Black Box Report

Watching Bush's press conference yesterday was like watching a floral-shirted / Bermuda-shorted tourist in a foreign nation, trying to speak to the locals, assuming that if they just repeat themselves LOUDER AND MORE EMPHATICALLY, people will understand them. In this case, while people heard and understood the individual words Bush was saying, their combined meaning was no more coherant or believable than it was the first time around. One such example was his claim that if we don't give them immunity, telecom companies will refuse to help the government in the future. This might be a concern, if it were true. But it's not:

When surveillance is conducted pursuant to the law, there is no question of whether telecom firms will "cooperate" or "participate", like children at day camp. They will comply, and they will do it because they are required to.

To review:

Lawful = FISA; government asking companies to assist in FISA surveillance.

Unlawful = surveillance outside of FISA; government asking companies to assist in surveillance outside of FISA.

If Bush is afraid that telecom companies won't help the government do illegal things in the future if they aren't given immunity for the illegal things they've done in the past, then the government shouldn't be asking them to do anything illegal.

President Bush also repeated his assertion that progress was being made in Iraq, wherein "progress" is apparently defined as "going backwards":

An Iraqi leader utilized his constitutional right to veto yesterday, which the president seemed quite pleased about today. The veto was proof, he said, of a “healthy” process, and a system in which Iraqis are “thinking through” legislation.

You’ll notice, of course, that the president was a little vague about what, exactly, was vetoed. There’s a very good reason for that.

The measure that was rejected was held up by the Bush administration as an example of political progress.

So much for what was to be just the second of 18 political benchmarks set by the U.S. that Iraq needed to reach; a political structure for Iraq’s provincial governments and establishing a basis for elections in October.
But, y'know...Progress!

Then the president repeated oft-cited criticisms of Obama for his willingness to talk to dictators who imprison their own people for their political beliefs.
Pot, meet kettle:

The idea that Bush - who regularly hangs out with…the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, and Egypt - would ever try and take a strong, principled stand against meeting with, much less supporting, repressive autocrats…well, it's what my grandmother would call chutzpah, and what the rest of us would call "nonsense on stilts."

Dictator is as dictator does...

"He may be a son-of-a-b*tch..."



"...but he's OUR son-of-a-b*tch"

But my personal favorite was Bush demanding Turkey cease its invasion of northern Iraq, as it is a sovereign country, and to achieve their objective quickly and get out.

I don't have much to add to that. The comedy writes itself.

In an interesting follow-up, claiming their mission was accomplished, Turkey did, in fact, pull back out of Kurdish Iraq. The irony of all this was semingly lost on Bush, who appears to have all the self-awareness of a pet rock.

Case in point:

It's news to our President that analysts are predicting $4 a gallon gasoline - but he doesn't know the answer to a question about his Presidential library because he's been focused on other things, like - wait for it - gasoline prices.

To be fair, his claim to be focused on gas prices came a whole 15 minutes or so after being unaware of them. Perhaps the president defines "focused" as "something I heard someone say briefly in passing."

But being unaware of the conclusions of experts (or just not heeding them) is nothing new for this president; in his bubble, HE is the expert. And if he needs a second opinion, he just asks Cheney, or Rice, or one of his supporters, and they dutifully tell him what he wants to hear. For example, the president doesn't think we're heading for a recession, just a "slowdown," which is sort of like an economic coma - still alive, just doesn't move very fast.

Not that many people outside the bubble consider Bush's opinion on economic matters very valuable:

Too bad most of the nation's leading economists disagree with him. Given his track record on the economy and in business in general, I think I'll trust the experts instead of the man who bankrupted two different companies.

Those "experts" obviously never got inside the bubble. Recession? What recession? How can we be on the brink of a recession? All the people the president knows, their economies are doing just fine:

When you don't know what a gallon of gas, or a gallon of milk costs, you have no right talking about understanding what the American people want.

Obviously the American people are also not inside the bubble. But don't worry, says Bush, he is still "for a strong dollar" which, even without the recent bad news, is a dumb thing to say:

Nobody in America is for a WEAK dollar. The dollar is just WEAKENING because we've been growing our economy on false hope and borrowed money for the last four years and now we're waking up to that.

Right now the American dollar is the 98lb weakling of global currencies. We are still stronger than the Indian rupee, but thanks to outsourtcing, perhaps for not much longer:

He says the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is good for America. It will bring more jobs to our country. Tell the people of my hometown that. They've lost the two biggest companies in town. They moved overseas. And more are getting ready to. NAFTA hasn't been good for the people of this NC town. And we don't have any companies about to move in. No NAFTA is not good for this country.

And president Bush hasn't been good for this country either.

Well, that's never going to make it inside the bubble.

Maybe if you repeat it to him. Slowly. And louder.

You might think the Obama-turban photo would be the product of some rightwing Swift Boat group, but according to Matt Drudge, it actually came from a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign. When reached for comment, her campaign had the chutzpah to first turn it around and say Obama should be "ashamed" for claiming the photo is "divisive." After all, politicians wear native clothing on foreign visits all the time! But Obama isn't just any politician, and this wasn't just any traditional native clothing:

What Mr. Obama is wearing is NOT a Kenyan elder's garb, but a Somali elder's garb. This is quite an important difference...in view of the fact that Kenya is 90% Christian and Somalia is 100% Sunni Muslim...So whatever else Mr. Obama was doing, he was sending an unfortunate message. And I, for one, see no harm whatsoever in pointing that out.

"An unfortunate message." 'Cause if he's dressed like a Muslim, he must be a terrorist sympathizer! Aren't all Muslims? And, by the way, have we mentioned his middle name is Hussein?!?! Think about it!

But as Clinton's campaign took their sweet time yesterday disavowing a connection to the photo, people began to speculate, taking their silence as confirmation:

...it is a sign of the desperation of Team Clinton...pretty nasty stuff, with its "he’s a Muslim and it should bother you" undertone...Twenty-four hours from now I suspect we’ll see virtually the entire Democratic establishment, and many others, condemning this tactic. It’ll advance the storyline that the Clinton campaign is spinning out of control – lurching from melancholy valedictory comments one day to faux outrage the next – and in its dying days.

During tomorrow evening’s debate, Hillary Clinton will be on the defensive and very much regret this stupid and ugly effort.

Other than that, it was a swell idea.

After hours of issuing non-denials, Hillary's campaign finally disowned the photo, although, with 700 people on staff, they're not 100% sure it didn't come from them (it wouldn't be the first time one of their local staffers went off the reservation on this same topic). Nor do they seem terribly concerned about looking into it. Having achieved some measure of plausible deniability, the simple fact that the photo is out there and part of the campaign narrative serves them as well as if it had come from them. But before anyone assumes that Clinton has actually gotten desperate enough to adopt the sleaziest of rightwing talking points, keep in mind where all this started:

Matt Drudge, a proven and repeated inventor of facts and serial slimer of Dems, reported that unnamed Hillary "staffers" had "circulated" this email and photo. He didn't say who the staffers were or at what level they exist in the campaign. He didn't say who the photo was circulated to...When it comes right down to it, nobody has any evidence of the existence of this email beyond what Drudge said.

Drudge gets to run the Obama-is-a-scary-Muslim! pic, and blame Clinton for it. It's a two-fer!

While conservatives were relieved to not have to endure another Michael Moore documentary win at last night's Academy Awards, they weren't particularly happy with the film that did win for Best Documentary Feature, Taxi to the Dark Side. New York Post film critic Kyle Smith writes on his blog:

“Move away from the dark side and back to the light,” the director of “Taxi to the Dark Side” says. I doubt our troops agree that we are stuck in the dark side. I think they would argue that the vast majority of them abide by the law, by the rules of engagement and by their own moral compasses, yet they get little feeling of support from their country because those who work in the media are bent on presenting sordid, depraved and illegal acts committed by members of the military and intelligence services (which are of course elements in this war, as they are in every war) as the norm in order to undercut the war and defund the troops.

So even though the film depicted actual events that were, in his own words, "sordid, depraved and illegal," it's wrong to condone this film because, hey, it happens in every war! Except, of course, it doesn't have to:

FP recently spoke with former FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan, one of the experts interviewed for the film, about his own experience interrogating real al Qaeda detainees. You don't have to use force to make a terrorist break down and cry, Cloonan says -- just brains.

Conservatives other well-worn complaint is that this film is just liberal Hollywood's latest effort to undercut the war. Because if we all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything our military does is as pure as the driven snow, then we can't possibly be involved in an unjust war that undermines our credibility in the Middle East, while running up high costs in blood and treasure. But you know what undercuts the war even more? Torturing and killing innocent people:

The film had a hard time of it -- the Discovery Channel and the MPAA both threw up obstacles in the way of the story of a young Afghan cab driver who was suspected of being a Taliban fighter and was tortured to death. It was deemed "too controversial."

Nothing can right the shameful wrong of his death, or erase the enduring black mark on the legacy of the nation responsible for torturing him and others. But kudos to the filmmakers for making sure that the story did get told,.

If, like Kyle Smith, you concede that "sordid, depraved and illegal" acts are being perpetrated in Iraq in our name and do nothing to stop them - even go so far as to criticize others who would - then one can only conclude that you are quite pleased with them. Which makes you a little sordid and depraved yourself. The only way to stop these things from happening again the name of the United States is to bring them to light, something documentary filmmakers like Alex Gibney are apparently quite good at.

How do you know you're the Democratic frontrunner? When the rightwing noise machine starts throwing heaping handfuls of vile, foul-smelling mud exclusively in your direction. For Barack Obama, it started this weekend on Real Time with Bill Maher, with congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA):

Kingston tells us that Obama refuses to say the Pledge Of Allegiance, citing the "famous picture" of Obama not saluting the flag. This rumor originated in an anonymous e-mail and has since been debunked repeatedly by the mainstream media. The truth is that the photo is actually of Obama singing the Star Spangled Banner. It's sad to see any elected official still parroting the lies in that now-notorious chain e-mail.

The Associated Press then took the "Obama's patriotism questioned" story mainstream, leading off the expert opinions with that of noted Republican sleazeball Roger Stone (last seen harassing Eliot Spitzer's elderly father) who, surprisingly, thinks Obama is not very patriotic. While Nedra Pickler does take the time, a few paragraphs later, to note that these stories amount to a "Swift Boat campaign" and a "shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet," she closes this door long after the horse has left the barn. By perpetuating the smears, she is actually contributing to them.

And then it's off to the races with a little smear synergy. Take the Obama's patriotism angle, and add in a little alarmist bigotry...

Over at Islamica magazine, they are acknowledging what the few of us fighting the great fight have been saying all along. Hussein Obama is Islam's candidate. They call it a wink and a nod but shhhhhh don't let on to the fat, lazy infidels.

Expect the fantasy mongerers in the mainstream media to continue to scrub and whitewash (no pun) Hussein Obama's Islamic bonafides.

...and voila!

From there, Matt Drudge posted this photo of Obamain traditional Kenyan garb, and conservative blogs who see turban and think "terrorist!" shouted out a collective A-HA! Now, it matters little (at least to this conversation) if the image came from Clinton staffers or not (although it should). It's not the first time a rightwing talking point has been used against Obama, and it definitely won't be the last. To his credit, Right Wing Nut House blogger Rick Moran is suitably ashamed:

It embarrasses me to no end to see fellow conservatives who actually believe that Barack Obama is some kind of "Manchurian Candidate" sent by Muslims to undermine American society...To some of my unschooled, ignorant conservative friends, this (photo) is further proof that if we elect Obama president, there will be a department of Sharia Affairs.

Finally, CNN put the icing on the cake:

The poll has since been deactivated, but it doesn't really matter.
Obama-won't-say-Pledge-of-Allegiance-wear-a-flag-lapel-pin-he's-a-scary-Muslim is now officially part of the campaign narrative:

That's how it works. Starts at right-swing smear sites and hoax emails. Then the AP's Nedra Pickler, who specializes in scooping up this slop and laundering it into the mainstream press, writes it up for the AP that runs across the country. And then picks it up and makes it a regular part of the campaign conversation.

I doubt some top exec at CNN came up with this or any name anchor. It's some producer in the bowels of the operation. But it amounts to the same thing because it's part of the culture and there's no accountability.

Get ready for more.

Can't get him on issues? Attack his patriotism. It's like Karl Rove never retired.

Ralph Nader: The answer to a question no one asked.

I used to respect Ralph Nader. He was the consumer advocate before that kind of thing was cool, and no doubt inspired a generation of muckrakers and reformers to try and better their government.

That said, I never understood his quixotic attempts to inhabit the Oval Office. At first, I thought him benevolently harmless. Third party candidates could conceivably help shape the debate and influence the major party candidates if their ideas had wide enough support.

Then came the 2000 election.

When I first heard Ralph make the claim that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, that both were standard bearers for corporate-owned parties, I saw the larger point he was trying to make, but couldn't believe he would actually try to pass off such glib comparison. Even if you bought the "compassionate conservative" canard that Bush was pitching back then, all you had to do was look back at the history of both parties to see there were stark differences in their priorities, supporters and methods. The Florida recount fiasco was a perfect example of this, but by then, of course, it was too late. Due to all the sundry shenanigans going on; the intimidation, mobs, Katherine Harris, "hanging chads," etc., you couldn't pin the entire mess on Ralph, by his own admission he cost Gore the election.

Anyone who thinks the ensuing 7+ years would've been the same no matter who was in office needs to have their head examined.

Which brings me to Ralph's latest vanity fair. Actually, less of a fair and more of a circus. He says most Americxans are disenchanted with both parties. While I can point to any number of sources that show serious buyer's remorse over the GOP, Democrats are enjoying a primary season with record turnout across the board. He claims thrid party candidates can bring in young voters - Barack Obama seems to be doing just fine in that department, certainly moreso than Ralph has ever done. He insists America is clamoring for a third-party candidate, but there's ample evidence that no such "clamoring" exists. Believe me, if there was, we'd all be talking about the Bloomberg / Unity '08 juggernaut. But we aren't.

And finally, Ralph continues to push the idea that, "Tweedledum or Tweedledee," John McCain or Obama/Clinton, there's just no difference between the two sides:

After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

{/sarcasm}

It's time for Ralph Nader, self-described "progressive," to take a long look in the mirror and decide which side he's really on.

Actually, it's a little over 7 years past time for such introspection, but better late than never.

Blogswarm Alert! All hands on deck!

John McCain in a lobbyist sex scandal!

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Uh-huh. Anonymous sources...

"To publish, or not to publish?" That is the question that's been facing the New York Times for last 2 months, ever since John McCain and Vicki Iseman lawyered up and convinced the Times to spike the story. That decision was obviously only temporary. As for the question "why now?", the short answer is, "because they didn't want to get scooped":

Michael Isikoff of Newsweek and Michael Calderone of Politico were two of the reporters at rival publications who were chasing the Times story. Calderone was particularly well informed about the details of the Times investigation.

On top of that, The New Republic was primed to run a story about the story, detailing the infighting between reporters and NYT editor Bill Keller over whether to run it or not, and seemingly forced their hand (they are in the business of selling papers, after all). Of course conservatives, who think even the Sports page and Macy's ads are signs of liberal bias at the Times, believe the timing of the piece was calculated to damage McCain's campaign now that he's the presumptive nominee. But really, is there any time the Times could've run this without angering the right? Damned if they do, damned if they don't:

If they leak it earlier, it looks like they're trying to knock McCain out. If they leak it later, it looks like they're trying to influence the general. Now, however, is the best time, both because the general is a long time away and because it theoretically lets the GOP select a new nominee if these stories hold up.

Another good question besides "why now" is "why...period?":

Lots of people will be asking why now? but my first question upon reading the story was different: why endorse? The New York Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination on Jan. 25, when it was clearly working on this story and had the basic facts in hand...If the facts in today's article were not enough to make the Times re-think its endorsement, then why were they good enough for the front page of the paper, eight years after the events in question?

And about those "facts." The re-hashing of McCain's improprieties with lobbyists, while certainly relevant to his presidential ambitions, there's not much there that's new (for more meat on that score, see here). And the innuendo of his affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman is a little thin, to say the least:

If you merely evaluate the words that are on the page of The Times, when it comes to the question of any affair you can't help but conclude...that they just didn't have or couldn't share the goods on an alleged romantic relationship and thus shouldn't have gone there.

On the other hand, the Times had to know what kind of reaction this would get. They had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons, and decided that it was safe to stick their neck out. The Polk Award-winning TPM thinks this may be just the first shoe dropping, and there may be more to come:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Bottom line: Unless they have another shoe to drop, the Times' bombshell may just blow up in their own faces.

But in the meantime...

John. McCain. Lobbyist. SEX. SCANDAL!!!

Exciting!

And, ew, while I'd rather not think about John McCain having sex, whether the New York Times story holds water or not, it's release has already begun to affect his campaign. First off, there's the question of how conservatives would react:

The story does put conservatives in an awkward position. Many hate McCain, but they despise The New York Times. So what do Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and the others do? It's like choosing between Stalin and Hitler.

Oh, c'mon...Was there ever really a question? Stalin, of course!

This forbidden-lobbyist-love scandal is a stroke of good fortune for John McCain. Revelations that he may have landed a sizzling hot blonde half his age have brought a new aura of virility and sex appeal to the Spanish-American war hero’s ancient carcass. He is also being hailed by Christian conservatives for having the good taste to conduct a heterosexual extramarital affair. And now we learn the scandal has brought conservative talk radio’s most lovable personalities flocking to his bosom. According to Politico, “they have a common enemy” now. Meaning, of course, the terrorists. At the New York Times.

As all this was developing this afternoon, I noticed this on a CNN chiron (sound off):

Limbaugh: The Story is the “Driveby Media” Trying to Take the Maverick Out

"The Maverick?" Bygones are, apparently, bygones.

Limbaugh: The Media Picked This GOP Candidate

Um, no. Republican voters picked this GOP candidate. Against your explicit instructions, might I add.

But while Rush Limbaugh's newfound love for the Maverick may help him with conservatives, McCain's history of being in bed with lobbyists - figuratively, if not literally - won't do him any favors with independents and moderates:

In exchange for money and freebies, McCain sought to intervene in a federal regulatory process in favor of a company that had provided him with tens of thousands of dollars in cash and services. He could try to plead naiveté, but in light of the hot water he got into with the Keating Five affair, which had the exactly same structure, he clearly knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong.

A lot of people don't remember - or didn't know in the first place - about the Keating Five affair, and this will give a good primer to those unfamiliar. And whether or not McCain got busy with Iseman (shudder), it's also a reminder to social conservatives that this would not be his first case of adultery. So given, at this point, McCain's potential opponent in November, expect all of this to have at least some staying power:

This story has the potential to be quite damaging, especially if he ends up facing off against Obama, who has a visible, and seemingly quite stable, marriage and is running against lobbyists.

And countering the Times piece with more Straight Talkitude won't help things any:

At a townhall meeting in New Hampshire last November, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the audience that he’s never allowed himself to be corrupted by lobbyist money:

Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other Senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.

McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks — formerly Paxson Communication — receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.

Somewhere Mitt Romney is sitting with his checkbook in one hand and today's Times in the other, shouting "Why now?"

Layoffs are, and have always been, a sad economic reality. But the storyline in recent years of Watson Pharmaceuticals and the like has nothing to do with outdated industry or bankrupt bottom lines. It comes down to how much profit is enough, and what, if any responsibility big business has to our country let alone their community and employees.

First let me dispel any notions, that Watson shuttered plants and handed out pink slips because they couldn't make ends meet. Please - I’ve been through their financials, and even with huge one time capital expenses they made huge profits last year, and are having an even better 2008.

Watson is getting out of Dodge because they can make an even bigger profit in India. Hey - I’m a capitalist, I believe in making a buck. But this pharmaceutical company, like so many other employers across America, is handing out pink slips by the hundreds or thousands because they can find others to do work at a fraction of the cost of the American worker.

It's bad enough to do it not for economic survival, but for even fatter profit margins. What's worse though, is that forget getting penalized; these companies are all but rewarded for outsourcing. Between favorable tax codes and being permitted to set up offshore headquarters, this administration all but congratulates the Watsons of the world when they wave goodbye to the American worker.

In the end, however, people in Carmel, Brewster and Danbury don't care about economic theory; they care about how they'll now put food on their tables. It didn't have to be this way, so if Watson wants to leave America so bad it's time they get a smack instead of a pat on the back.

"Support the troops." It's a well-worn phrase the president and Republicans love to admonish war critics with. To them, it's metaphorical, meaning to cheer the troops on in their mission; right or wrong, for better or worse. But when we ask our soldiers to risk the ultimate sacrifice, "support the troops" should mean something more, like making sure they have the vehicle armor they need to stay alive:

Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Of course, as usual, up is down, black is white, etc.:

Our president is once again calling Democrats soft on national security and at the same time an internal Defense Department study says that the Bush administration's malfeasance killed and injured 100s of Marines unnecessarily.

Marine Corps officials actually cited "cost" as a reason for refusing MRAP vehicles...like we're not already spending enough money on the war. But the administration's "support for the troops" doesn't end there:

The Bush Pentagon placed a $74 million contract for helmets from Sioux Manufacturing – as the company was being sued for making Kevlar that wasn’t up to military standards, and had covered it up. Tapes during their trial showed that even the quality assurance officer at the company was well aware of what they were doing.

Seems that $74 million could've been better spent. In fact, most of it could be better spent - or at the very least kept track of. On the other hand, maybe the problem isn't with the definition of "support," but with the word "troops." Apparently, to Bush, "troops" means contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater and the military-industrial complex:

The bloated, outsized defense budget is being propped up by wars and threats of wars. It's how the Air Force can claim that $144 billion is not enough of a budget and that they need more for things like "dorm furnishings"...
......
It's not that the military doesn't require funding and equipment, especially after years of war. It's that the expenditures are completely misplaced, going to contractors who police themselves and outdated weapons systems instead of what the troops need to save their lives.

But it's not just equipment. In his State of the Union address, Bush wanted a good crowd pleaser to "show" he "supported the troops," so he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. Everyone cheered and a good time was had by all, but when government analysts later told him it would cost $1-2 billion a year, he left it out of his $3.1 trillion dollar budget:

How despicable is that? He wanted to make a dramatic announcement, but he didn't want to bother actually developing a policy to announce…Bush wants $170,000,000,000 more for the Iraq War, next year, but helping educate the families of those fighting the war is too expensive. All Bush can do is to cynically use the idea as an applause line, before a national television audience, but when the cameras are off, the families of the troops no longer matter.

"Support the troops" means nothing if you don't put your money - and your equipment - where your mouth is.

With solid support in the Hispanic community, Texas is one of Hillary Clinton's "firewall" states, a contest she expected to help close the delegate gap with Barack Obama. But her campaign has just recently "disovered" a "new obstacle," some convoluted rules about how Texas districts apportion their delegates that could water down her support. But this really shouldn't have come as a surprise:

When I read this, I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence. It was that part about the Texas delegate selection rules "creating a new obstacle for her" that got me. In what sense are the Texas rules a "new obstacle?" Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell -- here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed. While I was having fun thinking of possible analogies -- would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as "creating a new obstacle" for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing?...

Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign.

And the highly-touted Clinton Machine is having trouble not only in Texas, but in Pennsylvania as well:

HRC was unable to put together a full slate of delegates for the Pennsylvania primary. In practice this doesn't matter (they'll be assigned later if necessary), but it demonstrates once again just how unprepared the Clinton team was for a campaign that extended beyond Super Tuesday.

On top of all that, the Politico reported a high-ranking Clinton camapign official said they intended to go after not only the Superdelegates, but Obama's pledged delegates from the primaries he's won as well. Clinton already caught heat for the idea of letting elite Superdelegates snatch the nomination for her, even if that goes contrary to the popular vote and pledged delegate counts, but this seems positively suicidal (not to mention reinforcing the perception that the Clintons will do anything to win, no matter how sleazy or undemocratic). Not to mention that, practically speaking, it's a really bad idea:

Yes, it's true that a delegate who arrives as a pledged delegate for Obama is not bound by the rules to actually vote for Obama…Delegates can do whatever they want, but before they are chosen as delegates, the campaigns get to sign off on who will represent them as delegates at the convention…The people who end up as pledged delegates for Obama will be among his most rabid and trusted supporters…among the least likely people in America to switch their allegiance…Why would the Clinton campaign even float out the idea…? God only knows. You'd think they might have some work to do trying to actually earn pledged delegates.

Both candidates have since vowed not to poach each others' pledged delegates, but it was still a mouthful of stupid for that "unnamed Clinton official." Team Clinton, renowned for its political savvy and discipline, stepped in it up to their collective hips. And it's hardly the first time they've done so. And in the end, that could be Hillary's biggest problem:

My biggest problem with Clinton isn't Clinton - I like her! - it's some of the people she surrounds herself with. Aren't they supposed to be the ones who know what they're doing?

Ignoring polls that don't show you data you like; insulting voters in "insignificant states"; failing to do the most basic due dilligance on and preparation for primary contests beyond Super Tuesday...For a fraction of what she's paying Penn, Ickes, Wolfson, et al, I could've not done all those things for the Clinton campaign, and she surely wouldn't be any worse off than she is now, with several million dollars left in her pocket to boot.

For a long time, Democrats in Washington have complained, rightly, about the Wild West mentality of then Republican leadership. Chief among their complaints: an absence of accountability, and the prevailing appearance that corporate America came before the American citizen.

Well, Tom Delay and Bill Frist are long gone, so Harry Reid and friends are going to need to look into the mirror if they want to blame somebody for the latest travesty of justice. In effect, leading Democrats decided to go along to get along. If anybody can tell me why, I'd love to know.

Giving immunity without even getting all the facts is plain dumb. Giving immunity when laws were broken, that’s just wrong. One of the remaining voices with a clue, Connecticut senator Chris Dodd, said it best, “Immunity is a disgrace. It tells us some believe in the courts only so long as their verdict goes their way. It puts secrecy above sunshine."

He's right, of course. We have laws and basic rights in America, including the right to privacy. Some phone companies didn't turn over our records to the feds because they knew funny little things like warrants, court orders and, oh, I don't know, the law, actually matter.

To give this administration and those who aided and abetted illegal spying on Americans is as inexplicable as it is indefensible.

Democrats ought to be ashamed.

Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and an all-star cast got together to make a video for Barack Obama, inspired by the candidate's "Yes We Can" speech:

...and in a show of generous bipartisanship, they made one for John McCain too:

Inspiring.

"Look, I don't like you, and you don't like me, but we're all we have together in this crazy world..."

John McCain walked into enemy territory, took some incoming fire, and walked out in one piece. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain did get some boos - no amount of padding the room was going to dilute the crowd's contempt for "shamnesty" - but for many attendees initially hostile to him, self-preservation was a stronger motivator:

If conservatives hear that carefully, that is an invitation to the table. They should accept that invitation and start seeking to fill the seats...
......
As I believe Georges Clemenceau once said, in order to get a seat at the feast, one has to help set the table. This is the choice facing conservatives. Either we help set the table and join in public policy and use our influence to help shape a Republican administration, or we abandon McCain and get four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo. Even worse, the conservatives might watch McCain get elected without their assistance -- and watch themselves get marginalized as a movement for a very, very long time.

And so many conservatives will hold their nose and cast their lots with the only guy left with a reasonable shot at the White House. Which is exactly what they were going to do eventually anyway:

I am sure you are all shocked to know that the wingnuts whinged and moaned and wailed, and in the end sucked it up and embraced their irrelevance. Months of calling him Juan McCain and worse were swept aside, “shamnesty” is but a memory, and all it took was one chorus of the “democrats are worse” and our brave patriots came to their senses. And now, magically, the right-wing blabosphere and John McCain are united and go together like Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Before long, our independent bloggers and right-wing bloviators will be back to doing what they do best- regurgitating the party line.

And to practice that, McCain's former critics have already started to redefine "losing" to mean "winning" (it worked in Iraq, after all):

This McCain speech would not have been given today, if it weren't for folks like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Andy McCarthy, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. Can I thank them on behalf of America?

No. You all pitched a fit and said McCain could not possibly be the Republican nominee. Now that he is, you want to take credit for McCain having to do the obvious and attempting to unite his party? No. No, you can't.

But yet, not all is quiet on the rightwing front. While many conservatives are willing to bite the bullet, others, like Michelle Malkin, will be holding their breath and stamping their feet a little longer:

I respect his decision to stand in the lion’s den, and I agreed with much of the speech. I found myself nodding as he touted his opposition to ethanol subsidies, national catastrophic insurance, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But I don’t for a minute buy his claim that he “respects the opposition” of his staunchest opponents, especially the anti-amnesty crowd. These are folks he has cursed and likened to Bull Connor-style bigots. He has done nothing to rid his campaign staff and finance board of the most extreme open-borders zealots.

I said he needed to do more than mouth the Right platitudes.

Still waiting.

In other words, the beatings will continue until morale imoroves.

If I keep running for president, the terrorists win.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney announced the suspension of his presidential campaign at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday.

A transcript of his remarks follows:

I want to begin by saying thank you. It’s great to be with you again. To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

But most of all, I want to thank all of you self-identified "conservatives" for voting for me in the primaries.

I want to thank you all for this, but of course, I can't. Because you didn't. Vote for me, that is. And now, the guy I spent the last few weeks calling a liberal is going to be the Republican nominee. The man you people have been accusing of stabbing your party in the back, calling him everything from "Judas" to "Juan McCain," is going to be the conservative standard-bearer in 2008.

Way to go, folks.

You said you wanted a true conservative to lead this party. I told you I was that true conservative! And to prove it, I lined up every one of my positions to match yours. Border fence? I already had the contractors picked out. Gun rights? I shot squirrels for fun. Close Guantanamo? I said "Double it." I worked "Islamic jihadists" into my speeches more times than Rudy did "9/11." I took every one of your talking points and went to town, but did you people actually come out and vote for me when it mattered? Noooooooo!

Y'know, they say conservatives are a disciplined bunch. Then I look at the other candidates you people propped up instead of getting behind a winner, and I wonder what the hell they're talking about. Rudy Giuliani? OK, 9/11 was pretty cool, but Rudy's got nothin' on the Mitt-ster! He didn't even try to hide his liberal past from you, and you still tried to get him nominated; I flipped on every liberal, pro-choice, anti-gun, big government position I ever had to please you! And Fred Thompson? Please! I can run rings around ol' Fred on the campaign trail - literally - and my wife is at least as hot as his...

Not to mention I'm about a gazillion times more photogenic than either one of them. Admit it; I look presidential, dammit!

And did I mention I'm rich? Show of hands; how many people in this audience are wealthy enough to be considered part of George W. Bush's "base?" Yeah, quite a few of you, well....I'M ONE OF YOU! So why didn't you vote for me? You wanted a big-business candidate? I AM BIG BUSINESS!

How many of you here are eligible for the military?...Whoa...lot of hands. Yeah, well, what are my five military-age sons supposed to do now that they're not serving their country by working on my campaign? Go to Iraq? Can't you people think of how your actions affect others?

Was it the religion thing? 'Cause I gave a speech on that, remember? Cleared all that up! Hugh Hewitt said it was "simply magnificent," "on every level...a masterpiece," and that "anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."

Hugh Hewitt, people!

And Rush! And Hannity, and Ingraham, and....Y'know, whatever...I was here a year ago shaking all your hands, telling you all what you wanted to hear, unlike some people I could mention who haven't been to this conference in ten years...*cough*John McCain*cough*...And one year and $40 million of my own money later, you people can all take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut.

Enjoy your new nominee, suckers. Have fun learning Spanish. Me and what's left of Tagg's inheritance are going home.
...
...
Romney 2012!

OK, that's not the actual transcript, but I have it on good authority that's what he was thinking. The real speech is here.

The Mittmentum has come to a screeching halt, and disappointed CPAC-goers are left to with shattered dreams of what could have been. So what went wrong? Mitt's campaign certainly had no end of gaffes, from his expertise as a varmint-shootin' Elmer Fudd to his embarrassing rendition of "Who Let the Dogs Out," but in the end, I think conservatives couldn't figure out who the real Mitt was, because neither could Mitt:

Mitt Romney's powerful attacks on Mitt Romney's positions (both current and former) have just been too much for Mitt Romney to withstand, and he may have knocked himself out of the race.

To be fair - and I'm surprised Romney's campaign never tried this approach - Romney supposed "flip-flops" could've been a positive for him. He could have convincingly argued that he was always conservative, but when he decided he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts, he knew he was going to have to pretend to be more moderate. He didn't really believe in any of those liberal positions, and regularly lied and said he did, but that was OK, because he was only lying to Democrats. Oh well, too late now...maybe in 2012, when everyone's forgotten.

Meanwhile, Romney's biggest blog fan Hugh Hewitt penned this requiem after friends relieved him of his belt and shoelaces:

Because he is a very good man, a great conservative and an extraordinary patriot he is standing aside to allow Sen. McCain's national campaign to commence...Had the conservative movement more quickly recognized these qualities, the coming together around Romney that has occurred in the last few weeks would have assured him the nomination and, I think, the White House.

But it didn't. And now Mitt's gone. But not everyone believes it was really a case of stepping into the strike zone and taking one for the team:

Does anyone really believe this was Mitt's conscience speaking? It looks pretty transparently organised by men in smoky backrooms in an attempt to re-unify a crumbling GOP coalition. The smell of BS coming from Romney as he implicitly backs the guy he was calling a liberal just the other day is overpowering. I suspect Romney will now be McCain's VP candidate and the religious Right will be left to go onanize themselves.

And if that doesn't pan out, Romney made sure to leave the CPAC-ers with one last chunk of red meat to whet they're apetite for Romney 2012:

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Class act. I am unable to print my response to Mr. Romney, as it is unsuitable for this blog, but you may find my sentiment echoed by Jon Stewart here.

Good-bye, Mitt. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And now, the GOP is left with the choices of frontrunner John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

There. That just put a smile back on my face.

I always thought Mitt Romney was a phony; now I think he's worse. Somehow he managed to snow conservatives that he was one of them despite a record as a social liberal in Massachusetts. Maybe he really had a political conversion, but what does that say about the man's convictions? Regardless, the $40 million he spent from his own pocket never paid off in enough support.

For Romney to trot out the tired old fear mongering of “a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorists,” puts him in company with Dick Cheney. The two deserve each other. Anybody who hasn't lived under a rock the past six plus years knows this administration and the GOP have hardly cornered the market on national security, but suggesting a vote for the other guy could get us killed is just disgraceful.

Good riddance, Mitt Romney. I still don't really know who you are, but the more I hear, the less you'll be missed.

Well, that was exciting...

While a direct analogy to the recent Giants-Patriots upset doesn't fit here, last night's Super Tuesday contest (at least on the Democratic side) more resembled a good Super Bowl between two evenly matched teams, rather than a blowout that's over midway into the second quarter.

The Democratic race was tighter than Dick Cheney's smile, and when the dust cleared only a handful of delegates separated the two candidates. This, of course, is bad news for Democrats. And the fact that blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama (apparently he IS black enough), while Asians and Latinos went for Hillary, apparently this is also bad news for Deomcrats:

Exit polling for Super Tuesday contests show a growing trend towards division by ethnicity among Democrats. With the race as tight as it is, the identity politics that the party has fostered over the years has now become one of the points of division. If the primaries continue to deliver mixed results, this could provide some fireworks.

Hmmm. Sounds ominous. Or not. Because, while Clinton may have saome work ahead of her repairing her relationship with the black community thanks to some ill-chosen words from members of her campaign (including her own husband), there's no reason to think any ethnic demographic is going to throw a temper tantrum and sit out come November. At the end of the day, they're all still voting for Democrats, and things aren't quite as divided as they may seem:

Primary outcomes often turn on those people who made their decisions within the last three days before the vote. According to the exit polls, Obama and Clinton are essentially splitting those voters, with 47 percent going for Obama and 46 percent for Clinton.

There's no doubt Democrats are torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the early exit polls show they are not bitterly divided: 72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party's nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama.

More than just because it's Bush's final year in office, there's a reason why Democrats are turning out in record numbes, and doing so with a spring in their step and a song in their hearts:

That's what I see when I talk to actual Democrats, particularly those who don't spend all their time on the Internet. Not only do Democrats like both candidates, not only do they think they are going to get to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the Republican this year, but the primary is improving that view.

And don't think Republican supporters aren't noticing this massive enthusiasm gap. They are:

The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November.

Unless of course, you plan on voting for a Democrat.

On the other side of the aisle, as you can imagine, things are considerably less sanguine. The "McCain Derangement Syndrome" epidemic continues unabated. Arch-conservative Rush Limbaugh spent all last week talking smack about John McCain; religious right leader James Dobson said he'd sit out if McCain got the nod; even Ann Coulter said she'd sooner vote for Hillary Clinton! Meanwhile, Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt was liveblogging the returns last night and must have been well into denial, and possibly a second bottle of scotch, when he wrote this while waiting for the West coast results:

It is stunning that Fox cannot call Arizona for John McCain. In the very unlikely event that McCain loses his home state, I don't think his campaign could recover any more than Romney could survive a loss in Massachusetts or Huckabee a loss in Arkansas.

Given the Rush blast, the Dobson declaration, and Huck's strength in the south, McCain can't be considered a frontrunner by any conventional standard.

All eyes on California.

Which McCain won. And Arizona too. I'm not sure if Hugh is aware that McCain is leading in both the number of states won and the total delegate count, which is the only standard that matters. And he's doing it primarily with the help of moderates and independents. To his credit, conservative James Joyner recognizes this, and considers it a dire omen for his kind:

So, we have two countervailing trends:

- Conservatives prefer Romney over McCain, hands down.
- McCain is winning Republican primaries against Romney.

This, incidentally, despite Romney having outspent McCain by ridiculous margins in television advertising.

What is one to conclude from this?

Perhaps “conservatives” are now a minority, even among Republican primary voters?
(SNIP)
The Conservative Movement has morphed from a handful of intellectual true believers trying to shape the debate into something approaching a civil religion with loyalty tests and a clericy that has the power to excommunicate.

John McCain was part of the 1980 wave that rolled into Congress on Ronald Reagan’s coattails. Indeed, McCain was among those Reagan was honored to stand with at 1974’s CPAC convention. But someone with an 82 percent lifetime ACU rating is considered a traitor to the cause. Much better, apparently, to flip 180 degrees on election eve and spout the right Party Line talking points.

Conservatives a minority within the GOP? I'm not so sure about that, but if not a minority, then at least fractured and ineffectual. Reformed Republican John Cole says the hardcore rightwingers have only themselves to blame for the rest of the party turning towards the center:

I believe moderate conservatives are getting sick to death of getting talked down to by these clowns...My feeling is that the far right is going to become very marginalized in this election which, one can hope, will cause them to re-evaluate how they’ve behaved over the past 7 years (ok, I actually chuckled and laughed at myself when I wrote that.)

Tbogg even gives them a name:

I guess we can call them Coyote Conservatives; those who chewed off their arms in order to get away from John McCain and now wonder why he never calls.

Tomorrow, John McCain will appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he's expected to make a peace offering. It's uncertain whether conservatives there willl accept. It's also uncertain whether McCain will care.

Laissez les bon temps roulez!

Super Dupercalifragilisticexpialidocious Tuesday is upon us, and it's a footrace to finish line for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And whether it was a bounce from South Carolina or his recent strong debate performance, it's Obama riding the momentum while Hillary treads water:

Another national poll -- this one from Pew -- shows Obama closing on Hillary in the run-up to Super Tuesday. Here are the numbers, as compared with this same poll earlier in January:

Clinton 46% (before 46%)
Obama 38% (before 31%)

Hillary's non-movement suggests that much of Edwards' support has gone to Obama and the remainder of it remains undecided, the pollsters suggest. Obama jumped seven points in the last few weeks nationally to close within single digits of Hillary.

What's more, the poll shows that Obama's national support has jumped an astonishing 20 points since December.

It could be the rise of the "Obamacans" (sounds like a bad science fiction flick), or just the rise of an "Obama-nation" (which also sounds like a bad B-movie):

Obama has implemented a 53 congressional district strategy here, something that's never been tried in California before, that creates not only (district)-level mini organizations, but also precinct-level and community level organizations…Obama often says in his speeches that "change happens not from the top down but from the bottom up" and his campaign, at least here in California, seems to embody that.

And it's paying off. Or at least it might, if Obama doesn't run out of time first:

Hillary's best hope at this point appears to ride out the clock..For Obama, his task for Tuesday is simply to survive. He needs to finish within 200 delegates of Clinton to keep it close...Hillary's task is to defeat Obama decisively on Tuesday. If she can't manage that...then they both have to survive the mini-Super Tuesday on March 4th. If they do, this thing goes to Pennsylvania. Or to North Carolina. Or to the convention.

And for all the talk of a Republican brokered convention, it's actually the Democrats who may have cut some deals come August.

It didn't have to be that way, either. Here in her own back yard of the NY / NJ / CT tri-state area, Hillary's having to fight for every edge. Which, of course, led me to this: The big headline from the neighboring Nutmeg state today is, once again, the tears of a Clinton:

Yep, it's official. Hillary Clinton is running to be Crybaby-in-Chief. According to the Tribune Co.'s politics blog, the Swamp, Clinton teared up after a heartfelt introduction by a former colleague at the Yale Child Study Center in New Haven, where she worked in college. The emotional speech led "Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye," reads the report (so clinical). "Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said immediately after. AHEM. Now, to be fair to Clinton, who after all is human no matter what people say, hearing a tearful tribute to you from a former mentor is exactly the kind of thing that would choke up nearly anybody. But it won't be lost on the press that she happened to cry just on the eve of an important primary vote, and that she happened to do so in a state where she has been losing her edge. After all, she is four points behind Obama in Connecticut in some polls after this weekend. We don't think Hillary was dumb enough to think that crying again would be to her political advantage — the last thing she wants to be seen as is weak. But there's no question that people will say it was a ploy. Come on, lady. You've been through a hell of a lot that was worse than this. At least wait until after tomorrow. If you lose Super Tuesday, then nobody will blame you for crying.

"...to be fair to Clnton..." Heh. This is funny because Hillary is connving, emotionless android who is also shrill. Or because she's a woman, and you know how they can be. Or maybe it's both, I'm not sure. Maybe someday our pundits can tell us exactly how and when it's acceptable for a female politician to show emotion.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, Obama's supporters are hoping to give Ms. Clinton something to actually cry about:

Contrary to many pundits' expectations, New Jersey's Democratic primary may be one of the more competitive in the nation. Obama has closed the gap in several recent polls and Clinton has been stuck in the high 40's since last August...Whoever wins, it looks like turnout will be much higher than in years past.

And while Clinton holds a more comfortable lead in her home state, it won't be as decisive as she would like:

(T)he polls in New York are wrong. It is much closer than they are saying. Obama will be very competitive in the city of New York. Expect a record turnout (for a presidential primary) in every state. Hillary will probably win her N.Y. home state (as she should), but Obama will leave here (NY) with a bunch of delegates. He will pick up lots of delegates in the north and eastern corridors from Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut to Massachusetts. I expect him to win at least two of these states.

...I expect that at the end of the night, both camps will pick up good delegates; but by Wednesday morning: Barack Hussein (Barry) Obama will be still leading the count- as he is right now. Do note however, that I am not factoring-in the “super-delegates”; there are different dynamics to those delegates (in terms of commitment) which will play out later...

Bottom line, even if she wins tomorrow in narrow victories, Hillary let Obama make it a game in at least three states she should have had locked up a long time ago