Weekend Entertainment Flashback
When you've got John McCain, Phil Gramm and Barry White, it can't be all bad ...
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Saturday Roundup
A donor to Hillary Clinton's campaign says Barack Obama told her Hillary is under consideration for VP -- but Bill's presence makes things "complicated." That and other political news in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Tony Snow Dead at 53
Sad news this morning, as the former White House press secretary succumbs to cancer.
--David Kurtz
It's a Wonderful Life
A run on California-based IndyMac makes it the largest American bank to fail in nearly a quarter of a century -- and second largest ever.
Late Update: TPM Reader JR express some skepticism:
It's a big story, no doubt. But the figure that it's the second largest ever is a bit misleading - it's not adjusted for inflation. The statistic is pretty much meaningless without that context.
I'd be curious to know if these comparisons are in fact based on inflation-adjusted numbers, or not, as JR suggests. So keep an eye out and let me know.
--David Kurtz
Poll: Obama Up Just 3 Points
Maybe this is Newsweek merely coming back to the pack, but after showing a 15-point lead for Obama last month, the latest Newsweek poll shows a tight race: 44-41. This is hard to believe, but Obama has dropped 14 points among independents since the last poll.
--David Kurtz
"Makin' Stuff Up"
Obama has a new radio ad going up -- in Virginia and Ohio, and possibly elsewhere -- hitting McCain over taxes, TPM Election Central has learned.
--David Kurtz
Best China-Cuba Oil Line Yet
Former Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA), who's running to get her seat back this year, concedes that China wasn't drilling offshore Florida in Cuban waters when she repeated the GOP's favorite myth of 2008 a few weeks ago -- but they may have started drilling since then!
--David Kurtz
Hmmm . . .
The Treasury Department is telling us that media reports in Germany -- quoting Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt on Obama's possible Brandenburg Gate speech -- took his remarks out of context and out of time: He made his remarks last week before the Brandenburg Gate speech became a story and had nothing to do with the speech or Obama's planned trip to Germany.
--David Kurtz
DCCC Targets 31 Key House Seats
TPM Election Central has obtained the list of races the DCCC is planning on spending its $34 million fall TV ad buy on.
--David Kurtz
Underwhelming?
Obama reportedly raised $30 million in June.
Late Update: Not so fast, says the Obama camp, which initially refused to comment on the WSJ's $30 million report. Now it's saying the number is "way off the mark."
--David Kurtz
Brandenburg Gate-gate
Here's the latest on Bush Administration efforts, as reported in the German media, to head off a huge Obama rally at the historic site in Berlin:
Indeed, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the mass circulation tabloid Bild that "it would be nice if the German government would focus on strengthening its contacts to us rather than already beginning to look for our successors."
We have more at TPM Election Central.
Late Update: And more still.
Latest Update: The Treasury Department tells TPM Election Central that Kimmit's remarks were made last week and had nothing to do with the Brandenburg Gate or Obama's visit.
--David Kurtz
Stop You Whiny Whining Whiners!
I'm John McCain and I do not approve this message from my top economic advisor!
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Morning Roundup
Who's Obama vetting for Veep? A couple of early indicators reported today. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Got Research?
For a few new projects we're going to be working on, we're looking for some good freelance researchers/writers. So if you're a freelancer or have a job that allows you to do some freelancing, and you've ever been interested in working with TPM, send us an email with the subject headline "TPM Research," with an introduction and resume.
To be clear, this not for a full-time job (though it could lead to one) and at the moment it's not for a specific project. But we'd like to have people's names on file to reach out to to help on particular stories.
--Josh Marshall
Show Me the Money
I've been wondering about this for weeks -- especially since the May fundraising totals came out, which showed McCain and Obama roughly even for that month. Just how much money has Barack Obama been raising since the end of the primaries? After all, if he's going to bring in these astronomical sums everyone's talking about there aren't that many months left. He's got to start putting up some big, big monthly totals.
This piece in tomorrow's Post suggests that the strain of raising money to retire Clinton's debt and some continuing resistance from Clinton's donors (to give to Obama's campaign) has put the Obama machine under some pressure.
We don't know Obama's totals. And obviously having difficulties, if that's what's happening, has to be understood in the context of the massive totals they're planning on bringing in.
But one thing that has occurred to me recently is the very different tempo of small donor fundraising, or at least the sense of it I get watching from my vantage point. There are established networks for big dollar giving. It has a bit more of a command and control quality. But small dollar giving seems highly dependent on the intensity of the moment and the spikes of the campaign cycle. During the heat of the Obama-Clinton battle, giving money was one of the most direct ways supporters around the country could participate in the fight -- except when the campaign trundled into their states. And that applies to both campaigns since, by any standard other than up against Obama, Clinton's 2008 monthly numbers were astounding too.
All time is precious in a general election cycle. But in relative terms we're in a bit of a downtime now, a lull. People may support Obama every bit as much as they did in February. But my feel of the situation is that people are taking a bit of a breather. And that may not change until the conventions, which are still almost two months off.
Perhaps too, when you hear that Obama's going to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, that the sense of participation you get from sending in your $25 isn't quite as great.
I should make explicitly clear that I've made no real study of the small donor giving. These are more questions and impressions I have from my perch running TPM. But I wonder if this isn't a limitation of the small-donor model that has not been sufficiently appreciated.
--Josh Marshall
What a Candidate
Bob Schaffer, the Republican senate candidate in Colorado, helped broker a oil deal in Iraqi Kurdistan that the State Department said threatened the security of Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Real American?
It's been a slow burn up until now but it seems like the McCain surrogates are finally starting to pick up steam in their efforts to brand Barack Obama as un-American. We take a closer look in today's episode of TPMtv ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Ben Craw
Meddling
Did the Bush administration tell the Germans they shouldn't let Obama speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate? That's what the German press is reporting.
--Josh Marshall
McCain Outspending Obama on TV?
We've been following with some interest what seems, based on reader reports and other reporting, to have been a sort of stealth early TV ad campaign by the McCain campaign in key states in recent weeks.
On a conference call with reporters this afternoon, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said that the McCain campaign has outspent the Obama campaign 3-to-1 on TV ads in the last two months.
Now, there may be some self-interest in the McCain camp saying this. The Obama camp declined to comment. We're still looking into, but thought that was a data point worth sharing.
--David Kurtz
Main Entry: AutoMacaca, verb
McCain campaign finally getting on top of the viral video trend? According to Jake Tapper, the McCain campaign is so spooked by Sen. Gramm's comments about the 'mental recession' that they're pushing a Youtube video of McCain bashing Gramm, his own chief economics advisor.
--Josh Marshall
Obama: America Already Has A Dr. Phil
Obama today riffing off of Phil Gramm's comments:
--David Kurtz
Phil Who?
McCain declares that his campaign's national co-chair and chief economics adviser, Phil "Mental Recession" Gramm, doesn't speak for him:
Late Update: TPM Reader DV, with some trenchant questions:
I'm not even sure I know what it means to say you don't agree with your chief economic advisor's comments about the economy. If he is McCain's chief economic advisor, what good is he?Yeah, I know McCain isn't obliged to take all of his advice but on something as critical as the state of the US economy wouldn't you think he's advising McCain on what the problems and solutions are?
So if he hasn't told McCain he thinks the economic problems are all in our head what has he told him? If a candidates chief adviser differs so much from the candidate what value is he to McCain?
--David Kurtz
GOP: Obama Must Be French
Greg Sargent notes at TPM Election Central that more than one McCain surrogate in recent days -- heavy hitters like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney -- has questioned not just Obama's patriotism but his very American-ness.
The McCain camp is declining to disavow those remarks -- pointing instead to a recent comment by McCain saying that he doesn't question Obama's patriotism.
--David Kurtz
We Have A Winner
There were rumblings last night that a new indictment had been handed down in the Alaska corruption probe. The Anchorage paper is now reporting that a new case is on file in federal court, titled USA v. John Cowdery. Cowdery is a Republican state senator from Anchorage. But that's all the information they have so far. Nothing that links it yet to the Veco probe that has snared Sen. Ted Stevens.
Late Update: We just obtained the indictment, which alleges that Cowdery was part of a conspiracy to bribe another state senator. It appears to be all part of the sprawling Veco probe. We'll be posting the indictment shortly at TPMmuckraker.
Later Update: From the DOJ press release announcing the indictment:
The indictment alleges that Cowdery and his co-conspirators, including Bill J. Allen, the former chief executive officer of VECO Corporation, and Richard L. Smith, VECO's former vice president, corruptly offered and agreed to give financial benefits to another state legislator (State Senator A) to influence and reward State Senator A in exchange for State Senator A agreeing to perform official acts as a member of the Alaska State Legislature.The indictment specifically alleges that VECO Corporation, which at the time was a multinational oil services corporation, had a significant financial interest in contracts with oil producers in Alaska and, consequently, supported certain oil and gas legislation pending in the Alaska state legislature in 2006. The indictment further alleges that, in exchange for $25,000 - characterized as political campaign contributions - Cowdery, Allen, Smith and others sought an agreement with State Senator A that would require State Senator A to vote in favor of the oil and gas legislation favored by VECO. Cowdery and the alleged co-conspirators agreed to this plan, according to the indictment, through a series of telephone calls and in-person meetings.
Latest Update: You can read the indictment here.
--David Kurtz
Clinging v. Whining
TPM Reader MG responds to Phil Gramm's comment about Americans whining over what is just a "mental recession":
Hmmm, so, will we see/hear weeks and weeks of prattling, analyzing, psychobabble, etc. about how badly Gramm/McCain do not understand the good people of this country? How intemperate, unwise, badly stated those remarks about good, honest, hardworking Americans were? Heck, he even implied that we're delusional about the recession.I know. I'm delusional to even ask the question. Sigh.
--David Kurtz
Nice Try
I can see the McCain campaign is cleverly trying to bury the furor over the candidate's Social Security 'disgrace' comments by having Phil Gramm claim that we're in the midst of a psychosomatic recession. But I'm not so easily thrown off the scent. After having campaign spokesman Brian Rogers take a stab at explaining his boss's remarks, McCain took a shot himself, saying that young people "are paying so much that they are paying into a system that they won't receive benefits from on its present track that it's on -- that's the point."
Let's set aside McCain's factual claim that current payors into the system won't receive their benefits back since that is demonstrably false. And let's go back to what McCain actually said not once but multiple times -- that the system, as originally designed and as it's worked for going on over 70 years is a "disgrace." Indeed, let's go further and remove the inflammatory 'disgrace' language and focus on McCain's underlying argument, which is that the program itself, a pay-as-you-go retirement security program isn't something to be tinkered with to keep it on track but is rather the problem itself. If the 'disgrace' comments didn't make this point clearly enough, McCain made the point just as clearly the following day on CNN when he told John Roberts, "Let's describe [Social Security] for what it is. They [i.e., working Americans] pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it."
Couldn't be clearer. The 'problem' with Social Security, what makes the program an "absolute disgrace" is the design of the program itself, not something that's gotten out of whack about it.
Now, as Mr. McCain might, let's have some straight talk. What McCain believes is no different from what President Bush and others did and do believe when they wanted to phase out Social Security and replace it with a system of private investment accounts. He's just been a bit clumsier about hiding what he's pushing for. The debate about Social Security is the same as it was in 2005 and in most respects the same as it was in 1965. You have one group who believe in the current system -- which is an intergenerational bargain, insuring a baseline level of retirement security as well as insurance against premature, disability and for dependent children. The other side -- McCain's side -- thinks this is just wrong, morally and economically. And in its place they want to create a system of individual private investment accounts -- similar to a lifetime 401k.
That's the essence of the debate. And no one should be deceived by McCain's own efforts to twist and spin his own words retrospectively.
--Josh Marshall
So Much For Getting Rove Under Oath
Another contempt citation (for all they're worth) may be on the way from House Dems. As expected Karl Rove ignored a congressional subpoena to testify this morning to a House Judiciary subcommittee, citing executive privilege.
--David Kurtz
Recession? It's Just in Your Head!
John McCain's buddy Phil Gramm, who is a general co-chair of the national campaign and his chief economic adviser, has some choice words on Americans' economic woes: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. .... We have sort of become a nation of whiners."
Late Update: "Phil Gramm's comments are not representative of John McCain's views," the McCain camp explains.
--David Kurtz
Election Central Morning Roundup
Obama and Hillary teaming up today to woo women voters. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Mush, Mush!
Reports are bubbling tonight about a new indictment in the sprawling Alaska corruption scandals. But these scandals are so broad-ranging and involve so many different players that there's no solid word about who's up next.
--Josh Marshall
Kennedy Returns
Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) returns to cheers on the senate floor, July 9th, 2008, his first appearance since being diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor on May 20th, 2008 ...
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: McCain's Absolute Disgrace
Fresh from the airwaves, we hit the video vault to find out just why John McCain believes Social Security is an "absolute disgrace" (including special new debamboozling video to help you not be spun by the McCain camp's damage control ...)
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
McCain: Don't Get All Grammary on Me!
Okay, when last we checked in on the McCain Social Security is an "absolute disgrace" front, we asked you let us know if any journalist got a chance to put the question to McCain. And TPM Reader DB just flagged for me the fact that ABC's Jake Tapper managed to get an answer.
Jake runs through the play-by-play to this point and then puts the question to McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.
Remember, here's the quote.
"Americans have got to understand that. Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."
And here's the video ...
Now, the meaning of the words are very clear. He's saying that the fact that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system is an "absolute disgrace."
And here's the explanation from McCain's guy Rogers, as elicited by Tapper ...
McCain spox Brian Rogers says that "the disgrace is our failure to fix the long-run imbalance in Social Security -- a failure of leadership evidenced by our willingness to kick to problem to the next generation of leaders. He's also describing the looming and increasing demographic pressures confronting the Social Security system and Washington's utter failure to address it."
Now, this goes against the plain meaning of the words. But everybody has words come out the wrong way sometimes, or they say things they don't really quite mean. IN other words, if it's just tripping over your words, who cares. But digital video recording is a wonderful thing. And that's why we can know pretty clearly that Rogers' explanation is bogus and that this is precisely what McCain meant.
The townhall meeting where McCain said Social Security was "an absolute disgrace" was on Monday in Denver. Just yesterday McCain went on CNN and said more or less exactly the same thing on CNN.
In response to a question from CNN's John Roberts, McCain said, "Let's describe it [i.e. Social Security] for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it."
He doesn't use the flamethrower language of "absolute disgrace" but he says very clearly that what's wrong with Social Security -- "why it's broken" -- is the way it was designed to work and has worked for almost 80 years, because it's a pay-as-you-go system, "pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees." In other words, there's no question that John McCain thinks that the problem with Social Security is the way it was designed at the very beginning, the way it was always designed to work. Sometimes he just uses more flowery language than others.
--Josh Marshall
FISA Passes Senate
The final vote was a rout: 69-28.
No surprises here. Just the weight of disappointment.
Late Update: Worth noting that Hillary voted against the bill, while Obama --as we've noted here before -- changed positions on telecom immunity and voted for the bill.
--David Kurtz
Sneak Peak
TPMtv now has its own blog, with all our video clips for the day, as well as the blog stylings of TPMtv producer/editor Ben Craw.
--Josh Marshall
No Appeasing Social Security
I'm very interested to see if anyone asks McCain about his statement that Social Security is an "absolute disgrace." If you see him asked, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Languid
Has excessive media fluffing robbed John McCain of his hard edge?
A very interesting and perceptive analysis from TPM Reader DB ...
My own attempt at a GUT of McCain's general lousiness as a stump speaker--in which I attempt to unify the separate fields of flip-flopping, Social Security trashing, and casual jokes about bombing or otherwise killing foreigners--goes as follows: It's the media's fault.Let me explain. As is obvious, the media has been giving McCain a free pass on everything. It always has. The reason is that the media likes McCain. Again, it always has. It likes his status as a former POW. It likes the fact that he provides reporters with unlimited access. It likes the fact that he has always been a very quotable maverick.
So the media has never held McCain accountable for what he says. Gaffes are overlooked, factual misstatements are glossed over, and inconsistencies are forgiven. This has always been true of the way the media has treated McCain.
But what has been the obvious consequence of this? It is simply that McCain has never had to learn the self-discipline that other successful politicians learn and deeply internalize very early in their careers. I know some successful politicians and have worked closely with one of them for many years. These individuals were able to progress in their careers precisely because the careful scrutiny given them by the media taught them never to speak before thinking, always to be right about their facts, and always to consider the long-term consequences of anything they might say in public.Because the media treated him as an exception to its normal rules, McCain simply never developed these habits of careful thought, analysis, and speech. And now he is paying the price. With the current pervasiveness of video coverage of everything he says, he is blithely creating one Democratic attack ad after another against him. In these ads, he serves as both the director and the star. But behind the scenes there is always the producer. In this case, the producer is the media.
In these past few months, we Democrats have been gnashing our teeth over the things the media has let McCain get away with. As it happens, we Democrats have been torturing ourselves for no reason. For by the very act of constantly applying a double standard to try to help McCain, the media has damaged him beyond repair.
I am willing to bet that, having never had to learn these basic candidate skills, McCain will continue to damage himself in the coming months as he makes one after another self-destructive statement on the record. He will thereby do our work for us.
Perhaps the lesson is this: those whom the media gods wish to destroy, first they fail to hold accountable.
--Josh Marshall
Wishin' and Hopin'
ABC: McCain setting the stage for comeback leading to triumphant presidential glory.
--Josh Marshall
Are They Really Talking About the Same Hearing?
State Department Official Downplays Iran's Strategic InfluenceOn the same day Iran test-fired missiles in a show of force in the Persian Gulf, the Bush administration Wednesday sought to downplay the country's power and influence.
"For its part, Tehran seems to relish heightening concerns by promoting the illusion that Iran is on the ascendance," Undersecretary of State William Burns said in prepared testimony for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "However, Iran is not 10 feet tall, nor is it even the dominant regional actor.
CNN:
Leading diplomat calls Iran a top concern for U.S.Iran is as serious a problem as any the U.S. faces today, top State Department official William Burns said Wednesday, hours after the Islamic republic test-fired a long-range missile.
Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, made the comments testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
--David Kurtz
Fred-based GUTMC
TPM Reader RM gives us his GUTMC with Fred Thompson in the mix ...
I've been saying for months that McCain has a bad case of Republican entitlement. He's as bad as Fred Thompson was in the sense that the idea that you actually have to RUN for president - like, actually ask people to vote for you - not only befuddles but vaguely offends him. I'm sure he made his real decision to run well before the 2006 elections, and he thought it was just going to be a cakewalk.That leads to the next facet of my GUTMC: McCain can prattle on about his supposed experience and Obama's supposed lack, but if we're talking about the states of their campaigns, he has no more experience running for president than Obama does - much less in fact, if you count Obama's tough primary fight. McCain is a long-term senator, but how many big-deal speeches has he ever given on national TV? Has he ever had reporters (some of them "unfriendly") following him around for this long? He's used to gearing up for an hour every other week or so on Meet the Press and maybe having a few "helpful" reporters around to write down "what he meant" rather than what he said, but he was not and is not prepared to have his exact words broadcast nationwide every day.
I would speculate that it's a generational/technological thing, but that could be interpreted as a slap at McCain's age, and that would make McCain and Bob Schieffer cry, so it's on the list of things you can't say about McCain. So I have absolutely no idea why it is.
--Josh Marshall
Beliefs
From The News & Observer ...
L.F. Eason III gave up the only job he'd ever had rather than lower a flag to honor former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms.Eason, a 29-year veteran of the state Department of Agriculture, instructed his staff at a small Raleigh lab not to fly the U.S. or North Carolina flags at half-staff Monday, as called for in a directive to all state agencies by Gov. Mike Easley.
When a superior ordered the lab to follow the directive, Eason decided to retire rather than pay tribute to Helms. After several hours' delay, one of Eason's employees hung the flags at half-staff.
...
In a string of e-mail messages with his superiors, Eason was told he could either lower the flags or retire effective immediately.
Though he's only 51, Eason chose to retire, although he pleaded several times to be allowed to stay at the lab. Eason, who had worked for the Agriculture Department since graduating from college, was paid $65,235 a year as the laboratory manager.
--Josh Marshall
So Formulaic
TPM Reader MO actually boils it down to a formula ...
MGUT: Age + Over-handling = CringeMy thoughts on the gauntlet that Josh just threw down. I say this as someone who would be classified as a grudgingly McCain admirer back in '00 (as a combination of Clinton fatigue and a visceral distaste for Bush before it was cool):
The way McCain looks on the stump now reminds me of how my older relatives looked after I came back from college. Before I left, they were the people I always knew. When I got back, the changes that age produces were glaringly clear. As Josh says, a lot happens between 64 and 71. Furthermore, let's compare McCain and Reagan - the last national politician running for office at an advanced age. McCain's charisma has been based on energy and pugnaciousness. Reagan was always avuncular. McCain doesn't do avuncular. And, of course, Reagan in '80 was younger than McCain is now. The Reagan of '84 was given a huge benefit of the doubt with regards to age because of incumbency.
Also, clearly, McCain is being over-handled in the way that reminds me of the Gore of '00. In general, the more times people give you advice about your personal mannerisms, the less you come across as natural. That's what people mean by WJC and Obama (and GWB, alas) being natural politicians.
So, I don't think it has anything to do with the topics he's covering. Sure, better speech writing would help to steer clear of landmines (here's a hint: no jokes and no sarcasm!).
--Josh Marshall
The March of Time
TPM Election Central has the new DNC web ad hitting McCain on his Iraq flip-flops, particularly on his many and varied projections for when U.S. troops can come home.
--David Kurtz
Hmmmm
TPM Reader KB on the Grand Unified Theory of McCain Crappiness (GUTMC -- 'Gutmuck') ...
I don't think it's any great mystery. Two things to keep in mind about McCain. One is that he was built for the New Hampshire primary of small groups, town halls, shaking hands and back-slapping on the media caravan. He simply does not fill the grand stage set-pieces of a general election. It seems to swallow him up. He does not paint in large graceful strokes the way Obama does. He is a pointillist. Second, if you recall the 2000 race, McCain was focused on fighting special interests, pork, and money in politics. National security was not a huge part of that primary conversation. His shtick was radically altered by 9/11, and it makes him a less appealing candidate, less happy-go-lucky, more conventional.
On the other hand, TPM Reader CB has a more 2008-specific analysis ...
I think that you guys are on the right track with your theory about McCain's poor stumping skills. In this cycle, he's done so much pandering to try to win every interest group that he has lost any sense of conviction in what he believes in, outside of the need to stay in Iraq. That shows in his nervous laughter at his own jokes, his inability to really sell applause lines (and his getting caught off-guard when people applaud at other points), and his general lack of clarity about the terminology and specifics of his own proposals. The best speech I've seen him deliver this term was the one about how life is going to be in the victorious year of 2013, which he delivered with more conviction than he's been able to give to telling us how we're gonna get there.He's caught in a bind in that he needs to pander to his base to keep them from not showing up, but he also needs to reach out to independents, and the only way to do that is to be as vague as possible and promise as much as he can. That's a tough sell, and the flop sweat is showing.
--Josh Marshall
Telecom Immunity Survives
Efforts to strip telecom immunity from the FISA bill just failed in the Senate. Not even close.
Late Update: The other two immunity-limiting amendments went down, too.
--David Kurtz
Can You Help?
Today we're trying to put together a unified theory of John McCain's speech-making crappiness.
My initial theory was that if you look at the most outstanding instances of McCain's awkward, cringe-inducing delivery they're chiefly about domestic issues -- economy and culture war stuff -- that McCain doesn't really care about. When he's talking about the thing he's jazzed up about -- being right about the surge -- his delivery is much more straightforward. A lot of this stuff is also packaged as attacks on Obama, as Ben pointed out.
But then David pointed out that the thing that really comes through to him about McCain's delivery is a sense of entitlement. 'I'm a Senator and I'm John McCain so just get on with it and make me president."
Sort of like he's not disciplined enough to learn to deliver his prefab lines or convincingly pretend he believes or cares about them. I hadn't thought about it quite like this before. But this has the ring of truth to me. And perhaps the two meld together. McCain is big on Iraq and wants to talk about that. But the other stuff is mainly stuff he's changed positions on anyway and doesn't particularly care about. So he just goes through the motions.
Part of the reason may be that, despite a few of his claims to the contrary of late, I don't think McCain has had many contested races in his political career. I don't know exactly how his first election to the House went. But since he's been in, it's been pretty much smooth sailing. So a lot of this is just new to him.
This brings us back to the question of why McCain seems to suck so much this cycle whereas many people -- even political opponents -- thought he was solid as a candidate in 2000. And when I say 'solid', I mean a candidate whose public presentation was a big part of his attraction.
Inevitably, one part of the explanation is age. A lot happens between 63 and 72. But we also forget that much of the punch of McCain's candidacy was his anger at key segments of the conservative establishment that attacked him for not toeing the line on issues important to the religious right and on tax policy. That was his punch. That got his goat up. But most of his snark lines this season are meant to kow-tow to those same folks. And in any case, his manner seems to say, why am I up here having to do this anyway? I'm John McCain. Who's Barack Obama? Just make me president!
In any case, we're still looking for the grand unified theory. So your thoughts are most welcome.
--Josh Marshall
"Absolute Disgrace"
Over at TPMCafe, Reed Hundt and Todd Gitlin decry McCain's statement on Social Security--and the big question for both is why is it not getting any press?
--David Kurtz
Wisecrackery
How does the AP treat the McCain joke about U.S. cigarette exports helping kill Iranians? Take a gander.
--David Kurtz
Quite a Statement
People say a lot of things about Social Security -- a lot of it nonsense. But I haven't heard something like this in a long time. John McCain says that Social Security, as originally conceived more than 70 years ago, is an "absolute disgrace."
McCain told a townhall in Denver on Monday, "Americans have got to understand that. Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."
It's really a disgrace? That's how the system was designed to operate. And it's served as financial bedrock of retirement security in this country for going on a century.
Late Update: Here's the video...
--Josh Marshall
Funny, As in Ha-Ha?
McCain and that trademark wit, this time taking a question about U.S. cigarette exports to Iran and turning it into another "Bomb Iran" moment:
--David Kurtz
Mukasey on the Hill
We'll be covering the Attorney General's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning over at TPMmuckraker. He is there for a general oversight hearing, so not necessarily expecting there to be fireworks on the stories near and dear to our hearts, like the politicization of his department, torture, and the like, although those are expected to come up.
Ironically, any knocking around of Mukasey by committee Democrats will be interrupted later this morning so that they can go do his bidding on the FISA bill, which faces a final vote and is expected to easily pass. We'll be covering that, too.
--David Kurtz
Election Central Morning Roundup
Together at last! Karen Hughes and Mark Penn join forces to create a crisis team. Interestingly, they plan on helping clients out of crisis -- not getting them into it. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Yep, Nuthin McSame About That
New McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt on the US Attorney firings scandal: It was "mostly a combination of nonsense and politics and provides us no concern at all."
Schmidt hired key firing scandal figure Tim Griffin after his resignation.
--Josh Marshall
Laugh a Minute
I guess I love a good slavery joke as much as the next guy. So here's a terribly witty Jonah Goldberg column in which he belittles slavery and debt peonage by comparing them to requiring college students to do a few hours of community service in exchange for taxpayer-subsidized student loans or getting kids to volunteer for Americorps.
--Josh Marshall
Another AP Beaut ...
Here's the lede from the AP's latest McCain fluffer, this time from Nedra Pickler ...
Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach.
Well, easy for McCain too, since he doesn't either.
Pickler doesn't mention that McCain doesn't even say how he'll do it; he just says he'll do it. No numbers -- No nothing. Every sentient being who's looked at his spending and tax cut proposals knows he won't come close to balancing the budget in four years. And within a few hours of making the claim his own economic advisor decided that he was actually going to do it in eight years not four.
--Josh Marshall
Don't Hope for Good Slogan -- Copy One
This morning we showed you John McCain's new ad which ends with his new campaign slogan "Don't hope for a better life; vote for one."
But as TPM Reader AF points out, they seem to have copied it from a late-70s slogan Saatchi & Saatchi created for the UK Tory party.
From a 1997 article in the UK Telegraph (emphasis added) ...
The first work produced for the party was a television broadcast devised by Charles, in which images of everyday Britain were run in reverse. The dramatic sequence was concluded with Michael Heseltine uttering the slogan: 'Backwards or forwards, because we can't go on as we are. Don't hope for a better life; vote for one.'
It's also referenced in this book.
Now, to be clear, I think this kind of borrowing is part and parcel of political messaging. It's got a long history. It's not 'plagiarism'. It's just borrowing a good line.
But it's always worth keeping track of who the candidate is cribbing from.
--Josh Marshall
Burned by Astroturf
Over at TPMCafe, David Sirota takes up a favorite TPM topic -- astroturfing -- and explains how it's a symptom of what he calls "autocratic progressivism," which emphasizes a top-down structure versus true grassroots organizing. Jared Bernstein responds by pushing for progressives to do both: [W]e've got to think on both bottom-up and top-down tracks."
--David Kurtz
Times Bucks AP Bamboozle?
New York Times out of step with Associated Press on Obama's Iraq stance?
Voters should understand, he said, that they rarely will find themselves in 100 percent agreement with him. "But don't assume that's because I'm just doing it for "political reasons, he said."That just means we disagree," he said.
At which point he returned to Iraq, an issue where he has wavered very little from the stance he took many months ago. He favors a phased-in 16-month withdrawal. The McCain campaign has labored hard to suggest that he is inconsistent on this issue.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: Obama "Petless"
The AP pulls out all the stops to bring you the substantive political reporting you can't get anywhere else.
--David Kurtz
Another Contempt Threat
The House oversight committee gives Attorney General Michael Mukasey until July 16 to produce subpoenaed FBI reports on interviews with the Vice President in the Plame leak investigation -- or face a contempt of Congress vote.
--David Kurtz
Sad
Whether you're pro- or con on the recent and flagging neo-imperialist turn in US foreign policy, it's a bit sad when the White House has to resort to 'dog ate my homework' level excuses when a country says they don't want to remain under occupation any more. As you can see, the demand for a definite date for withdrawal of US troops turns out not to have been a 'transcription error', as the White House earlier claimed. Seems like they really want a date certain.
--Josh Marshall
Prospectin'
We got ahold of one of BMW Direct's mailers. This one is on behalf of Ada Fisher in her 2006 congressional campaign, when she says BMW Direct "screwed me." Take a look.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: McCain: I Gotta Be Me
Are the Rove proteges reshaping McCain's campaign? Are they cracking down on the cringey laugh and turning McCain into just one more bland teleprompter jockey? And what's the progress on scoring the budget victory numbers?
We bring you all up to date in today's McCain campaign update (with special new cringey laugh footage) ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
Love?
That's the title of the new McCain bio ad just released that takes a few shots at Hope.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
It's not just FISA and warrantless wiretapping. There's a whole web of government domestic surveillance that goes unnoticed and largely unregulated.
--David Kurtz
Election Central Morning Roundup
What role for Hillary at the convention? Negotiations continue. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Fun Times in South Florida
A new poll suggest that both Diaz-Balart brothers, Republican members of Congress from South Florida, are in real danger of losing their seats in November.
--Josh Marshall
Wolfson Signs on With FOX
Chief Hillary flak Howard Wolfson joins the FOX News team as a contributor.
--David Kurtz
Wheel of Fortune
We finally got an interview with someone from BMW Direct, the GOP direct mail firm whose business model includes fleecing GOP donors on behalf of obscure, often minority, candidates and then skimming off most of the contributions for itself and its affiliates. Good work if you can get it.
Our calls to the firm last week went unreturned, but we got lucky when we called again late today and Jordan Gehrke, BMW Direct's director of development, answered the phone. We called to ask specifically about complaints we'd received from another BMW client whose campaign had seen precious little of the contributions it was paying BMW to solicit.
Over the weekend, TPMmuckraker's Andrew Tilghman interviewed Ada Fisher, who's running for Congress in North Carolina. She used BMW Direct during her unsuccessful 2006 congressional run, but after that experience decided she'd be better off without them this time. "They sort of -- what shall I say? -- screwed me," Fisher told us.
By our count, BMW raised $400,000 for Fisher during the last election cycle, but only about $30,000 actually wound up being available for her campaign to use. The rest was plowed back into paying BMW and its affiliates for raising the money in the first place. "They make it seem like each of these people is a private entity. But as you listen more and more and you get smarter, you realize they all work together," Fisher said in the interview with us.
BMW's Gehrke acknowledged that Fisher's was a unique case. She came to BMW Direct late in the cycle, with less than a year left before the election. That's usually not enough time for the sort of direct-mail campaign BMW runs to yield results, Gehrke said, but they thought Fisher was a strong enough candidate to make up for the lost time. Alas, things didn't work out. As Gehrke explained: "[W]e think we would have been very successful if we had had another six months. For all kinds of reasons, fortune had its say, and things did not work out as we hoped."
Seems not. The donors who gave the $400,000 to Fisher's campaign saw less than 10 cents of every dollar actually go to the campaign they were aiming to help. Fisher herself complained that what little money BMW Direct did raise was so unpredictable and arrived so late in the campaign that it didn't really help. The only party to this arrangement who came out ahead was BMW Direct.
According to Gehrke, we're not taking into account certain intangibles, like building name recognition and improving the GOP brand:
"Is it worth it? Yes. If she doesn't win this year, maybe she ends up turning it into a state senate seat a few years later and then runs for Congress again. Going into a district where Republicans have not traditionally competed and having a black doctor on the ballot is a way of saying this is not your father's Republican Party. This is what building a party is about. This is what expanding your coalition is about. The point is, it has value."
That may be one way of explaining why it's good for the GOP, which is already struggling to raise money and hold on to House seats this year, to lose millions of its donors' dollars to the churn of direct mail costs. It doesn't explain why donors and candidates alike are being played for dupes.
Maybe we just don't understand.
Some right-wing blogs have taken up a concerted defense of BMW Direct in the past few days, claiming that the BMW Direct business model makes perfect sense, unless you're ignorant of the way direct mail works.
Mark Hemingway at NRO's The Corner, proclaims that "whether the candidate gets 5 percent or 75 percent -- it's basically free money to them." The reason for the scrutiny, according to Hemingway, is that the left is trying to undermine the GOP's advantage in direct mail by painting direct mail firms as "the used car salesmen of politics."
Michael Krempasky at RedState (husband of former DOJ darling Monica Goodling) gives a nod to left-wing conspiracy theories, but ultimately dismisses us as oblivious:
"Every year, we see it again: shrieking, hand-wringing, gloating (?) lefties pointing fingers at Republican direct mail fundraisers. Trouble is, they don't seem to have much idea what they're talking about."
We're not alone apparently. It took Ada Fisher an entire campaign to figure out how the game is played.
--David Kurtz
Very Interesting
Marcus Brauchli, one of the more high-profile cases of Murdoch roadkill over at the Wall Street Journal will be replacing Len Downie as Executive Editor of the Washington Post.
--Josh Marshall
Hope is Not a Plan
TPM Reader KB hopes against hope (and sanity?) on Chris Matthews' debamboozlement skills
I know you are on the lookout for who will buy the McCain camp's spin on Obama and Iraq. Watch very closely Chris Matthews tonight. Last week he was on vacation (I'm only guessing he returns today). So his reaction to this will be pent-up from last week. There are two reasons to watch Matthews: 1. He has long been repeating his belief that Obama's Iraq stance was the only reason he is the nominee and not Hillary. 2. Matthews has a history of acute McCain man-crush. He may be eager to find something on which to pivot back toward McCain in this election. I'm willing to bet that the 5:00pm edition of Hardball today will be a clownish affair of overheated screaming about Obama having a new Iraq problem. Just a guess...hope I'm wrong.
--Josh Marshall
Rough Stuff
The new McCain ad attacking Obama is out and it's a doozy ...
--Josh Marshall
We'll Get Back to You on That
I think we may have come to that moment, that quick turn of events, that encapsulates the fact that there is apparently no limit to the howlers and nonsense that John McCain can throw out and still not generate collective guffaws or even scrutiny from the national political press.
Bear with me on this one because it's genuinely mind-boggling.
Today John McCain is getting lots of press for his new plan to balance the budget during his first term -- what can only be called an extraordinarily ambitious promise. The first pick was from Mike Allen's piece late last night in The Politico.
Now, the general routine is the face of this kind of candidate announcement is that journalists and economists look at the numbers to see if they add up. In most cases, the exercises generates fairly unsatisfying contradictory opinions, with some experts saying one thing and other experts another.
But here's the thing. McCain doesn't have any numbers. None. Not vague numbers of fuzzy math. He just says he's going to do it. Any other candidate would get laughed off the stage with that kind of nonsense or more likely reporters just wouldn't agree to give them a write up. But this is all over the place.
The simple truth is that given his foreign policy promises in Iraq and tax cut promises at home there's really no way McCain could come up with even a fuzzy plan to balance the budget in his first term. So he's decided instead just promise it. Included in his white paper is just the standard hocum about cutting waste, fraud and abuse in government and making sure we have "reasonable economic growth."
Remember, this is the guy who's riding on his reputation for 'straight talk'. And he's just promised that he'll balance the budget in his first term. For any serious reporter covering this campaign that should immediately lead to a request for actual numbers to back up how he's going to accomplish that.
As I noted last night, one of McCain's vague assertions was that he "would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit."
So what are the numbers behind that? We just asked the McCain campaign and the response we got was ...
It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It's really the logical extension of Senator McCain's position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort.
This is what's behind McCain's promise. I'll do a lot of things that will get the deficit down. One of them is the the guarantee of victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and obviously that will save a lot of money.
As I said, this is the reductio ad absurdum of the mad pass John McCain gets on everything. He's pledging to balance the budget in four years and when asked for details he says, 'We'll get back to you on that.'
--Josh Marshall
TPMCafe Book Club: David Sirota
The Uprising, David Sirota's latest, posits that America is currently in the throes of a powerful new uprising emerging from the Right and from the Left in response to an establishment widely seen as corrupt and morally decayed. Or as Sirota puts it in his first post: "My book is your guided tour of the angst, organizing, protests, and tactics that are fueling this ferment on both the Right and Left."
--David Kurtz
Onward and Upward
Last we heard from former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) he was getting bounced out of Congress for the allegedly crooked ties to sundry Russian arms manufacturers. Now he's gone into business trying to sell Russian weaponry to Libya and Iraq. But now it seems his deal to be the exclusive marketer of Ukrainian armored personnel carriers may be based on a forged signature of a Ukrainian government official.
--Josh Marshall
Will They Follow?
The McCain campaign is continuing to aggressively push the line that Obama has "changed his mind" on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Those are their exact words -- which are I think a pretty straight up falsehood. Let us know whether you see press reports, like the ones over the weekend in the Associated Press, which adopt the McCain campaign line wholesale.
Note to the McCain camp's new strategy of constant repetition of demonstrably false statements which they are confident the press is unwilling to call them on. Obviously, this current push is being based to a large degree on the demonstrably false reporting over the weekend by the Associated Press -- which to my knowledge has still not been corrected.
Also, let us know if you see any articles published asking whether the McCain camp's claim that Obama has "changed his mind" on withdrawing troops is factually correct. Any ...
Late Update: Yet more McCain camp lies -- the new Rove team is showing.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Iraq Backtrack Flak
The McCain camp has jumped all over Obama's statement last week that he would continue to "refine" his Iraq policy following a planned upcoming meeting with military leaders in the country. Obama says he's remained totally consistent, but Joe Lieberman and the Fox News Sunday "All-Star Panel" beg to differ ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
If you're hoping that the Office of Professional Responsibility, the DOJ's internal watchdog for lawyer conduct, might help blow the lid off of some of the Department's Bush-era scandals, don't get your hopes up too high.
--David Kurtz
Election Central Morning Roundup
McCain hires Rudy's former campaign manager as his political director. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Monday's Hilarity Starts Early
On Monday the McCain campaign is going to put out a paper promising to balance the federal budget deficit by the end of McCain's first term. Much will be written tomorrow about just how preposterous the budgeting claims are, especially since McCain is also promising a big new round of tax cuts.
But there's one gem I want to zero in on -- this line, as quoted from Mike Allen's piece just out in The Politico ...
The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.
How much does he expect those savings are going to come to? Is this a line item in the savings tally?
This has to be one of the better examples of McCain's penchant for policy by slogan seeping out from the campaign trail into actual policy proposals.
McCain's people do realize that there is no budget mark down for 'victory'. Whatever victory's other merits, it is only reductions in expenditures directed (in the broadest sense) toward the war zones that get you actual budget savings.
Is McCain saying that both wars will be over by the end of his first term? And if so, is that victory with all or most of the troops staying on post-victory, as he's implied? Or will they all have left by then? Remember, Adm. Mullen says we need more troops in Afghanistan to deal with spiraling situation developing there. But we don't have any more because of our commitments in Iraq.
And if his four-year balanced budget promise is premised on rapid victory in both theaters, isn't that sort of arbitrary timelines on steroids?
--Josh Marshall
Digital Bamboozle
Andrew flagged this post for me at TheNextRight, which claims that our series of posts last week on BMW Direct and their oddly inefficient direct mail fundraising is actually an attempt to 'delegitimize direct mail fundraising', which would be a bad thing in the author's eyes since this is one mode of mass-fundraising where, he says (and correctly), that conservatives have a "tactical advantage."
In any case, the author, Soren Dayton, makes a number of claims to argue that our reporting makes no sense. And I'll try to follow up with a post explaining why his arguments don't hold water. But what I really wanted to flag for you is that he links approvingly to a site called Election Journal, which appears to be a sort of one-stop shopping for all bogus GOP claims of election fraud designed to aid voter suppression efforts.
Some of it almost reads like parody -- here's a post about the Alabama AG calling out the Bush Justice Department for its blase attitude toward vote fraud.
I'll definitely be bookmarking it. Sort of ground-zero for the 'vote fraud' bamboozlement, or at least the clearing house.
--Josh Marshall
Election Central Sunday Roundup
A new ad from a pro-Iraq War group declares that gains from the surge are "change we can believe in." That and other political news in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Stepping Back
I believe we're at one of those moments when it is a help to step back from the rhetorical flurry and see where each side stands -- call it clearing away the Fog of Spin.
The Iraq War is very unpopular. The majority of the country believes it was a mistake to have invaded in the first place. And the great majority want to get all of our troops out of Iraq in the near future. These are facts amply supported by what is now years of public opinion data. While it is true that the reduction in violence over the last 8-9 months has led to some shift in how people think 'things are going' in Iraq, it has had no measurable effect on the key questions: should we be there in the first place (no) and should we leave now (yes.)
This is the only backdrop against which to understand the current jousting over the semantics of the Iraq debate.
We have two candidates with starkly different positions. Barack Obama is for an orderly and considered withdrawal of all US combat forces in Iraq, a process he says he will begin immediately upon taking office. John McCain supports a permanent garrisoning of US troops on military bases in Iraq -- a long-term 'presence' which he hopes will require a constantly-diminishing amount of actual combat and thus an ever-diminishing toll in American lives.
This is, I believe, a fair and even generous description of each candidate's essential position. And the recital makes the key point clear: McCain's position is squarely on the wrong side of public opinion -- in fact, to an overwhelming degree.
This is why the McCain campaign spends what seems almost literally to be all its time (with tractable reporters in tow) scrutinizing the rhetorical entrails of Obama's every statement trying to find some movement or contradiction or frankly anything that can be talked about to keep everybody's attention (press, commentators, citizens, precocious teenagers) off the fact that McCain's position on Iraq is wildly unpopular and even more what McCain's position actually is.
Because of this, on Iraq, McCain's entire campaign is based on a strategy of constant obfuscation -- a strategy that has become much more aggressive in the wake of what the McCain campaign is calling last week's "relaunch" with a new staff based around Rove proteges from President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.
Now, before concluding, let me say a few words more about the nature of this dodge. As noted yesterday, despite the AP's sloppy reporting, Obama has been quite consistent on proposing a 16 month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. But let's back up and come at the question another way. If 16 months is no good, is there anyone out there ideologically committed to 12 or 20 months. Or for that matter, since few of us in the general population have a good understanding of the operational details of how you withdraw well over 100,000 military personnel from a country like Iraq, why is it not enough for a presidential candidate simply to say, I'll change the policy on the day I get into office. And that means I'm going to begin an orderly and considered withdrawal of our troops and have it done as soon as possible.
Now, I can already hear a lot of people rising to the bait and saying, 'No, we need specifics, a timetable, a date certain, because we've been hearing this for years -- that we'll be out as soon as we can, as soon as this that or the other happens.'
And I'd agree.
But this makes the point. Most people who are so keyed into specifics and hard deadlines are that way because we've had five years of a policy of deliberate deception in which vague promises of bringing the troops home in the pretty near future are hung out in front of the public's collective nose as a means of obscuring the real policy of keeping American troops in Iraq permanently as a way of securing oil reserves and projecting US power and in the region.
And that brings us squarely to our other point. What McCain's offering is exactly the same thing -- vague suggestions about troops coming home to toss dust in people's eyes about his real policy (which he's occasionally candid about) which is keeping US troops in Iraq permanently. So for instance, last week, when McCain's campaign pushed the nonsensical claim that Obama had embraced McCain's position, their release stated that Obama had...
now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground.
Again, a few clauses floating in the air to try to game people into thinking that McCain's actually for withdrawing American troops from Iraq too, just a bit more responsibly, with a little more "concern for conditions on the ground" and so forth, when in fact he's for keeping American troops there permanently.
Even the fine scrutiny of Obama's language threads back to the last five years of policy by deliberate lying, which McCain is now carrying on.
--Josh Marshall
