton and Obama, and Edwards often got pushed to the side. The media has a lot of power–they’re the prism through which Americans see their world–and they can influence a race like this through who they cover (or don’t cover). Edwards had a significant amount of support, but he rarely got the spotlight in proportion to his support; the media did not cover the candidates fairly, and that hurt the Edwards campaign.

Personally, I’m sad to see Edwards go. I think he had a great message, and he focused on some extremely important issues that were typically neglected. John Edwards spoke for a lot of people who typically had no voice, and his presence in this campaign will be sorely missed. He injected a healthy amount of populism and progressivism into the Presidential race–both elements that Clinton and Obama have picked up on and since used. He ditched his sunny-but-empty approach from 2004 and took a grittier, more determined, more effective style of campaigning, which made him a stronger and more compelling candidate.

So go with God, John Edwards. You told us some inconvenient truths and you gave hope to millions of people. Keep fighting the good fight–our country and our party needs good people like you.

UPDATE: Here’s Obama on Edwards’ departure:

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington.

John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

And here’s Clinton:

Well, Sen. Edwards is a friend of mine, he was a colleague in the Senate, and I have the highest regard for him, and I’m really admiring of what he has done to make sure that poverty was on the agenda here in America. He encouraged all of us in his passion and advocacy, and I hope he will continue that work because it is really important that we stay focused on what we’re going to do to help people.

You know, I’m out here talking about making the economy work for everybody. And it needs to work for the middle class, working people, it needs to give a life line to poor people like we did in the 1990s, so in any way that I can be part of this effort to try to target poverty I am going to be.

They’re both pulling hard for Edwards’ endorsement–and with the economy as bad as it is, both of them will have ample opportunities to prove their mettle on economics and poverty.

This graphic from the House Democratic Caucus shows what just 7 years of Republican governance has done to this country.  It just goes to show you that Republicans can’t govern, a sad but true fact that has been proven time and time again in recent years.

So the next time some GOP politician is asking you for your vote, keep in mind that he might be a future Roadblock Republican; he might be the next George W. Bush; he might be another Tom DeLay; he might take American from boom to bust in a just a few years.

And then make sure to vote for his opponent.

Ever since Karl Rove left the White House, he’s served as both a columnist for Newsweek and as a conservative speaker and commentator. Recently, he talked about the Democratic primary and the Democratic candidates.

But, you know what? Who cares what Karl Rove thinks?

Karl Rove was the most unsuccessful Presidential adviser in American history. Rove lead George W. Bush from an 85% approval rating to a 30% approval rating in just over five years. Rove failed to get Bush elected in 2000, relying instead on a fortuitous Supreme Court decision to install his candidate in the White House. In 2004, Rove got Bush re-elected by the smallest margin of any re-elected President in the 20th century.

Karl Rove was largely responsible for Social Security privatization, FEMA’s failure in New Orleans, Iraq, the failed Bush tax cuts, the approval of torture, Terri Schiavo, Republican hyperpartisanship and many of the other massive failures of the Bush administration.

Karl Rove bought his own spin to the point where he actually believed Bush had a mandate instead of a tiny margin of victory. Rove squandered political capital that Bush never actually had in the first place. He believed his spin so much that he bragged of the impending GOP victory in 2006, claiming that he was going to prove all the pollsters wrong–and then he was forced to eat his words after the Democrats won a resounding victory.

Rove planned on creating a permanent Republican majority that would last for generations. Instead, he drove America away from the Republican Party–and into the Democrats’ big tent. In fact, America is more willing to embrace Democrats now than at any time in recent memory. In fact, Rove has put America one the brink of a massive, generational shift to the left–a shift not seen since the days of FDR. For this I’m thankful, of course, but it’s another example of Karl Rove’s ineptitude.

Personally, I give professional election losers like Bob Shrum more credit than Rove. Bob Shrum has worked on 8 Presidential campaigns, 0 of which have won. Why do I give him more credit than Rove? Because Karl Rove succeeded–he got his candidate into office, he had a chance to make this country better, and he failed spectacularly. He put his petty ambition and extremist ideology ahead of the American people, ruining his President, his reputation, his party and his country all at the same time.

Karl Rove’s legacy will forever be tied to that of George W. Bush. He’ll spend the rest of his career–and perhaps his life–polishing Bush’s legacy while trying to salvage his own. Never forget that Karl Rove–’the architect’ of the Bush administration–is responsible for America’s worst President ever. And that’s why Karl Rove is irrelevant.

Getting away from the Presidential race for a bit, Louisiana’s Richard Baker has decided to leave Congress in search of greener–and better-paying–pastures:

Baker…will take the helm of the Managed Funds Association, the industry group that represents the $1.8 trillion hedge fund industry. As president and CEO, his salary and benefits package is expected to exceed $1 million a year.

“The reason the industry came to me was because of my work in the subject area,” Baker said in a morning interview with WJBO Radio in Baton Rouge. “I have put my life into developing considerable knowledge in this area.”

Baker said in an interview that he would step aside “no later than Feb. 6.” His new job starts the following day. It is possible that the election to fill Baker’s seat could be held March 8, the same day as the first party primary to fill the vacancy of former Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, who was inaugurated as governor Monda