Drexel Dems

We've Moved!

2008-09-15T00:13:00.004-04:00

We have moved our website permanently to our domain at www.DrexelDems.org. This website will remain available as an archive, but new content will be posted exclusively to DrexelDems.org.

Please update your blogrolls, and see you at our new and improved site!

Preacher Palin

2008-09-07T00:19:00.001-04:00

I admit, it bothers me that Palin thinks that the fighting in Iraq is a "task from God." I was also intrigued by her exhortation to pray for the gas pipeline. They mock Obama for suggesting that you inflate your tires, but prayer is part of an energy policy?

(via Susie)

Keeping Us Sane

2008-09-05T23:42:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show was on tonight, but the video isn't on their website yet. But This Samantha Bee piece from yesterday was good also.

The Daily Show does a much better job of cutting through the BS than just about any news organization. Those delegates are a piece of work, huh?

[UPDATE] Here are some more, from the best fucking news team on television!

FOX Attacks Obama Like Kerry

2008-09-05T14:49:00.002-04:00

I sure am glad that hate week is over now. Nothing like seeing Republicans lie through their teeth about their own policies and the policies of Obama. Every time a Republican talked about the "Liberal Left Washington" that has caused the problems we have today I wanted to smack them. I do not know where they have been the last 8 years but I am pretty sure the President has been Republican during all of these problems.

Anyway here is a great video that shows how pathetic FOX News is.

Extended post here

Rabble Rouser

2008-09-04T21:29:00.000-04:00

Nice people, those Republicans.

"There's some speculation that there was, uh, union organizing, or, uh, organizing the community to take advantage of welfare programs, or whatever."

Why not just call him uppity and save us the 6 hours of speeches each day? Oh, nevermind.

The Republican Racket

2008-09-04T08:37:00.000-04:00

The Republicans have figured out a pretty effective and cynical style of running for office. It's simple and easy, and goes like this:

Lie. About yourself, your opponent, and objective reality.
In the unlikely event that the media points out the lies, call them biased.
Repeat.

It's depressingly predictable.

And that's about all I can say about the speeches last night.

Loren On Rudy's Speech

2008-09-03T22:10:00.002-04:00

Just now:

"Oh my god John he's being such a douchebag don't come in here!"

She was right.

Open Mic Night at the RNC

2008-09-03T21:06:00.003-04:00

No, I don't mean just because they're letting anyone speak (Romney and Giuliani?) I'm talking about Republican hacks Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy caught on live mics expressing their real feelings about Sarah Palin (via TPM).

This is a truely amazing video. It's not really that surprising to people who pay attention, but it is stark to see the contrast between what they really think and the party line they regurgitate on TV. Pass this along!

(Transcript below the fold)

Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.
(cut away)

Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.

Lieberman's Great Speech

2008-09-03T01:09:00.002-04:00

Wow. Just wow. I think that Joe Lieberman is a phony and a charlatan, but he just delivered one hell of a keynote at the Republican convention. Here is the video:

He hit all the right notes; Um, ladies and gentlemen, and did it with his folksy charm and trademark cadence. That was a dagger to Obama's heart.

(In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic!)

Respect.

2008-09-02T23:56:00.000-04:00

I caught a small amount of the RNC tonight, but I saw enough. I saw Fred Thompson call Obama a baby killer. I saw Joe Lieberman cuddle up to his right-wing overlords. I saw one of the 36 black GOP delegates. And I saw a markedly different attitude towards military service than the GOP showed four years ago.

Everywhere I looked I saw signs with "Service," "Country First," and slogans honoring POWs and veterans. But I'll never forget that this was the party that distributed band-aids with purple hearts on them to mock Sen. John Kerry's service just four short years ago. Suddenly the party that swiftboated on behalf of a draft dodger is running on a platform of service to one's country? Spare me.

I do find it worth noting that the Democratic party doesn't denigrate service when it's politically convenient. Sen. Obama showed us how to disagree strongly while being respectful. Sen. McCain and his party lack the grace to have such respect, and make no mistake; that disrespect it not aimed just at Democrats, it's aimed at the Democratic process of our country.

End of my rant.

Cargo Cult Politics

2008-08-30T23:30:00.001-04:00

In one of my favorite speeches, the 1974 CalTech commencment, physicist Richard Feynman decried what he called "cargo cult science." Cargo cults are the anthropologically fascinating result of the interaction between primitive cultures and developed ones.

Most famously, during the U.S. island hopping campaign in the Pacific during WWII, we built military bases on many small pacific islands. The native inhabitants previously had little or no contact with modern materiel, and when the war ended and the bases were deserted. Not understanding the source of the equipment, many native societies formed cults to bring back the supplies. They constructed all the superficial trappings of the military bases; they built runways with bamboo airplanes to lure the planes back. Men sat watch with coconut and bamboo radio headsets. Soldiers marched with wooden rifles.

Feynman described cargo cult science as scientific research that had the trappings of real science, but lacked the crucial substantive measures tha defined science. A laboratory with colored fluids in beakers doesn't make a chemistry experiment. Testable hypotheses carefully measured and controlled for do.

In that same vein, I believe that the PUMA movement is an example of cargo cult politics. The PUMA groups (Party Unity My Ass) are nominally disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, but a careful (or even cursury) examination of their politics betrays that they're more aptly described as cargo cult Democrats.Since Sen. Clinton failed to recieve the nomination of the Democratic party, the PUMAs have tried to convince themselves and others that their movement is larger than the candidate, and that they are forming a "New Democratic Party." They have their slogans, and posters, and chants, and YouTube videos. They have all the trappings of a political movement, but where they fail short is the substance.

Presidential politics is bigger than hurt feelings and bruised egos. There are real, consequential policies at stake, and hundreds of millions of Americans (not to mention the rest of the world) are impacted by the choices we make. The PUMAs seem to acknowledge this, and yet they don't seem to understand it, and that is what makes it cargo cult politics.

They come up with lists of grievences, issues, and demands, without apparent thought to their meaning. They held a conference with no agenda, and the contradictory purpose of promoting Clinton's agenda and defeating Obama. They're all constructing coconut radios and blogging about it. For example, the much belabored distinction between Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's health care plans was the issue of mandating adults purchase coverage for themselves. They both were otherwise similarly structured; reducing costs, an optional national plan, guarenteed coverage, etc. Neither were completely universal, and both aimed for universal health insurance, not universal healthcare. And yet, the PUMAs seized upon the adult mandates (which Obama actually has a rather sophisticated take on), declared that Obama's plan was insufficient, and accordingly, they support John McCain, whose plan for universal healthcare is emergency rooms.

They have all the righteous fury of a movement demanding action on issues, and yet they have no more than a superficial embrace of the policies. John McCain is staunchly anti-choice? That doesn't have real world impacts, it's just an abstract issue to the PUMAs. Reckless foreign policy? Just another talking point. Further examples abound.

They are a cargo cult because they seem to think that just by printing banners and blogging they have a movement. They have invented silly demands, but they are little more than paint on their wooden rifles. They miss that movements are driven by real issues and real grievences. Movements don't grow by hurt feelings, because anybody who doesn't already identify strongly with the cult doesn't have their feelings hurt.

After their matron saint, Hillary Clinton, repudiated them at the convention they turned ever more deeply inward, safely into the reassuring embrace of themselves. It's kind of sad, in a way, as they sit and blog from their bamboo airplanes, waiting for the rise of their movement. Their numbers and influence are exaggerated, and their ranks are bouyed by opportunistic cranks. But they were fun for a while.

Thoughts On Palin

2008-08-30T11:44:00.002-04:00

Since McCain picked Sarah Pali, Governer of Alaska to be his Vice Presidential running mate, everyone has been scrambling to figure out "what it means" and "how it plays." I have a few general thoughts, and what better place to air them than the internet? Here they are in no particular order.

1) This was first and foremost a political pick. If the first major decision of the presidency is picking a vice president, McCain just failed and Obama passed. Obama picked a politician for both political and practical reasons; Biden is a great surrogate, but he is also a reasoned and experienced voice to have as counsel. Biden and Obama by all accounts developed quite a rapport over the campaign, and with Obama's trust, Biden will be an effective advisor and confidant.

McCain, on the other hand, had no relationship with Palin at all. She was picked first and foremost to shake things up, as the McCain camp understood they couldn't win on the fundamentals. I don't know how many times McCain and Palin have ever even met before the VP search began, but I'd be surprised if it were more than a handful of times. Also on her side was the paucity of good picks for McCain. As my mom pointed out "who the hell else was he going to pick? Romney? Giulliani?"

2) I second Atrios' caution about sexist criticisms of Palin. Concerns that she is too busy with a son with down syndrome to be VP, or other such gener role based concerns, are sexist. Criticism that she doesn't have the gravitas or knowledge to be president, questions that generall aren't asked of men in similar positions (Rudy Giulliani) shouldn't be confused with her genuine lack of experience on the national stage.

3) Sarah Palin really is a very conservative wingnut. She is a global warming denier, vehemently anti-choice, and a creationist. This was probably as much a pander to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson as it was a pick to shake things up. 2 for 1!

4) My hope is that despite the initial confusion and excitement, people recognize the political nature of this pick, and question if McCain really has the judgement to be president.

5) Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton, and the idea that women don't vote on issues is borderline sexist. Minority groups are constantly fighting these stereotypes, and they usually fight back and do the right thing. Republicans try to run every African-American candidate they can, but African-Americans don't vote for them just because they're black. See Steel, Michael. Give female voters some credit.

6) I'm not really ever persuaded by the experience argument (owing perhaps to my own age and lack of experience...). No job really prepares you for the presidency, and a bright and ambitious politician like Obama is every bit as qualified, in my view, after 4 years in the senate as McCain and his 26 years in the senate. I'm more concerned that Palin is extremely right-wing than I am that she has only been governer for 2 years. Though that is perhaps stretching the bounds of my inexperience-tolerance.

7) I'm not impressed that Palin rides snowmobiles or eats mooseburger, and if I hear that from my TV one more time I'm gonna scream. I wasn't impressed that George W. Bush had a ranch and would have been fun to drink beer with (even though I never thought so), and I'm not impressed with Palin's "Real American" credentials. Eating mooseburgers and riding snowmobiles doesn't make her any more American or credible to me than any other American.

8) Ultimately, people don't vote for Vice President. They vote for President. Palin is new and exciting, but McCain can't hide behind her.

Things That Make My Ears Bleed

2008-08-28T17:11:00.003-04:00

Cable news.

Specifically, when I come home and turn on the TV and hear talking heads complaining that politicians and parties "don't get" the problems of "average" Americans, and that these politicians and parties need to "explain" what they're going to do. I'm looking at you Tom Brokaw.

Perhaps I find this so exasperating because Obama's plans are so easily found on his website, accessible to any American with access to the internet (which certainly includes members of the media). Meanwhile, cable news spends hours upon hours complaining about the lack of substance, or policy, or details, or solutions, and quite literally no time examining the policies or proposals of the candidates.

I've seen hundreds of hours of news coverage this election, and not once have I seen even a 5 minute substantive report on the competing healthcare proposals, or energy proposals, or tax plans, or Iraq plans.

I have heard quite a lot of opinions and speculation from Tom Brokaw.

More Speechifying

2008-08-27T23:05:00.002-04:00

The Big Dog smacked around the GOP pretty well.

Joe Biden brought the heat also, but I can't find the video up yet. In the meantime here is his bio/hagio-graphy

One of the nice things about being a Democrat is all the elder statesmen of our party. Compare Clinton, Biden, and Kerry with Guilliani, Romney, and Thompson(!). We win.

Hillary Clinton's Convention Speech

2008-08-27T16:00:00.003-04:00

Was pretty good I thought. I actually thought it was one of her best oratorical performances this campaign, but perhaps that's just because I'm predisposed to the message.

Meanwhile, The Daily Show skewers the dead enders. Gotta love how they brought in a child psychologist!

John McCain's Missed Energy Votes

2008-08-26T11:46:00.017-04:00

One of the aspects of this election that hasn't really penetrated most of the mainstream media narrative is John McCain's complete lack of leadership or coherent position on energy, particularly with regard to renewables and energy independence. Recently, Tom Friedman noticed that McCain had missed a number of key votes on energy, but it's even worse than Friedman wrote. As I noted many times before, John McCain didn't even have an energy policy during the Republican primary. His rhetoric is completely unmatched by his plans and his record. His lack of a coherent energy plan has been discussed here and elsewhere before, however, so now I'm going to explain in moderate detail McCain's dismal senate record on energy policy.

Here is a graphic depicting 33 of the votes that John McCain skipped that dealt with energy in the 110th congress. Several were important votes, and in one instance a bill failed cloture by one, vote, 59-40, and John McCain was the only senator to miss the vote. Now, I know that "missed votes" is often a simplistic partisan attack that neglects to take into account the importance of any particular vote, whether a measure would have succeeded or failed without the vote, and how busy senators are when they run for president. However, I think it is abundantly clear, and I will attempt to show, that this is not the case here. McCain missed every important energy vote over two years, in one case he was actually in his senate office but declined to go to the floor to vote.

Click image for larger version.

McCain's vote skipping is quite clearly not a matter of tight scheduling, but a combination of the low priority he places on energy, and the fact that his positions just aren't popular, and he doesn't want to be pinned by voting for them. However, his absence is effectively a "no" vote when Republicans block renewable energy legislation through filibustering.

On top of this though, McCain has the gall to tell voters that he supports renewables, and even lies about his support for the ITC/PTC tax credits. Take this video from August 14th. McCain's claim to support renewables is belied by his record and his plan.

In the interest of ducumenting his duplicity, here are several situations when John McCain has, through action or inaction, fought renewable energy legislation.

1) The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, HR 6, was the omnibus energy bill of 2007. John McCain missed all relevant votes on this bill, including vote 223 in June of 2007. This vote was on the Baucus amendment to extend the renewable tax credits that are so important to the renewable industries. That vote failed 57-36, with Biden and Obama both voting for it, and McCain not voting.

Then, in December of 2007, HR 6 came up again. After failing to make cloture on the 7th (McCain not voting), it was again introduced at 10 AM on December 13th for vote 425. This time the bill failed 59-40, with McCain not voting. Crucially, this failure that McCain single handedly could have avoided, forced the senate to replace the version of HR 6 that contained amendment 3841 with amendment 3850, which stripped title XV from the bill and with it tax credits for renewables. This new version, without tax credits for renewables, was passed by the senate that afternoon overwhelmingly. John McCain missed that vote too, for good measure (Vote 430).

Interestingly, though, the day before at a Republican debate in Iowa John McCain said:"

"If oil reaches $100 a barrel, which many people think it may, $400 billion from America treasure will go to oil-producing countries. Some of those -- those monies will go to terrorist organizations. We have got to achieve energy independence, oil independence in this nation. I will make it a Manhattan Project, and we will in five years become oil independent."

The very next day he single handedly killed tax credits for renewable energy.

2) After the failure to include the tax credits in the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, Democrats in congress tried to get them passed by attaching them to legislation in 2008. In February Senator Reid offered an amendment to the economic stimulus bill (HR 5140, amendment 3783). That amendment was fillibustered, and failed to bring cloture 58-41, with McCain not voting (vote 8).

Then, in April, the tax credits were added to the housing bill (HR 3221, amendment 4419). Again, however, Republican objection to the PAYGO provisions caused Democrats to strip title X from the bill. McCain missed all three relevant votes.

Following the housing bill, HR 6049 was introduced in the senate. HR 6049 was a bill to extend the tax credits for renewable energy, as attaching the measures to other bills wasn't bearing fruit. John McCain missed all three cloture votes, 147, 150, and 190. All three votes failed by slim margins.

After HR 6049 stalled, Sen. Baucus introduced S.3335, nearly identical to HR 6049. John McCain again skipped the only cloture vote, which failed 51-43.

3) John McCain's failure to support renewable energy or forward thinking energy plans isn't a new position, either. In 1999 an important vote came up that defunded solar and renewable energy research in the DOE by tens of millions of dollars, and though McCain showed up for that vote, he voted the wrong way.

In 1999 President Clinton sent his FY 2000 request for the Department of Energy (DOE) appropriations to the senate, including a request for $836.1 million for Energy Supply R&D, of which $446 million was for Solar and Renewable R&D. This represented a $62.9 million, or 19%, increase over FY 1999 funding of solar and renewables. When the Republican senate took up the bill, they reduced the Energy Supply R&D by $258.5 million, allocating only $577.6 million. This included reducing the Solar and renewable R&D funding by $90 million, an $11 million decrease in nominal terms from FY 1999 funding.

Jim Jeffords attempted to send the bill back to committee to restore the funding after his amendment to do that was ruled out of order. The vote that killed the funding was a "Motion to Table the Decision of the Chair Re: Motion to Recommit." The motion passed 60-39 (50 needed), and the funding wasn't restored. John McCain voted to defund solar and renewable R&D. Joe Biden voted to restore the funding. Vote 171 in the 1st session of the 106th congress. The CRS report is enlightening and infuriating.

John McCain apparently put the same priority on energy 9 years ago that he does today. At least that's one thing he hasn't flip-flopped on.

Finally, don't forget how important these tax credits are to encouraging renewable energy. Even as renewables are approaching price parity with current grid power, the tax credits are vital to achieving financing. Furthermore, the tax credits allow economies of scale to pick up in the manufacturing and production of renewable capital investments. Remember how much installed wind capacity dropped everytime the PTC expired?

By the way, as I wrote this, Mitt Romney was on my TV lying about McCain's energy policy.

David Shuster is the Man

2008-08-26T10:51:00.002-04:00

Joe Scarborough is an ass. Has Scarborough been asleep for the last five years? After the Bush administration and the Iraqi government essentially adopt Obama's responsible withdrawal timeline, he's acting like the GOP had been there all along!

David Shuster was too smart to sit idly by. The rest of that gang? Not so much.

Somebody go dig up video of Scarborough calling Democrats defeatists for calling for timelines or benchmarks for withdrawal.

Scarborough has blood on his smarmy hands.

Joe Biden, a "Statesmen" for VP

2008-08-23T18:36:00.004-04:00

(How am I beating John to this? :)

With the announcement today that Sen. Joe Biden will be Sen. Barack Obama's running mate, my political fervor has been restored. I've taken a bit of a vacation from politics since the primaries wrapped up, holding back from reading the news compulsively because I was tired of being run around in the same old political circles...the pundits bouncing back and forth on who is more of an elitist or who can take which demographic for whatever over-generalized reason. But the question that drove me crazy the most the last few weeks was the one none of us could ignore: "Who will Obama pick as his VP?"

I was soooo tired of it. All the speculation, and then the last few days the media stalking those being vetted...it was getting a little ridiculous.

But now we have an answer, and it's a pretty damned good one.

As everyone in the media and across the interwebs is echoing right now, Biden brings the "experience" factor that Obama needs the most. He brings the white-working-class spirit. He brings a depth of character that complements Obama's, as the presumptive nominee emphasized in introducing his new running mate today. And he has the necessary oratorial strength to campaign alongside such a dynamic crowd-pleaser of a politician as Barack Obama, wielding a sharp tongue that won't hesitate to take an honest jab at the competition.

But the most significant thing that struck me today during their appearance, was the fact that they've got chemistry. There in Springfield with their contrasting red and blue ties, they greeted each other on stage like old friends who hadn't seen each other in years, about to embark on the greatest journey of their lives. They told each other's life stories, fawned over each other's accomplishments. "There's somethin' about this guy..." Biden said, after apologizing for his tendency to "talk too colloquially." Frankly, it was pretty adorable, as far as political appearances go.

As U2's "Beautiful Day" blared to play the running mates off stage, I could feel the next chapter in this seemingly endless election saga opening. And reflecting on their speeches, I'm reminded of how skilled the Obama campaign is at telling a clear story that people can listen to and connect with. It's one of their greatest strengths, and if today is any evidence, Joe Biden is the right man to contribute to their ongoing, carefully crafted narrative.

One thing, however, felt downright eerie throughout their speeches. "Four more years" was the campaign chant for Bush in 2004, and they're using it now to rail against a McCain presidency. I remember thinking back in '04 "How could we possibly vote for four more years of this?" And yet, somehow, we did. Hopefully this time around the American people won't repeat that mistake.

If you didn't catch the speeches earlier, check 'em out now.

Office Space

2008-08-21T14:41:00.015-04:00

We received our office space assignment from the Office of Campus Activities (OCA) the a while back, and surprise surprise, our office mates are...The Drexel College Republicans! I don't know whose bright idea that was, but I think somebody had been watching too many episodes of "The Odd Couple." Naturally, now we won't really use our office. We won't store membership data, voter lists, schedules, briefings, or campaign paraphenalia, because how can we trust the CRs not to mess with it? It's too small to use for meetings, but perhaps it would be good for small meetings with staff, as long as the CRs aren't there at the time.

So I went down and checked it out yesterday, and it seems the CRs have moved in already! Please enjoy these pictures of the small basement office we were assigned to with the CRs. When you walk into the room, their desk is in the back left corner, while ours is the empty one directly to the right, in the opposite corner.

You'll notice that the CR's have taken to decorating with some young Republican posters, and that got Sean and I thinking (always a dangerous proposition): How should we decorate our side?

I think the best way is to let all of you decide. Below you will find ten images and charts that I think would be excellent to decorate our office with. Please check them out, and vote for whichever ones you want us to print out and tack up on the walls.

1) Federal Deficit

2) Bartel's research on incomes under Republicans and Democrats

3) Cumulative job creation of last three presidents (through 2004)

4) Republican economic priorities

5) Relative perceptions of wealth.

6) Maybe party identification of 18-29 year olds?

7) How about the actual impact on supply of lifting the offshore moratorium?

8) Or how about a little context? Oil and gas contributions to the candidates.

9) Maybe something less wonky and more poignant?

10) Finally, an image that would just blow their minds. Obama and the troops.

We're not just doing this to be agitating jerks. I've met and know most of the current CR leadership, and they really aren't horrible people. Hopefully, our interior decorating will spark a constructive dialogue, wherein we can helpfully explain to our friends in the other corner some of the consequences of the policies they support.

Please click "There's more..." and help us decorate our office!

Obama-Kerry?

2008-08-21T10:38:00.007-04:00

Since I am going away for the weekend and will miss most of the political chaos as Obama announces his VP choice I thought I'd take one last chance to guess who will be on the ticket...

I know I know, I don't exactly know how I feel about it either but M.S. Bellows, Jr. at The Huffington Post breaks it down pretty nicely. For Obama to announce his VP this late the argument is that he will have to pick someone that is well known and prepared to run this last leg of the election. I really have to sit on this one before I decide how I feel.

What do you guys think?

I have to admit a small part of me is still holding out for Obama-Clinton. I guess we will finally know soon!

Extended post here

Dunces in the Corner

2008-08-20T12:03:00.003-04:00

Last night at Drinking Liberally somebody who wasn't familiar with the National Review Online's "the corner" blog asked why we all thought it was the "most retarded collection of thoughts on the internet."

It would be impossible to document even a small fraction of the absurdity and stupidity at the corner, but I offer this non-comprehensive collection of corner highlights from the very recent past anyway. Note that this is a non-comprehensive list, in no particular order.

Starting recently, a mere 40 minutes ago, Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote the following:

McCain-Clinton 2008 Watch [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Carly Fiorina meets with Tony Rodham.

08/20 11:24 AM

No, Sister Mary Kathryn, McCain-Clinton isn't going to happen. Next?

Yesterday, at 11 AM Kathryn Jean Lopez dropped a huge scoop on the cornerites.

It's Rudy [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

So many e-mailers this morning are predicting that the McCain trial balloon is really about Giuliani. I'm not there, but here's one:

I don't think it's being floated for Liebermann or Ridge.
I think he's considering Giuliani.
- Might put NY in enough play to make Obama spend a lot of money there.
- Has name recognition and gets plenty of respect on law enforcement/national security
- Might be more palatable to pro-lifers if he were to make clear that it's McCain's pro-life administration

The McCain campaign has already hired a Giuliani staffer as the unnamed veep's communications director...

08/19 10:59 AM

I'm actually having a hard time deciding what the stupidest assertion in that post was, but I'm leaning towards the idea that Rudy 9ui11iani could put New York state "in play." And two hours later she suggested McCain pick Santorum for VP.

But Kathryn Jean Lopez isn't the only idiot receiving institutional right-wing welfare. Jonah Goldberg, whose scholarly works include "Liberal Facism", also blogs at the corner.

And Larry Kudlow, the grouchy supply-sider and former host of Kudlow and Cramer, never misses a chance to look like an idiot. Like last month when he breathlessly reported that he was advised by a "senior McCain official" on double secret deep background, that McCain was abandoning his cap-and-trade.

So I picked up the phone and dialed a senior McCain official to make sure these old eyes hadn’t missed it. Sure enough, on deep background, this senior McCain advisor told me I was correct: no cap-and-trade. In other words, this central-planning, regulatory, tax-and-spend disaster, which did not appear in Mac’s two recent speeches, has been eradicated entirely — even from the detailed policy document that hardly anybody will ever read.

Except, not. It is true that McCain's cap-and-trade is a lamer version of a good idea, and that he certainly won't prioritize it like Obama would, but the idea that McCain would take the signature component of his climate change plan and secretly abandon it, but then tell Larry Kudlow (!) on deep background, is something that only a Cornerite could believe.

Finally, I note that the stupidity at NRO is not limited to the corner. For the magazine, Lou Aguilar recently penned a top ten list of why "Real Men Vote for McCain." Without getting bogged down on the whole list, I'll just note that his third reason doesn't make any sense at all to me.

3. McCain supports nuclear power. Obama backs wind energy.

I really don't know what kind of psychological issues or sexual hangups would make somebody write something like that, and frankly, I don't want to.

The National Review Online's Corner is for right-wingers who are too ugly for Fox News, and too stupid for a real job. It's where ideas go to die, and liberals go to laugh.

It all makes sense, McCain is just Dumb

2008-08-19T15:29:00.010-04:00

For those of you who watched the Saddleback Church Forum as I did you may agree with me that something seemed odd about McCain's responses. I have come accustomed to McCain's staggered speech and awkward pauses but this time he really seemed robotic. He flew through the questions with one liners, barely taking anytime to think thoughtfully about his responses as Obama did. It was as if he had already known the questions and what his responses would be, and just paused for a brief moments to make it seem as if he was thinking off the top of his head. After hearing that John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" but was actually riding in a motorcade over to the church it all made sense that McCain may have actually known many of the questions beforehand and that is why he responded the way he did. Surely he could have easily listened to Obama's responses on the radio and thus would have known the questions in advanced as he drove over.

Then today I came across this article by Jack Cafferty which explains so many things about McCain and the Saddleback Forum.
The reason McCain won't let the media interview him without warning or approval, and the reason McCain's answers seemed so shallow and thoughtless during the Saddleback Forum (and throughout the campaign process in general for that matter) is because he's just dumb.

Instead of responding with honest answers that you could tell came from the heart as Obama did, McCain relied on stump speeches and short responses anytime he was confronted with a question he didn't like. As a Christian I was surprised at the brevity of McCain's response "It means I'm saved and forgiven" when asked what faith meant to him. That response is straight out of bible school for preschoolers and shows no understanding of faith to me. It's basically as generic a response as McCain could have given there.

So as I look back at the Saddleback Forum and my understanding of McCain's rhetoric while keeping in mind the article mentioned it all makes sense. McCain is as shallow and dumb as our current President. He gave one-line answers during the forum possibly because he already knew the questions and what he would say, but most likely just because he is unintelligent and unable to think of thoughtful responses on the spot.

The article also points out as an example of McCain's stupidity that McCain graduated 894th in his class out of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Not only does McCain suffer from the normal memory loss associated with being 72, we now are starting to realize that he didn't exactly start off as the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think it's time we start paying attention to McCain's stupidity before it's too late. Not only does he vote along Bush's platform we now know he has the same lack of intelligence to go with it.

Abstinence Only Engineering Education

2008-08-15T09:43:00.004-04:00

The next big thing at Drexel? I doubt it.

I support a comprehensive engineering education.

(Via Cosmic Variance)

Jerome Corsi is Slime

2008-08-14T07:15:00.000-04:00

Jerome Corsi, the worthless slug who co-authored the swift boat hit piece on John Kerry in 2004 that questioned whether Kerry earned his medals, despite having never served in uniform himself, is back at it with Barack Obama. Corsi wrote the recently released "The Obama Nation" and it instantly became a New York Times bestseller through the wingnut welfare system (conservative organizations and donors buy books in bulk to inflate sales numbers).

Of course, like the swift boat book, Corsi's latest product is just another pile of innuendo and bullshit, without merit or credibility. Media Matters for America does a fine job debunking specific claims in the book, as they always do. Here is Paul Waldman of MMA, who does an excellent job (Via Atrios) on Larry King Live with Corsi.

Corsi is really a despicable human being. He has a long history of being a bigoted wingnut, and the fact that the conservative movement would let him be a public face astonishes me. The fact that he isn't publically denounced by every Republican from Bangor to Seattle speaks volumes about the character of that party.

The frustrating thing about assholes like Corsi is that it's a lot easier to pee in a pool than clean get it out. So if you have any crazy family members emailing you stuff from Corsi, just direct them to these two posts. Who is Jerome Corsi? and the debunking of the book.

Glenn Beck Falls for the Hype

2008-08-13T08:40:00.001-04:00

After the Olympics last night I briefly flipped to Glenn Beck (why do I do this to myself before bed?), and though I was expecting him to say any number of astonishingly ignorant things, I didn't expect him to talk about the BIG HUGE BREAKTHROUGH IN SOLAR ENERGY THAT WILL REVOLUTIONIZE EVERYTHING!

I couldn't resist a little debunking, in case anyone else has heard of this.

The short version is this. MIT researchers led by Dr. Daniel Nocera made a genuinly interesting and important discovery in electrocatalysis. Their discovery was an electrocatalyst for water electrolysis that uses more readily available elements than platinum, is about 70% energy efficient rather than sub 50%, and is self-healing (ie can be used without being replaced) and it surely has important applications.

However, MIT put out a press release hailing this discovery as a "revolutionary" breakthrough in solar energy. It's not. First of all, not to put too fine a point on it, but it isn't a breakthrough in solar technology at all. It's an advance in energy storage technology, but solar is sexier to the PR people at MIT. When Dr. Nocera says in the above clip "Yep, it makes hydrogen power." he is being simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. It's not generating any power, it's converting power, and doing so at a significant cost of energy. The claim is that this electrocatalyst makes distributed solar a practical energy choice where it wasn't before. This is baloney.

The idea presumes that people install enough solar capacity to more than meet their daily needs, and that the excess can be stored by conversion to hydrogen and fed through a fuel cell to power homes at night. This is foolish for a number of reasons.

This system will be expensive, despite reduced costs of the electrocatalyst. Fuel cells are expensive. Significantly more expensive than batteries. This system requires people to purchase not just the solar panels, but a reformer, a fuell cell, and a hydrogen storage tank.
On top of that, the sub 50% energy conversion efficiency of PEM fuel cells makes the round trip storage and use about 25% efficient.
PEM fuel cells are not only expensive, but have limited lifetimes. Automotive PEM fuel cells need working lifetimes of about 5,000 hours, but this proposed system would require a much longer duration use. Many tens of thousands of hours of useful operating lifetime would be needed to last 5-10 years. (Fuel cells can degrade by impurities in the gas supply or particle coalesence.)
Most residential solar installations don't meet 100% of household energy consumption, and there is nothing magic about 100%. Solar panels that meet 50% of your energy will cost you about half as much as meeting 100% of your consumption. Being grid tied is much more efficient than investing in distributed storage.

Since peak power loads (and costs) are during the day, when solar is available, it makes much more economic sense to generate and consume solar power during the day, complimenting it with baseload (nuclear, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric) or intermittent (wind, kinetic hydropower) from the grid at night.

Why would you want to store valuable peak energy, throw away 75% of it, and use it or sell it back to the utility at night when power is cheap?

This isn't to say that fuel cells aren't worthy of further research, but the technical capability for what Nocera and Beck are claiming just isn't there. Furthermore, the usefullness of such a distributed storage system is highly questionable. A quasi-distributed storage network for intermittent distributed generation is surely more practical, technically and economically.

Beck can be almost excused for his ignorance, if only because it's so expected. Dr. Nocera, however, is making what a lot of people are considering exaggerated claims about the importance of this research.

I couldn't help but laugh at Glenn Beck, though, when he said

"This story broke I think what, last week? I haven't seen anybody on this story yet. I haven't seen congress, I haven't seen Al Gore, I haven't seen RFK Jr., I haven't seen you know, Barack Obama or John McCain or anybody say 'This is it.'"

Well, Glenn, when you don't hear anybody say "This is it." there are three possible reasons. 1) Nobody is paying attention like you are (unlikely) 2) There is a conspiracy of silence (unlikely) 3) It's not "it." I think the answer is the latter.

PS: Glenn, nobody wants your whiny voice on a ringtone.

Meet John McCain's Policy Director

2008-08-12T14:28:00.001-04:00

In my thus far vain attempt to understand who is advising Sen. McCain on energy policy, I came across this handy compilation of key people on Sen. McCain's campaign. Of course, only a few people were identified on the policy end of things, except for a hilarious press release from the McCain campaign identifying 36 "economic advisors," no doubt an early attempt to shore up his weakness there.

While the familiar Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin is McCain's Senior Economic Policy Advisor, I wanted to know more about who might have helped craft the energy policy, not just shill for it. Dan Crippen, formerly of the CBO, is McCain's Senior Domestic Policy Advisor, but as far as I can tell he's never been particularly involved in energy policy. In fact, I can't find a single thing he's ever written or said about energy (which doesn't mean it isn't out there, but I can't find it), but there was this Fox News blurb that he had "helped McCain craft his health plan."

So what about that Policy Director, Dan McKivergan? Well, he's not an energy guy either, but he is interesting enough for other reasons.

According to his Right Web biography, McKivergan started working for the RNC "research department" out of college. From there he "left the RNC in 1993 for the Project for the Republican Future, a Washington, DC, think tank that served as a precursor organization to PNAC." Following the think tank gig, he joined the Weekly Standard in 1995 as a research director, where he caught the eye of BIll Kristol.

From Right Web:

When Senator McCain, a regular reader of the Standard, approached Kristol about needing a new legislative aide, Kristol recommended McKivergan for the job.

I would note that the fact that John McCain sought out Bill Kristol's advice for staffing should disqualify him from the presidency...in a sane world.

After working for McCain from 2000 to 2002, McKivergan joined the Project for the New American Century (PNAC, the folks who brought you such hits as the Iraq War) as deputy director. Yadda yadda yadda, in 2005 McKivergan joined The Weekly Standard and posted regularly to their blog through the end of 2006, when he was assimilated into the McCain campaign borg.

Briefly skimming through his blog archive reveals a couple things. First, McKivergan wrote about energy policy exactly once in more than a year at the blog. After pasting from an article about possible oil supply shocks from terrorist attacks he writes, apparently pushing the limits of his interest in energy that "Hopefully, the U.S. will have implemented a real energy policy before a major attack is pulled off. I'm not holding my breath, though." He doesn't elaborate, and I suspect he's not my energy policy guy.

The next thing I noted was that the man is a dyed-in-the-wool neocon wingnut. His blog doesn't contain terribly much original writing, mostly just clippings and sneerings, but the man lived and breathed Fred Kagan, Bill Kristol, Stephen Hayes and company. His favorite topics seemed to be just how close Iran was to getting the bomb (Really close, apparently, in 2006), how traitorous Democrats were, and how Saddam really must have had WMDs. Someone with a pretty good working knowledge of middle east issues could surely pick through there and find some gems.

Here is a bit to get the flavor.
About John Bolton

While the far left isn't happy with Ambassador Bolton's reform efforts, the rest of America wants him to succeed.

About Iraqi WMD's (in 2006, mind you)

The article, “Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says,” reported on a “highly organized operation,” which apparently took place from mid-April to mid-May 2003 at Iraqi weapons sites, “as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site,” collecting “tons of machinery...capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms....”

To be continued?

On Rudy Giuliani's expertise on the NSA surveillence program

But where does Mayor Giuliani stand? Will Sen. Arlen Specter invite the mayor to give his perspective on the program? My guess is that the mayor generally backs the president's decision to implement the surveillance and given his background is someone the American people should hear from.

My guess is that the mayor ~~generally~~ always backs ~~the president~~ President Bush on everything. And anyone who thinks Giulliani is an expert on anything has no business being Policy Director of a presidential campaign.

On progress in Iraq (November 2005. This is the headline because the post is just a press clipping)

Democratic Party Defeatists on Iraq Shouldn't Read Today's Los Angeles Times -- "In a Sign of Optimism, Iraqis Spending More"

And concern trolling for the Democrats.

Democrats would be better off following the lead of the DLC, but the heart of the party believes in Dean and made him chairman -- and now they're stuck with him.

This guy should be hilarious fodder for Sadly, No!, not advising a presidential candidate on policy.

By the way, if anyone can find any other McCain policy advisors who helped craft his energy policy, besides the lobbyist Eric Burgeson, please let me know. Contrast the McCain secrecy with Obama's transparency. The Obama Campaign put out this list of advisors in November of 2007.

Facts Are Silly Things

2008-08-10T08:27:00.000-04:00

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

I think that anyone who argued six months ago that McCain had too much integrity or character to try to lie his way into the Whitehouse have about a bakers dozen eggs on their face.

The man is going all in.

Emily's List's Loss is Our Gain

2008-08-08T12:13:00.002-04:00

Normally I wouldn't really care who won the Democratic primary in Tennesse's 9th district, but normally candidates who run against popular and progressive incumbents and compare them to the KKK aren't backed by major Democratic interest groups like Emily's List. Tonight's primary wasn't normal.

Freshmen incumbent Steve Cohen, a Jewish white male (this comes up later), was being challenged by corporate attorney Nikki Tinker, a Christian African-American female. The Tinker campaign deployed absolutely appalling campaign propoganda, including trying to link Cohen to the KKK in ads, criticizing him for clapping in "our churches" while not representing "our values," and was associated with the following flyer.

I don't much care for Nikki Tinker. Even more astonishing, though, was that Emily's List, a formerly reputable Democratic group, was backing Nikki Tinker. Good call there, Emily's List.

Barack Obama even jumped into the fray to decry Tinker's ugly tactics, saying "These incendiary and personal attacks have no place in our politics, and will do nothing to help the good people of Tennessee. It's time to turn the page on a politics driven by negativity and division so that we can come together to lift up our communities and our country."

Fortunately, the good citizens of TN-9 nominated Cohen over Tinker with a whopping 79% of the vote last yesterday. Congratulations to Rep. Cohen, shame on Nikki Tinker, and tsk tsk to Emily's List.

Obama Comes Out Strong for Plug In Hybrids

2008-08-07T21:23:00.001-04:00

On Monday Obama gave a speech in Michigan where he unveiled more aspects of his energy plan. As readers of this blog know, Obama was way out in front of the energy debate. He put out his plan back in October last year, more than 8 months before McCain bothered to put one together.

There are several new pieces to his plan that he unveiled, but I want to highlight specifically his pledge to support a $7,000 per car tax credit for plug in hybrids and other advanced vehicles. From his energy plan brief:

Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:
Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug-ins as security permits; and
Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012.

I'm a huge proponent of plug-ins. They're really the most practical forward thinking solution to our dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels certainly have a place, and they have potential, but it seems unlikely that they could simply replace petroleum, for a number of reasons.

When you add in from Obama's plan the focus on greening the grid and investing in a digital smart grid, plug-ins become golden. When you have a million plug-in vehicles, the charging will take place primarily at night and help to level the electrical load. Furthermore, with a digital smart grid, when you get hundreds of thousands of plug-ins tied to the grid at once, you provide utilities with a significant amount of short term storage capacity to match demand with consumption. This flexibilty will provide the strongest benefits during extremely high use periods, for instance the southwest during heat waves.

On top of that, when you have a digital smart grid, beefed up by revenue decoupling, with lots of plug-in hybrids, we'll start to see people putting solar panels on cars. There are already aftermarket conversions for the Prius that contain 225 Watt rooftop panels.

By themselves, they only generate enough energy to drive a half a dozen or so miles a day, but with a digital smart grid, when you aren't driving the car and the sun is shinging, you can sell the power back onto the grid. This offers the potential for tens of megawatts of distributed solar feeding into the grid, and directly into transportation.

The bottom line is that Obama's energy plan does all the smart things to push America toward an affordable, sustainable, secure, clean and effective energy future.

So do I think that this is a good idea?

John McCain: Bought and Paid For

2008-08-06T23:31:00.004-04:00

In one of the least surprising developements in political history, we recently learned that McCain pulled down a lot of money from oil company executives around the time he decided to reverse his earlier position (He's a Republican, so he doesn't flip-flop) and endorse offshore drilling as the core of his energy policy.

How much did he cost? More than I can afford, but less than a more principled politician would. From the Washington Post ("Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling" 7/27/08):

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

The RNC, which can raise about 10 times as much from each individual as candidates can, also got a piece of the action. From TalkingPointsMemo:

Even more interestingly, though, many of these contributions are, shall we say, suspicious. Take the office manager for Hess and her husband the Amtrak worker, who rent an apartment in Queens. Fine, honorable, work that surely earns a decent living. Decent enough, in fact, for them to each donate $28,000 to McCain and the RNC. That's $56,000 in political contributions. I guess whatever McCain owes Hess better tricke down.

The Washington Post has more on a suspicious bundler from McCain. Among one of his donors for McCain:

Abdullah Abdullah, a supervisor at several Taco Bell restaurants in the Riverside area, and his wife have donated $9,200 to McCain.

Reached at work, Abdullah said he knows little about the campaign. "I have no idea. I'll be honest with you," he said. "I'm involved in the restaurant business. My brother Faisal recommended John McCain. Whenever he makes a recommendation, we do it."

Faisal Abdullah, 49, said he helped organize all of the contributions from members of his family. When he was asked who solicited the contributions from him, he said: "Why does it matter who? I'm telling you we made the contribution. We funneled it through the channel in Florida because that's the contact we had. I was responsible for collecting it."

Back to McCain and his big oil buddies, though. As everyone knows, the additional supply from offshore drilling is far too small to have any noticeable impact on the global price of oil. That doesn't mean it's worthless to the oil companies, however. At over $100 a barrel, a few billion barrels is a very attractive target for oil companies, even if it is more expensive to extract and will take many years. Furthermore, the additional future income is a bankable asset for the companies to borrow against and that the market would price into their stocks. They want the oil, and the environmental tradeoffs that the communities would make aren't really their concern. At all.

Some Straight Talk

2008-08-06T10:52:00.001-04:00

Obama just punked a whole lot of foolish Republicans.

Obama:

It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

They think it's funny that they're making fun of something that is actually true.

That's what straighttalk really soundslike.

August 6th

2008-08-05T22:41:00.001-04:00

In 2004 John Kerry announced his running mate on July 6th.

I'm just saying.

The Mirage Offshore

2008-08-05T13:12:00.002-04:00

There's been a lot of talk recently about offshore drilling, and from what I've seen, most discussions in the media shed more heat than light. Both sides have their talking points, polls are commissioned, and soon we'll all move on.

The issue, however, is apparently very poorly understood by the media talking heads. As with so many important issues, the pundits are interested only in how things "play," and not in the underlying details of the debate. That's where we come in. In the Drexel spirit of education I humbly submit this brief primer on the debate regarding offshore drilling.

First, you should understand that the United States claimed for ourselves all coastal land within 200 miles of our coasts (and assorted terrotories) under President Reagan's proclamation 5030, establishing the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (which is apparently unknown to the terminally stupid Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-OH2). This area includes the outer continental shelf (OCS), and in 1990 President Bush issued a presidential directive placing a moratorium lasting until 2000 on all unleased area offshore of Northern and Central California, Washington, Oregon, the North Atlantic coast, and the Gulf of Mexico east of Mississippi. In 1998, President Clinton extended this moratorium through 2012. (As an aside, when we talk about leasing, it's because the federal government and the states own the rights to the resources offshore, and in order to drill oil companies must lease the land from the government, paying them royalties.)

So how much oil is offshore anyway?

This table, from the 2000 MMS study of offshore resources, documents the available offshore resources that are undiscovered but technically recoverable. Notice that the total amount of oil (mean case) is about 86 billion barrels of oil (bbo). Not including Alaska, there are about 60 bbo, the vast majority of which is in the Gulf of Mexico. I outlined in red the relevant mean estimate of how many billion barrels of oil are undiscovered but technically recoverable in each region.

So how much area is under the moratorium, and more importantly, how much oil is in there? Take this map from the EIA office of Oil and Gas, September 2005.

I know it's hard to read the numbers, but here's the gist, in table form (from the 2000 MMS study, revised 01/2007). Although the moratorium covers roughly 85% of the area, it includes only about 30% of the oil (18 bbo out of 59 bbo).

It's also important to notice that the bulk (~10 bbo) of those ~18 bbo are off the coasts off California, where the local politics make additional drilling unlikely. There is bipartisan opposition in California against leasing more land for drilling.

Florida also has bipartisan opposition to drilling, which impacts both the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic regions. Both Florida and California are reluctant to allow more drilling offshore because their beaches and maritime communities are large and important parts of their economies. 10,000 barrales of oil washing up on Miami after a hurricane would have a rather detrimental impact on tourism, I imagine.

The EIA puts this all in a handy table.

We are effectively talking about offering up for leasing less than 7 bbo of offshore oil, much of which is in deeper or rougher waters than currently exploited resources (ie off North Atlantic coasts). Also, these oil fields are typically much smaller than those in the Gulf of Mexico currently being exploited, and those in off of California, which means more drilling per barrel. This means more expensive extraction, and a smaller energy return on investment (EROI).

An additional piece of this puzzle is that there are significant discovered offshore resources available for drilling that are being leased and aren't being drilled. In fact, only 10.5 million of the 44 million acres being leased are currently being drilled.

Clearly, the idea that lifting the federal moratorim on offshore drilling will bring salvation from high energy prices is a mirage.

I have heard some interesting discussion regarding the political debate, however. I have basically heard two prominent schools of thought from energy experts on this issue:

Let them drill. Lift the moratoriums, hopefully in a political exchange for more incentives for renewables or a cap-and-trade program (This seems to be Obama's direction). The idea is that it won't have any impact, except to the oil companies' bottom lines (and a few unfortunate ecosystems), but that it removes the mirage from the debate. That is to say, people won't embrace renewables as long as they believe they can still drill their way out of it.
Don't cave to ignorant public pressure. Lifting the moratorium has not insignificant reprocussions for coastal ecology, and won't do a thing to really lower energy prices. Furthermore, acquiesing only further enables thebelief that we can drill our way out of it.

I think that both sides have merit, but I note that both sides agree on the futility of expanding offshore drilling. The only people who will tell you that more drilling will lower prices are Republican politicians. In fact, even Bush's Department of Energy concludes that, and I quote

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

Emphasis mine. Here is the EIA projection of oil production with and without drilling in the currently unleased OCS areas.

That difference between the green line and the blue line is just about the entirety of John McCain's energy plan (an remember, Florida and California, which make up more than 60% of that difference, won't allow drilling anytime soon.)

Drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is pretty much the same deal.

Long story short, if they started today, five years from now we would be pumping 1% of our current daily consumption, and that would rise to a maximum of 5% by 2020-2030. This would be a trivial amount of new supply on the global markets, which are sure to be much larger 20 years from now.

Click "There's more..." for the full post about offshore drilling.

Two of My Favorite Things

2008-08-04T19:50:00.006-04:00

Since John has been doing such a great job on the website I thought it was about time I gave it a shot at posting. It being my first post and all I think it's perfect to start out with two of my favorite things in the world........The Drexel Democrats and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. While filming the new season Charlie Day of the show and one of my favorite TV characters of all time, took a little time to unofficially and unknowingly show some love to the Drexel Dems!

For those of you who watch the show you will recognize that Charlie is wearing the Green Man suit. With the Green Man on hand there is no doubt that It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia will have another great season starting September 18th. And with the Green Man and Barack Obama on their side there is no doubt that the Drexel Democrats are going to have another amazing year as well. Do I hear back to back student organization of the year?

Since you are on our website already there is no need to promote the Drexel Democrats, instead I will promote It's always Sunny in Philadelphia with their new video and commercial.

Is That The Best You Can Come Up With?

2008-08-02T01:23:00.002-04:00

Yes. Yes it is.

Unless he wants to run on the Republicans' successful stewardship of this country these last eight years. Didn't think so.

Man, am I looking forward to our debates with the college Republicans!

Meet the New Boss

2008-08-01T17:56:00.002-04:00

T.J. is our field organizer from the Obama campaign for the general election. Here's a quick video (via Mithras) of him with some volunteers from the Neighborhood team.

He's a nice guy who's excited to work for Obama, and I'm sure you all will enjoy working with him.

Chasers War On Everything

2008-07-31T10:01:00.002-04:00

It came to my attention the other night that not all of you were aware of The Chaser's War On Everything. Please enjoy my two favorite skits.

And here's one for our bridge afficionados!

Obama's Missed Opportunity

2008-07-30T15:37:00.004-04:00

Yesterday the senate voted on a cloture motion for HR.6049 again, the "Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008." Once again the motion failed, and the bill is stalled over the stalemate of funding.

Briefly, although most of the tax credits have bi-partisan support, the language of the bill follows the Democratic Pay-As-You-Go rules (PAYGO), and contains a provision to pay for the tax credits essentially by taxing the income of hedge fund managers as earned income, not investment income (ie capital gains). The Republicans don't support closing that tax loophole and are pushing for a waiver of the PAYGO rules.

So why was this a missed opportunity for Obama? The cloture vote was almost party line, with 4 Republicans joining the Democrats and no Democrats joining the Republicans. Senators Kennedy, Stevens, Obama, and McCain did not vote. If Sen. Obama had made a point to go to the senate and vote for cloture the motion still would have failed, but he would have raised the profile of the issue and would have earned a weapon with which to attack McCain.

While McCain is going around and lying about the impact of expanding offshore drilling, or his meager support for renewables, Obama and his allies could have said over and over again "While Sen. Obama supports and voted for renewable energy, Sen. McCain didn't even bother to show up for the vote." It's politics.

Exactly the same goes for S.3335, which is a senate version sponsored by Sen. Baucus that would expand the PTC for wind by one year and the ITC for solar by 8 years (more info about S.3335 here.) Obama and McCain both skipped this cloture vote as well.

Obama has a strong plan laid out for tackling this nations energy future. But he doesn't need to wait until he's in the White House to lead on the issue. Frankly, a little leadership on it now would almost certainly help him get there.

Hilarious Conservative Watch

2008-07-29T16:27:00.006-04:00

Hardly a day goes by that some conservative with a website doesn't work themselves into a tizzy over some benign or obscure cultural item. It wouldn't be worth anybody's time to mock each such episode, but this one struck close to my heart. You see, by happenstance the otherday I stumbled across NEPALibWatch.com (That's North Eastern Pennsylvania Liberal Watch) attacking something near and dear to me: Rob and Big!

The proprietor of NEPALibWatch is upset that MTV would pollute young minds by "Promot[ing] decay and degeneration by bringing inner city thug values to kids who don’t live the thug life."

He writes

" I found myself sitting there watching this show called “Rob and Big”. Today’s episode was about this guy Big Black who was training to escape via speeding vehical from the “5″ “0″ (AKA the Police). WOW, what great programming and a fabulous idea for young minds. Because you know, according to Mr. Black somebody dies every 13 seconds. Instead of flying bullets he should be more worried about cholesterol."

I guess Mr. Lib Watcher isn't familiar with the show, so I'm happy to explain it to him. The basic premise is that Rob Dyrdek is a professional skateboarder, and Christopher "Big Black" Boykins is his live in bodyguard and BFF.

The show is delightfully clever, far more so than Mr. Lib Watcher apparently appreciates. At first glance it appears just another silly reality show, but upon closer inspection it's actually a giant satire of the genre. Most "reality" television is just a bunch of stupid and self absorbed people competing in ridiculous and pointless challenges to win quistionable prizes. Or, it's a bunch of cameramen following pseudo-celebrities (Brooke Hogan? Kim Kardashian?) go through transparently artificial drama. Both types are as tedious as they are ubiquitous.

Rob and Big manages to satirize both sublty and hilariously. The show revolves around Rob and Big tackling silly accomplishments with goofy sincerity. For instance, in season three when Rob and Big go to a bar with turtle racing, they "decide it's time to find a turtle from the streets and train it for glory." Complete with a Final Countdown turtle training montage.

Or when they were reading the Guiness Book of World Records and decide to break some? Rob manages to break 21 skateboarding records and Big Black breaks two (Eating powdered donuts and bananas, I think). The absurdity of the whole thing makes it funny- Rob and Big are just sitting around and say "Hey, I remember this book. We should break some records." So they do.

The silly determination with which they go about their quests mocks those shows where people scarf down animal genitalia, or break down weaping because a stranger doesn't love them, more effectively than anything else I've seen on TV.

To more directly ease Mr. Lib Watchers concerns, however, I should point out that Rob and Big is hardly an infomercial for "inner city thug values." My suspicion is that what Mr. Lib Watcher means by "inner city thug values" is just black people, loose clothes, and men wearing jewlery. But in so much as "inner city thug values" isn't just cultural distaste, I would submit that it is marked not by aesthetics, but by viciousness and hostility. The "thug life" is a hard life, and one must be hard to survive (ask my friends, I'm an expert on thug life...).

Rob and Big is the opposite. They are comically gentle souls living virtually without external pressures. The only time I've ever seen any hostility was when a man in a spiderman costume threw a soda at their SUV, and Big Black threatened (comically, as it was pretty clearly staged) to "beat him with his damn fanny pack."

Just breeze through the descriptions of the episodes for a sense of the comic absurdity. Some of my favorites:

Season 3: Ep 24-A charitable ice cream man inspires Rob and Big Black to begin their own altruistic crusade, ranging from handouts at skid row to spending time with frisky seniors at an old folks home. Also, Rob and Big Black challenge their 6'9" friend, Zeus, to hop on a BMX and take a disastrous ride down a local mini ramp.

Season 1: Ep 8- After Rob has a nightmare about dying, Big Black decides to brush up on his security skills to ensure that Rob feels safe. Big Black practices evasive driving, works on his Martial Arts moves and even shows his combat maneuvers on the paintball field. [This is the episode that upset the wingnut]

Season 2: Ep 1- Life in the Rob and Big household changes dramatically when the guys discover that their bulldog, Meaty, needs a little buddy. After a little research, Rob finds the perfect companion for his favorite puppy: a Mini-Horse. Owning miniature livestock turns out to be a little more than the guys bargained for, and drastic measures become necessary to accommodate the tiny horse.

Season 3: Ep 18- When Rob and Big Black discover a "mystery poop" floating in the pool, they turn into amateur crime-solvers, eyeing Drama, Rob's cousin/assistant, as the prime-suspect. The guys decide to beef up security at the house and hire a polygraphical expert to question Drama Queen. Making the best of a nasty situation, Rob and Big Black hire a muralist, to give their newly - drained pool some extra flair.

Rob and Big is just about the only show on MTV that I'll watch, besides True Life. I don't know how whether they set out to satirize pop culture or just make a goofy TV show, but it doesn't really matter. What they ended up making was pretty clever, and hella funny.

Click "There's more..." for the rest of my ode to Rob and Big.

Leave John McCain Alone!

2008-07-27T23:40:00.000-04:00

I caught some of the sunday shows today, and I see that the press is fighting hard to 1) protect their darling McCain and 2) keep this race close (blowouts don't push paper, people!).

Here's a video some of the talking heads made after Obama's hugely successful overseas trip.

Atrios nailed this a while ago. I just "updated" the audio (crudely, at that).

Obama's PA Offices

2008-07-25T12:13:00.002-04:00

I just wanted to pass along this map of Obama's field offices in Pennsylvania.

That has a nice look to it, doesn't it?

Here are McCain's offices:

Pennsylvania & Ohio Regional Headquarters
240 North 5th Street
Suite 340
Columbus, OH 43215
Office number is 614-441-8097
Office fax is 614-222-2530

Local Office:
112 State Street
Harrisburg, PA, 17101

So We share an office with Ohio located in Columbus, and our "local" office is in Harrisburg?

Ambitious, huh?

McCain/Jesus '08

2008-07-24T00:09:00.004-04:00

Yes, this is an official campaign poster.

I'd sooner believe that McCain is Jesus than that he offers a "wise" foreign policy.

Meanwhile, Obama is in Israel. From M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe:

I just talked to a friend who saw Obama in Israel. I asked him what his friends in the Israeli media are saying. "What are they saying? They are saying that he's the next President. And they think he's the smartest American politician they have seen yet."

Annals of Bad Ideas

2008-07-23T13:56:00.001-04:00

I was recently alerted to a sense of the congress resolution that has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that seems unnecessarily provocative. The bill, H.CON.RES.362, calls upon President Bush to escalate the tensions with Iran. It's mostly toothless- it isn't legally binding and is mostly uncontroversial, as it calls for increasing diplomacy. However, it seems to me to be a bad idea on two counts. First, it seems an unneccessary provocation that could undermine future diplomatic negotiations. More importanlty, however, subsection 3 reads:

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;

Emphasis mine. Isn't this a blockade? Isn't a blockade an act of war?

I'm doubtful that even Bush and Cheney would launch an attack on Iran by the end of their term, but why give them any excuse?

Disappointingly, local congressmen Bob Brady, Patrick Murphy, and Joe Sestak are all co-sponsors of this resolution. Rep. Chaka Fattah, to his credit, is not. Hopefully someone can explain to me what the purpose of this resolution is.

Obama's Strong Iraq Plan

2008-07-21T23:06:00.004-04:00

Unless you've been living in a hole for the past few days, you've heard that Sen. Obama is travelling overseas to a number of countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has been meeting with generals, politicians, diplomats, and American soldiers. The trip is non-partisan, as these junkets always are, and GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (along with Sen. Reed, a Democrat) accompanied Obama.

The trip has been a roaring succes so far, and a a couple interesting things have resulted. Most importantly, Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki explicitely endorsed Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan.

Obama's plan leaves him room to be flexible in response to situations on the ground, but the bottom line is that it shifts the objective from staying to leaving. Why anyone in their right mind would believe that occupying Iraq with 150,000 troops for an indefinate period of time serves the strategic interests of the United States is beyond me.

There are a couple political benefits from the trip as well. First, Obama is getting great press and looking very presidential as he meets with world leaders and shoots basketball with the troops. Also important, however, is that McCain is blowing his top and generally continuing to act like a buffoon. McCain spent a lot of the time that Obama and Clinton were fighting in the primary trying to goad Obama into an Iraq trip. As though it would have been appropriate to do so in the middle of a heated primary!

Obama made the trip on his own terms, and he's showing McCain how a president acts. McCain's having a hard time watching his ambitions slip through his fingers, so he's making the rounds and making gaffes.

He's also very concerned about the Iraq-Pakistan border (For you College Republicans reading this, Iraq and Pakistan share no common border.)

You can read Obama's Iraq Plan on his website. As with every issue, compare the degree of detail and candor on Obama's page with McCain's Iraq "plan". It strikes me that the Obama campaign has significantly more respect for the intelligence of the American public than McCain does.

Summer Blogging

2008-07-18T23:22:00.002-04:00

It's summertime and the living is easy, so blogging isn't my top priority. While I'm busy, please entertain yourself.

I would also recommend reading the blog Glomarization, a new blog by an astute local. Philadelphia is expanding its blogopoly.

Jerking the Gas Nozzle

2008-07-17T17:27:00.001-04:00

Is there a bigger joke in the US Senate than Larry Craig?

I'll be posting a bit more in depth about the offshore drilling gambit later, but in the meantime, please don't jerk anyone's nozzle.

Via TPM.

Surprising?

2008-07-17T08:03:00.000-04:00

I don't know what to make of this pay-to-play on video tape story. On the one hand, it's entirely unsurprising, as this kind of thing happens all the time. Access is currency in Washington (and everywhere elese, actually.) On the other hand, it was striking to see it so bluntly on videotape, particularly as Payne was selling not just access, but literally selling foreign policy. The most surprising thing about this affair, however, is that the press actually went out and did the investigation in the first place.

Of course, it was a foreign paper, so I shouldn't be too surprised.

But man, there's not much in this world that you could give me to get me to donate $250,000 to the George W. Bush presidential library. I might send them a free copy of The Pet Goat, though.

Presidential Contrasts: Network Neutrality

2008-07-16T22:24:00.001-04:00

There are some very big differences on some very big issues at stake in this election. From Iraq to healthcare, energy to education, and everything in between, the differences are stark. One issue that receives considerably less attention, however, is a little thing called net neutrality. It's an interesting issue in a number of ways because while somewhat technical in nature, it exemplifies some of the more fundamental differences between the two presidential candidates.

First, here is a brief video to explain what net neutrality is, and why it's important.

Barack Obama supports net neutrality, while John McCain opposes it. Well to be fair, McCain has flipped back and forth a few times, but mostly he opposes it. This is a great example of the divergent approaches to policy that Obama and McCain take, however. Obama explicitly expresses support for net neutrality on his Technology issues page. It is one component of an impressively comprehensive federal technology (specifically communications and information access) policy.

McCain, on the other hand, has nothing on his website that even addresses how his administration would handle federal technology policy. His issues page is a hodge podge of cultural hot-buttons (2nd amendment, pro-life), while Obama's is a wonkish list of intelligent policy proposals, from technology and urban policy, to health care and his Iraq plan (not to mention his energy plan, which alone would earn him my vote).

The funny thing about this issue is that McCain is admittedly computer illiterate. He's probably not that far ahead of Ted "the internet is not a dumptruck" Stevens. How can someone who can't figure out email be expected to preside over a country as dependent and tied to information technology as our own? I don't need a haxor president, but I do think that basic computer literacy is desireable if not essential.

Meanwhile, net neutrality is a perfect example of the promise of an Obama presidency. His fundraising helps insulate him from the pressure that the telecom and cable companies can exert on politicians, and his pragmatism and progressive sensibilites point him in the direction of supporting smart policy. Supporting good ideas on their merits is a rare thing indeed.

(Rudy Giulliani, by the way, also opposed net neutrality. I still burn a candle for my favorite failed Republican presidential candidate, and his absurd, shilling ways.)

Jamie Nails Another One

2008-07-15T16:33:00.003-04:00

Our own Jamie Thompson has written another spot-on Op-ed in Drexel's Student paper, The Triangle. Jamie was responding to this ridiculous letter from last week. The author writes

To ask folks like me to share this identity with gays and lesbians is highly hypocritical of the gay and lesbian community. Now, before I proceed further, let me make one thing clear. I am pro-gay, and I do support with wholeheartedly that equal rights must be granted to the gay/lesbian community. But there is a difference between sharing equal rights and sharing my own identity.
We shall not consider allowing gay marriages to share the same identity of that of regular marriages. It is not tolerance but just incompetence from our part not to act or even stand up for our identity.
[...]
We just can't afford to mislead the rest of world by our own incompetence. We should put a stop to this gay marriage concept once and for all.

I wouldn't even know where to begin responding to such a silly letter, but Jamie did an excellent job.

She pointed out that the idea that marraige now is as it ever was, a lifetime monogamous heterosexual relationship, is a modern fiction. The institution of marraige has changed as society has changed through the ages, and any claims to the contrary are just bunk. I won't quote the whole thing, so you can read it all at The Triangle.

Missing the Point? Hardly.

2008-07-14T19:43:00.007-04:00

The PA College Republicans have responded to our (and others'; Here, here,here) criticisms of their upcoming 9/11 Day. I'll take their declarations of good faith at face value (a dubious proposition when dealing with College Republicans, I've found), and try to further explain why people find the idea of a College Republican sponsored 9/11 Day inappropriate.

They, in the person of one Jessica Thompson, write

"It is important to note that this project, even though it is commonly sponsored by College Republican groups, is not a political event in nature; anyone is welcome to participate in this event."

This is really the heart of our disagreement. I contend that when a political organization sponsors an event, the political implications are unavoidable. If students want to create 9/11 memorials at their school, fine, but for the College Republicans to attach their name to it brings unmistakable political implications. This is a simple point, and it should be apparent to student leaders of political organizations.

However, more broadly than the fact that political organizations are perceived as such, and perceived rightly to have political agendas, I want to briefly discuss the history of Republican exploitation of 9/11. This billboard, likely paid for by an enthusiastic Bush supporter, was about par for the course.

Bush used 9/11 imagery in his reelction ads (below). I remember registering voters in 2004 at college day on the parkway while the Bush people had glossy pamphlets with the twisted steel of the WTC towers as the background image.

The 2002 midterms saw a rash of Republican ads featuring shadowy images of Bin Laden juxtaposed with Democratic politicians, most notably against Vietnam war hero Max Cleland, who lost 3 limbs to the Vietcong and his senate seat to Saxby Chamblis and his Osama ads.

Finally, and most blatently, I submit the presidential campaign of Rudy Giulliani. Sen. Biden's observation that the man thinks a sentence is made of a noun, a verb, and 9/11 was barely hyperbole.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Hell, you probably remember it. In short, the assumption that when Republicans are invoking 9/11 it is not for noble, altruistic reasons, but rather political ones, is historically justified.

In a comment at the PACR blog Mike Ubbens, PACR State Co-Chair, wrote

Interesting, this combination of “horror, sadness, and anger” is exactly what inspired us to make this a state-wide event. No campaign signs will be placed, no ‘pa college republicans’ signs will be jumping out at anyone. YAF is actually a non-partisan organization, and would frown upon these actions.

Therefore, I would like to extend an invitation to the Drexel College Democrats in co-sponsoring this event with the Drexel College Republicans.

I look forward to hearing from them!

While it's nice to know that the PACR won't be embroidering little elephants on the American flags, Mike misses the point I refer to above. Specifically though, the contention that "YAF is actually a non-partisan organization" is to miss the forest for the trees. YAF (Young America's Foundation) is non-partisan precisely the same way that MoveOn.org is non-partisan.

Why we might be suspicious of an organization sponsoring a 9/11 day project that declares "For more than thirty-five years, Young America’s Foundation has been inspiring thousands of young people to advance conservative ideas during their school years and throughout their lives." isn't really a mystery.

YAF is an advocacy organization, specifically for reactionary right wing politics on college campuses. If the 9/11 day project (that's a nice logo they have for it, isn't it?) isn't a part of that advocacy, why would they be engaged in it at all?

So in response to Mr. Ubbens invitation, and after consultation with our executive board, no, the Drexel Democrats will not be co-sponsoring any such memorial at Drexel. If the College Republicans here do, we will speak out about that as well. If the USGA (Undergraduate Student Government Assembly) passed a resolution or sponsored a memorial, I would have no such reservations.

And since we have their attention, I was wondering if the PA College Republicans were as offended by the other political invocations of 9/11 cited above as other Americans were. I look forward to hearing from them!

Sometimes a Gaffe is Just a Gaffe: Stop Whining!

2008-07-12T11:12:00.003-04:00

There's a cute political quip which holds that a gaffe is when you accidently tell the truth. That's often true, but often not. McCain is rather gaffe prone, particularly when he's pretending to know what he's talking about (See "Policy, Foreign") but the gaffe du jour is McCain's most senior economic advisor telling the country that the economy is a-ok and that everyone should stop whining. That's just a gaffe. Economists will be pinning down if/when a recession officially begins, but to argue that the economy is fundamentally strong seems a bit wrong headed.

Arguing that corporate profits are strong or that the GDP has not declined for two consecutive quarters misses entirely the growing inequity in this country, and the squeeze people are feeling. Even without pointing out that seasonally adjusted unemployment has risen by more than 12% since January, or that gas has risen to nearly $4.50 a gallon, there are reasons to be worried. The tangled web spun by the housing bubble and the abundance of cheap credit has yet to be unspun.

Gramm's comments weren't just politically boneheaded, they were also substantively wrong. One may try to hide behind a narrow technical defense of his statements, or just smile and make it all go away, but the economic problems we're facing are impervious to a sunny disposition.

This all reminds me of 2004, when FOX News was a 24/7 "Why don't people realize how good the econmy is?"

Nit-picking

2008-07-09T22:27:00.000-04:00

While I was at checking out the PA College Republicans' new website I noticed an amusing error on a protest sign. At a Temple College Republican protest one of the scholars was holding a sign stating "Democrat's (sic) Plan for Iraq" with an arrow pointing to a blank sheet of paper. The context of the protest isn't provided, though the photo title indicates it was a Temple CR "Support the Troops Rally." What holding signs like "Thank you for protesting. -Saddam Hussein" has to do with supporting the troops is beyond me, but that's not my quibble.

I just wanted to point out that the young man with the orange sign had misplaced the apostrophe, indicating the singular possessive (Democrat's) rather than plural possessive (Democrats'). Who this anonymous Democrat was whose Iraq plan was missing wasn't clear.

As a public service to our right wing neighbors at Temple, I wanted to point out the error, and to direct them to Barack Obama's plan for Iraq.

Now go ahead and flame me for writing the most annoyingly quibblesome post on the internet. Feel free to go point out the thousands of typos and misspellings that I've published on this blog. Oh, and by the way, is there a single other student group at Temple that you could take a picture of 12 members and not see a single minority student?

Stochastic Foreign Policy

2008-07-09T19:21:00.005-04:00

Good ad from the DNC. It's always amazed me how John McCain (and pundits *cough Tom Friedman cough*) have been pulling dates out of thin air for years, and it never damages their credibility with the larger media.

John McCain has been shamefully arrogant with his rationale and support for extending this war, never expecting to be held accountable because the media loves him.

PA College Republicans to Exploit 9/11

2008-07-08T20:34:00.002-04:00

[UPDATED: 7/14/08] The PACRs have responded to the criticisms, and we have responded to them. See here.

[UPDATED: 7/11/08] The college Republican's have as of now added Labor Day, Veterans Day, and Pearl harbor Day to their calendar. They have not removed 9/11 Day. The Google cache is still displaying the old version, available here.

I know, Republicans looking to exploit 9/11 for political game is a "Dog bites man" story, but as this time it's the PA College Republicans, on our own turf, I thought was worth highlighting.

Last week the PA CR's unveiled their new website, and naturally I checked it out. Nothing particularly exciting, though I was disappointed that their chapter list contained only email contacts, not blogs or websites that would undoubtedly have been pretty funny.

It was when I checked out the events calendar, however, that I noticed something I found disturbing. On September 11th of this year, the PA CRs are planning a "9/11 Remembrance Day." This immediately struck me as inappropriate: the victims of 9/11 are rightly remembered and honored in ceremonies both public and private every year, but we should all keep politics out of those memorials.

After 9/11, the combination of horror, sadness, and anger made for a very difficult time. Republicans decided to exploit those emotions to divide us by our politics, and tried very hard to make "Republicanism" synonymous with "patriotism."

8 years later and we've come a long way. The abject failures of Republican policies at home and abroad have laid bare the cynicism of the Bush/Rove (and now McCain) politics. All that Republicans have left is trying to recapture their high water mark, when Americans' anger and sorrow made them give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

I noticed that the PA CRs aren't planning on celebrating Veterans Day, or Pearl Harbor Day, or (unsurprisingly) Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The singular importance of 9/11 betrays their political motivations.

Here at the Drexel Democrats, we understand that there are some things that aren't appropriate to affix our groups name and agenda to. Memorial services are one of them. That the Pennsylvania College Republicans think that attaching their regressive agenda to a memorial to the victims of 9/11 speaks volumes about their organization.

In a Nutshell

2008-07-07T20:08:00.005-04:00

Via Kevin Drum, this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP report here).

That's pretty much political economics in a nutshell, isn't it?

It dovetails nicely with Bartels' work on income distributions under both political parties. The relevant paper is here, but the money chart is this one.

I think that these two graphs, combined with the federal deficit plotted against executive administration, make a rather effective case for Democratic governance.

Republicans are perfectly welcome to make thier case for the desirability of increased income inequality, but it would be nice if they didn't try to obfuscate and lie to get elected.

Curt Weldon, Arms Dealer?

2008-07-05T17:28:00.002-04:00

I was going to blog about this on Thursday, but I'm out of town and nowAtrios beat me to it. It seems that my former congressman, "Crazy" Curt Weldon, is now running arms between Russia and Libya. Weldon's been working hard to bring the crazy since he left office, and this doesn't surprise me at all.

Actually, this latest episode isn't so much crazy as it is slimy. My favorite of Weldon's earlier antics was when he planned to go all Indiana Jones and dig up Iragi WMDs in Syria. This time, according to Wired.com, Weldon is " helping broker deals between Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments as part of his new job with a private American defense consulting firm."

As Atrios insinuates sarcastically, this is precisely the kind of thing that congressmen do. The revolving door between government and the private sector raises all kinds of conflicts, and congressmen know that if they are "good" to a company then they have a lobbying job or consulting job waiting for them.

Apparently, this enterprise centered around an American company (and Weldon) serving as a front for Russian arms sales to Iraq and Libya. Russia, for political and legal reasons, can't easily sell directly to Iraq. So Weldon's company buys from Russia, and sells to Iraq, keeping a little bit for themselves and my former congressmen.

Money quote:

"The administration, he acknowledged at the time, did not welcome the idea of an American company selling Russian weapons to potentially unfriendly countries. But two years later, Weldon, now a private citizen and chief strategic officer for Defense Solutions, appears to be working on precisely that sort of deal. And whether illegal or not, Defense Solutions' business represents a new phenomenon in the international arms trade business.

Curt Weldon should be proud that his international arms dealing may not be illegal.

Interestingly, Weldon used to teach a course here at Drexel, and was friendly with some of the College Republicans. I wonder what they think of this whole episode? Actually, I think I can guess: 1) It's not true and/or is being misreported by the "liberal media." 2) Of course he's an arms dealer! the world needs weapons! Freedom! 3) Admiration, as they all aspire to squirm their way into congress and use their office and connections to profit from international arms sales.

Would the College Republicans Volunteer to be Waterboarded?

2008-07-04T17:10:00.000-04:00

No, probably not. As apprentice apologists for the torture administration, however, maybe they should.

Christopher Hitchens did though. His reaction, unsurprisingly, is that waterboarding is unambiguously torture.

It's actually a pretty amazing thing to watch. I'm not really a reactionary, but it seems to me that there are senior members of this administration that have committed war crimes. I'd be curious to know if John Yoo ever plans on travelling to a foreign country that is a member to the International Criminal Court.

Watch the video here.

More and Better Democrats

2008-07-04T12:57:00.000-04:00

This is Darcy Burner, running for congress in Washington state's 8th CD. Her house burned down on Tuesday, and obviously she'll have a lot on her plate besides her campaign for a while. If you have a few bucks to spare ($5 makes a difference. Skip the Starbucks today.), I would urge you to contribute to her campaign.

Also, feel free to check out the other Eschaton Endorsed candidates, including Barack Obama. They all need our help.

Polluting The Language

2008-07-03T16:39:00.000-04:00

I haven't said anything about the Wes Clark phony controversy because nothing annoys me more than people flogging fake controversies in a deliberately obtuse manner. Life's too short for that. I did want to make note, however, of an increasingly annoying trend in political coverage; the excessive use of the neologism "swiftboating."

Those of us old (or sober) enough to remember 2004 will remember that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVFT) were an odious bunch who were intent on smearing Kerry to cost him the election. Their attacks were not based in reality or honesty, and they were not claiming that his judgement about foreign policy was flawed, or that his experience in 'Nam wasn't an excercise in executive leadership. They were claiming that he shot himself and took medals he never really earned.

That's what "swiftboating" is. Swiftboating is NOT any criticism of a veteran. Swiftboating is not pointing out that though one's military service, though important and honorable, it is not a unique or important qualification to being president. Swiftboating doesn't have to be about military credentials; it can be about anything. The heart of a swiftboat attack is that one side will argue, with a straight face and at the top of their lungs, outlandish claims with no basis in fact, the existence of which creates a controversy out of whole cloth, usually regarding a politician's strength. If anything, one might say that Clark is the one getting "swiftboated" here.

Many people on boths sides of the aisle are too quick to call criticisms "swiftboating." I'd just like to beg for a more judicious and, in my view, accurate use of the term.

The genisis for this post was from this Video from TPM, of Rick Sanchez saying "Did Wesley Clark pull a swiftboat on John McCain?" (about 1:02 into the video.)

Now, your Rick Sanchez moment of Zen.

Fox News Doocy-bags

2008-07-03T08:21:00.000-04:00

This would be shocking if it were any other organization than Fox "News." The clowns at Fox and Friends have some kind of beef with two employees of the New York Times, reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe. So Doocy and the gang call them names while pictures of the two show on screen, but not just any pictures. Pictures that were distorted to embarrass Steinberg and Reddicliffe.

This wasn't playful photoshopping, it was deliberatly intended to decieve the audience and make Steinberg and Reddicliffe look awful. I find this so much more offensive than Janet Jackson's nipple, but the public only owns the airwaves. Steinberg and Reddicliffe probably have grounds for a suit, but if you play with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Check it out.

Giving a Jewish guy a big nose and yellow teeth as an especially nice touch. Good work Fox News.

Here's the full clip, courtesy of Media Matters.

These Doocy-bags put the ass in embarrassing.

Republicans Ripping Off...Other Republicans!

2008-07-02T13:32:00.003-04:00

This story tickled me quite a bit yesterday. It seems that some entrepreneurial Republicans were running a consulting business that catered to Republicans running against long odds. Republican candidates would sign over control of their campaign coffers to this business, BMW Direct Inc, BMW would raise money for the candidates all over the country, and then funnel the money back to BMW!

For example, BMW raised more than $700,000 for Charles Morse, who was running against Barney Frank in MA. BMW then spent 96% of that money that on services offered by themselves. From the Boston Globe:

In the Morse case, as with others, BMW Direct tapped into an ideologically right-wing base of donors around the country who are eager to contribute to any effort to defeat high-profile liberals like Frank and Kennedy. To stoke conservative passions and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars for its unknown candidate, Morse, BMW Direct sent out mailings that flogged Frank as an "ultra-liberal."

As the funds poured in and BMW paid itself and related entities with the proceeds, Morse never appeared at a campaign event or candidate forums. Nor did he promote his candidacy with any advertising, mailings, or phone banks. He had no headquarters or staff. Having never taken out nomination papers, he needed 2,000 votes in the Sept. 19 Republican primary election to qualify for the general election ballot, but fell far short with 145.

And then, after he failed to get on the ballot, BMW continued to raise over $100,000 for Morse. Quite a racket they had going!

This story wouldn't be funny if the victims weren't trying to screw the country! Take a look at the clients/victims of BMW.

Among the clients listed on its website are political committees seeking to get the United States out of the United Nations, to crack down on immigration, to outlaw abortion, and to protect gun ownership. Another client listed is GOPAC, former US House speaker Newt Gingrich's political action committee.

It appears that BMW's practices weren't illegal, just highly unethical. But there's a certain poetic justice when advocates of dog-eat-dog deregulation are taken in by such a scam.

If these Republicans can't even manage their campaigns, why should anyone trust them to manage the country?

Carly Fiorina Doesn't Know What She's Talking About

2008-07-01T09:10:00.001-04:00

You may remember Carly Fiorina best for her incompetent stewardship of Hewlett Packard, the unceremonious way that she was fired by the HP board, the $21 million dollar golden parachute she recieved (which earned HP a lawsuit), or maybe just that the day her firing was announced HP stock went up 7%.

However you remember her, though, get ready to meet the new Carly Fiorina: Ignorant political hack. That's right, Fiorina has been stumping for John McSame, and she quite literally and quite obviously hasn't the faintest idea what she's talking about. It's no surprise that HP employees all remember her so fondly!

Take exhibit A, an interview that Fiorina sat down for with Grist last month. Presumabley Fiorina had advanced notice that she would be doing the interview, and herlack of understanding on a number of key issues is readily apparent.

For instance, right off the bat Grist asks her a specific question about the obvious benefits of auctioning carbon permits, as Obama proposes, rather than giving them away, as McCain does.

He seems to leave the door open for the auction of carbon credits, but doesn't actually outline any plans there. Auctioning credits would create even greater market incentive to go green. So, why not push for greater, faster auction, as the other presidential candidates have done?

"I think the goal that McCain set in his speech -- and you're right, those goals differ and are lower than the goals that Obama or Clinton would suggest -- is because he's a realist and practical about what's actually an achievable goal. You don't actually get anything done -- and as a businesswoman I know this -- if you set goals that are out of reach. When you get something done is when you set a goal that is ambitious but achievable."

Is she a person or a motivational tape? "When you get something done is when you set a goal that is ambitious but achievable" is not an answer. It's barely even a sentence. This wasn't a deft avoidance or side stepping of the question, it was an embarrisingly ham-fisted punt.

Next up: Tax credits and the PTC.

What are some of the key tax incentives that McCain could push for, in your opinion, to really develop the green economy?

"I think he believes that the cap-and-trade system, if appropriately executed -- and there are lots of places where it has not been appropriately executed -- can create tax incentives for innovation, because in essence it permits companies to build up cash if they can develop and utilize alternative technologies. He would also make the R&D tax credit permanent. That encourages innovation in research and development, without a doubt."

How about the production tax credit for renewable energy?

"I think that's another example."

Notice how Grist guides Fiorina towards the PTC. She came up with a convoluted manner in which a cap-and-trade is a tax incentive, but she couldn't offer specific incentives that McCain supported (because one month ago he still had no energy policy). Grist was clearly asking about the PTC in the first question. It's all that anybody in the renewable industry has been talking about all year, and McCain has opposed extending it one year for wind and through 2013 for other forms of renewables.

But Fiorina, clearly ignorant, replies "I think that's another example." Does this imply endorsment? Did Fiorina, acting as a McCain surrogate, support extending the PTC? No, because she's not speaking for the campaign's policy, because she doesn't know what she's talking about. What does McCain actually have to say about the PTC?

I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time.

Let's be generous to Fiorina. She was brought onboard the "Straight Talk Express" to beef up McCain's economic credibility (didn't they google her first?), and even though energy policy and the green economy is a huge part of the future economy of the US, maybe it's not her bag.

But here she is again speaking out about Obama's tax cut plans, and she's completely wrong on the facts, again.She claims with confidence, despite reality, that Obama has "not proposed one single tax cut." Does the former CEO of Hewlett Packard not own a computer? Did she really not bother to look it up before she went on TV to talk about it? This is apparently not a person who believes in homework.

If Fiorina is suggesting that McCain will run the country as she ran HP, then she is making a strong argument to vote Obama!

"Democrats argue..."

2008-06-30T08:06:00.000-04:00

One of the most harmful methods of the uncritical press these last few years (decades?) is the propensity for framing stories as "he said/she said" and thus relieving the "journalist" of his or her obligation to examine the veracity of either sides claims. I believe that this aspect of modern political journalism, this artificial objectivity, has been a crucial component of the success of George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Today via Google News Alerts I found this piece from the Boston Globe that is an examplethat struck close to home with my interest in energy policy.

The article is regarding McCain's new ad about energy and that he has compared his assorted gimmicks and give-aways to Big Oil to Kennedy's moon program. It doesn't start off too badly, and the author deserves credit for this line:

At the same time, he has been deriding Democrat Barack Obama as "Dr. No" - opposed to his proposals for energy independence, though Obama is pushing a plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years on alternative energy.

That one aspect of Obama's comprehensive plan is actually comparable to the Apollo program.

Unfortunately, the siren call of he said/she said was too much to resist.

"Democrats called the ad misleading, arguing that offshore oil drilling would provide no relief at the pump anytime soon and that McCain has a long record of voting against renewable energy."

That this was a "Campaign Notebook" story makes this almost excusable. The story was about the competing claims of the two parties. However, it is still important to point out that this isn't just something that "Democrats argue." Any honest Republican, maybe even McCain if pressed, would admit that those "arguments" are objectively true. Everybody admits that new offshore drilling would provide a small amount of new supply, and not even any appreciable amount for at least a decade. Furthermore, McCain objectively does have a record of opposing incentives for renewables. Even as recently as last June he couldn't be bothered to show up to vote for the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.

I credit Paul Krugman as one of the loudest and most credible voices opposing such journalistic laziness, particularly with regard to innumercy and the claims of the Bush administration. In a classic bit of prose, Krugman summarized the problem thusly.

Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth."

Regarding the Bush administrations plainly dishonest innumercy Krugman wrote back in 2002:

The strategy used to sell the Bush tax cut was simply to deny the facts -- and to lash out at anyone who tried to point them out. And it's a strategy that, having worked there, is now being applied across the board.

If journalists are going to spend the next four months simply reporting the competing claims of Obama and McCain without illuminating whether one side is, you know, lying or wrong, then we're in for a rough election.

I'm not asking that journalists "take sides." Pushing an agenda and reporting objectively on the merits of claims are two very different things. Of course, reality has a well known liberal bias.

Click "There's more..." for the full post about he said/she/said journalism.

I'm Voting Republican

2008-06-29T11:21:00.000-04:00

This is a million years old by now, but it's no less funny or true.

Enjoy your weekend.

New Energy For America

2008-06-26T21:33:00.000-04:00

The Obama campaign has a new website, New Energy For America, that contrasts Obama's and McCain's energy plans on a number of specific issues. Good for them for hitting McCain with this. Obama's forward looking and McCain's rearward looking energy plans highlight the two men and their two campaigns as succintly as any issue out there.
Furthermore, I love that the core behind the critique is a serious difference over serious policy matters. McCain and Republicans are trying hard to obfuscate the differences and create artificial hot-button issues (Guns, Rev. Wright). I'm proud to support a candidate who thinks he can win by convincing the American people not that his opponent is evil, but that his own ideas are better for the country. The college Republicans are noticeably silent about substantive differences between the candidates.

We'll do our best to educate students here at Drexel about the differences. We're planning two or three issue based events/debates for the fall term, and energy policy will certainly be the focus of the first.

Stay tuned for those, and in the meantime, educate yourself and your friends.

Things That Make My Ears Bleed

2008-06-26T18:31:00.004-04:00

Focus groups that ask undecided voters "who would you rather carry the American flag at the Olympics?"

That focus group was conducted for the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania, which as far as I'm concerned is minus 10 points for U Penn.

One of the most personally frustrating things about politics is how the views of the most ignorant Americans are elevated and legitimized in our discourse. People who say things like the following shouldn't be provided such a platform.

"I don't trust Osama ... Obama. It's only a letter difference," said Charles, the Hillary backer. "His middle name is Hussein." Observed Terry, the female Bush voter: "I don't feel he's a true American."

Yes, I recognize that understanding the perceptions of such "undecided voters" is important to the campaigns, but I resent that it makes news. I don't mind politicos talking about it, but when it makes it into the cable news/talking head circuit, it only serves to repeat and reinforce such ridiculousness.

We're in for several very long months with pollsters and pundits asking some very stupid questions that indulge the biases and ignorance of a small part of the electorate.

Dear Ralph Nader

2008-06-25T23:38:00.003-04:00

Bitter has-beens desperately seeking attention to sate their egos are always kind of sad and pathetic. Thanks for all your help. If we need anything else from you, we'll ask.

Arlen Spector Punts on PA Wind

2008-06-25T13:18:00.004-04:00

Last week our senior senator Arlen Spector voted for the second time in a week against cloture for the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, HR.6049, which most notably extended the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind to 2009 and for solar, biomass, geothermal, hydrokinetic and others through 2013.

I called Sen. Spector's D.C. office earlier today and they had no comment on why he opposes the bill, only that he would have an official position "sometime in the near future." Furthermore, Sen. Spector's office said he currently has no official position on extending the PTC generally, not just specifically in the form of HR.6049.

Thanks to Gov. Rendell's 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act PA is on track towards having 18 percent of grid power coming from renewables by 2020. Wind power is a strong resource for our state, and can provide tens of thousands of jobs, millions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments, and providing priceless environmental benefits.

PA already has a strong wind infrastructure, but we have even more undeveloped resources. Every time the PTC dies in the senate new wind projects drop precipitously. Sen. Spector opposing extending the PTC will cost PA residents thousands of new jobs, millions of new tax revenue, and a continued dependence on dirty energy.

Foreign companies like Iberdrola or Gamessa are investing in PA wind power, and are bringing turbine manufacturing to our state. The PTC is crucial, however, towards accelerating these investments. Sen. Spector is abandoning his state to support his party, and he won't even explain to us why.

Sen. Spector's D.C. office can be reached at 202-224-4254 if you want to call to encourage him to support the PTC and for the senate to take up HR.6049.

The Company They Keep

2008-06-24T16:45:00.003-04:00

I have managed throughout this long election season so far to avoid ridiculing some of the crazier anti-Obama elements out there on the internet, as they really don't deserve attention. Stupid is fair game, but people who aren't playing with a full deck should be left to play by themselves. This item, however, has become such a parody of itself that I can't resist.

The long and short of it is that about a year ago some guy with a 27 year long record of criminal activity recorded a YouTube video alleging that he and Obama had gay sex and did cocaine in a limousine. Some of the less well grounded Clinton supporters and right wingers have made him a cause célèbre, despite his failing polygraphs, his inability to provide any evidence, and his long history of criminal activity and deceit.

This guy held a press conference last week to try to get some attention for himself, and was arrested on an outstanding warrant. John Cole hilariously predicted that some idiots would blame Obama for silencing him; enter No Quarter, the De facto home of the nastiest and most racist anti-Obama partisans that know how to use a computer.

Kos highlights John Cole's mocking of a "Webster G. Tarpley" who has declared Sinclair a political prisoner. This his been rightly laughed at, but I haven't seen anyone else point out yet that Webster G. Tarpley is a 9/11 Truther and once ran for senate on the LaRouche platform.

Larry Johnson, proprietor of No Quarter and formerly a well read if not well respected voice in the blogosphere, has sunk to front paging 9/11 truther who claims that Obama had Sinclair arrested? Can this sink no further?

I'm beginning to think that Johnson isn't some kind of pro-Obama black flag operation himself after all...

Priorities

2008-06-23T23:16:00.004-04:00

Via Kevin Drum, these interesting responses to the question "What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?"

Obama: If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

Is this from the Rudy Giulliani school of political messaging? The absurdity of the answer is matched only by this unrelated statement by McCain aid Mark Soohoo at the Personal Democracy Forum:

“John McCain is aware of the Internet,” says Soohoo. “This is a man who has a very long history of understanding on a range of issues.”

A long history of understanding on a range of issues? Well that's quite an accomplishment!

McCain Energy Policy Watch: The Plan?

2008-06-23T08:44:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday, June 17th, McCain gave a speech where he finally unrolled his energy policy, which had been conspicuously absent for the first 419 days of his presidential campaign. I'm glad that he's finally tackled the topic, though I think it's remarkable that he ran for president this long with our energy supply in such a precarious state without having articulated any energy policy at all. I was really quite surprised that more people didn't criticize him at the very least for the lack of priority on energy policy it demonstrated.

Before I address the policy proposals, however, I want to emphasize the degree to which McCain and his campaign continues to not prioritize or emphasize energy policy. Yes, he has incorporated attacking Obama over offshore drilling and the gas tax holiday into his stump speech, but his website still fails to provide an issues page for "Energy." His campaign home page provides no clue where to find his energy policy either. His campaign blog makes no mention of his speech on Tuesday. The "multimedia" section of his site has no video of his speech available; nor does the "Speeches" subpage or "About/Issues" subpage (although that one does have two videos of speeches about Reagan...).

A transcript of the remarks is available under the News->Speeches heading, as are all his prepared remarks. Furthermore, a search of the site picks up a number of press releases, editorials, his speech from last April, and his recent remarks.

All together, one can hardly credit the campaign with making energy front and center. Of course, considering the substance of McCain's plan, I can certainly understand why they aren't touting it.

Nonetheless, here we are with an energy policy that we can finally examine substantively. The gist; Drill our way out!

Here are the bullet point proposals that McCain put forward. Skipping the ones that note the state of our energy economy we're left with the following:

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies [It's still unclear how this money will be committed. Direct research grants, tax credits, subsidized loans for new clean capital technology etc. Also, anybody who has ever seen a mountain range decimated for coal mining is likely to question how much more we should lean on coal.]

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. [Accomplishing this, of course, by subsidizing nuclear power rather than renewables. Nuclear power is certainly a strong ally in combating climate change, but one shouldn't be naive about the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining that often aren't incorporated into the price of the energy.]

If The U.S. Commits Itself To Expanding Domestic Oil And Gas Exploration, We Can Make A Positive Impact For A Peaceful And Stable International Oil Market. [ie lift the federal off-shore drilling morotorium. The impact that this will have on energy prices is difficult to underestimate. Production will take decades to peak, and the impact on the total supply will be slight, even if states like Florida and California don't block it off their coasts, which they surely will. Short version: weak idea.]

John McCain Contends That It Is Important For Us To Understand The Role That Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices. [No word on investigating the warmongering risk premium...]

The only statement on renewable energy was the following, here in its entirety:

John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. Also, across the country, water is currently the leading renewable energy source used by electric utilities to generate electric power. Developing these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain voted against the patchwork of tax credits for renewable power in the past because they were temporary and reflected special interests, not what was the best policy. Because of the urgent need to reform our energy portfolio, John McCain will put in place real support for these sources of energy in the form of permanent credits that are fair, level and rational, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.

Part of this is his cap-and-trade proposal that we've looked at before. The important things to remember about the candidates' respective cap-and-trade plans is that Obama has a lower cap, auctions 100% of the permits and uses about 15% of the proceeds to compensate low income Americans for high fuel costs and almost all of the rest for investment in renewables. McCain's plan gives away the permits, and he's apparently confused about the "cap" part of cap-and-trade.

The rest is unclear. McCain has opposed the Production Tax Credit in the Senate, which is part of what he is describing as a "patchwork" measure. The infuriatingly dishonest part about the above statement is that he never explains what "John McCain will put in place real support for these sources of energy in the form of permanent credits that are fair, level and rational, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy" means. McCain surely doesn't support feed in tariffs that work so well in Europe. He just never explains, which means probably nothing. Let the market decide and drill in the meantime.

It's important to point out at this point how important measures like the PTC are. GE Financial Servies recently examined the impact of the PTC on the wind power industry and concluded that "Wind Farm Tax Revenues Offset Tax Incentive." First, observe how important the PTC is for the commerical viability of new wind projects (figure from above GE study, via the wonderful REW podcast)Political uncertainty, courtesy of McCain and his Republican allies, decimates new wind capacity every time the PTC dies.

Next, examine the impact of the PTC on total revenues:For the $2.5 billion dollars spent on the PTC, $2.75 billion in increased revenues were brought in, netting $250 million dollars. That doesn't even include less quantifiable impacts such as the environmental and tertiary economic benefits.

So for all of McCain's bluster about the cost of fuel and the price per barrel of oil, he's got nothing up his sleeve besides an old oil rig. Short term supply will be unaffected, and years and years from now we'll be in an even deeper hole.

Finally, I think it's noteworthy the lack of a broader energy infrastructure policy. Obama supports a number of regulatory improvements such as revenue decoupling, portfolio standards, and CAFE standards. McCain is silent. Obama specifically addresses the need to improve our distribution networks and invest in a digital smart grid to handle our electrical needs. McCain is silent. Obama recognizes and mentions the role of land use policies and transportation infrastructure in our energy economy. McCain is silent.

I wonder why?

In his speech, which I watched on C-SPAN this weekend, McCain dismissed investments in renewables as wishful thinking by "futurists." I guess when you're 72 years old and running as the candidate for the status quo, everyone around you begins to look like a "futurist."

Meet the New Press

2008-06-22T19:45:00.000-04:00

I watched Meet the Press this morning to see how Brian Williams would handle the format after Russert, but I couldn't watch the whole thing. Lindsey Graham is such a sniveling little twit that I had to turn it off. Although, kudos to Sen. Biden for his handling of the situation. I'm not a supporter of Biden for VP; I think that the AUMF vote has got to be a bright line for Obama's ticket. But Biden did what he does best, a clear headed attack dog if there ever was one.

Graham's whining about offshore drilling and public financing was as absurd as it was dishonest. Biden did an excellent job of pointing out that Obama has acheived public financing by reaching out to the public, while McCain is breaking campaign finance laws as we speak and is counting on nasty 527 ads to bolster his campaign; the same type of 527 ads that Obama has ordered not to air on his behalf.

Furthermore, Biden effectively (and repeatedly) rebuted Graham's appeals for more drilling by pointing out the long term nature of neew drilling (ten years before significant production comes in), the relatively small amount of new supply that would result from that drilling, and the fact that refinery capacity not crude supply is the rate limiting factor in our oil consumption.

Crooks&Liars has a short clip, but I couldn't stand watching the whole show. Arguments made in bad faith from hacks like Graham shake my confidence in government. Thank god for blogs.

A Taxing Debate

2008-06-20T13:07:00.003-04:00

The Tax Policy Center recently released their analysis of McCain's and Obama's tax plans, and the results are interesting. This chart from that study, via the Washington Post, is worth well more than a thousand words.

The difference between these two plans is made even more stark in light of their spending proposals. McCain supports an indefinte occupation of Iraq, with an option for another war in Iran, to the tune of about $150 billion dollars a year in direct costs and hundreds of billions more in indirect costs. McCain likes to say that he'll cut pork so furiously that he'll save $160 billion a year (sometimes he only says $65 billion), but that's just pie-in-the-sky. He's had to backtrack again and again about popular earmarks that he won't cut, like US aid to Israel (about $3 billion per year), and by the time he's done backtracking, he'll be left with a pittance of savings. There really just aren't that many bridges-to-nowhere.

So McCain is running for president as Bush ran for president. Offering massive tax cuts to the already-haves (Cost of McCain's tax cuts: $650 billion per year) and simultaneously large spending programs (Iraq war, for one...). McCain will then, like Bush, either disregard his campaign plans or he'll run massive deficits. It's been about 15 years now since Republicans could claim to be the party of fiscal responsibilty, and McCain is apparently intent on continuing that modern tradition of irresponsibility.

It's also worth pointing out that the manner and degree that George W Bush lied about his tax cuts during his campaign in 2000, and the way that the media treated the objective math as a he said/she said, was a harbinger of things to come. Let's see if our media has learned anything in the intervening 8 years.

A noun, a verb, and 9/11

2008-06-19T23:23:00.000-04:00

What a joke. Rudy 9ui11iani, who managed to make look Fred Fucking Thompson look like a viable canidate, is back on the warpath again, but he still only has the one trick. Fortunately, not even Republicans take Rudy seriously (I forget, did he manage to beat Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee in any of those primaries?) so I say bring it on. Let's have the McCain campaign make Rudy its public face for all things terrorist related. I'll outsource the rest of my indignant response to DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney.

"Democrats are not going to be lectured to on security by the mayor who failed to learn the lessons of the 1993 attacks, refused to prepare his own city’s first responders for the next attack, urged President Bush to put his corrupt crony in charge of our homeland security, and was too busy lobbying for his foreign clients to join the Iraq Study Group,” DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said. “Rudy Giuliani, can echo the McCain campaign’s false and misleading attacks, but he can’t change the fact that John McCain is promising four more years of President Bush’s flawed and failed policies on everything from energy security and the economy to the war in Iraq."

(Via TPM, Atrios, and FirstRead)

The internet is for funny.

2008-06-18T21:35:00.002-04:00

The new meme. Explanation.

Oh, and word has it that McCain finally released an energy policy (Drill!), so we can stop the watch. I'll take a look at the speech and see what I can find, and post on it later in the week.

Bad Political Advice

2008-06-17T09:24:00.000-04:00

Some guy I've never heard of, who for some reason writes for US News and World Report, has some unusually asinine suggestions for John McCain to "turn the issues of energy and the environment to his advantage in his race against Barack Obama." Let's take a look. (These are his words)

Stop talking about global warming.
Ban the color green
Propose drilling in ANWR while standing in ANWR
Accuse Obama of wanting to launch a pre-emptive war on the American economy
Stop blaming Big Oil
Go with a populist "cost of living" argument
Advocate a cheap Manhattan Project

He fleshes them out a bit, by I'm not going to waste precious pixels here with nonsense. Several were too stupid to pass up, however.

For suggestion 3, "Propose drilling in ANWR while standing in ANWR," this Einstein says "And McCain could set the stage, as someone recently suggested, by visiting ANWR with Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin. Recall Ike's 1952 campaign pledge: 'I will go to Korea.' McCain could say, 'I will go to ANWR.'" Brilliant! Stand in a gorgeous national wildlife reserve and say "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these trees!" Why in the world would McCain want that backdrop for a pandering flip-flop?

As for number 6, "Go with a populist "cost of living" argument," I really have to quote the whole thing for you to get a sense of the sheer stupidity.

"You can't expect McCain to abandon his plan to cap U.S. carbon emissions. But since his plan and Obama's similar approach would both raise energy prices for consumers, McCain could explicitly call for rebating money from the auctioning of carbon allowances—we are talking trillions of dollars over the coming decades—back to consumers in the form of lower taxes. It's a populist move that he could contrast with the Democratic plan to have the government keep that money and spend it on various "green" programs."

Except, not. It's true that prices would rise under both cap-and-trade proposals, but McCain doesn't auction the vast majority of his permits while Obama auctions 100% of his. Which is more; 100% or much much less than 100%? According to a the CBO, it would require merely 14% of auction revenue to compensate low-income Americans. Furthermore, Obama already proposes this. That's how McCain can win? Steal Obama's ideas and accuse him of trying to torpedo the economy? I think I know why I've never heard of this guy before...

Finally, number 7, "Advocate a cheap Manhattan Project." Again, we have comedy gold.

"Obama wants to spend something like $200 billion over 10 years on various energy schemes like a government-sponsored venture capital fund to invest in clean energy. A more modest approach comes from the group Set America Free. It wants American taxpayers to spend $12 billion over the next four years"

Incidently, the Iraq war now costs $12 billion per month. Is Mr. Pethokoukis familiar with the Manhattan project? It's very value as a metaphor is as project for which cost is not an issue, when whatever-it-takes is what it gets. I'd further submit that what this country needs is an actual Manhattan project for energy, you know, like Obama proposes and McCain has no policy on. And nothing says "Republican" these days like "Let's half ass this one."

So there you have it. The way to "turn the issues of energy and the environment to his advantage" is for McCain to botch a photo-op, copy Obama's ideas, and half-ass it.

My advice would be to propose a serious energy policy that would actually deal with our energy problems. But hey, nobody pays me to write about politics.

McCain Energy Policy Watch Day 418: Confused or Lying?

2008-06-16T23:22:00.000-04:00

We've already examined McCain's cap-and-trade plan, the only concrete proposal he's offered that deals with our energy problems. A cap-and-trade is a step towards full cost accounting of fossil fuels, which will help renewables become market competitive. The short version is that McCain's cap-and-trade is inferior to Obama's for anybody who is concerned about the environment, can't afford higher fuel prices, or supports investment in renewable energy and energy research.

In a press conference today, though McCain betrayed that he's either deeply confused or deeply dishonest about his own proposal. Furthermore, since we're told that calling McCain "confused" is ageist, I guess we're left with dishonesty. McCain said:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

As Gristmill pointed out, the cap part of cap and trade is a mandatory cap, even McCain's plan. McCain may not like the political framing of "mandatory," but saying that his plan does not include a mandatory cap is wrong on the facts.

So on the one level this story is a "gotcha!" John-McCain-ignorant-of-policy like so many others this year (Remember when Al Qaeda was in Iran? McCain does!). On another level, however, this exemplifies one of the most frustrating things about McCain's candidacy. He receives laudets for breaking with Bush on climate change (by acknowledging its existence-talk about a low bar!) but isn't held to any standard in his actions or policies!

McCain clearly doesn't prioritize climate change or energy issues, because if he did he would put forward a comphrehensive energy policy as Sen. Obama has done.

I would be encouraged if McCain's press corps begain asking about energy issues. High gas prices are a hot topic right now, and yet McCain is allowed to skate by without describing how a McCain administration would take leadership to promote policies? The message that I'm getting loud and clear from McCain is that whatever rhetoric about energy independence or climate change we hear over these next 5 months, McCain is clearly content to accept and continue Bush's legacy of federal inaction.

Prior installments of our McCain Energy Policy Watch are here:
The McCain Energy Policy Introduction.
Day 385: Cap-and-trade.
Day 410: Revenue decoupling.
Day 414: What We Do Know.

Daniel A. Boehmer is an idiot

2008-06-15T23:28:00.000-04:00

I know that's a rather rude call out, but given the circumstances, it's tough to draw any other conclusion. Exhibit A is a letter Mr. Boehmer, who describes himself as a "member of the George Washington College Democrats," wrote to the GW College Republicans expressing his support for Senator McCain, after Obama defeated his preferred candidate Sen. Clinton. I'm a tad confused because many blogs are attributing to Mr. Boehmer the title of "Chairman" of the GW College Dems, but this appears to be a mistake. He describes himself only as a "member" without any apparent authority to speak for the group. Furthermore, he isn't listed on their website as being amember of the exec board in any capacity.

The funny part was that this got picked up on some blogs, and Marc Ambinder posted the letter in its entirety on June 5th. Breaking News: George Washington University student doesn't know what he's talking about!

Now, Daniel Boehmer is perfectly entitled to support whichever candidate he wants to, and is also entitled to speak out on behalf of said candidate. But that doesn't mean that I won't mock him for spending $50,000 a year to attend college in Washington DC without any apparent respect or grasp of the ideological gulf between Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain.

Boehmer is not alone as a former supporter of Sen. Clinton who now supports McCain (though by all accounts those numbers are quite small, and shrinking), but he did decide to make himself a public face of this petulant movement. He writes:

A long time supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton these past 16 months of her campaign, the selection of Sen. Obama has placed me, like many other Democrats, in an odd position. For me however, the debate between 'loyalty' to my party and voting based on my conscience was quickly settled. I determined that my support would, in lieu of Sen. Clinton's nomination to the Democratic Party, be given to Sen. John McCain.

This betrays a fundamental immaturity and ignorance about our political system. I'm a partisan Democrat, but I don't support the party out of loyalty, I support the party because it advances policies and positions that I support. If the parties switched platforms tomorrow, I wouldn't find myself torn by loyalty, I'd find myself voting Republican!

Boehmer is either ignorant of or confused by policies and platforms, because anybody who would support Sen. Clinton's candidacy would find an ideological ally in Sen. Obama. Whatever is affecting his "conscience," it certainly wasn't an understanding of how our government works or what is at stake in this election. I for one hope that George Washington Univeristy is proud of the fine education this young man has received.

Doesn't this story set the bar for notability impossibly low? Can any college student now claim to be a member of the College Dems and start issuing press releases and public letters announcing support for, say the reanimated corpse of Ronald Reagan, and get coverage?

More on Russert

2008-06-14T17:22:00.002-04:00

I've been a little surprised with MSNBC's coverage over these last 24 hours. It has been, without exxageration, nearly completely focused on Tim Russert. I understand that Russert was an icon of Washington journalism, and was apparently universally loved by friends and colleagues at NBC and elsewhere, but the hagiographic eulogies and the non-stop coverage strikes me oddly.

First, Russert was undeniably respected and emulated by colleagues. As John Cole said, however, this is not an unvarnished good.

But let’s get something straight- what I am watching right now on the cable news shows is indicative of the problem- no clearer demonstration of the fact that they consider themselves to be players and the insiders and, well, part of the village, is needed. This is precisely the problem. They have walked the corridors of power so long that they honestly think they are the story. It is creepy and sick and the reason politicians get away with all the crap they get away with these days.

This isn't to spit on Russert's grave. I really do feel for his friends and family, particularly in light of recent events my own family. However, Russert was respected enough and big enough that people shouldn't forget legitimate criticisms of the man's methods.

Russert's role in the Plame affair was journalistically controversial. Those that seek to emulate Russert's gotcha style would do well to understand the negative aspects of how it was practiced. And he was used by the Bush administration to sell Iraqi WMD claims. Nobody should forget how the Bush administration fed false or exagerated intelligence to Judy Miller, and then sent Dick Cheney to "Meet the Press" to discuss it, because on MTP Cheney could "control the message." Russert was a prominent figure in the Washington press corp during the run up to Iraq, and that's an unfortunate stain on an otherwise illustriuos career.

Such an iconic newsman deserves nothing less than an honest examination of his career.

Tim Russert: 1950-2008

2008-06-13T20:14:00.002-04:00

As you've undoubtably heard, Tim Russert, host of "Meet the Press" since 1991, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News, and co-moderator of the Drexel University Democratic Presidential debate, died this afternoon. As a a young person I've never known a politics or political media without the influence of Tim Russert.

I don't have anything to add beyond what we're reading and hearing from his friends, so I offer up this highlight reel from that debate here from last fall.

McCain Lies

2008-06-13T13:21:00.003-04:00

Once again the endless footage of John McCain catches him red handed. Noz mentioned a month ago that he expected to start seeing a lot of McCain flip flops and lies in video form by nature of the fact that McCain has spent about 5 hours a week doing interviews for the last twenty years. Here he is, shall we say finessing, his prior statements about privativing social security.

And here is the juxtaposition of "Straight Talk" in from two different eras of Bush's popularity. When Bush is popular (after reelection) McCain is his strongest support, and when Bush is Mr. 29%, well Mac is a Maverick!

Straight talk!

McCain Energy Policy Watch: What We Do Know

2008-06-12T09:53:00.001-04:00

I came across some discussion on the blogs about McCain's energy policy, and since we've been beating this drum for some time now, I decided to jump in. This post was going to be about Obama's renewable enrgy investment proposals, contrasted with the absence of McCain's, but instead let's step back and figure out what we can piece together about what McCain's energy policy would be like from his record and statements.

Steve Benen was wondering why McCain was pushing the gas tax holiday so much, and independently discovered what we've been saying for a while.

"But something else occurred to me this afternoon. When pondering why on earth McCain would continue to push obvious nonsense about an important issue, the answer came to me: it’s because he has nothing else to say.

I went to his website to check on his energy policy. On his home page, there’s plenty about golf gear, but nothing about energy or gas prices. Eventually, after digging around for a while, I found this:
"John McCain Will Help Americans Hurting From High Gasoline And Food Costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices."
That’s not an excerpt of a longer position paper, that’s the entire text of McCain’s position on gas prices. He’ll “act immediately.” How? No one knows. With what kind of policy? It’s a total mystery. (In contrast, Obama has a detailed policy page on oil and energy.)"

That's exactly what I went through about five months ago gearing up for our debate with the College Republicans. I was pretty shocked that McCain didn't have an energy page on his website, and further digging bore out the absence of any plan.

The esteemed Hilzoy, however, calls the assertion that McCain has no plan "about two-thirds right." He points out something I made clear in the first installment of the energy policy watch; that while McCain doesn't have any policy papers or issues pages about energy, he has spoken about the issue a lot, and (more recently) he has put forward a cap-and-trade scheme. Hilzoy identifies the mistaken third thusly.

The one-third wrong part: there's more than what Steve found. The part about lowering gas prices is just as lame as he says: McCain fleshes out his promise to lower gas prices by saying he'll institute the gas holiday (which won't lower them), stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (already happened), and -- well, that's it.

However, McCain does have a Climate Change policy page, which describes his proposal for a cap and trade system. He expands on this in a speech on climate change policy, and adds some useful details: for instance, some permits would be auctioned, and some of the money from those auctions would be directed to "to help build the infrastructure of a post-carbon economy" (which seems to mean research and some infrastructure.) In a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, he says that "we need to work together to increase CAFE standards to a level that is practical and achievable for all new vehicles" and that "we need to be at the cutting edge of green technologies", though how we will get there is not explained.

Emphasis mine. We started the McCain Energy Policy Watch before his climate change proposals came out (some say it was because of us that they came out...Ok, nobody says that.) But even with his cap-and-trade initiative the problem with McCain on energy is that he likes to talk a good game without backing it up. When you hear pundits extolling his "maverickness" one of the issues they often cite is his breaking with the President on energy. McCain voted against the 2005 energy bill because of the oil industry pork. It's worth pointing out why Obama voted for it, though.

The production tax credit was slated to expire at the end of 2005, and a two year extension was included, as well as fairly significant other renewable incentives. It's true that the bill, the Dick Cheney Energy Bill for Lobbyists, was full of pork for oil companies too, but in the minority it was a pill some Democrats swallowed. Observe the effect of the PTC on installed wind capacity in the US.

McCain values his image as a porkbuster more than an image as a "green." He has been talking a good game at town halls for years without ever really backing it up. He has repeatedly voted to oppose extending the production tax credit for wind energy, on the grounds that he doesn't support subsidies, but then he says he supports subsidies for nuclear energy (without offering details, which kind of matter). This doesn't even hit on McCain's hatred of Amtrak, and whether he considers land use and mass transit part of a national strategy on energy.

In McCain's original energy speech in April 2007 he said

"As President, I'll propose a national energy strategy that will amount to a declaration of independence from the fear bred by our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to the troubled politics of the lands they rule. When we reach the limits of military power and diplomacy to contain the dangers of that cauldron of burning resentments and extremism, energy security is our best defense. We won't achieve it tomorrow, but we must achieve it in our time.

The strategy I propose won't be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists. It will promote the diversification and conservation of our energy sources that will in sufficient time break the dominance of oil in our transportation sector just as we diversified away from oil use in electric power generation thirty years ago; and substantially reduce the impact of our energy consumption on the planet. It will rely on the genius and technological prowess of American industry and science. Government must set achievable goals, but the markets should be free to produce the means. And those means are within our reach."

Which would be fine, if he ever followed up on it.

The real issue is one of priorities. We know roughly what a McCain energy policy would look like; Cutting most subsidies for renewables. A cap-and-trade with a higher cap, most of the permits given away, and unlimited use of carbon offsets (a problem). Subsidies for coal and nuclear power for new plants. Disdain for new regulation. Opposing new drilling in ANWR. Higher CAFE standards. We can expect this from things he's said in town halls or speeches and his voting record in the senate.

But when he says things like "Of course we're all for the wind and solar and tide There's no living American who isn't in favor of that. I'm in favor of that." he shouldn't get a free pass. He doesn't explain how you can promote more renewable energy without restructuring regulation with measures like revenue decoupling and enforced net metering, or without investing in basic and applied research in our nations labs and universities, or without providing either production or investment tax credits.

The fact that there is no coherent policy platform, much less one readily accessible to the public, can mean only that he doesn't prioritize the problem. That's the point about the McCain Energy Policy Watch. Voters can't hold a candidate responsible for a plan that's never offered. I would love to see McCain adopt all or most of Obama's plan, and let them fight out the election over other issues. Renewable energy and our energy problems shouldn't be a partisan football. But as long as one party isn't serious about them, then they will be.

Until McCain actually puts forward an energy plan, we'll keep counting.

The McCain Energy Policy Introduction.
Day 385: Cap-and-trade.
Day 410: Revenue decoupling.

Click "There's more..." for the full post.

The 2008 Presidential Primary In 10 Minutes

2008-06-11T18:12:00.002-04:00

I know that this was a long primary season (it started around December 2004), but in case you miss it already, well here you go, because K.O. did a 10 minute retrospective on the primary. So go ahead, get nostalgic. I for one miss Rudy, Fred, Mitt and the gang.

Not a bad soundtrack either. The Mutato Muzika Orchestra always reminds me of Rugrats and Rushmore.

The Republican Not-Quite-50-State Strategy

2008-06-10T22:44:00.004-04:00

Did you know that this guy, Michael Livingston, was running against Chaka Fattah for the 2nd congressional seat here in West Philly? Neither did I. I only learned about it after he dropped out of the race. To quote Keystone Politics:

"Yesterday Keystone Politics received a Press Release indicating that Michael Livingston, Republican candidate for the Second Congressional district had withdrawn from the race against Democratic Congressman Chaka Fattah.

Mr. Livingston, in attempt to garner any media attention, has emailed again to see why we haven’t posted a story. Frankly, his running was not newsworthy and his abandoning the race is even less newsworthy."

Ouch. It's actually a fairly interesting non-story though. The final press release on Livingston's website is titled "Livingston Withdraws from Race, Blasts Local and National Republicans for Extreme Positions, Lack of Support" Now, it's not unusual for congressional challengers of either party to be upset with national party organizations for too little support, financial and otherwise. But Livingston was apparently snubbed completely.

While critical of local leaders, Livingston reserved his strongest criticism for the national Republican Party, most notably its Congressional wing. From that release: “The NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) spent $1 million on a by-election in Louisiana but could not even provide me with a weekend of candidate training,” he explained.

Many of you know that I'm a big fan of Howard Dean and Barack Obama's 50 state strategy. Sure, you might not win every congressional race, but local organizing pays dividends up-ticket. Also, you might not win every state, but national attention can pay dividends down-ticket. We now know that the Obama campaign will field paid staffers in all 50 states. We may not win Alabama, but that's how you build a national party.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are in bunker mode. Stingily allocating funds and staffers to only those races they hope to defend. Similarly, McCain's electoral map to the White House focuses on holding the Bush states, with a laser like focus on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The 2nd CD is deep blue territory, but people won't vote for you if you don't ask them to.

But If the Republican's haven't figured that out yet, by all means don't tell them now.

Very Important Message

2008-06-10T18:35:00.000-04:00

I thought you guys might enjoy knowing that since last week's book review of Kathleen Parker's Save the Males, which by nature of the book used the word "vagina" frequently, our google searches have increased a bit.

At this point, nearly 10% of all incoming hits from google queries are for the word "vagina." In the last week, people (men, presumably) from the following countries have searched for the term "vagina" on google and clicked through to that post:

Mexico
Switzerland
Portugal
Mozambique (from a .gov domain at that)
Germany
Brazil (a few)
And several from inside these United States.

That is all. We now return to regularly scheduled blogging.

Bill Moyers on Media Reform

2008-06-09T21:24:00.003-04:00

Journalist Bill Moyers addresses the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis, June 7, 2008. It's an almost 40 minute speech, but well worth every minute.

"The only antidote to the power of organized money in Washington is the power of organized people at the net roots."

The Dumbening Begins

2008-06-09T17:11:00.004-04:00

In this primary between Obama and Hillary, the policy issues between them were relatively minor. Healthcare mandates, Obama's more net-friendly tech policy, and most importantly Obama's early opposition to the Iraq War were the most noticable among them.

All things considered, there was a fair amount of focus on policy in the primary. ABC's horrendous Philadelphia debate aside, the few differences were pretty well fleshed out for anyone concerned.

Given that promising (a relative term) start, the deep divide between Obama and McCain on a range of important issues, and McCain's professed desire to run a clean campaign, I'm hoping for a relatively substantive election. Now, I'm not naive (well, not THAT naive) so when I say that, I put the emphasis on relatively.

Cue the dumbening. The LA Times editorializes that McCain and Obama are actually pretty similar. Their trick, you see, is that if you don't examine the issues, then Obama and McCain are the same! Take, for instance, their assertion that Obama and McCain are on "common ground" on climate change.

Environment. The differences between the two on the environment tend to be a matter of degree. They support the same policies, but in general Obama wants tougher (and costlier) regulation. Both want to create a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases -- Obama's would reduce them to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, while McCain's would cut them by 60%. Both want more energy-efficiency programs and renewable energy, though Obama would spend more to get them. McCain is a big proponent of nuclear power, an issue Obama has largely avoided thus far.

Yes, McCain is that elusive creature, a Republican who acknowledges the overwhelming scientific consensus of climate change. No discussion, however, of the distinction between McCain's cap-and-give approach versus Obama's cap-and-invest. These are not marginal distinctions, either. Obama has laid out a suprisingly forward thinking energy platform to push this country towards renewable energy, while McCain has no policy at all.

Steve Benen at noticed the same thing, but Ezra Klein put it best:

A week ago, I laughed off fears that any reporters in America would be dim enough to argue that Barack Obama and John McCain, contrary to what they say and what their policies suggest, are actually quite close to each other ideologically. Today, the LA Times takes a shot at proving me wrong. Happily, the Times' editorial page isn't quite able to convince itself of this bit of tomfoolery, but they give it a go. I hereby promise to never again underestimate the media's ability to turn any campaign into an ideas free contest of personalities.

The first presidential election that I have any real memory of was Bush v. Gore. I was going into 10th grade, and I remember very clearly lots of people asserting that the two candidates were identical save for their personalities. I remember most explicitly Bill Mahr, still on ABC at the time, constantly referred to them as "Gush and Bore." He wasn't the only one either.

Bush and the Republicans deliberately obfuscated the actual policy differences between the two candidates, and even the two parties. If you listened to Bush (or any of 10,000 talking heads) tell it, Bush trusted you and Gore trusted the government, but other than that they're the same. On specific issues from the patients bill of rights, to climate change, to social security, to tax policy, Bush and co. made at best grossly misleading to at worst downright deceitful statements. Bush pretended to support the patients bill of rights when he did not. Does anyone remember "by far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." That was a fun one.

Please don't make me live through that again.

McCain Energy Policy Watch Day 410: Revenue Decoupling

2008-06-08T11:56:00.012-04:00

See also:
McCain Energy Policy Watch Introduction
McCain Energy Policy Watch Day 385: Cap and Trade

410 days ago John McCain officially launched his candidacy for President of the United States, and he has yet to announce or endorse an energy policy. Today I'm going to briefly explain a policy referred to as "revenue decoupling," a simple and ingenious method to encourage more renewable microgeneration and consumption, that Senator Obama supports and Senator McCain has no position on.

In order to understand profit decoupling you must first briefly understand how electric utilities operate. First, utilities are regulated by the government, and the rates that they charge for power are set by the government as follows. The costs to produce power (including a profit for the unility companies) are estimated for a period of time, and the expected sales units (power) are also forecasted. The total costs divided by the units sold determines the rate per kilowatt-hour. If the utility sells more power, it earns extra profits, and if it sells less than forcasted, it earns less money. In this manner, utility company profits are very sensitive to sales. A drop in sales has a magnified impact on profits.

The dynamics of this relationship are as follows. Customers have an incentive to conserve, as they are charged according to how much they use. Utility companies, however, have a strong disincentive to promote conservation or reduced consumption. This relationship disincentivises utility companies to promote smart metering, microgeneration, or conservation initiatives.

That's where revenue decoupling comes in. Revenue decoupling breaks the link between the consumption of power and the profit to utility companies, therefore positioning them with economic incentives to allocate resources and energy in more efficient manners. Instead of fixing prices to adjust revenues, revenues are fixed by adjusting prices. As Bill Clinton himself explained the advantages of revenue decoupling;

"If the utilities do this, then they can put together a plan, go find all the contractors, get all the materials and if in effect pay for the cost on your home or in your office building as if they were building a mini power plant there. That is instead of financing it like a consumer loan for one year or a car loan for three, it could be financed over a twenty-year period or longer. The consumer then would have to pay a little more per kilowatt hour but never so much that they wouldn't still have lower total utility bills because they'd be using so much less. So suppose they make your home 30 percent more efficient, they charge you 15 percent more per kilowatt hour, so your bill goes down 15 percent and they get the financing they need, collectively it will be much less expensive for them than building a new power plant. They'll be able to finance and we won't be contributing any more to climate change."

The technical possibilites of distributed microgeneration are very promising. Microgeneration of wind and solar power can go a long way towards supplying the energy needs of developed societies, and reduce the loads on our antiquated electrical grid. Smart implementation requires effective and intelligent political and regulatory leadership, and Obama has shown that he takes the issue seriously.

Now, these are state issues, but as with nearly all such "state" issues, leadership from the federal government can promote or inhibit the actions of the states. From Obama's energy plan:

Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: Obama will work to “flip” incentives to state and local utilities by ensuring companies get increased profits for improving energy efficiency, rather than higher energy consumption. Currently, utilities make profits when consumers purchase more energy, and when consumers purchase energy at peak times when energy prices are higher because of greater demands on the system. This decoupling of profits from increased energy usage will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal government to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. Obama will provide early adopter grants and other financial assistance from the federal government to states that implement this energy efficient policy.

Emphasis added.

McCain, on the other hand, has no stated position at all on revenue decoupling. McCain apparently places our energy needs somewhere below pandering on guns and McCain branded golf gear.

Right now a nearly a dozen states have decoupled their electrical utilites. The results are encouraging. California, which a number of years ago experimented disasterously with deregulation of the electric industry, but now has a decoupled scheme. The per capita energy consumption is now 55% of the national average, due in part to revenue decoupling.

Don't let anyone call Obama an empty suit without pointing out that McCain is running for president while oil costs $138 per barrel, and he can't be bothered to formulate an energy policy.

Click "There's more..." for the full post.

Jackie Mason Has Opinions

2008-06-07T11:05:00.002-04:00

And he wants you to hear them. Plus, he's a right wing nut without any particular knowledge or expertise, so naturally he videotapes his radio show and puts it on YouTube. Does anyone actually broadcast his "radio show" or is this one of those internet radio deals? Either way, he's hilarious...ly stupid! Now that's comedy.

Jackie's YouTube ranting after the jump.

Friday Night

2008-06-06T22:59:00.002-04:00

Don't get too drunk, or you might accidently run for president without an energy policy. Oops!

McCain/Clinton '08?

2008-06-06T12:25:00.003-04:00

Stop shuddering, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting thought. With all the Clinton supporters who insist they would never vote for Obama over McCain, McCain/Clinton could possibly be a dream ticket. It would make very little sense since they disagree on most issues of policy, but to the "Change vs. Experience" crowd, they are placed in the same bucket. And in a way, McCain has little to lose if he extends the offer; as "trojan8080" points out in a comment on McCain's campaign blog, "If she says no, John McCain will look like the guy that really works across party lines."

But really, it's not going to happen. Otherwise, we're in serious trouble.

For now, most of our trouble lies in the steady stream of Clinton supporters defecting to McCain. But seriously, ClintonsForMcCain...what the hell are you thinking?

I think "elycee" puts it best in another comment on the McCain blog: "So, because Hilary lost...You are willing to sacrifice everything she has worked all her life to achieve. Her platforms are identical to Obama's. If you are ready for Roe V Wade to be overturned, the wealthiest [A]mericans to get the largest tax cuts....then carry on."

So what about Obama/Clinton?

Could they put aside the bitter rivalry that has grown between them this season? Sure they could; most of the mudslinging in the primaries is just for show. After all, they're already chatting it up in Diane Feinstein's living room. To me, something about it feels utterly unnatural at this point, but who knows how we'll feel after a few weeks when our primary wounds heal? With Obama's guiding vision of hope and Clinton's experience to back him up, they could easily defeat McCain in the fall. After all, all the women and black voters added together surely outnumber the old white men...if you insist on simplifying everything down into demographics as the pundits are so fond of doing this season.

We'll probably have quite a bit more time to agonize and speculate before the running mate is chosen. It's surely a tough decision to make for Obama. Running mates need chemistry; Obama and Edwards certainly would have made a dynamic duo, but Edwards has definitely ruled out that possibility. Obama/Richardson could also be a powerful pair, and would help him with his weakness in the Latino vote...then there's Jim Webb...Wesley Clark...or Kathleen Sebelius...Ed Rendell (I'm still surprised by that idea)...or maybe a Republican?!

Enough with the speculating. Walter Mondale has it right, suggesting Clinton supporters pull back from "even appearance of campaigning for the No. 2 spot," because it may complicate Obama's decision.

“I think it’s best he just be left alone,” Mr. Mondale said.

It's been a long 5 months of primaries, and even longer campaigning, and the poor man is tired. Just give him a break and let him make a decision in peace.

Lessons learned this primary season

2008-06-06T10:58:00.003-04:00

Shameless plug for my ed-op in this week's Triangle...

It's been a long, arduous trek the past five months, but finally the presidential primary season has come to a close. For Republicans, it was over months ago when Sen. John McCain emerged as the de facto nominee; for Democrats, the contest wrapped up June 3 as Sen. Barack Obama obtained the magic number of delegates to clinch the nomination. As of press time it was reported by the New York Times on June 5 that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is slated to concede the race June 7.

Critics have been calling for Clinton to drop out for quite some time now, and for a while she seemed to be clinging to the pipedream that she was "winning the popular vote."

There is no national total of the "popular vote" in the primaries. They are a mash-up of caucuses and primary elections, and the rules vary widely in each state. Every state is different and has the right to decide what works best for its residents, keeping in mind the regulations set forth by the Democratic National Committee. The goal of the primaries is not to determine the will of the American people; it is to determine the will of the Democratic Party in a given state, and in turn transmit that will via delegates to the national convention in August.

The only thing that matters in the primaries is the delegate count. It's not disenfranchisement; it's how the system works.

Read more at www.thetriangle.org

We Have Our Nominee

2008-06-03T23:03:00.002-04:00

Congratulations are in order to Senator Obama, who tonight offcially reached the delegate threshhold to clinch the Democratic nomination for President; as though you haven't heard by now! Senator Clinton has not yet conceded or suspended her campaign, but that's no impediment to Senator Obama's milestone. For the first time in our nations history, a major party has nominated a minority to be its standard bearer.

Senator McCain took the opportunity to pre-but Obama's speech, and came off looking foolish. His speech was limp and meanspirited, and was dropped by the networks as the South Dakota polls closed and Obama was declared the presumptive nominee. There's plenty of interesting commentary going on, so I'll just post three speeches, for your viewing pleasure.

Game.

Set.

Match.

There Are a lot of Vaginas Out There

2008-06-03T00:42:00.003-04:00

Or better social science through anecdote.

Last week Atrios brought a number of the books that he receives free for review because he’s so important, and I was fortunate enough to snag myself that golden copy of Kathleen Parker’s Save The Males. So as a lark I decided to actually read it and write up a review in the hopes of snagging a coveted Eschaton link. It was pretty bad, and after 190 pages of “There are a lot of vaginas out there. And you thought Wahhabism was a problem.” (direct quote, page 125) I think I deserve not a link, but a medal. Anyway, I hope you enjoy, and at the very least, I hope you don’t pay money to read the book. It’s really just not worth it.

As a 23 year old heterosexual male raised in a liberal family that believes in the radical notion that women are people too (feminism) , I am, it seems, situated squarely within the demographic that Kathleen Parker believes needs “saving.” I didn’t even realize I needed saving, and after slogging through 190 pages of the same four arguments I remain unconvinced of my perilous state.

I should start by admitting that I’m an engineering student, and not at all qualified for literary criticism. That’s alright though, because “Save the Males” is not literature. As I’m more familiar with technical papers and prefer the passive voice, I will refrain from criticizing Mrs. Parker’s writing style (except right now when I point out that the book is written in such a casual style that it feels as though Mrs. Parker has you trapped in a corner at a cocktail party and insists on regaling you with anecdotes about teen sex and single moms. In 1994.) But I really don’t want to criticize her writing on aesthetic grounds, as my own glass house lies on a slippery slope made of clichés.

To chronicle everything with which I disagreed with in Save the Males would be a waste of everyone’s time, especially my own, so I thought it might be more illustrative to first list those statements that I find accurate.

“I’m not a social scientist,…” Page 8.

“This is not quantum physics.” Page 13.

“Nothing quite says ‘Men Need Not Apply’ like a vial of mail-order sperm and a turkey baster.” Page 71

“What Lorena Bobbit lacked in nuance, she made up for with precision.” Page 91

“There are a lot of vaginas out there.” Page 125

“In 2003, girls ages thirteen to seventeen spent more than $157 million on thong underwear.” Page 132

“Avoiding gender stereotypes is, perhaps, well and good, but the cost of such gender correctness has been that boys no longer read.” Page 15.

Actually, maybe not that last one…

If there is one thing that a technical education helps you understand it is that the plural of anecdote is not data. Save the Males rests almost entirely on a foundation of anecdote and sweeping personal impressions (“America may never fall for a regular guy again, but that’s the way it was post-Clinton.” pg. 112).

The book opens, in fact, with an anecdote so bizarre and illustrative of nothing that I would be remiss if I didn’t mock it. Here it is, in its entirety:

“Jackson Marlette was just fourteen when he summed up the anti-male zeitgeist for his father, political cartoonist Doug Marlette. They were in a North Carolina chicken joint awaiting their orders when the younger Marlette picked up a tabletop ad boasting boneless chicken and read aloud: ‘Chicken good, bones bad.’

Then, beaming with insight, Jackson made the analogous leap and proclaimed: ‘Women good, men bad!”

Yesssssss! Give that boy a lifetime pass to The Vagina Monologues.”

That’s it. Was that anti-male zeitgeist summoning apropos of anything? I certainly couldn’t tell. I know that I probably shouldn’t make fun of a fourteen year old, but I was fourteen not too terribly long ago, and I remember speaking in complete sentences. This was the anecdote to introduce the book, to demonstrate that males of my generation have so internalized anti-male propaganda that we need saving? Because an eighth grader, cribbing from a menu, once said “Women good, men bad!”?

That was only the first of many anecdotes that were comically unconvincing. Shortly after that opening salvo, Parker related an equally bizarre story of a boy who was diagnosed with ADD, when in fact his problem was that he couldn’t hear his teacher. You see, the teacher was “talking in a tone of voice that is comfortable to her and the girls in the class, but some of the boys were practically falling asleep.” Oh I see! Woman, what with their annoyingly high pitched voices, are talking in dog whistle code at frequencies that young boys can’t hear! Diabolical! So that’s why I never heard a teacher tell me to do my homework! Women bad!

Parker also lamented the “highly lucrative boy bashing industry.” Did you know that there is a company that manufactures T-shirts with such horrifying slogans as “Boys Are Goobers…Drop Anvils on Their Heads” and “Stupid Factory: Where Boys Are Made.” Shocking, I know, but someone might point out to Mrs. Parker that what with the internet and all, anything imaginable is for sale on a T-shirt. Hell, in the darkest corners of the internet you can actually find people selling T-shirts saying “Fred Thompson for President.” Fred Thompson! Can you imagine?

It’s not just highly offensive boy bashing T-shirts, though. Apparently, some college Republicans at Roger Williams University got in trouble for walking around in penis mascot costume to protest a campus performance of The Vagina Monologues. What about free speech!? And, as Parker noted, “Performances [of said Monologues] at colleges and universities are usually preceded by a weeklong celebration that includes blanketing of campuses with vagina propaganda—pamphlets, displays, sculptures, and other, frankly aggressive vagina-mongering.”

I’ve never seen The Vagina Monologues and it may be that the aggressive vagina-mongering does indeed warrant protest with a giant foam penis. But college Republicans do stupid stunts all the time and school administrators over react all the time. This is hardly evidence of a war on men. I am concerned about vagina-mongering in general, however.

There are too many overblown anecdotes to mention them all, but I have to include Parker’s concern that the co-ed showering in Starship Troopers is Hollywood forcing its unisex values on the Heartland. “This may be science fiction, but it’s not far removed from what ‘progressives’ must have hoped for when they installed unisex bathrooms in college dormitories.” Really? It's not just that T&A puts boys in the seats?

I should admit that I had judged the book before I read it, but my best attempt at objective analysis has justified my immediate impression. I expected a few offensive and simple-minded unoriginal arguments spiced up with anecdotes “proving” what naggy bitches women are, and how men are hurting for it. There were a few areas where my expectations were disappointed, such as the unimpressive nature of the scare stories, but overall I think I got it right.

What was most surprising, however, was that at times Parker herself appeared aware of the absurd implications of some her arguments. It was like she walked up to the edge of cliff, looked over and stepped back, and then said “but still…” For instance, on page 70, after having spent quite some time arguing that a nuclear family with a biological mother and biological father are not only the preferable, but the only honorable, family, Parker writes:

“I’ll concede that loving families do not necessarily have to be blood kin. ‘Love’ is the key word, and most of us are lucky if we have even one solid adult who loves us unconditionally.”

Yet, this cuts at the core of what preceded it. Parker argued that “biological fathers do matter, and they are essential” to attack homosexual partners with children, single mothers who choose artificial insemination, and African-American women with children out of wedlock, for whom the government has “made unwed motherhood profitable.”

Similarly, regarding stay at home dads and that most insidious feminist plot, getting guys to help with housework Parker seems almost schizophrenic. She writes of a feminist conspiracy to pollute our culture with images of stay at home dads, and cites as evidence a 1983 Michael Keeton movie (Mr. Mom) and a 2002 cover story in Fortune magazine. She argues that even suggesting that a man pick up his dirty socks (confession; I’m guilty as sin when it comes to leaving dirty socks lying around) or do the dishes is to “geld the American male.” But she steps back from that cliff again. Parker writes:

“And there’s nothing wrong with any of it—women working, men diapering. What raises a red flag is the didactic tone of such stories and the implication that if you don’t play house the new way, you’re either a troglodyte or a witless Stepford wife.”

But this is built from the same straw-man that much of Parker’s arguments are. Feminism isn’t about oppressively enforcing new gender roles; it’s about equality of choices and equality of opportunity. Feminists aren’t out to tell women that they can’t or shouldn’t be a mother and housewife any more than they would tell women that they can’t or shouldn’t be an executive, a doctor, or anything else that they’re willing and able to do. After mocking “apron-men” Parker writes

“It isn’t enough that modern men and women help each other out because they love each other and because it makes sense. Enlightened men share recipes and and are fluent in hormone replacement therapy—not to mention the best walk-in manicure salon—while enlightened women kick ass at the gym and shatter glass ceilings with a strategic thwap! of their brass heuvos.”

This caricature is so absurd it must be deliberate, and yet the answer to Parker’s apprehension is in her own words; It is enough that modern men and women help each other out because they love each other and because it makes sense. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently so.

I can save you the trouble of reading the book by just summarizing the seven chapters thusly:

Women nag and nagging is like rape or castration.
Deadbeat dads are a myth, plus there are deadbeat moms.
Dads are good, and Murphy Brown is seditious.
Women nag and nagging is like rape or castration.
The vagina is icky.
Lots of women are sluts.
Women aren’t as strong as men

Kathleen Parker is part of a long tradition of anti-female women, joining the ranks of Phyllis Schlaffly, Ann Coulter, and Caitlin Flanagan. As long as there are sexist men to buy them, there will be women willing to write books like this. They aren’t really intended to persuade, but rather to gently reinforce the prejudices of the reader. See, you aren’t a sexist asshole, you’re just not PC enough for those femi-nazis; A women said so!

She did make her point, in one small way. I now know at least one women who isn't as smart as most men.

Click "There's more..." for the full review of that monstrosity.

On To McSame?

2008-06-02T19:11:00.000-04:00

The internet is abuzz with rumor that tomorrow will bring the end of this unending primary. Hopefully we Democrats can shut down the circular firing squad after she concedes. I think that the nature of the blogosphere has echoed and amplified divisions between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters that don't exist nearly to the same degree in real life.

I'm hopeful that Clinton will work as vigorously for Obama as she did for herself. I'm not naive, and I expect a diminishingly small number of people to take their ball and go home, declaring their support for McCain becuase Clinton "was robbed." I also expect Fox News and the Republicans to try to give those people as large a platform as possible to sow division between Democrats.

Oh look here...

Here's that same fine Democrat expressing herself at the RBC meeting on Saturday.

It seems a little arrogant of me, a 23 year old college student, to call someone like her who has so much more life experience naive, and yet I can't help it. I can't relate to how strongly or how personally she identifies with and supports Hillary, but I can point out that she is making entirely specious arguments in support of Clinton. Furthermore, she is apparently without perspective of the issues at stake in an election between John McSame and Barack Obama. Hopefully she will take a deep breath and make the right call in November. I don't think that this will cost Obama New York in the fall though.

Our Infamous Alumna

2008-05-30T20:57:00.003-04:00

It seems as though Jocelyn Kirsch, Drexel graduate and noted identity theif, is up to her old tricks. When this story first broke last year I noted how sexist some of the coverage was, and that post about Kirsch continues to be one of our most googled pieces. It might be worth reminding people of sexist overtones in the media, but right now I don't feel like saying anything about this case other than "Jocelyn Kirsch is a horrible human being."

That Clears It Up...

2008-05-30T00:21:00.002-04:00

The ACLU recently received some FOIA documents regarding waterboarding of detainees in CIA custody, and well, some questions remain.

While the documents do, in fact, reveal the word “waterboarding” or some variation, they leave pretty much everything else to the imagination. The pages that haven’t been completely withheld (many of them contain the words “Denied in Full” instead of any actual content) have the clandestine blacked-out look that’s become a sort of trademark of this administration.

Can you imagine how easy blogging would be if I just redacted most of each post?

Via

Accountability

2008-05-28T23:17:00.003-04:00

Scott asks whether or not the latest episode of "John McCain and the lobbyists that love him" will penetrate the media's mancrush on the elderly senator from Arizona. Survey says... no.

Sure it would be nice if the fact that the man who supposedly gives McCain economic credibility was until a month ago a registered lobbyist for UBS and advised McCain's approach to the bailout WHILE A LOBBYIST FOR UBS was noticed by more than Keith Olbermann and the bloggers. But hey, if it worked like that we might not have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now. If it's not broke, why fix it? Right?

Similarly, Illan Goldberg at Democracy Arsenal implores said press for a reality check.

"Seriously, rather then just reading the speech one might consider the fact that this is a man who has actually called for kicking Russia out of the G8 and even in the speech yesterday continued to call for national missile defense - something that would greatly damage any possibility for cooperation with Russia. A man who has a long history of saying belligerent things about allies and foes. A man who has joked about bombing Iran. A man who voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A man who has a long record of showing a penchant for using military force. A man who with this type of history would be unlikely to achieve any of the main goals he seems to lay out in the speech."

Finally, just 12 hours from now will mark 400 days since McCain officially declared his candidacy for President, and he still doesn't have an energy policy.

Nearing the End (of Primary Spin?)

2008-05-27T16:05:00.010-04:00

One of the disappointing aspects of this extended primary season has been the volume and idiocy of a lot of the spin. Some came from people who I expect more from, and some, well, was exactly what I would have expected. I'm still trying to follow my policy of non-agitation, because Obama really will be the nominee, and it's just not productive to inflame emotions over the primary at this point. However, as this primary draws to it's likely conclusion shortly after the last three primaries vote early next week, I would like to highlight some spin that I find, well, unconvincing.

So in no particular order, here are some frustratingly asinine arguments that I hear thrown about quite a bit.

1) Creative Metrics, ie. Fun With Numbers!

This particular line of attack popped up on my radar in early February, as some (prominent) Clinton supporters began parsing exit polls, census data, and primary/caucus results to "prove" that Clinton was the choice of the people, while Obama was stealing the nomination by exploiting "the rules." This line of argument was typified by this piece from TaylorMarsh.com (not written by her, but apparently approved by her), by Paul Lukasiak.

It includes many variants of which states "count," which states "need to be won," and which voters or voting methods are more equal than others. This includes the "if we were playing by different rules, I'd be winning!" ploy that makes for such delicious satire.

More recently, the impossible-to-underestimate Jerome Armstrong relayed the following chart on MyDD.

See what he did? Even if we stipulate that his numbers are accurate (and there is reason to suspect otherwise), the graph is scaled from 10200 to 12000. The difference of 1000 between Clinton and Obama appears to be greater than Obama's total, when in fact the difference between them is less than 1/10th of the total of either.

2) Specieous Electibilty Arguments

You may have heard (seen?) me say (write?) before, but I firmly believe that either Obama or Clinton can win the general election this year. This wasn't always so, through much of 2007 I feared that Clinton's high negatives and baggage were a dangerous wildcard, but she has proven her ability as a candidate and debater, and she allayed my fears. In this political climate we Democrats should be able to elect a dead horse. Certainly we can elect the most talented and charismatic politician in a generation. Between Obama's solid progressive yet pragmatic policy proposals, and his ability to communicate to Americans, the Democrats are in the driver's seat. The only thing that would threaten either candidate is intra-party tensions.

One of the most frustrating electibility arguments is the primary winner/loser argument. I'll type this slowly for some of you out there: primary results are not indicative of general elcetion results. Primary results indicate nothing of second choice preference, or crossover appeal. Please think before you argue that Obama will have a hard time winning MA or NY.

3) The Buyer's Remorse Gambit

This little gem has been floating around since Texas/Ohio, and has popped up a lot since West Virginia and Kentucky. In this case someone, either a paid shill or a devoted supporter argues that Obama's defeat in some state indicates that even though lots of Democrats voted for him in January/February, now that he is the frontrunner people have taken a closer look and said "No thanks." Like so many other head-slappingly stupid arguments, this one is built from a premise of dishonesty and innumeracy. Take this definitive example of the genre, from the same CorrenteWire joker from before.

By comparing the results from after March 4th with those before March 4th, Mr. Lukasiak attempts to demonstrate that Obama's support by demographic is slipping, except amongst African-Americans. The obvious fallacy, however, is that the presence of WV and KY skewed those catagories. Obama isn't having problems with "white voters" in general, just in Appalachia. The map below has colored purple all the counties that Clinton won with 65% of the vote or more. Notice that this is from before WV and KY voted.

Notice anything? Thought so. I won't beat this dead horse any more, other than pointing out that you shouldn't take seriously an argument about statistics from someone who "weighs" data, rather than "weights" it. (No joke, "weighed" or "unweighed" appears exactly 27 times in the analysis. Not a typo!)

Finally, this is not a definitive list. Off the top of my head I would also include almost anything that Lanny Davis or Terry Mcauliffe says, particularly on election nights. In the interest of fairness, I will also say ignore anyone who suggests that Clinton would like to have Obama assassinated, or engages in all too common sexist tropes to denigrate her.

Click "There's more..." for the offending arguments!

Holiday Weekend Blogging

2008-05-26T22:30:00.003-04:00

I hope all of you had as pleasant a weekend as I did. Blogging was light, as the weather was wonderful and the BBQ's frequent. So here are some quick hits that you may have missed as you remembered our fallen soldiers this Memorial Day.

Sen. Clinton's most absurd spokesman floated a laughingly preposterous "compromise" to the MI/FL situation.

Some FOX news flack jokes about killing Osama AND Obama. HA!

Paul Krugman is having a hard time adjusting to presumptive nominee Obama.

Duncan once again points out that no one listens to him, but he's always right. He's a regular Cassandra over there.

On the off chance you missed the Libertarian Party convention this weekend you should know that former Republican congressman Bob Barr was nominated, beating out Mike Gravel and several also-rans. I have to dissent from Oliver's suggestion that we donate money to his campaign. As much as I'd like Barr to Nader McCain, I think Obama won't need the help, and there are plenty of other blue candidates who need the money.

Finally, there are a number of dead-ender Clinton supporters in their last throes, which I'm going to save for a seperate post.

See you at the Drexel Dems cookout this Sunday!

Which image(s) should we decorate our office with?
	1) Federal Deficit
	2) Bartel's graph
	3) Bush vs. Clinton Jobs
	4) Republican priorities
	5) Perceived Wealth
	6) Young voters Party ID
	7) OCS supply
	8) McCain's big oil friends
	10) Obama with the troops