What Digby Said

Which is what Atrios said.

But really, digby has a good post on bipartisanship in Washington.

(This has been another edition of What Digby Said)

Saint McCain

StraightTalkerMaverickReformer™ John McCain evidently can do no wrong in the eyes of the media, even when he does something wrong.

In a column for CNN.com today, Roland Martin said the following:

McCain can now call himself the candidate who is prone to keeping his word and not making the politically smart move.

Don't be surprised to see McCain make this decision a significant part of his campaign, and he and his surrogates will hammer Obama repeatedly between now and November on the one issue that the senior senator from Arizona has made his calling card.

The first sentence, incidentally, appears to have been edited out of the story now, though it was in there when I checked a few hours ago. I wrote Mr. Martin an email:

Given the above passage from your article today, I have inferred that you are unaware of the shenanigans the McCain campaign has gone through with the public financing in the primary season. For starters, I recommend reading this Washington Post article.

To summarize, when McCain's campaign was struggling last year, he opted into the public financing system so that he would get $5.8 million in public funds in March. But, by February, when it became clear that McCain would be the Republican nominee, he decided to back out of the system because it would have limited his spending to $54 million through the end of August. According to the Post, he had already spent about that much through February.

So, McCain sent the FEC a letter informing them that he was opting out of the public financing system. But there was a problem. FEC Chairman David Mason informed McCain that it may not be legal for him to opt out of the financing system because he had already received benefit from the public monies. (as collateral for his bank loan) Unfortunately, four of the six FEC board seats were empty because the nomination process had stalled in the Senate. McCain's lawyers argue that, because the FEC had no quorum, the campaign is not obligated to follow its decisions. So, McCain pressed forward and has now spent well over the $54 million limit, ignoring the Chairman of the FEC.

Further complicating matters are ethical concerns about his bank loan. Ostensibly, McCain would have paid his loan back in one of two ways: 1) either his campaign would take off and he would be able to raise money from standard GOP sources, or 2) his campaign would flop and he would pay the loan back in March after receiving the public funding. Under the later scenario, McCain would have artificially kept his campaign going, long after he was politically dead, so that he could receive the $5.8 million to pay his loan back.

Certainly, the law did not intend for public monies to pay back bank loans for dead campaigns. McCain may be able to argue that his actions were technically legal, (though Chairman Mason apparently believes they may not be) but they sure don't jibe with his reputation as a straight-talking reformer -- and campaign finance reform, as you say, is McCain's "calling card".

So, given that, how exactly can McCain honestly call himself "the candidate who is prone to keeping his word" with respect to campaign finance?

Dodd!

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476

More on the FISA "Compromise"

Glenn Greenwald comments on the absurdity of the claims coming from Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer that the Democrats scored a major victory on the FISA rewrite.

Perhaps the most telling part is the udpate at the bottom: a Fox News poll that shows Republicans give Congress a 23% approval rating while Democrats give only 18%. So, in the wake of this major victory for the Democratic party, a Democratic majority in Congress has managed to score a higher approval rating among Republicans than among Democrats. Well played, guys.

Another point that Greenwald hits on is the strategy the Democrats seem to be employing here. Basically, they cede that the Republicans are better on national security, so they give in to all of the Republicans' demands to protect themselves from the GOP bludgeoning them with the "soft on defense" label. How pathetic -- especially when the Republicans have an abysmal record on national defense during the course of this administration.

Furthermore, the Republicans' lousy record on national defense isn't too cerebral a point to make to the public. If they're so good on national defense, why aren't we going after Osama bin Laden? If they're so good on national defense, why is our army struggling to recruit to such a degree that they're letting criminals in now? If they're so good on defense, why did they tell us that the Iraq war would only last a few weeks, and then, on May 2, 2003, why did Bush declare the war was over? If they're so good on national defense, why did they allow themselves to be duped by a con man (Ahmed Chalabi) and a source named "curveball" into believing that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program? If they're so good on national defense, how did they manage to not prevent the 9/11 attacks after an August 2001 Presidential daily briefing told them that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US?

The Republicans have no standing with which to claim strength on national defense. Why are the Democrats passing legislation that shreds the 4th amendment instead of shining a public spotlight on the Republicans' national defense failures?

Rambling Sundry Thoughts on Current Happenings with the Texas Rangers

Gerald Laird pulled a hamstring today and was placed on the DL.

As much as I feel sorry for Laird, we just called up Max Ramirez from Frisco to replace him. Ramirez was the guy we got in return for Kenny Lofton last year and he has just been smoking hot all year in Frisco. He is batting .363 with 17HRs and has an on-base % of .457.

And, amazingly enough, he's not the top catcher in our farm system. That honor belongs to Taylor Teagarden who is a very good defensive catcher. (Ramirez is a slugger that happens to play catcher). I've heard a few people compare Teagarden to Pudge Rodriguez, though I doubt he's that good.

I am eagerly awaiting to see how Ramirez does in the majors.

Meanwhile, our über first base prospect, Chris Davis was named minor league player of the week by Baseball America. He hit .400 with 5HRs and 12RBIs last week. Also, Neftali Feliz was ranked #5 minor league player of the week, playing for our lower Class A team. Feliz came over in the Mark Teixeira trade and has been really good all year. He is apparently a big-time fastball-strikeout pitcher. I've heard he has the biggest "upside" of any of our pitching prospects -- that is, he has the biggest chance to become a "#1" starter. (you know, like Edinson Volquez...)

Speaking of Volquez, the man we gave up for Josh Hamilton went into Yankee Stadium and kicked some ass today. He is now 9-2 with a 1.71 ERA and 110 strikeouts. His 110 strikeouts leads MLB and the ERA is tops in MLB by half a run. It is also impressive that he's 9-2 on such a crappy team as Cincinnati.

The "pitching triple crown" consists of wins, strikeouts, and ERA. Currently, Josh Hamilton and Volquez each lead in two of three of their respective triple crown categories. Hamilton leads the AL in HRs and RBIs. He is #6 in batting average, 14 points behind A-Rod. Volquez is 3rd in wins in the NL, 2 behind Brandon Webb. Talk about a blockbuster trade.

On the new FISA "Compromise"

The Demorats in the U.S. House today have brokered a "compromise" with Republicans on a new version of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act. In this new version, the telecom companies that very plainly violated the law at the behest of the Bush administration will have immunity from prosecution if they can prove that they were, in fact, acting at the behest of the Bush administration.

What a joke! As Glenn Greenwald says, "When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all."

This is getting ridiculous. We can't keep making excuses to justify the Congress's pitiful lack of backbone. I recently listened to a speech given by Al Gore in January of 2006, when the details of the warrantless spying program were just coming to light. Someone ought to march into the House chamber and read this excerpt to them before they go to vote:

The executive branch time and again has co-opted Congress' role. And too often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.

Look, for example, at the congressional role in overseeing this massive, four-year eavesdropping campaign that, on its face, seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights.

The president says he informed Congress. What he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, sometimes, the leaders of the House and Senate.

This small group, in turn, claims they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to the vice president.

And, though I sympathize with the awkward position, the difficult position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking sufficient action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program.

Many did. Moreover, in the Congress as a whole, both House and Senate, the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption that some have fallen vulnerable to.

The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg threatening the integrity of our legislative branch of government.

And it is the pitiful state of our legislative state which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by the executive branch now threatening a radical transformation of the American system.

I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country.

I hope the folks at Daily Kos and TPM are taking notes. Any Democrat who votes for this bill ought to have a well-funded opponent in the primary next time they're up for election. We must demand better from our elected officials.

On a side note, what a disaster it is that Gore wasn't our President over the past eight years instead of this unmitigated disaster of an administration. For more of Gore's views on matters like this, I highly recommend his book The Assault on Reason which should be required reading for all voters.

Update: I am sorely disappointed to find that Barack Obama has endorsed this terrible bill. I expect better from a constitutional law professor and from someone promising to bring "change." I'm not sure what sort of change he has planned, but I was kind of hoping for the kind that restores the rule of law to the Executive Branch of our government.

Privatizing the Military

As any good Republican will tell you, privatization is always a good move.

MSNBC Channeling Karl Rove

One of the more obnoxious media narratives of this campaign season is the one that suggests that Obama substitutes "soaring rhetoric" in place of substance. I have heard variations of that narrative bouncing around ever since I first saw it in this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Karl Rove.

It has survived despite Obama's groundbreaking speech on race relations and despite such substantive comments from his opponents as "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran." So, today when I saw MSNBC's web page leading with the below headline, I felt compelled to write them a letter.

To the Editor:

I thought your headline today "Can 'substance' trump star power?" was offensive. It parrots the Republican talking point that Barack Obama is a good speaker, but that there is no substance to his words.

Meanwhile, John McCain's record includes the following:
- He repeatedly asserted at a press conference that Iran was training al Qaeda operatives, evidently unaware that Iran is a Shiite country and that al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Joe Lieberman eventually had to lean over and correct him.

- He keeps accusing Obama of wanting to talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even though the President of Iran has no power in the foreign policy arena. Any diplomatic discussion with Iran would be with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His name, of course, is less radioactive politically than Ahmadinejad.

"Substance" requires a command of the facts, and McCain who presents himself as a foreign policy guru, has some serious cracks in his armor. Continuing:

- He intentionally avoids "substance" when he resorts to fear and smear tactics such as pointing out that Hamas had endorsed Obama and comparing Obama's proposal of diplomacy with Iran to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in the lead-up to World War II.

- He sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann" at a campaign rally -- a highly "substantive" look into his philosophy on American foreign policy.

To be certain, all presidential candidates deliver countless speeches that lack substance in large part. Leading a frenetic crowd in a chant of "Yes we can!" is hardly an intelligent discussion of the issues. But those are stump speeches whose purpose is to rally the crowd. And John McCain gives just as many as Obama does. But Obama has also given an historic and seriously thought provoking speech on American race relations and actually does have a comprehensive policy platform that epitomizes "substance."

For example, my area of expertise is in computers. I am the IT Director for my company. I watched Obama's speech at the Google campus on Net Neutrality and found him to be incredibly well informed on some fairly technical issues. I feel, from watching him speak extemporaneously in that video, that Obama not only has a platform that will truly bring our government into the information age, but that he understands how to achieve that goal on a fundamental level.

That is what substance is. It doesn't come from wrinkles in the face and it doesn't even come from being a war hero. It comes from a combination of intelligence, a command of the facts, and good judgment. Early in the campaign, Karl Rove wrote an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal accusing Obama of lacking substance. Why, in the absence of corroborating evidence, are the claims of such an obvious partisan hack allowed to reverberate on the top headline on your web page?