For four years, San Diego County officials tried unsuccessfully to secure delinquent property tax payments on the McCains' La Jolla, California condo unit. The tax bill has now finally been paid -- apparently by Mrs. McCains' family trust -- but only after NEWSWEEK raised questions about the overdue bill.

Here's some photographs of and from the condominium complex in which the McCains' have a unit on the third floor. As you can see, it overlooks the Pacific Ocean and as a real estate agent might say, it offers spectacular views of the water, especially when the sun is setting.

::: ::: :::

The McCains' unit is on the third floor
of this condominium (photo from Google Maps):

Sunset view (from a first floor unit
in the condo listed at $1.3 million):

Sunset view from same unit
(the thing in the middle is the window frame):

And the kitchen:

::: ::: :::

The LaJolla property is one of about ten of residences owned by the McCains.

Daily Kos diarist mindgeek has a must-read diary on the neuroscience of swift-boating. (It's worth noting that mindgeek is Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton University and author of Welcome to Your Brain. In other words, he is no intellectual slouch.)

Professor Wang's diary, which first appeared as an op-ed in The New York Times, delivers a brief overview of the neurological foundations of false beliefs. In short, if a false claim is repeated with enough frequency, over time the brain tends to forget the context which exposed the claim's falsehood, while remembering the claim itself -- in the process, forming a false belief.

This process of forming false beliefs leads Professor Wang to make a crucial observation:

Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is false. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that he is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress his discovery of Christianity in his twenties.

This seems like very good advice. Instead of leading with the smear, lead with the truth, and turn the tables on the smear merchant. For example, on the "whitey tape" the FightTheSmears.com site could say:

The truth: There is no tape of Michelle Obama using the word "whitey" from the pulpit of Trinity United, contrary to Rush Limbaugh's false claim.

The truth: Larry Johnson never posted "New and dramatic developments...by 0900 hours" despite his wild promises.

On the religion smear:

The truth: Barack Obama is a committed Christian and has never belonged to any other religion, despite anonymous e-mail smears claiming otherwise.

Instinctively, this approach makes a ton of sense to me; the fact that someone as brilliant as Sam Wang bases his argument for it on neurological foundations makes it all the stronger.

(As a side note, in early April Professor Wang co-authored another illuminating NYT op-ed on the way the mind works. It's definitely worth a read.)

This is super-hilarious. The WaPo today describes how Danielle Allen, a political theorist at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies, discovered the origin of the Obama-is-not-a-Christian smear (which she received by e-mail in January), even though "experts told her it would be impossible to trace the chain e-mail to its origin."

Allen discovered that theories about Obama's religious background had circulated for many years on the Internet. And that the man who takes credit for posting the first article to assert that the Illinois senator was a Muslim is Andy Martin.

As Ben Smith, notes, The Nation's Chris Hayes made the same discovery last October:

But even if the identity of the e-mail's author was unrecoverable, it was still possible to trace back the roots of its content. The origin proved even more bizarre than I could have guessed.

On August 10, 2004, just two weeks after Obama had given his much-heralded keynote speech at the DNC in Boston, a perennial Republican Senate candidate and self-described "independent contrarian columnist" named Andy Martin issued a press release. In it, he announced a press conference in which he would expose Obama for having "lied to the American people" and "misrepresent[ed] his own heritage."

A few days ago, I showed that despite John McCain's widely praised decision to accept public funding, about half of his general election budget will be funded privately with donations funneled through the Republican National Committee.

Even though the public finance system nominally limits McCain's post-convention spending to the $84 million he'll receive in public funds, those limits are relatively meaningless thanks to loopholes that allow him to spend RNC money as if it were his own.

When I wrote about this, I thought I was flagging something that the McCain campaign would have wanted to keep under wraps to avoid charges of hypocrisy. After all, individuals can give up to $28,500 to the RNC, more than twelve times as much as the $2,300 an individual is allowed to give to Obama's general election campaign.

It turns out that I was completely wrong -- for weeks now the McCain campaign has been publicly boasting that McCain-RNC fundraising activities are joint operations to raise money for McCain's general election campaign.

In fact, when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis gave a strategy briefing to supporters earlier this month, he explicitly noted that as far as the general election is concerned, there is no meaningful distinction between McCain campaign fundraising and RNC fundraising.

Davis argued -- correctly -- that to get a true understanding of who is leading the fundraising battle, one must look at the combined totals of each candidate and their party.

In other words, it's not the John McCain 2008 committee versus the Obama for America committee, it's McCain+RNC versus Obama+DNC.

And when you look at the numbers that way, the world turns upside down: John McCain is leading the fundraising battle, and it's not even close.

As you can see from this chart, John McCain and the RNC not only outraised Barack Obama and the DNC by more than 50% in May -- $45.9 million to $28.1 million -- they are also sitting on nearly twice as much cash-on-hand, $85.1 million to $47.1 million.

The bottom-line here is that the media have spun up a David and Goliath narrative about fundraising this campaign. They are partially right -- it is a David and Goliath battle, but they've got the roles reversed.

No matter what happened in the primary season, so far in the general election, it's John McCain whose got the fundraising advantage now.

And it's Barack Obama who is the underdog.

The McCain campaign, making up a new line of attack on Barack Obama's bipartisan credentials:

there is nothing in his record that demonstrates an ability to reach across the aisle

John McCain, praising Obama for supporting his immigration bill in May of 2006:

I also want to thank Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Martinez, Obama, and DeWine for their shared commitment to this issue, and working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process.

Of course, it's also true that McCain capitulated to pressure from his own party on the immigration issue. So he doesn't support the bipartisan position he once held. Doesn't that make him a  *gasp* partisan?

Jake Tapper on ABC News last night:

The latest ABC News poll indicates one-quarter of Clinton supporters are thinking of voting for Senator John McCain, with Obama only winning 62% of them. He cannot win if that does not change.

Except the same exact ABC News poll cited by Tapper also shows Barack Obama leading John McCain, 48%-42%.

And I would have to respectfully submit to Mr. Tapper that John McCain cannot win if that does not change.

YouTube link

Everybody knows that FOX News has a conservative tilt to its coverage, making the network an easy target for those of us who aren't on the right. But while we may disagree with FOX's perspective, at least we know that it has one.

ABC, on the other hand, is nowhere near as overt as FOX about its own biases, and given that 8 million people watch its news broadcast each evening -- an audience about 5x larger than FOX's total primetime viewership -- ABC's negative impact could be both more insidious and more impactful.

I haven't performed any kind of rigorous analysis, but based on the ABC broadcasts I've watched, the political coverage has been heavily slanted against Barack Obama and has been far more charitable to John McCain. (And who could forget the debate in Philadelphia.)

Anyway, I thought tonight's coverage of the Clinton-Obama unity rally was a particularly good example of how ABC is negatively biased against Obama. In fact, compared to ABC, the FOX News report seemed positively glowing to me. I've posted both reports after the jump if you care to subject yourself to the torture of watching them.

Full video of event on YouTube

Earlier this month, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis bragged that John McCain is now outraising Barack Obama for the general election.

Instead of getting mad about McCain's campaign finance hypocrisy, let's get even: show your support for Barack Obama by going to donate.barackobama.com and making a contribution today.

YouTube link

Substantively, the issue here is that even though McCain says he's foregoing private financing for the general election, he's actually not. About fifty percent -- probably more -- of his general election campaign budget will come from private sources funneled through the Republican National Committee. It's all completely legal -- and it's what Barack means when he says the system is broken.

Whether you've got the time to volunteer or the resources to contribute, the Obama campaign needs your help now more than ever.

Please tell a friend about this video (links: jedreport.com | YouTube), and, if you can afford to, don't forget to make a contribution donate.barackobama.com.

Yes we can!

The event in Unity, NH seems to have gone of perfectly, and the visual imagery, as always with Obama, was flawless. As Ben Smith notes, even the shade of Obama's tie and Clinton's suit were a match.

1. My beef isn't with people who disagree with Obama's decision, or who criticize the decision. My beef is with those who week to create a negative narrative about Obama from that decision, or who take their criticism of him and lose all sense of proportion, going way beyond what's reasonable given that he has but one vote in the Senate. Steny Hoyer did this deal, and Nancy Pelosi supported it.
2. FISA hasn't passed the Senate yet. I agree that it seems likely to pass without telco immunity, but until it does pass, and Obama votes for it, it seems that a more intelligent investment of resources would be rallying people behind the efforts to stop the legislation, or at least the telco immunity provisions.
3. To that at end, whatever the merits of the argument that supporting the FISA deal is a sellout, making that argument won't win any votes. Perhaps if all the energy that has been spent focusing on Obama were instead focused on a money bomb against FISA (without supporting Ron Paul or his candidates), and advancing cogent arguments against its passage, more good would be accomplished.
4. I've seen people argue that Obama's move was a Sista Souljah moment. Without disputing that his viewpointn is at odds with many of his supporters, I don't see much evidence if any to show that he took this position precisely because it would be at odds with his supporters. Remember, when Bill Clinton slammed Sista Souljah, what he was really doing was publicly humiliating Jesse Jackson to send a message to white voters that he wasn't captive to African-Americans. (Somehow Bill Clinton made it seem courageous to stand up to someone who was talking about murdering police officers.)
5. Anyone who thinks Obama is inevitable should remember that so was Hillary Clinton. I do think there are big differences and that Obama is in a much stronger position than she was, but it's also worth remembering that while he was done well in most polls, spectacularly well in some, for 3 straight days the Gallup tracking poll has had the race tied.

I just posted them over on Daily Kos:

President McCain just got elected, but that's okay

I'm driving to work, here in Las Vegas. The traffic is bad, mostly on account of the sun, which has has just risen, nearly blinding me and my fellow road warriors. Between my sunglasses and squinting, I can barely make out the road, but I've been down it before, I know where I'm going.

I've got the radio turned on. President McCain is about to give his first press conference after his inauguration earlier in the week. They're saying he's planning on talking about his legislative initiative for the first hundred days, but that's okay.

I mentioned I'm driving; it's expensive. Gas prices are now over five bucks a gallon and going higher. McCain in his inauguration announced a bold new initiative to lower gas prices -- building a long-term base in Iraq, near the border with Iran. He's also fast-tracking his offshore drilling plan.

The press conference comes on. The first question is about reports that one of the liberal members of the Supreme Court is in poor health and is about to retire. McCain wishes the justice well, and promises to meek a replacement that is in keeping with the constitutional traditions of the country.

I figure he means someone to the right of Roberts and Alito. Something like that.

But that's okay.

I didn't want McCain to win. In fact, I voted for Obama. But I didn't lift a finger to help Obama because he voted for something that I disagreed with him on. Maybe in part because of my apathy, John McCain won the November election.

But that's okay -- because I sure showed Barack Obama.

And now he's the one paying the price.

Anyway, back to the road. I can see it a little more clearly now, the sun is a little higher in the sky. I sure do hope that the traffic begins to move. It's expensive sitting here on the beltway, doing nothing.

You just can't make this stuff up: Larry "Wide Stance" Craig and David "Just a Massage" Vitter are now original co-sponsors of the new Federal Marriage Amendment (aka Marriage Protection Amendment).

h/t: Steve Benen

YouTube link

Remind you of "Mission Accomplished"?

On a housekeeping note, I'm replacing The Daily McBush with a generic daily video (snazzy title TBD) so that I can focus on a broader range of subjects...McSame gets boring.

Maybe Las Vegas wasn't the best place for John McCain to propose building 45 more nuclear power plants -- after all, he wants to bury the high-level radioactive waste they produce right here in Nevada. The issue dogged him on each of the major local news broadcasts.

YouTube link

By the way, isn't it interesting how local political coverage tends to focus on real issues, whereas national political coverage tends to focus on the meaningless stuff? I wonder what Dean Broder has to say about that.

I think this helps explain why Barack manages to do so well in so many state and national polls despite having a national media that is in love with Teflon John.

Is CNN morphing into FOX? Or has it already morphed? Last night alone was a tour de force of Barack Obama smears.

First, we have Campbell Brown (h/t: debrazza):

Hi, everybody. Tonight, a story that everybody is going to soon be talking about. It is a new line of attack on Barack Obama led none other -- led by none other than Karl Rove. There are those who say, though, that Obama brought this on himself. We're going to look at this from both sides tonight.

Why does she think that everybody is going to be talking about this? Because that's the only way she can justify putting such a filthy discussion on the air? As debrazza suggested, if we're really going to have this kind of discussion, then let's have a 30 minutes discussion on whether or not John McCain is in full control of his faculties.

Next we've got Anderson Cooper:

Look out Imus. Now it's Ralph Nader's turn. He's mixing race and politics targeting Barack Obama accusing him of trying to talk white, in his terms, and ignoring problems in what he calls the ghettos. Did he cross the line? Does he even have his facts straight? We've got the facts so you can decide.

WTF? Not only is Cooper cribbing FOX's "We report, you decide" line, he's also spending 10 minutes of airtime talking about an absurd comment made by crank candidate, simply because he thinks it's controversial.

And finally, when CNN isn't talking about Barack Obama, they trying to boost John McCain's campaign. TPM posted video of a report by CNN's Tom Foreman, taking a look at the extent to which Bush and McCain agree on the issues. Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Democrats are trying to make the case. And "Keeping them Honest," John McCain does share many policy points with the president. Arguing for expanding off-shore oil production for example, the president said, it was environmentally safe and the senator echoed.

MCCAIN: It's safe enough these days. Not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coast of New Orleans and Houston.

FOREMAN: On many issues, the two generally agree. They oppose abortion rights and gay marriage. They want a strong border and immigration reform. McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts and free trade.

Both men put faith in market forces rather than government for helping people with healthcare and retirement. But there are also real differences.

Notice what's missing? Iraq and the GWOT. As Josh noted in the video, Foreman eventually touched on Iraq, but mostly to argue that McCain saw things differently than Bush.

::: ::: :::

Let me conclude by saying there are two reasons why I'm posting this.

One reason is obviously to call out CNN for its overt bias against Barack Obama and for John McCain. Everybody knows how biased FOX is, but CNN at times can be just as bad. In fact, because some people take CNN more seriously than FOX, it can actually be more harmful.

The other reason has more to do with Democrats and those of us on the left, particularly those who are upset over FISA. Here's an example from the Murdoch-owned WSJ:

"There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.

Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."

Stoller subsequently penned a stern post titled "The Obama Accountability Movement Begins."

To which I respond: that is both too late and too early. Too late because the primaries were the time to be critical. I say this as someone who was critical of Obama at times (when Edwards, my preferred candidate, was still in the race). Too early because he hasn't been elected president yet.

Chris Bowers today wrote that he was "relieved that Obama flip-flopped, and stabbed progressives in the back, on telecom immunity and FISA." Why?

I am relieved because it seems to have finally done the job is causing the effects of the kool-aid to wear off in blogosphere comment sections. Now, rather than commenters criticizing bloggers for criticizing Obama, the general sentiment is that Obama isn't great, but we need to work to get him elected anyway.

I'm fully confident that Bowers understands it would be completely unacceptable for John McCain to win this election; our country could not possibly make a worse statement than to reward the Republican Party with four more years after the terrible job they have done managing our national affairs.

The only way I can make that square with his other sentiment is that there must be a general sense that Obama has this election in the bag. It sure seems easy to believe that he does, leading by 15 points in not one but two national polls. But on the other hand, on back-to-back days Gallup has had this race tied.

I tend to think that Barack Obama is a dominant favorite, perhaps prohibitively so. But even if there is a 5% chance of McCain winning (in truth, it must be higher), that is 5% too high.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be critical of decisions Obama makes between now and November; if you think some part of Barack Obama's campaign is misfiring, and that it's something that can be fixed, say so. If you disagree with him on some policy, say so.

But those crticisms should not -- must not -- designed to develop a negative attack narrative about Barack Obama, especially not one that plays into conservative hands. It's one thing to criticize him for being too moderate; but attacking his trustworthiness is not cool, not right now, especially when such attacks rely on comic strip characterizations of Barack, and it's even worse to suggest that his supporters didn't really know him, and are just beginning to see who he really is now. (Plus, it's wrong.)

So my bottom line is this: avoid the indulgence of developing narratives against Barack Obama until after the election. Assuming he wins, there will be plenty of time and room to criticize.

But for now, we've got an election to win, and failure is not an option. And if you spend even five minutes watching CNN, you'll realize just how heavily the deck is stacked against us.

I'm no economist, and I understand there was a tech bubble in the late 1990s, but this still can't be a good thing:

• Today's market close: June 25, 2008: 11,453.42
• 8.5 years ago: December 28, 1999: 11,476.71

Update: I should also note that it's not the first time in 8.5 years that the Dow has been below 11,453.42; the previous time was on September 11, 2006.

Update 2: I rechecked the numbers and it turns out the Dow closed above today's levels as far back as December of 1999 -- not January 2000 as I had first posted.

The presidential debate commission is recommending that all the debates be podium-free. In two of three debates, the candidates would be seated at a table, and in the third, a town hall debate, they would have stools and be able to walk around to interact with the audience.

This format would yield Barack's height advantage in 2 of 3 debates, but what it really brings to mind is a quirky little observation that I've had: Barack seems to do much, much better when he's sitting at a table than when he is standing behind a podium.

In 2008, there were five debates at tables (New Hampshire, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Austin, and Cleveland) and two with podiums (Myrtle Beach and Philadelphia). Other than his New Hampshire debate, I think Barack won all of the sitting debates, though the Austin one might have been a draw. He got pummeled in both of the standing debates. (Actually, South Carolina had a portion that was seated, and during that portion Barack was at his best.)

So my advice to whoever works on these things: give up that height advantage and keep 'em sitting!

Update: debrazza offered a convincing dissent in the comments:

I think a podium would actually be a major advantage for Obama. This is a clear advantage for McCain. While Obama did look more relaxed sitting down, particularly with the "reject and denounce" line, I think the moment that won him Iowa was when he was standing up and Hillary was cackling and said, "I'd like to hear that" in response to a question about why he has so many ex-Clintonites advising him and he said, "And I look forward to you advising me too Hillary". In my mind, that moment sealed the deal for his whole candidacy and he was standing up.

McCain is dead wood standing. If Obama is bad standing, McCain can only be worse. I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but first and foremost, Obama needs to present himself in more formal settings, not less formal settings. Having BBQ cookout debates out the back of a wagon wheel only helps McCain because it plays to his strength and does not give voters the opportunity to see Obama is a highly presidential setting against his opponent. Behind a podium who looks better and more presidential, Obama or McCain?

Two big SCOTUS decisions today: one on handguns, one on the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the BCRA. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but both rulings, it would seem to me, give lie to the notion that somehow only so-called "liberals" can be judicial activists.

To me, the ruling striking down the "Millionaire's Amendment," which raises contribution limits for candidates who face wealthy challengers, is the weaker of the two rulings, but that's probably because I'm more sympathetic to the handguns argument on policy grounds.

My point isn't really to engage in any detail on the constitutional merits of either ruling; I'm not exactly qualified to do that. But from my lay perspective, it sure does look like the political views of the justices guided their votes and opinions, not the other way around.

I'm not necessarily lamenting this fact -- I'm just a little bored of hearing from conservatives about how liberal judges are big bad activists. But I'd much rather hear their complaints than be put in the position of constantly complaining myself, and that's just another reason why it is so important to elect Barack Obama to be our next president.

As he said in a diary on Daily Kos in 2005:

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate.

Barack, who was explaining his decision to not support a fillibuster of John Roberts, continued:

And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.    I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

I found those quotes from another diary written a few days ago discussing Barack's approach towards FISA. It's a great diary, and makes a compelling case (one which I absolutely believe) that Barack's approach towards Roberts and towards FISA have been utterly consistent.

And as Barack himself explained in the diary there's an important lesson when a ruling or political vote doesn't go your way: keep your eyes on the prize. That's something that I think a lot of my friends ought to keep in mind these days.

We are in the process of removing from power one of the most destructive political machines in the history of the United States; the notion that the process would unfold smoothly and without compromise is foolish and naive. Hopefully, today's rulings are a reminder to those who are so up in arms about FISA that there is a larger picture here, and if by some chance Barack Obama does not become the next president of the United States, then FISA will be the least of our worries.

John McCain has a confusing energy plan timeline.

YouTube link:

Two items from Mark Halperin's to-do list for John McCain:

11. Spend a day (or two) in New York meeting with the columnists, publishers, anchors, executive producers, and news division presidents you have known and have cultivated for more than two decades — and remind them why they have always liked and respected you. (a.k.a: rejuvenate the base)

12. And/but recognize that your relationship with the press is different now, and it can’t ever be again like it was in the old days.

I wonder if those are meant to be messages for the media, or for McCain? Either way, they are damning, but damning of who depends on how you read it.

This was probably the silliest line from John McCain's "major" energy speech here in Las Vegas today:

Since I am not president, I cannot say the buck stops here -- but I will say that it must stop now.

Tough talk, eh?

As for the speech itself, he didn't offer anything new other than a name for his plan "Lexington Plan" or somesuch and a timeline for achieving what he calls "strategic independence" from foreign oil.

In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.

Keep that target date -- 2025 -- in mind when you read this next sentence from the speech, a rehash of one of McCain's longstanding proposals:

If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030.

Okay, so 45 new nuke reactors by 2030. But his plan will achieve independence by 2025. Help me out with the math here. 2030 comes after 2025, right? Is he already announcing a five year delay? Or is his plan just terribly confused?

Update: I posted video of this here.

In brief:

• McCain campaign co-chairman and VP hopeful Tom Ridge lobbied the U.S government on behalf of Albania
• The former Pennsylvania governor and HHS secretary failed to register his nearly-$500K contract for two years (federal law requires registration to occur within 10 days)
• The McCain campaign is defending Ridge. A spokesman says Albania is "an important European ally" and "the governor is in full compliance with the McCain campaign’s lobbying policy"

It's clear that John McCain was linking the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan to oil and gas prices in his comments on Monday. What's not clear is exactly what he meant, and resolving that is going to require someone from the media to ask him or his campaign.

McCain 2007 [video]:

“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

McCain 2006:

McCain on the possibility Alito would vote to overturn Roe: "I've never agreed with Roe v. Wade so it wouldn't bother me any."

McCain 1999:

"I am pro-life. I have a moral belief that life begins at inception. I believe that we should work to repeal any law or any provision concerning abortion in my view." Then he added: "I'm for the repeal of Roe v. Wade."

McCain 1993: (this is the one that still baffles me): McCain votes against legislation to protect abortion clinics from right wing domestic terrorists. Only 30 Senators opposed the new law -- all radical anti-choice extremists.

Senate Passes Abortion-Clinic Crime Bill
By ADAM CLYMER

The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a Federal law to prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions..

The vote was 69 to 30. Twenty-eight senators who voted against Federal financing of abortions six weeks ago supported the measure, seeing it as a law-and-order matter rather than as an abortion issue.

The benefits of offshore drilling will be psychological -- but that's not the only thing that's in your head.

Please digg the YouTube link:

This appears to be a classic Kinsley Gaffe:

YouTube link

I noticed McCain's comments earlier today while watching video of his town hall yesterday in Fresno. A local woman asked him a question about gas prices, and McCain answered by making the case for his gas tax holiday. He then added this:

I also want to make sure that we will take concrete steps towards eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. And I am confident that uh, the, the conflicts that we are in in both Iraq and Afghanistan have also a bearing on that.

It's not entirely obvious to me what exactly he was trying to say, but however you slice it, this is the most explicit connection McCain has made between our current war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and oil and gas prices.

Last month, McCain also connected war policies and oil, but his campaign dubiously argued he wasn't talking about current policies, but rather past and future policies. The media largely accepted this interpretation -- an interpretation that his latest comments should cause them to reevaluate, especially in light of the recent news that U.S. oil companies are now returning the country.

(I've also posted an extended video of his comments, including the entire question he was asked, and a transcript of his comments.)

H/T: Fresno Bee for the raw video.

CNN's Dana Bash reports in late December that John McCain said Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan could help his presidential campaign.

YouTube link

Key McCain quote: "I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment, so perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials."

Thanks to read MC who sent in the tip!

Yesterday in Fresno, John McCain finally delivered some straight talk on his offshore drilling plan, admitting it wouldn't provide "immediate relief" on gas prices. So if it would take years to see any impact from offshore drilling, why the sudden urgency to rush it through Congress now without also passing a comprehensive long-term energy plan?

"Exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial," he said.

YouTube link

Full transcript:

"I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

H/T: Fresno Bee for raw video, MSNBC for transcript.

Obviously the most egregious and contemptible thing about Charlie Black's comment that a terror attack would help John McCain's campaign was the hint that he was actually hoping for such a terrible thing to occur.

But the comment was wrong on more levels than just that -- here are three examples:

1. It was an invitation for attacks: As Keith Olbermann and Richard Clarke pointed out tonight on Countdown, for those terrorists who would prefer McCain to win, Black's comments was signal that attacking the United States before November could influence the election.
2. It was crying wolf: Clarke also made the case that Black's comment would serve to weaken the public's trust in the terror alert system, especially in the wake of Tom Ridge's admission that the alerts were gamed to influence the 2004 election.
3. It contemplated rewarding failure: John McCain himself has said that his top priority since 9/11 has been preventing another terrorist attack. The assumption that another attack would help McCain is predicted on the belief that failure would be rewarded; that is an unacceptable mindset on this of all issues.

I'm getting sick and tired of the circus of advisers being fired from campaigns for saying unpleasant things, but if there ever was an example of a comment that crossed far beyond the lines of decency -- this was it.

Charlie Black should go.

Only John McCain could dumb down an idea from George Bush. Bush proposes additional funding for research on car batteries; McCain says screw the research, just offer a $300 million prize to whoever develops one first.

YouTube link

USA Today actually did a little reporting on McCain's proposal and tracked down a company which says it will have such a batter on the market next year. I wonder who they are voting for. I've also heard some talk about an new lithium-ion battery from Toshiba. What about you? Got any $300 million ideas?

Leave aside for a moment the fact that John McCain's campaign lied to the media about a loan using public funding as collateral, and leave aside the legality of him withdrawing from the public finance system after having secured that loan. Also, leave aside the fact that John McCain would have had a $9 million spending edge over Obama if Obama took public financing.

Leave those aside for the moment because they aren't the only double-standards John McCain is seeking to enjoy in this public financing debate.

The other big double standard is probably the biggest one of them all: John McCain is portraying himself as an advocate for eliminating private funding from the general election when truth is that about one-half of his general election campaign will be financed by private sources.

I'm not talking about independent outside groups like 527s or PACs -- I'm talking about spending by John McCain and the Republican National Committee, the GOP's presidential election committee.

The New York Times hinted at this when McCain announced his decision to accept public funding:

The McCain campaign has long struggled to raise money, and was out-raised by several of his Republican rivals in the primary and vastly out-raised by Mr. Obama. But in recent months the campaign’s decision to raise money in tandem with the Republican National Committee, which is far richer than its Democratic counterpart, has yielded results.

The McCain campaign hoped that by accepting public financing – which will yield it more $84.1 million – and relying on the deep-pockets of the Republican National Committee, it will be able to stay competitive with Mr. Obama.

So the question is, how much private funding will be funneled into the McCain campaign by through his joint fundraising efforts with the Republican Party?

Inspired by debrazza, a frequent commenter on this blog, I pulled together the following datapoints which demonstrate the extent to which John McCain's campaign will be privately funded.

Public funding sources and limits:

• Public funding: $84.1 million

Private funding sources and limits:

(See FEC's Campaign Guide [.pdf] for definitions of each category.)

• Coordinated expenditures with RNC: $19.1 million
• Independent expenditures by RNC: unlimited (RNC spent $17.9 million in 2004)
• GOTV operations by RNC and state parties: unlimited (GOP spent $35.2 million in 2004)
• Signage and literature by state parties: unlimited

Minimum estimate of total campaign spending (from public and private sources), assuming at least 2004 levels for GOTV and independent expenditures:

• $156.3 million ($84.1 million public + $72.2 million private)

Conclusion: At minimum, nearly half of McCain's general election budget will come from private sources.

McCain will have no problem raising the money he needs. The RNC already has $40.6 million cash-on-hand, compared to $4.4 million for the DNC.

On top of the numbers above, John McCain has already raised more than $100 million in private funds for his 2008 campaign. Consequently, by the time November rolls around, it is nearly certain that 75% of John McCain's expenditures will have been raised from private sources.

So the bottom-line is that while John McCain rips Barack Obama for deciding to fund his campaign from private sources, the reality is that John McCain himself is planning on relying on private funds to run his own campaign.

Yet we hear nary a word of this in the press, which instead focuses on Barack Obama's change of position on using public financing for the general election. I'm not saying that the media shouldn't report his switch as a reversal; it was.

St. John McCain is claiming moral purity on this issue, but unless he affirmatively states that he will not use the private financing vehicles that are his disposal, his attacks ring hollow and reek of hypocrisy.

The McCain campaign is pushing back hard against Barack Obama's proposal to close the so-called "Enron loophole," blaming Bill Clinton for having signed into law:

The McCain [campaign] quickly fired back by noting that the Enron Loophole was supported by many Democrats, including ex-President Bill Clinton, and that McCain had long spoken out against it -- and had voted in 2003 to close the loophole.

"The truth is Barack Obama is following John McCain's lead to close a Wall Street loophole that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton," said campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.

There's a problem with the McCain campaign's response, however. If they are going to attack Bill Clinton for signing the Enron loophole into law, it's only fair to point out that John McCain himself supported its passage in the first place.

The legislation in question is H.R. 4577, which unanimously passed the Senate on December 15, 2000. Clinton signed it into law on December 21 of that year. The Enron loophole itself (H.R. 5660) is actually an amendment to H.R. 4577, which was an appropriations bill for the labor, health, and education departments.

Given the omnibus nature of the legislation, I probably wouldn't have aggressively attacked McCain for supporting passage of the Enron loophole, but now that his campaign is attacking Bill Clinton for signing it into law, it is completely fair game to attack John McCain for putting it on Clinton's desk.

The larger problem for McCain, who has at times supported efforts to close the Enron loophole, is that nobody is more responsible for the loophole becoming law than his national campaign co-chairman and economic adviser, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

Obama is pushing for the closure of the so-called "Enron loophole" as part of his plan to lower gas prices. The loophole permits unregulated energy futures trading in electronic markets and is likely a contributing factor in the high price of oil.

Today, John McCain kicked off a two week initiative to offer his "bold" vision to "break our strategic dependence on oil." (This is the same plan that he promised will "prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.")

McCain spoke in California and focused on the transportation sector. Here's my summary of his key points (full text here).

(1) We must produce more oil, use less of it, and develop alternative energy sources. [This is the standard GOP policy framework.]

(2) Auto fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) are not effective because they are enforced by small fines. [He offered no specifics. Moreover, even though he's supported some new CAFE standards, he has opposed the toughest standards which he seems to be demanding now.]

(3) Expand usage of alcohol-based fuels by eliminating tariffs on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol and ending subsidies for corn-based ethanol. [The NYT hit Obama pretty hard on this issue today, with some justification.]

(4) Replace all existing incentives programs for energy-efficient cars with a sliding scale tax credit topping out at $5,000 per car for a zero emissions car. He calls this a Clean Car Challenge and the tax credit would be available to every car purchaser.

(5) Offer a $300 million prize for the first person to develop a battery that "has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

I have to say that this all strikes me as pretty lame. Points 1 and 2 are essentially meaningless. I tend to agree with point 3 and would be interested in exploring point 4.

His fifth point, which is really the centerpiece of his proposal, seems remarkably stupid though.

First, it's rewarding the development of a specific kind of power source rather than the development of a power source that meets a specific objective. If the goal is independence from foreign oil and zero emissions, why not just reward a zero emissions, fuel efficient motor that may or may not include a battery?

Second, without even looking at the data, I'm sure that anyone who could develop a revolutionary technology for powering vehicles would make more than $300 million in the marketplace from that invention. The problem is getting the capital needed to conduct the research in the first place, and McCain's plan doesn't address that.

McCain has said he'll be spending next two weeks detailing his vision, but so far he's off to a fairly weak start.

John McCain promises a new energy policy that will "prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

YouTube link

McBush quickly offered an unconvincing clarification, saying that when he was talking about war for oil he meant the first war in Iraq, not the second one. But his remark came just after making the claim that if we withdrew our forces form Iraq now we would have to return when violence flared up again. In other words, the reason we are in Iraq today is oil.

Chevron CEO David O'Reilly from yesterday's NYT (emphasis added):

Q. President Bush this week called for lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling. What impact will this have on future oil supplies in the United States?

A. It is a good thing. The president is going in the right direction here. But I would have gone even further and lifted the moratorium with a presidential order. But you also have to remember that the lag time between exploration and first production is still in the range of eight to 10 years. Still, it would send a very strong message to the world that U.S. energy policy is shifting and is going toward a little more supply.

Q. How much more oil can be produced in these regions there?

A. That’s really impossible to know until we have more exploration. But I know the chances are pretty good it would expand our supply. Let’s suppose that we expanded production by one million barrels a day 15 years from now. At over $100 a barrel — remember this is a hypothesis — that would still mean $3 billion a month less in oil imports. That would have a demonstrable impact.

I'd be open to expanding drilling in the context of a credible long term energy policy, but we'd be crazy to do this as a one-off. (O'Reilly's notion that Bush should have done this by fiat gives you a sense of just how much respect he has for the democratic process.)

December 2006 was the fourth deadliest month of the Iraq war for American military forces -- there were 112 casualties. At the time, however, according to a WaPo/ABC survey, just 34% of the public thought we were winning, while 52% thought we were losing. Nonetheless, 48% wanted to stay, and 48% wanted to withdraw.

Flash forward 18 months to June 2008 and casualties are way down -- 18 so far this month. Overall, 38% now think we are winning and 46% think we are losing, shrinking an 18 point gap to 8 points. Nonetheless, just 41% want to stay compared to 55% who want to withdraw.

Enthusiasm for the candidacies of Obama and McCain, from the recent WaPo/ABC News poll:

• Obama: 55% enthusiastic, including 28% very enthusiastic (44% unenthusiastic)
• McCain: 42% enthusiastic, including 9% very enthusiastic (57% unenthusiastic)

Nate Silver points to the problem Republicans have if their campaign strategy is to paint Obama as liberal:

In a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted last week, 67 percent of likely voters described Obama as liberal, including 36 percent who described him as very liberal. By contrast, only 45 percent of voters described John Kerry as liberal in May of 2004, and 53 percent by November, 2004.

(snip)

If their strategy is to say "Hey! Hey! Barack Obama is a liberal!", the American public's reaction is likely to be "Well, no shit! We're voting for him anyway."

Nate also points out that Obama's personal favorability numbers (net positive of 25) are far higher than John Kerry's were in 2004. Given the fact that voters already see Obama as a liberal (for better or for worse), that pretty much leaves McCain with character-based attacks as their only option.

The problem for McCain is that if his campaign aggressively pushes such attacks, it could end up hurting him more than Barack -- just as those attacks hurt Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Update: The ABC/WaPo poll asked the ideology question somewhat differently, yielding a different result. That poll found that 36% felt Obama was too liberal while 52% thought he was about right (5% thought he was too conservative). There would seem to be room to grow that 36% number. (Ironically, 19% thought McCain was too liberal, while 34% thought he was too conservative -- just 40% thought he was about right.)

As I noted late Friday night, the McCain campaign raised the question of whether or not Barack Obama's new stage prop was illegal -- punishable by up to six months in jail.

The issue at hand is the similarity of the prop to the presidential seal. The funny thing is that it turns out the GOP has been using its own modified version of the seal to raise money for Senate candidates. Obviously, nobody is going to jail, nor should they, but it is another good example that they need to get themselves some folks with a higher IQ over there at the McCain headquarters.

Village Idiot David Broder:

“McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes,” writes Broder. “His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura. Obama is much newer to most voters, less familiar and more dependent on the impressions he is only now creating.”

Broder asserts this as if it were some naturally occuring phenomenon, not the result of a lazy press corps hopelessly in love with Teflon John McCain. C&L has more of Broder's inane ravings.

The Jed Report presents A Don't Throw Stones Production:

Please digg the YouTube link:

In the thirst for power, patriotism was their weapon -- but they could not meet their own false standards. They were the legacy of Karl Rove and George Bush, and they trapped themselves in a glass house of their own making.

Change is coming November 4, 2008.

A couple of quick items:

First, I just logged onto my YouTube account and noticed that its traffic had crossed another milestone of sorts -- there have now been 4,000,999 videos played from the channel, almost all of them over the past four months. Thanks to everybody whose watched the videos and sent them around to friends and others!

Second, a bit of bad new / good news: I won't be posting a Daily McBush today, but I will be posting another video later today, probably around noon Pacific time. It's a trailer-style video like the ones I did in the primary campaign (Hillary in Tuzla and Bosnia and Back Again), but now the focus is on John McCain and his campaign's attacks on Michelle Obama.

Update @ 1:41PM: Well, it's taken me a bit longer than I had expected to finish the trailer. I'm uploading it now and will post it soon, hopefully it will finish processing by 2 o'clock.