David Corn

No way will McCain deal with this matter. He is already hated for trying to be reasonable about undocumented aliens. Many people consider the only viable solution to be mass deportations. Unfortunately it is not viable as a solution since getting 10 million people out of this country is just about impossible till we have such a miserable recession or depression that no one will hire them at all.

The drug war is too profitable for too many American businessmen so it will continue.

I wish we could insert a few notes of rationality into the debate but it will not happen soon.

Fair trade, not free trade!

Rather than ask the questions of whether McCain would reverse or continue Bush's policies, I think a more sobering pursuit would be to ask Obama those questions.

A lot of progressives are just taking it on faith that he's going to be some great champion of the left, but even beyond the question of whether he could be effective in such a role, is the more pertinent one of whether he's even going to try.

Here's Glenn Greenwald on Obama's last two weeks:

"The choices Obama makes about how he campaigns and the positions he takes are extremely consequential in how political issues in this country are perceived. In the last two weeks alone, Obama has done the following:

*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;

* announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;

* sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;

* repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman);

* condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;

* defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";

* unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.

That's quite a two weeks. One of the primary reasons that blogs emerged over the last seven years was as a reaction to, an attempt to battle against, exactly this narrative which the media propagated and Democratic institutions embraced -- that it is the duty of every Democrat to repudiate and attack their own base; that the truly pernicious elements are on the "Far Left", whose values must be rejected, while the Far Right is entitled to profound respect and accommodation; that "Strength" in National Security is determined by agreement with GOP policies, which is where "the Center" is found; that Seriousness is demonstrated by contempt for the liberal masses; that every Democrat must apologize for any statement over which Republicans feign offense." http://tinyurl.com/5hhedw

Greenwald on Obama's "move to the center":
http://tinyurl.com/5b79m6

Steve Schmitt Gets It

Whether it's related to the McCain team's shake-and-bake or not I don't know, but tonight comes word that McCain is purchasing ad time in Virginia. Halperin puts the media CW thusly:

"Suggests the McCain camp could be worried Obama has a shot in the historically Red state"

The McCain camp could be worried that Obama has a shot? I could be worried that I'll have to pay taxes next year. Obama leads in all three recent public polls of the state (albeit by tiny margins). The state has a popular Democratic governor and a popular Democratic senator, and will soon have a second, because the best candidate the GOP could recruit against Mark Warner was Jim Gilmore, who was last seen sitting at the Tancredo/Brownback table at the Republican Debate afterparty. The good thing about a staff shake-up is that it can give you an excuse to swallow your pride and do some things that an underdog needs to do -- like playing defense in Virginia.

http://tinyurl.com/4ucdfo

*****

Maybe going south will work? I doubt it. I just don't see McCain winning over Latinos and Hispanics. The pander is a bit too obvious. It could be seen as patronizing and backfire.

Last I heard Obama was ahead 33% - that is huge. It will be a miracle if McCain can cut the lead in half. That won't win any elections.

Thanks for all of your work.

Cochran recounts McCain dustup with the Sandinistas

GULFPORT, Miss. -- Notably mild-mannered Republican Sen. Thad Cochran shocked many earlier this year with comments about John McCain's volatile temper. He has since mended fences with the GOP presidential nominee.

But as first reported at sunherald.com today, Cochran told the Sun Herald that he witnessed a confrontation between McCain and a Sandinista rebel decades ago where McCain "got mad at the guy and he just reached over there and snatched him."

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972 and then to the U.S. Senate in 1978, Cochran, a consummate gentleman, measures his words and his actions carefully. But he said something that surprised many in a Boston Globe article in January about his longtime Senate colleague McCain.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran told the Globe. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

http://tinyurl.com/5drkje

*****

Not the temperment we want in the presidency. This is a GOP pal of his?

The temperament that alarms me in the short term is GWB between now and Jan 20, 2009. Seymour Hersh's recent account of his possible intentions toward Iran and the utter spinelessness of the Pentagon and the Democratic Congress make one wonder of anyone's going to be able to stop him going for broke... With his approval ratings so low, he's bound to figure what's there to lose?

Do you think there's any chance that the Democratic candidate for President is going to risk any of his political capital and take a stand on this?

The Candidates' Vices: Craps, Poker

[...]

Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the GOP primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-2,00.html

*****

A metaphor of what his presidency would be? A crap shoot.

Iran Panic? A Follow Up Question for the Experts

[snip]

Recent leaks to the US media (New York Times and ABC News) have sent a false message that an Israeli attack on Iran is imminent. That is far from true. No decision to attack Iran has been made in Israel. Certainly no date has been fixed.

Israel will decide to disrupt Iran's nuclear program only as a last resort if and after international diplomacy fails, and more importantly only after serious consultation with the American administration. Coordination with America is the key factor in all Israeli crucial decisions. This has been the Israeli practice since 1967. Israel launched its combat campaigns since then only after realizing or understanding that the US either sanctions the military operation or has no objection to it or will turn a blind eye. These were the cases in June 1967, in June 1982, and in July 2006. In two other cases, Israel didn't respond as it had wished fearing that the US would be against it. In October 1973 Israel decided against a premptive strike against Egypt and Syria and in January 1991 for the same reason it didn't respond to the launching of 40 Scud missiles against its urban centers. If the US doesn't approve of an Israeli operation, Israel will not attack Iran. Full stop.

True, the recent leaks may serve Israeli interests to increase pressure on the international community to act against Iran. But above all they reflect confusion and a power struggle within the US administration in the twilight months of a weak administration. We are still far away—a matter of at least one year—before Israel would realize that it has no other option than to attack Iran's nuclear sites.

http://tinyurl.com/6nmvks

*****

A second piece with some great commentary. A little encouraging - I hope these folks are right.