John McCain: "Be Respectful"

You can disagree with a person, but you can still acknowledge that person as a human being and treat that person with courtesy and respect. John McCain showed us how it's done today.

Think back to his campaign, and when his audience would boo or shout when then-Senator Obama's name came up. Senator McCain would chastize his audience and insist on Obama's decency.

Today, Senator McCain held a town hall for seniors in Sun City, Arizona. When an attendee claimed that President Obama's health care plan is "against the Constitution," and asked "Doesn't he know that we live under the Constitution?'' McCain negated that statement and asked that people treat the President with respect. His audience responded by booing him. McCain certainly differs with Obama on most issues, but he won't cave to the audience and cater to its paranoias and conspiracy theories.

Further, when it appeared that a woman was trying to introduce a spot of "Birtherism" into the town hall by stating, out of the blue, that "we" should stand behind Representative Franks, he ignored her comment (as did the entire audience). Granted, the woman did not clarify why people should stand up for Representative Franks, but he's been in the news lately, and roundly mocked, for initially supporting, then backing away from, a Birther lawsuit. Today he signed onto the "Birther bill."

Anyway, it's great to see Senator McCain resisting the recent trend of demonization.

And the bit about health care reform being "against the Constitution"? Thanks go to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for that one. It's a faulty claim, but it's the current one.

Iran: "Ahmadinejad's useful idiots"

Salon offers a compelling interview with Hooman Majd, an Iranian-American whose father was an Iranian diplomat and whose grandfather was an ayatollah.

Last year sawe the publication of Majd's study of contemporary Iran, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran. The book examines Iran as,

a country that is fiercely proud of its Persian heritage, mystified by its outsider status, and scornful of the idea that the United States can dictate how it should interact with the community of nations. [. . . .] a country that is deeply religious yet highly cosmopolitan, authoritarian yet with democratic and reformist traditions—an Iran that is a more nuanced nemesis to the United States than it is typically portrayed to be.

It has been well reviewed. But it looks as though Majd's audience doesn't include some important US players. In Majd's view, folks like John McCain, Mike Pence, and Lindsey Graham might find it helpful to study up a bit more on Iran prior to vocalizing support for the anti-Ahmadinejad movement. Salon's Jeanne Carstensen posed a question to Mojd about such actions:

Would you say that the neoconservatives’ extremely vocal calls to intervene on behalf of Mousavi are playing into the hands of the most conservative forces in Iran?

The neocons know nothing about Iran, nothing about the culture of Iran. They have no interest in understanding Iran, in speaking to any Iranian other than Iranian exiles who support the idea of invasions — I’ll call them Iranian Chalabis. It’s offensive, even to an Iranian American like me. These are people who would have actually preferred to have Ahmadinejad as president so they could continue to demonize him and were worried, as some wrote in Op-Eds, that Mousavi would be a distraction and would make it easier for Iranians to build a nuclear weapon and now all of a sudden they want to be on his side? Go away.

I’m not saying Obama is the most knowledgeable person on Iran, but he’s obviously getting good advice right now. He understands way more about the culture of the Middle East than any of the neocons. For them to be lecturing President Obama is a joke. I have criticized Obama; for instance, I criticized him for having a patronizing tone in his Persian New Year message. But right now I think he’s doing a good job. The John McCains of the world, they’re Ahmadinejad’s useful idiots. They’re doing a great job for him.

This is something we've heard, continually, from Iran and from Iranians. How these Americans think they're actually serving the protesters puzzles me. Surely they knew, based on the USA's history with Iran, that the moment they opened their mouths the conservative ayatollahs would use them to discredit the opposition movement, to demonize its leaders, and to punish the protesters as traitors. And no, saying "well, they would have blamed America anyway" is no excuse. What McCain, Pence, Graham, et. al. have done is provided the hardliners with support for their false claims of US involvement.

Pretty Classy, No?

The evening before Barack Obama's inauguration, he chose to spend his time celebrating his rival for the presidency. That's right--not making secret deals with Jihadists, not phoning Chavez or Ahmadinejad. Nor was he frantically trying to hide his Indonesian/Kenyan/Pakistani/Venusian passport. Instead, the President-Elect spent his evening hugging John McCain, addressing him as"an American hero," and saying ""John is not known to bite his tongue and if I'm screwing up, he's going to let me know. And that's how it should be" (Reuters).

Dixville Notch Goes for Obama

It's a tradition that the New Hampshire village of Dixville Notch holds its elections (primary and general) at midnight of the polling day.

In 2008, it broke for a Democratic candidate for the first time since 1968: Obama 15, McCain 6.

McCain & Obama: Their Positions, Side-by-Side

The Detroit Free Press has a handy-dandy voter's guide: a chart comparing where McCain and Obama stand on key issues. Check it out if you're still unclear about policy differences (for example, tax cuts and clean coal).

Plumbing the Depths

I’ve not really commented on the "Joe the Plumber" newsiness because a) he had every right to question Obama, b) McCain had every right to draw on “Joe” and Obama’s meeting, and c) the media had no right to expose “Joe’s” private information on such a wide scale.
However.
“Joe the Plumber” (Samuel. J. Wurzelbacher) has embraced his status as public citizen. He's appeared regularly on television to expound on his political views, which means, unfortunately, that he’s gone from symbolizing the plight of blue-collar Americans to symbolizing the “Obama is anti-Semitic and un-American” paranoia that’s out there (with a dash of racism thrown in).

First of all, in a telephone interview with CBS News he said that Obama "‘tap dance[d] ... almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr.’ in their conversation.” (qtd. in Weiner). Rather a loaded comparison, but okay. Maybe it was a "whoops!"

Secondly, when he endorsed Senator McCain, he eagerly agreed to a bystander’s assertion that an Obama presidency would result in the death of Israel. The next day, Wurzelbacher appeared on Fox News with Shepard Smith, and:

[f]or five painful live-on-Fox minutes [. . .] Mr. Smith repeatedly asked Mr. Wurzelbacher what evidence he had to back up that charge. Mr. Wurzelbacher refused to answer. He said it was up to Mr. Smith’s viewers to figure out why he, Joe the Plumber, thought Mr. Obama was a menace to Israel.

Looking incredulous, Mr. Smith gave up. He read a statement from the McCain campaign praising the plumber’s “penetrating and clear analysis.”

Then Mr. Smith said: “I just want to make this 100 percent perfectly clear. Barack Obama has said repeatedly and demonstrated repeatedly that Israel will always be a friend of the United States no matter what happens once he becomes president of the United States. His words.”

“The rest of it,” he said, “man, it just gets frightening sometimes.” (qtd. in NYT).

Finally, Mr. Wurzelbacher has returned to the “Obama is a traitor” meme so recently exploited by Governor Palin (and some excited crowds). He claimed on Fox News today that “people shouldn't vote for Obama because he doubts Obama's ‘loyalty to America’ (see video at TPM):

"McCain has fought and bled for our country, loves our country," said Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," who has campaigned throughout Ohio with and on behalf of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "There's too many questions with Barack Obama and his loyalty to our country. And I question that greatly."

Fox News' Neil Cavuto tried to clarify: "You're not doubting that he's a good American. Or you are?"

"His ideology is completely different from what democracy stands for," said Wurzelbacher (qtd. in Tapper).

So much for “penetrating and clear analysis”by Senator McCain's "role model."

Just a few weeks ago Senator McCain was negating this kind of rhetoric when espoused by supporters in his town halls (a rhetoric that probably contributed to his decision to discontinue the town hall format). It’s unfortunate that McCain’s representative for “the everyman,” someone who, as Josh Marshall asserts, is now a “McCain campaign surrogate,” has chosen to revisit this line of character assassination to present Barack Obama as a "traitor."

He's Going "Double Maverick"

Senator McCain's turn on Saturday Night Live was hysterical. The man's gift for comedy--his timing--is substantial. Watch these:
McCain and Palin (Fey) on QVC (McCain fine gold! awesome)
McCain considers going "double maverick" on Weekend Update

(aside: did audience members really have to "boo"McCain? Sure, it was only a few people, but still...good grief).

The SNL appearance turns out to have been timely. Earlier in the day Vice President Cheney endorsed Senator McCain; considering the Vice President's approval ratings, his support can hardly be a boon for Senator McCain. Does the Arizona Senator really want people to be reminded of his popularity with the Bush administration? Hardly.

Sure enough, Mr. Cheney's endorsement has already made its way into an Obama campaign ad.

Christian Science Monitor headline: "Obama's Got Powell, but McCain has Cheney." Kind of says it all, no?

Questionable Endorsements? You Don't Say....

Forget the Bradley Effect. This is disconcerting (or just plain old strange).

What do Tom Metzger (of White Aryan Resistance), Erich Gliebe (of National Alliance), and Rocky Suhayda (of the American Nazi Party) have in common?

They’re all “supporting” Senator Obama.

And "General" Yahanna (of the Israelite School Of Universal Practical Knowledge, who happens to be a Black supremacist)?

He’s "supporting" Senator McCain.

Can this election cycle get any stranger?

Do read “Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama,” by David Peisner of Esquire, here.

Is Palin Being Scapegoated?

This is what Roger Simon wonders in a piece at Politico. There's no doubt that, should Senator McCain lose Tuesday's vote, the shouts of Palin-blame will intensify. Moreover, whether the McCain-Palin ticket wins or not, it's quite likely that the McCain aids' public scorn will play directly into the larger struggle between moderates and Social Conservatives for party control--especially as the Governor will maintain a major presence within the GOP from here on out. So we're going to hear about this "diva"/"whackjob"/ "goin' rogue" nonsense for a while yet, and it could well backfire on McCain's people (and their political futures) in the long run.

Aside: If you haven't yet read Ross Douthat's piece, "Rush Limbaugh Explains It All," you should. Douthat takes on Limbaugh's argument that "moderate republicanism had its chance this year, and it failed."

Say It Isn't So. . . .

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings suggests, quite rightly (and a bit cheekily), that Senator McCain's economic plans amount to a redistribution of wealth. Read "Socialism is Everywhere" here.

Aside: To be fair, on Larry King Live, Senator McCain said he doesn't believe Senator Obama is a socialist.

Senator McCain's Ties to Rashid Khalidi?

The blogosphere is abuzz about a "new" link between Obama and radicalism, one that the L A Times wrote of earlier this year.

The McCain campaign has directed some of its energies at “uncovering” the relationship between Senator Obama and a professor at Columbia University, Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi is “a Palestinian scholar and activist” (L A Times). While it would be prudent to look into this relationship a bit further, perhaps it would also be prudent (more on this later today), as The Huffington Post wonders, if Senator McCain’s links to Khalidi--or his work-- came under investigation as well:

During the 1990s, while [John McCain] served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

If Khalidi is radical, and if his work is radical, why did the International Republican Institute fund it for five years--beginning when Senator McCain joined the group in 1993?

Forgive me if I look askance at the new line of attack. After all of the questionable allegations that have been tossed about this election cycle--from the "Whitey" tape, to the birth certificate, to the "Muslim" claims, the Sinclair claims, etc.--I'm a bit skeptical.

Anyway, more later.

It’s later; here are a few updates.

From ABC’s Jake Tapper:

The IRI has now issued a statement, confirming that it gave money to Khalidi's group (though IRI officials are going through their records trying to determine how much, exactly) and also trying to distance the organization from Khalidi himself.

The IRI’s statement, by the way, notes that:

“Other organizations that reportedly gave funding to CPRS include the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for International Private Enterprise, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Japanese Embassy, and Germany’s Friedrich Naumann Stiftung. IRI’s relationship with CPRS ended in 2000, and we understand that it no longer exists.”

In acknowledging other respected organizations' contributions to the CPRS, isn't the IRI effectively legitimizing Khalidi's group?

On tonight’s episode of Larry King Live, Senator McCain said the reason the L A Times should release the tape is because William Ayers might have been at the Khalidi event (there's no actual guest list from the event) :

Of course we have run ads that point out his record and also point out his associations. And I still think, you know, we're watching now, a major newspaper has a tape that apparently has Mr. William Ayers in it. I don't know if it does or not. That's the allegation. But that newspaper and their parent, the Tribune Company, and the Obama campaign refuse to release that. Shouldn't the American people know about that? At least they should have full information.(qtd. in Tapper)

But if the focus is on Ayers, what might the tape prove? Is this a fishing trip? Is the McCain camp have some idea of what might be on the tape, or is it merely hoping for something incriminatory? What if the LA Times discloses the tape and we see. . .nothing?

Personally, I would like to see the LA Times release the tape. Although their claims to maintaining a promise to the anonymous source of the tape is both admirable and justifiable (see this from Fox News' Bill Sammon), keeping it hidden could be more trouble than it’s worth.

On Feuding Within the McCain Campaign

The feuding within the McCain-Palin campaign grow ever more public and disturbing.

Senator McCain has negated any conflicts within the campaign, but McCain advisors, speaking anonymously, continue to strike at Governor Palin as a "diva,"a "whackjob," and someone incredibly difficult "get up to speed" about current issues. Again, these comments aren't emerging from moonbat libs, but from McCain aides.

Governor Palin's supporters aren't taking this sitting down. They feel that she's been "mishandled" by the McCain camp, and they're giving as good as they're getting. . . and she's "going rogue."

Should the ticket win, how would this infighting impact Senator McCain's ability to govern effectively? Not only would he be forced to deal with (what looks to be) a Democratic majority in Congress and Senate, but he'd have to work with a resentful Vice Presidential camp that, it's claimed, began setting its figurehead up for a 2012 presidential run before election day 2008.

Added: Robert Draper, the reporter behind the New York Times Magazine's article, "The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of John McCain," offers fresh insight into the campaign's tensions at his GQ blog.

Wait! There's more. From Jake Tapper at ABC News’ Political Punch: "Ooooooh--Barracuda!"

You have to feel badly for Senator McCain. It's getting beyond tense.

Recommended Read: On McCain & Media Bias

For "Why McCain is Getting Hosed in the Press" at Politico, go here.

Added: Readers' responses to the story. Pretty impassioned.

Rumor Central: The Courts & Redistribution of Wealth

This morning (10/27), The Drudge Report features the headline: “2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT.”

The story refers to a 2001 interview on a radio show, Odyssey on WBEZ, in which Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But," [. . .] "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that." (qtd. in Tapper)

Naturally, Senator Obama’s political opposition has seized on this interview to confirm what they’ve accused him of: his “socialism.” Unfortunately, the entirety of the interview—its context—clarifies that the Senator was discussing the Civil Rights movement’s focus on legislating change—relying on the courts rather than on community action—effecting change from within, if you will.

As Andrew Sullivan writes,

So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.

Interesting, no? A statement from the Obama campaign provides further clarification:

In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality" [. . . .] In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama’s point – and what he called a tragedy – was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.

As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up – not from the corridors of Washington," Burton says. (Burton qtd. in Tapper).

That is the conservative position, isn’t it? Activist judges and all? However, the media is focusing on the interview for this one phrase, “the issues of redistribution of wealth.” An explication of the rest of Obama's comments might prove useful, and chances are that FactCheck and Politifact will jump on this one shortly.

More detailed arguments found at an always fascinating site, The Volokh Conspiracy. There you can find a detailed examination of the Obama radio interview, followed by some intriguing comments. The consensus seems to be that Drudge's headline and the subsequent cries that the interview "proves" that Obama wishes to give hard working people's money to others is little more than "political theater." And this from a site that tends towards Libertarian/Conservative
perspectives.

Update: The analysts have chimed in, and there’s a consensus: the charges of "Socialism" are inaccurate at best.

AP Fact Check: “McCain Misreads 2001 Obama Interview”

The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker: "Obama's 'Redistribution' Bombshell"

Politifact discusses the McCain campaign’s claims of socialism, and note the following:

Progressive taxes do indeed spread the wealth a bit. But they do so much more modestly than government owning the means of production.

Few serious policy makers — including McCain — consider progressive taxation socialist. In fact, on the Oct. 26, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain stood by a comment he made in 2000 that "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more" in taxes when you "reach a certain level of comfort."

"You put into different, different categories of wealthier people paying, paying higher taxes into different brackets," McCain told host Tom Brokaw, as if to say progressive taxes are a no-brainer.

Indeed, progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a "duty of three per centum" on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000.

Two days ago John McCain agreed with his 2000 statement that "there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more" in taxes when you "reach a certain level of comfort." But when his Democratic opposition suggests the equivalent, it’s the Democrat who is socialist? (Aside: worth a read: “Since When Is McCain Against the Redistribution of Wealth?” by Jacob Sullum at Reason).

Annenberg’s FactCheck.org hasn’t commented on the radio interview (yet), but it does feature analysis of recent McCain-Palin ads that are off the mark. One radio aid “recycle[s] old, debunked claims about Obama’s tax plan.” Another, released by the McCain-Palin campaign and the RNC, claims that Obama rewards his pals by handing our taxes over to them. The ad, titled "Unethical," contains some misleading statements and some outright fibs. If you're interested, take a look.

You've Got to Be Kidding

John McCain campaigned in Waterloo, Iowa today.

(What the heck is he doing in Iowa anyway?)

Rumor Central: Obama's Inaugural Address

Granted, Senator McCain is trying to inject a little humor into his stump speeches. In doing so, he's employing a new weapon against Senator Obama: he's claiming that Obama's arrogance is so unbounding that he's already written his speech for 20 January:

"We just learned from a newspaper today that Sen. Obama's inaugural address is already written," McCain declared, as a crowd of about 1,200 responded with jeers. "I'm not making it up.

"My friends, when I pull this off, I have a request for my opponent," McCain continued, a broad grin etched on his face. "I want him to save that manuscript of his inaugural address and donate it to the Smithsonian. And they can put it right next to the Chicago paper that says 'Dewey defeats Truman.' " (L A Times)

The paper the Senator refers to is the New York Times. The article, written by Peter Baker and Jackie Calmes, discussed the Obama camp's transition plans (not a presumptuous move --presidential candidates typically make such plans prior to election day). John Podesta, former chief of staff for Bill Clinton, leads Obama's transition team, and, according to the article,

Mr. Podesta has been mapping out the transition so systematically that he has already written a draft Inaugural Address for Mr. Obama, which he published this summer in a book called “The Power of Progress.” The speech calls for rebuilding a “grand alliance” with the rest of the world, bringing troops home from Iraq, recommitting to the war in Afghanistan, cutting poverty in half in 10 years and reducing greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050. (New York Times)

In his eagerness to poke fun at his opponent, Senator McCain failed to note the article's detail that Podesta published the "draft" in a book. Podesta claims that the "draft,"

was a literary device used to close his book about “the history and successes of progressive politics in the 20th century.”

Podesta says he wrote the speech in March, when he was working for Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nomination, and it wasn't clear who the party's candidate would be.

Obama's campaign says Podesta wrote the speech on his own, unsolicited, for his book, and not for Obama. (ABC)

Granted, it is a funny little poke. But it seems rather reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's bringing up a theme Obama wrote in Kindergarten top "prove" the senator's ambition: that was supposed to be a joke too. It didn't play out that way.

Seriously--the McCain campaign's resemblance to the Clinton campaign seems to be growing stronger each day.

On Confidence and Gargoyles

Yes, I've already posted this photo once, but I had to do it against as Mayor of London Boris Johnson has provided a notable caption for it.

The defining image of the battle so far is of the two candidates leaving the stage after the last TV debate - Obama moving confidently off, after another grave and measured performance, and McCain gagging like a gargoyle, tongue out, as he realised he was about to walk over the edge. (Johnson, 10/21/08)

David Frum: "Save the Senators"

David Frum's dissatisfaction with the McCain-Palin campaign has been well noted in conservative, liberal, and neutral media alike. In his latest column, "Sorry, Senator. Let's Salvage What We Can,"Frum argues that, because NRCC and RNC fundraising has been lacking, and the discrepancy between Republican and Democratic warchests is impossibly vast, the RNC should lessen its contribution to the presidential contest and focus, instead, on senatorial races:

In these last days before the vote, Republicans need to face some strategic realities. Our resources are limited, and our message is failing. We cannot fight on all fronts. We are cannibalizing races that we must win and probably can win in order to help a national campaign that is almost certainly lost. In these final 10 days, our goal should be: senators first.

There's been similar mumbling amongst Republican commentators for a week or two now, but I'm unsure if anyone has been so direct in their assessment of, and recommendations for, the remaining days of the election. My guess? The RNC won't--can't--heed Frum's advice. To do so would be to "wave the white flag of surrender."

McCain Attacks GOP; GOP Attacks McCain

In this morning's Washington Times, Senator McCain gave an interview to intensify the distance between himself and President Bush. Unfortunately, he painted the Bush years as a disaster in which all Republican politicians were complicit.

Sen. John McCain on Wednesday 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.

"We just let things get completely out of hand," he said of his own party's rule in the past eight years.

[. . . .]

The Republican also targeted his own party, saying they got drunk with power and lacked the resolve of President Reagan.

"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." (WA Times)

The problem here is that Senator McCain supported President Bush's policies. It's become a cliche, but, according to records, he did vote with the President the vast majority of the time:

According to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly, McCain has voted for bills favored by President Bush 90 percent of the time. The nonpartisan publication, which has analyzed voting by members of Congress since 1953, said the report took into account all legislation that Bush had taken a clear position on. It spans from the beginning of Bush's term to Congress's recess in August [2008]. (CNN)

And then there's Senator McCain's proud announcement of his history of supporting the president with his votes. Did he really vote for projects hoping that President Bush would veto them?

As you might expect, the GOP aren't going to let McCain's statements slip by. Case in point: this Politico exclusive came in response:

The Republican establishment is beginning to express long-suppressed exasperation with the McCain pirate ship. In an early-morning phone call to Playbook, one of the most senior Republican strategists in the land warns the McCain campaign after reading the WashTimes interview: “Lashing out at past Republican Congresses instead of Pelosi and Reid, and echoing your opponent's attacks on you instead of attacking your opponent, and spending 150,000 hard dollars on designer clothes when congressional Republicans are struggling for money, and when your senior campaign staff are blaming each other for the loss in The New York Times [Magazine] 10 days before the election, you’re not doing much to energize your supporters. The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish. I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign in 1996 and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in Electoral College states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races. I think you’ll find these sentiments shared by MANY of my fellow Republican strategists.”

Ouch.
If Senator McCain does win, will he be able to unite his own party (much less the nation)?

Who Really Gets the Jihadist Endorsement ?

News has broken that messages celebrating the USA's economic worries have appeared on a Jihadist website. Said website also features posts that endorse Senator John McCain's candidacy:

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush. [. . . .] In language that was by turns mocking and ominous, the newest posting credited al-Qaeda with having lured Washington into a trap that had "exhausted its resources and bankrupted its economy." It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world. "It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda" (Washington Post)

So is there a terrorist plan in the works? First, we need to be clear that the people posting on the Jihadist website aren't plotting something--they're just speculating. ABC news reinforces this point in noting that "experts" have been all over the website. Moreover, there's been a "lack of chatter" elsewhere about the presidential elections (AP). It looks like someone is simply trying to stir up Americans' fear and anxiety.

As far as al-Qaeda wanting John McCainelected--recall al-Qaeda's previous attempt to influence US elections. Bin Laden issued a tape "endorsing" John Kerry, which effectively ended Kerry's presidential hopes. One theory explaining bin Laden's motivation, as expressed in Ron Suskind's book about the War on Terror, The One Percent Doctrine, has become something akin to conventional wisdom:

According to the book, Osama bin Laden apparently wanted Bush reelected in 2004, and therefore issued a video message which, in the US media, was described as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” Why he wanted Bush in office remains unknown. In the book, unnamed CIA analysts speculate that this can be attributed to the view that the controversial policies Bush advocated would help recruit Jihadists and would cause the image of USA decline globally due to aggressive foreign policy. [Also see here].

So if al-Qaeda produces a new videotape, an "official" message, which expresses support for Obama, we'll understand why. However, as Jonathan Alter argues, such an event would be an opportunity for Obama to "seem muscular on national security."