McCain, Obama, and the Public Financed Campaign Flap

There’s nothing like the Beltway Pontificators Society (aka corporate media) when it come to creating mountains out of political mole hills, and few examples could be more illustrative than the “flip-flop” narrative about Senator Barack Obama and publicly financed presidential campaigns. The story also illustrates how few reporters, not only in Nevada but across the country, are willing to research original sources before drafting articles and posts.

The controversy appears to have its source in the Midwest Democracy Network’s 2007 survey sent to both Republican and Democratic Party candidates, and specifically refers to section one.

The so-called promise occurs in response to Question 1-B: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system? Senator Clinton, Governor Huckabee, Senator McCain, and Representative Paul gave no responses.

Senator Obama, responded: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” (emphasis added)

There’s more than nuance here, what Senator Obama pledged to do was “pursue an agreement…to preserve a publicly financed election.” As in the case of the misinterpretation of Gertrude Stein’s comment about Oakland, CA “there is no there there,” Obama’s pledge to treat with the McCain campaign about public financing does not equate to a promise to accept the limitations of the system should Senator McCain opt out of it. Senator Obama amended this declaration to include an agreement with Senator McCain to damp down the activities of independent 527 organizations. [NYT] There were ample signals from the McCain campaign camp that the Arizona Senator had little intention of interfering with the 527s or of remaining in the public system if his campaign did well during the primaries.

One of the first signals came in the form of loans to the McCain Campaign from Fidelity and Trust Bank. McCain was engaged in securing loans carefully crafted to both use and possibly dismiss the public financing system. The terms of a second loan were remarkable:

“Borrower and lender [Fidelity & Trust Bank] agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign committee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing.” [AmPrpt] [original document]

Ezra Klein summarized the ramifications of this agreement: “What does this mean? It means that rather than pledge his existing certification for matching funds as collateral for the loan, which would bind him to the system and thus the spending limits, McCain carefully pledged to seek to re-enter the system later, and to use a non-existent future certification as collateral. And while the system is "voluntary," McCain essentially traded away for cash his right to choose whether to participate in the system, and even his right to drop out of the presidential race, allowing the bank to force McCain "to remain an active candidate" in order to reapply for and qualify for funds. He was betting the spread (10 points) on his own primary performance! I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise to perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay the loan.” [AmPrpt] (emphasis added)

Paul Kiel’s summary was more succinct: “John McCain's campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there'd be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing.” [TPM]

The second signal came during the primary campaign season, as the Seattle PI printed, “McCain and Obama both declined public financing in the primary contests, thus avoiding the spending limits that come with the money. McCain had initially applied for the money, however, and has been in a dispute with the Federal Election Commission over whether he needed its approval to decline the funds. The FEC insists that he does, but has not had a quorum to act because four of its six seats have been vacant pending Senate confirmation of presidential nominees. McCain lawyers have disputed the need for FEC approval.” In short, not only did the McCain campaign game the system with the Fidelity and Trust loan provisions, it forswore public financing during the primary season – doing so in part because there was no way the FEC could enforce the provisions.

Not too much analysis is required to deduce from this picture that the McCain campaign was all for public financing to bail out its operations in December 2007, and not above declining the public funds [original letter] during the primary season when fund-raising did, in fact pick up, and he could go forward without accepting them.

In order to claim that Senator Obama was the one to have flipped on the publicly funded campaign agreement, the McCain campaign must assert propositions that don’t hold under much scrutiny.

First, McCain had to declare that there had been a promise in the first place. Because few reporters referred back to the original survey declaration, this narrative was picked up – including commentary from progressive pundits like Bill Press, and reporters like ABC’s George Stephanopolos.

Secondly, McCain had to emphasize that he was “the reformer” who was going to accept public funding. If there were a reversal in this ruckus this was it – a candidate who had drafted a carefully worded loan to keep his efforts alive using public funds as collateral reversed his pledge during the primaries, only to re-assert it during the general election season. These actions make McCain’s commentary somewhat less than credible: “Senator Obama’s reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals that he has taken,” Mr. McCain said in Columbus Junction, Iowa, where he had been touring the floods. “I’m especially disturbed by this decision of Senator Obama’s because he signed his name on a piece of paper, signed his name. This election is about a lot of things but it’s also about trust,” he said. “It’s also about whether you can take people’s word.” [NYT] McCain appears to be suggesting that we forget the part where he accepted public funding, opted out of it, and then opted back in again.

Thirdly, once apprised of the initial declaration in the Midwest Survey, the McCain campaign asserted the Obama camp had not “aggressively pursued” negotiations on the subject. This sounds rather like an argument predicated on “You said you’d call me first,” as opposed to a defense founded on any efforts by the McCain camp to initiate contact. The question why the Obama Campaign would “aggressively” or otherwise seek to negotiate on campaign funding sources with an opponent who had already opted out of the public funding system during the primaries remains unanswered.

The McCain Campaign made its announcement that it would accept public financing on June 19, 2008. [NYT] The Obama Campaign announced it was opting out on the same day. [NYT]

The tempest in the teapot continues. Those disinclined to support Senator Obama in the first place may see, if they wish, a reversal from supporting public financing. However, those in the McCain camp may wish to allow the issue to quiet down considerably before too many more people become aware of their candidate’s double-reverse back flip maneuver on the subject.

Coffee and the Papers: Credit Crunch, Iran-Iraq Hunch, Grand Oil Party Bunch

What happens when home foreclosures are combined with Home Owner Association’s inability to enforce maintenance rules in Las Vegas, NV? Brian Eckhouse’s article in the Las Vegas Sun provides another kind of ‘inconvenient truth’ for our consideration. McClatchy reports, “Credit crisis expands, hitting all kinds of consumer loans.” “Pending Home Sales Increase”(in sales of homes under $500K located in inland areas where depreciation and foreclosures have been the greatest). [CalcRisk]

Credit is still crunching. “Citigroup, Merrill, UBS face further writedowns…” [Blmbrg] “CIT Group rises on $3 billion Goldman Sachs financing” [Blmbrg] “Lehman loses $2.8 billion, plans to raise $6 billion.” [Blmbrg] “Credit Crisis Not Over” [Reuters] “Sense of fairness affects outlook, decisions” [WaPo] The California Public Employees’ Retirement System partner LandSource Communities Development LLC has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. [NV Appeal]

“The Ron Paul revolution isn’t finished in Nevada,” according to Molly Ball in the LVRJ. Representative Jon Porter has a primary fight on his hands, and some polling results showing his district is an endangered specie in terms of Republican control. Meanwhile back at the Nevada Supreme Court, a second term limit challenged was filed by Steve Sisolak asking that Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury be barred from seeking re-election this season. [RGJ]

Fox Snooze pontificator E.D. Hill evidently didn’t get the memo that Human Events columnist Cal Thomas had deleted his reference to the Obama Family Fist Bump in light of the ‘corrections’ in the comments section, and obediently recited the line about a possible “terrorist fist jab” [TP] One commenter wryly inserts: “Oh my God, my whole softball team is a terrorist cell.”

Floyd G. Brown, producer of the infamous “Willie Horton Ad” in 1998 is preparing a series of ads he claims will show Senator Barack Obama as “soft on crime.” [BG] “The Return of Willie Horton” [Salon] FactCheck has already debunked Brown’s first ad. “Only hope for McCain is for Republicans to finance sustained negative ads against Obama” [AmBlg]

Did Senator John McCain “play media critic and then forget what he said?” [TCR] “McCain: To Russia, without Love – John McCain and his national security adviser both want to get tough with Russia, but one of them got paid to say so. Does McCain have another lobbyist problem?” [Salon]

Instead of having national reporters obsessing on the Clinton campaign suspension and the possibility of talks with Iranian president Ahmadinejad, the person to whom we ought to be paying attention is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is saying “the biggest hurdle standing in the way of peace in Iraq is the U.S.” [CNN] The article doesn’t have all that much new information, but at least one news organization may have noticed that the Iranian president is a figure-head.

“Ex-premier is expelled from governing party in Iraq” [NYT] “In Iraq: A cold, hard shelter, but a shelter nonetheless” Juan Cole has additional information on the current situation in Iraq. “Why Australia is leaving Iraq” [CSM] “Afghan aid ineffective, inefficient, watchdog says” [WaPo]
“Iraq war strains U.S. army mental health system” [Reuters]
“America’s medicated Army” [VoteVets]
“Older veterans now helping vets of Iraq and Afghanistan” [CSM]
“The push for a deeper deployment pool: Army pays more heed to how much combat soldiers have already seen” [Army Times]

Some members of the Grand Oil Party are saying Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) squandered an opportunity for the Republicans to get their message out on the climate change bill by pulling the stall stunt over judicial nominations. [Roll Call, sub req] No Surprise Department: “Rural U.S. takes worst hit as gas tops $4 average” [NYT] House GOP leaders are trying to blame current high gas prices on the Democrats. Republicans have consistently fought attempts to promote renewable energy supplies, investigate speculation, and legislate against price fixing and gouging. [The Hill] Isaiah J. Poole writes “Let’s hear a debate on the oil speculators,” in CAF.

“Why doesn’t McCain have a national energy strategy?” [AmBlg]

There's got to be a better way!

Cross-posted from my RockSpot blog:

Have any of you taken the time to look at the spending of the candidates running for President? At a time when our U.S. Dollar is declining ... when the economy is in the tank ... when service agencies are turning away needy people who truly need their help ... when schools are begging for desparately needed funds ... the campaigns are pleading for and spending your precious donations hand over fist to feed the media agencies. As far as I can tell, the only ones making out this campaign season are the news and media agencies. It's just outrageous ... spending as of Apr. 20th: $849,655,926.00. (D: $533,681,725; R: $315,971,201 ... biggest spender: Obama at $234,745,081). Before this campaign season is over, the two major parties alone will have spent well over $1B with media agencies ... and none of that money which could have been used to make real, meaningful impact in the lives of American families will do anything more than bolster media agency coffers.

There has got to be a better way ... one that's not fraught with campaign manipulation. A classic example is what happened with Michigan. Obama pulled his name off the ballot before the primary. Yet, the Rules Committee construed all of the uncommitted votes were for Obama and gave him delegates commensurate to that. And I still can't follow their logic for why they took 4 delegates away from Clinton and gave them to Obama. The numbers are the numbers and their logic escapes me how they equate Obama with a bigger percentage of the vote than Clinton. Something with that whole process reaks very baddly. I could go on about problems and issues with this compaign season, specifically what I personally experienced at the Nevada Convention, but that's something for another post.

Personally, I wish we could shorten up the primary season and have just ONE nationationwide Primary that would be held on, let's say, the second Tuesday in May. Spending limits could also be established (e.g., $20M maximum/candidate) as well as establishing an allowable window of time during which candidates could advertise their credentials in the media (e.g., March 1 to 2nd Tuesday in May). Primary voting would work similarly to how it works now, you go to the poll and declare for which party you'd like to vote (Democrats get a Democratic ballot, Republicans get a Republican Ballot, Libertarians get a Libertarian ballot, etc.) The winner for each party would be the one who received the largest popular vote nationwide ... period! The parties can still hold their conventions to work out all their other issues ... running mates, platforms, other issues, etc. But, I'm getting really tired (as are others) of seeing our votes being disenfranchised or manipulated in some way not to count in the way it was tendered.

I doubt I'll ever see that wish come to pass. Afterall, it would need to be enacted by legislators who are all part of this massively flawed process we use to elect our leaders.

Is Senator Ensign confirming Republican Party bigotry?

It’s nice to find confirmation that the Republican Party sees itself as the “White Guys in Ties” coalition, especially when it comes from Nevada’s junior Senator himself: “I think it's a year for Republicans not to play safe, personally. In other words, don't take a conventional choice. Take a risk," (on selecting a vice presidential nominee) Ensign said. "Somebody who can broaden the base of the party. It'd be nice to find a woman, or somebody who wasn't a white male. And who was really, really competent. In Republican politics, choosing a woman and/or nonwhite male is a little risky, according to Ensign.” [LVSun] Is the Senator suggesting that in the Grand Oil Party finding women and persons of color who are “really really competent” would be difficult? Is he suggesting that having someone other than a White Guy in Tie would turn off Republican voters?

A Night to Remember, an Evening to Savor

There was a broad hint back on January 19, 2008 during the Nevada Democratic Caucuses that this wasn’t going to be an ordinary election year – the top two candidates were an African American and a woman. Either selection was going to be historic. In the end-game the African American, Senator Barack Obama, won with a strategy described by the Washington Post: “The insurgent strategy the group devised instead was to virtually cede the most important battlegrounds of the Democratic nomination fight to Clinton, using precision targeting to minimize her delegate hauls, while going all out to crush her in states where Democratic candidates rarely ventured.”

This kind of ‘outside the box’ strategic thinking is going to be necessary in Round Two during which the Republican Party has already signaled its major talking points.

TP #1 “Obama lacks experience and judgment.” This assessment depends on the assumption that ‘experience’ inside the Beltway equates to effective management. Republicans are assuming that voters will ignore the fact that Pres. George W. Bush had no similar ‘experience’ in Washington in 2000.

TP #2 “The Democrats are all about race and gender.” This is a branding exercise going back to the Roger Stone era. “Hank Sheinkopf, the veteran Democratic political consultant, who has known Stone for many years, values his political insights. “He was able to use the Democratic teachings on voter turnout and class warfare and turn it against us,” Sheinkopf told me. “He knew what populism was in reverse. He thought like a Democrat and dressed like a plutocrat. He once said to me, ‘Are you black? Are you Hispanic? Are you gay?’ When I said no, he said, ‘Then why the f**k are you a Democrat? You should be with us.’ ” [TNY]

What may be required is a reverse of the reversal. One way in which this can be addressed is with an emphatic ‘yes.’ The Democratic Party is inclusive – it is definitely not the preserve of the rich and the corporate elite. Another gambit to brunt the Stone-Carlson type attacks is to embrace the race issue. Where the GOP offered excuses to cover the corporate abasement of white working class people (“Affirmative Action means ‘they’ get all the good jobs.”) the Democratic Party can offer hope and opportunity. Either headline this morning would have sufficed – “first woman” or “first African American.” In short, Democrats can argue that we are not ‘color-blind,’ or ‘gender blind,’ and we’re certainly not blind to what’s happened to working class families in Janesville, Wisconsin. [ChiTrib]

Stone’s question can be reframed: Are you rich? Are you earning more than $1 million annually? Are you filling up your gas tank at the pump? Is your retirement secure? Do you have all the health care coverage you need? Is your job secure? If the answer is ‘no,’ then why are you a Republican? You should be with us.

TP #3 “Democrats will raise your taxes.” One McCain surrogate was on a cable show declaring, “23 million small business owners file individually with the IRS, therefore repealing the Bush Tax Cuts would be devastating.” Devastating for whom? The argument depends upon the assumption that all 23 million small business owners are in the top one percent income level. The middle 20% of Americans got an average tax cut of $647. The top one percent got $34,992; and, millionaires got $123,592. [CBPP]

TP #4 “Democrats will surrender in Iraq and engage with Iran.” Candidate McCain should be asked repeatedly “What was the purpose of the Surge?” If, as announced, it was to allow the al-Maliki government time to secure political reconciliation, then it has been remarkably unsuccessful. Senator McCain appears to be playing the same “move the goal posts” game as the Bush Administration from which he is trying to distance himself. If political reconciliation is proving extremely difficult, is the GOP trying to assert that simply reducing the level of violence is now the goal?

This should be an uphill battle for the McCain camp which is obviously not aligned with popular opinion. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted May 8-12, 2008 found 67% holding an unfavorable view of President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq; 62% believing that going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do; and, 22% saying the U.S. should withdraw immediately, 48% calling for the establishment of a timetable for withdrawal, compared to 28% holding that we should keep troops in Iraq “as long as needed.”

A Gallup Poll released on June 2, 2008 reported that 59% thought meeting with the president of Iran was a good idea and 67% believed that American presidents should meet with leaders of hostile countries. [CNN]

If Senator McCain is an expert in foreign affairs, then why did he confuse the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi’a not once but four times? If he is an expert in military affairs then why did he not know how many troops we have deployed to Iraq?

TP #5 “____ is a ____” The Republican opposition research/smear engines were already oiled and ready before Senator Obama secured the nomination. The Drudge-Coulter-Limbaugh crowd was ready for either a (insert hissing sound) ‘Clinton,’ or a ‘Muslim-Christian-Black Power-Apostate Muslim.’ The politics of personal destruction, a veritable Republican cottage industry since the Arkansas Project, is alive and well. [Pew] Senator McCain could earn the epithet “Swift Boat Admiral” very quickly. The Arizona Senator’s problem with this is that once ‘swiftboating’ entered the common political lexicon the sting was blunted. Internet sites, blogs, and even the corporate press, are now more wary of accepting the output of the GOP Echo Chamber without scrutiny.

One indication of how Democrats could win this November lies in the response to the speeches made by all three major candidates this week. The corporate press has been generally positive in its reporting of the two Democratic Party orators – Senators Clinton and Obama; but, negative in its recounts of McCain’s attempt to use a lime green background and equally jarring distance-from-Bush rhetoric. Another may lie in the choice of venues; Senator Obama drew 17,000 in St. Paul; Senator Clinton packed the house in New York; McCain spoke to about 600 in Kenner, Louisiana. Now, why would he choose a small suburban venue and not downtown in the Crescent City? There’s a message in there somewhere. Perhaps it’s that the GOP hasn’t changed much since one of Senator McCain’s predecessors made his opening remarks in Philadelphia, Mississippi. McCain's night to remember?

Why I won't endorse Senator Obama

There’s a perfectly irrational explanation why DB doesn’t endorse Democratic candidates for the presidency before the nominating convention; neither Senator Obama, nor Senator Clinton. “Way’back When” I would get excited about various and sundry candidates only to discover that my endorsement more often than not proved to be counter-productive. And, as the reader can discern from my lengthy history of practicing a personal Reverse Midas Touch, I’ve decided that it’s in the best interest of any Democratic Party candidate for the presidential nomination that I stay very very quiet. The following is a quick, but I think convincing, chronology:

1964 There really once was a time when I self identified as a Republican, worse for me a moderate one who worked for the Rockefeller Campaign – we know how that turned out. Not only had I picked the wrong candidate, it was made abundantly clear that I had also selected the wrong party. I mended my ways, registering as a Democrat for the ’68 campaign season. My party affiliation may have changed but my propensity for picking also-rans continued unabated.

1968 “Clean Gene” McCarthy’s message that we should get out of Vietnam sooner rather than later sounded more appealing than Senator Hubert Humphrey saying he wanted to continue President Lyndon Johnson’s policy of troop reductions in Vietnam tied to the outcomes of the peace talks going on in Paris. Somehow, this seems to reverberate these days? – Not that it got McCarthy the nomination back in the day.

1972 Senator Edmund Muskie’s experience, policy statements, and evidently genuine concern for the Democrats in the Democratic Party made him my personal choice. However, it was one I shared with only 25 delegates to the actual nominating convention. McGovern rounded up 1,729.

1976 I didn’t know anything about Governor Jimmy Carter other than he was from Georgia and raised peanuts, but he did sound more ‘grounded’ than Jerry Brown. My old ’72 choice Edmund Muskie got precisely one (1) delegate vote from the entire convention floor. 1980 I followed the leaders and supported the incumbent; lots of good that did in the face of the elegantly phony “Morning in America” Reagan campaign juggernaut.

1984 Gary Hart seemed like an excellent candidate – and he did fare better than some of my previous choices – the records show he received 1,201 (30.92%) of the delegates, far more than my previous selections. Walter Mondale got the nomination. I should have known.

1988 I return to form – supporting Dick (0.05%) Gephardt. Michael Dukakis beat my candidate out by a little, like 2,877 to 2 on the convention floor. There is a pattern developing.

1992 My total ignorance of southern politicians continued as I could only vaguely remember Bill Clinton as the guy who made the really long speech. I wished Ann Richards had been running, but she wasn’t. In fact, none of the ‘candidates’ I wanted to support were running. However, who can resist some Fleetwood Mac? 1996 Another incumbent another ‘follow the leader’ moment.

2000 My reverse Midas Touch was fully operational – Senator Bill Bradley was my choice. In my defense, I like to remind people that it was Bradley who called for universal health care and campaign finance reform. By the time the chairman gaveled the convention to order my guy had been thoroughly trounced by Senator/VP Al Gore.

2004 I started out with Congressman Dick Gephardt (again) and when that campaign seemed to be going absolutely nowhere I tried improving my ‘batting average’ by supporting General Wesley Clark. General Clark’s campaign might have saved itself some trouble and expense by calling me – once again my Reverse Midas Touch worked: Senator John Kerry would have the nomination wrapped up well before the Boston convention crews started blowing up the balloons.

2008 Once more with feeling – first I supported Senator Joseph Biden with his foreign policy acumen; then former Senator John Edwards with his populist message…and, of course, they both dropped out. Although both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have sent me mailers asking for my support, as a favor to both – with my Reverse Midas Touch securely in place and historically operational – I will not endorse any one until the gavel falls ending the 2008 convention in Denver. It just seems like the humane thing to do.

Democratic Party RBC meeting results

After the dust settled from the RBC meeting today – the results are:

The magic number is 2117.5 (the media is rounding up to 2118). There are 3,409.5 pledged delegate votes, and 823.5 super-delegate votes, for a total of 4233. [DCW]

“In regards Florida, the committee unanimously approved a measure that would seat all the members of the state's delegation but at half of their original strength. That puts the final delegate allocation from the state at 52.5 for Clinton, 33.5 for Obama (Ill.) and 6.5 for former senator John Edwards (N.C.). On Michigan, the committee was far more divided -- passing a motion to allocate 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama and then immediately halving those totals so that Clinton comes away from Michigan with 34.5 delegates to Obama's 29.5.” [WaPo] This gives Senator Clinton a net equivalent of 24 pledged delegates. [Salon]

Current Delegates:

Obama 1,724.5 (pledged); 328.5 (super); total 2053; needed to win 64

Clinton 1,586.5 (pledged); 290 (super); total 1,876.5; needed to win 240.5

There are 86 pledged delegates ‘up for grabs’ (Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Montana) and 205 super-delegates. [DCW]

Four pages that give a person more information than one might ever not want to have to process about the proportional representation calculations of the Democratic Party.

Chuck Todd (MSNBC) is reporting: “Per multiple sources inside the closed Rules and Bylaws Committee lunch, Obama actually had the votes to get a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan -- but by just a vote or two. However, it was decided to go with the 69-59 split to win a larger majority. That measure passed 19-8. Also, according to those with knowledge of the Michigan agreement, it is fair to claim Clinton the winner of Michigan. But they caution against counting her popular vote in the state.” [MSNBC]

Quick Clips: Kids say the darndest things?

** Nevada’s chief executive, quite possibly the worst governor in the nation, Jim Gibbons, left his chief of staff Mike Dayton to field questions about educational funding from students representing the Clark County School District Student Advisory Council. The results weren’t pretty. Could a person venture that they might have been worse had the Governor himself faced the kids – and their grasp of the statistics and consequent implications? Full Story at Las Vegas Sun. Perhaps we could encourage the kids to ask the governor about northern Nevada’s bleak numbers in the last economic quarterly reports? [RGJ]

** Molly Ball reminds Nevada Republicans that if they lose one more seat in the State Assembly the Democrats will have a veto proof majority, and one more seat in the Senate will give Democrats control of the Legislature. [LVRJ]

** If this comment concerning the influence of lobbyists on John McCain’s president campaign isn’t replete with elitism, it’s hard to image what would qualify: “Asked today if questions about potential conflicts-of-interest might be affecting the choices of average American voters, Black responded bluntly: "Hell, no." He was careful to say that Senator McCain is committed to maintaining the integrity of the campaign -- hence his commitment to the re-vetting process. But, Black added, "I do not believe that average voters out there care." [MSNBC] The Great Unwashed, Hoi Polloi, Little People, have noticed that the campaign staffers weren’t vetted in the first place – had this not been the case “re-vetting” would not be necessary. What the “little people sitting out there in the dark” understand perfectly well is that executives who are tied to lobbyists (Jack Abramoff anyone?) have ethical conflicts of interest, and conflicts of interest all too often result in scandals, jail sentences, and other scenarios played out during the Bush Administration. Black’s had ties to the Mobutu regime in Zaire, Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos (on whom Reagan pulled the plug), Nigerian dictator Ibrahim Babangida, and the brutal regime controlling Equatorial Guinea. [HuffPo] What was McCain saying recently about not talking to brutal dictatorial regimes?

** We could do this for another hundred years? “The Army said today that it is "increasingly a challenge" to provide troops for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and to reach its goal of allowing soldiers at least 12 months at home between combat tours. The experience of the 25th Infantry Division is typical. It just returned last October from a 15-month deployment in Iraq and will spend barely 12 months at home before its new deployment. The division served a 12-month deployment in Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005.” [Baltimore Sun] Or this? “The Pentagon plans to send 39,000 soldiers to Iraq to replace troops scheduled to leave the war zone and to hold the total U.S. force level steady over the next year.” [Reuters] When is a “Surge” a permanent escalation?

** Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) noted that President Bush would be the first chief executive to veto a benefits bill for veterans. [TP] Meanwhile, the Philadephia Inquirer, the Denver Post, and the Seattle News Tribune weigh in with support for the Webb Bill.

** Bomb Bomb Iran: Senator John McCain is upset that Senator Barack Obama is “downplaying” the danger from Iran [CNN] which, in turn, yields the question: Who wants the danger played UP? The list includes Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, and Norman Podhoretz [TWN] and where have we heard those names before? Neo-conservatives one and all. Ron Paul caught them at it in 2006. Conanson picked up on the implications of a McCain presidency in a Salon article last March, “The danger of a McCain presidency is not only that he would prolong our presence in Iraq but that he would seek to fulfill neoconservative dreams of a war expanded from Iraq into Iran and Syria, leading to a regional conflagration. With his campaign already sowing the arguments for a wider conflict, we will not be able to say we weren't warned.” For what it’s worth, McCain endorser Rev. John Hagee would be delighted to see the promotion of Armageddon. “Hagee, who has a radio and television ministry with a global reach and is the author of more than 20 books, views the Israel-Hezbollah conflict as a warm-up to a confrontation with Iran.“[RtWebWtch]

Stretching credibilty and straining the incredulous

There are quite simply some storylines during this campaign season that defy plausibility.

# Consider the following excerpt from the Nevada Democratic Party about the recent convention in Reno: “Nevada Democrats wrapped up a successful state convention today by voting on a party platform and electing the five Democrats who will represent Nevada in the Electoral College.” [NVDem] If the press release means that “successful” means the state party convention didn’t devolve into the chaos that marked the Republican confab, then the statement might be creditable. However, DeeH’s posts, those from Blue Lyon, and this report from an attendee from Humboldt County – “On Saturday morning, we arrived at Registration promptly at 7 AM and were, once again, turned away because we were “not on the list.” We weren’t on the Delegate list (as we expected to be) nor were we on the Alternate list. Finally, at 8:30 AM, we magically appeared on the “Alternate” list and were able to receive an “Alternate” badge. We could, at least, sit in the Alternates area and observe the convention business. […] That time came and went and we were told the revised time would be 12 Noon instead. But 12 Noon came and went, and it wasn’t until 2:05 PM that we finally received our Delegate credentials,” indicate something rather less than a well organized, effective, convention.

# The McCain campaign didn’t know it was up to its ears in lobbyists before May 15, 2008. Senator McCain’s national finance co-chair just resigned “the latest casualty of a presidential campaign eager to cauterize damage caused by its ties to lobbyists.” [NYT] Thomas Loeffler’s departure brings the total number of top firm lobbyists departing from significant roles in the campaign to five. [WashMon] As Kevin Drum pointed out, the McCain for President organization had to know these people were lobbyists when they were initially hired – no one had to “point it out to them.” Unless, of course, they were hiring people without looking at their resumés; and who would believe that?

# Members of the United States Senate believe that it might be perfectly acceptable to finance the bank bail outs from funds set aside to assist low income renters. Last Thursday GOP and Democratic leaders on the Senate Banking Committee reached a ‘tentative deal’ to assist those who are far behind on mortgage payments by using a portion of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “that had been set aside for low income rental housing.” [WaPo] via TPMEC If this is some sort of trial balloon, then it ought to be pointed out that it’s made of pure lead.

# There are serious editors and publishers in the corporate media who are gatekeepers taking their assignments seriously when it comes to columnists making derogatory, shallow, and puerile ‘jokes’ about presidential candidates and party leaders. This statement isn’t the least bit credible in the face of recent comments by Maureen Dowd, Kathleen Parker, Chris Matthews, and Monica Crowley; all of whom have provided solid evidence that their individual senses of humor haven’t progressed much beyond that associated with junior high school locker rooms. [Digby] When my grandmother used to describe people of this ilk as “common,” she didn’t mean it as a compliment.

# Presidential candidate Senator John McCain needs former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on the campaign trail. As the trite question goes: With friends like these who needs enemies? First Huckabee makes a joke about an assassination attempt on Senator Barack Obama, who was given Secret Service protection early in the campaign because of very plausible threats, and after that gaffe goes on Meet the Press to say he thought Senator McCain singing “Bomb, Bomb, Iran” was funny. [TP]

# Any discussion of Bush Administration corruption is old news. The perversion of the Bush Administration continues to be uncovered, and Government Executive has created a quick interactive (Six Degrees of Scott Bloch) showing the connections between the chief of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and several scandals.

# Average Americans just aren’t capable of understanding all the nuances of the mortgage industry and the subject should be dealt with by experts. Well, perhaps when industry representatives indulge in terminology like “counter-cyclical diversification strategy,” when they actually mean “piling on” a mortgage holder in default, the subject could tend to lose focus. [CreditSlips has additional information on the mortgage servicing hearing in the Senate]

For Whom the Roads Toll

** The privatization fad has come to the Nevada Transportation Board. [LVRJ] Additionally, it offers the Governor cover for his “No New Taxes” incantations: “The governor feels this does conform with his pledge not to raise taxes," Gibbons' spokesman Ben Kieckhefer said. He added the fee would be optional, and that's different than a "blanket" tax or fee that everyone has to pay.” Put another way, road tolls are another method by which to tax Nevada citizens. If a person wishes to use a public thoroughfare that individual has to pay for the privilege. Since when did travel, and the means of travel, get to be a privilege? Unencumbered travel is something that citizens of a state should share in common, and not seen as a “privilege” for those who can afford it. However, this isn’t the worst that can come from the privatization of public roads, and Unbossed has a thorough and well documented series of articles on the toll road scam. A list of the topics covered in their articles is located here. Unbossed also analyzed the “Hidden Costs of Toll Roads,” and evaluated the situation in “Part 1: Toll Roads, Privatization, and Taxes – Connect the DOTs,” and “Part 2: Toll Roads, Privatization and Taxes…” These articles should be enough to get a serious student of the privatization fad in road building started. “There is No Free Toll Road,” explains why so many so-called well intentioned toll road projects got into trouble.

** We might all wonder just why Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-AZ) was so anxious to receive the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee? Could it be that no one in the McCain campaign had ever read “The Battle for Jerusalem” or his “Prophecy Bible Study”?” Now that all things Israeli have become topical in the corporate media, this could be as good a time as any to quote the pastor directly: “And the Bible says - Jeremiah righty? - "they shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks", meaning: there's no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended: I didn't write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, "my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come BACK to the land of Israel".Today Israel is back in the land and they are at Ezekiel 37 and 8. They are physically alive but they're not spiritually alive.” [TF@DailyKos]

This doesn’t quite square with his explanation for why he retracted virulently anti-Catholic comments, “In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholics and Protestant relations with the Jews," Hagee wrote. "In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not." [AP] Describing Jews as “Dead Souls” isn’t anti-Semitic? Some commenters have also found it interesting that Hagee’s apology was not addressed to any official Church leaders, but to members of activist Catholic organizations like the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights.

** If the McCain campaign keeps shedding lobbyists will there be anyone available to answer the phone? Craig Shirley, of Shirley & Bannister Associates, is the latest to get kicked off the Weasel Wagon. [Politico] McCain seems to have done a major flip-flop on holding discussions with Hamas, although a carefully phrased denial says not; and appears to have rotated another 180 on whether the NRA should have a major role in the Republican Party.

** Lisa Mascaro’s article for the Las Vegas Sun explains the GOP’s rationale for their “protest vote” on the Iraq War Supplemental bill: “By refusing to vote for war funding and instead voting “present,” Republican denied Democrats the majority needed to pass the war funding provision. Republicans then blamed Democrats for denying troops funds needed in wartime.” And thus the game is played.

** The headline doesn’t do the Reno Gazette Journal article about the Nevada Democratic Convention justice, “Dems likely to send split convention delegation.” Of course the Nevada delegation will be split – Democratic Party convention rules call for proportional allocation based on vote totals from caucuses and primaries. [Time]

Another one bites the dust: Mississippi Congressional District race results

Could we guess that NRSC chair Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) took a peek at the results of the Mississippi 1^st Congressional district race tonight? And, could we surmise that he wasn’t pleased with the results? Democratic candidate Travis W. Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis 54% to 46%. Childers won 57,276 votes to Davis’s 49,314. [djournal] Republicans had held the seat since 1994.

Much slicing, dicing, and parsing is sure to follow this House election, but it’s relatively obvious what did not work for the Mississippi GOP.

* Having Vice President Dick Cheney fly in to add ‘presidential’ muscle to the Davis campaign didn’t do the trick, nor did sending in Governor Haley Barbour, Sen. Thad Cochran, former Senator Trent Lott, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

* GOP attempts to tie Childers to the Obama campaign didn’t provide enough momentum to carry the Davis campaign. [CBS]

* $1.3 million spent by the NRCC was insufficient, as was funding from outside groups like Freedom’s Watch which poured in another $500,000.

* Inserting NRCC staff into the Mississippi race to help boost GOP turnout wasn’t enough to save Davis. [MSNBC]

Republicans have blamed “faulty candidates” for previous losses, and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) has a ready-made excuse he might be using for this third loss: Republican infighting at the primary level. [The Hill]

Senator Ensign was painting a bleak picture for Republican prospects in Senate races this past March, and had at least two complaints mirroring those of his House counterpart – the lack of fundraising and top quality candidates. [The Hill] The repetition of Blunt’s and Ensign’s excuses might leave a person wondering if the GOP line next November will be “it’s not that the Democrats won, it’s that we lost” the races?

McCain and Nevada Real Estate: Did McCain assist Dell Webb Corp. in Red Rock Land Deal?

John McCain, Nevada real estate agent? When Nevada based Dell Webb Corporation wanted to “buy valuable time” in a 1994 land deal to get a 4,000 acre portion it wanted in a trade excluded from the Red Rock National Conservation area, Senator John McCain put a secret hold on a bill that would have increased the size of the protected conservation area. Dell Webb Corp. had given McCain $56,535 in campaign contributions at the time lobbyist Don Moon “asked the senator for help in Nevada.” [full story at LVRJ]

Senator McCain has also been called upon to explain his involvement in an Arizona land swap that benefited GOP donor Fred Ruskin. [OpenSec] A spokesperson for the McCain campaign offered blanket denials that the Senator had ever done anything “inappropriate” in regard to land deals and swaps. Washington Post

Overnight Express News Round Up

** Gaming tax report shows how recession-proof Nevada isn’t – the state governor most likely to grace the posts of the Wonkette hints at another round of budget cuts. [RGI] State First Lady Living In Mansion For State Chief Executives succeeds in getting state’s most interesting d-i-v-o-r-c-e moved to Reno. [RGI]

** Ironic Headline: “Nevada Republicans bolt party line, support housing package. [Las Vegas Sun] However, don’t start the cheering quite yet, the game isn’t over by a long shot: “Housing bailout bill seems to be on shaky ground.” [NYT]

** There’s a wonderful sense of irony in a headline that reads, “Anti-Pork McCain Speaks at New Jersey Museum Funded By Nearly $1 Million in Earmarks.” [Think Progress]

** Amazing document dump – all the papers released from the Pentagon concerning military analyst briefings vis a vis Iraq, compliments of Meteor Blades at Daily Kos. Beware: (1) All the files appear to be pdf and therefore a bit slow loading; and (2) As with nearly all document dumps there are repetitions, in addition to items being out of chronological order. It took the better part of this afternoon to browse through one folder of briefings and talking points.

** It’s not just Fort Bragg – “Army targets eight posts for repairs” [FayObs] Opponents of the New G.I. Bill will likely point to the CBO report that says the bill could cut retention rates by 16% and might cost up to $6.7 billion over five years. However, the rest of the report says that “better recruiting but weaker re-enlistments would leave the military with a $1.1 billion cost over five years to maintain the current force.” [Army Times] A reminder - we're spending about $10 billion per month on the occupation of Iraq.

** ‘Black water keeps rollin' on past just the same, Old black water, keep on rollin': “But after an intense public and private lobbying campaign, Blackwater appears to be back to business as usual,” from James Risen’s NYT article “Iraq contractor in shooting case makes comeback.” See also: “Blackwater unlikely to face charges in Iraq shooting,” [IHT] “Black water inquiry sought” [SDUT] “Blackwater Worldwide adopts fresh image to seek funds” [TimesOnline]

** Why – in the tawdry tail end of the Bush Administration – does this come as no surprise whatsoever? “FBI, ATF battle for control of cases: cooperation lags despite merger.” In the five years the agencies have been together in the Department of Justice they have “fought each other for control, wasting time and money and causing duplication of effort.” Full story in the Washington Post. “OMB Watch testifies on regulator policy regarding the rulemaking process and the unitary executive theory” [OMBWtch]

** It’s not necessarily the emergency rooms: “Illegal farm workers get health care in shadows” [NYT] A drop in charitable donations and the inability of some youngsters to qualify for subsidized health mean “Some programs threatened at a local (Boise, ID) school for pregnant teens” [IdaStat] “Think Again: The costs of enforced sexual ignorance” [CAP] “Public Citizen tells FDA: Ortho-Evra patch exposes women to dangerous estrogen levels, risk of blood clots” [Public Cit] “Paid maternity leave still on the wishlist for many U.S. mothers” [EPI]

** “Farm Bill conference agreement contains significant domestic nutrition improvements” [CBPP]

** Oops: “U.S. – Man held is not leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq” [WaPo] which really isn’t compatible with the May 9 article “Reports of Qaeda Arrest” [NYT] and certainly doesn’t square with the right wing CNS report “Good news from Iraq.” If, as Vice President Dick Cheney says, things in Iraq are going swimmingly, then why this headline: “Military adds armor to vehicles as roadside bombs surge” [AP]

** “In surveys conducted between October 2007 and March 2008, 58% of voters under age 30 identified or leaned toward the Democratic Party, compared with 33% who identified or leaned toward the GOP. The Democratic Party's current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign, from 11 points to 25 points.” [Pew]

** “EPIC prevails in Virginia Fusion Center FOIA Case” [EPIC] “EPIC filed the case after the State Police refused to disclose documents describing the federal government's involvement in efforts to limit Virginia's transparency and privacy laws.”

** A dictatorship in action: “Myanmar holds (constitutional) referendum amid cyclone chaos” [Reuters] “Myanmar seizes UN food for cyclone victims and blocks foreign experts” [NYT]

** “Spanish reporter shot by foreign soldiers in Haiti” [Reuters] A court held that Spanish journalist Ricardo Ortega was shot in Haiti in 2004 while covering a demonstration between supporters and opponents of ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. “Foreign forces and U.S. Marines had been sent to the poorest country in the Americas to try to keep peace after the bloody rebellion by gangs and former soldiers against Aristide.” Populist groups in Haiti issued a call for solidarity with underpaid workers: “On the occasion of this First of May, we take the opportunity to ask the State to apply a minimum wage of 300 gourdes per day instead of 70 gourdes, so that the working classes can survive this gnawing hunger.” [Anarkismo] The current exchange rate for the Haitian Gourde is 1.00 HTG = 0.03 US dollars. [XE] “Haiti’s prime minister nominee says solutions to poverty must be long term: spurred by recent food riots, Haiti’s congressional allies got more generous concessions for the nation’s textile industry approved by Congress.” [MiamiHer]

** Anyone heard from Uruguay lately? “Anti-inflation plan cost Uruguay 0.8% of GDP in seven months” [MercoPress] “Uruguay rice industry wants to double production” [MercoPress]

* Meanwhile back in Zimbabwe: “US, other envoys in Zimbabwe visit victims of political violence, urge halt to attacks” [VOA] “Mediator Mbeki meets Mugabe on Zimbabwe crisis” [Reuters] “Fresh evidence of attacks in Zimbabwe as Mbeki arrives for talks” [IHT] “Arrests of Zimbabwe Union leaders a flagrant violation of human rights” [AFL-CIO]

Quick Clips: Gas Pain - Porter opposes Mother's Day?

** Mid-grade unleaded gasoline was just a tiny scooch under $4.00 per gallon yesterday in Winnemucca, NV, and thank the heavens my pick up doesn’t require diesel – that was posted at $4.37 per gallon. However, the American Petroleum Institute will be right there to tell me that IT’S NOT THEIR FAULT. “Punishing them,” as in making them pay their appropriate and legal royalties, and their taxes on record incomes, will only “make them” raise the prices further. [WaPo]

** Close doesn’t count: “A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.” [Kevin Drum] Oops?

** Perrspectives provides “John McCain’s Top Ten Out-of-Touch-Moments”

** “Contractors’ offshore tax havens under more scrutiny” Government Executive

** “Keeping secrets from the CIA: Why was Langley cut out of clandestine meetings with Iranian informants?” [Newsweek] Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report how the Pentagon excluded the agency from “inappropriate” back channel contacts with Iranian informants, including a “key figure from the Iran-Contra affair.” Does this sound all too much like Senator John McCain’s proposal for a new super-spy agency predicated on the World War II era Office of Strategic Services? [Nation]

** Mother Jones has a good video, “McCain’s Pastor Problem.” Think Progress posts “McCain stays silent on Hagee’s homophobic slurs.”

** “Infighting holds up New Orleans levee money” Times-Picayune But wait! That wasn’t all that got tangled up in the House Republican tantrum yesterday – they voted against their own Mothers’ Day Resolution, [Think Progress] including Representative Jon Porter (R-NV3) who voted against tabling the motion to reconsider the bill. [rc 275]

** Reports and information from the House Education and Labor Committee’s investigation of the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster have been posted online for public access.

** The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs will hold a hearing on the “Transition Assistance Program for Guard and Reserve Forces,” on May 16^th.

Adelson Still At It: So-called 501(c) active in Mississippi Congressional Race

Nevada’s own cranky gazillionaire, Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Sands, Etc. and his Freedoms’ Watch organization may be operating as “the cash-strapped NRCC’s de facto independent expenditure campaign [DCCC] accordin