McCain Leads Off Today's Budget Debate With A Retread Of Failed Republican Ideas

You probably heard McCain barking on TV this morning about his own personal budget-- put together for him by his favorite lobbyists-- and how every Republican in the Senate would follow his leadership and vote for it. I would guess that almost every Republican hates his guts and doesn't see any need to put up with his egocentric showboating any longer. When the McCain budget came up-- more tax cuts for the rich, coupled with the destruction of Medicare and Social Security-- it was soundly defeated 60-38.

Not only couldn't McCain get his best buddy Lieberman (I-CT) to vote for his harebrained scheme, not even ritual aisle crosser Ben Nelson (D-NE) would lower himself to be part of this kabuki silliness. As for "every Republican," Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME) and even Bob Corker (R-TN) looked it over, laughed and voted "no," along with every single Democrat. Specter is too scared to stray from partisan orthodoxy and he's letting John Cornyn and Jim DeMint determine his votes from now until primary day, 2010.

After the Senate voted down McCain's budgetary version of 4 more years, two serious amendments did pass, one from Chris Dodd and one from Bernie Sanders. Once burned, Dodd wanted to make certain that there would be enhanced oversight of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System concerning the use of emergency economic assistance. It passed 96-2, only bitter obstructionist fanatics Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) voting "no." Sander's amendment was more controversial since it requires more information than the Federal Reserve likes sharing with Congress. But is passed 59-39, in a very hard to read bipartisan vote, although I noticed that many of the more corrupt Democrats who are in Evan Bayh's anti-Obama bloc voted against it, along with die-hard obstructionists like Chambliss, Shelby, Miss McConnell, Gregg, Isakson, Kyl, etc.

Mike Johanns (R-NE) then offered the ritual Republican motion to recommit (kill) the budget. That failed, of course, 55-43, sickeningly Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh voting with the GOP. David Diapers Vitter followed up on that with a frivolous amendment to pull the plug on Bush's TARP program and he was joined by 26 Republicans plus Ben Nelson as the amendment went down to a 70-28 defeat. Jack Reed had a much better idea-- to spend the rest of the TARP money to benefit consumers rather than banksters. Vitter and his hypocritical Republican cronies were unwilling to vote for that, but it passed 56-42, with George Voinovich crossing the aisle in one direction while Nelson crossed in the other. And then the budget passed, every Republican voting obstructionism, joined by reactionary Democrats Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson.

Meanwhile, over on the House side, when a procedural vote was taken to consider the budget, every single Republican voted no-- presumably still preferring Paul Ryan's Never-Neverland term-paper. It passed 242-182, 6 of the slimiest and most corrupt Blue Dogs slinking across the aisle to, once again, show utter contempt for working families-- worst of the worst: John Barrow (GA), Chris Carney (PA), Travis Childers (MS), Frank Kratovil (MD), Charlie Melancon (LA) and Gene Taylor (MS). If you're wondering where Heath Shuler's name is, he chose not to vote and hid in the cloakroom, sure to rush back to the floor in time to vote against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, one of only 8 Democrats to do so.

Finally at 7:16 this evening the House passed the budget, 233-196, every Republican voting no. They were joined by 20 Democrats, John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Bill Foster (Blue Dogish-IL), Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Betsy Markey (CO), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ), Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS) and Harry Teague (NM). At least none of the filthy Blue Dogs voted for Paul Ryan's ridiculous budget "alternative," although 38 Republicans didn't have the stomach to vote for that garbage either.

Will corporate media persuade voters that suddenly Republicans will protect taxpayers from overspending and break with their past of running up gigantic deficits while mouthing off about responsibility? And what's the chance that knuckleheaded Republican House Whip Eric Cantor is correct when he predicts that the Party of No will retake the House in 2010? Well... even if Newt Gingrich is wrong about a breakaway third party of disgruntled rightists, unless grassroots Repugs follow Mike Huckabee's suggestion to cheat, there is no chance. Would a man of Gawd, like Rev Huck for example, suggest to Republicans that they steal elections? Watch for yourself as he gave Virginia Republicans their marching orders today:

The Endorsement Parade/Charade

Endorsements continued to flood into Obama Central. What everyone talks about on TV is how all these newspapers that endorsed George Bush are coming out for Obama and warning voters away from McCain-Palin. Many, in fact, said it would have been a much tougher call for them had McCain not demonstrated such abysmal judgment by selecting Palin. The argument from the Anchorage Daily News is the worst slap in the face yet. They wave the state flag enthusiastically and acknowledge how thrilled many Alaskans are to have one of their own considered for the vice presidency. But then they take a step back and look at which one of their own.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency-- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

...Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

And no one should understand that better than Alaskans. But in her short, tumultuous time on the national stage, Palin has not endeared herself to Americans looking for a serious approach to serious problems our society is facing, serious problems brought on by basic concepts of Republican governance still wholeheartedly embraced by McCain and, as much as she understands them, Palin. Connecticut's Hartford Courant has been around when the tsars still ruled Alaska as part of the Russian Empire. In their 244 year history they had only endorsed one Democrat for president-- until today.

The times cry out for a leader of Mr. Obama's mettle. Americans have suffered through years of losses, from the nearly 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11, 2001, through the more than 4,000 American troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tens of thousands wounded. More than a million people have lost their homes through foreclosure. Economists are warning that the United States is facing the gravest economic threat since the Great Depression.

Republican Sen. John McCain has failed to persuade us he could wake the nation from this seven-year nightmare... his judgment has been questionable of late, impulsive and off-key, especially his almost panicky announcement that he would suspend campaigning and perhaps postpone one of only three presidential debates to attend to Wall Street bailout legislation. That performance was apparently for show.

Most worrisome, however, is Mr. McCain's choice of a running mate, Sarah Palin, who is not yet ready for prime time. With so many capable people to choose from, Mr. McCain's pick of a governor with such a thin resume was disappointing.

According to Editor & Publisher, as of today, Obama has garnered 160 endorsements and McCain has gotten 59, a 3-1 margin. Three dozen are newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2004, like powerhouses the Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the Denver Post, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Houston Chronicle.

Even Lindsey Graham, who was tasked with "vetting" Palin (great job, Miss Thing!), admitted today that he thought Lieberman should have been the VP pick! And in the same issue of the one of the worst of the nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- or in this case, the cloddish neo-Con wing-- Michael O'Hanlon, has tried jumping on the Obama freight train. This is one of the more repulsive Inside the Beltway blowhards who fluffed Bush every step of the and could have easily wound up as a member of Democrats For McCain. His whiny and tepid endorsement for Obama Joe Biden today should be rejected.

If you have spent the last 8 years living on Pluto and arrived back last night and watched TV this morning, you probably came away thinking McCain is running against George Bush (and, if you decided to catch up by reading certain newspapers instead of watching TV, that Palin is running against McCain). Well... anyone who was stuck up on Pluto, or even the moon, should probably watch this short clip just to remind you that there is no daylight between Bush and McCain on most of the tragic Bush agenda, and certainly none on economic matters:




UPDATE: ANOTHER BIG TIME REPUBLICAN BACKS OBAMA OVER McCAIN

Larry Pressler (R-SD) and John McCain served in the U.S. Senate at the same time and Pressler, a fellow Republican, has had many opportunities, as the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, to see the erratic and volatile McCain in action. Pressler was the first Vietnam vet to be elected to the Senate. Until a few days ago he had never voted for a Democrat in his life but he's already voted for Obama and donated to his campaign.

"I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of [former Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin and [former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker better," he said. By contrast, John McCain's "handling of the financial crisis made me feel nervous... We have to be a moderate party. We can't be for all these foreign military adventures. We have to stop spending so much money. My God, the deficit is so high! The Republican Party I knew in the 1970s is just all gone."

Surprise, Surprise: McCain And Bush Are The Bobbsey Twins Of Judicial Philosophy

Every nonpartisan examination of the 2000 election results have shown that George W. Bush was not elected to the presidency of the United States. For the last 8 years we have lived under an illegitimate government that appointed by an ideological right wing Supreme Court. Yesterday Bush-- struggling to keep his approval rating in double digits through January-- embraced McCain's promise to appoint more right wing extremists to the bench as he accused Democrats of contributing to a broken confirmation process for federal judges.

In front of a crowd of extreme and overwhelmingly deranged right-wing Federalist Society lawyers, Bush bragged about his atrocious appointments in Cincinnati, reminding them (and us) that the garbage he appointed to the bench make up more than a third of the federal judiciary.

"I appreciate that many people listening today and here in this room have worked hard to recruit more Americans to this cause. This work is in all our interests, because the truth of the matter is, the belief in judicial restraint is shared by the vast majority of American citizens."

Bush's remarks, delivered on the opening day of the new Supreme Court session, appeared to be aimed in part at highlighting the issue of judicial appointments during the final weeks of the hard-fought presidential campaign between McCain (Ariz.), the Republican nominee, and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), his Democratic opponent.

It's these dangerous extremists in the Federalist Society who have contributed much of the $8,248,032 McCain has gotten this year from lawyers and Bush has given them a virtual veto power of his judicial nominations, just as McCain would do. They swoon at the thought of more like John Roberts and Sammy Alito. They claim Bush hasn't done much because not enough judges died or retired and that it will take a McCain-- or Palin-- to really transform the courts into what they want-- a full blown nazi pseudo judiciary.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, said that 10 of the nation's 13 federal appellate courts are now "dominated by conservatives" and that Roberts and Alito are part of a "conservative juggernaut."

"This administration has cemented a transformation of our federal judiciary begun by Ronald Reagan, which has resulted in less freedom, less privacy and fewer constitutional protections," Aron said.

...Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement that the "balance on our nation's federal courts is precarious," with 60 percent of the federal bench appointed by Republican presidents. "We cannot afford more of the same if Americans' rights and liberties are to be preserved," Leahy said.

The Republican Party Claims It Owns 9/11... OK

McCain never publicly mentioned Bush's name at the Republican Convention in St. Paul. He did, however, refer to him. The reference was a common Republican ruse that equates the fact that the continental United States didn't suffer a second 9/11 with the Bush-Cheney Regime. No Republican-- and too few Democrats-- ever blame the Bush Regime's willful pigheadedness and gross incompetence for the first 9/11, though all too many do try to give him credit for "preventing" a second one. That was McCain's reference and you'll hear one Bush rubber stamp after another-- from James Inhofe (R-OK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and John Sununu (R-NH) to John Cornyn (R-TX), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and even fake anti-war Republican Gordon Smith (R-OR)-- repeating, if not chanting, this canard.

The bad news: these kinds of lies take root, especially among low-info voters. But if the idiocy about Sarah Palin being called a pig in lipstick is sticking, the foolishness about Bush having protected the country-- regardless of how many times McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), McCaul (R-TX), McHenry (R-NC), McCotter (R-MI) and McHannity (R-Fox) repeat it-- is not.

In polling released today by CNN and Opinion Research Corp, a large majority of Americans, 60%, have a clear understanding that neither Bush nor his disastrous policy agenda nor his actions have done anything to keep America safe.

[I]n frustrating news for the White House, Americans appear to give little credit to President Bush for the lack of a terrorist strike over the last seven years: Only 37 percent believe that the president and his policies are the chief reason there has not been a strike on U.S. soil. Overall, he has a 28 percent approval rating, tying his all-time low in CNN/ORC polling.

This morning Philadelphia's most-followed right-wing Republican commentator, Michael Smerconish, asked, in the Philadelphia Daily News the kinds of questions the Bush Regime-- and that includes McCain-- does not want voters thinking about as the election approaches. "Where the hell," he begins, "are Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? And why does virtually no one ask anymore?" Is he going to vote for Obama? I can't imagine he would-- although he says he may.

The Bush administration's failure to orchestrate a successful counterterrorism plan - topped off with justice for bin Laden and al-Zawahiri - has left me embarrassed for my party, and angry.

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain only offered a continuation of the Bush policy. In a conversation on June 13, he first attempted to say that our counterterrorism efforts were working and that remaining on good terms with Pakistan was imperative to our safety.

"There has been progress in those areas," he said. "Pakistan is a sovereign nation and we have to have the cooperation of Pakistan in order to have these operations succeed... if you alienate Pakistan and it turns into an anti-American government, then you will have much greater difficulties."

When the senator reminded me that the U.S. also gives a great deal of money to Egypt, which also could be more helpful in the War on Terror, I pointed out that these guys aren't hiding in Cairo. The people responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 are concentrated in northwestern Pakistan, I repeated to the senator. He pointed out the difficulty with the region.

"I have promised that I will get Osama bin Laden when I am president... but... there's a reason why it hasn't been governed since the days of Alexander the Great. They're ruled by about, it's my understanding, 13 tribal entities, and nobody has ever governed them, not the Pakistani government, not the British-- nobody."

I said, "All I think is that the guys who sent those guys over here are still on the lam and we're writing a big check, and I'm unhappy about it."

Last night Keith Olbermann pointed out-- and rightly so-- that the Republican Party has made it a priority not to protect America but to highjack the potent symbols of 9/11. Is it still working for them? Watch:

McSame?

It's Monday... and it's the first day of the Democratic National Convention. How about a nice cheery tune to start the day?



Krugman wants to see more blood in the water and, given what Obama is up against-- Rove is definitely running the McCain operation even if a step removed-- he's probably right.

[I]n the world we actually live in, pro-corporate, inequality-increasing Republicans argue that you should vote for them because they’re regular guys you’d like to have a beer with, while Democrats who want to raise taxes on top earners, expand health care and raise the minimum wage are snooty elitists.

And in that world, stripping away the regular-guy facade-- pointing out that everything Rush Limbaugh said about Mr. Kerry applies equally to Mr. McCain, that Mr. McCain lives in a material world few Americans can imagine-- is only fair. Yes, Mr. Obama vacations in Hawaii-- and Cindy McCain says that “In Arizona, the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.”

The squealing from the usual suspects demonstrates how much the Obama counterattack has the G.O.P. worried. Back in 2004 Fox News described John Kerry as “one of the haves” with a “billionaire wife”; now it asks whether raising the issue of Mr. McCain’s houses is “bashing the American dream.”

And the McCain campaign, after initially mumbling something about how Mr. Obama eats arugula, quickly resorted to its all-purpose answer: you can’t criticize the candidate because he’s a former P.O.W. Maybe the campaign hopes that the Obama people will fall into a reflexive cringe, the same way they did when Wesley Clark made the entirely reasonable point that having been a P.O.W., while it makes you a hero, doesn’t necessarily qualify you to become president.

Assuming that the Obama campaign isn’t scared off by the P.O.W. thing, can it really win in an exchange of character attacks? Probably not-- but it doesn’t have to.

The central fact of this year’s election is that voters are fed up with Republican rule. The only way Mr. McCain can win the presidential race is if it becomes a contest of personalities rather than parties-- and if his campaign can instill in voters the perception that Mr. Obama is a suspicious character while Mr. McCain is a fine, upstanding gentleman.

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, doesn’t need to convince voters either that he’s the awesomest candidate ever or that Mr. McCain is a villain. All it has to do is tarnish Mr. McCain’s image enough so that voters see this as a race between a Democrat and a Republican. And that’s a race the Democrat will easily win.

McCain and Keating Five Scandal Revisited-- McCain Should Have Gone To Prison

When most people talk about the startling similarities between Bush and McCain, they're usually referring to the corporate-friendly policy agenda the two share, domestically and internationally. But there's another aspect that has long bothered me-- the ne'er-do-well lives they've both led. Both have failed upwards, primarily due to family connections. Both live in the lap of luxury though neither ever earned any substantial money at all-- and both have twisted, out-of-touch views of what it means to be middle class in America, a middle class each has diminished with his ideologically-driven policies. Everything that Bush ever touched turned to shit but he giggled and drank and snorted-- and cheated and lied and blustered-- his way into the presidency. McCain has been, if anything, even more of a screw-up and he would now like to get his hands on a 14th house, the White House.

McCain's biggest achievement in life was to be a complete and dismal failure in the Navy, impress every superior officer he ever served under as utterly unfit, and then get shot down and spend the war in prison. Every time he gets in a tight corner, he screeches that he was tortured-- for America and people let him slide. That's how he was elected to the House; it's how he's managed to worm out of every crisis since then, and it's even how his campaign responded yesterday when he wound up telling a reporter he didn't know how many houses he owns. (McCain surrogate Sean Hannity used the same argument last week to claim that although John Edwards' adultery was somehow a bad reflection on Barack Obama, John McCain's adulterous lifestyle must be forgiven because he was, after all, tortured for the country in Vietnam.) I guess that's also why the mass media never mentions that McCain-- aside from having between 7-13 houses (who knows; his staff can't figured it out either)-- pays his butlers and maids $270,000 a year. What do you pay your butlers and maids? Do you know how many houses you own?

As we saw yesterday, CNN has been running a feature called McCain Revealed. Not all that much was revealed-- other than the fact that adultery wasn't as much something that happened to him once as it was a lifestyle-- and that he was a crook who unjustly escaped prison for his shenanigans with nortorious bank swindler/close associate Charles Keating. Please take three and a half minutes to watch this CNN report and then ask yourself if you can trust John McCain to be president (of the United States):

McSame-- Policies, Politics, Corruption

Can you imagine 4 more years of Bush Regime policies-- policies which have brought the country to the brink of Depression and to its lowest standing among nations in decades? Policies directly responsible for the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest 1% in American history and for the greatest transfer of wealth from America to the Bush family's partners in oil-rich Arab lands in history? Well, I can't either, but if yesterday's polls have any credibility at all, it looks like you shouldn't entirely write off the possibility.

In 2006 when Rep. Sherrod Brown, then a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat he went on to win from incumbent wingnut Mike DeWine in Ohio, was the only progressive in the House to vote for Bush's torture bill and against habeus corpus, it was exactly the kind wretched, wimpy electoral strategy that makes me distrust Democrats. Sherrod went from being Blue America's favorite candidate to being the only candidate we kicked off our endorsement list. Disillusionment with Republican rubber stamps like DeWine was so overwhelming that Sherrod managed to win despite his betrayal. He was lucky; he nearly blew it.

I would have hoped Obama knew better and understood that American are not sick of Bush's ties or his thin, reedy laugh. Americans are sick of his failed policies. They actually want change, that word on the Obama posters my neighbor Shepard Fairey designed. Real change, not a new creep in different ties, someone we thought-- hoped?-- Obama promised to be: an agent of change. Many of us lost hope when on July 9th he exposed a part of him driven by fear and cowardice and crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP for Bush's horrendous FISA bill, allowing for warrantless wiretaps on American citizens and for retroactive immunity for telecom executives who broke the law. Most Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, didn't follow Obama across the aisle and many of the ones who did are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party: Baucus, Bayh, Carper, Johnson, the Nelsons, Pryor, Feinstein, Salazar. That was Obama at his very worst, an Obama that was sending a signal to reactionaries that they didn't have to worry too much about all that change stuff... it might be mostly about ties after all.

You may have noticed that there is no slot for Barack Obama at Blue America. We only endorse actual agents of change, regardless of what's on the posters. Whether he manages to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory or not, we are more determined than ever to elect real progressives to the House and Senate, people who will stand up for the ideals, values and principles that have made America into a truly great nation. We're serious when we tell you that it's more important to donate $20 to re-elect Carol Shea-Porter or $20 to make sure Alan Grayson is the Democratic nominee instead of a reactionary from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party or $20 to make sure a proven fire-breathing liberal like Jeff Merkley shuts down the Gordon Smith charade once and for all, than giving your hard earned dollars to the giant money-suck that is the Obama campaign.

And then I'll run across and ad like this one that's running in Georgia today and I think... maybe he does know what's he's doing after all; maybe he'll pull it off and actually be a transformational leader. I want to believe; I want to have hope. I want to laugh that he was just joking about Kaine and Biden and, especially, Bayh. I want to believe he's not going to be Dukakis and Kerry but that he'll fight back as smart and hard and ruthless as McCain's lobbyists who-- after all-- are fighting for the ultimate: their pocketbooks. Take a look at the clip-- but still remember Carol Shea-Porter, Alan Grayson and Jeff Merkley-- and all the other Blue America candidates who we hold to very high standards.



And the lobbyists went crazy when they saw this ad because they recognize that it goes to the heart of the fragile myth they've created about McCain being a man of (good) character instead of the corrupt, grasping hack he has always been. They put out a press release denouncing it and their propaganda outlets immediately reprinted and broadcast it, starting with far right flack Rich Lowry. “Barack Obama’s ad is ridiculous. Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail." An examination of the record shows clearly that McCain promised those in the Senate who took bribes from Abramoff that he would protect them-- and that was the sole purpose of his "investigation"/whitewash. He exposed no one; he protected the bribe-takers. He never did explain how you can have a briber without bribe-takers.

McBush

Do you support Bush today more than you did in 2000? More than you did in 2004? In the last year McCain hasn't voted much-- especially not on anything controversial. Even on the rare occasion when he's in Washington, he avoids the Senate when there are tough votes, but before this year, he did show up... and voted for Bush's agenda almost every single time. He votes with Bush far more consistently than even very conservative Republicans like John Warner of Virginia,, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Mel Martinez of Florida, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Kit Bond of Missouri, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah, both the Tennessee senators, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Kat Bailey Hutchison of Texas-- and more often than Bush than even radical right extremists like Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Thune of South Dakota, Larry Craig of Idaho, and Sam Brownback of Kansas. James Inhofe and John Cornyn and Chuck DeMint are to the right of McCain-- but they're to the right of Hitler

Have You Noticed That John McCain Has Changed... A Lot?

Early this morning, McCain's lobbyists released a new ad with clips of Democrats-- Biden, Daschle, Hillary, Kerry, Howard Dean-- all saying something positive about him. The DNC responded with more up to date reactions about what these same Democrats think of his current campaign. As Howard Dean sums it up, "The John McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for this John McCain. We don't need another four years of George Bush." Take a look:

Obama Setting The Energy Agenda... As McCain Scurries After Him Towards A Compromise

Obama disappointed serious conservationists and clean energy advocates when he offered to consider a compromise with the energy companies (through their bought and owned Republican politicians). Short version-- the Republicans stop obstructing alternative energy measures and he will consider environmentally safe expansion of offshore drilling. "My interest," Obama told the Palm Beach Post is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage-- I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done... I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue. What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems. If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

Obama's position might not seem heroic but, given the political realities, it's reasonable. Democrats need to keep explaining that Big Oil already has already leased almost 70 million acres of federal land and isn't searching for oil at all, just sitting on it waiting for the prices to go even higher. At the urging of oil companies, which have doled out countless millions of dollars to them in the last decade, Republicans voted en-masse against Use-It-Or-Lose-It proposals that Democrats had put forward to make oil companies drill on leased land or give up the leases to companies that will.

But while the media is accusing Obama of flip-flopping on oil and while a handful of congressional Oil Industry shills like Tom Cole (R-OK- $277,050), John Culberson (R-TX- $301,961), Tom Price (R-GA- $24,500), Lamar Smith (R-TX- $342,897), John Shadegg (R-AZ- $119,495), and Mike Pence (R-IN- $150,950) are planning on continuing their stunt on the House floor today, this morning's NY Times reports that McCain is running after Obama screeching "me too, me too." The McCain camp took a moment out of their racist smear campaign against Obama to make sure the poor confused old man they are backing is seen as someone willing to compromise on energy too.

Nancy Pfotenhauer, a McCain economic adviser, told CNN on Sunday that “Senator McCain is open to compromise packages” on energy.

Mr. McCain had earlier dropped his own opposition to offshore drilling, saying that soaring gas prices demanded new approaches.

Obama will be unveiling his energy plans later this morning in Lansing, Michigan. Here's the ad his campaign started running today:

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!

McCain Has Abandoned Every Other Principle-- Is He Now Flip Flopping On Iraq Too?

McCain always said he detests Mitt Romney because he sensed-- correctly-- that Romney has no inner core and stands for nothing, no principles whatsoever, just opportunism and blind ambition. To most people who have watched him closely over the years, this sounds exactly like a self description of McCain himself. And now McCain is ready to move on from his denunciations of Romney and select him, albeit at Bush's and Cheney's insistence, as his running mate. But a little flippin' and floppin' from McCain, given his record, is hardly newsworthy anymore-- at least when it comes to selecting someone to share his doomed ticket. However, flip flopping on Iraq? That might be harder, even for a practiced liar like McCain, to explain away.

New Mexico Congresswoman and close McCain ally and surrogate, Heather Wilson, sensing the groundswell of enthusiasm for Obama's proposals to end the war in Iraq sent out a message today paving the way for McCain to back away from his one and only issue-- endless war.

The McCain campaign has come up with an intriguing new way to sell his opposition to a timetable for withdrawal: McCain just might withdraw from Iraq sooner than Obama's 16 month deadline!

"He'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allow it," said Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, on a conference call with reporters just now. "Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what."

How confused and disoriented is the McCain campaign? They are reeling from Obama's successful trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. And Spencer Ackerman has an analysis up that is positively mindboggling in the scope of McCain's nonchalant dishonesty. McCain is trying to claim, in an interview on CBS News, that the "Anbar Awakening" is the product of his surge. The assertion is as false and deceptive as all of his other self aggrandizing claims about Iraq. And like most of these claims, it is the product of a fuzzy mind rapidly losing a grip on reality. This video is worth watching to see McCain desperately weaving and bobbing with Truth. Truth wins.

Who Does Big Oil Consider Its Most Devoted Sycophant In The Senate-- Nope, Cornyn Is Only #2

Who can Big Oil thank for rising prices at the gas pump? Well, this year, they are certainly rewarding John McCain more heavily than any other politician in America. So far this year they've given him more than any two senators combined, a whopping $1,010,868. They also love John Cornyn (R-TX-$480,100), James Inhofe (R-OK-$220,350), Steve Pearce (R-NM-$204,234), Mitch McConnell (R-KY-$197,150) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA-$184,850). What do these half dozen politicians have in common? They all slavishly vote for every single bill Big Oil and Gas ever wants passed and each of them fights to prevent any bill Big Oil and Gas opposes. And each of them has to face the voters in November. (It's only McCain, though, who has 29 oil company lobbyists on his campaign staff!)

McCain will try blaming high gas prices on Obama and on the Democrats, but his latest ad is patently false and the fault is bipartisan-- Republicans and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As you see there are 6 bribe-taking whores listed above, the six worst, and they come from both political parties. All six should be defeated.

So you can't just blame McCain or even just McCain, Cornyn and Inhofe. Just take Ted Stevens (R-AK) as a good example of a senator who everyone knows is for sale and always takes bribes from big corporations and votes for their special interests. He's the 13th biggest recipient of bribes/donations from Big Oil this year ($95,600) and over the course of his Senate career has accepted $469,440 from Big Oil and has never opposed them on anything. It looks like voters in Alaska are finally wising up to him too. Just today Rasmussen reports that Mark Begich is beating him and "is now ahead 50% to 41%. When “leaners” are included, Begich leads 52%to 44%." Maybe that's because Mark Begich sees the connection between gigantic special interests "donations" and voting records that hurt working families.

The Real Time Table That Iraqis Set: 2010-- McBush Against The World Again

This weekend there was general hysteria in the McBush camp when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said specifically that he agrees with Barack Obama's timeline for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq (and especially away from population centers). McBush has been having the vapors of this ever since and have badgered and threatened al-Maliki to retract. Despite so unsubstantiated quibbling about the translations and contexts, etc, al-Maliki and his government are still saying they want the troops out by 2010. McCain's camp fears that that dooms his whole raison d'etre for his campaign.

It must have hurt especially badly this morning when the lobbyists went in and told McCain that British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said he agrees with al-Maliki.

Gordon Brown prepared the ground for a historic realignment in the "war on terror" yesterday by setting out a four-point plan for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

Although he is refusing to set a detailed timetable for withdrawal, it is clear Mr Brown is in agreement with the US presidential candidate Barack Obama on the need for military action in Afghanistan to take priority. Both appear to be working to a 16-month timetable.

While Mr Brown addressed troops in Basra and met Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Democratic hopeful arrived in Afghanistan to declare the US mission there to be more important than that in Iraq.

McCain feels otherwise and he clearly states he doesn't give a hoot what the Iraqi people think or want-- or, for that matter, what the American people think or want. Watch this authoritarian asshole in TV exposing himself behind his signature Crypt Keeper smile:



Of course, McCain isn't all alone. The extremist NeoCons who got us into this mess in the first place, are right there with him, still unconcerned about anything apart from their own "might makes right," "law of the jungle" vision of international relations. True, John Derbyshire is more baboon than legitimate policy spokesperson but he does seem to parrot what's coming out of the McCain camp. "We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell." Someone should read this to the blue thumb boosters like Condi or even the Commander-in-Chimp and ask them for a comment.

Americans Get A Chance To Vote On War Or Peace In November

Few people would argue against the proposition that the concerted U.S. and Saudi aid to the muhajadeen, meant to destabilize the Soviet Union, has had some extremely grave, unforeseen consequences. The rise of the Taliban may even have been foreseen. 9/11 wasn't. Bush was able to use that, though, as an excuse-- as far fetched as it was-- to attack and occupy Iraq and to tighten the grip of the Military-Industrial complex around the throat of American democracy itself. But what have we-- American citizens and our congressional representatives-- learned from this whole misadventure? Apparently not very much.

A couple weeks ago the New Yorker published an essay by Seymour Hersh about what the Bush Regime-- with congressional approval-- has been up to in Iran. It's like the Afghan tragedy never happened. "Last year," Hersh begins, "Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations." That means they are trying to stir up religious and ethnic hatreds-- the Ahwazi Arabs and Baluchis are Sunnis in overwhelmingly Sh'ia (and paranoid) Iran.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

But they still went along with them-- and not just the reflexive rubber stamps like Boehner, Pat Roberts and McConnell but also Pelosi and Reid. And I have no doubt that Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Silvestre Reyes (R-TX) were overjoyed to sign on to a plot backing violent regime change. As Hersh emphasizes, "In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership-- Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections-- were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

It appears that some congressional Democratic leaders preferred McCain's "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" approach than Obama's call-- which even Bush apparently has heard-- for diplomacy. "The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. 'The oversight process has not kept pace-- it’s been coöpted' by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. 'The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.'"

Remember this was being done right when McCain was shrilly and hysterically denouncing the National Intelligence Estimate from December which found that Iran hasn't been working on nuclear weapons since 2003. And even today Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen said he's got his hands full just fighting 2 Bush wars without having to worry about a third one. And Mullen (and ex-CentCom head William Fallon) aren't the only ones in the Pentagon trying to head Bush off at the pass. Even his own Secretary of Defense has been warning Democrats to stop Bush's, Cheney's and McCain's insane and relentless drive to force us into a war with Iran.

Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.”

Each passing day brings more and better clarity to the differences between McCain's utter Bush-like unsuitability for public office and Obama's excellent and steady, reasoned judgment. But as Howard Fineman pointed out on Chris Matthews' show yesterday, there are reasons-- very powerful ones, why members of the Bush Regime will do all in their power to make sure McCain winds up in the White House.

FINEMAN: If you’re in this White House, you want another Republican administration to follow. You don’t want a Democratic administration coming in there while the evidence is still fresh, so to speak. To look at it the way…

MATTHEWS: With the subpoena power…

FINEMAN: With the subpoena power and looking through all the records and looking at all the decisions that were made. You want to cover over your two terms with a third term the way Ronald Reagan did with George HW Bush.

Meanwhile, the U.S. base of operations against Iran, is making it clearer by the day that-- despite McBush denials-- they want U.S. forces out of their country no later than 2010, something they see eye to eye on with the American public... and the next president.

McBush Forces al-Maliki To Back Away From His Endorsement Of The Obama Solution?

The Bush Regime was none too happy that the spokesperson for its puppet regime endorsed Obama's timeline for ending the war. I can only imagine the hysteria and the threats after the Der Speigel story came out. Let me find that exact quote again because there seems to be a little minor back-peddling now. A Maliki spokesperson is claiming he was misquoted, misinterpreted and/or taken out of context. Ah... here's the quote McBush was so upset about:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

Here's the context. al-Maliki's spokesperson isn't saying which words were misunderstood or mistranslated or misquoted or out of context. So, it probably just means that al-Maliki was told that he and his family would be left to the tender mercies of the rebels when the U.S. leaves Iraq if he didn't back off the clear and concise and unambiguous statement he gave. I guess he wished he never said it. But he did. And it's an accurate reflection of the will of the Iraqi people.

Der Spiegel laughed at the accusations that their reporting was at fault for the supposed miscommunication.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that Spiegel mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

Spiegel sticks to its version of the conversation.

The first response from the McCain camp was uncharacteristically realistic: "We're fucked." But then the lobbyist brigade that makes up the McCain brain trust jumped into the fray. One of the worst and most slimy of the McCain lobbyists, selling access to Republican politicians to foreign interests, is Randy Scheunemann. He is likely to be forced off the Double Talk Express in disgrace, the way so many like him already have been, in the next few months. Meanwhile he gave the official McCain response to al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's approach to ending the war. Keep in mind as he bobs and weaves and tries to create confusion that McCain opposes withdrawing from Iraq... period, and that his assessment of "the surge" is at odds with reality and at odds with that of Iraqis.

The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed.

I bet McCain wishes he had never pushed Obama to make this trip:



UPDATE: BUSH REGIME TRYING TO ORCHESTRATE A DISCREDITING OF THE SPIEGEL INTERVIEW

Monday's NY Times includes an admission from the Bush Regime that they have been working to undo the debilitating damage al-Maliki's statements have done to John McCain's floundering one-note campaign.

Mr. Maliki's interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

...In Iraq, controversy continued to reverberate between the United States and Iraqi governments over a weekend news report that Mr. Maliki had expressed support for Mr. Obama’s proposal to withdraw American combat troops within 16 months of January. The reported comments came after Mr. Bush agreed on Friday to a “general time horizon” for pulling out troops from Iraq without a specific timeline.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that-- if he takes office-- in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

McCain Might Actually Be More Out of Touch Than Bush: "Let Every State Set Their Own Fuel Efficiency Standards"

McCain prepared to grapple with the problems of the 20th Century

I was enthusiastic about California leaving Bush and the bought and paid for Oil Industry shills in politics who follow him to stew in their own putrid juices while it moved on to 21st Century fuel efficiency standards that would help reduce the dangers of greenhouse gases. But when the Bush Regime killed the whole idea I understood exactly why they did. California is a big enough state-- a big enough auto market, more to the point-- so that an action like that, particularly if a few other states signed on, a certainty, it would de facto set the standards for the whole country. Detroit can't manufacture cars with different fuel efficiency for 50 different states, or even 10 different states.

But that's exactly what that confused old man the Republicans are running against Obama proposed today. "It's hard for me to tell states that they can't impose whatever standards they decide to impose," McCain said. "I want to see Rick (Wagoner, GM’s CEO) sit down with the governors and ask them what they need."

Because he's an untrustworthy flip flopper, McCain hasn't been a favorite of the auto manufactures who consider him an undependable and unscrupulous hack. The Auto Industry traditionally donates more to Republicans than to Democrats but 7 years of the Bush Economic Miracle has turned them around considerably. In the 1998 cycle 70% of their donations went to Republicans. By 2006 it had fallen to 65% for Republicans and so far this year it's almost a dead tie-- 51% for Republicans and 49% for Democrats (mostly locals plus Blue Dogs). But among presidential candidates McCain has been far from their first choice:

Hillary Clinton- $44,717
Mitt Romney- $38,700
Barack Obama- $29,950
McCain- $27,770
Ron Paul- $27,210

After meeting with McCain, Wagoner diplomatically said GM "would prefer a national standard rather than state-by-state standards."

Detroit automakers and their foreign rivals have united in opposition to efforts by California and 16 other states to set greenhouse gas controls on cars and trucks that would effectively set fuel economy limits tougher than federal standards. The proposal would force the industry to hit roughly 35 miles per gallon by 2016 and more than 40 m.p.g. by 2020.

California and other states say their program is no different from previous laws that controlled smog and other pollutants from vehicles, which automakers also initially opposed. They also say automakers have the technology to meet their standards, a view that two courts have upheld so far.

But automakers and dealers say state officials overestimate their technology, underestimate the costs and ignore the possible chaos from limiting vehicle sales on a state-by-state basis. GM has previously said the rules could force it to spend $25 billion and still not guarantee it would hit the targets in all states.

The Bush administration last year denied California's request to put its rules into place. A bill to overturn the decision in the U.S. Senate was backed by both McCain and Obama, who has consistently supported California's efforts.

Perhaps real leadership-- forward-looking leadership that isn't determined by Big Oil "donations"-- will at least moot the problem of which direction the country is moving in. If Obama is elected president, America will be back on track to move forward, instead of groping blindly for a mythical past that can never be recaptured and never existed in its idealized form to begin with.

Earlier this week Rasmussen reported results of its most recent presidential polling in Michigan, a state McCain's brain trust has identified as crucial if he's going to win the White House. It looks like most Michigan voters see through the thin tissue of lies that has been streaming out of the Double Talk Express, although McCain expects to make up lost ground by naming one time local boy Mitt Romney as his running mate.

Barack Obama has more than doubled his lead over John McCain to eight percentage points in the economic battleground state of Michigan, with much of his new support coming from voters who have moved away from the Republican hopeful.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds 47% of Michigan voters favoring Obama while 39% back McCain. A month ago Obama had 45% support and McCain tallied 42%. When leaners are factored in, Obama leads by the same margin of eight points, 50% to 42%.

In May McCain had a statistically insignificant one-point lead, but Obama has been gaining ground since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic presidential race.

McCain enjoys only a 46% to 41% lead over Obama among male voters now, down from a 19-percentage point lead in May. The Democrat shows a slight uptick among women voters who have consistently supported him over McCain. Now women favor Obama 51% to 35%.

While party regulars overwhelmingly support their respective candidates, Obama has turned it around with unaffiliated voters. Last month McCain had a five-point lead, down from 13 points a month earlier. Now Obama leads among unaffiliated voters 42% to 35%.

Real Men Vote How? For Endless Failure, Deception And Malfeasance?

I remember a few years ago when Neocon traitors, who will eventually have to be tried for misleading the U.S. into an unjustifiable war in Iraq, were clucking around the Beltway how "real men go to Tehran." This was even before McCain started serenading extreme right warmongers with his little ditty about bombing Iran. Today's premiere GOP propaganda site, National Review lists the 10 reasons why real men vote for McCain. Basically, it's the type of blatant, unsubstantiatable lies fabricated by the desperate right in the hope to cling to power.

And it isn't only the silly gooses at National Review who are desperate. McCain himself, watching his polling numbers sinking by the day, watching Obama outraise him, watching Obama making "red" states like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Montana competitive, is getting more and more reckless in his distortions and his vicious, negative attacks against Obama.

it seems, with each passing day, that John McCain is starting to lose his cool. It’s one thing to go on the attack; it’s another to get reckless. As much as I understand McCain’s desire to be president, I can’t help but notice that his desperation is beginning to cloud his judgment.

Yesterday, for example, during an interview with the Kansas City Star, McCain suggested Barack Obama is an “extremist,” and possibly even a “socialist.” The Jed Report posted this gem:

What you see on the tape is a confused and desperate old man, sadly fighting his shibboleths and his ghosts of past failures. McCain is a wretched creature, completely unfit-- by temperament and, more importantly, by character-- for public trust or public office. How many times have you heard him repeat the Rovian talking point about Obama having the "most liberal" or "most extremist" voting record? Four years ago-- and what a coincidence, Rove, Bush, Cheney and Zell Miller said it was Kerry who had the most liberal voting record. That was a grotesque lie too. But Republican voters, conditioned by years and years of Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest of the untruth squad, swallowed it, hook, line and gas nozzle. Now we have Rove, McCain, Romney, the gay Mini-Me (R-SC) and Lieberman and their GOP echo chamber running around insisting Obama is "the most liberal." It wasn't true when Rove told Fox News to be sure to say it at least once every 20 minutes and it isn't true now. Let's call McBush's bluff and look at the voting record-- Obama's and his own-- and see who the extremist really is.

This ranking includes every vote-- not just some pre-selected one that can prove whatever the selector picks them to prove. They are ordered from most progressive (Dick Durbin, the other Democratic senator from Illinois) to most reactionary (Jim DeMint, a neo-fascist thug and Know Nothing from South Carolina), based on votes in the current 2 year session. But you can also order the list to reflect only tough, substantive votes (Durbin still most liberal although Mississippi kook Roger Wicker turns out to be the most reactionary) or lifetime score (where we find Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island to be the most liberal and the South Carolina Know Nothing back as the #1 most reactionary). So where do Obama and McCain fit in?

By votes cast in the current session, Obama is not, as McCain and the GOP (and their media shills) claim, the most liberal; he is the 43rd most liberal. That's makes him one of the least liberal Democrats and close to dead center in the whole Senate. On that same scale, McCain is the 81st most liberal (or the 20th most reactionary). So it is very clear who the extremist is by voting record. Let's look at the more narrow partisan divide, the list that only shows the tough, substantive votes. Obama is still at #43 most liberal and McCain comes off slightly less extremist-- but just a bit-- at #71-- still more of a lunatic fringe member than Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Kyl (R-AR) or Liddy Dole (R-NC), but better than... James Inhofe (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX). And on the final scale, lifetime scores, Obama move up to the 26th more liberal, around the middle of the pack among Democrats, although still not as liberal as Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Bob Casey (D-PA), Carl Levin (D-MI) or Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and McCain moves up to the 60th most liberal, exposing him as not just a liar but also as a hypocrite who has been positioning himself in the past 2 years far to the right of his overall voting record. Suddenly his voting record looks more like Olympia Snowe's and Arlen Specter's than like those he's trying to emulate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Larry Craig (R-ID) and John Barrasso (R-WY).

McCain wants to whine about voting records? OK, take a look at his voting record. Here is an extreme right voting record, a mindless rubber stamp for the failed and catastrophic policies and vile agenda of George Bush. That's what John McCain thinks is going to propel his miserable carcass into the White House. Let's hope Americans have learned from the past 7 years what that will bring. Or just listen to his most trusted surrogates, like Phil Gramm, who thinks the recession is in our minds and that're we're a bunch or whiners, or McCain's old buddy Bud Day who seems to be indicating that if we don't kill all the Muslims they'll kill us. I guess that makes him a good candidate for Assistant Secretary of War under Lieberman of the gay Mini-Me (R-SC).