OK, More St. McCain

I realize that this blog has been focusing a great deal on St. John McCain of Arizona, son of God, heir to the throne of Lord a great deal. I'll be upfront, I'm borderline obessessed with the guy. Also, he just so happens to be the almost certain nominee for the GOP's presidential ticket. So let's be honest...this blog will have many, many, more posts on holy John. In other words, if your sick of reading about McCain, then don't read the blog. But you should, because if you rely on the mainstream media for your information on the presidentail candidates, you probably have a certain perspective of John McCain that is, frankly, bullshit. Two articles that you should read on St. McCain of Arizona:

1. Paul Waldman's at the American Prospect
2. Jonathan Chait's at the New Republic

The first article will explain why I call John McCain, St. McCain. It is required reading, so consider it homework, it's very short, and you'll be smarter for reading it. Waldman is an expert on the media, and his dissection of the media's treatment of McCain is essential.

The second article, by one of my favorite political writers ever, Jonathan Chait, explains how St. McCain has changed his views on a number of key issues a number of times, usually taking whichever stand the political winds blow him (interesting for a supposed man of principle). In essence, John McCain is the ultimate flip-flopper.

Do yourself a favor and read these articles, learn who John McCain really is. Then do your friends and family a favor and pass the articles on to them.

Show Me the Money!

Ezra Klein has a good post up regarding Obama and taxes. Obama has refused to label himself as a tax cutter or a tax raiser when queried about tax policy, as he should. He has said that the real question is who's taxes are being raised? Rich? Poor? Both? One can assume that Obama is implying that he doesn't mind raising taxes on the rich. Which of course, we should do, and should've done years ago.

Anyways, Ezra goes on to say that the real question should be what are we paying for? I think Ezra is exactly right about this. After the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis and breaking of the levees in New Orleans it is clear that this country needs to consider serious investment in infrastructure. Tax policy is a topic that Democrats have long been afraid to discuss, and rightly so, I might add. Republicans have been very successful in labeling Democrats as "tax raisers" and fiscally irresponsible. The time is ripe for the Dems to show just how archaic this line of attack is. The Bush administration has enacted one of the most devastating tax cuts in history, and the benefits went almost exclusively to the very, very rich. Simultaneously, Bush has ballooned the federal budget. It would not be too difficult to point out to the American public how unjust the Republican tax policy really is.

Once this point has been established, the Democrats could educate the public on how a progressive tax policy can be beneficial to all. No one enjoys paying taxes, I sure as hell don't. However, Americans need to understand that the services they demand and cherish are funded by taxes. Rolling back the tax cuts enacted in 2001 on the very wealthy would free up a lot of revenue. These funds could be allocated towards insurer more people, improving schools, rebuilding America's infrastructure, and a number of other priorities of the progressive agenda.

Democrats need to stop conceding defeat to Republicans on tax policy. A smart campaign would confront the GOP on taxes and educate the public on just how disastrous the Republican policy truly is.

Who Knows?

Walter Shapiro's article outlining several different conclusions to the Democratic primary is really worth a read. The CW has it, correcty, in my view, that a nominee pushed over the edge by superdelegates would be very bad for the party. I'm optimistic that this won't happen, but it certainly looks like this race could very well drag on into June. This isn't necessarily all bad. If the race does go on into June that means that John McCain will not have as much time to construct a line of attack on a presumptive Dem nominee. When it was all but certain that Kerry had the nomination by mid February in '04, Bush began the flip-flop argument very early and the media coalesced around it, and the argument stuck. It looks like St. McCain will not have this luxury.

On the flip side, this could allow McCain crucial time to mend his image with the GOP base. However, considering how some of the right-wing noise machines heavy hitters have sounded off in recent weeks, no amount of time may be sufficient for St. McCain to make things right.

Good vs. Evil

I've been meaning to link to this great article by Gershom Gorenberg for a few days now. It's pretty much a berated point now, but one of the great failings of the Bush administration's foreign policy has been the unencumbered embrace of a good vs. evil mentality. Gorenberg states it perfecty here:

...The neocons are Cold Warriors sorry that it was cold. Their policy vision is quasi-theological: Whether or not there is a God, there is most certainly a devil. The evil empire is gone, but the axis of evil is present. It would not do to compromise with the devil, or contain him. His territory must be pushed back, transferred to democracy and American hegemony. This way of thinking restores a sense of order when looking at the Middle East -- two sides, facing each other. Of course Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in cahoots: They are both bad, so they must be allies. In this conception, the new world order looks just like the old -- it is bipolar.

Terrorism is a tactic as oppossed to a theology. That is why the label "War on Terror" is so misleading. It would be like calling a campaign to fight child obesity the "War on Eating", except we don't want to stop children from eating, rather we would like to discourage overeating and the consumption of excess amounts of unhealthy foods. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are evil. However, terrorism is a tactic used in a greater campaign. The goal of that campaign is not necessarily evil. Many terrorist groups have legitimate causes. Unfortunately, the utilization of terror has the effect of deligitimizing those causes in the eyes of the world. We also must be careful as to what groups we label terrorists. Insurgents fighting against Americans aren't terrorists. Bush and the media seem to define anyone that shoots at an American utilizing guerilla tactics a "terrorist." One problem, we used the same tactics in the Revolutionary War, and we take credit for that. If China, Russia, and Europe banded together to invade America, I'm sure we would cheer when American militias shot RPGs at Occupation forces. We would have reason to cheer, after all, our used of guerilla tactics has enabled us to mount an effective resistance against the Occupation. This seems to get lost in the fray of our conversation.

Disclaimer: I shouldn't even have to write this, but, I feel I need to to clarify my stance in this post. I find terrorist groups such as Al-Qeada and Hamas abhorrent. I in no way sympathize with these groups or their tactics. While I disagree with the label "War on Terror" and some of the resulting consequences of the campaign against "terror", I do believe the terrorist threat is real and am pleased that it has been, and continues to be addressed. Moreover, while I oppossed the war in Iraq from the beginning and still do today, I support the American campaign in Afghanistan. I have friends and family that serve in the military. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for their service and courage in the name of their country.

Great Picture

I'm a Liberal, Hear me Roar!

You should definately give this Nation column by Eric Alterman a read. The fact is, as Alterman points out, that the positions most Americans hold on the major issues are often on the liberal side of the coin. While I don't have a huge problem with the word "progressive", in fact I like it, and its meaning very much, the word that describes the politics of a center-left Democrat is "liberal". In other words, I agree with Matt Yglesias when he says that "liberalism" is a political philosophy, whereas, "progressive" is a word for a coalition that puts liberalism into action. That being said, it's comforting that in this election Democrats are comfortable calling themselves progressives, as opposed to 2004 when Kerry and Edwards were going out their way to explain how conservative they are.

"We've got to give them some stimulus. We've got to give them some tax relief."

That's St. McCain on the campaign trail recently, lending his thoughts on the economy. Well St. McCain of Arizona was the only flipping Senator that neglected to show up to vote for the "green" stimulus package last night. He had recently pointed out that a stimulus bill was needed desperately. John McCain should be hammered for this. He has been proclaiming himself the frontrunner since Supercalifragilistic Totalitarian Tuesday, wouldn't that enable him to free up some time to get on a fucking plance and vote for the package. My understanding is that the stimulus package failed by a single vote. This bill would've increased the amount of people getting tax rebates (actually lifting the cieling, therefore more rich people would get rebates, shouldn't the GOP like that), provided incentives for renewable energy, and increased unemployment benefits. Once again, it failed by a single vote. Brad Plumer has got a great post over at the The Plank detailing some of the other votes that St. McCain, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord, has missed. The real tragedy is that the media will most likely let this slip by. The Chris Matthews', Anne Kornblut's, and David Gregory's of the world (not to mention countless others) will ignore this completely in order to continue their fawning coverage of the heroic and manly St. McCain.

Enough has been said. God help us all...