Like Ted Stevens, McCain Is Offering Only A Bridge To Nowhere-- And A Collapsing One At That

I had finally pulled myself from the fast-paced Ted Stevens corruption indictments and started on a story about bridges-- not Bridges to Nowhere, real bridges that real people need everyday. And then there was a huge shaking at my house-- and, as it turns out, throughout Southern California. So now the Ted Stevens corruption story is completely off the air and instead we have All-Earthquake-No-News-Whatsoever-All-Day on CNN. How many ways can you say "There was no damage but it was scary?" Wolf Blintzer has brought his expertise to the question now. So back to bridges...

You probably heard McCain and his slimy surrogates whining about Obama politicizing the Iraq War and how wants to lose the war so he can win the election or some kind of scurrilous Rovian claptrap. His paid advertising goes beyond negative and into sheer vicious desperation. The Washington Independent points out that McCain running ads that are unrelated to objective reality and that FactCheck.org slaps them down as fast as the oil companies give him the money to put up new ones.

Anyone who has been following the story of Sen. Barack Obama's "snub" of wounded American troops during his visit to Germany last week could tell right away that Sen. John McCain's latest attack ad did not tell the whole tale. In its latest analysis, FactCheck.org, the nonpartisan fact-checking website at University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Public Policy, confirms that the ad-- like many of McCain's recent ads-- plays fast and loose with the truth.

McCain is coming off as a vicious, cranky, nasty old man and, as Charlie Cook pointed out today, the more the public sees of him, the less they like him.

And while his politicization charges against Obama aren't sticking, they are coming back around and biting McCain in the ass. What does all this have to do with bridges and earthquakes? Glad you asked. Early in the campaign McCain came up with a highly politicized pseudo-proposal for an irresponsible-- and impossible-- gas tax holiday. In just another of many examples of McCain not having any idea what he's talking about, his gas tax would devastate infrastructure maintenance (like in roads and... yes, bridges). No wonder he likes Minnesota Governor Pawlenty so much; he actually promulgated policies that did contribute to the collapse of a major bridge.

So while evangelicals are warning McCain that he will lose millions the bigoted voters he's counting on if he picks Romney as his running mate, and while Huckabee is getting laughs on Fox by comparing him to Dole and calling him angry, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials are not enthusiastic about his gas holiday demagoguery. In fact they say they need $140 billion "to make major repairs or upgrades to one of every four bridges in the United States."

While Bush was wasting billions, maybe trillions, on enriching his friends, relatives and campaign contributors with unaccountable "spending" in Iraq, the nation's vital infrastructure has been deteriorating through lack of attention for years. In May, we talked about some serious proposals from Andy Stern and Kathleen Sebelius that an Obama Administration is going to have to take very seriously. The latest buzz about Sebelius as his VP choice means it would be. (Personally, I'd prefer Andy Stern, but Sebelius is a far better choice than Evan Bayh, Tim Kaine or Joe Biden.) Back to bridges and the report from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:

152,000 of 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

..."States are doing their best to improve them, but construction costs are skyrocketing... forcing states to delay needed repairs," said Pete Rahn, head of the Missouri Department of Transportation and the group's president. "Without a national commitment to increasing bridge investment, we will see a continuing spiral towards deterioration and, ultimately, bridge closures in order to protect the traveling public."

This isn't the kind of grist for McCain's mill. It bores him. He only likes talking about war. This is the kind of stuff he can hire people to take care of.

How Big Oil Fell In Love With John W. McCain

Last night we noted more lobbyists flocking to the banner of John W. McCain. The Washington Post reports that despite his public admonition of the lobbyist profession, lobbyists know he doesn't mean a word of it and he's their best hope for continuing the rein of sleaze that has gripped Washington, DC. “We are 100 percent behind McCain,” said Kathryn Braden Huffard, a lobbyist at Fierce, Isakowitz, whose clients include Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant. “In the wake of the Abramoff affair, it seems, there has to be a villain. But Senator McCain understands that many lobbyists are smart people who have experience on the issues.”

Matthew Mosk's report in this morning's Post, Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling is even more chilling. DWT has been reporting for months how Big Oil has been a major factor in bankrolling McCain's campaign. Big Oil & Gas is doing everything it can to defeat Obama because it wants a continuation of the Bush Regime policies that have led to the greatest redistribution of wealth-- from the bottom up-- in the history of mankind, policies opposed by Obama and supported by McCain. The number $1,010,868 should look familiar to all regular readers of this blog. It's the amount Big Oil has openly and directly dumped into McCain's campaign as of the end of last month. Mosk's research shows that the amount "rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling."

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month-- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban-- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

The timing of the latest in a long string of McCain flip-flops was fortuitous for his struggling campaign. According to David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group, "This is a case study of how a candidate can change a policy position in the interest of raising money." In the past McCain hasn't been a major recipient of money from Big Oil. Now he's their #1 boy, even more than the industry's three fully owned shills, John Cornyn (R-TX-$480,100), James Inhofe (R-OK-$220,350) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY-$197,150)... combined! In the past McCain has given lip service support to responsible environmental proposals, which hasn't endeared him to Big Oil. Once he indicated that he would continue all the pro-Oil Bush policies that have been so good for their bottom lines and so bad for ordinary Americans-- and for our economy-- the spigots opened and the cash started gushing into McCain's campaign.

McCain has historically sided against a number of the industry's interests, opposing efforts to open certain public lands to drilling and embracing proposals aimed at tackling global warming well before oil executives were ready to do so.

Patrick C. Oxford, chairman of the Texas-based law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said there has been a contrast between the way the industry embraced George W. Bush, a favorite son, and McCain. Oxford said that until recently oil industry officials were motivated to back McCain because of talk by Sen. Barack Obama "about needing to tax the hell out of the oil companies."

That started changing in mid-June, he said. McCain's speech and subsequent visit to Texas served the purpose of reintroducing him to the oil industry. Oxford, whose law firm represents several large oil companies, wrote his first check to McCain on June 27.

Charting the political donations of oil executives may be the best way to evaluate the industry's level of interest in a presidential candidate, said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, an industry adviser. Unlike other businesses, oil and gas companies do not have a large labor force that can provide a candidate an army of volunteers. And oil and gas concerns are geographically confined, largely in states that are not viewed as central to a presidential election strategy.

"It's for those reasons that the oil industry has always tried to be a substantial contributor," West said.

And West said he thinks McCain gave energy executives what they needed to get more solidly in his corner-- a pledge to reverse a federal policy that has frustrated the industry for years.

"I think people thought it was a sensible thing that was long due," West said. "I think the industry was very appreciative."

McCain has been on TV all morning trying to persuade skeptical voters that he's a viable presidential candidate. When gently questioned by George Stephanophoulous about his phony gas tax holiday, which has been denounced as a cheap carnival trick by every economist in the country, McCain whined that if Big Oil tried keeping all the benefits for themselves-- something that there is every reason to believe is exactly what will happen-- "we won't let them. We'll shame them." Anyone who is seriously considering voting for this sham candidate of Big Business should be ashamed and deserves the fate awaiting Americans if there is another Republican administration in Washington.


UPDATE: McCAIN TRAINWRECK ON ABC-TV

By only mentioning one bizarre interaction with George Stephanopoulos, I didn't mean to imply that the rest of McCain's appearance on This Week went smoothly. In fact, I bet there are plenty of Republicans around the country who saw McCain's abysmal performance busily trying to figure out if there's any way to get a more plausible candidate-- like Dick Cheney or either of the Bush twins-- to take their party's nomination. Sam Stein runs down the whole pathetic mess, from eye-popping flip-flops on affirmative action, taxes, gay adoption, and timetables-- he now claims he never said the word although millions of Americans watched him do just that on TV this week. And more! He even claimed he would have objected if the Pentagon had been blocked him from holding an event with US troops, though that is exactly what his campaign has done in the past. This trainwreck is off the rails!

O HYPOCRISY-- YOUR NAME IS GOP: GASOLINE, TAXES, IRAN, ANTI-GAY BIGOTRY AND ZIMBABWE

I always wondered how Republican voters-- the confused and conned non-millionaire ones-- could imagine that someone like George Bush could solve their most basic problems when he expressed shock when someone informed him at a press conference that gas would soon hit $4/gallon-- this when it was clear that the price was hurtling towards $5/gallon already. I guess he had more important things to deal with, like trying to gin up a war with Iran (which would drive the cost of gas to $10/gallon). Meanwhile, ole King McCole, always eager to reassure the Republican voters that his would be a third George Bush term, drooled at the prospect of provoking Iran into a war... and also admitted he doesn't know what people pay for gas. Testy Mr. Gas Tax Holiday told the Orange County Reporter, "I don’t recall, and frankly I don’t see how it matters."

It does matter. It matters to good hard-working people-- the ones, unlike the McCains, who pay their taxes-- who are being ruined financially by the Bush-McCain-GOP-Blue Dog economic policies that are fine for multimillionaires and terrible for everyone else. It isn't enough to defeat McCain in November; every single Republican and every single Blue Dog defeat will count as a step towards righting the wrongs of the past 7 years.

Meanwhile if Bush's (and Condi's) bellicose statements about Zimbabwe's sham election struck me as the height of hypocrisy, they made me realize that politicians will say and do anything if they think voters aren't smart enough to see through them. Bush's and Condi's declaration that President Mugabe's "reelection" in Zimbabwe undermined democracy in the eyes of the international community was perfectly true, but didn't take into account that Bush's election and reelection were viewed-- and are still viewed-- very similarly by the whole world outside of the Confederacy and Utah. It's as absurd as if Larry Craig and David Diapers Vitter got together to sponsor a Marriage Protection Amendment.


UPDATE: AND THEN THERE IS McCAIN ONLY SPECIAL LITTLE TRICK

Rafael Noboa doesn't think that his active duty service in the military, where he saw combat, qualifies him to lead the country. Nor does he think McCain's military service qualifies him. Most of McCain's military service involved fucking up everything he touched, crashing planes because he refused to follow instructions, and suffering during a 5 year stint in prison where he says he was tortured. But I wouldn't even recommend him for a job as a warden since he hasn't learned the most basic lessons that have caused mankind to outlaw torture. McCain makes a lot of self-righteous noise about it-- part of his grotesque shtick of "Look at this gaping wound I still have from serving the nation while you didn't; look, look, look-- but in the end, he facilitated a policy that most international law scholars believe could lead Bush and Cheney and others in their regime to be charged with war crimes.

McCain is known for three things, and three things only:

1. His role in the Keating Five Scandal, which may have led to
2. His role in fashioning a weak campaign finance reform package, and
3. Being shot down and consequently, spending five years as a prisoner of war.

Look, let’s accept, for argument’s sake, that the Vietnam War started in earnest in 1965, and essentially ended in 1973. That’s eight years. McCain was shot down in 1967, taken prisoner, and wasn’t released until 1972.

McCain suffered greatly at the hands of the enemy, that’s beyond question. I respect what he went through over there, even if he doesn’t. His combat experience, however, was fundamentally different from that of Wes Clark, or mine, or my uncle’s, for that matter.

There’s a further reason why Wes Clark or me or many other veterans don’t really talk about combat — it’s because we have other things to talk about! Essentially, we bring our game to the field, and leave everything on it.

McCain, on the other hand, has…no…game. None. Zip. In other words, Mad Jack is a punk, and he knows it! He knows it!

All he does is hint at his suffering, with a wink and a nod, and because regular folks don’t know how to deal with that when faced with it (trust me, they don’t, and that’s OK, as it goes), they give him a pass-- and they’ve been doing it for the last four decades.

Well, it all ends now. It starts with Wes Clark, continues with me, and there will be others, some louder than others. I refuse to sanctify or venerate some service more than others.

And Rafael isn't even mentioning that McCain has done all in his power to suppress his officer fitness reports so that when he uses the myth of his supposedly inspiring military leadership, no one can read the record of incompetence and insubordination that are the real hallmarks of his military career. If he wants to claim-- as he always has-- that his military career somehow makes him eligible for political office, then why not open up the records and let the voters see what kind of an officer he really was and why he was considered the worst screw-up in the Naval Academy and why he was permanently grounded and why virtually all of his superior officers thought he was unfit to lead men?

HOUSE GOP CAUCUS IN WRIST SLASHING MOOD-- DOES DON YOUNG THINK THE SOLUTION IS RAISING GAS TAXES?

How long before Fox starts identifying him as "Don Young (D-AK)?"

We may have mentioned how the congressional Republicans are running around like chickens without heads trying to spin the catastrophic losses they recently experienced in the special elections to replace Republicans in red districts in Illinois and Louisiana. Yesterday, away from their own spinmeisters, House GOP leaders sat down to try to grapple with impending doom. The result was even more dissension, finger-pointing and backbiting.

The double shot of bad news [a bad message and no money] had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes-- brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday-- have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.

“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”

Remember the piece we linked to yesterday by Newt Gingrich in Human Events warning the Republicans that they'd better run on a platform that resonated better with voters than "I am a loyal Bush rubber stamp?" The response from House Republicans to Gingrich's advice: “hype from a has-been who desperately wants to be a player but can’t anymore." That may be true, but come November, a good many Republican legislators will be joining him in the ranks of has-beenitude if NRCC Cole's harsh assessment is correct. And Cole's camp is pushing "rumors" that Boehner will be ousted while Boehner has actively campaigned to get rid of the hapless Cole who has stumbled from one failure to another.

Cole, on the defensive in the wake of special election losses in Louisiana and Illinois, pointed his finger Tuesday at his Republican colleagues, telling them that they had been too stingy in helping fund party efforts. He also complained that the Republicans ran weak candidates in both Louisiana and Illinois — a charge Cole made despite the fact that, as NRCC chairman, he could have played a major role in choosing the party’s candidates if he hadn’t made the decision to stay out of GOP primaries.

In his meeting with members, Cole distributed a document showing that even former Republican political guru Karl Rove had badmouthed Jenkins, according to GOP sources. It’s not clear whether Cole meant it as a criticism of Rove or of Jenkins.

But Cole’s overall message was clear, said members who sat through the meeting: “If you’re not out doing your own work, and you’re waiting for the NRCC to come in at the last minute and save you, it ain’t gonna happen.” That’s how one lawmaker characterized Cole’s talk, adding that the NRCC is “not going to have the resources” to help all members “and Democrats will have a lot more money.”

Republicans are suffering a crisis of confidence after the two special election losses. There’s talk that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and other GOP leaders could be ousted if the party suffers double-digit losses in November.

Meanwhile one of Congress' more corrupt Republicans, Alaska Rep. Don Young, seems to think that the best defense is to fly in the face of his party's presidential nominee and point out that his gas tax holiday proposal is not just pandering, but the opposite of what Republicans should be supporting. And what does the man behind the millions and millions of dollars in earmarks for the Bridge to Nowhere think the right policy should be?

Well, according to today's CongressDaily Young has come out against "pandering to the general public," and favor his very (very, very) good friends at the oil companies and proposing a $1-per-gallon gas tax to bring down demand. [Note-- and I'm sure this is just a coincidence-- the energy sector has given over a million and a half dollars in legal bribes to Young as campaign contributions and they have never, ever, had any reason to rue their donations.]

Young told members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Highways Subcommittee that the tax would cause Americans to adjust their behavior.

Neither McCain nor McClinton could be reached for comment but the next time Cole, Boehner, Howdy Doody, McCain, McConnell, Blunt, Young, Woody KKK-pecker and all the other geniuses who run the Inside the Beltway Republicans, Inc sit down to figure out why no one wants to vote for them anymore, they might consider their leader's most recent threat against the American people. In this afternoon's CQPolitics Bush vowed that if Congress comes up with a bill to ease the mortgage crisis, he will veto it. And, of course, the Republican Rubber Stamp Brigade is cheering him on.

After meeting with the House Republican Conference, Bush said, “I will veto the bill that’s moving through the House today if it makes it to my desk, and I urge members on both sides of the aisle to focus on a good piece of legislation that is being sponsored by Republican members.”

The package before the House combines several major bills, including a regulatory overhaul of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a modernization of the Federal Housing Administration. The White House has long sought both of those measures.

But Bush opposes a cornerstone of the package that would provide $300 billion in new authority for the FHA to insure refinanced loans for struggling home owners, asserting that it would “reward speculators and lenders.”

As usual, Bush has his facts ass-backward. It's his own party that wants to continue assisting Wall Street predators and speculators while the Democrats are trying to help families in danger of losing their homes, victims of Bush-GOP policies that have strengthened the worst bottom-line mania of corporate banks and mortgage companies at the expense of consumers and borrowers. Even as corporate a shill as Steny Hoyer, called out Bush on this bullshit today: “Nothing could be further from the truth. Our housing rescue bill, which has attracted bipartisan support, specifically excludes speculators, investors, and second homes, and requires lenders to take losses.”

Barney Frank, chair of the Financial Services Committee was a little less diplomatic than Hoyer. Bush and his vile and criminal regime has "decided to stop governing... and not allow the [Democratic] Congress to claim anything constructive.”

GAS PRICES, PRIMARIES, CNN EDITORIAL BIAS AND A DANGEROUS CHASM

Working class hero? You buying that?

The other day a fellow Angelino challenged my assertion that gas costs $4 a gallon here in L.A. Admittedly I use premium (the middle one, not the top one) and that evening I was looking for a station that sold it for only $4.00. Every place I could find was charging more. I found one that was closer to $5/gallon than $4/gallon. By using Mapquest (www.gasprices.mapquest.com) you can type in your zip code and find the cheapest gas stations near you. None of the ones offering gas for $3.86 are either near me or on the way to anywhere I ever go. All the gas stations near me are already over $4.00/gallon. And, according to a CNN poll, 78% of Americans expect $5/gallon gas soon.

When I woke up this morning, CNN was conducting an on air poll, asking viewers if the McCain-McClinton gas tax holiday was sound policy or pure pandering. It shouldn't surprise anyone that 87% of viewers are astute enough to realize it is pure pandering and that only 13%-- probably Fox viewers who had stumbled onto the wrong station-- think it is sound policy. But what was most interesting about the CNN segment I watched was the 3 or 4 letters they read. All of them denounced Obama. parrot-like, as an elitist for keeping them from their savings. Don't you think that particular CNN editor should be fired and packed off to Fox, where that kind of editorial decision making is also considered sound policy?

Today's NY Times marvels at how Hillary Clinton has turned herself-- never mind a little massive help from the corporate media-- into a working class hero. "Mrs. Clinton has accomplished the seemingly impossible in those states. Somehow, a woman who has not regularly filled her own gasoline tank in well over a decade, who with her husband made $109 million in the last eight years and who vacations with Oscar de la Renta, has transformed herself into a working-class hero."

In promoting herself as a champion of ordinary Americans in a troubled economy, Mrs. Clinton has also tried to cast her rival, Senator Barack Obama, as an out-of-touch elitist. She has made her case at all the right stops (an auto-racing hall of fame) and used all the right props (lately delivering speeches from pickup beds).

Although the Times seemed shocked at "how minimally she uses her own biography," John Stewart did mention last night that she had apparently been driving a pickup truck around Wellesley blasting Emily Dickinson poems through the speakers.

Meanwhile, serious observers and analysts of American society have noted that there is a growing income divide between the very rich and the rest of us. It reminds me of what I read about pre-Revolutionary France.

The gap between rich and poor in the United States has widened exponentially over the past three decades. The Congressional Budget Office reports that since 1979, the average income for the bottom half of American households has grown by 6 percent. In contrast, the top 1 percent of earners have seen their incomes shoot up by a 229 percent during that same period. Under the Bush administration, the average income of most Americans has fallen, but the average income of top wage earners (those above the 95 percentile range) has increased from $324,427 in 2001 to $385,805 in 2006. Only one other year has seen a comparable income gap: 1928, the year before the Great Depression. Inequality has not been confined to one region or sector but has spread all across the country.  North Carolina and Indiana, two geographically and economically disparate states whose upcoming presidential primaries have brought them to the forefront of the national media, are no exception. With the average income of the richest 20 percent of families 7.2 and 6.7 times larger than the poorest 20 percent of families, respectively, North Carolina and Indiana are a microcosm of a larger national trend. Both of these states are looking for relief from declining wages, sinking job security, and falling benefits.

Is this something Obama will address? I don't know but I suspect he will. I know for sure that neither Clinton nor McCain will; they never have and neither has ever demonstrated the slightest understanding of any of the problems manifest in these statistics.

THE REAL ELITIST DREAM TICKET-- CLINTON AND McCAIN

Who could resist? All the absolute worst garbage from each party. Today, TV toady George Stephanopoulos began his interview with Clinton "by asking if she could name a single economist who supports her plan for a gas tax suspension." She couldn't, although plenty of lobbyists do-- the nonpartisan ones who will be just as happy sucking up money from a corrupt McCain administration as fro a nearly as corrupt Clinton administration. Hillary's laughably phony stab at populism-- no, she didn't pull out a bottle of Pabst Blue Ribbon and take a swig and belch loudly while she said it-- was petulant and almost Bush-like: “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists... Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.” Who better to tell us about what elite opinion is on the side of (not counting McCain)? Clinton-Bush NAFTA would be the perfect example of what elites push... to the disadvantage of the vast majority of Americans. "This gas tax issue to me is very real because I have been meeting people across Indiana and North Carolina who drive for a living, who commute long distances, who would save money," Yes, $25-30 for the summer, about half a tank of gas. How much does  anew tire cost-- or a pothole-inspired front end realignment?

Senator Barack Obama has derided the gas-tax suspension as a gimmick that would save consumers little and cost thousands of jobs, and Kara Glennon, a member of the audience at a town-hall meeting, seemed to agree. Gas prices are “not academic” for her, she told Mrs. Clinton, because she makes less than $25,000 a year-- and then she accused Mrs. Clinton of pandering. “Call me crazy, but I listen to economists because I think I know what they studied,” she said.

Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's excellent Secretary of Labor, also weighed in on this today. And he got right to the heart of the matter-- why Obama is far better suited to lead this country out of the mess that's been created over the last 2 decades than either Clinton or McCain, each of whom has been an integral part of creating the mess.

I know several of the economists who have been advising Senator Clinton, so I phoned them right after I heard this. I reached two of them. One hadn’t heard her remark and said he couldn’t believe she’d say it. The other had heard it and shrugged it off as “politics as usual.”

That’s the problem: Politics as usual.

The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.

In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.

I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.

Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?

Precisely. And Obama is getting the word out too:

Of course nothing is more important presidentially than keeping McCranky out of the White House. But isn't it clear who the better candidate is?

The other day I brought up the "gas-tax holiday" business, not for the issue's sake--since it seemed to me that Howie had been covering that perfectly well, and the bad things it told us about both holiday proponents, "Crazy" McCranky and our Hillary--but because of what was suggested to me by the way the Crankyman was making, or, rather, failing to make, his case, what it told us about the quality and condition of his "mind"--for want of a more descriptive word. (I did come up with a possibly more descriptive word: miasma.)

Which was not to dispute the dangerous foolishness of the proposals of the Tax Holiday Twins, Senators McCranky and Clinton. I have yet to hear a hint of disagreement on this point from anyone familiar with either the economics or energy impact of the subject. The only dissenters appear to be the aficionados of pandering to public ignorance.

I'm just catching up on yesterday's news, and in the pile I find breaking news (well, I guess it's broken by now, but still alarmingly pertinent) from A Siegel. In the way that Pastor Dan of Street Prophets is my go-to webguy on matters religious, A Siegel (of Energy Smart) is my go-to webguy on energy and environmental matters. (Please, no complaints about sexism. I have go-to webgals too--like Firedoglake's Christy Hardin-Smith and Marcy Wheeler on legal and governmental matters. I suppose we could make them all "go-to webgurus," but that seems somehow wrong as well as unnecessary.) And yesterday he was excited to report that Friends of the Earth has endorsed Barack Obama:

Until quite recently, those who focused primarily on energy and global warming issues could see reasons to be supporting Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama. In this arena, both have plans and records with strengths … and weaknesses. Both could learn from each other and strengthen their own programs. Thus, with real legitimacy, an “environmentalist”, those concerned about Peak Oil or Global Warming or related issues, could easily defend their position supporting either (or neither) of the candidates. And, again, their platforms/records are certainly light years ahead of this Administration’s and of McSame McCain’s, but have weaknesses and are ‘reasonably good’ but not the best that they could be. Thus, many of us were ’sitting on the sidelines’ when it came to the Presidential campaign.

Well, this has changed.

The precipitating event: Hillary Clinton’s determined foray into the Energy Dumb ranks with her vociferous and highly counter-productive calls for a gas tax moratorium.

Well, this morning, Friends of the Earth jumped off the fence and endorsed Barack Obama for President.

And, for FOE, the defining event, the precipating development: the gas tax holiday. . . .

A (if I may be so familiar) made clear: "[I]t was not just the gas tax holiday proposals from Clinton and McSame McCain, but Barack Obama’s forceful rejection of the idea as wrong-headed and counter-productive. -1 Hillary, +1 Barack. As far as FOE is concerned: Game, Set, Match for its endorsement."

And he concluded: "Again, let us not do things that dig our hole deeper, 'sham solutions,' but look forward to actually changing our path for the better."

I'm sure nobody's noticed that I haven't been writing much about the Obama vs. Clinton contest. I actually said pretty much everything I've (still) got to say on the subject in one of the less-noticed (which is saying quite a lot) pieces I've written here: "Sure, I'll vote for the monster, almost surely, if she's the Dem nominee--even though I don't think she and Bill will support the nominee if she isn't" early last month.

I know I'm far from alone in feeling that where the "major" contenders in the 2008 Democratic presidential field were concerned, it was a field of quite acceptable candidates--especially set alongside whatever life form the Republicans were likely to extract from their candidate freak show--but with no one to gladden a progressive's heart. (I made, and make, a slight exception for John Edwards, but even there, I remain unconvinced of what he would actually advance and fight for as president.)

And I know I'm far from alone in feeling that, since the Democratic field narrowed to the present two-horse race, the two candidates have been separating themselves to a near-astonishing degree--that Obama has emerged as steadily more sensible (as in the case of the gas-tax holiday) and committed to bringing people to his agenda, while Clinton has turned into a pandering horror show, trying desperately (and I don't think "desperately" is an exaggeration--just look at her, for goodness' sake) to be the centrist or even right-wing "strongman" that her low-life advisers (and again, her political advisers seem to me truly among the vilest people on the planet--and I don't see how we can ignore the implications of this for the kind of people she would surround herself with in the White House) tell her some deeply muddled and deeply moronic band of "centrist" voters want her to be.

Let me say again that I truly don't believe that this is what Clinton has always been, though of course in some form the potential must always have been part of her. No, I like my friend Peter's explanation: that she has turned into the monster that the sociopathic Clinton-haters of the '80s and '90s portrayed her as.

Which is why I've written so little about the race. I think any prospective voter to the left of, say, Richard Mellon Scaife needs to be prepared to support either Obama or Clinton unambiguously in November. (Oh wait, is Senator Clinton really to the left of her new booster RMS, one of the principal bankrollers of what someone once described as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" aimed at Bill Clinton and, er, someone else?)

A McCranky victory would be a horror of almost unimaginable proportions. After eight years of the Hurricane Katrina of presidential administrations, the next president has to deal with an executive branch in which nearly everything that hasn't been simply decimated is in an advanced state of corrosion. All the issues, great and small, that have been bungled or ignored these last eight years will have to be dealt with.

In addition, the next president has a backlog of judicial appointments to make. And while they will now have to be made over the veto power of the Senate's Right-Wing Obstruction Machine, would we rather that those appointments be made by a President Obama or Clinton or by Crazy McCranky? (Let me say again that in a sane world, all that would be necessary to make the point would be a big picture of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, whose replacement will all but certainly be named by the next president.)

It's clear already that whoever emerges with the Democratic nomination will have to deal with a large bloc of voters who think that not voting or even voting for McCranky is an acceptable or even somehow morally superior option. Well, that's a summer-and-fall discussion, though one that scares the daylights out of me.

If I may venture one further observation. In 2000, there were people who persuaded themselves they were taking the moral high ground by voting for Ralph Nader over either Al Gore or, um, the other guy (please don't make me say his name) and, when it was pointed out to them that they were effectively voting for, um, the other guy, they didn't care! They said something like: "Well, maybe that's for the best. Maybe what the system needs is to be thoroughly broken in order to build something better."

Well, I ask, how'd that work out?

#

MARK UDALL STANDS UP TO THE HILLARY-McCAIN GAS TAX HOLIDAY CYNICSIM

Hillary made a big mistake pissing off Mark Udall

No credible economists are backing Hillary and McCain on their lame brain gas tax summer holiday/vote-buying scheme. Funny that today's NY Times points out that as the Bush Recession increases in intensity and as inflation increases in intensity, and as the price of gas soars, Americans are doing just what Europeans have done about high gas prices: moved to smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. I look forward to the day when I can stop worrying about some cell phone chattering a-hole in a 20 ton SUV barreling down the road and paying no attention to anything around her (or him).

Anyway, I was very impressed when I noticed this morning that middle of the road Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) took offense at Hillary's Bush-like attack against fellow Democrats yesterday on this matter.

“Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren’t looking for bumper sticker fixes that don’t fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can’t afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed."

It's a damned shame that Hillary has gotten herself bogged down with McCain in this senseless ploy to make Obama-- the one guy willing to stand up and talk straight on this-- look like he's an out-of-touch elitist. I would expect more from her.

As Obama has pointed out, the $25-30 that the average driver will save, isn't worth the damage it will cause to American infrastructure. Speaking in Indiana this morning, he hit back at Clinton's attack against him. "Senator Clinton does have some support for her plan in Congress. After all, the person who first proposed it was John McCain. On this issue, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are reading from the same political playbook.''

Oh, and about Udall... Hillary shouldn't get members of Congress like him pissed off. Not only is he highly favored to win an open Senate seat in November, he's also an uncommitted superdelegate-- or he was uncommitted last time I checked.

Quote of the day: Have you noticed that Senator McCranky's head is filled with cockamamie notions he considers "obvious" which aren't even true?

Is it time for intrepid reporter Roland Hedley

to venture into the terrifying terrain of
yet another would-be-presidential brain?

"I think it’s obvious that the lowest-income Americans drive the furthest and probably they spend more on gasoline because of the age of their automobiles."
--the one, the only Senator McCranky

I don't want to talk about our Senator McCranky's infamous gas-tax holiday as such. Howie's been keeping tabs on that, not to mention the more recent shocker about the collapse of that Minneapolis bridge:

The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects.

This was so alarmingly stupid and out of touch with reality that it sent even GOP loyalist (and apparent front runner for McCranky running mate) Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty running for cover.

No, what interests me is that all of this gibberish comes from nowhere, at least nowhere connected to reality. It simply seems to be lurking in the miasma that is McCranky's mind. Older readers will recall the heroic forays of intrepid Doonesbury TV reporter Roland Hedley into the terrifying wilderness of then-President Ronald Reagan's brain.

Let's return to the gas-tax holiday follies for a moment. Over at Think Progress's Wonk Room, blogger Brad did a useful recap of the festivities, "McCain's Gas-Tax Holiday From Reality Continues":

Two weeks ago, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed a summer-long “gas tax holiday.” Since then, he’s been faced with the challenge that such a moratorium may sound good but would be terrible policy.

When it was pointed out that the federal gas tax funds critical transportation infrastructure and jobs, a spokesman said McCain would pay the $11 billion tab from the “general revenue.”

When it was pointed out that cutting the federal gas tax would minimally affect the price at the pump, McCain then said his proposal was just “a little psychological boost.”

When it was pointed out today by MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski that the tax cut is an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers, McCain finally erupted:

Mika, you know what? All it is is it’s not the end of Western civilization as we know it according to some, quote, economists and some around America. It’s just to give Americans a little relief.

He then exposed how out of touch he is with the realities of America by saying:

I think it’s obvious that the lowest-income Americans drive the furthest and probably they spend more on gasoline because of the age of their automobiles.

In fact, lowest-income Americans drive the least, and most of the benefits of the gas-tax holiday would go to high-income Americans.

No amount of bluster can disguise that this proposal--just as it was when Sen. Bob Dole proposed a similar gas tax holiday as the Republican presidential nominee in 1996--is a violation of the responsible economic principles Sen. McCain has formerly espoused.

The first point of interest is McCranky's incoherent argumentation--and then how this bit of prodding by interviewer Brzezinski produced an eruption of Mt. McCranky. And the form the eruption took was a belittling of his own cockamamie proposal. Just the other day I was hypothesizing a hypothetical McCranky who fobbed off his ridiculous health-care "plan" as the result of a "thought" process that might have gone: "Everybody says I gotta have a health-care plan but I don't wanna have no health-care plan and nobody can make me have a health-care plan. Luckily American voters are really, really stupid, so I'll just sling 'em a line of bullshit."

One of Brad's links will take you to this chart:

It's well established that, as he points out, lowest-income Americans drive the least, and most of the benefits of the gas-tax holiday would go to high-income Americans. And this is the point I wanted to get to. Listen to the Crankyman again:

"I think it’s obvious that the lowest-income Americans drive the furthest and probably they spend more on gasoline because of the age of their automobiles."

Well, senator, not only isn't it obvious, it's wrong. And this for me is the heart of the matter. It would be no big deal if it was an isolated slip. But I think this is really a clue to the Miasma of McCranky's Mind: It's filled with stuff like this--stuff that the Crankyman thinks is obvious which in fact is sheer nonsense.

Of course we've had a president for near on to eight years with pretty much the same mental facilities. He, though, was fortunate and weak-willed enough to have handlers who somehow managed to conceal this grim reality from an awful lot of the American people. I guess what it comes down to is the remarkable ability of people to see what they want.

Let's just hope they see, in time, what our friend Cliff Schecter so aptly calls The Real McCain. (This isn't actually a book plug, but if you do want to check out Cliff's book of the same name, here is the Amazon link.)

McCAIN STUMBLES FROM ONE MESS TO ANOTHER

Further fueling speculation that he plans on endorsing Barack Obama, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg called the cynical McCain-Hillary gas tax holiday "the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time." He said the plan has "no merit" and added pointedly that "[Barack] Obama was right on this one, and that McCain and Clinton were wrong. The last thing we need to do is encourage people to drive more and to take away the monies we need for infrastructure in this country." Don't mention infrastructure around John McCain. Like the economy, and health care, it's something he just hasn't ever thought about, as you'll see in a few minutes.

The infrastructure flap caused some major red faces today. One of his most persistent supporters-- someone on the short list for running mate-- Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty immediately distanced himself from McCain's clueless "get those damn kids off my lawn" comments about why the Minneapolis Interstate 35W bridge collapsed last summer. McCain is having another bad week, stumbling from one ill-prepared moment to the next. The big one in the media today showed him defending George Bush, whose every Iraq-related initiative he has rubber stamped, on the Mission Accomplished banner while cynically criticizing Bush's handling of the actual attack on Iraq.

On Thursday, the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing on an aircraft carrier where the banner hung, McCain said, "I thought it was wrong at the time."

"So all I can tell you was that I was the strongest advocate, or one of the strongest advocates, for changing to adopt the surge," McCain told reporters. "And I think that history will judge me by the fact that I thought it was wrong."

McCain said he can't blame Bush for the banner. After shifting explanations, the White House eventually [5 years later] said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

Instead, he said Bush should be blamed for comments like that of L. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, who pledged that the U.S. military would crush die-hard Saddamist "dead-enders," and of Vice President Dick Cheney, who declared the insurgency "in its last throes."

"Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can't," McCain said. "But I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground."

McCain advocated early on for a troop-increase strategy that eventually was adopted by Bush, and he is an important ally of Bush's war strategy today.

But Democrat Barack Obama said McCain misled the public along with Bush.

"Five years after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished' and John McCain told the American people that 'the end is very much in sight' in Iraq, we have lost thousands of lives, spent half a trillion dollars, and we're no safer," Obama said in a statement released by his presidential campaign.

Interestingly enough, at the time, McCain was all atwitter over President Codpiece and his the banner. You don't remember? Take a look. Anyway, back to 2008 and McCain's stumble from yesterday: "The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects." That's what sent Pawlenty and other Minnesota Republicans scurrying for cover.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a leading supporter of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, warned Thursday against a rush to judgment about the cause of a Minneapolis bridge collapse a day after the senator blamed it on wasteful pork-barrel spending.

Pawlenty is a national co-chairman of McCain's campaign and is often mentioned as a possible running mate. He stepped gingerly around the comments McCain made that the Interstate 35W bridge failure last summer could be traced to members of Congress diverting federal funds to wasteful projects.

Pawlenty said McCain's remarks were his opinion and that everyone should reserve judgment until federal investigators release findings later this year. Investigators have focused on an apparent design flaw involving beam-connecting gusset plates and construction weight above vulnerable components at the time of the failure.

"We have to let the NTSB weigh in on this before anybody can make a final conclusion," Pawlenty said, referring to a National Transportation Safety Board probe expected to conclude this summer or fall.

...Asked if McCain's comments were appropriate or should be corrected, Pawlenty said, "I don't know what he's basing that on other than the general premise that projects got misprioritized throughout time."

The AFL-CIO news blog tries bringing McCain, whose views seem geared to a horse-and-buggy world, into the current century regarding infrastructure.

The I-35 bridge in Minnesota collapsed last August during rush hour traffic, killing five people, because like other parts of our vital national infrastructure, the bridge had been neglected and underfunded for far too long. Our bridges, roads and schools are decaying in large part because politicians like George W. Bush and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) have sacrificed infrastructure funding to score political points.

Our nation’s infrastructure is crucial to the functioning of our economy, and investment in infrastructure protects lives and creates jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in infrastructure investment creates $2 billion in new economic activity, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has estimated that every $1 billion investment in infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs.

...McCain needs to listen to the experts rather than trying to exploit tragedy for political gain. Investing in America’s infrastructure will save lives, create much-needed jobs and build real prosperity.

They should also have a little talk with him about gasoline-- like why it's expensive and what to do about it-- because he's running around like a chicken without a head making a complete idiot out of himself.


UPDATE: McCAIN'S BRIDGE TO NOWHERE IN MINNEAPOLIS THEORY GOES DOWN IN FLAMES

Poor, confused old McCain... today he's spending the day tap-dancing, trying to clean up the messes he made yesterday.

In New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward last week, McCain startled reporters when he said Congress was partly to blame for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, because it "funded pork-barrel projects" instead of "projects that were needed here."

This week, McCain blamed earmarks for the deadly 2007 collapse of a Minnesota bridge. According to the Associated Press, he told reporters that the bridge "collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects."

The collapse, which killed 13, remains under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, but authorities suspect a "serious design error" as a factor.

Some Minnesota leaders didn't take well to McCain's musings. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a possible McCain running mate, distanced himself from the senator's comments by saying he was waiting for the agency's report.

According to AP, McCain backtracked somewhat Thursday, stating that he couldn't be sure if redirected spending would have prevented the tragedy. "Do I know specifically whether it would have replaced that bridge in Minneapolis? No, but I know that funding would have been available for higher-priority projects," he said.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN CHIMES IN-- AGAINST THE SHAMELESS PANDERING FROM McCAIN AND HILLARY

McCain and Hillary-- two pandering fools

You may think of Thomas Friedman primarily as one of the cheerleaders behind Bush's illegal attack on Iraq, but he also sometimes makes a little sense-- like in his NY Times column today. Like anyone everyone who takes the problems of the economy seriously, he is very disappointed that Hillary would lower herself to the standards of McCain-- and he explains why. Their proposal is "not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country. When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit." He commends Obama for resisting the politician's inborn urge to pander. I'd go further and point out that their respective positions show that Obama is the only one of the three fit to be president.

our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage-- gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars-- and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage-- new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again-- which often happens-- investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush-- showing not one iota of leadership-- refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry-- clean power-- “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

UPDATE: THE HILLDOG ATTACKS OBAMA FOR NOT BUYING INTO HER AND McCAIN'S CHEAP GAS GIMMICK

You wouldn't vote for McCain, I'm sure. Hillary is better than he is... to some extent. Obama is the only one qualified to be president. He's willing to tell the truth to the American people. McCain and Hillary are just dishonest political hacks.


UPDATE: JONATHAN ALTER ASKS A RHETORICAL QUESTION

Alter is a smart guy and in Newsweek today he asked, rhetorically, why McCain and Hillary don't know any better than to propose this horribly pandering gas tax holiday. I think they did the American voters a great service by both coming out for it. It shows voters exactly who is willing to try to buy them off with cheap counter-productive tricks and who is willing to stand up and speak the real straight talk. And it shows the American people-- or at least those willing to use their noggins-- how pathetic the mass media is.

Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year-- an idea that actually could aid the terrorists. What's worse, both of them know that suspending the federal gas tax this summer is a terrible pander, and yet they're pushing it anyway for crass political advantage.

Clinton and McCain have learned a destructive lesson from the Bush era: as Bill Clinton said in 2002, it's better politically to be "strong and wrong" than thoughtful and right. The goal is to depict Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. By any means necessary.

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist [though all of McCain's and Hillary's repulsive cadres of lobbyists]-- and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert-- supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

Why is this gas pander so bad? Let me count the ways:

* It's a direct transfer of money from motorists to oil companies, which are getting ready this week to again report record obscene profits. If the federal excise tax were lifted, oil companies would simply raise prices and pocket most of the difference. Clinton's proposal to recover the money with a windfall profits tax on oil companies sounds nice but won't happen. That tax was easily blocked by the Senate in December and would likely be blocked again.

* It offers taxpayers only peanuts. The Congressional Budget Office says the average savings to motorists this summer would be a total of $30. Did I miss something, or was that measly number somehow not included in Clinton's explanation of her support?

* It sends more hard-earned money to the Middle East, which is terrible for our national security. Remember, 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. How did they get the terrorist training? The madrassa indoctrination? Oil money.

* It worsens global warming by encouraging gasoline consumption. When you flee your house in 2020 because of flooding, remember which politicians pandered.

* It makes it more likely you'll have a car accident or will waste even more time in traffic. The proceeds from the gas tax go for highway construction and upgrades. Because the tax (24.4 cents a gallon on diesel fuel) was last raised 15 years ago, our infrastructure is a mess, with potholes and dangerous crossings practically everywhere. Thousands of repair projects will be further delayed.

* It will cost 300,000 construction jobs, according to the Department of Transportation. Makes it kind of ironic when Clinton starts her rallies saying she wants "jobs, jobs, jobs."

* It will cost the U.S. Treasury at least $8.5 billion and probably much more, according to state highway officials. For McCain that's no money at all-- merely one month in Iraq. For Clinton it's money she's already spent. She has said in the past that any proceeds from a windfall profits tax would go for renewable energy. The $8.5 billion figure assumes the tax would be reapplied after Labor Day. Fat chance. The one-year costs are probably closer to $30 billion.

* It won't happen anyway because Congress isn't usually quite that stupid, and if it is, President Bush would veto the bill.

So why are McCain and Clinton doing this? Because when they learned that Obama had supported a similar suspension of the Illinois gas tax in Springfield, Ill., before realizing it was a bad idea, they saw an opening. It was like Hillary's whiskey shot in the bar, only sleazier. Try to show that the guy just doesn't get it.

Of course, McCain and Clinton do get it. They get that people are hurting and want some relief, even if this form of it makes no sense. They get that voters have been conned into believing that both
candidates are responsible public servants because they're not as bad as some others, so they can trade on that reputation. They get that smacking Obama is more important than anything else on the planet right now, and that for Obama to respond by calling them panderers will take Obama about as far as it took Paul Tsongas in 1992 when he leveled the same charge at Bill Clinton.