Line of the Day: 2008-09-20

However, it has been observed that someone who goes from being a total fucking tool to attain full douchebag status has "crossed the Federline."

This is from Lynn Harris's Radar Online article on the history of the term douchebag.

Douchebag is a weird one for me. I've noticed it becoming more and more accepted in areas where other words are still bleeped, and I've been fascinated to see how it has evolved into something directed almost exclusively at males. For some reason, though, I've never been comfortable with it. I can't think of the last time that I've said or written it. I'm not much of a bluenose; my reaction to use of cuss words, if anything, usually has more to do with impatience at the speaker's limited vocabulary or wasting of the power of the word by overuse.

I think the problem I have with douchebag is that it seems to add an unnecessary element of sexism when you basically want to call a guy a jerk. I don't much care for any insult that carries the notion that being female is a bad thing. Or even "acting female," whatever that might mean. For a while, it looked like cobag might catch on as a gender-neutral replacement, but, alas, 'twas not to be. GoogleFight gives a rough measure; online, at least, douchebag is three orders of magnitude more prevalent than cobag.

(h/t: Jim Romenesko, via Charles Pierce)

I forget. Does this make me an enabler or a codependent?

Sheila from Gawker says:

This photo is like crack for ladies.

So, uh, have at it, ladies. Far be it from me to deny you your little pleasures.

(h/t: TRex)

Inquiring Minds Want to Know ...

... why Sarah Palin posed for a picture with an issue of the official newsletter of the John Birch Society? BAGnewsNotes has some of the unfolding saga of discovery -- an interesting post that shows through updates how information accumulates.

How much longer before Scary Stuff is just not funny?

Compare and Contrast

From Jed of the eponymous Report:

The responses of Barack Obama and John McCain to the economic crisis today tells you all you need to know about the choice in this election.

One the one hand, in Barack Obama we've got a statesman who wants to work together to get things done for all Americans. On the other hand, in John McCain we've got a yipping little dog (apologies to canine lovers everywhere) who will tear anything down to get ahead.

Here's a short video I put together to illustrate the contrast:

(alt. video link)

Never fails to amaze me when a guy who has been in Congress for close to thirty years can't think come up with anything better than blaming "Washington."

The Obama response I posted earlier probably has something to do with the McCain bits you see here.

"McCain and the POW Cover-up"

New article by Sydney Schanberg in The Nation, scheduled for the 6 Oct 2008 print edition, is available online now. You can read the shorter version or the expanded version, which details the evidence and adds supporting documents.

Lede:

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

(h/t: Instaputz | Wikipedia entry for Sydney Schanberg)

---

[Added after reading the extended version]

In fairness, even if everything Schanberg writes is true, the cover-up is hardly all McCain's fault. Blame extends all the way back to the Nixon Administration, long before McCain came into Congress. However, there do seem to be a number of places where he was a key player later on, and there are clearly many questions he ought to answer.

I don't know if this will become an issue in the current campaign, and I'm not sure if I want it to be. As much as I don't want John McCain to be elected, it seems like too solemn a matter to be treated as just another political football.

A Sweet Ninety Seconds

John Cole says:

This is not Michael Dukakis, worried libs:

(alt. video link)

Don't you agree?

Sound Familiar?

Fill in the blanks:

BOTTOM LINE: ______ and ______ are trying to ignite a partisan firestorm that wipes out the ___________ investigation until after the election.

I expect you were thinking, "Bush, Cheney, and … damn … there so many suppressions … which one should I pick?"

However, the answers in this case, from a blistering editorial in Alaska's biggest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, are: Palin, McCain, and Troopergate.

Yeah, I know. It's getting as hard to keep track of all the Palin scandals as it is with the Current Occupant, isn't it?

If you want to get caught up on Troopergate, Zachary Roth has a well-written and heavily linkified post up on TPM. Of particular note is one to an op-ed written by conservative radio host Dan Kagan, who says:

Palin can't constantly change her story and expect us to believe her each time she does.

and:

Clearly most Alaskans choose to ignore the facts of the Troopergate scandal. They want Palin to make it to the national stage.

Republicans scold me all the time, "You don't want Obama to win do you? Stop criticizing Palin!"

My question to my conservative friends is simple. Does the truth still matter?

Good for him.

Lie Down

In a pushback against my own worries that I raised earlier -- about people's persistent belief in lies, in some cases even reinforced by rebuttals -- consider the rapidly plummeting approval ratings of Sarah Palin.

Some of this decline, almost certainly, has to do with the novelty wearing off, and some more can be explained by people who had no opinion forming one after learning more about her. But I do wonder how much of the drop has to do with the lies that she has told, and contra the reinforcement effect, that have been exposed. Or, maybe it's not so much that people necessarily now disbelieve a specific story, but more the case that when a given source repeatedly gets exposed as unreliable, the general impression changes.

At any rate, Jon Chait has a nice post up recapping most of the major whoppers that, combined, have been crumbling the Palin myth the McCain campaign is trying to project. Well worth a read.

Note also, in Chait's article, the resemblance to the packaging of McCain himself:

In lieu of opening Palin to regular questioning from the press corps, of the sort the other three candidates have all undergone many times before, the McCain campaign is helpfully leaking positive appraisals of her studiousness. "Despite the worries, [Palin] struck many campaign officials as more calm and cerebral than expected," reported Newsweek. "She was quick to ask questions, and to 'engage in a back and forth' with briefers." See, the McCain campaign says she's on the ball. That settles it, right?

That is, as Larison pointed out about McCain (last post), instead of her actually demonstrating any these traits, we are merely assured that she has them.

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan)

Larison on McCain's "Honor"

Over at the American Conservative magazine's website, Daniel Larison rejects the notion that McCain has "changed." You'll be unsurprised to hear that his assessment resonates with me -- like Larison, I've always thought McCain was a snake hiding behind a manufactured media image.

Excerpt:

Contrary to the conventional pundit interpretation that McCain has “sold his soul” and abandoned his once-honorable former self, the thing to understand about McCain’s lies in this campaign is that he invests these misrepresentations with his utter contempt for his opponents. From McCain’s perspective, this infusion of contempt seems to transform shoddy, baseless attacks that disgrace him into indictments of the other politicians (e.g., Romney wants to surrender in Iraq, Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election). If McCain thinks he is always honorable, resistance to him and his ideas must ultimately be villainous and vicious, and we have seen him deploy his perverse, solipsistic ends-justify-the-means concept of honor against Romney and now against Obama. McCain’s admirers have largely missed this either because they happened to agree with McCain on policy or because they have mistaken his language of honor and principle to refer to the meanings that they attach to these terms.

Exactly right. McCain has spent the past twenty years telling people what he wants them to think he is -- be it a maverick, a straight talker, or a man of honor -- and too many have swallowed this, rather than examining what the man has actually done.

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan)

---

[Added] On a related note, also via Andrew, another conservative voice registers displeasure with McCain. If you don't already know the ideological stance of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, I'll put it politely and say that they are farther to the right than any media outlet not having an employee named Limbaugh. Today, they're down on McCain for his attempt to scapegoat SEC chairman Christopher Cox.

Conclusion:

In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution.

Hit him from the left. Hit him from the right. Get up, stand up, fight, fight, fight.

Scary Stuff

Watch this 22-second clip from Oliver Willis, paying special attention to the last line:

(alt. video link)

Suddenly, the nickname passed along by Jim Henley -- Moose-lini -- seems less of a joke, doesn't it?

Not to mention Dependable Renegade's captioning of this picture:

Just what this country needs: another less-than-energetic president with a power-mad running mate.

"The McCain of the Week"

Gail Collins on the latest incarnation of the erstwhile Straight Talker:

And since McCain’s willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long.

A fun read.

Why McCain Lies? Why McCain Ties?

There are two questions that have been raised countless times lately:

1. Why do John McCain and Sarah Palin keep telling lies, even as they keep getting called on them?
   
   
2. Why isn't Barack Obama running away with the race?

A depressing WaPo article helps explain a lot of what's going on.

You probably have heard of the phenomenon that people tend to cling to the first version of a story they've been told, even if they're later informed that it's not true. You probably have also heard that refuting the first version will do nothing but make some people believe the first version more. The article describes several experiments which strongly demonstrate this.

The worst part about it? While the effect is statistically present in all groups, it far more pronounced in conservatives than it is in liberals.

Excerpt:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

Sheesh. What the hell are we supposed to do now?

I guess the next thing to do is run a study to find out what happens when multiple refutations are supplied. That is, if a group shows an increased belief in a given falsehood after hearing it once, what will happen if they're told several times, perhaps in several ways, that it's really, really, really not true?

The only other thing I can think of is to hope that true conservatives are a distinct minority. The article doesn't say how people were labeled, but I do know one thing: Many more people embrace liberal principles and policy goals than will call themselves liberals.

(h/t: Tim F./Balloon Juice)

This is Progress? This is Progress!

No, really.

This graph, swiped from Yglesias, shows Sarah Palin's Palin's net favorability ratings, 11-17 September 2008. Click to zoom.

To be sure, these are data from one firm's daily tracking poll, and that firm, Research 2000, is being paid by the Great Orange Satan. However, as tremayne at OpenLeft points out, the same trend has been observed by another firm, Diageo/Hotline, even if the absolute numbers differ. Nate Silver has details.

[Added] More from Nate on this:

McCain's other problem is that Sarah Palin may no longer be an asset to the ticket; in fact, she may be a liability. Averaging the candidates' favorability scores across four recent polls -- as one should always try and do when looking at favorability numbers since they can vary greatly depending on question wording -- Palin now has the worst net scores among the four principals in the race:

[table of data]

Palin's average favorability score is now a +7 -- about 10 points behind Joe Biden's numbers. Perhaps more importantly, these numbers are 10-15 points behind where Palin's numbers were just a week or so ago. If voters come in not knowing very much about a candidate -- and the more they see of the candidate, the less they like of the candidate -- this is a major concern.

Here's a graph of the four candidates' net favorability ratings (pic. source), built from the same dKos/R2000 data:

(click pic to enlarge)

Obama Ad On Social Security

Here's a new 30-second spot reminding you of another aspect of McCain's past that he'd probably prefer you not talk about too much:

(alt. video link)

No Comprende

(Updates at the bottom of this post)

Twin emailed me about John McCain's "Spain gaffe" earlier today, which I had touched on earlier. I said I didn't think this would amount to anything, in large part because it would be easy for McCain's trained seals to counter-spin any attacks about his being out of touch or not really that knowledgeable about foreign policy by saying "the interview was on a Spanish radio station!" With, of course, the suggestion that it was a problem of translation, even though the interview was conducted in English.

Maybe I was wrong. Check out the Veracifier's summary of the story so far:

(alt. video link (high-res!))

Now, you could still make the case that McCain was just having trouble hearing or understanding the interviewer. But the first thing that jumps out at me is just how empty McCain's fallback bromides always sound. I think not enough people realize this about McCain, because you don't get much of a chance to hear him for more than the length of a sound bite.

Second, I'm intrigued by Josh's mention that the McCain team is not just going for the easy explanation of "couldn't hear well," but is instead making the problem worse. I'll have to look into that further. More updates to come, hopefully.

---

[Added] Greg Sargent of TPM has a post up, describing a conversation he just had with Yoli Cuello, the woman who interviewed McCain in this instance.

[Added] Here's an earlier post from TPM, with links to other stories, about the counterproductive counter-spin efforts of the McCain people on the gaffe, and how they're just making matters worse.

[Added] Yglesias's take.

[Added]Chez puts the matter in a larger context.

But there's some good stuff in today's Times, too

Okay, enough griping. There are also some fun reads.

Good news: Dennis Lehane has a new book out.

Cintra Wilson's piece about the goth look is headlined, "You Just Can't Kill It." I respond, "But why would you want to?" In fairness, so does she.

Timothy Egan describes "Heckuva-Job-Brownie government, Far North version." I do like me some sarcasm, especially concerning she-who-shall-not-be-scrutinized. His blog post is titled, "Moo," which I expect will provoke half the wingnutosphere into another round of screaming, "LIEbrul media again calls Palin a pig!!!1!"

Math Lesson 2

Following up on the lesson from Jed regarding cable TV math, there's this from today's NY Times:

And the New York Times/CBS News poll [taken this week] found no evidence, at least to date, that Ms. Palin has allowed Mr. McCain to expand his appeal to women voters or independent voters. Polls taken immediately after the convention had found evidence of a sharp increase in support for Mr. McCain among white women, but this poll suggests that that effect was, so far at least, limited. White women were evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. McCain led Mr. Obama among white women, 44 percent to 37 percent.

Got that? The latest poll shows that McCain is now doing significantly worse among white women than he was before the convention, despite a temporary convention bounce/novelty blip. Realize that replacing "were" with "are now" in that last sentence would clarify things immensely.

I guarantee you that if the candidates were switched, the NYT would phrase it something like this:

And the New York Times/CBS News poll found no evidence, at least to date, that Ms. Whomever has allowed Mr. Obama to expand his appeal to women voters or independent voters. Indeed, his choice of her for a running mate seems to have hurt. Polls taken immediately after the convention had found evidence of a sharp increase in support for Mr. Obama among white women, but this poll suggests that that effect was short-lived. White women are now evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. Obama led Mr. McCain among white women, 44 percent to 37 percent.

This seven-point plunge has caused serious worries, say some observers, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Golden Words from the Golden State

Dan Weston explains why you should Vote No on Prop. 8 and how you can help, even if you don't live in California.

Yes, Do That. Please.

From Adam Nagourney's article on John McCain's new campaigning style, near the beginning of the piece:

There may be a price for all this. After Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his running-mate, riveted the overflow crowd at an airplane hangar here for 16 minutes, it was Mr. McCain’s turn, and people in his audience began murmuring and drifting away midway through a 14-minute speech that was flat and cheerless.

Right at the end:

Mr. McCain’s aides suggested that their candidate will spend as much time possible with Ms. Palin campaigning in the final weeks of the race …

Well, I suppose if he's the opening act …

No Fun League

Despite the Pantload's fretting, there is little to fear from those who like organic foods, health care for all, and low emissions vehicles. No, if the fascist takeover of America happens, I'm convinced it'll be led by those who run organized football.

It's beyond a cliché to expand NFL as I did in the title. I no longer watch pro football for a variety of reasons. The banning of things like joyous celebrations of touchdowns is certainly among them.

This, though, provokes a fresh round of head-shaking:

… the nation’s high school football rule-making body has cracked down.

[...]

Last year, … the federation made the enforcement of Rule 1-5-3k one of its points of emphasis for officials around the country.

The high school federation has talked to the N.C.A.A. about the issue — “It doesn’t help our cause on Saturdays when you see them all over television, and then even more so on Sunday,” [federation assistant director Bob] Colgate said …

Whoa. Sounds alarming. What are we talking about here?

Yup.

Wristbands worn above the elbow.

Seriously.

---

(pic. source)

In John McCain's Defense ...

... he can't see Spain from his house any of his houses. So, Oliver Willis, how's he supposed to know it's in Europe?

And remember, John McCain didn't have a wall map for five and a half years. Yes, I'm looking at you, John Aravosis.

I Had The Same Thought Before Reading His Title

Thoreau informs me that there is a dispute among evolutionary biologists concerning the origin and development of the anus.

We do, however, know how it culminated.

Rarely is the Question Asked: Is Our Republican Candidates Learning?

From a campaign ad released two days ago:

Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it.

---

Hmmm … let's go to the Google.

John McCain, June 2003:

I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.

John McCain, August 2004:

I'm with him [George W. Bush] on a number of issues — free trade, for example, and ardent free trade, and deregulation and many others.

John McCain, May 2007:

You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview.

John McCain, March 2008:

I'm always for less regulation. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.

John McCain, later that same month:

Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.

John McCain, today:

We should never again allow the United States to be in this position. We need strong and effective regulation …

---

Thanks to Oliver Willis for the hint.
Oh, and regarding that title …

Math Lesson

Barack Obama is now leading by 2 points in the Gallup tracker, by 3 points in the Hotline/Diageo tracker, by 4 points in the DKos/R2000 tracker, and trailing by 1 point in Rasmussen.

So given that the tracking polls now show an average 2 point lead for Barack Obama, I think that means it's a dead heat now, a major reversal from John McCain's big 2 point lead last week. (Isn't that the way the cable TV math works?)
-- The Jed Report

---

Note: Link to DKos/R2000 poll fixed by me. TJR had it pointing at the previous URL.

Farm Report

From Thomas Frank's fine op-ed of last week, The GOP Loves the Heartland To Death:

A few days ago I talked politics with Donn Teske, the president of the Kansas Farmers Union and a former Republican. Barack Obama may come from a big city, he admits, but the Farmers Union gives him a 100% rating for his votes in Congress. John McCain gets a 0%. "If any farmer in the Plains States looked at McCain's voting record on ag issues," Mr. Teske says, "no one would vote for him."

I had no idea.

Well worth reading the whole thing.

(h/t: The Pantload, via Teh Sadlys. The latter is a must-read, but not in a serious way.)

Line of the Day: 2008-09-17

... yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's President, he'll take on -- and I quote -- the "old boys' network" in Washington. I'm not making this up. This is somebody who's been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign, and now he tells us that he's the one who gonna take on the old boys' network. The old boys' network? In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting.
-- Barack Obama

Watch:

(NB: YouTube will be down for maintenance for a little while today, starting at 6 PM PDT. If the video won't play, please check back later.)

(alt. video link)

(h/t: Steve Benen)

---

[Added] The Jed Report has a longer clip of this same speech, if you're interested.

Two-Minute Obama

If you haven't had a chance to watch the economic speech Barack Obama gave yesterday, here's a new two-minute ad that hits the highlights.

(alt. video link)

You can watch yesterday's speech here on this blog, and you can read Obama's economic plan at BarackObama.com/plan.

Shipping News

The NYT has a sad article posted that describes the waning influence of the U.S. Supreme Court on jurisprudence elsewhere in the world. Can't imagine why, can you?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the article causes us to reflect on the sort of appointments that John McCain would make, were he elected. It's not just threats to Roe v. Wade that loom, as important a consideration as that is. We also have to remember what judges in the Scalia mold think of executive privilege, human rights, and respect for international norms.

Thank goodness we're booming in other exports, though, right?

---

By the way, if you'd like to participate in a caption contest for the above picture, head on over to World O' Crap.

Report From the No Talk Express

I’m writing this on yet another McCain flight. Today was an exciting one for the press corps — two big formal rallies sandwiched around various events from which reporters were barred. A couple of reporters on the plane tried to work up a chant begging him to come back and talk for a couple of minutes. Their voices were swallowed in a great well of lonely journalistic despair and boredom.
-- Gail Collins

(h/t: KK, via email)

"Confronting an Economic Crisis"

This one's a keeper. Hard to believe a 38 minute speech with detailed economic proposals could be so inspiring, but there it is. I particularly like the repeated sharp distinctions he draws between himself and McSame.

Barack Obama, speaking in Golden, CO, 16 September 2008. This is who we want in charge:

(alt. video link)

Transcript here.

Hat tip to John Cole, whose reaction is well worth reading in full. Key line:

... Obama describes exactly why a ton of people like me are going to vote for a Democrat for President for the first time …

---

Administrivia: Originally posted earlier. Bumped to keep as top post for a while.