McCain Wants To Be A Hero Again-- But Not THAT Much

By now you know McConnell's Motion to Proceed into the murky depths of healthcare legislation-- virtually none of the senators voting yesterday knew exactly what bill would be proceeded to-- passed when Mike Pence broke a 50-50 tie. McConnell dragged McCain out of his hospital bed in Phoenix because he knew only Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) planned to stick to their guns about not wrecking healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. Remember when Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) boasted she wouldn't flinch from being the deciding vote to kill the bill. She wasn't lying whence said. McConnell bribed her after she said it. And remember all that drama from lying sacks of shit like Dean Heller (R-NV), who succumbed to Trump's threats and bluster, Rob Portman (R-OH), Rand Paul (R-KY) and the rest of the phonies.

But the weirdest situation was McCain. All he had to do was stay in his hospital room. Instead he chose to take health insurance away from 23-- or 32-- million Americans... and wreck the V.A. And then he read a long, self-aggrandizing speech one of his p.r. aides wrote that is classic McCain-- desperate not to look like the rubber-stamp zombie he's been for his whole political career.

“Mr. President:

“I’ve stood in this place many times and addressed as president many presiding officers. I have been so addressed when I have sat in that chair, as close as I will ever be to a presidency.

“It is an honorific we’re almost indifferent to, isn’t it. In truth, presiding over the Senate can be a nuisance, a bit of a ceremonial bore, and it is usually relegated to the more junior members of the majority.

“But as I stand here today-- looking a little worse for wear I’m sure-- I have a refreshed appreciation for the protocols and customs of this body, and for the other ninety-nine privileged souls who have been elected to this Senate.

“I have been a member of the United States Senate for thirty years. I had another long, if not as long, career before I arrived here, another profession that was profoundly rewarding, and in which I had experiences and friendships that I revere. But make no mistake, my service here is the most important job I have had in my life. And I am so grateful to the people of Arizona for the privilege-- for the honor-- of serving here and the opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history of the country I love.

“I’ve known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history, true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties, and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. And they often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.

“But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes, however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important, vitally important, to the continued success of our Republic. And our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America’s problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

“That principled mindset, and the service of our predecessors who possessed it, come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world’s greatest deliberative body. I’m not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today.

“I’m sure it wasn’t always deserved in previous eras either. But I’m sure there have been times when it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those occasions.

“Our deliberations today-- not just our debates, but the exercise of all our responsibilities-- authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role-- are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we’d all agree they haven’t been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren’t producing much for the American people.

“Both sides have let this happen. Let’s leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they’ll find we all conspired in our decline-- either by deliberate actions or neglect. We’ve all played some role in it. Certainly I have. Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes, I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes, I wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy.

“Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticize but also accept, just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn’t glamorous or exciting. It doesn’t feel like a political triumph. But it’s usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse and quarrelsome and free as ours.

“Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments, and how corruptible human nature can be, the problem solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, is a magnificent achievement.

“Our system doesn’t depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections, and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on earth. It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than ‘winning.’ Even when we must give a little to get a little. Even when our efforts manage just three yards and a cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounce us for timidity, for our failure to ‘triumph.’

 “I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.

“Let’s trust each other. Let’s return to regular order. We’ve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That’s an approach that’s been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires.

“We’re getting nothing done. All we’ve really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it, those who support Obamacare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven’t found it yet, and I’m not sure we will. All we’ve managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn’t very popular when we started trying to get rid of it.

“I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my state’s governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to support it.

“We’ve tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it’s better than nothing, asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don’t think that is going to work in the end. And it probably shouldn’t.

“The Obama administration and congressional Democrats shouldn’t have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare. And we shouldn’t do the same with ours.

“Why don’t we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act. If this process ends in failure, which seem likely, then let’s return to regular order.

“Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides. Then bring it to the floor for amendment and debate, and see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

“What have we to lose by trying to work together to find those solutions? We’re not getting much done apart. I don’t think any of us feels very proud of our incapacity. Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn’t the most inspiring work. There’s greater satisfaction in respecting our differences, but not letting them prevent agreements that don’t require abandonment of core principles, agreements made in good faith that help improve lives and protect the American people.

“The Senate is capable of that. We know that. We’ve seen it before. I’ve seen it happen many times. And the times when I was involved even in a modest way with working out a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat are the proudest moments of my career, and by far the most satisfying.

“This place is important. The work we do is important. Our strange rules and seemingly eccentric practices that slow our proceedings and insist on our cooperation are important. Our founders envisioned the Senate as the more deliberative, careful body that operates at a greater distance than the other body from the public passions of the hour.

“We are an important check on the powers of the Executive. Our consent is necessary for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials and in many respects to conduct foreign policy. Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the President’s subordinates. We are his equal!

“As his responsibilities are onerous, many and powerful, so are ours. And we play a vital role in shaping and directing the judiciary, the military, and the cabinet, in planning and supporting foreign and domestic policies. Our success in meeting all these awesome constitutional obligations depends on cooperation among ourselves.

“The success of the Senate is important to the continued success of America. This country-- this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, good and magnificent country-- needs us to help it thrive. That responsibility is more important than any of our personal interests or political affiliations.

“We are the servants of a great nation, ‘a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’ More people have lived free and prosperous lives here than in any other nation. We have acquired unprecedented wealth and power because of our governing principles, and because our government defended those principles.

“America has made a greater contribution than any other nation to an international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have been the greatest example, the greatest supporter and the greatest defender of that order. We aren’t afraid. “We don’t covet other people’s land and wealth. We don’t hide behind walls. We breach them. We are a blessing to humanity.

“What greater cause could we hope to serve than helping keep America the strong, aspiring, inspirational beacon of liberty and defender of the dignity of all human beings and their right to freedom and equal justice? That is the cause that binds us and is so much more powerful and worthy than the small differences that divide us.

“What a great honor and extraordinary opportunity it is to serve in this body.

“It’s a privilege to serve with all of you. I mean it. Many of you have reached out in the last few days with your concern and your prayers, and it means a lot to me. It really does. I’ve had so many people say such nice things about me recently that I think some of you must have me confused with someone else. I appreciate it though, every word, even if much of it isn’t deserved.

“I’ll be here for a few days, I hope managing the floor debate on the defense authorization bill, which, I’m proud to say is again a product of bipartisan cooperation and trust among the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“After that, I’m going home for a while to treat my illness. I have every intention of returning here and giving many of you cause to regret all the nice things you said about me. And, I hope, to impress on you again that it is an honor to serve the American people in your company.

“Thank you, fellow senators."

It may be his last Senate speech ever. Maybe not. But you think there's any chance at all he'll make as brave a move as Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski did yesterday? I don't. It's not in him-- even at this late stage. He probably feels his legacy has withstood a full frontal attack from Trump and it'll withstand his ugly, cowardly vote yesterday as well. Because, despite the hopeful throwaway line someone wrote and he read-- "I will not vote for the bill as it is today"-- just a couple of hours after saying it, he did just that: voted for TrumpCare with no changes, same as Shelley Moore "I didn't comes to Washington to makes peoples' lives worse" Capito did. Apparently she reconsidered and realized she did come to Washington to make 32 million Americans lives worse. The Republicans who voted with the Democrats against the first repeal and replace TrumpCare bill last night were Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Tom Cotton (AR), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dean Heller (NV), Mike Lee (UT), Jerry Moran (KS), Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Rand Paul (KY). It needed 60 votes and it only got 43.

Just after the Senate vote, Congressmembers Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, Pramila Jayapal, Our Revolution leader Nina Turner and other progressive leaders introduced the People’s Platform-- a progressive agenda to move the country forward. This is what Schumer and Pelosi should have announced this week instead of recycling the Papa John's Pizza slogan. Pramila: "If Democrats want to win in 2018 and take our country back, we can’t just be an opposition party: we must be a proposition party." The People’s Platform includes legislation that addresses the real issues Americans face every day, including universal health care for ALL Americans. More from Pramila:

"I’m proud to be a progressive, and I wear that label with pride. [The ideas in the People’s Platform] are ideas that serve working people across America. These ideas have been tested in every other developed country, and they work-- so why not here in America?

The People’s Platform recognizes that economic, racial and gender justice are deeply intertwined, and will empower working people across our country to stand up to the wealthiest corporations and top 1% and invest instead in working families across our country.

In addition to universal health care, the People’s Platform calls for free college education, automatic voter registration, taxes on Wall Street, raising the federal minimum wage to $15, protecting women’s reproductive rights and ending private prisons.

Together, we need to build an America that will provide every person-- regardless of their age, race, gender or economic status-- access to health care, free college tuition, a livable planet, and a job that pays a living wage.

Pramila has always believed that there is no problem in our country that we can’t solve or challenges that we can’t overcome-- if we do it together.

It Hasn't Happened... Yet-- The Saturday Night Palin Video

Sure Sarah Palin has become of the butt of jokes all over the world but inside the McCain camp the feeling is that the joke's on them. CNN is reporting that the ambitious and overreaching Alaskan has now gone rogue. McCain insiders claim she's "looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign."

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

McCain is apparently regretting that he didn't bother vetting her and was caught unawares when she turned out to be the most ignorant politician he'd ever met-- and that includes Rick Renzi! "Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history." And, judging by her rare press appearances, it wasn't a very successful effort either. Nice clothes though.

McCain Blames Bush For His Campaign's Collapse But Is He Being Honest With Himself?

Almost daily we're hearing how McCain "blames" Palin for his death march to political oblivion. I doubt it. Blaming Palin means buying in to what every serious McCain detractor from both sides of the aisle has been saying: McCain's poor judgment and cynicism-- for selecting her in the first place-- make him unfit for the presidency. So who does he blame for his sinking poll numbers and what is shaping up to be the biggest disaster for the Republican Party since the last time a senator from Arizona headed the national ticket? Bush, of course, his old nemesis.

Yesterday on the Double Talk Express, he granted an interview to a couple of friendly reporters from the Moonie Times. He "lashed out at a litany of Bush policies and issues that he said he would have handled differently as president," neglecting to mention he supported almost every single one of them in the Senate. Consistently refusing to take any responsibility for his own rejection by the voters, McCain "blasted President Bush for building a mountain of debt for future generations, failing to pay for expanding Medicare and abusing executive powers, leveling his strongest criticism to date of an administration whose unpopularity may be dragging the Republican Party to the brink of a massive electoral defeat." None of the crowing about how he voted for 90% of Bush's agenda.



No, McCain wasn't talking about how he turned himself into a virtual rubber stamp for Bush-Cheney, especially in the most recent years, when he racked up a disgraceful and shockingly extremist voting record to the right of lunatic fringe senators like Larry Craig (R-ID), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). The handful of senators to the right of McCain are the bizarre extremists and neo-Confederate obstructionists like David Vitter (R-LA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Cornyn (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK)... mostly the worst trash in Congress several of whom are in jeopardy of losing their seats in two weeks. Instead, it was all Bush's fault.

"Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously."

Were the lobbyists who run the campaign not certain that the Moonies would let it all pass without reminding the brittle and nasty senator that he voted for every one of these things he's now blaming on his political demise, they would never have been granted the interview. He also took the opportunity to blame the GOP in general for his woes and to lash out on the one person in America who is even less liked than Bush: Cheney. "I don't agree with Dick Cheney's allegation that he's part of both the legislative and the executive branch." (Perhaps he should explain that to ignorant and unqualified his running mate.)

"I think, frankly, the problem was, with a Republican Congress, that the president was told by the speaker and majority leaders and others, 'Don't veto these bills, we need this pork, we need this excess spending, we need to grow these bureaucracies.' They all sponsor certain ones. And he didn't do what Ronald Reagan used to and say, 'No'; say, 'No. We're not going to do this.'"

Presumably he had a little memory thing about what he's been doing for the last few decades. Most voters, on the other hand, know full well that the problems caused by the corporately-dominated Republican Congress can all be blamed on McCain as easily as on Bush and any other Republican in Congress. And this morning's CongressDaily has some of the worst news about voter retribution for Republicans so far. Even Inside the Beltway, an awareness is building that a political tsunami is headed right towards the Capitol. Looking two and a half weeks into the future, one Republican strategist declared flatly that "It's going to be a bad night." How bad?

Republicans are desperately trying to cling to red districts where Republican incumbents are resigning but almost every single one of them is trending towards Democratic challengers. Worse yet, Republican incumbents trying to stay in Congress-- a toxic mixture of extremists and rubber stamps like Marilyn Musgrave, Ric Keller, Robin Hayes, Sam Graves, Tim Walberg, Steve Chabot, the Diaz-Balart Brothers, Joe Knollenberg, Dave Reichert, Randy Kuhl, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mean Jean Schmidt, Dana Rohrabacher, Michele Bachmann-- are polling poorly and sinking rapidly.

"It's hard to change the dynamic of a race in the last 14 days," said one Republican strategist, who criticized the NRCC for not moving earlier to funnel more money to less expensive media markets where Republican incumbents are in unexpectedly difficult races. "It's just baffling the way they're spending this," the strategist said last week.

As evidence of the souring GOP fortunes, The Cook Political Report recently changed ratings for 25 districts, all indicating Democratic momentum. Republicans have suffered a toxic combination of a financial market meltdown, a referendum on the unpopular Bush, anemic fundraising and an increasing number of candidates enduring self-inflicted wounds.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to spend $1 million against Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who said on MSNBC's "Hardball" late last week that the Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, "may have anti-American views" and suggested that "the news media should do a penetrating exposé" to determine whether some members of Congress are "anti-America."

The Cook Political Report changed Bachmann's race from leaning in her favor to being a toss-up and now rates six Democratic seats and 25 Republican seats in the toss-up category. Cook now projects Democrats will gain 20 to 25 seats in the House.

Cook is the most notorious lagging indicator of all the out-of-touch Inside-the-Beltway prognosticators. If they're saying the Democrats will gain 20-25 seats, it means that with a strong effort the DCCC could confidently expect over 30, possibly 40 seats. As of September 30 the NRCC had $17.4 million in the bank to the DCCC's $41.3 million. If the DCCC doesn't waste it chasing nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- as Emanuel did in 2006 and is demanding they do again-- they will win close races for real Democrats who will support Obama's agenda for change, instead of supporting GOP-Blue Dog agenda for obstruction (of which Emanuel is expected to be an integral component).

I was glad to read in today's Miami Herald that instead of wasting her time and energy trying to save Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing Tim Mahoney from certain defeat, Nancy Pelosi is working to elect progressives Annette Taddeo, Alan Grayson and Joe Garcia and some moderates.

Congressional Republicans are blaming McCain for their impending doom and McCain is blaming congressional Republicans. It's funny because there is no difference between any of them. And appalled Republicans from across the country are experiencing unparalleled waves of disgust for McCain, Palin and the whole party. Just this morning Arne Carlson a much-respected former governor of Minnesota-- and a lifelong Republican and a real maverick-- endorsed Obama.

Carlson said Thursday that the Illinois senator's stances on the Iraq war, the economy and green energy goals won him over. Carlson, who served from 1991 to 1998, also cited recent comments by GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann questioning whether politicians have "pro-America or anti-America views."

"Regardless of our party, regardless of our partisan inclinations, there is no interest more compelling than the interest in the well-being of the United States," Carlson said at a gathering of Obama supporters at the state Capitol.

And, of course, it isn't just the rantings and ravings of far right lunatic extremists Michele Bachmann and Robin Hayes who are turning independents and moderate Republicans off. All across the country right-wing extremists and bigots are being forced to step down from the McCain campaign and from the Republican Party apparatus for... well, for basically following Palin crackpot themes, but just going a step or two over the line. One maniac GOP leader in California's Inland Empire, Diane Fedele, was forced to resign today after the viciously racist campaign she was leading against Obama was exposed to the public.

Earlier this week, Barbara Lorman, the first woman ever elected to the Wisconsin state Senate and another lifelong Republican, said that McCain's negative campaign had so disgusted her that she has decided to vote for Obama. No, she isn't eshewing McCain because of George Bush; she's endorsing Obama because he is clearly a better candidate and because McCain is running a disgraceful and dishonest campaign. Like all serious-minded Republicans, she is also horrified at the prospect of Sarah Palin becoming president. "I certainly would not put my trust in Sarah Palin. She is a terrible choice because she is not qualified, and the vice president is a heartbeat away. She may be a fast learner, but that is not enough to be president of the United States."

Did Palin Sink McCain's Chances? Or Wasn't It Just His Cynicism And Bad Judgment?

All the polls differ slightly but they are all pointing in the same direction: a big win for Obama and a massive repudiation of Republican governance (unless you want to listen to far right loons who claim all the pollsters are conspiring against McCain). Yesterday we referenced a Pew Poll that claimed "growing doubt about McCain's judgment, age and campaign conduct" have led to a 52-38% breakdown between the two campaigns. That's landslide territory. And the gap is not closing; it's widening. The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll isn't quite as dire for McCain-- but still plenty dire: a 52-42% breakdown, fueled by growing Obama support from independents, suburban voters, Catholics and white women. These voters are feelings towards Obama include "increased confidence in his ability to serve as commander in chief" and a belief that he will do a good job as president.

This is further reflected in a report from Editor & Publisher that more than 2 dozen newspapers that had backed Bush in 2004, are already on board for Obama this year. This included some influential powerhouses like the New York Daily News (circulation 703,137), the Chicago Tribune (541,663), the Denver Post (225,193), the Houston Chronicle (494,131), the Austin American-Statesman (170,309), the San Bernardino Sun (54,315), the Wisconsin State Journal (87,930), the New Haven Register (72,613) and the Long Beach Press Telegram (85,595). And keep in mind that neither the L.A. Times nor the Cleveland Plain Dealer endorsed in 2004 and both papers have come out for Obama this year. Overall, Obama has been endorsed by four times as many newspapers as McCain.

Even before the news broke about how GOP campaign contributions were used for a $150,000 shopping spree for Palin and her family, Bob Geiger was pointing out that most of the newspapers endorsing Obama are basing that endorsement, at least partially, on McCain's terrible judgment and cynicism in his selection of Sarah Palin as VP.

[O]f the myriad mistakes made by McCain since he secured the Republican nomination from their confused field of empty GOP suits, the majority of newspapers urging readers to vote for Obama in two weeks cite the faux maverick's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate as a major executive decision that made them question his fitness for the presidency.

To be sure, the endorsements offer enthusiastic support for Obama and his platform for change but it's hard to miss how many of them use phrases like "clearly unqualified" to describe Palin and call McCain's choice "reckless," "appalling," a "disaster" and "…an insult to the American people."

The Salt Lake Tribune is a Republican newspaper in a Republican hellhole. McCain is leading in Utah by an average of 35.7%. It's the single most reactionary part of the country, a virtual 12th Century theocracy in the middle of the United States. Yet even their biggest newspaper couldn't help but notice that "out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency."

The Stockton Record is just as Republican-- another paper that endorsed Bush in 2004-- and they also were horrified by McCain's adolescent and extremely dangerous choice of Palin.

"If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president.

"And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment.

"While praiseworthy for putting the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, his selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling. The first-term governor is clearly not experienced enough to serve as vice president or president if required. Her lack of knowledge is being covered up by keeping her away from questioning reporters and doing interviews only with those considered friendly to her views."

Delusional far right extremists, on the other hand, are still cheering Palin as the best decision McCain has ever made. Let's pray they get their way and she's the Republican nominee in 2012. As her approval ratings among normal people sink into oblivion, the far right of her discredited party still loves her.

[T]he fact that Palin's numbers have faltered among the general electorate and that some in the conservative chattering class have soured on her only strengthens her profile among rank and file conservatives come 2012.

In late September polling by the Post (the last time we asked detailed questions of voter attitudes on Palin) nearly nine in ten (87 percent) Republicans and 84 percent of conservatives felt favorably toward her. More than six in ten felt "strongly" favorable.

...Palin is clearly OF the conservative base in a real and meaningful way; they view her as their first real spokesperson on the national stage in recent memory -- perhaps since Ronald Reagan. It's hard to imagine those feelings going away because she has not worn well with either moderate and independent minded voters of the conservative media.

And, for those who argue that questions of electability in a general election will dog Palin if and when she is a candidate for president, we say pish-posh... Like her or hate her, Palin remains VERY much in the mix as a 2012 candidate.

A Palin candidacy should finish them off for another 2 generations. Fingers crossed!

Racism Can Be A Two-edged Knife-- As John Kelly And John McCain Have Both Found Out

There's nothing much left of the Republican Party's Grand Coalition other than the racists, pre-Renaissance religionist fanatics, anti-Semites, and bailed-out bankers.

As the crowd cheered at a Sarah Palin rally this morning in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a man in the audience grinned as he held up a stuffed monkey doll with a Barack Obama bumper sticker wrapped across its forehead.

Goaded on by Palin's naked reactionary politics, the campaign has turned into one stinking sewer. When McCain tried tamping it down a little a few days ago he was booed at his own rallies-- three times in one day! As endangered elected officials in battleground states, moderates and mainstream conservatives have fled the Palin wing of the Party, the Know Nothings and Nativists have completely taken control, at least on the grassroots level. Khaled Hosseini is the author of The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns and this morning he used the Washington Post to explain how McCain and Palin are playing with fire. Like civil rights icon, Congressman John Lewis, and political operative David Gergen Hosseini is dismayed at the vicious, racist, even violent tone the McCain campaign has taken.

The real affront is the lack of firm response from either McCain or Palin. Neither has had the moral courage, when taking the stage, to grasp the microphone, turn to the presenter and, right then and there, denounce the use of Obama's middle name as an insult. Instead, they have simply delivered their stump speeches, lacing into Obama as if nothing out-of-bounds had just happened. The McCain-Palin ticket has given toxic speeches accusing Obama of being a friend of terrorists, then released short, meek repudiations of some of the rough stuff, including McCain's call Friday to "be respectful." Back in February, the Arizona senator apologized for the "disparaging remarks" from a talk-radio host who sneered repeatedly about "Barack Hussein Obama" before a McCain rally. "We will have a respectful debate," McCain insisted afterward. But pretending to douse flames that you are busy fanning does not qualify as straight talk.

What I find most unconscionable is the refusal of the McCain-Palin tandem to publicly condemn the cries of "traitor," "liar," "terrorist" and (worst of all) "kill him!" that could be heard at recent rallies. McCain is perfectly capable of telling hecklers off. But not once did he or his running mate bother to admonish the people yelling these obscene -- and potentially dangerous -- words. They may not have been able to hear the slurs at the rallies, but surely they have had ample time since to get on camera and warn that this sort of ugliness has no place in an election season. But they have not. Simply calling Obama "a decent person" is not enough.

Is inaction tantamount to consent? The McCain campaign certainly thinks so when it comes to Obama and incendiary remarks from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. By their own inaction, then, are McCain and Palin condoning these slurs? Or worse, are they willfully inciting the angry and venomous response that we have been witnessing at their rallies? If not, then what reaction are they hoping to evoke by their relentless public suggestions that Obama is basically an anti-American liar who won't put "country first" and has an affection for terrorists? Do they not understand the kind of fire they are playing with?

I-- and, I suspect, millions of Americans like me, Republicans and Democrats alike-- couldn't care less about Obama's middle name or the ridiculous six-degrees-of-separation game that is the William Ayers non-issue. The Taliban are clawing their way back in Afghanistan, the country that I hope many of my fellow Americans have come to understand better through my novels. People are losing their homes and their jobs and are watching the future slip away from them. But instead of addressing these problems, the McCain-Palin ticket is doing its best to distract Americans by provoking fear, anxiety and hatred. Country first? Hardly.

A McCain-Palin supporter & GOP propagandist admitted he created this and posted it on his blog. Don't vote for one Republican for any office anywhere

What makes this much worse, as Jeffrey Feldman explained at Frameshop today is that "while McCain tells his supporters publicly to refrain from violent rhetoric, he continues to teach his volunteers rhetoric designed to elicit violent responses. Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine was horrified at the little Nazi training camp she found disguised as a McCain campaign field office in Gainesville, Virginia.

Jeffrey Frederick is an unabashed neo-Confederate Know Nothing, extremist, and racist; he's also the head of the Virginia Republican Party. Tumulty was shocked when he addressed the McCain "troops" in the headquarters:

He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points-- for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." It is also not exactly true-- though that distorted reference to Obama's controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. "And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born." Actually, we do; it's Hawaii.

I'm sure Palin will bring out some KKK members and churchie fanatics who might otherwise have not voted. She-- as well as McCain's bad judgment and duplicity-- is also convincing independents and thoughtful conservatives that McCain is far to risky a choice. Racism, after all, cuts two ways and civil societies have made conscious attempts to overcome it, some with more success than others.

In 1970 I was traveling through India in a Volkswagen van. When I found a place I liked I would settle in for a spell. I loved Goa on the Arabian Sea south of what was then Bombay (now Mumbai) and I rented a thatched house a couple dozen steps from the beach for a few months. Goa was pretty sleepy and off the beaten path back then. Now it attracts all kinds of trashy thrill-seeking tourists. One, an Australian named John Kelly, was killed by the staff of a bar the other day. Some friends of mine have been discussing this on-line all weekend. As the Goa "expert" I finally decided to wade into the discussion this afternoon. I explained that the Indians tend to be pretty non-violent, especially towards foreigners and that I would bet, generalizing from the Australians I've met in Asia, that Kelly was extremely provocative, probably making repeated rude remarks about their religion and race. I then looked into it a bit more by reading the Times of India. Kelly was even worse than I figured. He would be a perfect fit for the Palin wing of the GOP.

He was loud, abusive, racially discriminating in his speech which was aimed at everyone in his vision which seemed like signs of a totally intoxicated person with not much bearing of his surroundings," says the statement, endorsed by the owner of the establishment, Rajesh Khanna.

Khanna said that the statement had been signed by two dozen eyewitnesses who were present when the incident happened.

According to the statement, Kelly on his arrival ordered a round of beer for a group of Indian tourists present but they declined his offer and he was enraged.

"He (Kelly) abused him left right and centre and the one-sided conversation can be best described as outright provocation in the form of direct and indirect verbal abuse, racial discrimination and insult," the statement said, adding that at the end of this outburst, Kelly pressed a knife into a waiter's neck.

"Kelly responded by holding the waiter by his head and putting the knife to his throat and slowly exerting pressure," it added.

John Kelly is no more. Let's pray the Republican Party-- or at least what the Republican Party has devolved into lately-- will meet the same fate.

Jesus' General sent me this:

McCain Having Buyer's Remorse Over Palin Already?

Some McCain staffers, though certainly not Steve Schmidt, who wouldn't think twice about ripping apart the social fabric that binds the country together if it got "him" 3 electoral votes, are already talking about McCain accepting an "honorable defeat" and not further destroying his reputation and dragging his own integrity through the sewers of right-wing extremism that the GOP has become.

I don't know if they make this stuff up or get inside dope from McCain ally Lady de Rotheschild, but this morning's London Times is reporting that McCain wants Palin to stop acting as if her campaign appearances were KKK rallies.

McCain has become alarmed about the fury unleashed by Sarah Palin, the moose-hunting “pitbull in lipstick,” against Senator Barack Obama. Cries of “terrorist” and “kill him” have accompanied the tirades by the governor of Alaska against the Democratic nominee at Republican rallies.

...Palin, 44, has led the character attacks on Obama in the belief that McCain may be throwing away the election and her chance of becoming vice-president. Her supporters think that if the Republican ticket loses on November 4, she should run for president in 2012.

A leading Republican consultant said: “A lot of conservatives are grumbling about what a poor job McCain is doing. They are rolling their eyes and saying, ‘Yes, a miracle could happen, but at this rate it is all over.'

“Sarah Palin is no fool. She sees the same thing and wants to salvage what she can. She is positioning herself for the future. Her best days could be in front of her. She wants to look as though she was the fighter, the person with the spunk who was out there taking it to the Democrats.”

She's been second-guessing campaign decisions-- like pulling resources out of Michigan-- and she has been publicly complaining that the campaign isn't using enough of the good old fashioned GOP smear and fear, let alone too much of it. And although normal Americans have an unfavorable view of Palin and she isn't helping him attract women or independents to the ticket, she is much, much more popular with what's left of the Republican base. McCain "regularly has to endure the spectacle of members of the audience leaving for their cars when it is his turn to speak at joint rallies." If she isn't the ultimate example of bad judgment on his part, I don't know what is. She's exactly the kind of choice that would have made an earlier version of John McCain say he couldn't support this ticket! Or some of the kooks and nuts who are running it.


UPDATE: PALIN ON THE ICE

Scott Ostler summed up Sarah Palin's disastrous foray into the Philly ice hockey world-- without even ever mentioning the word "booed":

-- Sarah Palin, what a great idea having her drop the first puck at the Philadelphia Flyers' home opener Saturday. I hear the fans loved it when she chased the Zamboni and tried to bite the tires.

-- Palin was the Flyers' second choice. Their first choice was to have John McCain drop his dentures.

-- Palin is a hockey expert, of course, because she can see Canada from her backyard.

h/t: Harry

McCain's Mortgage Plan: Another Desperate, Dangerous Gimmick

Other than one by the United Lobbyists' Collective of K Street, every poll, survey and focus group showed that Obama handily beat McCain in the debate on Tuesday. The only other "news" from that event was that McCain, desperately groping for a "game-changer," threw out a proposal for the federal government to buy every badly performing mortgage from the banks. While his far right extremist base screamed bloody murder, mainstream Americans scratched their collective heads and asked what the hell is McCain talking about.

This morning the editors of Republican Party propaganda tabloid, National Review, echoed what their columnists have been writing all week, that McCain's proposal is unacceptable to conservatives. They prefer the bill written by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, because under their bill the borrower must live in his house (i.e., no investment properties); the borrower must show that he has been spending at least a third of his income on mortgage payments since March of this year; and the borrower must also show that he can afford to make lower payments if his lender agrees to a write-down. They estimate that these rules narrow the mortgages covered to 400,000 and "excludes people who borrowed to buy investment properties in order to flip them for a profit... excludes people who are hopelessly in over their heads and simply cannot afford the homes they’re in and... excludes people who could afford to pay their mortgages if they wanted to but have instead decided to mail the keys to the bank rather than continue making payments on a house that is worth less today than when they bought it."

We never thought we would defend the Frank-Dodd legislation, which we bitterly opposed last summer. But it looks downright prudent compared to what McCain has proposed. McCain’s plan is a full bailout for lenders, and it cannot do much more than the Frank-Dodd bill without letting “ruthless borrowers” and other reckless types off the hook. It is time to acknowledge that the government has gone as far as it can without creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable. Give Frank-Dodd-- and the Paulson plan-- time to work.

And that's from McCain's base! Economists and editorial boards around the country looked at it and decided it was just another McCain Hail Mary pass or cynical gimmick, like picking Sarah Palin, like making believe he was suspending his campaign to "rush" to Washington and save the day, like shortening the Republican Convention by making believe he was needed in New Orleans, etc. Robert Farley looked it over for the St Petersburg Times and explained why people are calling it "a desperate campaign stunt by a candidate who's popularity in polls is dropping largely due to people concerned about the economy. The plan is likely to be a tough sell to McCain's conservative base, many of whom are uncomfortable with the whole bailout plan to begin with. "It creates a big moral hazard," said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "If I thought McCain was going to be elected, I'd stop paying my mortgage now and stick my nose in the trough."

The Concord Monitor points out that McCain is once again helping all his campaign contributors but not American taxpayers: "McCain's plan would bail out homeowners who can't meet their payments and foundering lenders, who bet that home values would continue inflating forever. But it would saddle taxpayers, many of whom struggle to pay their own bills, with an enormous burden."

Even McCain's cronies on the editorial board of the aggressively reactionary Wall Street Journal say there's no upside for taxpayers in his proposal: "McCain's obvious political intention is to show struggling homeowners that he cares. Perhaps the best argument for the McCain idea is that it is likely to be far less expensive than the Second New Deal that Barack Obama is likely to propose on January 20 if he wins. But Mr. McCain's plan to transform Treasury into a major mortgage lender, and running the operation at a potential $300 billion loss, raises more questions than it answers... And unlike the Paulson plan, the McCain proposal appears to offer no upside for taxpayers. They take all the losses up front and don't participate in any rebound in house prices, so borrowers who overextended and lenders who made reckless loans are made whole, and taxpayers get the bill."

Even more discerning analysis comes from Paul Krugman who pointed out that "McCain's bailout plan manages to take everything that's wrong with the Paulson plan and make it worse" and CNNMoney.com has an analysis that McCain's crooked lobbyist cadre isn't going to embrace:

McCain Mortgage Plan Shifts Costs To Taxpayers: Under McCain's newly announced plan, the government would take the hit for writing down mortgage balances for at risk borrowers: Under a mortgage rescue plan announced at the debate Tuesday night by Senator John McCain, much of the burden of paying to keep troubled borrowers in their homes will shift to taxpayers… "[McCain's] original plan relied on lenders taking the hit," said Holtz-Eakin. "This bypasses that step." Instead, taxpayers pay for it, with the funding already provided by the $700 billion bailout bill. That could prove to be very unpopular with homeowners who aren't in trouble, as well as ordinary Americans who objected to the Hope for Homeowners plan as a bailout for delinquent borrowers and irresponsible lenders. Christopher Mayer, Paul Milstein Professor of Real Estate at Columbia Business School, isn't convinced that the McCain proposal makes sense. "As the plan stands now, it helps the people who got into the most debt, and it helps the lenders, but it doesn't really help the housing market," he said.

The NY Daily News says it's a giveaway to the banks: "Out of the blue, McCain has just proposed a large, no-strings-attached gift of taxpayer cash to bank executives who failed at their business of risk management, and to bank shareholders who failed at their business of hiring executives. That's simply corrupt." And Victoria McGrane at Politico sums up the mood of everyone who's read it: half-baked. A careful examination was done by the Obama campaign's Economic Policy Director, Jason Furman in you want to really get down into the weeds with this thing which is probably very much DOA.

McCain Was A Worse Pilot Than Bush-- And, Yes, He'd Be A Worse President Too

Holiday in Cambodia Turtle Island



Many Democrats and independents have been thinking how much better-- and more Mavericky-- McCain is than your run of the mill Republican and, buying into the well-greased multi-million dollar hype machine that has been at work 24/7 for decades, there is some thought that McCain is somehow "better," or at least less dangerous, than Republicans like Bush, Cheney, and the menagerie of political midgets he beat to win the primary. That would be faulty thinking. There is nothing that has come shooting out at us from the deep, dark bowels of the Republican Party as bad as John McCain.

Put aside for a moment the virtually lockstep rubber stamp voting record, craftily disguised to appear semi-independent on a rare much-ballyhooed occasion or two. And forget for a moment the staggering contempt he must feel for all of us to have, at 72 and gravely ill, named an utterly unqualified and inexperienced small town bigot from Alaska his political successor. (And if it isn't contempt, my friends, then it is surely judgment so egregiously bad as to disqualify him.) Instead let's look at the man who would be president.

Yesterday a Professor of Classic Literature & Arts, Mary-Kay Gamel, stepped forward and gave the kind of powerful personal account of a vacation she had spent with the McCains earlier in the decade. This is not a decent man. This is not a stable man. This is not what his hype machine presents to the American people. I recommend you read Professor Gamel's entire post. Some highlights:

I was irritated at his large ego and his rude behavior towards his wife and other women, but decided he must have some redeeming qualities as he had adopted a handicapped child from Bangladesh. I asked him about this one day, and his response was shocking: "Oh, that was Cindy's idea-- I didn't have anything to do with it. She just went and adopted this thing without even asking me. You can't imagine how people stare when I wheel this ugly, black thing around in a shopping cart in Arizona.

No, it wasn't my idea at all."

I actively avoided McCain after that, but unfortunately one day he engaged me in a political discussion which soon got us on the topic of the active US bombing of Iraq at that time. I was shocked when he said, "If I was in charge, I would nuke Iraq to teach them a lesson." Given McCain's personal experience with the horrors of war, I had expected a more balanced point of view.

I commented on the tragic consequences of the nuclear attacks on Japan during WWII-- but no, he was not to be dissuaded. He went on to say that if it was up to him he would have dropped many more nuclear bombs on Japan.

It was courageous of Professor Gamel to come forward and testify about the Real McCain. I hope it isn't too late and I hope it won't get lost in the shuffle and hype. Tim Dickinson's revelations about McCain, the make-believe Maverick in the latest issue of Rolling Stone may not have the emotional content of Professor Gamel's story, but it is something every American heading for the polling both in November ought to read and consider carefully. Dickinson makes a powerful effort to unmask the real John McCain, "the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather."

In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

...In his current campaign, however, McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance," promised more drilling and deeper tax cuts, even compromised his vaunted opposition to torture. Intent on winning the presidency at all costs, he has reassembled the very team that so viciously smeared him and his family eight years ago, selecting as his running mate a born-again moose hunter whose only qualification for office is her ability to electrify Rove's base. And he has engaged in a "practice of politics" so deceptive that even Rove himself has denounced it, saying that the outright lies in McCain's campaign ads go "too far" and fail the "truth test."

As more and more people start to grapple with who exactly the real McCain is, his poll ratings plummet. Today polls in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania show him trailing Obama so significantly that people are starting to use the word "landslide" again.

Even when a member of the elite media insiders who McCain has cultivated so assiduously over the years, Maureen Dowd, slipped up and let a bit of the cat out of the bag about what kind of a man McCain really is ("a long-tailed rat" who has continued to shamelessly flash "the P.O.W. card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated") an enraged and out of control McCain kicked her off his plane in Pittsburgh and told her to walk home, crowing about her humiliation as a way of showing how independent he is of the very media he used to build his fake reputation. Many members of the media are sorry now that they've been part of the McCain hype machine and have helped cover up the real man and create a myth than many Americans have bought into. This isn't part of the myth:

Electoral Ramifications Of The Bailout Bill

McCain strutted out of the debate thinking he had won. Giuliani and the other lobbyists in his entourage assured him he was the champ. Today's Gallup poll confirmed what every single focus group and every snap poll had found: that despite the on-the-payroll media-for-McCain contingent at Fox, etc, people were viscerally turned off by McCain's nastiness and condescending behavior and by his loser body language. It wasn't close. 46% of viewers though Obama bested McCain. Only 34% thought McCain did better. "Obama scored even better-- 52%- 35%-- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems."

McCain may be praying the next episode of Palin Livin', Bristol Palin's shotgun wedding just before the election, will save his rapidly sinking campaign, but the sleazy lobbyists driving the Double Talk Express are by no means putting all their eggs into that unpredictable basket. Although Newt Gingrich is urging vulnerable Republicans in Congress-- and is there one more vulnerable than McCain?-- to vote NO on the bailout and ride that vote to victory in November, McCain has decided, incongruously but predictably, to claim credit for the bailout. Is he crazy? Is Gingrich wrong?

Yesterday's Gallup poll showed that "Americans overwhelmingly favor Congress' passing a plan that would help fix the current Wall Street economic crisis." They don't like Paulson's plan, of course, but McCain and the congressional leadership and the establishment media will now work hard to prove that the garbage plan they agreed on is not Paulson's plan.

Previewing a McCain campaign message for the days ahead, top strategist Steve Schmidt claimed Sunday that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is partly responsible for the tentative agreement on a mortgage bailout that congressional leaders announced shortly after midnight.

Schmidt was appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief strategist, who ridiculed the McCain claim as “a little bit of fiction.”

...Schmidt argued: “Earlier in the week, when Senator McCain came back to Washington, there had been no deal reached. … What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all the parties to the table, including the House Republicans.”

Axelrod responded: “When this crisis emerged, Senator McCain's first reaction was to say the economy is fundamentally strong. The next day, he suggested a commission to study this. And by eight days later, he said it was such a crisis that he was going to suspend his campaign. He showed up a day later in Washington.

“It isn't clear what his role was. So it’s a little bit of fiction to now claim credit for it. That's not the important thing, though. The important thing is that the principles that Senator Obama outlined originally are now embraced and taxpayers will be protected.”

This morning's Times delineates some of what is emerging from the Inside the Beltway negotiations.

The bill includes pay limits for some executives whose firms seek help, aides said. And it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures.

In some cases, the government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid, allowing taxpayers to profit should the rescue plan work and the private firms flourish in the months and years ahead.

The White House also agreed to strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program.

Democratic candidates for Congress are watching carefully. Annette Taddeo in Miami is not alone when she says she's waiting to see the kind of homeowner protections Dick Durbin is able to force Paulson and Bush to put into the bill before she can weigh whether the bill is worth supporting or not. Half a dozen candidates for Congress told me almost exactly the same thing. Like the voters, they know this bill stinks and like the voters they know something has to be done-- but they want to make sure taxpeyers and homeowners get as fair a shake as possible. Mark Schauer, who's running against Republican extremist Tim Walberg in economically hard-hit southern Michigan took a similar tact: "Let's be clear, we're in this mess because of George Bush and Tim Walberg's failed economic policies. While I am encouraged by the bipartisan negotiations taking place in Washington this weekend, any rescue plan must first prevent people from losing their homes, help small business, and bring jobs and economic development to our communities. We must also protect the interests of taxpayers with adequate oversight and no blank checks for Wall Street. It remains to be seen whether or not this package meets those standards."

What concerns me is that while the Democratic leadership is busy rounding up votes to give Bush what he wants, Republicans are carefully plotting campaign strategy. Radical right incumbents like Mike Pence (R-IN), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), John Culberson (R-TX) will all attempt to use their no votes on this one issue as proof that they are not Bush rubber stamps and that they stand with the middle class-- regardless of their years of voting records. My advice to progressive challengers: come out loud and clear against the bailout and talk about the inherent rigging of the financial system to help the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us. Jerome a Paris has a brilliant explanation is today's European Tribune. He writes, for example, that "the financial world cannot behave responsibly, if left to its own devices and thus should not be left to its own devices" and that "the main argument to give financial markets a free hand-- that they have created so much growth and prosperity-- needs to be called for what it is: a lie."

We contacted someone who has been talking with us about this mess for years and advocating real reform, Larry Kissell, the Democratic opponent to Republican rubber stamp Robin Hayes. There's no telling if Hayes will vote with Bush as he normally does, or go along with Gingrich's siren call that he'll have a chance to win re-election by breaking with Bush. In the past when Hayes wanted to break with the GOP leadership-- like when CAFTA was threatening thousands of jobs in North Carolina-- the Republican leadership yelled at him, made him weep and he always went along with them. With Bush's approval rating hovering below 20%, even Hayes may have the courage to oppose him on something. But that doesn't matter one way or the other to Larry. Here's what he told us this morning:

"I have been saying for nearly 3 years now that my district was the canary in the coal mine. We have seen the devastation of the failed Bush policies firsthand for years now that have just hit Wall Street and Middle America. Had my opponent and the Bush Administration taken notice when record numbers of people were losing their jobs, when homes were going into foreclosure, and small businesses were facing the credit crunch we wouldn't be here today debating a bailout for Wall Street and trying to avoid not just a recession but another Great Depression. The time for politics has passed and we must have leadership."

This is entirely consistent with what Larry was saying about the bailout on Friday: "Republicans and Democrats alike-- including my opponent, Robin Hayes-- helped create this crisis by voting for the massive deregulation contained in the 1999 Financial Services Act. I call on Congressman Hayes to urge his fellow Republicans to come back to the table and stay there until a solution is negotiated.  American taxpayers are about to be put on the hook for a bailout of upwards of three-quarters of a trillion dollars. The least politicians in Washington can do is to set aside their partisan differences for a day or two and work together to make sure that money is spent responsibly. If I were in Washington today I'd agree to sit down with anyone, at anytime to get a solution. NC can't afford anymore economic devastation. After years of job losses, plant closings and rising gas prices, we need all the relief we can get and we need it now."

As for McCain's role in all this... John Kerry summed it up best: "He said he was going to interrupt his campaign to come down and save the negotiations. Most people believe is that what he did was interrupt the negotiations to come down and save his campaign." Watch:

Nice Debate Guys-- Now Back To Palin, The Real Issue

The Republican vice presidential candidate is the real issue? Absolutely, though only tangentially. She is more widely viewed as incapable of being president every time she pops her head up and utters something banal or even bizarre. And as all the craziness leaks out about her strange personal life... well, voters are starting to wonder about John McCain's judgment. And that's the issue-- his judgment, his cynicism, his patriotism, his willing to do anything he thinks will catapult him into the Oval Office, even saddle the country with someone that he knows as well as the rest of us, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House unless it's on the other side of a velvet rope... with a security guard watching closely.

And it isn't only Democrats and independents who have taken note. Yesterday we mentioned that a columnist for the Republican Party magazine National Review had asked Palin to resign from the ticket for the good of the country. That was followed by troubling stories in the Politico and NY Times. Politico: "A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven-- and sometimes downright awkward-- performances in her limited media appearances. 

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.” 

“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know shit,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.” 

The Times was similar: "The drip, drip, drip of bad reviews keeps falling this week against Gov. Sarah Palin, whose two-day segments of interviews with CBS’ Katie Couric have weakened conservatives’ initial embrace of and enthusiasm for the vice-presidential nominee. As if Senator John McCain already hadn’t faced a rough week, which started with conservative columnist George Will bemoaning the Republican candidate’s positions on the economic bailout and suggesting Mr. McCain may be unfit to be president."

In a column on Thursday, conservative Rich Lowry compared Senator McCain to the “proverbial cartoon character over the edge of the cliff, in midair, desperately flapping his arms and somehow maintaining altitude.” Mr. McCain, he continues, has been “making moves that mark him as different, but can be seen as risky or gimmicky.” One of those moves, according to Mr. Lowry, was adding Governor Palin to the Republican ticket:

Does Palin know enough to be a national candidate right now? No, but she can be mostly walled off from the press. Will attacking Obama on Fannie and Freddie open McCain to attack because one of his top aides lobbied for the organizations? Yes, but he can bulldog through it. Is going to Washington going to help much of anything? Probably not, but the symbolism matters. All the unconventional moves risk eroding McCain’s reputation as a steady hand, but the alternative is simply being overwhelmed by the gravitational pull of the public’s desire for change.

And at the American Spectator, Philip Klein twice reviewed Governor Palin’s interviews this week. At first, he said: “Her answer that not supporting a bailout could mean a Great Depression was off message and irresponsible. For the rest of the interview, it was just lots of tired cliches, and random jargon that made it seem as if she was reading off of mental index cards. I know a lot of conservatives like Sarah Palin and always rush to her defense. But it’s absolutely not meant as an insult to say that she simply is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

If you visualize Mooselini as president and then go out and vote for her and McCain, who in the end views himself as a low ranking monkey compared to the clearly superior Obama, you and your children deserve what comes next: