I wasn't quite sure what he meant about vetoing the first bill with pork in it since they are generally buried in important bills which can't be vetoed.  Isnt that the whole problem?

Easy.  It's the RNC hermeneutic of "The Hunting of the Snark"!

This is what it means: Cheney-Ridge-Ashcroft in drag.  Not even in office and they are using "national security" to stonewall investigations.

This, from Anchorage News. www.adn.com/.../516641.html

You can't invent this stuff.

"'Threat'?

Palin's lawyer tries to play Secret Service card

Gov. Sarah Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, made an absurd threat in his battle to get the Legislature to back off its ethics investigation of the governor and her staff.

Van Flein said legislative investigator Steve Branchflower tried to call First Gentleman Todd Palin directly on "a secure and confidential line. This represents a serious security breach that we may be obligated to report to the Secret Service."

Hello? Branchflower is acting on behalf of the Legislature. That's a security breach?

Lawyers are supposed to vigorously represent their clients, but claiming that a legislative investigator's phone call may be a security matter worthy of Secret Service attention is ridiculous.

Gov. Palin should keep her legal attack dog on a shorter leash."

I think this captures it well

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../c_09052008_520.jpg

Dbhuff, it does capture things well. Toles is awesome.

The thing is, there is a lot of cognitive dissonance caused by the speech.  This is what he said:

"All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington."

But then, he does not even know what the internet is.  Does he know anything at all about "information technology" and what it means?  

And "we have to catch up to history"?  One might quibble about the inanities of Obama's speech, but they are not absurd.  "catch up to history", though?

I think there's a devastating Obama ad to be made from McCain's speech. His vague calls for "reform" without any specifics echoed, in some stretches almost thought for thought, George W. Bush's similar vague calls for "reform" without any specifics from the 2000 campaign. A quick series of shots of Bush then, McCain now making the same promises, could be devastating.

THE AMBIGUITIES OF 'REFORM'.... In his acceptance speech last night, John McCain once again emphasized his desire to "reform government." He wasn't specific about what kind of reform, or even what he thinks "reform" means. There was a point, about...

Rhubarbs, what a fantastic idea! Have you emailed the Obama campaign? I'd totally forgotten about Bush's reform note. Now you mention it memories of the GOP 2000 convention sickeningly return to mind. How very very long ago, so very much lying and denial since. *Sigh*

A while ago Toles was TNR's cartoonist for a brief period.  I wonder what happened?

"Tonight, in this hall, we resolve to be, not the party of repose, but the party of reform."

It occurs to me that one could argue, from a certain perspective, that Bush did indeed reform much within "Warshington" during his 2 terms...

I agree on the cognitive dissonance and the ideas for Obama's next ads. (an today, playing the role of ditto-head: me)

Here, here, Rhubarbs, et al.  How about another ad that juxtaposes McCain's (and Palin's) RNC blather with actual pictures of the pork now in the State of Alaska, there as a consequence of his running mate?

John McCain is so "against" the "revolving door" by which senators become lobbyists that he opened his convention with a speech by Fred Thompson--a man who not only began his career as a lobbyist, but one who, after he left the Senate in 2002 (after serving all of one whole term!), went back to being a lobbyist, this time for a London-based company, Equitas.  On top of that, both of Thompson's sons are lobbyists and when Thompson left the Senate, he funneled funds from his campaign PAC to the lobbying firm of one of his sons.  So if John McCain is going to lecture the country about reforming the "revolving door" maybe he should start by purging his own convention (not to mention his campaign staff) of professional Senators-cum-lobbyists.  Hypocrisy at its finest.

A question for Rhubarbs.  Are you a god?

(See "Ghostbusters" for the correct answer)

sportdoc62, a Wellstone '90 style ad hitting Palin for her porcine ways would be fantastic. Have an Alaska Democrat rush through pictures of all the federal pork projects Palin pushed for as mayor and governor, including the Bridge to Nowhere, in sped-up-camera style because it's hard to cram all that pork into a mere 30 seconds. Put a running price tally at the bottom with mechanical register "ch-ching" noise for each example.

The other thing I'd like to see, though this might be better for a debate gotcha, is to figure out exactly how much money McCain's tax plans would save he and his wife together. It's probably in the neighborhood of $50,000 to $95,000, if I'm reading it right. Then, while pointing out that Obama's tax plan would cut most Americans' taxes twice as much (about $2000 per year for Obama, compared to about $1100 per year for McCain), turn to McCain and say, "While your tax plan takes an extra thousand dollars out of the paychecks of ordinary Americans, you cut your own personal taxes by seventy thousand dollars a year. John, that's not putting your country first." Hammer at the ways that McCain's policies benefit narrow special interests, including himself, with little benefit for the rest of us. That's how you kill the GOP's "country first" garbage.

And how much money Sarah and her brood have collected from the oil royalty fund at the expense of the gasoline consumers in the rest of the country.

That's right, Rhubarbs. Bush claimed he was a "reformer with results", didn't he?

stanmvp48: Most of the principal of the Alaska Permanent Fund comes from a share of the royalty oil. The money goes from your pockets to the state of Alaska instead of your pockets to the oil companies, and has no impact on price. The Dividends come from investment income earned from the prinicpal of the fund.

"The Justice Department, meanwhile, has been stocked with unqualified movement conservatives, and its internship program was illegally politicized by Monica Goodling. Are McCain and Palin going to grab by the "scruff of the neck" all of those Republican loyalists in the federal government who got hired because of their fealty to Bush rather than their competence? As far as I can tell, McCain has never promised anything of the sort."

But I thought there's a tradition of the new president always firing all the top attorneys in the Justice Dept? So isn't it pretty plausible that McCain will do this?

But since you are asking, $3267 per person this year from the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, including Sarah's $1200 "energy rebate".

Rhubarbs et al:  Forget it.  And while you're at it, forget making McCain into Bush 3.  McCain has actually put himself in line with Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold et al to sponsor "reform" legislation.  Do you really want to contrast him with Mr. vote "present" on tough political issues; do you really want to give McCain an enhanced opportunity to challenge Obama's vote for ethanol subsidies, which have been a complete disaster for consumers?  Do you really want to tie him to a Democratic congress that is as unpopular as the Republican congress that preceded it (and working toward being as corrupt as the Republicans were, and as were the Democrats that preceded them for 40 years. Remember Dan Rostenkowski?).   Are you aware that the present Congress is less popular than Bush?  

I'm a Republican, and I'm planning to vote for McCain, with reservations.  I voted twice for Bill Clinton, with reservations.

My suggestion would be that you press your candidate to run on simple themes: 1) the present Republican administration has made big mistakes and has lost the confidence of the people; 2) the present Republican administration has been more bellicose than prudence would dictate, and has unnecessarily reduced our standing with our "friends" in the world; and 3) Obama's announced economic policies are closer to Clinton's, while McClain's economic policies are closer to Bush's. Period!  If you do that I think you will win.

But, I think a huge hunk of the Democratic base wants more.  They want rot fleisch fur dei hunde, payback, etc., etc., etc.  So they will push the campaign where it would be unwise to go.  Have at me! Am I wrong?

"What does McCain actually plan to change about government?"

What does Obama?

Nice touch with 'Crusade'. This place has become nothing less than Shill Central. I suppose there is a degree of honesty in that. Why bother with any pretense of objectivity?

mgmax - besides flushing out the corrupt, incomptent toxic waste dump that is the Republican party? Not so much.

And replacing it with the Democratic Chicago machine?  Let's get real about things for a minute.  The only change you can absolutely take to the bank is that Patrick Fitzgerald will be removed as federal prosecutor in Illinois and replaced with some toothless hack who'll leave Mayor Daley alone.  If you have fantasies that Obama is some white (n.p.i.) knight out to root out corruption, you're deluding yourself about who got him this far.

I don't think Obama is anything more than a talented politician with a remarkably prudent temperment and plans for the times.  I don't agree with him on everything and I don't expect any politician to do that much anyway. I expect she or he to set the tone at a macro level, but we're responsible for our own country.  I'm looking for someone to demand that we, as individuals are accountable to it and stop feeling entitled to everything for nothing.  I don't see that in Obama, but maybe some semblence of it.

Although he leans left, he's not rigidly ideological. He's stated twice that his foreign policy model will be that of George Bush 1, which is fine by me.  That's it.  No miracles, just the hard work of governing responsibly and intelligently, rather than with histrionics and lazy ideological platitudes.  

I don't think John McCain or his gruesome Hail Mary have the intelligence or temperment to do any of this wisely or effectively.  Certainly not honestly.

I'll be honest, I don't care about Chicago politics.  I will say I doubt someone as high profile as Fitzgerald would be removed by Obama, he's hardly a bullying mudslinger.  Fitzgerald (a hero of mine BTW) would be much more likely to be removed under Republicans for having independent thought and insisting that everyone is accountable to the American people and the law.  They don't like that.

I can't imagine how anyone in their right minds would consider rewarding the party who befouled this country so profoundly with another shot at making it worse.  Just so they can sit around and feel better about showing those arugula eaters whats what.  I'll call that what it is: moronic.

Forget all the complications.  This election is going to be decided on a very simple negative proposition.  Which do the majority (or maybe plurality) of voters find scarier:

The prospect of President John McCain as the last check on an overwhelmingly Democratic congress.

OR

The prospect of a President Obama, whose record to date leans very far Left, leading almost unimpeded an overwhelmingly Democratic (and Left) congress.

McCain will be in a position to set a good tone and perhaps operate cooperatively with an Opposition Congress.  While at the same time, presenting beyond our shores, a more determined and formidable United States.

Obama, like the Prime Minister in a parliamentary government, will be in a position-- unless the Blue Dogs stop him-- to push through what about half the country will consider a very radical and Left agenda.

In my opinion, it is on that issue of fear or fear not that the election will be determined.

ChanRobt,

Please enlighten us as to Obama's "very radical and Left agenda."  Marxist redistrubtion?  Supports infanticide?  Wants to give dictators a hug?  Let's get serious.  

Of course you're correct as to the tactics - both parties will play to fears and Republicans have tried selling the idea that Obama is some sort of leftist, made more dangerous by the fact that we have a Democratic Congress.

We'll see if anybody is buying this time.

Chan:  "In my opinion, it is on that issue of fear or fear not that the election will be determined."

Yes, indeed.  But as FDR noted a long time ago, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.  The Bush-Cheney gang has had this country in an arm-lock about fear for years and we're just getting out of it.  Obama represents a break-out toward intelligence rather than paranoia.

The choice in November will be simply "new directions" (all badly needed) or "four more years of the same."  As Tom Friedman put it a few years ago, deep down we're about the fourth of July, not 9/11.

Fear or change, anyone?

irony, we have plenty to fear from confiscatory tax rates, ever larger Washington bureaucracies and the nationalization of medicine.  The latter of which alone will be irreversible and will bury us.

I have heard McCain complain about earmarks and pork spending for a long time. But it seems all politicians do.

I'd like to know the earmarks that have gone to Arizona and did Mac vote aye or nay for those? I'd also like to see a reporter ask if there has been wasteful spending in Arizona and if Mac would eliminate it.

Port spending is an easy target, because it only occurs in everyone's district but not in the district of the person who is complaining about it.

Anyone proposing the nationalization of medicine?  I hadn't heard.  What I do know is that we spend the most on health care of all comparable nations with some of the most unimpressive health outcomes.  That needs to change, and there's nothing especially wonderful about private sector bureaucracies either.

"I'd like to know the earmarks that have gone to Arizona and did Mac vote aye or nay for those? I'd also like to see a reporter ask if there has been wasteful spending in Arizona and if Mac would eliminate it."

You are misunderstanding pork barrel spending - the whole point of earmarks is to NOT have a vote yea or nay on any of the earmarks.  You attach piece of pork to a bill that raises the ceiling on the national debt.  Then everybody has to vote for it because it's not like we can prevent the Treasury from selling more securities.

To my knowledge, McCain has never (ever) inserted an earmark into a bill.  Virtually every other Senator and Representative (Obama included) has inserted earmarks into legislation (and in a well known case, one earmark went to a hospital where his wife happens to be an employee, and shortly after said hospital received said earmark, said wife got a big raise, which is all said to be a complete coincidence, and maybe it is, or maybe it isn't)/

Look - if a majority of Senators and Representatives wants to build a Bridge to Nowhere, fine - sponsor an ammendment to a bill, let the members vote on it, and if you get a majority, then build the bridge.  It would still be wasteful and stupid, but at least it would be done in the light of day, and would do A LOT to reduce the rampant corruption and self-dealing that is going on in the Capitol (in BOTH parties).