by David Safier

A funny thing has happened in the post-Palin era. A number of conservative pundits are jumping ship. I guess the effete intellectuals (to use the Republican's parlance) of their party seem to think they're too good for common people like Sarah Palin, and they don't want to get their white gloves dirty with some good ol' fashioned mud slinging.

I'm not making up the "effete intellectual" in-house bashing, by the way. In anger and frustration, McCain referred to these folks disparagingly as "Georgetown cocktail party conservatives."

For me, the most astonishing ship jumper is Kathleen Parker, the well known conservative columnist whose work appears in the Star. About two weeks ago she wrote a column, "Palin Problem: She's out of her league." She was rooting for Palin with all her might, she wrote, but reached the breaking point. "My cringe reflex is exhausted."

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there.

And she ended the column like this:

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Amazing! But her next column was, in its own way, even more surprising. Parker, of course, has received angry, even abusive email from the left over the years. Every columnist gets bashed by the other side, it comes with the territory. But she describes the increased level of venom she's seen in some of the "suggestions" she got after her "drop Sarah Palin" column:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn't, I should "off" myself.

[snip]

After 20 years of column writing, I'm familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.

This liberal isn't surprised to hear the right is more vicious, hateful and potentially violent than the left. But for Parker, it was a wake-up call. She even gave a shout-out to the Dixie Chicks, acknowledging the similar trashing they took.

Her most recent column expressed something less than admiration for Palin's performance at the VP debate.

The real Sarah Palin is free at last. She's not just a hockey mom after all. She's Palin the Impaler. Pit bulls beware.

And, in typical "pointy headed intellectual" fashion, arch-conservative Parker bemoans the negative turn of the McCain campaign, especially from Palin, ending the column with:

McCain may want to call off his pit bull before this war escalates.

I hope Parker has a strong enough stomach to read her email over the next few weeks.

I wonder, will she vote for McCain/Palin? If she does, you can be sure she'll be gritting her teeth and holding her nose.

by David Safier

Ever wonder why fear is such a great motivator for conservatives and why they run to Daddy candidates who make them feel safe? This study may provide a clue.

Conservatives tend to have a more highly developed startle reflex than others.

To measure that sensitivity, researchers conducted two tests. In one, they showed volunteers a series of photos that included some threatening images — for example, a picture of a man with a spider on his face or an infected open wound — while measuring the electrical conductance of the volunteers' skin, a technique also used in polygraph testing. In a separate experiment, researchers subjected the volunteers to sudden bursts of loud white noise to test their startle reflexes, measured by sensors attached to the muscle below the eye that recorded how hard people blinked.

People who blinked harder than others and registered a heightened response to threat on the conductivity test tended to support the death penalty and military spending. People with a mellower startle response were more likely to support abortion rights and gun control. The study also looked at several broader political tendencies, including compromise (the willingness to yield to a middle-ground solution) and obedience (the tendency to follow a set path), and found that people who were more sensitive to threat were less amenable to the former and more inclined toward the latter.

The most recent incarnation of the McPalin campaign message boils down to, "Be afraid. Be very afraid." Conservatives have taken that route for more campaign cycles than I care to remember. It seems they know the DNA of their base.

But tell me, haven't we heard for years that Democrats are mamby-pamby fraidy cats, and Republicans are tough as nails?

BOO! Hah, gotcha!

Shameless self promotion edition. As of this week, I'll be writing a regular column in The Explorer, a free weekly that circulates in northwest Tucson, Marana and Oro Valley.

Emil Franzi has had the political opinion section all to himself for far too long with what I'll describe as his eccentric right wing views. (I'm using "eccentric" as a word of mild praise. He doesn't toe the party line when he has an honest disagreement with Republicans, though he disagrees too infrequently for my tastes.) My column will give some balance to the Voices section of the paper.

This came about, by the way, as an indirect result of my blogging here on BfA. Great idea, Mike, opening the blog to a community of writers. Thanks, guy.

If anyone is wondering why John McCain is not holding a commanding lead over Barack Obama in his own state, all you have to do is listen to the people of Arizona. Many of the people I have spoken with shared their concerns that McCain has a nasty temper when people disagree with him, does not make sound economic policy choices and fails to show true leadership.

Joan Wendel

Joan Wendel shared a story with me over lunch. A retired lawyer who earned her law degree at 49 after raising five children, Wendel's been volunteering for the Obama campaign because she thinks he will make an excellent, informed president. But there's another reason she's active, and it has to do with Obama's opponent. In 1984, she recalled, the U.S. was considering entering into a treaty with England to return political refugees, mostly Irish, who had fled to this country. Wendel had just completed a term at Trinity College in Dublin, where her studies included international law. When she learned of the treaty under consideration, Wendel wrote Arizona representatives urging them to vote against it, based on her expertise as a lawyer as well as her recent experience living and studying in Ireland. In response to the letter she received a phone call from then Congressman John McCain.

At first, Wendel recalled, she was delighted, thinking she'd have an opportunity to share her expertise on treaties and international law with the congressman. But Wendel never got that opportunity. It soon became clear that the purpose of the call was not to discuss but to lecture; McCain had called to tell Joan Wendel why she was wrong. McCain, she said, kept telling her in a patronizing way, "You just don't understand the I.R.A." Wendel explained to McCain that having lived in Ireland she well understood the I.R.A.; she reiterated that she'd written to discuss the treaty under consideration and whether it violated international law. When it became clear to McCain that Wendel was not going to agree with him, McCain started getting angry. "He began to yell loudly at me but would not discuss treaties and international law, no matter how I tried to get him on that subject," Wendel recalled. "He became very angry. He was shouting at me." Wendell said McCain yelled so loudly he could be heard across the room by her elderly mother, who mouthed 'what's going on?' to her adult daughter. "At one point he asked if I didn't know he had just been elected by 80% of his constituents. I told him that was nice but I wanted to talk about treaties." Wendel finally came to the conclusion that McCain couldn't be reasoned with. "Eventually I told him if he was going to continue to yell there was no point in continuing our conversation. He shouted, 'You're absolutely right' and slammed the phone down on me. I've never forgotten this conversation and I have never had any respect for him since."

Ken Jacobs

Another story came from Ken Jacobs, Executive Director of the Pima County Democratic Party. In the early 1990's, Jacobs took an active part in the debate over the Clinton administration's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy concerning gays in the military. Members of Arizona's gay, lesbian and bisexual community were granted a meeting with Senator McCain to explain their position; Jacobs was one of five community members who met with McCain.

But to understand what happened at the meeting, Jacobs said, he had to first relate what happened before the meeting. "When word got out we were meeting with McCain, I received phone calls from people who had met with the Senator over the years, for different reasons and under varying circumstances. They wanted to warn me, literally warn me, what was going to happen. They not only told me he was going to lose his temper, they wanted me to be aware of the warning signs that would lead up to it because they were concerned for me."

Armed with this information and seated closest to McCain, Jacobs observed him during the meeting quite closely , looking for the physical cues he'd been warned about. Right from the start, Jacobs said McCain refused to make eye contact with him or any of the community members seated with him. "When I watched the way McCain refused to make eye contact with Barack Obama in the first debate, I recognized that immediately. That's how he treated us. He wouldn't look at any of us who had come to talk to; he gestured toward me occasionally but that was about it."

John McCain, Jacobs continued, has only one reaction to people who don't agree with him: "Anyone presenting factual information that runs contrary to his position is held in disdain. Pure disdain." As the meeting went on, Jacobs started seeing the cues he'd been warned about. "I had been told that when McCain is about to lose his temper he gives certain physical cues. First, he starts to move his feet under the table while seated. Second, he adjusts and re-adjusts his jacket. Third, he starts moving his forearms on and off the table in a nervous way." And then, he had been warned, "he starts getting heated and the blood starts flowing and his neck turns very red. And when the redness spreads to his face and white blotches start appearing, watch out."

After a few minutes of discussion, Jacobs said McCain exhibited each of those physical cues, in order, and "when McCain's face turned red and the white blotches appeared, his aides suddenly cut the meeting short and hustled the Senator out of the room." So ended the meeting. "In all my years of politics," Jacobs added, "in all my dealings with people on all sides, it was the strangest meeting with a public official I've ever had."

Jacobs cited another reason why he could never vote for his own senator for president. Jacobs recalled that McCain headed up Phil Gramm's brief presidential bid in the 1990's, and in support of it McCain flew to Oregon for a fund raiser with the Oregon Citizens Alliance, an anti-gay conservative Christian political group which had launched a ballot measure to amend the state constitution. According to civil rights experts who monitored the measure, it would not only have prevented special rights for the gay, lesbian and bisexual community, it would have mandated state discrimination against sexual minorities.

Jacobs said, "McCain refused to make the results of that meeting public, to his own constituents. I called friends in Oregon and found out about it and we were the ones who brought it to the public's attention." There was a lot of ugliness surrounding this group's initiative, which reached a violent culmination when a woman with a "No on Ballot Measure 9" sign in her front yard was killed by a firebomb. Jacobs said even though McCain likes to profess that he has a hands-off, live and let live approach to those of different sexual orientations, he felt McCain's real character was revealed by the fact that "he would fly 1,500 miles to break bread with a group like that."

Mike and Chris Dayton

Not all these stories concern McCain's temper. Mike and Chris Dayton are retired public school teachers; McCain won't get their vote because they feel he doesn't represent them. Dayton says a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush presidency, and these two retirees say their wallets cannot afford four more years of George W. Bush.

"When we first retired we felt comfortable with our savings and we were looking forward to traveling, enjoying our hobbies, remodeling our home and investing in our health. And look what's happened. Gas was $1.25 when Bush took office and now it's well over $3.00 and the oil companies have made record profits. Health insurance has gone up over 100%, college tuition has skyrocketed, and basic necessities are too high."

They've always lived responsibly but now have to be very careful, shopping sales to make ends meet. During the current economic crisis, Mike said he was disgusted by the lack of leadership shown by his senator: "McCain wasn't leading, he was grandstanding, running to Washington to save the economy and claim it as his plan but it backfired. And then he blamed Obama. PATHETIC." Mike and Chris agree that in contrast, "Obama has shown leadership and intelligence."

For those still undecided about this presidency, Ken Jacobs had a message, based on his own experience with the Arizona senator. "When considering McCain, remember this, "said Jacobs. "There's never been a political movement where John McCain's principles could not be sacrificed."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A friend of mine wrote to me after reading an earlier post I wrote Blog For Arizona: Bumbler Bee (hearts) Bush and asked if I would pose his debate question for Tim Bee in the hope that one of our local yokel political reporters, or one of our far braver readers, would ask Bumbler Bee this question at a debate or a candidate forum.  I am happy to oblige.

In an interview you gave to the Sierra Vista Herald on July 12, 2008 Sierra Vista Herald | The Bisbee Daily Review, you suggested that the answer to our energy crisis lies in "new technologies being developed, including hydrogen and perhaps nuclear-powered vehicles."  On what do you base your assertion that nuclear-powered vehicles are viable?  And what about the inherent risks involved, i.e., vehicular accidents involving nuclear material, nuclear material readily available to terrorists for construction of dirty bombs, etc.?  Do you not believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security would object to making nuclear materials so readily available to the public?

I would like to hear Bumbler Bee's answer to this question myself.  If anyone gets a chance to ask him this question and actually gets an answer, please let me know.  And video, please!

Maybe after Bumbler Bee has lost in November, his pal George Jetson can get him a job at Spacely Sprockets so he can go to work on building that nuclear-powered vehicle.

It seems Vic Williams, running for State House from LD-26, lost it before a recent Candidate Forum on Education held at Catalina Foothills High. He got in the face of Lisa Hawkins, who organized the event, demanding to participate even though he never responded to Hawkins' repeated invitations. His demeanor was so aggressive, she had to ask him to step back a number of times as they were talking.

Hawkins bent the rules and allowed Williams to join the other candidates on stage but told him he would have to speak after all the others had finished. Instead, he tried to speak earlier and had to be told to sit down and wait.

Hawkins later told me that Williams insisted she had never been contacted him about the event. "I contacted him so many times I've got his email memorized," she said. "I'd never met Vic, so I had no opinion about him beforehand, but the way he acted when he was demanding to be on stage . . ." She shook her head in amazement.

I was in the audience that night and had no idea about any of this until the next day. But I happened to go up to Williams at the end of the forum to ask him a question about something that confused me. When the candidates were asked to raise their hands to indicate whether or not they supported vouchers, Vic's hand went up with those who did not support vouchers, yet I had heard him say in an earlier Clean Elections debate that he thought a trial voucher program was a good idea. I asked him about the apparent contradiction. He said, yeah, he was against vouchers, but they may be a good idea for special needs students, and maybe we should run a trial voucher program to see if they work. He clearly wasn't enjoying our conversation. He sounded . . . the best word I can come up with is, grumpy. Realizing he had dug himself into a bit of a hole, Vic stopped and said, "Look, I'm not sure I'm making much sense. I'm operating on about two hours of sleep, OK?"

First Vic flunked his "reasonable human being" test with Hawkins. Then he flunked his "3am phone call" test with me. It wasn't Vic's best night.

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Robert Greenwald's Brave New PAC has a new video up about John McCain's volcanic temper and abusive personality. The video features commentary from our own former Senator Dennis DeConcinni about Senator Hothead.

Robert Greenwald has also posted commentary at John McCain's Rage Is a National Security Issue:

"At last night's debate, John McCain said we need "a cool hand at the tiller," but McCain has proven to be a loose cannon. He has accosted his Congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle on everything from the federal budget to diplomatic relations. He is known for hurling profanities rather than settling disagreements calmly. His belligerence is legendary. Even conservative Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi has said, "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

When someone earns the nickname "Senator Hothead," the public ought to call his character into question. McCain's propensity to explode undermines his abilities as a rational decision maker, particularly on national security issues -- which could prove disastrous considering our country is already involved in two wars.

* * *

McCain's temper is critical to his decision-making abilities, and his character must be discussed. As Drew Westen writes, "The political brain is an emotional brain. It is not a dispassionate calculating machine, objectively searching for the right facts, figures and policies to make a reasoned decision." That why it's so crucial people know the real Senator Hothead."

Remember this really damning picture of McCain celebrating his birthday with Charles Keating, the villain of the last big taxpayer bailout of unrestrained Republican greed? Here's the article where bmaz got that photo (download the whole pdf from The Phoenix Gazette, September 12, 1993).

Apparently, that's a picture and an article that have been all-but buried, until bmaz got a hold of it.

I guess McCain didn't want any proof out that there he's been helping big money rip off taxpayers for his entire career.

And that he looks like an idiot doing it. (h/t Emptywheel)

Joe Sudbay at Americablog writes McCain just obliterated the Straight Talk Express. Admits it was built on a lie:

As the stock market tanks yet again (it's down 540 points as I write this), it's only appropriate that we revisit that other banking scandal, the one John McCain had an intimate role in.

John's post below contains the stunning admission from the McCain campaign that the Keating 5 investigation was an attempt to politically smear John McCain. For years, we've been hearing that McCain's "reformer" image came from his claiming to have made amends for that scandal, which sunk 1,000 banks and cost taxpayers billions of dollars. But, now we know that McCain's reform mantle is a fraud. McCain isn't sorry for what happened. He's sorry he got caught.

* * *

McCain actually believes that the Keating 5 scandal wasn't about his lack of ethics, it was simply a political witch hunt conducted against him by "stooges." How can McCain make amends for something when he doesn't think he did anything wrong. McCain's whole reformer image is built on a lie.

On Monday, McCain's lawyer from his Keating Five days, John Dowd, held a press conference in which he stated:

"Senator [George] Mitchell [D-ME] was the [Senate] majority leader and [Democratic Senator] Howell Heflin [D-AL] was his stooge and he was doing what he was told because they had, the rest were Democrats in the hearing. So it's sort of a classic political smear job on John."

McCain campaign conference call - McCain's lawyer is doing most of the talking. (h/t John Aravosis at Americablog)

So John McCain, who wrote best-selling books about his "come to Jesus moment" of repentance for his Keating sins and reformation of his character into a "maverick" reformer, turns out to be an unrepentant and unreformed fraud.

The Obama campaign has put up a new Web site, KeatingEconomics.com, teasing a comprehensive review of McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal.

Yesterday, from the McCain campaign:

"If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

by David Safier

McCain's poll numbers are sinking, but his dignity and honor -- what little he has left -- are sinking faster. It's hard to imagine new lows in presidential politics, but Palin/McCain may be reaching down for them. If the mob-mentality responses of his crowds are any indication, those two are playing a very dangerous game.

This from the Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal

Yesterday, John McCain delivered an unhinged anti-Obama diatribe in New Mexico, and when he posed a rhetorical question -- "Who is the real Barack Obama?" -- someone shouted, "A terrorist!" McCain paused momentarily, but did not comment on the remark.

Also yesterday, Sarah Palin repeated one of her unusually stupid attacks, rehashing the nonsense that Obama "pals around" with terrorists. One man in the audience, responding to Palin's smear, shouted, "Kill him!" Palin also did not comment on the remark.

At the same Florida event, Republicans shouted abuse at journalists, hurling obscenities. The Washington Post reported, "One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

And just to top things off, last night, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania announced its belief that Obama is "a terrorist's best friend."

I never thought I'd be citiing Rudy Giuliani as the voice of reason, but here's a reasonable response from him awhile back when someone compared Democrats to terrorists -- also from Political Animal:

Jason Zengerle reminded us this morning of a speech Rudy Giuliani gave in 2006, when he was interrupted by a supporter who said terrorists reminded him of Democrats. Giuliani stopped and said, "Time out. The other thing we have to learn is that we can't get into this partisan bickering. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats have the same objectives.... Democrats are loyal Americans. Republicans are loyal Americans. I think we have better answers, but we have to respect each other."

From Rudy's mouth to McCain's ear. I don't think it will happen, but I can hope.

by John Adams

The rest of the country is finally learning what Arizonans have known for 26 years: John McCain can’t be trusted.

At the September 26 Presidential Debate, McCain claimed, “The veterans know I’ll take care of them.” Americans stand together in honoring John McCain as a veteran himself, but his negligent record in the US Senate reveals that McCain doesn’t stand with veterans. In fact, McCain’s legislative record of taking care of veterans is abysmal. The non-partisan Disabled American Veterans (DAV) gives McCain a 20% rating of his performance on veterans’ issues in the Senate (Barack Obama earns a DAV score of 80%...here's the DAV website to check the details for yourself:  http://capwiz.com/dav/keyvotes.xc/?lvl=C).

What can veterans expect from would-be President McCain? His Senate record displays his lack of trustworthiness.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has consistently and powerfully represented veterans – both as an Illinois legislator as well as United States Senator. As evidenced by his legislative record, Obama keeps faith with our veterans.

Here are just a few of the candidates’ votes on key veterans’ issues, contrasting the two candidates’ trustworthiness on veterans’ issues:

- Obama was one of 57 co-sponsors (along with Joe Biden) of the Webb GI Bill, signed into law this past June 30. In contrast, McCain not only failed to support the bill, claiming that it was too generous; he didn’t even show up in the Senate to vote on it.

- Obama introduced a bill in April 2007 to provide housing for low-income veterans (Homes for Heroes Act). Again, McCain didn’t show up for the vote. This version of the Homes for Heroes Act died, though a similar follow-up bill fortunately awaits a new vote in the Senate.

- In 2006, Obama voted for two amendments to increase funds for veterans’ medical care by $1.5 billion and expand funding for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient treatment by $450 million. McCain voted no on both; the veterans’ medical care amendment died; the outpatient treatment amendment passed.

- In 2005, Obama voted for an amendment to increase funding for veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006, and setting aside $10 million for veterans counseling services. Again, McCain voted no; this amendment died.

McCain’s claims that he’ll take care of veterans are contradicted by his record as a Senator. We need a President who will honor our veterans, not someone who glibly double-talks on the campaign trail.

Those who risk their lives to defend our country deserve Americans’ support when they come home. Barack Obama’s record shows that he is someone who consistently supports veterans’ issues, but most important, Obama has kept a bond of trust with veterans to honor their service.

And after all, isn’t trust that the most important criterion for us to consider as we select our next President?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"I'm a maverick." -- John McCain.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride.

Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone magazine (Oct. 16 issue) has a closer look at the life and career of John McCain in "Make-Believe Maverick," which reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty. Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone (Illustration by Robert Grossman).

This is a must read article, especially for any political reporter who wants to honestly dissect the "myth of McCain" that I have written about at length at this blog.  Here is the introductory section to the article:

This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

This, of course, is not the story McCain tells about himself. Few politicians have so actively, or successfully, crafted their own myth of greatness. In McCain's version of his life, he is a prodigal son who, steeled by his brutal internment in Vietnam, learned to put "country first." Remade by the Keating Five scandal that nearly wrecked his career, the story goes, McCain re-emerged as a "reformer" and a "maverick," righteously eschewing anything that "might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office."

It's a myth McCain has cultivated throughout his decades in Washington. But during the course of this year's campaign, the mask has slipped. "Let's face it," says Larry Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "John McCain made his reputation on the fact that he doesn't bend his principles for politics. That's just not true."

We have now watched McCain run twice for president. The first time he positioned himself as a principled centrist and decried the politics of Karl Rove and the influence of the religious right, imploring voters to judge candidates "by the example we set, by the way we conduct our campaigns, by the way we personally practice politics." After he lost in 2000, he jagged hard to the left — breaking with the president over taxes, drilling, judicial appointments, even flirting with joining the Democratic Party.

In his current campaign, however, McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance," promised more drilling and deeper tax cuts, even compromised his vaunted opposition to torture. Intent on winning the presidency at all costs, he has reassembled the very team that so viciously smeared him and his family eight years ago, selecting as his running mate a born-again moose hunter whose only qualification for office is her ability to electrify Rove's base. And he has engaged in a "practice of politics" so deceptive that even Rove himself has denounced it, saying that the outright lies in McCain's campaign ads go "too far" and fail the "truth test."

The missing piece of this puzzle, says a former McCain confidant who has fallen out with the senator over his neoconservatism, is a third, never realized, campaign that McCain intended to run against Bush in 2004. "McCain wanted a rematch, based on ethics, campaign finance and Enron — the corrupt relationship between Bush's team and the corporate sector," says the former friend, a prominent conservative thinker with whom McCain shared his plans over the course of several dinners in 2001. "But when 9/11 happened, McCain saw his chance to challenge Bush again was robbed. He saw 9/11 gave Bush and his failed presidency a second life. He saw Bush and Cheney's ability to draw stark contrasts between black and white, villains and good guys. And that's why McCain changed." (The McCain campaign did not respond to numerous requests for comment from Rolling Stone.)

Indeed, many leading Republicans who once admired McCain see his recent contortions to appease the GOP base as the undoing of a maverick. "John McCain's ambition overrode his basic character," says Rita Hauser, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2004. But the truth of the matter is that ambition is John McCain's basic character. Seen in the sweep of his seven-decade personal history, his pandering to the right is consistent with the only constant in his life: doing what's best for himself. To put the matter squarely: John McCain is his own special interest.

"John has made a pact with the devil," says Lincoln Chafee, the former GOP senator, who has been appalled at his one-time colleague's readiness to sacrifice principle for power. Chafee and McCain were the only Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts. They locked arms in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And they worked together in the "Gang of 14," which blocked some of Bush's worst judges from the federal bench.

"On all three — sadly, sadly, sadly — McCain has flip-flopped," Chafee says. And forget all the "Country First" sloganeering, he adds. "McCain is putting himself first. He's putting himself first in blinking neon lights."

Be sure to read the entire article.

For those of you playing a drinking game at home, I'm a maverick...

do

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

And slam bam I'm feelin' alright
Troubles take a hike in the blink of an eye
Don't need to psychoanalyze or have a stiff drink
All she's gotta do is just give me that wink

-Wink, by Neal McCoy

The McMedia set the expectations bar so low for Sarah Palin in her one debate performance that they buried the bar in the sand.  With "the soft bigotry of low expectations," how could Palin not be pronounced a success by her acolytes in the McMedia (who did the same for George W. Bush eight years ago).  Is this really the standard by which we should be judging our leaders?  Shouldn't we be demanding the best and the brightest to lead us in these dangerous times?

By the way, all the post-debate poll numbers show that Joe Biden won the debate by as much as a 2-1 margin.  The same poll numbers suggest that Sarah Palin did little to allay the fears of voters that she is unprepared to succeed to the presidency.

There is no "there" there.  Everything Sarah Palin says are pre-rehearsed talking points.  She is just a local sportscaster reading from a teleprompter or her 3x5 index cards. She may as well have a string on her back one can pull for one of a dozen prerecorded messages.

Palin stuck to the talking points prepared for her on 3x5 index cards that she kept looking down to read.  When she did not have an index card for a question, or did not want to answer the question, she announced that she would not answer the question and pivoted to an unrelated subject that she wanted to sneak in whether she had been asked a question or not.  Debate rules are meant to be broken -- I'm a maverick dontcha know, by golly!

Palin managed to string together a series of non sequitor platitudes and worn out cliches that play well to her conservative base.  At other times she destroyed the syntax of the English language and spoke incoherent gibberish.  Palin is George W. Bush in a dress.

The McMedia gave her credit for her "folksy" language and her flirtatiousness with the camera - wink, wink.  One has come to accept the waitress at the local diner to flirt in this manner to encourage a customer to leave her a good tip.  "How ya doin' Hon?  Can I freshen your cup of coffee? How 'bout a piece of homemade pie? I baked it myself!" (big smile and a wink).  This is unacceptable behavior in someone interviewing for the most important job in the world, president of the United States (Palin made it very clear in her comments that she sees John McCain as just a stepping stone to her becoming president.  I've warned you before John, "watch your back Johnny Mac.")

The few times that Palin did attempt to engage in a substantive discussion of actual facts, she got the facts wrong, or outright lied to stick to her talking points.  (See Fact Checking video below the fold).

Despite this unbelievably poor performance, the right-wing punditocracy spun Palin's debate performance as a success.  The right-wing has created an alternative reality in which reason, logic and facts no longer matter.  It is a faith-based belief system in conservative political ideology.  "Don't bother me with the facts, I know what I believe."  And according to right-wing pundits like Rich Lowry of the National Review, "all she's gotta do is just give me that wink."

I wrote a post yesterday taking Constantin Querard to task for his double standard in an email I quoted in a still earlier post. And I wrote that, once I had opened the Pandora's box of critiquing Querard's comments, I wouldn't be able to stop until I worked my way through the list.

So consider this a continuation of yesterday's post.

By way of background, Querard is a consultant for right wing Republican candidates, and I pre-judged his political positions from those taken by the candidates he works with. That was unfair of me. At my suggestion, Querard expressed his personal beliefs on a few issues in an email, which I quoted verbatim, so now it's fair for me to respond to his ideas.

First, let's look at Querard's views on education:

Obviously, I've never called for less money for public education ... I believe that choice in education will save the kids AND the public schools, although my principle concern is for the kids. Too many have already been robbed of a brighter future by failing schools. Folks who argue that choice will kill public schools are implying that, given a choice, parents won't send their kids to public schools. That is a rather damning indictment of public schools by their own defenders.

When Querard say he wants more money for private school vouchers -- that's what "school choice" means when it's used by his candidates and by John McCain -- it means there's going to be less for public education, unless the Arizona government has a bottomless pile of money I don't know about. And since something like 80% of private schools nationwide are religious schools, that means tax dollars would be funding religious education. That's a very bad idea. So no, the fear isn't that all children will abandon public schools. It's that those already in private schools and others whose parents would place them in private schools anyway when they turned five, would be supported by tax dollars we don't have, and many of those dollars would help erode the wall between church and state.

Querard's view on the environment:

I love clean energy and live pretty green myself, but I'm opposed to mandating standards.

It's lovely when good, like-minded people do what they can to clean up the environment. I try to do my part as well. But without government regulation mandating standards, voluntary good will won't do much to save us from the health problems and potential global disasters that will result if we continue to neglect the environment. Saving the planet from ecological destruction is a vital function of government today. Anyone who doesn't believe that doesn't grasp the seriousness of the situation, or figures the rapture is coming soon anyway, so why worry?

And speaking of government's role in society, here is Querard's view:

And I want a government that works and does its job. The bigger it gets, the worse it runs, and no one really disagrees with that. Government does a lot of stuff it should not be doing and it does so badly and at great expense. That's a shame because it consumes resources from those things that government should actually be doing, like providing for our safety/defense and providing a safety net for the truly needy.

As a matter of fact, I do disagree with the notion that "the bigger [government] gets, the worse it runs." I want government to get a hell of a lot bigger in the area of health care. And environmental protection. And protections against unsafe food and unsafe products. And protections from dangerous working conditions. Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I also want bigger government in the area of financial regulations -- you know, so we don't have another major economic meltdown any time soon. As for what constitutes being "truly needy": Reagan promised when he cut back on social programs in the 80s, he wouldn't cut any holes in the safety net. In fact, he tore it to shreds. The Reagan years were the first time in my life I saw homeless people wandering our cities in large numbers and read about more and more families being ground down by poverty with no relief in sight. So, though we both want a "safety net," I think our definitions of the term are miles apart.

I guess all this means Constantin Querard and I will to continue to agree to disagree. And I'm going to continue to believe the agenda of the candidates he consults for is not only wrong, but dangerous for Arizona and the U.S.

The basic definition of "maverick" is an unbranded range animal. So when you wear it as a brand, well . . .

An article in today's New York Times talks about the origin of the term:

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it . . . Unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.

According to the article, the Maverick family has a long, proud tradition of liberal leanings. One member served in FDR's administration. Another "was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society." Another is currently an emeritus member of the Texas ACLU. Needless to say, the family considers McCain and Palin's kidnapping of the term "maverick" the political equivalent of cattle rustling.

In the 60s when I was both long-haired and rebellious, I learned quickly that people who referred to themselves as "cool" definitely weren't. Those who called himself "hip" didn't merit the term.

To extend this wisdom to the present, candidates who brand the term "maverick" on their own rear ends have forfeited any claim to the title.

For more on the subject, read the long, detailed article in Rolling Stone, Make Believe Maverick.

I allowed Constantin Querard, a political consultant for over a dozen candidates on the right wing of Arizona's Republican party (including Al Melvin and Marilyn Zerull in LD-26 and David Gowan in LD-30), to have the last word in an earlier post. He stated his personal views on some political issues I raised. I considered leaving the discussion and moving on. Maybe I should just give him the last word and be done with it, I thought. But then I found Querard used a double standard for LD-26 Senate candidates Cheryl Cage (D) and Al Melvin (R), and that demanded an answer.

In the earlier post, Querard, along with stating his own beliefs, made some assertions about the stands Cage and Melvin have taken on abortion. He labeled Cage an extremist on the subject based on a box she checked on a Project Vote Smart questionnaire -- a questionnaire, by the way, that Melvin declined to fill out. The check was next to the statement, "Abortions should always be legal."

Querard himself believes abortions should be illegal, only making an exception for the life of the mother. Melvin, Querard said, takes a more moderate stand on the topic: "Al Melvin's position is actually a bit to the left of me in that he also makes the exceptions for incest and rape," he wrote.

Since Querard thinks a single answer on a questionnaire is all he needs to know about Cage's beliefs, let's see how Melvin fares using the same standard. Melvin answered a questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy, which asks candidates to support or oppose 16 statements. Candidates have the option of attaching a comment if they want to explain any of their positions. Statement 11 is, "Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother." Melvin supported it, with no qualifying statements. Cage, by the way, declined to fill out this questionnaire.

Please, Constantin, don't start getting subtle on us now by shading Melvin's answer. If Cage's position can be judged by a single check on a questionnaire, then Melvin has to be judged by the same standard. He does not support abortion in the case of rape or incest, or even when a mother's health could be endangered -- only "when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother." No exceptions. Fair's fair.

OK,I guess I've opened Pandora's Box now. I'll give into temptation and write on Querard's other statements about his views in a separate post.

(TASL) I've never been one to go after school districts for misspending funds. It tends to be a red herring used by people who are looking for an excuse not to give schools any more money. It seems to me, any multi-million dollar organization is going to have a certain amount of monetary slop built into the system. It's not only unavoidable, it's probably necessary. If you cut too close to the bone, people lack the time and the equipment to move beyond the rigid confines of their job descriptions. Being too "cost efficient" can result in the inefficiency of stagnation.

But TUSD really seems to have problems with the way it spends its money, according to people who are more knowledgeable than I. So I'm glad to see the district is reinstating the position of internal auditor it cut when budgets were tight.

Cutting a position whose purpose is to save the district money because the district doesn't have enough money for the position -- that doesn't sound like it makes a whole lot of sense. The auditor will cost about $100,000. Anyone they hire who can't find savings worth five times the salary should be fired.

This will be in addition to the recently created audit committee, a group of highly qualified volunteers who have made the district aware of some of its spending problems. One of them, Mark Stegeman, will be on the school board next year. Let's hope the econ prof brings some fiscal focus to the board. Education is about a lot more than money, but as cash starved as our schools are (have I mentioned lately that Arizona is 49th in the nation in school spending?), they need to stretch every dollar as far as they can.