Slicing the pie

I've been obsessed with the McCain's campaign to slice-and-dice the American people into good groups characterized as "pro-American" and bad groups characterized as "anti-American." "Real Virginia," "pro-American parts of the country," etc. Meanwhile Obama has a unifying vision, which generally does better in Presidential elections.

The slice-and-dice view of the country has been out there for a long time. It's sometimes called the "paranoid style" of American politics. This view see conspiracies everywhere. It has often been directed to Jews, but now it's characterized by Islamophobia. Are Muslims the new Jews?

George W. Bush's November 6, 2001 address to a joint session of Congress rekindled this spirit and set the Republican Party on a self-destructive path when disagreement over Iraq or other issues is tantamount to treason. Actually, not tantamount to treason, but actual treason. In Bush's 2001 speech, he declared: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)"

At the time, I assumed that he meant that other countries had to decide whether they were with us or against us. The Republican Party and the right wing applied it to the United States as well. To them, Americans, too, are either for or against "us."

Now the Democrats look like they're on the verge of controlling Congress and the White House. The hysteria we see is the wingnut freak out that a black socialist terrorist Muslim liberal elitist, all of which are disqualifications for being one of "us," may actually become President. According to the logic of the "with us or against us" crowd, the President will be against us.

What the hell do these folks do if Obama wins?

Debate thoughts before going to bed

1. McCain tried to capture his magic of 2000. Didn't happen. His jokes were received with crickets.

2. At all campaign stops near nuclear power plans, and maybe at every campaign stop, Obama and Biden should bring up this quote from McCain: "Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that." Ummm, yeah.

McCain doesn't just want to de-regulate the nuclear energy industry, he wants nuclear plants to be unsafe? It's unclear whether Obama didn't catch it or didn't want to raise it during the debate and give McCain an opportunity to clarify his remarks. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are 9 in Pennsylvania, 5 in Florida, 5 in North Carolina, 4 plants in Virginia, 3 in Michigan, 3 in Wisconsin, and 2 in Ohio.

3. "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!" McCain walked into that one. Obama used it at the first debate, so I don't know what McCain thought he was doing focusing on judgment. McCain's response: weak references to his military experience, "I was joking with an old veteran friend who joked with me about Iran." Really, here's the joke. Doesn't sound like a casual conversation with an old veteran friend:



4. I also don't understand questioning Obama's Pakistan position. I think it's pretty clear that we will kill terrorists, let alone bin Laden wherever they are, period. By uttering the words "We will kill bin Laden" helps Obama. Do even Republicans understand McCain's position?

5. Speaking of Pakistan, I have noticed that Obama pronounces Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran correctly. "Nuclear," too. And yet he's winning? (Update: tip jar!)

6. McCain's closing remarks weren't explicit, but he was making an appeal based on his experience as a POW. According to CNN's "Uncommitted Ohio Voters," there was no reaction. Either they didn't understand that he was referring to his POW years or they just didn't care.

Move along, there's nothing to see here

I recently saw this Moveon.org ad on TV:



This is the worst ad I've seen in this election cycle. It looks like a teenager put it together on a MacAir over the weekend.

I suppose the the message is that McCain has something to do with some people who had something to do with the financial crisis and supports Bush's $700 billion bailout. To emphasize the point, the figure of $700 billion moves across the screen, Atari 2600-style, across the screen. To emphasize the point even more, the $700 billion figure turns red. Is this a sign of danger? A statement that it's more red ink? A higher level statement that it's red ink borrowed from Red China.

How exactly does this ad help to defeat McCain? Obama is more likely to support the bailout than McCain. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain goes populist by opposing the bailout in order to stir up the race--my least favorite phrase of 2008, "game-changer."

Also, the ad has so...many...words...can't...pay...attention. Jeez! These liberals are too damn cerebral. Can't they just play to the reptile mind of the undecided American voter? Fight or flight, fear and loathing, right and wrong.

The Republicans knew how to tear down Kerry with those Swift Boat ads. They didn't just make Kerry look bad, they destroyed his credibility and the basis for his candidacy. McCain's support of the war and other things he's said and done in public life have more than enough material to bring him down without resorting to the lies of the Swift Boaters. This ad just doesn't do anything to defeat McCain. It was a waste of money.

The Obama people were correct to try to dissuade Democratic donors from supporting outside organization like Moveon. This Politico article puts forth several arguments why the Obama campaign steered Democratic donors away from outside groups: Legal defense against charges of illegal coordination, their ties to the Clintons, a power grab, to ensure his brand of "new politics," and "message discipline." This Moveon ad shows the virtues of message discipline.

Update: So the bailout plan failed today. Since a majority of the Democrats in the House voted for it, I don't understand why Moveon would attack the measure and McCain's apparent support of it. Maybe I missed it, but I still don't know where Obama was on this bill. Since Pelosi indicated in the big White House meeting that Obama would speak for the Democrats, it is presumable that they wouldn't have reached a deal with the White House and congressional Republicans unless they cleared it with Obama. The McCain campaign apparently took credit for the deal before it failed. Oops.

Why Hillary Lost

Major media outlets are running "why Hillary lost" pieces every day, sometimes several per day. She didn't run in caucuses. She didn't take Obama seriously. She didn't have a single message. Sniper fire in Bosnia. Bill losing his marbles. Racial divisions. Blah blah blah. The media has been consumed by the horse race by months, so that's where the media looks.

The real answer is Iraq. If Hillary Clinton had voted against the war, she would be the nominee. She did not vote for it because she believed in it. It was part of her campaign to suck up to the militarists. If she had been the "I told you so" candidate, Obama's campaign wouldn't have had so much oxygen. John Edwards also voted for the way, but he had the decency to admit error. Clinton tried to defend her vote until it was too late.

Patsies

If a Democratic political appointee in the Defense Department had shut down a counterintelligence inquiry involving the Secretary of Defense and leading to the Office of the Vice President, impeachment proceedings would begin and it would be BREAKING NEWS all damn week.

But since it's a Republican administration, barely a peep.

This is just alarming. In the neocons' zeal to wage war against Iraq, they were duped by the Iranians. I thought the Iranians lucked into it, but they have their act together.

Pentagon Propaganda

A number of media commentators have noticed the deafening silence of the major broadcasters in response to the New York Times article concerning their use of military experts or correspondents who were tied to Rumsfeld's Pentagon. In some cases, these former military officers were literally repeating the Pentagon talking points. CNN, you should be ashamed of yourself!

I had a suspicion that many of them could not be totally candid for fear of alienating their peers, but it appears that there was a monetary incentive as well. Many of them had business with the Pentagon. There's little doubt that, given its track record, this Administration would have retaliated against them and their business interests if they didn't toe the party line about Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald here and here runs through the facts in great detail and links to a very strong legal analysis. This legal analysis, by prwatch.org, hints, but does not explicitly state, that there are really no consequences for an illegal propaganda program. There is no criminal or civil penalty. The restriction is an appropriation restriction, meaning the agency didn't have money for this purpose. At best, a report to the President identifying the Federal employees responsible will be sent. It's hard to see Bush doing anything against the employees.

In order to strengthen the law, I suggest that individuals who knowingly participate in illegal covert propaganda be "debarred" by the Federal government, meaning making them ineligible to receive government contracts, grants, and other Federal money. Since the generals in this case, and the PR flacks in previous cases under the Bush Administration were actively seeking government contracts, debarment may be an adequate deterrent.