McCain & Palin starting to self destruct

I love this - John McCain is surely ruing the day that he ever selected Sara-cuda - she's been a disaster in just about every way. In recent days, there have been numerous reports that the Palin and McCain camps are increasingly acrimonious toward each other about how she's being used on the campaign trail. I've also read some reports that she's been striking out on her own in her stump speeches and straying off message vis-à-vis what the campaign wants her to say..

Hmm - self-destruct much? I'm certainly not, in Obama's own words, "counting chickens before they're hatched," but as of right now, it's looking pretty good for Obama. And I love being a spectator to the finger pointing that has already started. Unfortunately for the supporters of McCain and Palin, all of the finger pointing in the world won't change one thing - that McCain has sold his soul in hopes of capturing the presidency. Think I'm being unfair? Do a YouTube search and see for yourself - when I look back at footage of McCain during the 2000 Republican Primaries, I see and hear a guy I hardly recognize, and I don't mean physically. I laughed out loud when McCain defiantly challenged people to name one issue that he has switched positions on. And yes, he was serious.

Anyway, here's a transcript of the video above, and it's pretty damning about Palin's striking out on her own, and talking about her future before the election.

From CNN:

BLITZER: And this just coming into the "Situation Room," the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin now speaking out openly about her intentions in 2012 if, if she and John McCain were to lose this contest next Tuesday. In an interview with ABC News, Sarah Palin is now saying, she would be interested in remaining a serious national political figure, going ahead to 2012. She was asked what happens in 2012 if you lose on Tuesday, would you simply go back to Alaska? Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News asked her and Palin said this, and I will read it to you verbatim according to an ABC News transcript: "Absolutely not," Sarah Palin says. "I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught," and that is a direct quote from Sarah Palin. Clearly, leaving open the possibility that she would be interested in leading the Republican Party in 2012 if she and John McCain were to lose this presidential contest right now. Let's go to Dana Bash. She has been covering the McCain campaign reaction from the rather blunt statement from Sarah Palin that she would in fact be interested in leading the Republican Party going forward after Tuesday if they lose?

BASH: I just got off of the phone, Wolf, with a senior McCain adviser and I read this person the quote and I think it is fair to say that this person was speechless. There was a long pause and I just heard a "huh" on the other end of the phone. This is certainly not a surprise to anybody who has watched Sarah Palin that she is interested in potentially future national runs, and she is being urged to by a lot of people inside of the Republican Party if they do lose, but it is an "if" and people inside of the McCain campaign do not want any discussion that has an "if" in front of it six days before the election, they don't want any discussion at all, any kind of hypothetical talk about running for the next time around. So certainly, this is not at least initially being received well inside of the McCain campaign.

BLITZER: I am not surprised, not surprised at all. It is one of those "wow, she is talking about 2012 if we lose," that is not supposed to be something that you say. You are supposed to say, "well, I'm not looking ahead, I'm not looking ahead only to Tuesday," and those are the talking points she's supposed to be saying, but she is obviously blunt and she is looking ahead if something were to happen on Tuesday that she wouldn't be happy with.

That last point about how Palin should have responded is spot-on by Blitzer, and it's another illustration of how much of a political neophyte Palin is (lucky for Obama & his supporters). She's very naïve when it comes to how she should handle herself in a national campaign. Her manner, annoying accent and gaffes may play well in Alaska (and in many cases might be viewed as quaint), but her appeal has worn off with undecided and independent voters. And her lack of depth and knowledge on the most basic of issues, in my estimation, has been the most damning and damaging of all.

h/t to Crooks & Liars for the video & transcript

McCain only wishes to discuss Iraq on his terms

This is a pretty telling piece of footage from this past week, when John McCain appeared on Wolf Blitzer's show to discuss Iraq. Blitzer takes him to task for his support of a war (that should never have happened, a fact Blitzer alludes to [Bravo, Wolf]), and McCain, like the good GOP-trained robot, reverts to the Republican boilerplate about Hussein having chemical weapons production capability, and blah, blah, blah.

I'll certainly concede a little bit that Obama may not have been completely right about the Troop Surge, but he sure was right about being against the war from the beginning. What's more, despite McCain's rhetoric, I strongly feel that the last chapters on the Surge have yet to be written. McCain's haughty arrogance on TV that the Surge is "working" and that we are going to see our way to "victory" smacks me as about as dumb as Bush's Mission Accomplished. I firmly don't believe that we can ever achieve what most would call a "victory" in Iraq. But, we can spend hundreds of billions more, while simultaneously killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Wow, some victory that will be, God only knows how many more years down the road. Any victory we achieve will surely be pyrrhic.

Iraq certainly is an important issue, and despite what some media outlets are claiming, not every American is bored or uninterested in what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's just that we have bigger worries right now, like how to pay for mortgages and gas bills (and soon, heating bills).

However, with candidate McCain, we are going to get 100 more days of all-Iraq, all the time, because neither McCain nor his advisers know squat about getting us out of the economic mess we are in.

Blitzer's stroll down the Blvd. of Bush Lies

I have to give Wolf Blitzer major kudos for detailing the multitude of lies of the Bush administration. Normally, I don't agree with Blitzer on a number of fronts, but this is truly a great piece of footage.

I'm not still arguing against whether we should have gone to war in Iraq by bringing up this footage; what I'm doing is offering up the merits of a foreign policy that has gone terribly wrong. And this foreign policy will largely be continued by John McCain, who thinks it's funny to make jokes about bombing Iran. We cannot and we must not continue down the path of preemptive war, unless every single diplomatic option has been exhausted. Since we aren't even talking to the Iranians right now, it's not a stretch to say that all diplomatic options have not been explored.

And the double standard between Iran and North Korea is quite telling. I can distinctly remember the Bushies all but calling the Clinton administration a bunch of pussies for negotiating with North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Low and behold, over the weekend, I read that North Korea has been convinced to give up its nuclear program, through diplomacy, and that it will be removed from the State Department's terrorist watch list. So I guess that diplomacy only is an option when it's a country we simply don't want to invade (or can't afford to in terms of troops and money).

So much for diplomacy not being an option, and for North Korea being a member of the Axis of Evil. All accomplished through diplomacy.

My favorite parts of the video above, however, are Donald Rumsfeld's obfuscations, and Dick Cheney's combativeness when confronted with the facts by Blitzer. History will treat neither man kindly.

And Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" statement from September 2002 now looks almost like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Cheney's ignorance on display... again

This hardly classifies as news any longer - Shooter Cheney is making an ass out of himself again. The latest installment came yesterday at a gathering in West Virginia. WaPo's Mary Ann Akers:

During a question-and-answer session toward the end of the luncheon, someone asked the vice president about his wife Lynne Cheney's revelation on MSNBC last year that "Dick and Barack Obama are eighth cousins."

The questioner jokingly asked the vice president if he and Obama were going to have a family reunion, to which Cheney replied he would "have no objections" though he said he doubted Obama would want one - "certainly not before November."

Then came the offensive punch line. Cheney explained that during the course of researching his family lineage for Lynne's memoir "Blue Skies, No Fences" last year, he learned there were Cheneys on both his father's and his mother's side of the family. There was a Richard Cheney on his mother's side, the vice president said.

"So I had Cheneys on both sides of the family and we don't even live in West Virginia," Cheney quipped.

West Virginia politicians aren’t laughing at Cheney’s little joke, including his fellow Republican, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Who knew a Dick could be this funny?

Seriously, I've little to no idea why West Virginians would even consider voting for John McCain in the general election this November. Any fair minded political observer would probably draw only one conclusion - race. I know, I know, it's not PC to say, but I don't care - I think it's the truth.

Considering that West Virginia ranks in the bottom five in the country in just about every conceivable income category (According to the 2000 Census), what other conclusion could one draw? I find it impossible to believe that the state's working poor could look to John McCain (or George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, for that matter) to improve their lot in life. It's not like the last eight years have been boom times for West Virginia, that's for sure. However, the Bush administration has been in bed with the coal industry since day one of Bush's presidency, so that undoubtedly plays a party in Bush's popularity in the state.

Anyway, draw your own conclusions.

P.S. - Cheney's spokeswoman offered an apology after his office received complaints about his ignorant remarks. One more thought - you'd think that the Cheney family, considering that they have a gay daughter, would have an appreciation for diversity and for people who are cut from a different cloth than they are, especially considering hypocrite Lynne Cheney's crazed reaction to John Kerry merely mentioning in 2004 what everyone already knew, that the Cheneys have a gay daughter. (And then there's Dick's barking at Wolf Blitzer for a question about his daughter Mary.) These people don't have a good track record of being tolerant when people point out the obvious about their family, much less making jokes about it, so I wonder how the Cheneys would have reacted about a joke about their family? Well, let's not let facts get in the way.

The skinny on Stevens & ethical reform

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AL) has had quite an impressive week, for a senator who's corrupt at worst and ethically challenged at best.

First, his home was raided by FBI agents who are investigating his ties to a company whose officials have pleaded guilty to bribing Alaskan public officials. Considering his history of supporting some of the most ridiculous projects in the history of government, including a Bridge to Nowhere, which costs over $300 million, it's a more than interesting accusation. (How can a U.S. Senator support such an idiotic project? He's either one of the most asinine people ever to hold office in the U.S. Senate, he's getting paid, or both.)

Anyway, above is footage of a CNN reporter trying to catch up with Stevens to get a comment about the raid on his home, and he gets all angry and uppity: "Do you understand English? That's the only statement I'm going to make!" Touchy senator, awfully touchy. (By the way, I wish someone would tell Wolf Blitzer that the proper verb tense is pleaded guilty, not pled. I'd think a broadcaster with his experience and prominence would have verb tenses down by now.)

Even more interesting is how Stevens and other prominent Senate Republicans appear on the verge of opposing legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House that overhauls ethical guidelines for Congress. One unidentified Republican senator stated, "there will be plenty of holds on this bill." Of course there will be - why in the would Republicans want ethical reform? They don't want to turn off the sources of their largess since gaining power in Congress in 1994. Now that the Democrats are in control of Coingress, GOPers are probably afraid their money and privilege might dry up.

I've no doubt there are plenty of Democrats in Congress who are corrupt, too; in fact history reveals plenty of them (how's life these days, Dan Rostenkowski?). But, at least Democrats are taking steps to clean things up, which is more than I can say for Republicans when they were in control of Congress.

Anyway, Democrats want ethical reform, the public wants ethical reform, and the only way we're not going to get it is if Republican senators or President Bush prevent it from happening. In all fairness, I should note that I read yesterday that the ethical reform bill that passed the House did so with over 400 Representatives voting Yea, so that included a great deal of Republicans.

The bill that passed the House should do more, but it's a pretty good start. According to The New York Times, the bill will:

...let the public see for itself how much money is being traded for access. For the first time, the lavish torrent of campaign money from eager lobbyists to grateful politicians would have to be reported quarterly to the public via the Internet, with tighter scrutiny and penalties for violators. The reports would highlight lobbyists' so-called bundling, the massing of individual donations into eye-popping packages for politicians and their party committees.

And the bill would require that all earmarks — those budget-busting pet projects that fall like manna from heaven — as well as who’s sponsoring them be identified on the Internet before final passage. The bill would also curb such abuses as corporate-paid gifts and travel. It would end lobbyist-sponsored galas "honoring" ranking politicians at national conventions. It would even ban the ludicrous pensions now being paid to Congressional alumni doing prison time for felonies.

At least if this bill doesn't pass, we'll know who's responsible.

Wolf Blitzer has verbal diarrhea

As Crooks & Liars calls them, the Prez-Dispensers are back. Someone over at Chris Dodd's campaign HQ must be awfully angry at how the CNN debates were moderated. Taking this information at face value, Wolf Blitzer really earned his stripes as a Talking Head this week.

I have to say again though, that just like last Sunday's Democratic Candidate Debate, Blitzer gave the three leading candidates the most time, which, in my opinion, he should do. If he just closed his mouth and gave all of the candidates even more time, he would do an even better job.

Speaking of Blitzer - I bet if he hosts any more presidential debates, he won't be posing any more absurd hypothetical questions again. I'd like to think he's learned his lesson.

GOP warmonger presidental debate, 7 p.m.

Tonight's the last of the debates, at least for a little while. The more I think about it, I'm actually looking forward to this Republican candidate debate a little bit more than last Sunday's Democratic candidate debate. With the Democrats, I listen too hard, because I'm really putting a great deal of thought into who I'll vote for in the Democratic Primary. With the Republicans, I can just sit back and relax.

A few predictions about tonight...

First and foremost, we're gonna hear a great deal about the plot to blow up JFK Airport, the only question is how much. I can guarantee you it'll be a lot, though. I'm sure Rudy will weigh in - he has to protect his precious 9-11 franchise.

Scooter Libby will be Kryptonite - if it's mentioned (if Wolf does his job, he'll ask), the candidates will say very little, except the bottom feeders, who have to score points any way they can.

Mark this one down - the candidates will refer to the Sunday debate, specifically Dennis Kucinich's statement that he would not use force to take out Osama bin Laden. Time to dust off the "Democrats are Pussies" manual, which is dog-eared and well-worn from being in Karl Rove's back pocket since 1999. Thank GOD that right after Kucinich said that on Sunday, Barack Obama said that he would take out bin Laden, without qualifying his remarks. (By the way, I agree with Obama - I'm for peace, but in the case of bin Laden, he declared war on America by killing 3,000 people. I'd put a bullet in his head.)

It'll be interesting to see if Wolf Blitzer maintains the format, overall tone and style that he used on Sunday in the Democratic debate. Will there be any hypotheticals? If so, will anyone call Wolf out about it? The hypothetical questions in every debate so far have been totally absurd - from extensive "What Ifs" about terrorism, to "What role would Bill Clinton play in your administration?"

The debate begins at 7 p.m., and I'll begin blogging shortly thereafter.

Dem debate talk clock

This chart was created by Chris Dodd's campaign - a chart on how much talking time each candidate received during Sunday night's Democratic Presidential Debate in New Hampshire.

Some people have complained about how much talk time Wolf Blitzer received. I watched the entire debate, and I have to confess, I didn't notice it during the flow of the debate, but if these numbers are accurate, he did receive entirely too much airtime.

Many more people are taking Wolf to task on how he moderated the debate. Frankly, I think he did a good job moderating, but his choice of questions, at times, was absurd, specifically his ridiculous hypothetical questions. I'm anxious to see how Blitzer frames tonight's debate between the GOP candidates. I'll have much more on the upcoming Republican debate later today.

Other than Blitzer's time, I think the balance of time among the other candidates is about right. Mike Gravel received the least amount of time, as he should have. Really, he should have been happy to even get an invite; Osama bin Laden has higher poll numbers than Gravel.

Also, notice that the top three candidates in the polls got the most air time.

Sun. & Tues. debates: I'll live-blog both

There are two more (Two more? Already?!?) presidential candidate debates coming up, and I will live-blog them both.

This Sunday, the Democrats take center stage. Obviously, I'm more anxious to see this one than the upcoming GOP debate, but not by much. I have to admit, when the debates have this many candidates in them, it's more like a glorified press conference. And the questions from the audience that the moderators choose to ask are for the most part absurd - probably the dumbest so far was when Chris Matthews chose to ask the GOP candidates "What do you think about Bill Clinton being back in the White House?"

I hope and expect that CNN's Wolf Blitzer, an excellent journalist on a network mostly devoid of them, will do a much better job. One thing's for sure - the previous moderators have not set the bar very high.

On Tuesday, it's the GOP's turn. The one burning thing I can't wait to see is if 10 white men can possibly try to "out war monger" each other any more than they did in the last debate. This is more of a question than a statement, but I found the whole spectacle equal parts funny, pathetic and frightening. Is the base of the Republican Party really this blood thirsty? If you think I'm exaggerating, go back and look at the footage from the debates. (It's readily available online, but try YouTube if you're reeeeeeeeally bored today and I'm sure you can pull up clips with no problem.) The thing I'm looking for in this one is how well Rudy protects his franchise, 9-11, and whether he goes after Ron Paul for being right on 9-11 and our foreign policy that helped provoke the attack.

Anyway the Sunday debate begins at 7 p.m., and I'll be in front of the tube, on my laptop.

Will McCain walk unprotected down a Baghdad street? I hope he's not that dumb

It's funny how you can tell how a war is going from thousands of miles away. This is from a few days ago, but it's Judas John McCain, opining that the War in Iraq is going just great. This arrogant ass tried to dress down Wolf Blitzer, telling him he should "get up to speed."

Sure, John. Why don't you get a clue. I triple-dog-dare McCain to go anywhere, ANYWHERE in Baghdad and walk down the street and see what happens.

And that's precisely what CNN's Michael Ware offered to McCain - to take a walk with him in this area "where you can walk down the street without any protection." Ware has been in Iraq for four years, reporting on the war and, let's be frank, putting himself in harm's way.

The next time that McCain wants to push b.s. like this on the American people, he should try GOP News, where the facts never get in the way of a good 'ole Republican campaign stop over its airwaves. Can you imagine McCain saying this to Sean Hannity? He would have given McCain a five-minute tongue bath while decrying how the "liberal press" is ignoring all of the good news coming out of our failed neocon state.

Psst - Hey Senator - you are an American hero for being a POW during the Vietnam War. That is not and never will be in dispute. (No Swiftboating from the left, or at least not from me, ever, about your service to your country.)

BUT, that doesn't make you an expert on the current War in Iraq. If anything, it makes you more dangerous, because you think you know a whole helluva lot more than you really do.

Gore's Repube opponents bring lots of bark, very little bite

Could these morons be any more trite? This past week, Al Gore testified on Capitol Hill about global warming. I've already posted video of global warming denier-in-chief Jim Inhofe getting a beat down from Barbara Boxer, and that was good to see, but that didn't stop Repubes from bashing Gore on the talk show circuit.

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over in defending Gore on his home consumption habits - the "story" has been thoroughly debunked, especially when you consider the source; and that would be The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, and it's CEO, Drew Johnson. (Read more about that Here.)

From some of the less partisan stories I've read, maybe he could do a little better with energy consumption, but he's probably doing a helluva lot better than most Repubes, who think nothing of global warming. Many Repubes don't even acknowledge that global warming exists at all, so I'm quite certain that Gore is doing more to combat global warming than they are.

Terry Holt has a lot of balls being outraged at the supposed "hypocrisy" of Gore, stemming from his energy use at his home. I wonder if Holt is every bit as outraged at Newt Gingrich, who saw fit to go over President Clinton for adultery when Gingrich was getting some "Speaker of the House booty" on the side, while married?

What annoys me more than anything is the right's continued assertion that Gore said, "I invented the Internet."

It's one of the biggest bullshit lies of all time, yet Republicans, to dramatic effect, have repeated it over and over and over again. Repetition of this lie has been so great that the mainstream media has dutifully reported it as fact since before the 2000 election.

What Gore really said was this, during an Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 1999:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have been important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Funny, I don't see anywhere in that statement where Gore was saying that he invented the Internet. Read the entire CNN interview transcript Here.

To read of a thorough dissection of this staple from the GOP lie book, click Here.

Best of all, read about Gore's role in Internet legislation from one of the Internet's true innovators, Vint Cerf, click Here.

Actually, it's boring to fight arguments that are eight years old, but to be honest, as long as Repubes keep spewing them forth, they are worth rebutting, because some people hear this stuff, and believe it.

Respected pollster predicts blue Senate

This is a few days old, but it's noteworthy because Stu Rothenberg, a respected bi-partisan pollster, is predicting the Senate will go Democratic. I'm cautiously optimistic about the Democrats' chances in the upper house, though. But, I look at it this way - three months ago, I never, ever expected the Democrats to have a shot at the Senate, and I was just hoping against hope that the Dems could get control of the House, if all the stars were lined up perfectly. Now, they have a shot at both. Almost any pollster you hear except the most rabid Republican will tell you the House will go Democrat, and at this point it would be a major political upset if that does not happen. For the Democrats to even have a chance at the Senate is a shocking turnaround of fortunes for both parties.

We'll soon see how much Stu knows his stuff.