noahstephenson

John McCain should not be elected President, not only because he represents the failed policies of George W. Bush, which alone would suffice, but also because of the kind of person John McCain is-a man devoid of integrity or intellectual prowess.  Do we really want someone who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class as our next President?  We've seen the effects of what one intellectually bereft President can do to this country, do we really want another?

1. Keating Five

You know it's bad when you have your own local newspapers writing scathing editorials about your role in the Watergate of the 1980s.

2. Foreign Policy Gaffes- Does experience count if you can't remember it?

• How about the non-existent border that Pakistan shares with Iraq?
• Did you know that Czechoslovakia, (you know the former country referenced so much in the news lately because of its parallels with the conflict in Georgia) never divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia?
• Apparently once McCain purged all (well most) of his lobbyists from the campaign, all he had left was Wikipedia-which he blatantly plagiarized for use in a major statement released to the press
• Or how about that Al Qaeda (a Sunni group) and Iran (a predominantly Shiite country) were all the same and in cahoots?--you know kind of how Catholics and Protestants are exactly alike
• McCain even has the power to rewrite history and proclaim the Surge the successful instigator of the An-bar Awakening movement?

3. The Maverick to End Lobbyist influence in Washington-after he gets elected?

So I guess the only question I have here is, who exactly on his campaign is NOT a lobbyist?

4. McCain likes his women likes he likes his shoes-new and wealthy

Probably one of the most damning pieces of evidence of his utter lack of integrity is that he divorced his first wife, a former model, after she was disfigured in a car accident, leading him to tell others, she's not the "woman I married".  Of course not John-she was disabled by a car accident, was not wealthy, and so was unable to fulfill your political ambitions.  So what did you do?  You abandoned your disabled wife and married your second wife, Cindy, a wealthy and politically connected beer heiress, before even being divorced from your first wife.  You're a political opportunist of the worst kind.

5. Legendary Temper

Here. Here. and Here.

When your own party is scared of you such that it feels the need to openly talk to the press about their worries that a McCain temper tantrum during a major international crisis could harm the United States, then eyebrows should be raised, and people should be asking questions.  I don't want a hot headed opportunist anywhere near that red button in the White House.

The principal flaw in modern neo-conservatism is its pursuit of offensive realism, which believes somehow that in a world of developing liberal democratic norms which America itself created and helped expand, that the United States could remain somehow exempt from these same norms as an 'exceptional case'. A key conclusion arising from the neoconservative-led conflict in Iraq should be the recognition that America, while exceptionally powerful, is not exceptionally great.

Neoconservatives tend also to inflate conflicts in zero sum and apocalyptic terms by overstating the ability of its enemies and the consequent 'under-ability' (hence the need for greater defense spending) of the United States. Such overstatements make it more difficult for the United States to reach realistic resolutions based upon objective appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the US vis-à-vis the state or non-state actor involved. Consequently, Administration officials refuse to realistically deal with the situation in Iraq, bound by neoconservative inflation of a contest between good and evil where no quarter is given, and no compromise possible.

Where the United States has been successful in previous conflicts (principally Germany, Japan, and Eastern Europe integration), is when it has shown capacity to grant amnesty and actively seek integration of former enemy elements from the previous regime. One of the most devastating mistakes in the Iraq conflict was Paul Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi army and institute an oppressive de-Baathization law.

This decision was fed in part by neo-conservatism's refusal to compromise and substitution of ideology over actionable policy. The way forward in Iraq and beyond will unquestionably require hard choices for the three main ethnic factions of Iraq.

The United States should seek to assist in this process not by viewing every action as a zero sum choice between good and evil, but rather as an evolutionary process guided by Iraqi history and custom, with recognition of the limits to American power in a region of the world vastly different from its own.

An acceptable choice for America would be a stable Iraq, at least tacitly democratic, but decidedly anti-extremist, with broad support from its neighbors. Such an outcome will require renewed multilateral efforts in the region to square American perceptions of its own efforts in the Middle East, with Arab perception of American efforts in the region.

Rightly or wrongly, as long as America requires Middle Eastern oil, insists on unwavering support for Israel, and bases large numbers of troops in the region, it likely will be unable to realize its democratic goals because national security will always trump ideological goals (evident by Bush's shelving of the Freedom Agenda in 2007)-a contradiction many Americans may find troubling, but nonetheless will remain true for the foreseeable future.

Will someone please tell a certain Republican presidential candidate that the Cold War ended almost 20 years ago?  I've already written how the McCain camp is employing Cold War era rhetoric when talking about the South Ossetia conflict in Georgia, but they've significantly upped the ante in a statement given by McCain in Pennsylvania this morning.

The following are a few excerpts from the statement:

Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.

In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia – and the survival of its democratically-elected government – are at stake.

The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors – such as Ukraine – for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values.

NATO’s North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO’s future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation.

We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.

***

While the conflict in Georgia is a matter of serious international concern, it does not however, place "the existence of independent Georgia at stake".  Such puffed up buffoonery will do nothing but further antagonize Russia.  The facts as they are on the ground is that Georgia made a serious strategic miscalculation by sending in troops to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia.  They should have known that Russia would respond quickly and harshly, especially given the history of the conflict.  Nevertheless, Russia's disproportionate response should be condemned by the United States and a quick diplomatic solution should be pushed for by both the US and our European allies.

However, the key issue here is McCain's repeated invocation of Cold War era rhetoric and its implications for international relations.  Does no one else find it disturbing that McCain arrogantly informed Russia that if it wishes to enjoy the 'benefits of being part of the civilized world' (whatever that means), then it simply must immediately and unconditionally withdraw from Georgia?  That kind of rhetoric directed at Russia did not work during the Cold War and will not work now.

The further we get into this election cycle, the more I become convinced that not only does John McCain represent a third term for George W. Bush, he also represents a third term for neoconservatives who advocate a hawkish foreign policy that mixes American nationalism with arrogant imposition of American-style governance throughout the world.  Such strategic policy got us into Iraq, out of the real conflict in Afghanistan, and now, under a McCain presidency, would seem to embroil us in a new Cold War with a resurgent Russia rich on natural gas and oil deposits, all at the very time our own country is in the midst of the worst housing crisis in several decades, stagnant wages, growing unemployment, and record deficits.

Really McCain, you wanna go there- you want to start a new Cold War at the very time we are least able too?  Why can't we finish one war (or two) before you're off starting another one?

Many are already aware that the night Barack Obama gives his official acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination in the Invesco Center is the 45th Anniversary from when Martin Luther King gave his famous I Have a Dream Speech in D.C.

What I was NOT aware of, and which TPM  is now reporting, CNN has confirmed that the night Hillary Clinton will be speaking at the Convention  will be the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment (which guaranteed a woman's right to vote).

I have previously written about the reasons I am a Democrat and tonight I find these reasons only reaffirmed.  As I have become increasingly involved in politics, and with Democrats more specifically, I have become ever more convinced that the whole Red/Blue state divide which is spoken of so frequently in the media is more a struggle of lifestyle and who we are as a people.

Do we, as a country, wish to be a nation of whiners, closed borders, limited rights, and tax cuts for the wealthy-or do we wish to become one that is self-affirming, inclusive, broadly protective of civil and privacy rights, and supportive of an economy for all-- in short, a country of, by, and for the people?

Tonight, as I reflect upon the upcoming Democratic Convention and its deep historical undertones, I am grateful that I am a Democrat.  As I have stated previously, what other political party, not only in this country, but in any other country could simultaneously run both a woman and a black man as the two principal contenders for a major party ticket? We are obviously not there yet, but the mere fact that the stories of both Hillary and Barack are even possible, indicate that we are at least on the right path towards a More Perfect Union.

This election year really will be about change-not just a change from the failed Bush policies of the past, but a change-and hopefully a break from-our own failures as a nation.  As I watch the Convention from my state of Utah, witnessing history, I only hope that people across the country-in both Red states and Blue states-will sit up and take notice-and see the possibilities of what can be if we but realize we are the change we have been waiting for.

Update #3-The NYT has an updated article which among other things states:

• Prosecutors say Mr. Stevens, who referred to his home as “the chalet,” accepted goods and services worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, ranging from an outdoor grill to extensive home remodeling and architectural advice. Not only did Mr. Stevens fail to report the items on his Senate financial disclosure form, as required, but he took active steps to conceal the receipt of the goods and services, the indictment says.

 Update #2-Bribery Charges still to come?

• Politico is reporting that prosecuters have not established enough evidence yet, but he may yet be prosecuted for bribery as well regarding:
  • a new 1999 Land Rover worth $44K for Stevens' son in return for Stevens’ 1964 Mustang and $5,000 in cash
  • did not reimburse or repay VECO or its chief executive officer for these gifts,” said Matthew Friedrich, the acting assistant attorney general.
    Friedrich said prosecutors have not been able to establish the quid pro quo necessary for bribery charges. However, he did say that the investigation is ongoing.

Update: Anchorage Daily News Reporting more Details

Things just keep getting worse for the Grand Ol' Party

The New York Times is reporting that Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted on "seven counts of making false statements".  Apparently the indictments are to be read in a 28-page report to be released by the Justice Department at 1:20 pm EST.

The popular former Mayor of Anchorage (where half of the state's population lives) Begich is already up by +8 percentage points in the last poll commissioned by Rasmussen on July 21st.  With the indictment of Stevens today, I think you can effectively kiss Republican chances of holding onto this seat goodbye.

I will be updating the blog throughout the day as more information becomes available.

• The seven-count indictment charges Stevens with making false statements by failing to disclose things of value he received from Veco Corp., an Alaska-based oil services company, and from its chairman, Bill Allen, over an eight-year period. The indictment charges that those included substantial improvements to Stevens' home in Girdwood; automobile exchanges in which he received new vehicles that were worth far more than the old ones he exchanged; and household goods.
• The charges come almost exactly a year after an FBI and IRS raid on Stevens' home in Girdwood. Renovations in 2000 were overseen by Allen. The home doubled in size. Witnesses with knowledge of Veco's role have reported testifying before grand juries in Anchorage and Washington.

• What the Justice Department is saying

The Anchorage Daily is also reporting that Senator Stevens office is not responding to requests for comment.

It is somewhat of a political truism that a Party divided against itself can not stand. CQ is reporting that a new PAC is being created, called the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF).  Its purpose? GOP Sen. from South Carolina Jim DeMint explains:

donors who might be reluctant to give their money to a party that has strayed from conservative principles may be willing to give to individual conservative candidates. He’s hoping those candidates can polish the tarnished brand and provide an alternative to the Democratic Party.

This may all sound good and nice for conservatives worried about the unraveling of the Conservative Movement since the disastrous (for Republicans at least) 2006 Midterm election, but reading between the lines, CQ reporter Jonathan Allen notes:

It ...may sound like a recipe for disaster, a vehicle for challenging incumbent Republicans or knocking off viable moderate Republicans in open seats or those occupied by Democrats. Or, at the very least, forcing the winner to spend extra money in the primary to fend off the Senate Conservative Fund’s independent expenditures on an opponent’s behalf.

With all the Republican problems lurking out there this election cycle, what they need the least are conservative elected Republicans forming their own PACs and threatening to not tow the party line by funding candidates by conservative ideology rather than political party affiliation.

As I noted yesterday, the Republican Study Committe, the largest group in the House Republican caucus, is planning on leading a revolt against House GOP leadership this fall.  That, combined with DeMint's SCF, reflect the fact that Republican woes run much deeper than contrary domestic political win