McCain's Reverend Wright?

(Q) John Hagee is the one who contends that New Orleans drew the wrath of God in Hurricane Katrina for a gay-pride parade that the city was planning. "What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God,'' Hagee told a radio talk show host again this week. "In time, if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become, it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it's called a curse... I\It was a city that was planning a sinful conduct.''

"To this day, Rev. Hagee continues to blame the sins of the people of New Orleans for the catastrophe of Katrina, and yet Sen. McCain actively sought his endorsement and has refused to condemn his comments,"

"On Sunday he maintained he was "glad to have" Hagee's endorsement.
However...when McCain ran for president in 2000, he chastized then-Governor Bush for “seeking the support of Southern fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views,” saying that he “would condemn openly” such “agents of intolerance.” Now he says such intolerance is just “taken out of context.”

Catholic League president Bill Donahue has answered back:

"Did we also mischaracterize Hagee when he called my religion 'The Great Whore,' the 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ' and a 'false cult system'? McCain cannot ignore Hagee's lies any more than he can tolerate his bigotry. This is getting out of control."

It is interesting how John McCain is getting a pass on this from the Media? The Media is not asking, nor is John McCain willing to denounce/renounce/reject these statements...hmmm.

McCain Warns That Democrats Will Unify

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report:

"Obama's difficulties and the prolongation of the Clinton-Obama confrontation have lifted Republicans from their slough of despondence to optimism about the presidential election. The transformation from deep pessimism to overriding optimism is such that McCain is privately warning supporters that once the nomination is decided and supporters of the losing Democratic candidate return to the fold, he will fall behind badly (though, McCain hopes, temporarily)."

Also: "High-level Republican contributors and fund-raisers complain that the McCain campaign has not got its act in order and is still badly disorganized. This comes from very heavy GOP hitters."

Homes Slide = Recession?

As expected, year-over-year sales and prices continue to get punished. The monthly year-over-year existing home sales fell 19.3%, while the national median existing-home price was $200,700, down 7.7% from March 2007. More @ National Association of Realtors

For Clinton it is All About...Women

(Q) So how did Clinton win so decisively last night? The answer is women, specifically white women. They continue to be as important to her success in these primaries as new voters and African-Americans have been to Obama. Per the exit polls, 47% of the Pennsylvania Democratic electorate last night was made up of white women, higher than any other race/gender subgroup. Clinton ended up winning them by more than 30 points, 66%-34%; in Ohio, she won this group, 67%-31%. The question that everyone seems to be asking now is: Why can’t Obama put Clinton away? The AP’s Ron Fournier takes a stab at answering this, and he points to five reasons (race, working-class voters, friends in trouble, inexperience, and mettle). But to us, women seem to be the bigger reason. They continue to rally to her side; nothing has shaken their confidence in her. If Clinton continues to beat Obama by 30-plus points among white women, how can he knock her out?

*** Rocking the suburbs: What’s more, Clinton must have won white women decisively across the state's geographic landscape, because there's no other explanation for her pulling off the upset in the Philly suburbs. To most lay observers, Obama looked to be a lock to win the Philly ‘burbs; the only question was by how much. But he didn’t win them. Overall, Obama carried just seven of the state's 67 counties. In his successful gubernatorial primary win over Bob Casey in 2002, Ed Rendell carried 10 counties -- and the big difference between Rendell's path and Obama's was that Rendell carried Montgomery and Bucks counties, while Obama lost MontCo narrowly and got clobbered in Bucks. This success by Clinton in the suburbs, by the way, might be the best talking point the campaign has going forward because it's the first evidence in weeks that Clinton has finally cut into Obama's coalition. Of course, Pennsylvania could simply be her Wisconsin, where everything that happens in the state, well, stays in the state. Remember Wisconsin? That was Obama's supposed big break through in cutting into Clinton's coalition of white, working-class voters and even white women. Wisconsin didn't take for Obama. Will Pennsylvania take for Clinton?

The Clintons And The Weather Underground

All campaigns spin. All candidates spin. But there is something about Clintonian spin that is...well, spinnier than conventional spin.

Here's an example. Last Thursday, following the mis-moderated Clinton-Obama debate of the previous evening, the Hillary Clinton campaign decided to follow up by blasting Barack Obama on two issues that had been tossed at him the previous evening: his past support of a handgun ban and his connection to William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical who has become a distinguished professor and education expert. During a conference call that morning, Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer, two senior Clinton aides, hammered Obama for having held a fundraiser in 1995, during his first campaign for state senator, in Ayers' apartment. At the time, Ayers, who has admitted taking part in bombings during the 1970s (which never caused any loss of life) and who was never arrested for any of his radical actions, lived near Obama, and the two served on the board of a nonprofit that provided grants to groups working on poverty issues. Obama, Wolfson insisted, had "to be more forthcoming" about Ayers.

During that conference call, I asked Wolfson whether Senator Clinton supported the pardon Bill Clinton issued in 2001 to two Weather Underground radicals: Linda Evans, who was sentenced to prison for participating in a series of bombings in the 1980s, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with being part of a bank robbery that left a guard and two police officers dead. Whether or not the Ayers matter was a non-issue, if Hillary Clinton's aides were going to bash Obama for having once had a connection to a former radical who had never been arrested, it seemed fair to wonder if she had opposed her husband's pardons of two radicals who had served time for their crimes.

Wolfson did not answer the question. Instead, he noted that the pardoned Weather Underground radicals had never held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. I pointed out that was not the issue--and again asked if Senator Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons. "I don't know what she said," Wolfson replied. And in front of the dozens of reporters on the call, Wolfson promised he would get back to me. His Response...

The Shrinking Middle Class

Click for full interactive graphic
Let us hope that there is no correlation to 1930....

Falling Sales, Except at Gas Pump

Courtesy NYT's Floyd Norris:

"AMERICANS are cutting back on purchases of things they do not have to have, sending retail sales down sharply at many types of stores.

Those cutbacks, which now seem to be worse than at any time since the 1990-91 recession, are helping to slow the economy and to spur calls in Washington for more fiscal stimulus even before the government starts to send out money to most taxpayers next month.

Those checks could provide at least a temporary stimulus, but until they arrive, the slowdown in spending appears to be nationwide.

In its beige book report on economic conditions released this week, the Federal Reserve said that surveys by the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks found that “consumer spending was characterized as softening across most of the country.” The Fed said that in 10 of the 12 districts, spending on things other than cars was down, while car sales were generally reported to be flat or declining."

Kotecki TV...Say No More

48 Second Water Balloon

Nunn, Boren Back Obama

Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), "who toyed with the concept of a non-partisan run for president last year," endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

"The former senator, considered one of the nation's preeminent experts on U.S. defense, met with Obama's foreign policy team this morning, we're told."

"Though not a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, Nunn carries a deal of gravitas in foreign policy from which Obama could benefit. As one himself, Nunn could also help reassure conservative Democrats still suspicious of Obama's position on the left-right political spectrum."

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe notes former Sen. David Boren (D-OK), another conservative Southern Democrat, also announced he would back Obama.

Ben Smith calls the endorsements "an acknowledgment that Obama's message has pretty well absorbed the high aspirations of the group Unity '08."

Road Trip into Blue America

David Jackson previews McCain's upcoming road trip into the heart of Blue America:

Starting Monday, the presumptive GOP nominee for president will stop in Alabama's "Black Belt," then move on to the struggling steel town of Youngstown, Ohio, and the Appalachian region of Kentucky. The Arizona senator is also trying to make it to New Orleans, which is still recovering from 2005's Hurricane Katrina.

"I want to tell people living there that there must not be any forgotten parts of America, any forgotten Americans," McCain told newspaper editors this week.

"A lot of moderate white voters want a president who can reach out to the disadvantaged," said John Pitney, a former House GOP aide and government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "So McCain has to show he's making the effort."

Much of McCain's itinerary is in heavily Democratic areas.

McCain is slated to spend part of Monday in the heart of the Black Belt, which is named for the region's dark soil. The congressional district that includes this region voted for Democrat John Kerry over Bush in 2004 and is 62% black.

"Bitter" in the mail...Fall Preview

Of course, how it works in a GOP primary isn't quite clear. Shaner tries it like this:

"And although Republicans don’t have a competitive race for President, you can send a loud and clear message back to Obama by coming out and supporting candidates who share our values."

My thought is this...when is the last time the "Guns and God" voter cast their vote for a Democrat? So is this really that big of a deal? It could be if it helps bring more Republicans out to vote but the real question is...how do Independents react to the "Bitter" comment?

Debate Reaction

In a severe case of bad timing -- just days before the Pennsylvania primary -- Sen. Barack Obama gave his worst performance in a debate so far last night. It's not that Sen. Hillary Clinton "won" the debate, but Obama clearly lost it.

If you missed it, check out the "bests and mosts" from CQ Politics.

Chuck Todd: "Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn't step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn't very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn't have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we've noted here quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Last night, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let's see what Pennsylvania decides in five days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point. But a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out."

Walter Shapiro: "This was not an evening that will shimmer in Obama's memory book."

Andrew Sullivan: "It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I've seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he's up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully."

Marc Ambinder: "Keeping the score card, there's no way Obama could have fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she's perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her."

Josh Marshall: "I don't think this debate will have much effect on the direction of the race. In fact, I've learned from past... experience that the candidate who wins on points in a debate often doesn't come out with the best result."

Joe Klein: "My guess is that Obama, simply by pointing out the dopiness of the questions in the first half of the debate, probably emerged from this better than Clinton did."

Justice Stevens' change of heart

(Q) Justice John Paul Stevens, the Chicago native who once was part of a Supreme Court majority that reinstated the death penalty in America in 1976, Wednesday indicated for the first time that he believes capital punishment is unconstitutional.

Writing to concur in the court's judgment in Baze v. Rees, the case out of Kentucky that questioned whether the method used for executing prisoners was unconstitutionally harmful, Stevens said he had become convinced that the death penalty no longer served a legitimate societal function.

Stevens noted that that when the Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, it did so by identifying three purposes served by capital punishment: 1) incapacitation of the offender; 2) deterrence and 3) retribution.

He wrote that with the advent of longer prisoner sentences and the option of a life term without parole made incapacitation a weaker rationale. He then questioned whether the death penalty deters crime, long a subject of debate among researchers. "Despite 30 years of empirical research in the area, there is no reliable statistical evidence that capital punishment in fact deters potential offenders," he said. Continue reading @ Swamp Politics

Bush and big crowd greet pope on his birthday

(Q) Pope Benedict XVI chose to address bluntly the sex scandal that has torn at the church here even before he landed Tuesday on his first official visit to the United States, saying he was “deeply ashamed” by the actions of pedophile priests.

His comments aboard his plane, in answer to a written question submitted by a reporter and selected by the Vatican, appeared to soothe many Catholics but left others demanding more action than words.

“It’s difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give the love of God to these children,” the pope said, adding that the church would work to exclude pedophiles from the priesthood.

“It is more important to have good priests than to have many priests,” he said.

The words were his strongest ever on the issue, one he clearly wanted to emphasize as he arrived on a six-day visit to Washington and New York. His comments were in response to the first of four questions he answered on the plane — chosen from 20 the press corps had submitted in advance.

It was unclear whether these would be the last words from Benedict on the issue, which ruptured the faith between parishioners and priests and has cost the church some $2 billion, or whether it was an opening signal of both reconciliation and more to come. Church officials have said they expected the pope to address the scandal more than once during his visit, and there is speculation that he may even meet with some victims. Continue @ NYT

Sunday Cartoon

Joseph Stiglitz On The Economy

(Q) An interview with Joseph Stiglitz, the Columbia Professor who is a Nobel Prize-winning economist, with his overview of the economy.

Stiglitz recent books include Globalization and Its Discontents (2003) and Making Globalization Work (2006).

The professor pulls no punches -- about the economy, President Bush, and Fed Chair Bernanke.

Same Ol', Same Ol'

CORPORATE WELFARE UPDATE....The housing bill easily passed the Senate on Thursday:

The most expensive item is a tax break for homebuilders and other money-losing businesses that would cost the federal government more than $25 billion over the next three years. Missing entirely: A new mechanism to aid borrowers who can't afford their mortgage payments and, due to falling home prices, owe their banks more than their homes are worth, the group most at risk of foreclosure.

One of the bill's chief sponsors, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), called the measure "a major, positive step in the right direction," but he acknowledged that the package offers little in direct aid to the nearly 8,000 families thrown into foreclosure each day.

I'm totally conflicted on foreclosure aid. Is it a good idea because lots of people are hurting and need help — and if Wall Street is going to get help, why not the little guys too? Or is it a bad idea because it just helps to prop up housing prices, extending a bubble that needs to be allowed to pop?

I'm not sure. But that $25 billion tax break? No conflict there. It's right up there with ethanol subsidies in the pantheon of outlandishly rapacious corporate welfare legislation. Daniel Gross explains:

The technical term for this is a tax-loss carryback. But it should perhaps be known as a bubble-head tax break....Homebuilders argue that they need relief because their sector, which provides a great deal of domestic employment, is on the ropes, and they're finding it more difficult to raise capital. Which is as it should be. After bubbles pop, those who screwed up really badly fail and get taken over by creditors or opportunistic investors. Those who have sound underlying franchises but merely got a little carried away can survive if they take painful restructuring moves. This is what is known as market capitalism.

....The proposal to give new tax breaks to homebuilders and banks is yet another example of the pernicious trend of privatizing profit and socializing losses, which is gnawing away at faith in the system. Dilute the shareholders, not the taxpayers.

The "he gets it" quote is "the pernicious trend of privatizing profit and socializing losses"
The old addage, Americans dislike socialism is a falsehood.
I grant, socialism for the individual goes against the grain of American ethos in Individualism but Corporate Welfare has been rife for over a hundred years and Thursday's bailout of Corporate Financial America is just another example in a long line...Lee Iacocca

Will Clinton Over-Reach?

Courtesy Andrew Sullivan
The "bitter" spat is gold for Morris-Rove politics, which is why Clinton is exploiting it so baldly. It is exactly the kind of debate that has constructed American politics since Vietnam; it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend. Clinton will use anything at this point to destroy Obama's candidacy and message; but by adopting Rovism at its reddest, the Clintons do risk looking too obvious. Check out the comments in CNN's Politicker. At some point people will realize that the Clintons represent a continuation of the kind of politics that has made a serious engagement with this country's profound problems impossible. Or is acknowledging profound problems now unpatriotic?

Is this election about how to salvage the least worst option in the Iraq disaster? Is it about restoring some kind of fiscal sanity? Is it about doing all we can to unite Americans in a war against Islamic terrorism? Is it about restoring America's compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Or is it again about red-blue culture wars? We know what the professional political class is comfortable with. We know what Rove and Bush and Penn and Clinton believe. What we will find out soon is if Americans want more of the same. It's a free country - and people can vote. Goodbye to all that? Or hello again - for yet another cycle? A reader writes:

I am a rustbelt native. I live near Gary, Indiana and have never lived anywhere else. I’ll probably die here.

I read and, more importantly, listened to Barack Obama’s response to the Clinton cacophony after his remarks about blue collar/regular people/rustbelt voters. The difference between the two politicians is amazing. One is thoughtful and unafraid while defending a politically risky yet righteous position. The other is just noise.


My husband and I already have one child and grandchild living thousands of miles away and I fully expect the other to leave within a few years. I don’t blame them. In fact I always encouraged them to leave because I wanted them to realize the full measure of their talents and abilities and that isn’t possible here.

Obama’s right about guns and religion in that there simply isn’t much to do in an economically depressed area but hunt and pray. There’s nothing insulting or elitist about this, but people can be easily persuaded that an elitist has indeed insulted them.

That’s what worries me. People will forget their interests, will forget that their children are moving away en masse, will forget the political idiocy of the Clintonian hypocrisy that inspires Howard Beale-like angst in all of us. They may forget all of that just for the misguided privilege of feeling insulted.

And that's their right. Americans have had the presidency they deserved these past four years; the war they voted to continue; the debt they voted to increase; the incompetence they decided to reward. They also get to pick who comes next. If they want more of the same, they know who to vote for.

AP Confirms ABC News

Torture latest:

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned. The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue. They knew what they were doing. The law was "fixed" to back up what was already decided.

The parallel to WMD intelligence - the Downing Street memo - springs to mind.

And now more...Courtesy Andrew Sullivan

While the blogosphere explodes dissecting how big a snob Obama is, the president of the United States cops to authorizing torture:

Bush also said in an interview with ABC News that he approved of the meetings, which were held as the CIA began to prepare for a secret interrogation program that included waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and other coercive techniques.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people" by learning what various detainees knew, Bush said in the interview at the presidential ranch here. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

The remarks underscore the extent to which the top officials were directly involved in setting the controversial interrogation policies.

Bush suggested in the interview that no one should be surprised that his senior advisers, including Vice President Cheney, would discuss details of the interrogation program. "I told the country we did that," Bush said. "And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."

Notice that for this president, the law is an obstacle to be overcome with opinions he orders up from his underlings. Also, can't you just see the president really wants to tell the people "you can't handle the truth!" Whether it be wrong or right....