John McCain » Undiplomatic

29 October 2008 Charles J. Brown
01:16 pm

Biden Was Right: Obama Will Face A Crisis (But So Will McCain)

It’s been over a week since Joe Biden said that world events would test Obama in his first six months in office:

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama. . . . The world is looking. . . . We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. . . . I guarantee you that it’s going to happen.

The McCain campaign has jumped all over this, running an ad with the tag line, “It doesn’t have to happen. Vote McCain.”

When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as a tempest in a teapot — Joe Biden running off his mouth and the McCain campaign using it to make yet another commercial. But then I began to think about it a little more, and I realized that not only is Joe Biden right, John McCain is delusional if he thinks that his election would prevent the world from testing him.

Over the past fifty years, every newly elected President — with one notable exception — has faced multiple major international incidents in his first year of office (defined as January 20 to the following January 19 for those elected to office, day of swearing in to one year later for Johnson and Ford). Using Wikipedia’s year by year historical calendars, I put together a short list:

John F. Kennedy (January 20, 1961 - January 19, 1962):

Civil war in the Congo
The Bay of Pigs incident
Soviet decision to build the Berlin Wall

Lyndon B. Johnson (November 22, 1963 to November 21, 1964):

Coup in South Vietnam
Gulf of Tonkin incident (and subsequent Congressional incident authorizing war)
China tests its first atomic bomb

Richard M. Nixon (January 20, 1969 to January 19, 1970):

Sino-Soviet border conflict
Secret bombing of Cambodia
Hamburger Hill (major battle in Vietnam)
The “Football War” between Honduras and El Salvador
My Lai massacre

Gerald R. Ford (August 9, 1974 to August 8, 1975):

Cyprus
Mayaguez incident
Fall of South Vietnam
State of Emergency in India

Jimmy Carter (January 20, 1977 to January 19, 1978):

No major crisis

Ronald Reagan (January 20, 1981 to January 19, 1982):

Israel’s attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities
Gulf of Sidra incident (U.S. and Lybian planes clash)
Assasination of Anwar Sadat,
Martial law in Poland

George H. W. Bush (January 20, 1989 to January 19, 1990):

Lockerbie/Pan Am 103 (technically, this happened before Bush was sworn in, but the determination of who was responsible took place during his watch)
Tiananmen Square massacre
Fall of Berlin Wall and collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe

Bill Clinton (January 20, 1993 to January 19, 1994):

Somalia
World Trade Center bombing
North Korea withdraws from the NPT,
Attack on Iraq in response to ttempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush by Iraqi agents
Yeltsin uses tanks on Russian Parliament

George W. Bush (January 20, 2001 to January 19, 2002):

U.S.-China dispute over American spy plane
9/11
War in Afghanistan

So it is not uncommon for new Presidents to be tested by world events. In fact, early crises are the rule, not the exception. The only President in the past fifty years not to face multiple crises in his first year was Jimmy Carter — and we all know how well he did with foreign policy.

For argument’s sake, let’s remove relatively minor crises like the Soccer War or self-inflicted ones like the Bay of Pigs. In fact, let’s limit the list to incidents that involve another country or terrorist group “testing” a new President. Here’s what we end up with:

Kennedy: Soviet Union (Berlin Wall)
Johnson: North Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Nixon: North Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Ford: Cambodia (Mayaguez incident)
Reagan: Libya (Gulf of Sidra incident)
Bush I: Libya (Lockerbie), China (post-Tiananmen sanctions)
Clinton: Somalian insurgents (Black Hawk down episode), terrorists (WTC bombing), Iraq (Bush assassination attempt)
Dubya: China (spy plane incident), al Qaeda (9/11), Afghanistan (the Taliban’s refusal to hand over bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members)

In other words, other than Carter, every President has been deliberately provoked by someone over the course of their first year in office. The notion that McCain somehow would be an exception to the rule defies the reality of the past half-century.

Or to put it another way, new Presidents don’t get tested because of their youth or inexperience — they get tested because they’re new. The key question isn’t whether there will be a crisis, but rather how the new President will respond.

Obama’s Closing Argument

Take time to watch Obama’s close. Yes, it’s thirty minutes, but it’s worth your time.

Huckabee Did It Better

One jokey Chuck Norris political commercial is hilarious.

Two jokey Chuck Norris political commercials is just painfully overdone.

You gotta give the NRA credit. They just locked up the 14-year-old World-of-Warcraft-playing Barrens chat trolls for John McCain.

Going to Camp

When Sarah “Whackjob” Palin was asked about reported divisions between John McCain and her, here’s what she had to say:

John McCain and I, and our camps, are working together to get John McCain elected.

And our camps? Aren’t you all in the same camp? I don’t think that even Joe “the Gaffer” Biden would be dumb enough to suggest that he and Obama were in different camps.

I used to work in a camp. It was fun. Maybe they can hire the Sarahnator to teach BB guns to 6th graders after her sad pathetic excuse of a campaign is over.

Morning Buzz: The Vet Who Didn’t Vet

Another fun independently-produced video:

It’s a cross between Schoolhouse Rock and JibJab.

Best. Campaign. Commercial. Ever.

If you haven’t seen it yet, a hilarious play off the old Budweiser “whazzup” commercial.

Best part: Cindy McCain’s fortune comes from an Anheuser-Busch dealership.

Morning Buzz: They’ll Need a Crane

In honor of the reported infighting between McCainiacs and Palinistas, one of my favorite They Might Be Giants songs:

They’ll need a crane, they’ll need a crane
To take the house he built for her apart
To make it break it’s gonna take a metal ball hung from a chain
They’ll need a crane, they’ll need a crane
To pick the broken ruins up again
To mend her heart, to help him start to see a world apart from pain

Worst. Pep. Talk. Ever.

Steve Schmidt, trying to rally the McCain troops in Crystal City:

Being part of an effort that fails does not make you a loser; it makes you a competitor. . . .What makes you a loser is curling up into the fetal position at a time of adversity. The only thing that would ever define anyone as a loser is to quit before it is over.

I think he was trying to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt’s famous dictum that if someone fails, “at least he fails while daring greatly.” Somehow, I don’t think he pulled it off.

Ashley Todd

Back when I was at Amnesty International USA, we had a case involving one of our volunteers who claimed that she had been attacked, both in another country and near her home. She was an outstanding activist, a known expert on the country in question, and highly regarded by both staff and other volunteers.

To this day, I’m not sure what actually happened, but as time went on, some pretty compelling evidence that she made up all or part of her story emerged. The New York Times covered the case, as did The New Yorker.

I first supported this activist, then later concluded that parts of her story were untrue. It was perhaps the most difficult thing I’ve ever had to deal with in my career, and I have no doubt that I could have handled it much better than I did. Her case nearly tore Amnesty apart, with some, particularly senior staff, not believing her story, and many, particularly among her fellow volunteers strongly defending her. In the process, both sides seemed to forget the poor woman in the middle, who increasingly became a symbol rather than someone needing our support and sympathy. To this day, I regret my role in that.

I thought of all this when I heard about Ashley Todd, the young woman in Pittsburgh who reportedly was attacked because of her support for John McCain. My first reaction was that one part of the case looked suspicious: the reverse “B” on her face didn’t make sense — it looked like what someone would have done had they been looking in a mirror while marking their own face.

Today, she reportedly has admitted that she made the whole thing up.

That Ashley Todd has stoked racial fears in this country is an outrage. That some in the media ran with the story without first confirming the facts is not only deeply disturbing, but an indictment of the “publish first, check later” mentality that has taken over the media (a tendency that I, too, have succumbed to on occasion).

But for a few folks on the left, criticism of Todd’s actions apparently is not enough. In particular, Firedoglake (whose work I usually respect), went so far as to publish Todd’s picture with the words “Epic Fail” superimposed.

To be clear, analysis of the impact of Todd’s actions (and hoax) on the Presidential race is fair game. Discussion of whether the media, particularly Drudge, moved too quickly to accept the story as true, also is within bounds. It’s even acceptable to ask whether McCain and Palin’s constant attempts to paint Obama as a friend of terrorists in some way encouraged the media to make assumptions.

But it’s going too far to suggest that the McCain campaign somehow was complicit in the act of one disturbed young woman, or to make fun of her because she got caught telling a lie. As wrong as Todd may have been to concoct a story, it is equally wrong to abuse her.

Those who have forgotten the sad, disturbed person behind the story should be as ashamed of their jeering as Todd should be of her decision to use race to get attention and perhaps change the direction of the campaign.

UPDATE: Turns out the McCain campaign was pushing the story. So fire away. It’s a sad commentary on the state of the campaign that Michelle Malkin is showing more restraint and common sense than Steve Schmidt and company. That said, I still think gloating over Todd herself is both unseemly and mean-spirited.

Hollywood McCain

The Landline wonders what John McCain’s ads would have looked like had certain Hollywood directors filmed them.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

I Can See Al-Qaeda from My House

I’ve been holding off commenting on this story until I could hear about the results of the conference call the McCain campaign held this morning in response to this Washington Post article:

[S]ome of [Al-Qaeda's] supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to [their goals]. “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. . .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,” said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. “Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America.”

In response, the McCain campaign got foreign policy spokesman Randy Scheunemann and raving right-wingnut ex-CIA director James Woolsey on a call with reporters and bloggers. Of course, the very fact they were holding a call probably indicates that there’s a problem. Dave Weigel reports on the results:

Schneuemann and Woolsey attacked the paper for selectiveness and unfairness, listing supportive things said by American enemies like Ghadaffi about Obama that the Post never covered. Plus, according to Woolsey, there’s no way a serious Al-Qaeda blogger could support McCain.

This individual knows that an endorsement by him is a kiss of death, figuratively. He is not trying to help John McCain.

The first question: If this was a bad faith comment meant to hurt McCain, how do we know comments from Ahmedinijad about Obama aren’t meant to hurt the Democrat? Woolsey:

Any major organization, itself, will not take the risk to depart from the party line.

Okay, let’s dissect this a bit. If you are to believe the Wingnut Twins, the the Post’s alleged failure to cover past favorable comments by Ghadaffi and Chavez somehow makes their coverage of Al-Qaeda’s commentary on McCain somehow illegitimate. This defies logic for several reasons.

To begin with, other outlets, including the Associate Press, reported the story as well.

Second, the Post, like every other media outlet, has reported on stories where the McCain campaign (and others) suggested that foreign leaders’ preference for Obama made him unfit for office. Post columnists like Charles Krauthammer have hammered this home again and again. And that doesn’t even touch on the mini-controversy caused by the fact that a Hamas spokesman at one point said he would favor Obama.

Third, the standard isn’t whether the Post covered it, but whether the McCain campaign itself thought similar stories were newsworthy. McCain and his surrogates have hammered Obama on both his “no preconditions” speech and the Hamas story, among others. The campaign and its stalking horses in the blogosphere have even brought up favorable comments by Obama’s supporters, trying to use his followers’ statement to link him to Chavez, the Castros, Ahmadinejad, and even Che Guevara. Only now, when the tables are turned, is this somehow off limits.

Fourth, what do you think whould have happened if the press reported that al Qaeda actually preferred Obama? Woolsey and Scheunemann would be frothing at the mouth, and Schmidt and company would have a new ad up saying Osama hearts Obama.

Fifth, John McCain has repeatedly criticized Obama for expressing a willingness to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty to “take out” Osama bin Laden. It is Obama, not McCain, who has promised to redirect resources currently used in Iraq to win the war in Afghanistan. It is Obama, not McCain who poses the greater threat to al Qaeda. So to suggest that this was designed to hurt McCain because he is the bigger threat is to ignore the facts.

Last but not least, the CIA, among others, has noted that Osama bin Laden’s 2004 video, released four days before the Presidential election, played a significant role in pushing a number of undecideds toward Bush — which was exactly the result bin Laden wanted. If, as Scheunemann and Woolsey would have you believe, al Qaeda fears McCain more than Obama, wouldn’t it make sense that they would avoid taking an action that would tilt the election toward McCain?

The McCain campaign can’t have it both ways. They can’t argue that other foreign nutjobs’ apparent support for Obama proves he is unworthy to be President and then claim that these nutjobs’ support for McCain proves that he is the bigger threat to terrorism. You also can’t suggest that al Qaeda’s support for you is fake and that Ahmedinejad, Chavez and others’ support for Obama is sincere.

Oh. Wait. It’s the McCain campaign.

Inconsistency and double standards are their preferred tools.

Never mind.

Beyond November: Elisa Massimino

The Connect U.S. Fund has launched a new two-year initiative to help shape debate during the upcoming Presidential transition. As part of this effort, they’ve asked leading thinkers and advocates to talk about what should be the top two or three foreign policy priorities for the next President. They’ve also kindly allowed us to cross-post the responses here.

Today, we’ll hear from Elisa Massimino. You can find the previous posts here. Thanks again to Heather Hamilton and Eric Schwartz for making the cross-postings happen.

Tonight, many Americans will tune in to watch Senator McCain and Senator Obama face off in the final presidential debate before the 2008 election. With just twenty days left in the campaign, the candidates are relentlessly focused on highlighting their differences. But the fury of this final round of sparring should not drown out the sound of a particular silence: there is no debate going on between the candidates about whether the United States should continue to allow the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Last month, in the first debate between the two parties’ nominees, Senator Obama and Senator McCain agreed that the United States must end the use of torture, which has stained our national honor and undermined the ability of the United States to lead.

Restoring our nation’s commitment to the rule of law must be a top priority for the next president of the United States. What the next president says will be important in this effort. In the early primary debates, both nominees condemned torture rather than extol the supposed heroism of 24’s fictional Jack Bauer or call for a doubling of the size of Guantánamo, as some of their opponents did. Hearing more from the two candidates tonight about the particulars of how they plan to restore the rule of law would be instructive. But, because of the way the current administration has sought to distort, obscure and evade the clear language of the law, words alone — from the candidates now or from the new president in January — will not be enough. After all, President Bush has repeatedly asserted that “we do not torture,” meanwhile privately authorizing conduct like waterboarding that our own military has long considered to be war crimes. It will be the actions of the next administration that will either confirm Vice President Cheney’s assertion of a “new normal,” or will prove him wrong.

The next president should prioritize a return to the rule of law in two key areas: enforcing the prohibitions on torture and other cruelty; and abandoning the failed experiment at Guantánamo in favor of the proven effectiveness of our federal criminal justice system. Taking these steps will go a long way toward restoring the essential moral authority of the United States as a leader for human rights and will strengthen national security by contributing to a more effective counterterrorism strategy.

The next president will have a window of opportunity to signal to the American people and the rest of the world that the policies of the last seven years were an aberration and that the United States is serious about restoring the rule of law, upholding our Constitution and respecting the international rules our country played such a central role in formulating.

Here’s the 12-step program to get us back on the straight and narrow:

Renounce torture and official cruelty, ideally in the inaugural address.
Enforce existing bans on torture and cruel treatment.
Repudiate and rescind all orders, memoranda and legal opinions authorizing cruel treatment or secret detention.
Release publicly all documents authorizing cruel treatment, secret detention, or rendition.
End secret prisons and the practice of holding “ghost prisoners.”
Put a moratorium on extraordinary renditions and direct the National Security Advisor to undertake a 90-day review to assess the use of diplomatic assurances and issue new regulations to ensure we are not sending people to places where they are likely to be tortured.
Announce the intention to empty the Guantánamo detention facility within one year.
Suspend pending military commission proceedings and terminate Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards.
Direct the Attorney General to review Guantánamo cases for federal court prosecution.
Direct the Secretary of State to perform individualized risk assessments and review remaining cases for transfer to prosecution, repatriation, or resettlement.
Direct the Attorney General to identify secure U.S. detention facilities capable of housing detainees identified for federal court prosecution.
Establish a bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. government detention and interrogation operations, assess the strategic impact of these operations, identify lessons learned, and make recommendations to avoid future abuses.

The misguided embrace of indefinite detention, torture and deeply flawed military commissions has greatly damaged the reputation of the United States, fueled terrorist recruitment and undermined international cooperation in counterterrorism operations. Repairing our reputation as a nation committed to the rule of law will require bold action. That must start with finally closing the detention facility in Guantánamo and demonstrating — in deed, not just in word—an unequivocal commitment to treating all prisoners humanely.

Elisa Massimino is the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director of Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights). Elisa is the organization’s chief advocacy strategist, an expert on a range of international human rights issues and a national authority on US compliance with human rights law. She testifies frequently before Congress, writes extensively for legal and popular publications, and serves as one of the organization’s primary spokespeople with the media. She is Human Rights First’s point of contact with U.S. government leaders, international diplomats, and human rights opinion leaders and decision makers.

Nightly Election (Expensive) Thread(s)

I guess this is what happens when you go shopping with Cindy:

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August. According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing. “The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent,” she said.

So I guess she can see Saks from her house. And it’s good to know that Neiman’s is part of “real America.”

Ohhh boy. Anytime your spokesperson defends Ferragamo pumps as a “strategic decision,” you know a campaign is in trouble.

This kind of shoots to hell the whole moose-hunting small-town girl image, doesn’t it? She just went from Joe Sixpack and Joe the Plumber to Thurston and Lovey Howell. And it makes her look about as out of touch as the Howells were on that island.

So when the campaign is over does the Sarahnator get to keep this stuff? And if not, doesn’t she have to report it as gifts? Come to think of it, doesn’t she have to report it as gifts now? Or does Alaska not have the ethics laws that everyone else has?

I bought a wedding present at Neiman Marcus once. It cost three million dollars. Okay, maybe three hundred. For a serving dish. In 1990.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Quotes of the Day

Given all the anger and hatred of the crowds at the McCain-Palin campaign events, some thoughts from two great Americans that have particular relevance to what’s going on right now.

First, James Baldwin, from The Fire Next TIme:

If we — and. . .I mean the relatively conscious whites and the relatively conscious blacks, who must, like lovers, insist on, or create the consciousness of the others — do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country and change the history of the world

Second, Martin Luther King, from Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one direcly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

Both quotes from the first volume of Reporting Civil Rights, the Library of America’s fine collection. If you have never read Baldwin, do so — he is an American Orwell.

White Riot

Tony Karon doesn’t blog much, but when he does, it’s always interesting. Earlier today, he posted an excerpt from the 1980 film Rude Boy, featuring Joe Strummer and Ray Gange discussing left- and right-wing politics.

When Gange says he wants to be “one of the [rich] people riding around in cars,” Strummer says, “There’s nothing there. You can get all the [wealth] you want, [but] there’s nothing at the end of that road, no humor, life, nothing. . . .It’s all of us or none.” It’s like the punk rock version of What’s the Matter with Kansas?

Once the conversation ends, the movie cuts to The Clash performing “London’s Burning” and “White Riot.” Depending on where you work, the video may be NSFW — it actually has bad words in it.

Watching this made me wish I had seen the Clash in their prime. But it also got me thinking about the similarities between Britain of the late 70s and John McCain and Sarah Palin’s America:

White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own

Strummer meant this ironically — later in the song he says that most Brits are sheep who “go to school where they teach you how to be thick.” But if you’ve seen the videos of Palin rallies, you know that the chorus represents a pretty good description of what’s happening in the United States today.

Increasingly, McCain-Palin supporters — or at least the Palinistas among them — rant incoherently against forces that they are not even trying to understand. The United States they idealize ceased to exist a long time ago, but it is only with this election that they are beginning to come to terms with the fact that they no longer represent a majority view.

As a result, they have denounced Obama as a terrorist, Muslim, “baby-killer” and racist, even as they use racist symbols (Curious George, watermelon, ribs, fried chicken) in their depictions of him. They are hostile towards anyone they perceive as the enemy — including the media. Some have even threatened violence.

It’s the distillation of white anger into its most virulent form.

In other words, it’s a white riot.

I am not an expert on late 20th Century British history, but it strikes me that there are more similarities between England of the late 70s and contemporary America than just the anger and alienation of a fading culture.

Thatcherism was in large part a response to an exhausted ideology — social democracy — that had managed to disillusion those who had supported it for two generations. Most voters thought that the Labour Party was outdated and out of touch with the average voter’s concerns. The economy was in shambles, and most voters blamed the current government for their own problems. Dozens of past Labourites publicly endorsed Thatcher, portrayed Labour as having moved outside the mainstream of British politics. She also skillfully used the economic crisis to highlight the failures of the Callaghan government.

Today, it is conservatism and Republicanism that is the exhausted ideology and party. It’s not yet clear whether Obama will prove to be the kind of realigning force that Thatcher was in England. But certainly the conditions exist for it to happen.

Britain got over its white anxiety, culture wars, and economic doldrums (and, for that matter, Thatcherism) to become the “Cool Britannia” of the early Blair years. It is possible that an Obama Administration may help bring about a similar transition in the United States.

Of course, just as is the case in England today, a few die hards will continue to hate.

John the Plumber

Let me acknowledge up-front that this is a bit off-topic for me. I’ve tried to stay away from this whole Joe the Plumber nonsense (other than in my live blogging of the debate), but I think the following is worth passing along.

From a guest op-ed by John Phillips that ran in today’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune:

I own a small company in Sarasota - John Phillips Plumbing Service.

I have been in business more than eleven years and, by any standard, I have been successful for most of those years. But, in response to the questions posed to Barack Obama by “Joe the Plumber,” and mentioned repeatedly in the presidential debate Wednesday night, I have to say [that] paying higher taxes is the least of my worries right now — because people won’t owe taxes if they are not making any money.

In the last couple of years — as a result of mismanagement, lack of oversight and rampant greed in the greater economy — my business has gone from eight employees to having one employee part-time. My sales are off by 70 percent. For the first time in eleven years, I am having a hard time paying my fixed overhead — things like fuel, rent, electricity and insurance.

All the material I buy for my business has skyrocketed in cost, with no end in sight. I am going to have to downsize my shop because I have no need for 3,000 square feet. I have already cut my employee’s pay by 25 percent. I can’t offer medical benefits any longer, and it is getting harder to pay for vacations and holidays.

Phillips does not endorse Obama (or McCain), and he goes on to make some arguments that I don’t necessarily agree with (such as suggesting that illegal immigration is one of the reasons for his woes). But his outlook certainly represents a much more realistic portrayal of the challenges facing small businesses than those of that other plumber guy.

What’s particularly interesting about Phillips’ piece is that he’s appears to be writing from the perspective of what’s happening on the ground before he has felt the impact of the current economic crisis. For him, and thousands of other small business owners like him, the drying up of credit may prove to be a tipping point. If, as John McCain likes to say, small businesses are the engine that drives our economy, it’s about to seize up and throw a rod.

Hat tip: Undip reader Dad

The Worst Angels of Our Nature

Unless something unexpected happens in the next nineteen days, the American people will elect Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States, and will do so by a large enough margin for him to have a mandate to address the numerous problems caused by that disaster known as the Bush Administration.

The challenges will be immense. And should Obama stumble, Sarah Palin will be waiting in the wings.

Palin already is laying the groundwork for a run in 2012. And given her actions over the past two months, it is a safe bet that she will do anything and everything in her power to win.

The key question is not whether she will challenge Obama in four years, but rather what kind of race she will run. Is Palin merely another ambitious politician willing to say and do anything to get elected, or are we witnessing the emergence of a genuinely anti-democratic populist — a successor to such notorious figures as Charles Lindbergh, Father Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, Strom Thurmond, Senator Joseph McCarthy, and George Wallace?

If the past two months are prologue, Palin represents a significant threat. She favors demagoguery over democracy. She celebrates her own lack of judgment and experience as her best qualifications for the office she seeks. She slanders Obama and other opponents, suggesting that they are willing to sell out America. She uses her supposedly folksy background to attack the media and elites as out of touch with average Americans. And she plays to the mob, appealing to and encouraging the most reactionary, angry, hateful, and racist elements of our society.

These are Palin’s people, the worst angels of our nature. They are ready, willing, and determined to follow her regardless of what happens on Election Day. The Palinistas are far less interested in electing McCain than they are in putting the Sarahnator one step away from the White House (and, they hope, in it soon). They will never accept an Obama presidency, and should McCain somehow pull off a miracle, they will count the days until Palin is able to push him aside and assume power herself.

It would be easy to suggest that Palin is little more than a demagogue, that she would not move the United States away from its democratic traditions. And in fairness, we are still too early in Palin’s career to determine whether she is a genuine threat.

But do we really want to take the chance?

If Palin really does represent a move toward anti-democratic populism, she already is far more dangerous than any earlier demagogue. She’s not merely some nutjob with a radio following, or a regional figure who failed to move onto the national stage. She’s the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States.

No previous anti-democratic figure — not even Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968 — ever had a serious chance of getting elected. Palin does. And given McCain’s medical history, there is a real chance she would be President before the next election came around.

Change genders, and Palin is a modern day evocation of Senator Berzelius “Buzz” Windrup, the anti-hero of It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis’s alternate history of America under a fascist dictatorship:

Oh, he was common enough. He had every prejudice and aspiration of every American Common Man. He believed in the desirability and therefore the sanctity of thick buckwheat cakes with adulterated maple syrup, in rubber trays for the ice cubes in his electric refrigerator, in the especial nobility of dogs, . . .in being chummy with all waitresses at all junction lunch rooms. . .and the superiority of anyone who possessed a million dollars. He regarded spats, walking sticks, caviar, titles, tea-drinking, poetry not syndicated in newspapers, and all foreigners, possibly excepting the British, as degenerate.

But he was the Common Man twenty-times-magnified by his oratory, so that while the other Commoners could understand his every purpose, which was exactly the same as their own, they saw him towering among them, and they raised hands to him in worship. . . .

That’s Sarah Palin: fake small-town rhetoric combined with an unquenchable thirst for power. And like Windrup, she has attracted a cabal of back-room intellectuals who intend to use her to achieve their own ends. What’s not clear is whether Palin is, like Windrup, little more than a figurehead, or if she actually has the ruthlessness to manage those who would make her queen.

Given the fact that we still do not know how bad things will get over the next few years (and even though they are unlikely to be as bad as the Great Depression, they surely will be worse than anything most of us have ever seen), there is a very real possibility that an Obama Administration may not reverse the disastrous situation that Bush has left us. That is the premise of Lewis’s novel — that Roosevelt’s best efforts weren’t enough and things were much worse at the end of his first term.

If history does not repeat itself — if Obama is not able to tackle the problems we face — then hope, change, logic, and cool will not be enough to sustain him. Again, Lewis:

The conspicuous fault of the Jeffersonian Party. . . was that it represented integrity and reason, in a year when the electorate hungered for frisky emotions, for the peppery sensations associated, usually, not with monetary systems and taxation rates but with baptism by immersion in the creek, young love under the elms, straight whisky, angelic orchestras heard soaring down from the full moon, fear of death when an automobile teeters above a canyon, thirst in a desert and quenching it with spring water–all the primitive sensations which they thought they found in the screaming of Buzz Windrip.

Sarah Palin is ready. Should things get worse over the next four years, her folksiness and rhetoric may start appealing to more than just the far right. If she turns out to be all that I fear, then John McCain may be remembered best not for his own career, but for his role as an American Paul von Hindenburg.

Thought of the Night

Richard M. Nixon: “I am not a crook.”

Bill Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman.”

John Kerry: “I am not George Bush.”

John McCain: “I am not George Bush.”

McCain seems to have forgotten that using a negation to describe yourself doesn’t have a great track record in American politics.

Debate Analysis

This was McCain’s strongest debate. I don’t think he “won” in the way that he needed to. No game-changer. Obama was steady, strong, Presidential. McCain was angry, nasty, often mean-spirited. As the debate went on, he got angrier and angrier. Lots of mugging for the camera. He really came off as a cross between Grandpa Simpson and the Hulk.

The key exchange was on the tone and tenor of the campaign. McCain responded with more negative attacks, while Obama was gracious but firm. And Obama was smart to avoid discussing Palin.

Obama really didn’t make any mistakes. McCain didn’t land any hard blows.

Advantage Obama.

Live Blogging the Debate

Okay, here we go. The last debate.

Thank. God.

I hear that McCain’s going to talk about “divided government.” The Republicans already have the Supreme Court. What more do they want?

McCain was actually polite at the intros.

BTW, no times tonight. Thought I’d try something different.

First question is about economy.

Damn I didn’t take hurting and angry in my drinking game tonight. McCain leads off with Fannie and Freddie talking point and then talks about his $300 billion home plan.

Who are McCain’s friends? Inquiring minds want to know.

Obama and McCain agree that this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression. Dur.

Obama mentions the middle class first. I win the over/under. Why is McCain so afraid of those words? Obama, unlike McCain, highlights differences between the two plans.

Okay, mistake by McCain — he refuses to engage Obama.

McCain is going to help this Joe the plumber guy start a business! Will he help my blog? Ka-ching!

McCain told Obama that he wanted the spread the wealth around and then said he would help spread the wealth.

If I hear anymore about Joe the Plumber I’m gonna hurl.

McCain seems to think that his best shot at winning the debate is to focus on small business owners.

Next question: deficit.

Obama says bailout must be structured to help Americans get their money back. Talks about pay-go. Do people know what that means? Says he will cut subsidies of insurance companies, but then switches to health care, energy, infrastructure. Key words: ethic of responsibility.

When McCain talks about the Great Depression, he sounds like he was there. McCain largely avoids the question, only promising an across the board spending freeze.

McCain opposes subsidies for ethanol. Guess he’s given up on Iowa.

Back to earmarks. Meh.

When he looks at Obama,

McCain looks like a bobblehead doll on crystal meth.

Why is McCain such a planetarium hater?

McCain: I’m not Bush, if you wanted Bush, you should have run four years ago. That’s a zinger? Obama’s going to smush him. Senator Obama, I know George Bush. George Bush is a friend of mine. Senator Obama, I am no President Bush.

McCain asks Obama what he’s stood up to the leaders on his party. When Obama answers, McCain shows contempt for the first time.

ACKKKKK! CREEPY FACE! CREEEPY FACE!

I’m waiting for McCain, like LBJ, to actually show us his scars. Oooh not convincing! What a comeback.

Schieffer asks the hard question about negativity. McCain blames it on Obama’s refusal to do town hall meetings. That seems like a weasel to me. McCain: I regret the negative aspects of both campaigns. Attacks John Lewis not in anger but in sorrow. McCain is setting up Obama to talk about Ayers. Claims that he is running a truthful campaign. Hits Obama on campaign finance issues.

Obama: cites CBS/NYT poll that 2/3rds of Americans think McCain is running a negative campaign. Obama refuses to take the bait on Ayers. Says politics as usual can’t work.

McCain claims that an attack on his health care plan, immigration plan are attack ads. No they’re not.

Grandpa Simpson and Joe the Plumber ‘08!

Obama comes back and talks about Palin rallies. In a competition between John Lewis and Palin for outrageousness, most Americans think Palin is worse.

McCain just snorted like Gore. McCain is getting snippy. That’s not good for him. McCain: I’m proud of those who come to my rallies, suggest that people like vets are who Obama is talking about.

McCain hasn’t repudiated Palin, though has he?

McCain needs to get his open contempt under control.

McCain brings up Ayers first, and ACORN. Opens up full attack. Isn’t that contrary to the intent of the question?

Obama answers Ayers and ACORN. Will it be enough? Good comeback on who associates with.

Given that a majority of Americans think McCain is too negative, how does being negative help him?

Next question: running mates. Obama first. Softball question to Obama, 120 mph fastball question to McCain. Obama is smart to talk about Biden, not Palin. McCain: Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. Friend: “And we hate her.”

Every minute McCain talks about Palin, he loses. McCain on Palin: Noun. Verb. Trig.

Obama: Question of whether Palin is qualified is up to the American people. Smart.

McCain: Joe Biden is wrong on many national security issues.

Most Americans have never heard of the word cockamamie.

Next question: energy and climate change. Unfortunately, the way Schieffer framed the question, it leads to talking points.

McCain: Obama hates Canada!

Obama: energy is the most important issue we’re going to face in the future.

Obama’s looking at the camera right now makes him look Presidential.

So far, McCain is attacking, Obama is ducking. Angry man v. smiling cool guy. McCain is winning some points, but he is coming across as nasty and angry. Which will people see?

When they show the split screen, Obama is looking at McCain, McCain is looking at Schieffer.

When McCain talked about Obama never having gone south of the border, he did the 538.com tongue tell.

Obama’s response: I understand it very well. Calm, cool, factual.

Good thing I had Peru in my drinking game.

Will Obama’s comments about Detroit dragging its feet on green tech hurt him in Michigan? I don’t think so.

McCain just rolled his eyes.

Does McCain really believe that people care about Hugo Chavez? Do most Americans even know who he is?

Is it me or is Schieffer letting McCain have the last word on every question?

Next question: health care.

Obama discusses his plan. Looks into the camera again. McCain talks about minutiae — though Molly liked the fact he raised childhood obesity. Seventh mention of Joe the Plumber. I think he has that guy’s vote.

So let me get this straight — McCain says Canada is good for energy, bad for health care. Hater.

Prediction: SNL’s skit this weekend will involve Joe the Plumber. Maybe as moderator? Which MSM outlet will get the first interview?

Poor Joe the Plumber: Obama will tax his income and McCain will tax his health care. Maybe he should vote for Bob Barr.

Advice to Obama: stop talking about Joe the Plumber.

I’m trying to figure out how we’ve had three debates and Peru has been mentioned more often than China. And Joe the plumber has been mentioned more than all countries in the world save Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Senator Government? You can bet that the McCain campaign will claim that was intentional tomorrow.

Next question: abortion. I recognize people feel strongly about this, but we know the positions of both. It’s a base issue, not one that is going to affect the election. That said, both candidates focused on judicial appointments, which is a crucial question.

Obama brings up Lily Ledbetter case, uses it as an example of how court decisions affect “real people.” Good for him. McCain calls the case a trial lawyer’s dream and blows it off.

Hey Senator McCain, what if Jo the plumber wants an abortion? Will you still like her?

McCain is playing to his base right now when talking about abortion. It will help him with them, but not with “mainstream America.”

Obama talks common ground and McCain snorts. A friend just pointed out that Obama basically just told people to turn off their TVs. Heh.

Our friend Matt just pointed out that they haven’t talked about the economy in a loooooooong time.

Last question: education. Obama: more money v. reform is a false dichotomy: “we need both.” McCain: it’s the civil rights issue for the 21st century. That’s code for vouchers. So is choice.

I always find it amusing that Republicans talk about choice as a bad thing re abortion and a good thing re school.

Aside: want to bet McCain sticks around and works the room tonight?

When McCain stares at Obama, he looks like an elderly Norman Bates. Or Charles Manson. Not sure which. Molly thinks he looks like a reptile, our friend Jen thinks he looks like Casper the ghost.

McCain: “Cindy and your wife, Mrs. That One.”

McCain keeps looking at the camera briefly, nervously, but not engaging the crowd — except Joe the plumber, of course.

Precious children. My precious. We likes the children. THAT’s who he looks like.

Do the American people really give a crap whether Michelle Rhee favors vouchers or charters? I bet Joe the plumber does.

Closing statements.

McCain: My friends. New direction. Bush bad. Reform. MAVERICK! But a careful steward. Make health care “avoidable.” (Whoopsie!) Trust. Another mention of careful stewards. Hope. Future. Joe the Plumber Joe’s gonna be sad that he didn’t get a mention in McCain’s closing statement. McCain didn’t mention the economy in his closing statement!

Obama: Economy. Economy. Economy. Hope. Invest in American people. Health care. Education. Energy. Middle Class. Middle Class. Not easy or quick. All must come together. Will work tirelessly.

McCain is pointing like Palin.

Final analysis coming soon.

These Are Your Parents’ Brains on John McCain

I usually don’t like MoveOn ads, but this one is brilliant.

Great frame, great idea, great job.

Hat tip: Atrios

Nightly Election Thread

Sorry for the lateness. Was too busy trying to cover up my campaign’s links to that notorious terrorist Saddam Hussein.

Back with lots of blog freshness tomorrow. In the meantime, please go donate some cash to the anti-Prop 8 efforts.

The thread is open.

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts