Miniblog: In which I am irked by NPR's political reporting

NPR (probably Steve Inskeep) just referred to Jay Rockefeller as being "in the liberal wing of his party."

That's true. If there's one thing us liberals love, it's companies getting paid in tax dollars to illegally eavesdrop on Americans, then using some of that money to pay Senators like Jay Rockefeller to get them off the hook. That is one of our core liberal values.

I also enjoyed the clip of Rockefeller praising Reid as a Good and Righteous public servant, unconcerned with how healthcare will affect his re-election. I have no doubt that is true.

Scalia: No constitutional problems executing an innocent man

“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.” --Antonin Scalia

This is the case he's talking about. Seven of 9 eyewitnesses have now recanted.

Quote from The Gamble

I'm reading The Gamble on my new Kindle and I came across this mind-blowing quote:

A senior intelligence officer in Iraq described the long-term American goal as "a stable Iraq that is unified, at peace with its neighbors, and is able to police its internal affairs, so it isn't a sanctuary for al Qaeda. Preferably a friend to us, but it doesn't have to be."

So basically our goal for at least the next 10-20 years is to get Iraq back to where it was before we invaded. Sobering thought...

Petraeus and the Rule of Law

When Petraeus was given the top post in Iraq, I was skeptical about him. My feeling at the time was that we needed to get out, the sooner the better. Petraeus, on the other hand, was gearing up to fight a counterinsurgency, which meant that we would be in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time.

A few weeks ago Thomas Ricks spoke at Amazon. Since then I've been reading The Gamble, Ricks' follow up to Fiasco, his scathing critique of the Iraq war. The Gamble has really changed my opinion of both Petraeus and the surge. It's a good read--I highly recommend it.

Anyway, today I saw a quote from Petraeus that only increased my respect for him, particularly the second paragraph.

   What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard... I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else...

   So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law. When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

It's really amazing to see that quote from someone who's in a position to understand the danger to American lives, typically the justification for ignoring, subverting, and trampling the rule of law outright. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, Congress has passed a law allowing Obama not to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and release photos of detainees, because even though the photos are "not particularly sensational" they will nevertheless "put our troops in greater danger."

To me, that argument doesn't appear to hold a lot of water. I honestly don't understand Obama's interest in covering up the crimes of his predecessor, unless it's meant to reinforce policies that dramatically increase Executive power. I don't point this out of the sake of liberal outrage. I don't consider it surprising that those in power seek to consolidate it, whether it's Dick Cheney or Barack Obama.

Yesterday, Jenny sent me a quote that perfectly describes this problem:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato

I believe that's true, especially when the people in question are able to interpret and re-write the laws at will.

Frankly, it's been a depressing experience to watch Cheney & Bush run roughshod over the Constitution for eight years, only to have Obama come in and do the same. Still, I find Petraeus's quote inspiring. It points to a lofty ideal, something worth believing in, even if we're very far from it, and the way forward isn't always clear.

War-enabler endorses Obama, will take part in his administration

As someone who vehemently opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, it irks me that Obama claims the anti-war mantle so easily. Hillary's much-derided criticism that all he has going for him in that department is a speech from 2002 is looking more accurate by the day. That speech was virtually a foregone conclusion given his Hyde Park constituency, and since then what has he done to burnish his anti-war credentials?

Obama never challenges the assumption that the surge worked, although there is ample evidence to the contrary. He never challenges McCain's and Palin's assertion that stopping funding for the war is the same as betraying the troops. What do they think will happen if there is no more money for the war? Will President Bush order soldiers to fight without bullets and food, or will he bring them home? Which represents a greater betrayal, asking troops to deploy again and again in an open-ended conflict with no realistic objectives, or bringing them home?

Add to this list Obama's rapturous response to the Powell endorsement:

"This morning, a great soldier, a great statesman, and a great American has endorsed our campaign to change America. I have been honored to have the benefit of his wisdom and counsel from time to time over the last few years, but today, I am beyond honored and deeply humbled to have the support of General Colin Powell."

Exactly how short is our collective memory? Six years ago Powell was the spokesman for the war, and his spurious U.N. speech was instrumental in convincing Americans that military action was necessary.

Whatever resignations Powell had about invading Iraq, he did nothing until he was pushed out by the same cadre that ruined his credibility. Least-evil member of the Bush administration is still a pretty poor distinction, and now the Obama administration is set to benefit from his "wisdom and council." Pardon me if I don't fall all over myself about the power of change-you-can-believe-in to inspire transformative inclusive yadda yadda yadda.

Of course this is good politics for Obama, who I do in fact support over McCain. Based on the aggregate of remarks made by Obama and his advisers, versus the general thrust of the McCain campaign, plus guessing, plus my in-grown Democratic bias, I think that Obama is less likely to lead us to ruination. Besides, Obama is only cavorting with war-enablers. McCain is endorsed by war-criminals.

Nuclear Pintos, the McCain/Obama energy plan

Isn't it great how bipartisan everyone's being this election season? I'm so relieved that we don't have to put up with a lot of bickering over trivial issues like gay marriage, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the surge, Afghanistan, single-payer healthcare, and the $700B bailout.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• Gays should not be allowed to marry.
• If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government spies on you/pours water into your lungs?
• The surge worked.
• We can and must win in Afghanistan.
• Single-payer is not realistic.
• The only cure for our financial woes is to give several hundred billion to those at the center of the crisis.
  

Gore Vidal

Mussolini

So now I get to practice my right as an American to choose between purple and violet on the above scale. Yippee.

To the above list of crucial, politically irrelevant issues facing the country, add energy independence. Here's McCain in the 1st Presidential debate:

"Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power."

Damn right. We have got to stop paying Iran and Venezuela for their precious wind and sunshine and tides. It's time to start producing some American wind and sunshine where it will do the workers in Ohio and other swing states some good!

What's that, Obama? We're not paying them for sunshine?

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States."

It's the oil, stupid, and the problem with both statements is that McCain and Obama apparently think that all forms of energy are drop-in replacements for oil.

Which they are, if your car runs on plutonium and has a sail, like my modified 72' Pinto:

(sail not pictured)

Those of you who do not have a nuclear car and house like me are probably still going to want some gasoline and home heating oil, but you cannot create gasoline from nuclear fuel. You cannot create home heating oil from wind. (You can, theoretically, create both from bio-fuels, but this is only a win if your farm equipment runs on wind, solar, or nuclear. Or if you're the corn lobby. Then it's a big win either way.)

Even better, you could create the infrastructure to convert electricity into hydrogen, which you can then use to generate more electricity, or drive a car, or heat a house, or fly a blimp.

But no one's talking about that, because unlike bio-fuels, solar, and wind, overhauling our energy infrastructure might actually threaten the windfall profits of oil & gas companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to both candidates.

If you read the above quotes and you're thinking that Obama didn't say anything about nuclear and therefore isn't in favor of Nuclear Pintos, here's an Obama quote from last night's debate:

"Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix."

No explanation of why nuclear power is a good idea. I assume it's for more Nuclear Pintos.

Obama seems to be pulling away in the stretch. Good, I'll be happier if I don't have to vote for purple over violet. Nader's on the ballot in more states than ever. If you're not in a swing state, think about it. He's incredible. Wherever you are, you could just thumb your nose at the plurality system and vote your conscience--what a concept!

Stunning defiance for GOP, stunning compliance from Dems

NYT: "The House of Representatives voted on Monday to reject a $700 billion rescue of the financial industry ... in stunning defiance of President Bush and Congressional leaders"

Ah, finally! The Democrats in Congress have found their collective spine and stood up to Bush. They didn't have the nerve to stop him on warrantless wiretapping or torture, but this was a bridge too far. Seven-hundred billion in corporate welfare for reckless Wall St. firms? Finally the populist soul of the Democratic party was awakened.

Or not.

	Yea	Nay
Democrat	60% (140)	40% (95)
Republican	33% (65)	67% (133)

I don't know why I'm so surprised. I mean, it takes effort to get your approval rating down to 14%. You'd have to be deliberately unpopular, which is a good theoretical framework for understanding Reid's and Pelosi's actions.

Why stop there, Democrats? You're only 4 points shy of the record-high disapproval rating. If you keep this up you could hold both records at once.

This is what a gay Republican looks like

Thank you, CNN.

Not that there's anything wrong with David Valkema. He looks like a nice fellow, and it must take a lot of guts to be a Log Cabin Republican. I just have this feeling that CNN went out of their way to find a picture of someone who "looks gay," and who they can stereotype. "Oooh, he's the director of a fine-arts institute!"

So far balance, here's a picture of gay rights supporter and masculine icon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, having a sit down with the Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.

Take that, homophobes!

New leadership

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq,"

Barack Obama, January 11, 2008

Funny, I don't remember Obama going on about Biden's "judgement" during the primary campaign.

I know they'll say anything to get elected. Really, what kind of politician are you if you won't? It's just so much more cathartic to take the piss out of Obama. Partly because he won, and partly because he can be so sanctimonious.

He's like the Doors. I don't give a rip about most terrible bands, but Barack Obama and the Doors give "overrated" new meaning. Therefore I'm justified in holding my grudge.

Feingold excoriates new FISA bill, threatens filibuster

Last week I wrote about the FISA "compromise" that just passed the house. Two days ago Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave an interview to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on that same topic, and spoke with the clarity and moral conviction that Democratic Party leaders and Presidential candidates are so desperately lacking.

The full transcript is available from Democracy Now, but here are some of the more devastating quotes:

"This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.

And unfortunately, it’s going to go through with the help of some Democrats. So this is a very, very sad day for our Constitution and for our rights, and it’s not justified by the terrorism issue, because we do not have any problem at all with going after anybody that we have reasonable suspicions about."

"The President takes the position that under Article II of the Constitution he can ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We believe that that’s absolutely wrong. I have pointed out that I think it is not only against the law, but I think it’s a pretty plain impeachable offense that the President created this program, and yet this immunity provision may have the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime, which I believe it is."

"[Democrats] are doing nothing. They’re giving in. Senator Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri, is basically giggling at the fact that the Republicans and the administration got essentially everything they want on this. It’s sadly a great failure on the part of the Democratic majority that was elected in 2006 primarily to get us out of Iraq, but also significantly to protect the Constitution of the United States. This is not a proud moment."

As of this morning, Chris Dodd and Feingold have succeeded in delaying the vote until after the July 4th weekend, but long term prospects remain dim. Feingold has pledged to do everything in his power, but his tone is more than a little resigned.

"We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped."

Not only can the Democrats not get 51 votes to strip telecom amnesty from the bill, they likely can't even get 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. The Democrats are the nominal majority party, but they divide so often that Republicans get virtually whatever they want. At this point the idea that Reid and Pelosi are opposition leaders doesn't even pass the straight face test. Reid even honors holds (a procedural measure) from Republicans while ignoring multiple holds from Senate Democrats. It's no wonder that the Democratic congress now has a higher approval rating among Republicans than Democrats.

Still, the Democratic party is the only game in town for pragmatists like Dodd and Feingold, which is no doubt why Dodd is kowtowing to Reid, even as Reid undermines him. This is what he had to say about Reid today:

"I want the record to reflect the deep appreciation I have for the majority leader -- I know others do as well -- for the way in which he and his office have allowed us to achieve the results we have up to this point,"

It's pretty disturbing that Dodd feels he has to thank the majority leader for allowing him to take a few ineffective measures. These are steps the Democratic majority should be taking, except more forcefully. Even sadder, I don't see this changing anytime soon. If a majority in both houses can't do anything against the least popular President in history, what hope is there? Barack Obama, Democratic wunderkind and star of many liberal fantasies, once promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom amnesty. He's now singing Harry Reid's tune ("Happy Birthday, Mr. President") and looking less inspiring by the day.

Obama supports compromise FISA bill

Hey, I know it's been a while since I posted here, but something happened today that made me sick. The house passed a bill that includes amnesty for telecoms that illegally spied on Americans. If you haven't been following the issue, this means that there will be no investigation into illegal acts committed by and on behalf of this administration, much less punishment.

The bill was supported by Democratic House leadership and, in an after-the-fact announcement, by Barack Obama. Obama basically concedes to every spurious Republican argument for passing the bill. He doesn't even address the issue of telecom amnesty:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. . . .It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.

Not that I'm terribly surprised. I've been arguing for a long time with people who think that Obama is somehow different from other politicians when he plainly isn't. Still, I would be lying if I said that I'm not sad that the Democratic nominee for President would support such odious legislation.

I don't want to be sour grapes about this, but right now the thought of voting for Obama isn't particularly appealing. Luckily for me, it's winner-take-all, and Seattle is about 95% Democratic, so I can do whatever I want on November 3rd without possibly affecting the outcome of the Presidential election. Way to go, Democracy.

Obama/McCain voters, bane of Democracy

Jenny and I have a long-running conversation where we try to place blame for the failed state of our Democracy. I'm constantly tempted to blame it on those in power: politicians who manipulate the public into voting against their interests; corporations who warp elections with their outsized pocketbooks; and the mainstream media who ensure that the level of discourse never threatens to become substantial.

I don't want to paraphrase Jenny too much, but her point, which I've never successfully argued against, is that these situations persist because most people are just willfully ignorant. I think there's a lot of truth to that. Most people would rather watch Tila Tequila than read even a little. Even if we expose ourselves to more sources of information, we won't have an informed public until we can think critically, too.

Anyway, nothing makes me angrier and sadder than when I overhear the following sentiment (which I do frequently) from a loyal Obamaniac:

"If Hillary wins the nomination, I might vote for McCain, or just sit this one out."

There's so much idiocy inherent in that statement that I'm not even sure where to begin with it, but I'll try to translate it into something that looks like a coherent (though still idiotic) thought. Here is my approximation:

"I don't really know much about the issues. I'm not very informed, but hey, don't blame me. The mainstream media keeps feeding all this personality-based drivel. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, so I'm just going to decide based on that. So anyway, I'm supporting Obama. He doesn't have any serious policy differences with Hillary, but I like him better for vague reasons. However, if Obama doesn't make it, I'll pick someone totally different. If the so-called issues mattered very much to me, then obviously I would vote for Hillary, but since they don't, I'll vote for McCain. He's very popular with the media too, so he must be a really swell guy."

That's what I imagine these people are thinking. This article in Salon does a nice job of describing the phenomenon, although it fails to identify it as a serious problem.

Anyway, here are some other things such an Obamanatic might say:

• I really want a steak, but if they don't have that I'll fast.
  
• What movie should we watch, Requiem for a Dream or Bambi?
  
• I'm going to ask her to marry me, but if she says "no" I'll become a homosexual.

Special Bill Kristol Sub-commandment VI a

Nice clip from Gary Kamiya's Ten commandments of Iraq:

Commandment VI
Do not allow neoconservatives anywhere near Middle East policy.

Neoconservative ideology, the pea-size brain that drove the Bush administration Stegosaurus, is a weird amalgam of Wilsonian idealism, historical ignorance, American triumphalism and an Israeli-centric worldview. In practice, what these ideas amounted to was "America must hit the Arabs in the face to teach them a lesson." This was not a good idea.

Special Bill Kristol Sub-commandment VI a
Stop giving these buffoons prestigious jobs on newspaper-of-record Op-Ed pages, top magazines and television shows. They have been completely and consistently wrong about everything. Must we continue to be subjected to their pontifications?

True, I'd rather live in a world where neocon screeds existed only in The National Review and The Weekly Standard-- but then what would I blog about?

Charles Krauthammer, demagogue for peace

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer proposes a strategy for containing Iran which is as meaningless as it is ignorant. His bold idea: to declare that if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, then we will respond in kind. That is his stated purpose anyway. The real agenda is to recite history-as-narrative, casting America as the unsullied hero and Iran as the irredeemable villain.

The first unstated assumption (of this piece and so many others) is that Iran is the wild-eyed aggressor. The mullahs, or at least some of them, are "apocalyptic and messianic." Unlike our former enemies the Soviets they are not rational actors. Ahmadinejad is a jihadist. The second assumption, which is so ubiquitous that it is barely stated, is that America is merely the defender of peace in the Middle East. Our motives are selfless, and our actions are righteous by definition. Unless you accept these assumptions, the piece is laughable at face value.

Krauthammer states that a nuclear Iran will "deeply destabilize" the Middle East. The idea that a pro-U.S. commentator is accusing another country of destabilizing the region is downright absurd. And one of his reasons is that it will leave Israel's nukes on hair-trigger alert. So Iran's theoretical nukes are dangerous because they increase the chance that the actual nukes that we gave to Israel will be used.

In order to make his "contribution to nuclear peace," Krauthammer would like Bush to use John Kennedy as his role-model. His reference to the Cuban missile crisis is more accurate than he realizes. Following the America-as-hero model, Kennedy was merely the victim of unprovoked Soviet aggression. The idea that the United States provoked the Soviet Union by basing nuclear missiles in nearby Turkey is not admissible as evidence because it runs counter to the prevailing narrative. Similarly, it would be unthinkable to mention that the United States' past aggression against Iran might in any way have led to the current state of affairs.

As a side-note, I think it's cute when advocates of unchecked American power cite the U.N. as justification for anything, as Krauthammer does here. For reference, here are forty-some UN Resolutions critical of Israel which the US vetoed.

All this talk of deterrence is amusing, because it comes so close to acknowledging the real use of Iranian nukes: to deter the U.S. from attacking Iran. Instead of admitting that there might be some rational reason that Iran wants nuclear weapons, Krauthammer plays the Holocaust card:

"As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

No matter that the U.S. knowingly permitted the first Holocaust against the Jewish people. This should in no way infringe upon our status as "the nation that has liberated more peoples than any other." Krauthammer paints his opponents as "those who see no moral principle underlying American foreign policy."

It should be obvious that this is propaganda--uncritical, jingoistic, pro-U.S. propaganda. There is no moral principle underlying foreign policy, ours or any other country's. Whenever someone says that there is, we're being lied to and sold something we don't want (see: Operation Iraqi Freedom.) The fact that people like Krauthammer, William Kristol, and David Brooks have any credibility, and are regularly published in our most respected newspapers should tell us something about our level of awareness as a society.

NPR leaves out crucial information in wiretapping story

This morning David Welna did a story on NPR's Morning Edition about Tash Hepting, the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit against AT&T over warrantless wiretapping. The segment ended with this response from Jay Rockefeller, who has been championing retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

David Welna: But the Democratic chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Jay Rockefeller, agrees with President Bush. The phone companies need immunity if they're to be counted on for future cooperation. He predicts that a plaintiff like Hepting will not have his day in court.

Jay Rockefeller: There's no way they can do it because of the state secrets act. The plaintiff will never get to find out anything.

DW, to JR: Even if there's not immunity?

JR: Oh, if there's not immunity it may be different.

DW: But Rockefeller is confident that ultimately there will be immunity.

Rockefeller is exactly right: if there's immunity then neither the plaintiff, nor anybody else, will get to find out anything. All we know now is that Attorney General John Ashcroft, his deputy, and the Director of the FBI were all ready to resign if the program continued. Notice that Rockefeller doesn't give any reason why immunity is a good thing, and this is where NPR really drops the ball.

AT&T is Jay Rockefeller's number-one campaign contributor.

Not only that. Jay Rockefeller is the #3 recipient in the Senate of donations from telecom services & equipment, excluding Presidential candidates. Rockefeller got more money from telephone utilities than any other senator excluding Presidential candidates.

This is just sloppy journalism on NPR's part. I don't expect a campaign financing report every time a politician speaks, but we need to know when the politician in question is defending his top contributor. If the media did perform due diligence and report these conflicts of interest, maybe our so-called representatives wouldn't be so blatant about who they're really serving.

Good news for Clinton, Slate-style

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, there's no argument that Clinton has gotten a raw deal. We'll have to wait until after the election for the Columbia Journalism Review to do a study like this one, showing that the MSM skewered Gore in 2000, and by then it will be too late.

Luckily for lazy bloggers such as myself, sometimes you don't need exhaustive analysis to prove media bias. Today's Slate frontpage, following Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island:

She Lives!
(Now What?)

John Dickerson on whether
Clinton's comeback is
too little, too late.

Mickey Kaus on how
momentum hurts her.

For more examples of Slate's pro-Obama, anti-Clinton bias, see every other Slate article on the subject.

The Obama fundraising myth

Barack Obama is a great candidate. I mostly agree with him most of the time. He's smart and likeable, and I look forward to voting for him if he's our party's nominee. The thing that bugs me about Obama is that he's running as a different kind of candidate. His only tangible claim to being a different kind of candidate is that he doesn't take PAC or lobbyist monies.

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

He often uses this line to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton, implying that she is beholden to lobbyists and the industries they represent. So how much PAC money is Hillary taking? According to opensecrets, she's accepted $544,492 from PACs (including organized labor,) amounting to about 0.47% of her total donations.

And how much has she taken from lobbyists? Also from opensecrets, Hillary has raised $823,087, or about 0.71%. I don't think that makes her especially beholden to them. By contrast, Obama raised 8 or 9% of his campaign contributions from PACs and lobbyists when he ran for the Senate two years ago. While in office he introduced legislation totaling $12 million in tax cuts (in the form of tariff suspensions) at the behest of corporate lobbyists.

Even his claim that he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists is misleading. He still takes money from employees of companies that earn money from lobbying, lobbyists registered at the state level, and spouses of lobbyists:

"Ben Barnes, a federally registered lobbyist, has given contributions to Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, but not to Obama or John Edwards.

However, Barnes' wife, Melanie Barnes, has given to Obama and Edwards on the same dates and in the same amounts as her husband's contributions to the other candidates. She lists her occupation as homemaker."

All the candidates, including Obama and Clinton, get most of their money from individual contributors. This does not mean that the money comes with no strings attached. Donations above $200 are categorized by the occupation of the donor. So when candidate X says that candidate Y took $43,000 from tobacco companies, it really means candidate Y took $43,000 from employees of tobacco companies in amounts of $200 or greater.

Using this measure, let's take a look at amounts donated to Clinton and Obama from a few industries:

Industry	Clinton	Obama
All	$115,652,361	$102,170,668
Commercial Banks	$1,119,982	$1,017,200
Computers/Internet	$1,283,076	$1,327,738
Health Services/HMOs	$326,456	$216,640
Hedge Funds & Private Equity	$1,266,342	$1,040,185
Insurance	$666,121	$478,494
Lawyers/Law Firms	$11,756,493	$9,521,441
Oil & Gas	$268,562	$132,115
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$349,270	$337,525
Real Estate	$4,800,060	$2,748,535
Securities & Investment	$5,828,999	$5,295,884

In the South Carolina debate, Edwards called out both Clinton and Obama for taking corporate money:

"Barack just spoke, as he does often, eloquently, about taking on the drug companies, the insurance companies, I also think it's important to recognize that Senator Obama has taken more money from the drug companies than anybody. Senator Clinton has taken more money from the insurance companies than anybody."

To which Obama responded,

"A couple of points. John, I think, is aware I don't take PAC money. I don't take money from federal lobbyists. I'm not taking money from their companies.

It is true that there are employees of all sorts of companies that have given to my campaign because, frankly, I've raised a lot of money, and sometimes in $25, $50, $100 donations.

But that does mean that I've gotten a bunch of money from drug lobbyists. And I think it's important to make that distinction, John."

So, point by point:

1. Obama is taking money from those companies in exactly the same way Clinton is, just less of it.
2. Donations under $200 are not classified by industry, so his second point is patently false.
3. Clinton is taking only a fraction of a percent of her contributions from lobbyists of any industry, so I'm not sure why this is such an important distinction.
   

As I said before, I'm not anti-Obama by any stretch. I'm just sick of hearing this line about how he's running a different kind of campaign, and that he can reform the system because he isn't part of it. It's all marketing--I wish people would see it for what it is.

Schadenfreude, Giuliani-style

Thanks to Democracy Now for this jewel:

Giuliani had the worst dollar for delegate record in U.S. history. The former New York mayor spent more than fifty million dollars on his campaign and received just one single delegate. At that rate Giuliani would have needed to spend $60 billion to win the Republican nomination.

That might seem like a bit of kicking the man when he's down, but I don't feel so bad after the way he lied about 9/11 so profusely. I might disagree with just about everything McCain says, but at least he's not a moral monster, or married to one.

Ron Paul is clearly the author of those racist newsletters

Remember when Ron Paul wouldn't give back donations from white supremacists? His explanation was almost plausible, and back then you could imagine that he needed the money:

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

However, earlier this year TNR reported that newsletters bearing Paul's name have regularly been filled with racist, homophobic tirades. We'll get to the weak denial shortly, but first here are some quotes that should keep any half-decent voter far, far away from Ron Paul if he's even remotely associated with them.

"[O]pinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions."

"[I]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."

"I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

"Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

The newsletter reserves special animus for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Here, quoted in full, is a passage from his newsletter of December 1990.

"Dr." King

So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.

He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that king had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?

Here is the response from Paul's campaign, also reported in TNR:

"A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He [Paul's campaign spokesman] added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

Amazingly, the TNR accepts that there is some possibility that Ron Paul did not write or directly approve these articles, saying only that "many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author." The articles are not merely written in first person. They clearly convey that Paul is the author.

The newsletter containing the "'Dr.' King" passage concludes this way:

"My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year."

Also, in January 1991 "someone" has this to say about Dr. King:

"St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours ('non-violence' didn't apply in all spheres, I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist witha phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.

Why, he often asked, 'is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?' (Forget a PhD. Give this man an IQ test.)"

Later, on the same page of the newsletter, a mysterious "someone" reveals himself to have a personal stake in the matter:

"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday."

Hey, who knows. Could have been anybody.

Just so we don't end on a bad note, I just wanted to reassure all you Ron Paul supporters that he's not one of those fickle "compassionate conservatives." From the Ron Paul Survival Report, January 1994:

"First, these [gay] men dont' really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered around new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you've got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for."

Slate argues for flat taxes, defies logic

This morning at Slate, I was greeted with the following headline: Huckabee's tax plan is brilliant. I'm not generally a fan of advocacy journalism, especially when it comes to politics, but this was especially surprising. (On a side note, I've noticed Slate trending rightward lately. I think Hitchens snuck in on the strength of his accent and since then he's been poisoning the coffee.) I thought Huckabee's plan was a national sales tax (a.k.a. "flat tax") a regressive concept that should have died with the Forbes campaign.

And it is. Huckabee's "FairTax" would replace federal income taxes with a 23% sales tax, with an exemption for those living under the poverty line. The poverty exemption makes this only slightly less regressive, considering that the poverty line for a single person in 2007 was $10,210. It's not rocket science to figure out that if you take the current graduated system and replace it with a single bracket (for those above the poverty line,) that's a tax increase for those at the bottom, and a tax cut for those at the top.

Oddly, Huckabee claims that this would actually mean lower taxes for everyone:

Expert analyses have shown that the FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden of all of us: single or married; working or retired; rich, poor or middle class.

We're left to guess who the experts in question might be. Simply lowering everyone's taxes doesn't even pass the straight-face test.

But I digress, this is not about illogical Presidential candidates. It's about illogical Slate correspondents. Here is the central argument of Landsberg's article:

With an income tax, you pay up front. Earn a dollar in 2008, and you'll pay 20 cents tax in 2008. (Actually, you'll pay more, of course; I'm assuming a 20 percent tax rate for the sake of illustration.) With a sales tax, that 20 cents sits in your bank account earning interest until the day you spend your earnings.

In other words, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to pay tax on all the money we make from interest and capitol gains? Of course it would--if you make most of your money by having money. Landsberg is especially devious here, because he implies that you get more money (by holding onto your money longer so you can invest it) while at the same time implying that this is not a tax cut:

A sales tax is the exact equivalent of an income tax with a provision for unlimited IRA contributions (and no withdrawal penalties.)

But it is a tax cut. The weasel phrase here is "equivalent of an income tax." The sales tax would be equivalent if the sales tax rate was the same as the marginal income tax rate. However the proposal is for a 23% rate when any money earned over $31,850 is already taxed at 25%, and so on up the scale. The more you make, the more you save with a sales tax.

That's not even the real deception. Huckabee is not proposing to replace the income tax with a sales tax. He's proposing to get rid of the capitol gains tax as well. When you figure that in, it's a huge benefit for those who invest their income, rather than spend it.

Some might argue that since a growing proportion of American households now own some form of stock, this would bring the middle class into the investing class. According to this report from the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorites, the top 10% of income earners hold 70% of taxable stock.

Landsberg finishes by saying that we can make this tax rate graduated (which is not what Huckabee proposes) simply by having the government monitor our every transaction.

There might be a way to design a graduated sales tax. Your credit-card providers have a pretty good idea how much you spend each year, and the government could in principle use that information to set your tax rate. Yes, there are a lot of details to be worked out, and yes, it's highly intrusive—but I'm not convinced it's any more intrusive than what we've got now.

Since you're unclear, Yes, it is more intrusive. Right now the government knows how much income you're getting from certain sources. With this plan the government would know where and when you spend that money. It's not even close.