McCain The Misogynist

Watching TV yesterday and today, I saw the gasbags talking about how many former Hillary voters are considering voting for McCain because of the sexism in the campaign.

It's both laughable and shocking. As Hillary herself said, let's get real, folks. McCain is perhaps the most misogynist candidate since...hell, probably the 19th century. You worried about sexism? Let's look at McCain's record.

The LA Times:

Soon after the Gulf War in 1991, a group of military women pressed Congress to allow female pilots to fly combat missions. But a Vietnam War hero in the Senate, John McCain, pushed back hard.

"The purpose of the military is first to defend this nation's vital security interests throughout the globe and only second to ensure equality," the Arizona Republican argued on the Senate floor, framing the issue in a way that infuriated feminists....

Women's groups say he has a weak legislative record on such issues as equal pay and workplace discrimination, and his support has lagged among female voters.

As a lawmaker, critics say, McCain sometimes has had strained relations with women in power. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), who spearheaded the effort to grant women the right to fly in combat, called McCain a product of a "guy culture."

"He has always had trouble dealing with women as equals," Schroeder said.

How about his record on Roe v. Wade?



John McCain has a consistent 0% record from NARAL, and his record on women's issues is abysmal.

You want to talk about sexism against Hillary Clinton? Look at how McCain laughs and says "excellent question" when a supporter refers to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch".



McCain doesn't admonish the women, he doesn't ask who she is referring to, he just thinks it is common knowledge that the "bitch" is Hillary Clinton.

And that's not all. McCain cheated on his first wife and ditched her because she put on some weight, he called his second wife a "cunt", he referred to Chelsea Clinton as the "ugly" bastard child of Janet Reno, and he has refused to return $300,000 from a Texan Republican who said women should lay back and "enjoy" rape.

And just today, while being grilled about his connection a scandal-plagued Nevada governor, McCain joked "And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago."

McCain Does Vogue

Words fail me:

I Heart San Francisco

Still can't get enough of this story:

Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital, and a state, too. But President George W. Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom.

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water-treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

I can't imagine anything more fitting.

Hell No

If there is one thing I hate, it is debates where the opposing candidates are sitting at a table. It doesn't give you a sense of their podium presence, it makes things too friendly and non-confrontational, and it is visually boring.

Just compare the Obama-Clinton debates where they were standing to the ones where they were sitting at a table. No comparison. No sparks flew at the table debates. The same goes for those terrible VP debates between Cheney and Lieberman in 2000, and Cheney and Edwards in 2004.

Plus, with Obama standing at 6'1" and McCain at 5'9", podium debates would give Democrats a definite advantage this time around.

For that reason, I hope the Obama campaign shoots down this horrible idea:

Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama would sit at a table at two of three presidential debates this fall, according to a formal proposal unveiled Thursday, which, perhaps unintentionally, would neutralize Obama’s height advantage.

The Commission on Presidential Debates proposed the less formal, more conversational talk-show format for two of three 90-minute debates it's seeking this fall. The third debate would be a town hall-style session in which the candidates would be free to get up from high stools and walk around the stage.

The two presumptive nominees haven't yet responded to the commission's proposal.

Sorry, but this isn't the Late Show with David Letterman. This isn't the View. Give us a goddamn real debate with podiums. I don't want to see John McCain and Barack Obama sitting next to each other at a table, patting each other on the back, talking about how much they agree.

I want a real old school debate. I want sparks flying. It was bad enough that Dick Cheney got to sit down at his lame debates; please don't do it with the presidential candidates too.

More Polls

Today McCain has a few "good" polls to hang his hat on. Since I usually profile the polls that are good for Obama, here are two that McCain is probably crowing about today:

Gallup:
Obama: 44%
McCain: 44%

Missouri:
McCain: 50%
Obama: 43%

And yes, McCain is leading in red states like Tennessee (51-36) and Nebraska (52-36), but such leads are completely unsurprising.

And yet, there are also some very bad polls for McCain:

Rasmussen:
Obama: 49%
McCain: 45%

Michigan:
Obama: 48%
McCain: 42%

Minnesota:
Obama: 54%
McCain: 37%

Wisconsin:
Obama: 52%
McCain: 39%

Colorado:
Obama: 49%
McCain: 44%

California:
Obama: 58%
McCain: 30%

And check out these two dark red states:

Mississippi:
McCain: 50%
Obama: 44%

Texas:
McCain: 43%
Obama: 38%

The question remains: is this Obama's high water mark? Al Gore improved his standing from summer 2000 to Election Day, while John Kerry went in the opposite direction. Personally, while I see definite room for Obama to grow (by exposing McCain's odious positions, by delivering a knock-out speech at the DNC convention, by doing well in debates) I'm pretty sure we won't see any Obama leads larger than the 15% range we are seeing now.

But I'd love to be proven wrong. Time will tell.

Obama Is Not Dukakis

Following the two recent polls showing Obama with a 15-point lead over John McCain, the Republicans and the media have been quick to point out that Michael Dukakis had a double-digit lead over George H.W. Bush in June of 1988, but lost the election by 7 points.

This is true, and is a reason why June polls aren't very reliable about election outcomes. Even when you see massive double-digit leads.

But let's not kid ourselves too much here, folks. Barack Obama is not Michael Dukakis. Not even close. Obama has more money, better campaign skills, better speechmaking abilities, better policies, and he is going up against a Republican party that is totally in the dumps. Dukakis, meanwhile, was going up against the VP of a fairly popular president (Reagan's 55% approval vs. George W. Bush's 23% approval).

And while Dukakis had his primary mostly wrapped up fairly early against flawed competition, Barack Obama had to campaign vigorously in every state in the country against the Clinton powerhouse. It was down to the wire, with every state involved. More Americans have paid attention, more folks know his strengths and weaknesses, he is much more of a known quantity than Michael Dukakis in June of 1988.

The whole reason Obama was nominated is because he opposed the unpopular war in which the country finds itself. His opponent, John McCain, thinks that war should continue for another 100 years. It sounds to me like McCain is the one on thin ice, not Obama. It is McCain that many voters are just starting to get to know. They are learning that he is 72 years old, that he voted with Bush 95% of the time during the last two years, that he is always getting confused about basic facts, that he is anti-choice, that he's a horrible speaker on the stump.

John McCain will surely win more than the 33% given to him in yesterday's LA Times poll. But will he reach 48, 49, or 50% needed to win the Electoral College? That is much dicier. Republicans can unleash Reverend Wright nonstop in October, but that's old news and may actually backfire if it looks too desperate and dirty. Already every American under 50 is laughing about the moronic "terrorist fist-jab" bullshit. That shit is weak. And while negative Swift Boating can move poll numbers a few percentage points, they don't give you a 15-point swing. Not when said smears have already been given a month of airtime and the victimized candidate is STILL leading by 15 points!

Obama is not Dukakis. He could lose this lead, he could lose this election. But right now, I'm having a tough time seeing how. Should be an interesting four months.

McCain Is Breaking The Law

Will the mainstream media ever notice?

The Obama campaign has noticed:

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

"They’re out there throwing stones in glass houses on this," he said of McCain's attacks on Obama on public financing.

If John McCain really does face criminal penalties or sanctions before the election, he's toast. But chances are the FEC will slow-roll this thing until after the election, when it no longer matters.

Our President

What an idiot:

Tool Of The Day

Richard Cohen.

McCain Stumbles Again, This Time On Drilling

According to John McCain, his drilling plans won't actually lower the price of gas, but they will have have a "psychological impact". In other words, it will make you feel good.

Obama is much better at talking about these issues. I'm gonna quote a big chunk from First Read, because it is definitely worth seeing where Obama stands on this:

The presumptive Democratic nominee called oil a “a 19th century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive” and said a renewable energy economy was not “some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now." He said making progress toward energy independence and encouraging clean energy was one of the top three goals of an Obama administration -- along with ending the war in Iraq and reforming the healthcare system.

“I have a very different vision of what this country can and should achieve on energy in the next four years -- and in the next 10 years,” he said. “My entire energy plan will produce three times the oil savings that John McCain’s ever could -- and what’s more, it will actually decrease our dependence on oil while his will only grow our addiction further.”

Obama's discussion with a group of about 100 people here, roughly coincided with an event his McCain was holding on the environment in Santa Barbara, CA and the Illinois senator drew laughter at times as he sought to draw contrasts with his rival, criticizing the Republican's record on clean, renewable energy and his current proposals. He slammed McCain again for proposing a gas tax holiday and for his opposition to the 2005 energy bill that increased investment in renewable energy, saying the Arizona senator had voted against biofuels, solar power, wind power -- “some of the very same projects and businesses he’s highlighting in his campaign.” He seemed to mock McCain for saying yesterday that lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling would have a mainly “psychological impact.”

“A psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that’s Washington-speak for, “It polls well.” Obama said to laughter in the crowd. “The American people don’t need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through the next election cycle, they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table. They need a long-term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable sources of energy that represent the future. That’s what the American people need.”

Obama talked about his own plans to invest $150 billion over ten years to develop alternative energy sources and his plans to raise vehicle fuel standards and help car companies make the transition to more fuel efficient cars. He said McCain’s offer of a $300 million reward for the developer of a better car battery was too small-scale, suggesting it was another example of Washington’s failed approach to the issue.

“After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it,” he said. “I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.”

McCain Craps His Pants Over New Poll

This one's gotta hurt:

LA Times/Bloomberg:
Obama: 49%
McCain: 37%

They also polled a four-man race, with Nader and Barr. Obama's lead became even bigger:

Obama: 48%
McCain: 33%

And Bush's approval numbers are at another all-time low as Republicans continue to abandon him:

George W. Bush:
Approval: 23%
Disapproval: 73%

Obama Supports Workers, McCain Doesn't

I noticed in this Fortune interview a surprising policy nugget:

Therefore, he argues, business should support Obama's plan to shift the tax burden toward the wealthy and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50 over two years (under current law it goes to $6.55 in July).

John McCain has regularly fought against minimum wage increases, and he even voted to abolish the minimum wage in 2007.

This should be an interesting campaign issue going forward. This is one of many issues, like McCain's plans for "100 Years" in Iraq, that will be an absolute killer for the Republican's chances.

McCain's Top Advisor Sees Political "Advantage" In Terror Attack

It's become common for Democrats and lefties to worry about what would happen if the U.S. were hit by a terror attack right before an election. Would it drive more voters to the Republicans, or would it remind voters that Bush's policies haven't made us safer? It's really a crap shoot. Obviously, if you look at how the Bush administration exploited terror alerts leading up to the 2004 election, you can see what they think of such a scenario. In their minds, Fear = Good For Republicans.

But they don't usually come out and say it. Or at least, the top campaign advisors for presidential candidates don't usually come out and say it. It just doesn't look good:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says [McCain Chief Advisor Charlie] Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

If Samantha Powers can get fired for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster", then Charlie Black's statement is definitely fire-able material. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him resign this week, although McCain might hold onto him to avoid any appearance of weakness.

Here is McCain's reaction to Black's repulsive utterance:



It's not good when you say something so terrible, your own boss has a tough time believing that you said it. Reminds me of when Hillary Clinton's top supporters didn't believe she said the "hard working Americans, white Americans" comment until they actually heard it.

Charlie Black has admitted to making the statement, and has apologized. The Obama camp came out with this statement:

Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda.

"Complete disgrace" is right. But what I found most interesting is that they didn't call for Black to be fired. I think this is a very shrewd move by the Obama camp. If the Obama campaign doesn't pressure McCain to fire Charlie Black, then Black will probably survive. Yet he will remain a festering sore on the McCain campaign through election day. The last thing Obama wants is for McCain to hire a chief strategist who isn't so scandal-prone. MoveOn has already made one hard-hitting ad about Black:



Black is the Mark Penn of the McCain campaign. If he stays, you better believe the DNC will run ads hitting him for this "big advantage" comment in September and October. Charlie Black has all sorts of other skeletons in his closet from his lobbyist work, making him a good punching bag down the road. And if, God forbid, there IS a terrorist attack before the election, it will be harder for McCain to capitalize on it if his own chief strategist was quoted hoping for such an attack.

All in all, yet another major headache for the McCain campaign. If they are smart, they fire Charlie Black this week. If they are stubborn, they'll keep him on and suffer the consequences down the road.

McCain Lies About Safety Of Offshore Drilling

As Think Progress points out, McCain is telling a flat-out lie about whether hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused any oil spills.

In fact, the clear satellite evidence of major spills was borne out by final reports. In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their offshore damage assessment: “113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10″ or larger diameter.”

Unsurprisingly, this devastation caused significant spillage, according to the official report prepared for the MMS by a Norwegian firm:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a “major spill.” [MMS, 5/1/06]

In addition, the hurricanes caused disastrous spills onshore throughout southeast Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast as tanks, pipelines, refineries and other industrial facilities were destroyed, for a total of 595 different oil spills. The 9 million gallons reported spilled were comparable with the Exxon Valdez’s 10.8 million gallons, but unlike the Exxon Valdez, were distributed throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf Coast states, many in residential areas.

Writer Craig Pittman at the St. Petersburg Times points out that offshore drilling could destroy the pristine quality of Florida's beaches:

Leatherman has seen what offshore drilling can do to a beach. Texas beaches, for instance, "tend to be the trash can of the gulf." Waste from the western gulf's wells — everything from empty oil drums to tar balls — washes up there.

Allowing drilling in the eastern gulf — a move now touted by President Bush, GOP presidential candidate John McCain and Gov. Charlie Crist — carries risks for the environment as well as for Florida's economy.

Over the past 40 years, oil companies have drilled thousands of wells across the western and central gulf, and there are now about 3,800 offshore structures there. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have been willing to overlook the trash and tar in exchange for cash and jobs.

But Florida's $50-billion tourist industry depends on clean beaches. The slightest taint — say, a Red Tide bloom — can empty the hotels. That's why in the past Florida politicians from both parties have been as quick to embrace drilling as they have been to shake hands with Fidel Castro....

Chevron hired Florida State oceanographer Wilton Sturges to study the spill potential. Sturges said he found "that under worst-case conditions the spilled stuff could be brought ashore much faster than any response team could get there to clean it up. It is a real crapshoot about when it might happen, of course. Most bad things happen during nasty weather, when the difficulties of cleanups are at their worst."

For instance, Hurricane Katrina ripped into Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, destroying 115 oil platforms, significantly damaging 52 more and setting adrift 19. More than 7-million gallons of petroleum products spilled, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. By comparison, in 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 11-million gallons in Alaska's Prince William Sound....

The Coast Guard documented more than 239,000 oil spills across the gulf between 1973 and 2001. In one study of the area where Chevron wanted to drill, the Minerals Management Service predicted that over the next 40 years there could be up to 870 spills of 2,000 gallons or less, which "is expected to result in small pollution events that could temporarily affect the enjoyment or use of some beach segments."

Critics like Enid Sisskin of Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, a Pensacola group that has opposed offshore drilling for more than a decade, say they are not as concerned about oil spills as they are about what she calls "the routine, everyday, day-after-day pollution they dump in the water."

When the rigs first drill into the ocean floor, the crews use fluids called "drilling muds" which include toxic substances including barium, chromium and arsenic. The EPA found that such discharges into the eastern gulf would "introduce significant quantities of contaminants to these relatively pristine waters."

In 2002, the Mobile Press-Register tested grouper and other fish caught around Alabama's offshore rigs. They contained so much mercury that they would not be acceptable for sale to the public under federal guidelines. The source: the drilling muds, which left mercury in the sea-bottom in concentrations as high as that found at Superfund sites.

Then there are all the undersea pipelines and the onshore facilities that would probably have to be built, all of which can leak as well, Leatherman pointed out.

"There's a lot more involved than just drilling a well," he said. "It's just not good for beaches."

And yet, McCain and his Republican pals are pretending that offshore oil drilling is perfectly safe and harmless. It's a flat-out lie, just like their recent lie that the Chinese are drilling off the shores of Cuba.

The last time we saw so many coordinated lies, it was to build the case for war with Iraq. Let's see if the media actually reports the truth this time.

October Surprise?

Sullivan:

But could it happen? Could Bush bomb Iran before the next election and create a sense of international crisis that could cause voters to swing back to McCain? From everything we know and Bush and Cheney, the answer, surely, is yes. His failed policies have left only one option to prevent Iran's going nuclear: war. And Bush must be chafing to see how his legacy could be dramatically changed if Obama wins. We could be facing the mother of all October surprises.

I think such a move would backfire. Americans are already pissed off at Bush for getting us into a misguided Middle East war, they'd surely recoil at yet another major war on the eve of an election.

If Iran actually bombed one of our ships or blew up some of our soldiers, then that could change the calculus. And no, that does not include Iraqi Shiites blowing up troops with "assistance" from Iran. I mean solid proof that Iranian soldiers themselves have killed Americans. But the chances of this happening are close to zero. Iran hasn't attacked another country unprovoked in over 100 years.

The sticky question is what would happen if Israel bombed Iran in September or October. Again, I think this is unlikely because Israel would not want to poison its relationship with Obama should he win the election anyway. If Obama visits Israel in the next two months, I'm sure he'll discuss the issue. But if it did happen, it would definitely put Obama in a tough spot. Yes, he would support Israel's actions as long as they provide ample justification (for example, they found a hidden nuclear reactor). Obama has had a tough time winning the pro-Israel/AIPAC vote, and coming out against the bombing of evil Iran just wouldn't look good.

But it would become well known that the Bush administration gave Israel the go-ahead, knowing full well that escalation with Iran might push more support towards McCain. Privately, you know Obama's team would be pissed. Their best strategy would be to cautiously support the bombing, yet remind voters that Iran only became dangerous because of Bush's failed policies. If Obama can tie the specter of constant chaos and war to the failures of Bush and McCain, then Americans might be even more inclined to vote Obama. But if it turns into another "Ra-ra, let's kill the Muslims" moment then Obama would be in trouble.

John & Cindy McCain, Living In A Glass House

Don't question somebody else's patriotism when you yourself aren't perfect.

Sorry, McCain Is Not Smart

This is hilarious. Right wing blogger Steve Sailer (whose blog is about as anti-Obama as this one is anti-McCain) writes that John McCain is actually a genius. And no, I don't mean a foreign policy genius, or a political genius. I mean a grade-A, Mensa International genius:

The military shrinks gave McCain good marks for mental stability. The main bad-sounding thing that anybody published (other than one embarrassing medical condition) is that he has a "histrionic pattern of personality adjustment" (i.e., he's a big drama queen), but probably anybody who wants to campaign for President is kind of like that.

They tested his IQ twice. I can only find the second (and presumably higher) result. Time wrote in 1999:

Included in the records is a 1984 IQ test. His score, 133, would rank him among the most intelligent Presidents in history.

How exactly Time would know that 133 "would rank him among the most intelligent Presidents in history" is not explained. The only known tested IQ is JFK's (which was in the 115-120 range at prep school). I'd long heard that Nixon scored 143; when I tried to verify it a couple of years ago, I found lots of webpages saying that Nixon's IQ was 143, but all their supporting links pointed to a 1999 article by ... me. And I've forgotten where I got that figure.

Does anyone really think that John McCain is Mensa material? Give me a fucking break. The guy graduated 894th out of 899 in his Naval Academy. Where would he have placed if his father and grandfather weren't Admirals? Would he have graduated at all?

Go read McCain's 1974 War College essay regarding POWs. It's filled with misspellings galore. Listen to McCain's public pronouncements on policy issues. The guy doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

-He doesn't know that his cap-and-trade program includes mandatory caps.
-He doesn't know anything about economic policy.
-He doesn't know that Iran is Shiite and Al Qaeda is Sunni.
-He doesn't know that troops levels are still far above pre-surge.
-He doesn't know that his plan to privatize Social Security is called "privatization".

The guy is a human gaffe machine. He's never demonstrated nuanced, in-depth knowledge about anything. His academic career is embarrassing, his Naval career went nowhere despite his lofty lineage and the gravitas of being a POW, and his political legacy is confused and contradictory, to say the least. I'm sorry, I don't care what kind of phony-baloney "IQ test" was given to him in 1984, McCain is NOT a fucking genius.

Laughably, this Steve Sailer guy tells us that JFK only scored in the 115-120 range, while Richard Nixon had a towering intellect in the 140s. His only proof: he pulled it out of his ass. Yes, I'm sure the president who told us "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" was dumber than the megalomaniac, paranoid buffoon Nixon. Earlier in his post, Sailer also tries to claim that George W. Bush is smarter than John Kerry, another laugh-out-loud proposition.

I know I'm biased, but it's pretty apparent that the smartest guys running for President the last 50 years have been Democrats. Of the Republicans, Dwight Eisenhower was very smart, and George H.W. Bush made some good decisions on occasion. But McCain, W., Nixon, and Ford just don't compare to Clinton, Carter, JFK, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. Not even close.

Please, Republicans, don't pretend that John McCain is a genius. Don't even go there. Talk about his gut, talk about his many centuries of experience, talk about his military background. But do us a favor and stop pretending that Stumblemouth McCain is Einstein.