Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger evaluates John McCain’s tax policy and responds, “This isn’t a flip-flop. It’s a sex-change operation.” The columnist goes on to ask the question of whether McCain is losing his way. Henninger writes :

What I’m asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn’t abandoned by his own voters?
 

It’s not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore’s assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: “If the vice president says it’s doable, I believe it’s doable.” What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn’t read “all the specifics” of the Gore plan and now, “I don’t think it’s doable without nuclear power.” It just sounds loopy.

Why as well shouldn’t the Obama camp exploit all of this? If Sen. Obama’s “inexperience” is Mr. McCain’s ace in the hole, why not trump that by asking, “Does Sen. McCain know his own mind?”

…

Yes, Sen. McCain has honor and country. Another month of illogical, impolitic remarks and Sen. McCain will erase even that. Absent a coherent message for voters, he will be one-on-one with Barack Obama in the fall. He will lose.

Looks like the McCain campaign has received its wish for more media attention and being given the scrutiny that the Obama campaign has received throughout this election process.  Like we said last week, be carefule what you wish for.

Yesterday, George W Bush held a press conference urging Congress to take up a vote on off-shore exploration thereby lifting its ban on off-shore oil drilling.  Even though his administration has done absolutely nothing, for seven years, toward energy independence.  But when it comes to drilling for more oil, this administration and McCain has concluded that it is the only way we can become more energy independent.  McCain voted against a bill that would have increased fuel economy standards in 2006 while Obama voted for the bill.  An increase in fuel economy standards would require that automobile manufacturers increase the number of miles per gallon of gas on all newly manufactured cars.  In China, because of a mandate by the Chinese government, cars get 43 miles per gallon.  Such a bill would have made a significant difference in today’s gas prices had it been adopted in 2006 when it was proposed.

Something else that this writer finds a little disturbing is a Washington Post report that campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain increased dramatically at the end of June, right after McCain made a high-profile split with environmentalists and flipped from his orginal position against off-shore drilling.  As for the Bush administration’s hand in the oil well, the Wall Street Journal reported that influential former Pentagon official Richard Perle is going into the oil business in Iraq and Kazakhstan according to sources close to the deals.  Perle was one of the security experts helping to make the case to the Bush Administration for taking down Saddam Hussein. 

Therefore, when the current President and John McCain continually push the idea that off-shore drilling is the best solution for the American people, I tend to suspect their motives.  I would trust their motives more if they at least had a past record of working toward energy independence and were not so inextricably linked to the oil industry.

Tuesday night, August 26th, has been deemed Hillary night at the Democratic National Convention.  Sen. Clinton will give her speech on what will  be the 88th anniversary of women’s right to vote.  The Senator will be joined on stage by several other female democratic senators.   Sources close to Clinton also say that there is little chance that she will be chosen as Sen. Obama’s running mate.  Many also speculate that because the vice presidential pick usually speaks on the Wednesday of Convention week, the fact that Clinton is speaking on Tuesday confirms that she is out of the running.  However, the New York senator is in serious talks with the Obama campaign about hitting the campaign trail in the next couple of weeks.

Sen. Barack Obama was accused by a couple of reporters writing for the Washington Post of over-confidence/arrogance/hubris/presumptuous, all of which have been interpreted by many folks in the African-American community as being accused of “acting too uppity.” One accusation was waged by Dana Milbank when Obama began preparing his team for a possible White House transition, something that both Bush and Gore did in the summer of 2000, but because Obama followed this tradition, he is for some reason presumptuous.  The second accusation was lodged by Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman, referencing a speech Obama gave yesterday before House democrats.  Turns out that the quote was taken and reported completely out of context.  This is the story as reported by Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post:

Obama’s Symbolic Importance

By Jonathan Weisman

Perhaps he’s beginning to believe the hype.

In his closed door meeting with House Democrats this evening, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama delivered a real zinger. According to a witness, he was waxing lyrical about last week’s trip to Europe, when he concluded, “this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for.”

The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives.

“I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he said.

This is what Sen. Obama actually said per Mark Halperin of The Page:

But, a Democrat who was in the room tells The Page: “His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: ‘It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol..’“

Always question the source.  This particular writer, Jonathan Weisman,  has a long history of misquoting and writing with a right-wing slant.  He has also been repeatedly called out for his blatant bias for presidential contender John McCain.  Though traditional media may appear to be reporting objective, unbias, news, reporters to have their own agenda.

This is an election that is ripe for voter fraud and gaming the system.  The GOP will not give up the White House easily and the same shenanigans that were in play in 2000 and 2004 will continue to be in play in 2008.  Though Karl Rove’s 2000 and 2004 fraud machine is currently under attack, it is still locked and loaded for 2008.  Also, given the fact that McCain has wholeheartedly adopted the Karl Rovian gutter politics, by any means necessary, political playbook, we as voters need to be vigilant and recognize when we are being duped by politicians, groups, or individuals attempting to disrupt the democratic process.  We have compiled a list that is not exhaustive of article excerpts profiling such nefarious tactics.  Stay on the look out for the following methods of voter suppression:

Vote Caging  Vote caging is a voter suppression tactic. The term is derived from a direct mail term. In the direct mail industry, when a third party runs a direct mailing campaign on behalf of a client organization, one of the activities undertaken is to compile all of the responses, handle contributions and to deposit received funds into the client’s account, and also update the database of names and addresses that were mailed to with the responses or corrected addresses obtained. Since some of the activities were controlled carefully (donations and deposits) and conducted in a manner similar to the activities within a “teller’s cage,” the process is called “caging” and the end result of the data entry updates and address corrections is called a “caging list.” This led to the term “voter caging” for voter registration analysis and challenges conducted via mass mailings

Robo-Calling  The nonprofit group responsible for a slew of misleading automated phone calls to black voters in North Carolina answered a few questions about the controversial campaign on Thursday, but some of the answers only beg more questions.

The D.C.-based voter-registration group Women’s Voices, Women Vote is facing accusations that it was trying to suppress the black vote in the upcoming North Carolina Democratic primary, after voters in predominantly black districts in the state began receiving automated phone calls telling them to expect a voter registration packet in the mail, even through the registration deadline had passed, and some had already registered.

Voter Disinformation Campaigns  Rev. Joe Darby, the pastor of Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston, S.C., might have been more than a little surprised by the letter he received on Friday. Drafted on what appeared to be NAACP letterhead, it informed him he could face arrest when he votes in November’s election if he’s behind on child support payments, has any unpaid traffic tickets, or has bad credit.Not only was the information blatantly false, but Darby was in a position to know that the South Carolina NAACP wouldn’t misinform black voters about fake restrictions

Purges of Voter Rolls  In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations.  Guess their color.  In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters. In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.  In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure.

Restrictive Voter ID Laws The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.” The case concerned Indiana’s voter ID law, the most restrictive in the nation, and comes just one week before the state’s presidential primary. More than 20 states currently require some form of ID at the polls.  Check your state election site to determine if your state requires identification.

Gerrymandering  The process known as redistricting in the United States is the changing of political borders. Often this means changing electoral district and constituency boundaries, usually in response to periodic census results.  However, the GOP plans to use this strategy to regain power.

Swiftboating  Get scurrilous whisper campaigns inside the hack pack press, long after they’ve been debunked. South Carolina is known for this stuff. That The Washington Post is revealing it through a long winding piece is journalism at its worst. If it came as a warning on what’s on wingnut radio that would be one thing. But what it actually does is provide a platform for a rumor campaign, not to mention a preview of things to come for Democrats. It’s John Kerry revisited, the religious version.

We will continue to update this list with additional methods to watch out for as we receive them.  Further, if you have experience other types of voter suppression leave it in the comment and we will ad them to the list.

In light of the recent tragedy in Tennessee, and the fact that the shooter had copies of right-wing books written by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage, I felt it necessary to call the imbecile that is Rush Limbaugh out.  Periodically, and when I can stomach it, I tune in to right-wing radio to try and gauge the temperament of its listeners.   I could not believe my ears yesterday when I heard Rush Limbaugh interpret the New York Times article highlighting three African-American radio talk show hosts , Warren Ballentine, Tom Joyner, Michael Baisden etc., as the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, as reinforcing the three-fifths clause.  Misinfotainer (my word) Limbaugh has concluded that the article reinforces the language of the Founding Fathers proclaiming that black folks are three-fifths of a person.  Limbaugh blew on to say that because it actually takes three black radio talk show hosts to equal one Rush Limbaugh that the article validates that blacks are only three-fifths of a person.  Yea…exactly.  It is hate-mongering like this that encourages irrationality among the already unstable, and preys on and exploits, any scintilla of racial tension that may exist amongst us.  All in the name of $400 mil.  The funny thing is…..about five minutes after Limbaugh spewed his racist conjecture, a black male caller calls in and asked Limbaugh how can the Republicans reach out more to black voters?????  Without even mentioning Limbaugh’s previous incendiary remarks?????  How any self-respecting African-American would in any way want to be associated with this person is beyond the comprehension of this writer.  I also do not understand why leaders of the Republican party pander to such a person whenever they need to shore-up support for their latest pet project. The disinformation that he spreads is harmful and absurd. Yet, his listeners call in begging him to guide them and show them the way despite the hate he spews and the complete nonsense that he sputters.  And unfortunately for those of us who can actually engage in logical thinking, he has a very, very, loud microphone.  What is also outlandishly offensive is his continual reference to female journalists as “info babes.”  And still, female listeners continue to ring in and not call him on it.  It is right-wing idiocy dissemination by Limbaugh, whose only focus is who he can most profitably exploit, who rather than contribute to the healing process is more interested in profiting from the divisions, that is really a sad commentary on free speech.  My question to Mr. Limbaugh is…….where is your moral compass?  Never mind….we know the answer.

Soon after Sen. Brack Obama’s sit-down with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press last Sunday, speculation about potential veep’s has been running rampant throughout the punditry class.  Sen. Obama said that the characteristics that he is looking for in a vice president is someone who will work hard and will be a change agent ready to shake-up Washington.  The senator went on to say, “I’m going to want somebody with independence — who’s willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I’m wrong,” he said. “And I’m going to want somebody who shares a vision of the country: where we need to go — that we’ve got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how politics work, how business is done in Washington.”

Tim Kaine seems to fit the bill.  Politico reports:

As Senator Barack Obama turns to the choice of his running mate, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has emerged as one of the campaign’s potential finalists, sources familiar with conversations in Richmond and in Chicago said.

Kaine, an early Obama supporter whose biography nicely dovetails with the Illinois senator’s, “ranks very, very high on the short list,” said a source who has spoken recently to senior Obama aides about Kaine.

Kaine “is getting a critical examination,” the source said.

The 50-year-old Virginia governor is among a handful of logical, and much-discussed, choices to join Obama on the campaign trail. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and Delaware Senator Joe Biden are among others frequently mentioned.

This writer thinks that Kaine would be a great pick!

Alluding to his temper when things don’t go his way, Sen. John McCain told George Stephanopoulos on This Week  that with respect to the Pentagon policy preventing Obama from visiting the military hospital in Germany as part of a campaign trip, ”if I was there and wanted to be there there would have been a seismic event” had they prevented him from seeing the troops.  However, McCain’s track record with respect to our wounded warriors and their healthcare very much suggest otherwise.  McCain has repeatedly either voted against pro-veteran legislation, or not bothered to even show up to vote at all for such legislation.  So my question to John McCain is….where was the “seismic event” when key pieces of legislation that provided our “gravely wounded” veterans with healthcare, and other services, came up for a vote in the Senate and in many cases you opposed the legislation or didn’t even bother to show up to vote?  One could only conclude, given your statement on This Week, that you really didn’t “want to be there.”  Perhaps you can provide an explanation for your vote or lack thereof on the following pro-veteran legislation.  The following list is courtesy of the AFL-CIO.

McCain did not support the Medicare Bill that prevented a decrease in medical services for Military Families.  Cuts in physicians Medicare payments would have resulted in an inability of physicians to continue to treat Medicare patients. This bill is important to veterans because of Tricare.  Tricare payouts are indexed to Medicare, therefore, if Medicare payments are cut so are Tricare payments.  If the bill had not passed, it would be much more difficult for military families to find doctors willing to treat them. Apparently, the insurance companies were against this bill also.

McCain Opposes the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Is Too Generous.McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would “encourage more people to leave the military.” (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)

McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans’ Health Care.Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)

Opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care.McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)

McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans’ Care.McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)

Voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health Facilities.McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)

McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders.McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)

McCain Voted in Support of Disabled Veterans Only 25 Percent of the Time from 2004-2005. While McCain claims he “has been a leading advocate” for veterans with disabilities, statistics show he supported the Disabled American Veterans’ interests only 25 percent of the time in 2004-2005. In 2006, that figure slipped to 20 percent of the time. (Project Vote Smart)

McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans.McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-ofliving adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)

INCLUDING BETTER ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR GUARD AND RESERVISTS

McCain Opposed Increasing Spending on TRICARE and Giving Greater Access to National Guard and Reservists.Although his campaign website devotes a large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to give members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families greater access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy. (www.johnmccain.com/Informing/ Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm; S.Amdt. 324 to S.C.R. 23, Vote 81, 3/25/03)

McCAIN ALSO VOTED TO OUTSOURCE JOBS AT MILITARY FACILITIES

McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs.McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)

He Also Supported Outsourcing at Walter Reed.McCain opposed an amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center—outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a “disgrace.” (S.Amdt. 4895 to H.R. 5631, Vote 234, 9/6/06; Speech to VFW in Kansas City, Mo., 4/4/08)

AND HE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR THE VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

2003: McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)

2001: McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)

2000: McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)

1999: McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)

1996: McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)

1995: McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)

1995: McCain Voted Against Closing Tax Loopholes to Increase Veterans Funding by $74 Million. McCain voted against eliminating tax breaks and closing tax loopholes to provide revenue to restore some of the proposed cuts in Veterans Affairs spending. (S.C.R. 13, Vote 226, 5/25/95)

1994: McCain Voted Against Funding the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of nine senators to vote against appropriating $90 billion in budget authority for the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development departments. (H.R. 4624, Vote 306, 9/27/94)

So Sen. McCain though you say that you visited the troops abroad, you do not seem to support their interest back at home.  Why is that?  Though you said that you would never use the troops as a political issue, in your latest television ad you do just that.  You star the troops front, line, and center in an attack aimed at Sen. Obama.  Never mind that in your allegation that Obama does not visit the troops, you use footage of him shooting hoops….WITH THE TROOPS in the Middle East.  You also use the troops in your false allegation that Obama did not visit the troops because there could be no television cameras.  The allegation is disproved by the many visits that Sen. Obama has made to Walter Reed as well as several visits with the troops sans television cameras during his Middle East trip.

And by the way, McCain’s Republican colleague, Chuck Hagel, said the following about Obama’s decision regarding the German military hospital visit on Face the Nation on Sunday:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator Reed, now you’ve done a lot of these trips. They call them “codels,” “congressional delegations,” go. Are you ever allowed to take cameras when you go in to visit wounded troops? I thought that was sort of the general rule that everybody knew about.

JACK REED: I don’t think Senator Obama would have done that. Senator Hagel, Senator Obama and I visited the combat support hospital at Baghdad to thank those nurses, those doctors, to see patients that were there, to bring a bit of greetings from home and profound thanks. That should be in the ad that Senator McCain is running. I think Senator Obama made a very wise choice. Any suggestion that a visit to a military hospital would be political, he made the wise choice not to go. But when you were in Baghdad we made a point at the end of a very exhausting day to go in and see these magnificent young Americans and those doctors and nurses that give such tremendous care without a lot of fanfare, just to say thanks. He did it-the same thing. We went-we didn’t stay in Kabul. We went to Jalalabad to see the soldiers of the 173rd. We stopped in Basra to see our soldiers down there. We went into Anbar province to see soldiers there. That is a completely distorted, and, I think, inappropriate advertisement.

CHUCK HAGEL: Let me add to that. As you know, Bob, the congressional delegation that you referred to ended when we parted in Jordan. At that point, it was a political trip for Senator Obama. I think it would have been inappropriate for him and certainly he would have been criticized by the McCain people and the press and probably should have been if on a political trip in Europe paid for by political funds-not the taxpayers-to go, essentially, then and be accused of using our wounded men and women as props for his campaign. I think the judgment there-and I don’t know the facts by the way. I know what you’ve just read. No one has asked me about it other than what you’ve just asked about. But I think it would be totally inappropriate for him on a campaign trip to go to a military hospital and use those soldiers as props. So I think he probably, based on what I know, he did the right thing. We saw troops everywhere we went on the congressional delegation. We went out of our way to see those troops. We wanted to see those troops. And that’s part of our job to see those troops, by the way, and listen to those troops, Bob. And we did.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think that ad was appropriate?

CHUCK HAGEL: I do not think it was appropriate.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You do not.

CHUCK HAGEL: I do not.

First Condoleeza Rice issues a memo to Foreign Service workers and diplomats abroad stating that they are banned from attending Obama’s speech given in Berlin yesterday because they are not allowed to show favoritism for a specific candidate.  Rice issued the memo, all of a sudden, just before Sen. Obama’s arrival in Berlin. 

Now the Pentagon tells Obama that he is not allowed to visit the military hospital as part of a political trip (Pentagon policy) and the McCain campaign (with full knowledge of the Pentagon policy) criticizes Sen. Obama for not visiting the hospital.  Unbelievable!!  Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC explained the situation this morning.

Mitchell:The background on the military flap is that they [Obama campaign] had clearly planned a trip to Ramstein [AFB].  They were planning to visit the injured troops. And then the Pentagon explained that they couldn’t go as part of a political trip.  The Obama campaign thought that they could go, leave the press corps on the tarmac, and then take off with military escort and make this one last visit.  As he did in Iraq, by the way.  He visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone, without photographers, as part of the congressional delegation. But the military said that the rules are that he could only go as part of a previously-arranged congressional delegation, to Ramstein

Clearly, people in the campaign are really angry. They had wanted this to be the final stop on the trip here in Germany, and to do it without the press corps, just to do it on his own.  But the objections of the military are that he is now being staffed by campaign aides, not by his Senate staff, who are the people of course with him when he went with Hagel and Jack Reed in Iraq. So, you know, the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon. They feel that the military are drawing some lines–they’re not saying this publicly of course–but drawing lines that they might have drawn for other people.  He was planning to just go by himself, not with cameras, not with any entourage, as he had done in Walter Reed in the past in Washington, as he did in Iraq. Joe

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It’s curious, if that’s the case, why the campaign didn’t make that announcement yesterday, and allowed stories to go like this.  I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of he said/she said in the days to come about this.

MITCHELL: But they thought that they couldn’t win. Yeah. They thought that they were, you know, you know, no-win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives and, that’s the sort of scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who had something to do with this. But that is, perhaps, just the normal political paranoia of the season

It appears that the McCain campaign may have played a part in this sabotage as well. It is also apparent that the White House has become an inside McCain campaign operative….with our tax dollars by the way. 

Sen Barack Obama will be in the DC metro area next week and ProgressPolitics has tickets available for the event.  If you live in the DC metro area or will be in the area on Tuesday and would like to see Sen. Obama please send us an email at progress@progresspolitics.com.  This will be a fundraising luncheon and will probably be the last opportunity to see the Senator in the DC metro area until well after the Democratic Convention.  There are two ticket levels available: $1,000 tickets for priority seating, photo-op, and a VIP reception.  There are also $500 tickets available to encourage young professionals, students, and grassroots donors to attend.

If this is not a reason to suspect Sen. John McCain’s judgment I don’t know what is.  Last Monday, Rush Limbaugh suggested on his show that John McCain go out to an oil rig and give a speech in support of his proposal to drill offshore.  A great photo-op said Limbaugh.   Yesterday, all of sudden, the McCain campaign announces that it will be giving a speech from an oil rig to counter Obama’s speech in Berlin. Are you serious???  McCain is taking strategy suggestions from the guy who proclaims himself the leader of the dittoheads…seriously…….I mean seriously!! 

A funny thing happened on the way to the rig.  The actual rig where McCain was set to deliver his speech is very near the 400,000 gallon oil spill that occurred yesterday in the Mississippi River.  There is a time when you have to ask yourself……is the universe trying to tell me something?   I can’t remember when the last time we had an oil spill this big….and the day before McCain campaign is scheduled to give a speech on how offshore drilling is the panacea for solving all our energy problems. 

This is a description of the disaster by a local paper:

Residents in Algiers, Gretna, St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish are also being asked to conserve water, as water intakes for those communities are closed to prevent contamination of the drinking water supply. Water flowing through the tap is from reserve supplies, which could run out in many areas by afternoon or early evening, officials said.

Oil from the spill is visible along the New Orleans riverfront, with a thick coat of black muck washing up along the rocks near the Moonwalk. Farther away from the bank, the muck broke off into small islands.

A thick blanket of oil stuck to the hull of a Coast Guard cutter patrolling the area between the wrecked barge and the riverfront near the Aquarium of the Americas. The surrounding air there smells like it would near a gas station or in a traffic jam, only stronger.

The McCain campaign claims that the photo-op was cancelled due to weather.  WE THINK NOT!  An oil spill of this magnitude does not exactly bolster McCain’s position for offshore drilling.  Can you say poetic justice??!

Not to mention the fact that this is what happens when you take campaign strategy advice from, of all people, Rush Limbaugh!!  Are you kidding me? 

Why the media is not shining a bright spotlight on these huge lapses by Sen. John McCain is beyond the belief of this writer.  This person is auditioning to run this country for petes sake!!!!  Sen. John McCain has consistently demonstrated his inability to keep track of world events, names, places, past positions, and past statements.  Just last week, McCain released security information regarding Obama’s Middle East trip!  Such a slip is unprecedented in presidential politics, yet the main stream media continues to ignore or treat such gaffes as insignificant.  The MSM continues to rely on McCain’s lengthy history in the Senate and POW status as proof of his competency for the job of President of the United States of America. Yesterday, the Senator accused Obama of wanting “to lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”  Unprecedented!  No presidential candidate in history has ever accused another candidate of such nefariousness. Once, maybe twice, but McCain’s continuous memory lapses, or confusion, or blatant untruths, or all of the above, are causing serious doubts as to whether he is capable of being the next leader of the free world. 

And the latest is a DOOZY! 

In an interview last night with CBS anchor Katie Couric, John McCain made a huge blunder while claiming that Barack Obama does not understand foreign policy.  The IRONY!!!!!

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it BEGAN the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that’s effective. We have a legal system that’s working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts, including an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda’s not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

Senator McCain says that it was the SURGE that BEGAN the Anbar Awakening. Well Senator, the Anbar Awakening BEGAN in 2006 and the SURGE did not happen until 2007.  This is a basic fact that even a congressional page is able to grasp.  Yet McCain is unable to recall this basic timeline to make his faulty point that Obama does not understand the significance of the SURGE.  McCain has been pushing how he was right about the SURGE and it is because of the SURGE that violence in Iraq has decreased.  The problem is….McCain seems to have lost track of when the SURGE began.  Had he recalled the proper order of events he may have realized that his point was built on a faulty premise.  The McCain campaign attempts damage control by claiming that McCain’s explanation is in line with General Petraeus’ explanation.  However, Petraeus said that the Anbar Awakening began in 2006 and that the SURGE may have helped the process when it began in 2007.  Had McCain consulted with Gen. Petraeus, like he accuses Obama of not doing, about how and when the Anbar Awakening began, Petraeus could have explained to him that the Awakening began way before even he, Petraeus, came onto the scene and thus at least six months before the SURGE happened.  Side note to Joe Scarborough: apparently you think that viewers should substitute your judgment for that of  Gen. Petraeus.  Scarborough claimed that like the Invasion of Normandi helped during World War II, the SURGE helped the war in Iraq, and it was only the SURGE that caused conditions on the ground to improve.  Wrong.  Your conclusion is incorrect on its face but lets get to the point.  Mr. Scarborough, that is not what John McCain claimed.  And in your failure to grasp the gaffe, you are attempting to introduce a red herring to the argument.  The gaffe is that McCain said that the SURGE BEGAN the Anbar Awakening, not that it helped.  That my friend is a BLUNDER because the ANBAR Awakening BEGAN a year earlier.  Your smug disengeniousness tells this writer that you are attempting to change the focus in order to change the narrative….cover up?  Nice try.

Lets discuss an even bigger story.  Why did CBS fail to report on such a significant gaffe?  CBS edited out McCain’s original response from the video and replaced it with a different answer given by McCain in response to a completely different question.  However,  CBS neglected to delete the Arizona senator’s original response to the question from the transcript. Why would CBS  not report on such a blunder?  Incompetence? Cover-up? I look forward to hearing the network’s explanation. This is irresponsible and incompetent journalism at best and duplicitous at worst.  Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE! 

Write to CBS to express your outrage and demand an explanation.

CBS Email: evening@cbsnews.com

As for McCain, Sen. McCain goaded Obama for weeks to go to the Middle East in his effort to set a trap for the Illinois senator.  Turns out that thus far the trip has been a boon for Obama and backfired on McCain.  The McCain campaign and the RIGHT has been ”whining” all week about the amount of press coverage Sen. Obama is receiving.  Looks like McCain is the candidate that has been caught up during Obama’s Middle East trip.  This is the person whose alleged grasp of foreign affairs and basic political facts has never been questioned or tested, just ASSUMED.

So the Right and the McCain campaign want more media attention on its candidate, this writer agrees.  John McCain definitely needs more media attention and scrutiny.  Message to the McCain campaign……..be careful about what you wish for.

UPDATE x1:  So, the McCain campaign cancelled its press availability for today without giving a reason.  I wonder what happened (snark)?? Ben Smith from Politico notes possible reasons:

He hasn’t explained what he meant by juggling the timeline on the surge and Awakening (though his staff did the best salvage job possible); whether he meant that Obama was deliberately selling out the country; whether he shares his campaign’s grievance with the press; or what he thinks of his staff’s genocide-themed attack.

UPDATE x2:  Apparently, CBS has decided to imploy the don’t believe your lying eyes defense.  Today the network released the following statement in response to the charge of unethical and deceitful journalism. CBS News Senior Vice President Paul Friedman said:

The report was edited under extreme time constraints and one piece of tape was put in the wrong order. Fortunately, this did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying.

To claim that its editing did not in any way distort McCain’s answer is insulting to its viewers.

Roll the tape…….Nuff said.

After its controversial cover last week, the New Yorker got a small taste of backlash when it was told by the Obama campaign that it would not be able to accommodate the magazine for its Middle East-European tour.  Apparently,……the plane was full.  Ouch!!  The magazine’s attempt at a satiracal cover backfired last week when it portrayed Sen. Barack Obama as a Muslim and his wife Michelle Obama as a black militant.  The magazine cover was widely panned as “tasteless and offensive.”  Note to New Yorker….when you have to spend a week explaining intended “satire,” you have missed the mark.  Not to mention giving the right-wing more material that can be used against the presumptive democratic nominee originating from a purported supporter. Bad MOve!! My question is…does the New Yorker have any women or African-Americans on its staff?  Second question…did they ask them their opinion?  Portraying Michelle Obama in this ridiculous caricature plays right into the racist, anti-feminist, right-wing hysteria, and aids the Right’s concerted effort to attack the Senator through his wife.  Through his wife!  Last week, one prominent member of the right-wing lunatic fringe spent his entire three-hour radio slot bashing Michelle Obama!  Absolutely shameful!  The media should be mindful that through its “shock jock” mentality it has a tendency to push the agenda of the right lunatic fringe unbeknownst to such media.   There are tremendous cost, in this case to women and African-Americans, associated with releasing shock headlines for the purpose of spurring irrelevant controversy.  I have yet to come across a single person that found the New Yorker cover proper satire.

Uh Oh Sen. McCain!  The McCain campaign might not want to continue its narrative of ”the SURGE is working” regarding Iraq.  In the original interview from SpiegelOnline, Maliki fails to mention the SURGE as one of the contributing factors responsible for the decreasing violence in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

Today on the Today Show, Meredith Vieira calls Sen. John McCain on the carpet regarding his criticism of Obama for not holding Afghanistan hearings when he, Sen. McCain, has missed all six Senate hearings held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan of which he has been a member for the last two years.  Vieira pointedly asked McCain “where is your accountability???”   McCain rambled on for a bit about how he has been to Afghanistan a few times and how the SURGE worked.  He continued his ramble, the SURGE is working, completely dodging the question.  Meredith then questioned him about his past statements on the economy and Phil Gramm! He rambled and dodge again.  Even continued talking over Meredith in an obvious attempt to ignore follow-up questions.  Great interview!  Finally, someone in the main stream media wakes up. 
Follow link to video

The hypocrisy of John McCain continued yesterday when he self-righteously accused Obama of not holding a hearing on Afghanistan.  Under the headline: Hearing-Gate Exposed! McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama, ABC reports that John McCain has a worse record of Afghanistan hearing attendance than Barack Obama ever had.  

ABC Reports: It turns out that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past two years than Obama’s one. Which is a nice way of saying, McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee’s six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.

ABC furter reported: The findings are surprising given the fact that the McCain campaign loudly criticized Obama this week for failing to schedule any hearings on Afghanistan in the last year and a half.  Obama chairs the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight of military operations in Afghanistan.

The McCain campaign has a lot of chutzpah continuing to criticize Obama over and over again for things that he himself is guilty of.  Does he not realize that all of his statements are easily verifiable?  John McCain has not showed up for a single vote in the Senate since April.

The Obama campaign just released their June numbers and what numbers they were.  The Obama campaign raised a whopping $52 million dollars!  The average donation was $68.  I guess the report in the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal that he raised only $30 million was merely wishful thinking on the Journal’s part.  The paper is said to be “embarrassed” by its mistake.  I bet they are.  This is more than double the $22 million raised by the McCain campaign.  The Obama campaign is still lagging behind the GOP in terms of money on hand, McCain and the GOP has $100 million to the Obama campaign’s $72 million.  However, the Obama campaign is moving in the right direction.  $52 MILLION!  YES THEY DID!!

In light of the recent fall of IndyMac, the second largest bank failure in the U.S., and the announcement by the FDIC that 90 additional banks are on their “problem” list…people want to know what their options are with respect to protecting their money. 

First, make sure that your bank is FDIC insured.  If it is not, there is no protection.  If your bank is FDIC insured, the FDIC insures up to $100,000 of deposits per individual account per insured bank or savings association.  Therefore, it stands to reason that if you have more than 100,000 in a single account with a single bank, you may want to split it up between several institutions so that you are below the FDIC ceiling and thereby protected. 

Second, individual retirement accounts or IRA’s are insured up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank.

Third, customers can either go the FDIC website and use the Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator to calculate their exposure/risk or talk with their bank manager.  Customers can also call 1-877-ASK-FDIC.

Fourth, for uninsured funds there is some hope for recovery but it takes a while.  When a bank goes into receivership all of its assetts are sold and the money accrued is used to pay the banks creditors and depositers.  In most instances a depositer can receive at least some if not all of his/her money.  However, the receivership process is a long and drawn out process that can take years to complete.

Fifth, when a bank fails depositers should have access to the insured portion of their deposits.  The FDIC either appoints another bank to take over the failed bank’s operations or the FDIC itself takes over the opperations of the bank.

Sixth, there are not really any warning signs except the FDIC’s list of “problem” banks which is not published. Even the banks on the list will not necessarily fail and the majority will continue to do business.  It is usually a surprise when a bank is about to go under.

Finally, knowlege is power.  Make sure you are informed as to your accounts, i.e., know how your accounts are structured, what accounts you have, and whose name is listed on your accounts (joint, business, etc.).  Go to the FDIC website and read the rules.  Also, diversify your deposits by making sure that you do not have more than $100, 000 deposited at any one institution. 

Sen. John McCain made a major foreign policy shift with respect to Afghanistan yesterday when he said that we should transfer US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Prior to yesterday’s change in strategy, McCain had been pushing for NATO to send troops to Afghanistan rather than the US troop transfer that Obama has been proposing for almost a year now.  But wait, Obama’s position has always been to send at least TWO brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Months and months later McCain all of sudden has an epiphany and says, lets send, “THREE brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan.”  McCain changed his policy yesterday after Obama wrote an Op-Ed last Sunday highlighting this approach.  As for who makes the better Commander-in-Chief, it looks like McCain is doing more following than leading in his approach to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Judgment.

There was also another interesting development that occurred last night.  The Bush administration announced that it will be making a major policy direction shift and following Obama’s “naive” foreign policy strategy.  After a year of criticizing Obama for his willingness to meet with our enemies, the Bush administration has decided to do just that…..again!  First, with Korea and now with Iran. Our third highest ranking diplomat, William Burns, will meet with Iran’s top nuclear negotiator.  Up until this point, the Bush administration has refused to even sit down with Iran.  Obama hates to say I told you so.  But he did tell you so.  The disastrous foreign policy of the current administration has resulted in severe consequences to our nation.  It’s nice to see that they are following a sound foreign policy approach for a CHANGE.  Judgment

Yesterday the Senate voted to override the President’s veto on a Medicare bill that would protect doctors from cuts in Medicare payments.  This is the fourth bill to become law over President Bush’s veto.  This is a huge bit of good news for seniors, veterans, and the disabled.  Cuts in physicians Medicare payments would have resulted in an inability of physicians to continue to treat Medicare patients who are made up primarily of seniors and low income.  Has anyone mentioned to McCain that Arizona has a huge senior population that rely heavily on Medicare for obtaining healthcare?  In addition, another significant group that stands to benefit enormously are veterans.  Yet Sen. McCain was nowhere to be found.  What does McCain have against veterans?  This is the second vote significantly affecting veterans that the Arizona senator has failed to support.  He did not support the GI bill and now he did not show up to support this one.  This bill is important to veterans because of Tricare.  Tricare payouts are indexed to Medicare, therefore, if Medicare payments are cut so are Tricare payments.  If the bill had not passed, it would be much more difficult for military families to find doctors that will treat them.  I have said this before but this is still shameful.  Why would McCain not support such an important bill you ask?  Well, it seems that the opposition opposed the bill because it decreases insurance company payouts that were being used by such companies to bankroll increasing physician fees.  This is the reason why Obama is leading McCain in McCain’s home state of Arizona.  The Zogby poll has Obama leading McCain in Arizona 42% to 39%.  McCain actually had to campaign in his own home state this past weekend.

After Phil Gramm last week calling the American people have become”a nation of whiners,” and that the United States was in a “mental recession.”  It is being reported that McCain has released him from his duties. 

It is surprising that McCain chose as one of his top advisers a person that had one of the highest profile, disastrous campaigns in recent history.  Gramm spent 20 million dollars in his 1996 presidential bid to receive a total of 8 delegates.  This is McCain’s top economic advisor and the person who designed McCain’s economic plan? 

Judgment.

By Barack Obama 

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

George W. Bush has decided to lift the Executive off-shore drilling ban in an effort to goad Congress into lifting its ban.  I guess he forgot that the oil companies already have 1000’s of leases for millions of acres of oilfields that they have not bothered to drill on.  Fortunately, the President also needs Congress to lift its legislative ban in order to begin exploration.  As we have mentioned here before, off-shore drilling will produce zero short term benefits to our oil crisis but would have long term repercussions to our coastlines.  The negligible affect that drilling would have on gas prices would not accur until 2030. The ten year timeline being pushed by the GOP  is the timeline for pumping the oil.  Any consumer benefit would not be felt until twelve or thirteen years following.  By then we will have alternative energy mechanisms in place so that the drilling and its minor benefit will be moot.  Sen. Barack Obama proposes giving a $1000 middle class tax cut that would go to 95 percent of all families and off-set the burden that such skyrocketing gas prices have presented.  In addition, Obama proposes investing in renewable energy sources for the long term.  While the Bush-McCain solution would only worsen our addiction to oil by increasing our dependence.  McCain claims that he would like to employ a cocktail of solutions to solve the energy crisis, but including off-shore drilling in his mixture is unnecessary and meaningless.  We have the technology and supply on hand today (wind, solar, biomass, strategic petroleum reserves) to affect the price of gas, so giving oil companies more oilfields to hoard in their reserve is just greed and completely pointless.  This solution does nothing more than increase the value of the stock of oil companies.  One other possible piece of legislation affecting gas and oil prices that Congress plans to address next week is to the Enron loophole.  The democrats in Congress plan to introduce a Speculation bill next week that will address the loophole.

As for the Bush-McCain plan, exactly the type of sensible solution that would be utilized by a drug addict.