Get our blog posts via Twitter, and a question about Facebook RSS

Per a friend's rather brilliant suggestion, I've set up a Twitter account that streams the RSS feed from AMERICAblog, so you can now get the latest headlines from the blog via Twitter. The Twitter account name is, of course, AMERICAblog and the Twitter address is:
https://twitter.com/americablog

And now a question. My brilliant friend suggested I do the same with Facebook. But I'm wondering exactly what people recommend I do with Facebook, in order to stream our content. I don't want to annoy people by sending too much stuff. Do I set up an entirely separate account for AMERICAblog, do I use my current Facebook account and somehow use the AMERICAblog group I created a while back? What are the options for streaming blog post RSS via Facebook? Our comments section on the blog have recently been revamped, so I'm told they should be easier to log in now (there were some problems the past couple of days). But if it's too confusing, feel free to email me your suggestions, advice. Thanks guys, JOHN Read the rest of this post...

Paulson (taxpayers, actually) now planning to buy Wall Street bad debt

Are you f**king kidding me? I can't wait to see how much more Wall Street's problems are going to cost us. Go back and pick their goddamn pockets of every cent they've made in recent years and then come back and ask us. This is one of the most sickening periods in American history and McCain wants us to somehow believe him when he tells us he can take care of it. You know, just as he did for the Keating Five S&L; crisis. Just as he did with Phil Gramm, close confident and economic brain. We sure as hell better get out pound of flesh from Wall Street for this historical disaster. Tax cuts for the rich? Hell. They can all go Cheney themselves.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is working on setting up a government facility to take on bad debts from financial institutions to prevent a worsening of the global credit crisis, Wall Street sources have told CNBC.

The facility would be similar to the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was set up in the late 1980s to take on all the failed thrift assets during the savings and loan crisis, these sources said. [Chris's note: HINT, HINT...McCain and Keating Five, anyone?]

The news sparked a big rally in stocks after a day in which investors remained nervous about the spreading effects the global credit crisis. Europe and Asia closed lower.

Read the rest of this post...

How many times?

Reader John writes:

How many times do we have to hear:

We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Social Security.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Medicare.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to provide health care to ALL Americans.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help out Americans losing their homes.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help all our veterans returning from war.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to rescue "no child left behind".

BUT...

We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Bears Stearns.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out AIG.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to pay for an unnecessary TRILLION DOLLAR war.

When the LITTLE GUY needs help, they scornfully say, "GET A JOB!"
But when one of their BIG GUY CRONIES need a bailout, what do they say? SURE, NO PROBLEM. Where's the checkbook?

"But what about the debt we're leaving on the backs of our childen and their future?"
"Children? WHOSE Children? OUR children won't have to pay for this. YOUR children will."

The Republicans have had their hands in our pockets for well over 8 years.
Now they are robbing us blind IN BROAD DAYLIGHT and smiling about it!!!!
The Republicans have shown their true colors and now they expect us to vote them back into office?

What's next? Should we bend over and spread 'em? Oh, I'm sorry, but we've ALREADY DONE THAT!!
SEVERAL TIMES!!!

Vote for REAL change this November.

VOTE BLUE

Read the rest of this post...

The First Dude "who participates in state business in person or by e-mail" won't testify in Troopergate

Sarah Palin is proving she can play the Washington game as well as anyone. With the help of the McCain operatives, Palin is stonewalling the investigation into her abuse of power. Todd is right in the thick of all of this -- and he's refusing to testify:

Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and a key lawmaker said today that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.

Todd Palin, who participates in state business in person or by e-mail, was among 13 people subpoenaed by the Alaska Legislature. McCain-Palin presidential campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan announced today that Todd Palin would not appear, because he no longer believes the Legislature's investigation is legitimate.

Sarah Palin initially welcomed the investigation of accusations that she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. "Hold me accountable," she said.

But she has increasingly opposed it since Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his running mate. The McCain campaign dispatched a legal team to Alaska including O'Callaghan, a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York to bolster Palin's local lawyer.

Palin fits right into the GOP "culture of corruption." And, I think we're going to keep learning a lot about Todd. In many ways, he's a natural successor to Lynne Cheney. Read the rest of this post...

Foreign Policy 101 for John McCain

Since John McCain is no longer able to keep track of whether Spain is in Europe or Latin America, the Guardian newspaper is helping him out with a little primer:

So, to clarify matters for McCain: Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is the lefty prime minister of Spain. The Zapatistas are armed revolutionaries who have declared war on the government of Mexico. Zippy is an irascible non-human character in the children's TV series Rainbow, and Captain Zep was the star of an awesome 1980s British children's sci-fi drama. Franco Zeffirelli is a celebrated Italian film director who I once pretended to know the first thing about in order not to look stupid in a conversation in a restaurant.

By the way, this must be a truly depressing day for our friends at Spain For McCain. We can assume they're not Zapatero fans, but still: their hero isn't even sure where their country is located? How dispiriting.

Read the rest of this post...

John McCain Invented the Blackberry (Techno remix)

Read the rest of this post...

McCain would rather lose a NATO ally than admit a mistake

By now, if you've visited our blog earlier today, you know that we've been dogging this story about John McCain, during an interview with a big Spanish newspaper, seeming to repeatedly suggest that Spain was in Latin America and run by a dictator. And for that reason, McCain wouldn't say whether he'd be interested in meeting at any time in the future with the leader of Spain, a NATO ally and longtime friend of America.

Now, McCain had just said five months ago, in another interview with the same Spanish paper, that he'd love to meet with the Spanish leader. So it was a little odd that McCain suddenly wanted to start a cold war with Spain this week. Some in the media have been generous to McCain and are suggesting that he simply got confused and thought the interviewer was asking him about a petty dictator in Latin America and not the leader of Spain. Hmmm. The woman asked McCain the question four times, and she twice mentioned "Spain" and even said that she was talking about "the president of Spain." So it's rather generous to suggest that it was unremarkable that McCain didn't understand that she meant Spain when she said Spain.

But, let's say we give him that. Let's say we agree that McCain simply had a bad phone connection and couldn't hear a thing the interviewer was saying. The problem is that McCain's campaign didn't admit to confusion, they didn't say that the interviewer had an accent, or that McCain couldn't hear her well over the phone. Instead, the McCain campaign puffed up their collective chests and said that McCain meant every word he said - McCain is not sure he wants to meet with the Prime Minister of Spain because, apparently, as McCain said earlier in the interview, McCain is not sure that Spain believes in democracy and human rights.

Understandably, McCain's comments, and his re-confirmation that this is exactly what he intended to say, has caused a bit of a firestorm in Spain. After all, a potential future American president just accused a NATO ally of possibly not believing in democracy and human rights. So, in a nutshell, rather than simply admit he screwed up, for whatever reason, McCain is now risking serious damage to America's relationship with a NATO ally that has troops supporting our mission in Afghanistan. Joe Klein at TIME summarized the situation thusly:

Does that mean Spain's membership in the League of Democracies is on hold? Seems to me that putting a chill in the relationship with one of our NATO allies simply because McCain misheard a question is going a bit far.

Even those who don't find McCain's mistake, on an issue that is his signature issue, foreign policy, remarkable, note that McCain's dogged insistence on sticking to his story is downright odd, if not reckless. This from TNR:

What's shocking is that, rather than own up to this excusable error, the McCain camp has dug in, claiming that McCain understood every word and meant exactly what he said.... The evidence seems pretty overwhelming that John McCain made an excusable mistake in the interview, but his campaign has tried to cover it up with an inexcusable falsehood, one that may significantly complicate relations with a NATO ally should he be elected.

Let me reiterate. For all of the McCain campaign's statements today insisting that he meant to suggest that he wasn't sure he'd want to meet with the Spanish leader, McCain already said five months ago that he'd love to meet with the Spanish leader. Unless some huge schism just happened in Spanish-American relations, and we all missed it, McCain is simply lying to suggest that he now believes it would be imprudent to agree to meet with the Spanish. Was McCain therefore imprudent when he welcomed the meeting five months ago?

What's going on is that McCain is so egotistical and so reckless that he'd rather risk major damage to our relationship with a lead US ally than admit that he misheard a series of questions during an interview. Somebody is seriously paranoid about giving voters any impression that his mind is slipping. And that only makes us wonder all the more if it is. Read the rest of this post...

Bernanke - alone - controls $888 billion of our money

But to be fair, who really needs a democratic system anyway? Barney Frank just doesn't understand that this is the new Republican model that does away with pesky democratic controls and streamlines the system.

Setting up such an entity also would give lawmakers a chance to determine the parameters of future bailouts, as opposed to leaving the decision in Bernanke's hands. While most lawmakers said they trust Bernanke's judgment, Frank said he was troubled to learn in the meeting Tuesday that Bernanke has legal authority to use the central bank's reserves, which total $888 billion, to make loans to any entity under any terms he deems economically justified.

"No one in this democracy -- unelected -- should have $800 billion to dispense as he sees fit," Frank said. "It may be that there is so much bad debt out there clogging our system that we may have to have some intervention. But it shouldn't be the unilateral decision of the chairman of the Federal Reserve with the backing of the secretary of the Treasury."

It's probably OK as well that neither Bernanke or Paulson could address the financial impact on the federal budget or to taxpayers. Let's just leave them be and let it all work itself out. What could go wrong and why do we need democracy interfering with this? Read the rest of this post...

Foreign Policy Dementia

Steve Benen over at Political Animal/Washington Monthly notes that McCain's recent confusion, thinking Spain was located in Latin America and run by a dictator, is only the most recent of McCain's increasingly odd foreign policy gaffes:

Let's also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He's been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He's been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He's been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He's been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He's been confused about Iran's relationship with al Qaeda. He's been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to "President Putin of Germany." All of this incoherence on his signature issue.

I'm curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?

I think an intellectually honest person would agree that if Obama had made these same mistakes he'd be labeled "clueless" on foreign policy. So, why the double-standard?

As an aside, a number of you have been writing in about how Zapatero is not the president of Spain, but rather, is the prime minister. Well, you're right and wrong. First, the Spanish reporter called him "president," so we were just quoting her. But more importantly, in Spain, Prime Minister Zapatero is called "president." You can see the proof in El Pais here ("El presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero ") and here ("El presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero"), and here ("El presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero"), for example. Read the rest of this post...

Where are they finding the bailout money?

A reader asked yesterday how it was even possible that Bush could write a check to bailout AIG without Congress, since Congress is supposed to control the budget.

There was a great read yesterday about this point but after reading dozens of articles on the subject it's all a blur, unfortunately. One point made in that article was exactly that point. The fact that Paulson and a few others could just casually go to Congress (for a briefing) and then hammer out this deal with AIG only goes to show how weak the system has become. The previous system or regulations and procedures has been swept away because heavens no, we would never want to slow down a comfy bailout. Sure, there needs to be flexibility for urgent times, but let's not forget that there has been very little actual debate about taxpayers dishing out $600 billion - yes, $600 billion - in 2008. Wow. That's an amazing amount of money and we all know there is plenty more to come. (It's also doubtful that the American taxpayer will ever receive the AIG money back.)

So back to the $600 billion that we're on the hook for courtesy of the McCain-Bush credit crisis.

The federal government has pledged eye-popping amounts — more than $600 billion in the past year — to bail out, or help bail out, some of the biggest names in American finance. The latest was American International Group Inc.

Now the credit crisis is starting to tax even the Federal Reserve's deep resources.

On Wednesday, the central bank took the unprecedented step of asking the Treasury Department to sell debt on behalf of the Fed. The first of those auctions raised $40 billion, and two more to raise an additional $60 billion are scheduled for Thursday.

Read the rest of this post...

AP and CNN weigh in on McCain thinking Spain is in Latin America

Here's AP on the story we've been reporting on all day, in which John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator:

Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.

In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.

"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."

He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.

McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."

Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.

AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.

And here's CNN, which does a good job of showing how inexplicable and confused McCain's answers were:

Read the rest of this post...

Yet another bizarre non-answer from the McCain campaign about whether McCain forgot where Spain is

As our part of our continuing coverage of McCain seemingly thinking that Spain is in Latin America and run by a dictator, I wanted to point out that the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:

In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.

That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?

Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"? Read the rest of this post...

US ambassador to Spain says it's "prudent" McCain didn't commit to meet Zapatero. Oh. So was it "imprudent" in April when McCain invited him to US?

The McCain campaign can't have it both ways. If the US ambassador is now saying that it was "prudent" for John McCain to not commit to meeting with the Spanish prime minister should McCain win the election, then it must have been awfully "imprudent" for McCain to invite the Spanish leader to Washington back in April. McCain just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper. McCain would rather tell a lie, and rupture relations with a top US ally, than admit the damaging truth that he no longer has the mental acuity he did in his youth. But hey, I'm game. Let's play along. Do tell us, McCain campaign: What was it between April and today that convinced John McCain that he needed to take a hard line with the Spanish, 6 weeks before the US election, contradicting everything McCain said about relations with Spain only five months ago? Seriously, let's play this game - answer the question and convince us that John McCain didn't just suffer a mental lapse on tape.

One more point, for our friends in the corporate media. The fact that McCain is now dragging in the Bush administration to defend him on this issue means that McCain is very worried that this issue will get traction. Why? Not because he's worried about the all-important Spaniard vote - no offense to our Spanish friends, but American voters really don't care if McCain disses Spain. There has to be some reason that the McCain campaign is having the Bush administration weigh in to save him on this one. McCain is worried that we got a very real glimpse of him seemingly showing signs of old age or illness. McCain is 72 years old and has had 4 bouts of serious melanoma. It's time the media stopped beating around the bush. Everyone knows McCain isn't as intellectually spry as he once was. These mistakes are happening more frequently. What if they happen during an international crisis? We'll have Sarah Palin to help him out? Read the rest of this post...

MSNBC tries to equate foreign policy credentials of Biden and Palin

Okay, I've seen a lot of absurdities during the election, but this latest effort by MSNBC's Contessa Brewer to somehow equate Biden and Palin on foreign policy takes the cake. The MSNBC anchor actually said that both Biden and Palin will "try to bolster their foreign policy credentials." Biden doesn't have to bolster his foreign policy cred. He's chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for christ sakes. Palin got her passport last year....photo ops with foreign leaders doesn't bolster her cred, it makes her look more unprepared and unqualified. All of this coming right when we learn McCain doesn't know where Spain is. Watch this, it's classic. Absurdly classic:



Yeah, you might say Biden has "the edge" on experience -- by a 2 to 1 margin. Even if the traditional media is doing contortions to equate the experience of Biden and Palin, the American people get it:
Read the rest of this post...

Palin puts herself on the top of the ticket. It's now "Palin and McCain"

We all know McCain's been having a rough couple days. No worries, Sarah Palin is taking matters into her own hands. Today, she unveiled the Palin/McCain ticket. I've never heard a vice presidential candidate putting themselves first before. It's an unwritten rule that the president is always first. But, not for Sarah. She touted the "Palin and McCain administration":



Sarah is the star attraction for the ticket -- and she knows it. And, this report from Radio Iowa at the Palin/McCain event today bears it out:

I look up, about five minutes into McCain's address and see a steady stream of people walking out of the rally. They just came to see Palin apparently.

Read the rest of this post...

Senator McCain, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still seriously dead

(UPDATE: I've translated McCain's interview from April with the Spanish press - that translation is at the end of this post. He couldn't have been more clear that he's interested in having fantastic relations with Spain, and in fact, McCain invited the Spanish leader to the White House should be win the election. It's clear that McCain is now lying when he says that he meant to distance himself from Zapatero yesterday.)

It appears that John McCain now believes that General Franco, who died in the 1970s, is still ruling Spain.

That's the only explanation for why the McCain campaign is now saying that McCain won't meet with the Spanish President should McCain win the election (in the Spanish press, Zapatero is in fact referred to as "the president"). This is the excuse the McCain campaign is now giving reporters to explain why McCain recently told an interviewer with the Spanish paper El Pais that he wasn't sure he'd be interested in meeting the Spanish president. It's clear from the interview, which we posted below, that McCain was having some kind of mental lapse during the interview so that he didn't even understand that Spain was in Europe. But the McCain campaign can't admit that John McCain appeared to have a senile moment, and that his dementia was caught on tape. Instead, the McCain campaign is now embracing the only argument they have left - they're actually now claiming that McCain meant every word he said.

Really?

Let's analyze, then, what McCain said.

1. When asked about Spain and the president of Spain, McCain responded about "Mexico" (twice), "Latin America," and "the hemisphere." All of those are references to Latin America and not Spain. Why would McCain answer a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by talking about Latin America?

2. McCain is now claiming that he won't meet President Zapatero of Spain, should McCain become president. That's rather odd, since in April, McCain did an interview with the same Spanish newspaper saying bygones were bygones, it was time to "look to the future," and that he'd welcome Zapatero visiting him in the White House. So, why the sudden change now? We're seriously to believe that McCain just decided, 6 weeks before the election, to bash the entire nation of Spain when 5 months ago he said he was happy to meet with the Spanish leader?

3. The reason McCain gives for not wanting to meet with Spain's president is that he only meets with leaders who embrace democracy and human rights. Uh, McCain thinks Spain doesn't embrace democracy and human rights? What does he think, it's the 1970s and General Franco is still in charge? On its face, what McCain said makes no sense. He thought he was talking about Chavez or someone in Latin America, even though the interviewer repeatedly told him she was talking about "Spain" and "the president of Spain." That's the only explanation. Or, McCain suddenly thinks it's the 1970s and that General Franco is still alive.



Here is the translation of the first part of the interview McCain did with the Spanish paper in April. It's clear that McCain is now lying when he says that he meant to say he wouldn't meet with Zapatero - the interview couldn't be more positive:

Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, is ready to change the policy of estrangement with the Spanish government that was put in place for four years now by George Bush. He declared that he was ready to fully normalize bilateral relations and that Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was invited to the White House. In an interview on board his plane, which had just left Memphis, where he had participated in a ceremony honoring the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, and en route to his home en Phoenix, McCain said that "it's time to leave our differences with Spain behind us" and he added: ""I would like President Zapatero to visit the United States. I am very interested, not only in normalizing relations with Spain, but in developing good and productive relations that address the many issues and challenges that we need to be addressing together," he said.

McCain did not want to discuss issues like the withdraw of Spanish troops from Iraq, Zapatero's comments about the presence of other countries there, about the internal politics of the United States or his actions with regards to the American flag. He thinks those problems are now buried.

"You have to understand," he explained, "that things happen during election campaigns, things are said, decisions are made in certain political circumstances... And you have to understand also that there are coincidences ("coincidencias" ?) and disagreements." "But I believe that this is the time to leave those things behind us," he added, insisting that he didn't want to talk about the past, "and to look towards the future with the perspective that we have many more values and goals that unite us than that divide us."

Read the rest of this post...

McCain forgets where Spain is. English version of interview now available.

LISTEN TO THIS: It's only 2 minutes long.

As I reported last night, John McCain recently did an interview with a large newspaper from Spain, El Pais, and seemed to not know that Spain was in Europe. The interviewer kept asking specifically about "Spain," and McCain kept responding about Mexico and Latin America and "the hemisphere." McCain then refused to say whether he would be willing to meet with the President of Spain should McCain win the presidency, oddly setting down the precondition that the President of Spain would first have to embrace democracy and human rights before McCain would meet him (the president of Spain already does embrace both of those, and in fact, this past April McCain did another interview with El Pais in which he said he'd be happy to meet with the President of Spain). Huffington Post has more.

It's clear that McCain had no idea she was talking about Spain, or the president of Spain, even though the interviewer repeatedly told him she was asking about "Spain" and "the president of Spain." This isn't a case of McCain forgetting something. He quite literally didn't comprehend what this woman was saying. His mind was gone, he was on auto-pilot, giving pat answers because he seemingly didn't understand what Spain was.

Last night we had the Spanish translation of the interview, but now we have the original English-language version of the interview, the original interview, that McCcain did with the paper. Reporters out there really need to listen to this. Here is a 2 minute clip of the segment of the interview dealing with Spain. And here is the exact transcript:

QUESTION: Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?

MCCAIN: I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I'm glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.

QUESTION: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?

MCCAIN: I don't, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

QUESTION: So you have to wait and see if he's willing to meet with you, or you'll be able to do it in the White House?

MCCAIN: Well again I don't, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.

QUESTION: Okay... what about [either "you" or "Europe"], I'm talking about the President of Spain?

MCCAIN: What about me what?

QUESTION: Okay... are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

MCCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not.

Read the rest of this post...

McCain event becomes Obama rally

Happened yesterday in Michigan. The workers didn't love McCain. "Obama 08":

Read the rest of this post...

John McCain just forget where Spain was. Seriously, not kidding.

UPDATE: I now have the English-language version of the interview. Listen to it here.

Bumped. This is a very important story.

(UPDATE: I now have the Spanish version of the interview cropped to the 1 minute 37 seconds in question. You can listen to it here, but it's in Spanish.)

This isn't funny. It's actually quite serious. We may have the first evidence, on tape, that McCain's age, or illness, or both are catching up with him and he's losing his mental faculties.

I just listened to an interview John McCain did with a Spanish journalist recently. The interview is in English, but there's a Spanish translator translating the tape into Spanish at the same time. So the English part is difficult to hear. I am however fluent in Spanish, and what Josh reports is exactly what the Spanish version shows.

Namely, that John McCain didn't appear to know that Spain was in Europe, or that the leader of Spain was named Zapatero, even after he was told that Zapatero was the leader of Spain.

When asked about Spain and Zapatero, by a Spanish reporter for a Spanish newspaper, McCain responded about Mexico and Latin America. A reader suggested something that Josh had already considered, that perhaps McCain thought the reporter was talking about the Zapatistas in Mexico, the guerilla group. But that's not possible as the reporter clearly said she was talking about Spain and Spain's leader, Zapatero. She told McCain this twice. Let me tell you exactly what she asked McCain (per the translation):

"Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected president, would you invite President Zapatero to meet with you in the White House?"

McCain then gives this odd answer about America's friends and America's enemies. He also, oddly, talks about Mexico (why Mexico? The question was about Spain) and how he'd invite friendly leaders to the White House. She then asks him again, would that invitation include President Zapatero? He says again that he'd have to review relations first, blah blah. She then says again, "so you'd have to wait to see, so would you meet with him in the White House?" He again repeats his weird statement about friends and enemies. McCain also throws in, oddly, to the Spanish reporter, when she's asking him about meeting the Spanish president, a line about the importance of our relationship with Latin America (this is now the second time he answered a question about meeting the president of Spain with an answer about Latin America). She then says to McCain one last time:

"Okay, but I'm talking about Europe - the president of Spain, would you meet with him?"

This time, there was no room for confusion. McCain then gives this very bizarre answer:

"I will meet with any leader who has the same principles and philosophy as us in terms of human rights, democracy, and freedom and I will stand up to those who do not."

What does concern about human rights, democracy and freedom have to do with a prerequisite for meeting the president of Spain? Especially when you told the same paper 5 months ago that you'd be happy to meet with him.

McCain had no idea what was going on in the interview. She specifically told him, twice, that she was talking about Spain and the Spanish president. She's a Spanish reporter with one of the largest, if not the largest, newspaper in Spain, El Pais. I know this paper, McCain certainly knows this paper (and it's not like McCain's staff didn't tell him who he had the exclusive interview with for ten minutes). She made it clear she was asking about her own country and her own president and Mccain had no clue what she was talking about.

Either McCain had no idea what the woman was talking about when she said "Spain," and then said "the President of Spain," repeatedly, or McCain intentionally snubbed the country of Spain tonight for no apparent reason, which is very hard to believe, especially given his earlier interview in which he said he was fine meeting Zapatero. The interview is absolutely bizarre, especially in that it sounds like McCain wasn't even lucid, it sounds like he simply doesn't have complete control over his faculties anymore. And judging by the fact that just a few months ago McCain was fine with Zapatero, it sounds like McCain simply wasn't quite all there any more during the interview. He got horribly confused and didn't know what was going on.

This is just incredibly disturbing. And remember, this is hardly the first time in the last year that McCain has become confused about his signature issue, foreign affairs. It's happened a lot in the past year, and it never happened before. There's a pattern here, even if in polite company the media isn't supposed to talk about. McCain is having trouble focusing and understanding what's going on around him. He gets increasingly confused. And that's just scary. Read the rest of this post...

Breaking - jobless claims up 10,000

The Bush-McCain economy continues. We can't afford a third Bush term. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Wow. McCain is having a disastrous week. It's bad enough that he screwed up on the economy. Now, he's massively confused on foreign policy. Spain stumped him. We'd expect that from Palin, but foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit.

On the other hand, Obama has hit his stride. He's been great. Keep it up.

This, of course, means McCain will have to launch some massive distraction against Obama. You know it's coming. And, this will pose a real challenge for the traditional media types. Will they see through it? Or fall for it? Okay, we know the answer. They'll fall for it. So, we've got to be prepared to fight back.

So, hold on. There is massive turbulence ahead. Read the rest of this post...

Where are the free market phonies hiding?

The free market phonies and Wall Street types always used to tell us endlessly about how bad and evil the government was. Until they needed everyone else to bail them out. "Just leave us alone and let business be business" is what we would had to listen to over and over. Right. So where are they now? Cowards and hypocrites. Each and every one of them. Read the rest of this post...

Dow is back to where it began under Bush and still falling

Remember all of the hype during the Bush years about how well the market was doing, as if that was proof that America was doing well? Guess what? On Clinton's last day, the Dow closed at 10,587 and the S&P500; at 1,342. And the numbers yesterday? The Dow closed at 10,609 and the S&P500; is now 1,156. Your 401K? How's that doing? We know by now that the Wall Street hotshots have made a killing in the last eight years thanks to the McCain-Gramm-Bush economic policies that created havoc. For average Americans who have been counting on their retirement money to grow, tough luck. Americans assumed - wrongly, of course - that somehow we still had basic regulations on Wall Street and that we would be protected. The GOP crowd told us that sure, it's all fine because "the market" would take care of things and we would be fine. Gambling is OK when you have millions and billions but when you have to scrimp and save every penny, you deserve much more. The Republicans all lied so their friends could have high times.

What makes all of this an even greater concern is that even with the Bush-McCain economy tanking, we are not at the end nor is the end even close. This analyst believes we are only 40% through the market capitulation. The direction of the market is pointing towards much more volatility, with more failures and more bailouts. Another very bad sign - similar to what we saw last year when British bank Northern Rock failed - is that banks have stopped lending to each other. This suggests a system that is locking up, even though taxpayer dollars have been repeatedly injected into the banking system. The banks are getting "free" money (at 2% when official inflation is closer to 4%, real inflation is much closer to 10%) from the taxpayers but they are too busy covering their own bad positions, they don't care about money movement.

When we get through this, and we will eventually, we have to re-think our current system. "Too big to fail" failed us in the Great Depression and is failing us yet again. (Common thread here...Republican economic theory.) Market consolidation is where we are headed in the near term but long term, that system can not bring us back to this same problem again and again. We need a common sense approach and not a fool talking gibberish to cover up his close ties to the creator (and coward who hides from it) of this mess, Phil Gramm. (h/t to Jerry O for pointing out the zero growth on the Dow under Bush.) Read the rest of this post...

Top 3 Merrill Lynch execs to receive $200 million windfall?

When a company is having a fire sale due to risky business practices, should they be receiving this kind of compensation? I realize this team came in after Stanley O'Neal led them into this problem but this still seems excessive. Let's not forget that taxpayers have been giving away billions in loans that are about half the rate of *official* inflation, so it's not as though Wall Street has been on their own. Looking at how poorly this sector is doing and the fact that former CEO Stanley O'Neal walked away with $161 million, this is a problem. CEO Thain has himself only been at Merrill since last December.

The tax code - that helps makes all of this as easy and pain-free as possible for companies and CEOs - has to be updated. Is it fair that companies pay for the taxes of executives? How many Americans have such giveaways and how is that even allowed? Nobody is asking for handouts (besides CEOs) but Americans are looking for some fairness. When business does well, everyone should profit accordingly, not just a couple of people. As we are seeing yet again, the profits are always limited to the top of the food chain. Read the rest of this post...

Palin Does the Full Cheney: State Employees Will Defy Troopergate Subpoenas

Just another sleazy politician with something to hide. Read the rest of this post...

Biden blasts McCain for opposing GI Bill and not supporting the troops

You remember the new GI Bill? The one that John McCain opposed because it was TOO GENEROUS to our troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

McCain can remind us again and again how he was a POW, so this proves that he cares about the troops, and I suspect he'll remind us of that fact yet again in response to this latest criticism from Biden, but it doesn't negate the fact that there are American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan who aren't getting more benefits because of John McCain. Tell them why John McCain didn't think their sacrifice merited all the benefits Senator Webb's bill was offering them. The Republicans like to talk all patriotic, but when you put their patriotism into practice, it doesn't look very patriotic at all. Make John McCain explain exactly what constitutes "too generous" for our troops?

From CBS:

"George Bush initially opposed it, John McCain stood with him and he called Jim Webb's effort, quote, too generous. Ladies and gentlemen, if John McCain had his way on that G.I. Bill, those military personnel who served two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan would not qualify for the same benefits that anyone in the 'regular Army or Marine corps' did."

"Ask yourself the question, who supports our troops? Who supports those National Guard personnel? Who supports those reservists who make up 40 percent of the people?" asked Biden, and turned to Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa., in the crowd.

"I don't have to tell you that, Governor. You see them dispatched every day from your state, and you're there like I am when that flag-draped coffin comes home for some."

As he speech went on, Biden's tone turned from critical to one of disgust.

"I am sick and tired of this Republican garbage," Biden said to applause from the crowd of 3,000 supporters. "I am sick and tired of being told that we don't care."

While the McCain campaign called Biden's comments "absurd", a McCain campaign aide speaking on background, when asked if Biden was accurate in saying that McCain had called the G.I. Bill 'too generous', said "I don't know."

McCain, who is a veteran, said last spring that he feared the bill would deter soldiers from re-enlisting.

John McCain didn't even bother showing up to vote for the GI Bill when it came up on the Senate floor. Here is what Obama had to say at the time:

I respect senator John Mccain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this G.I. bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them. I'm proud that so many Democrats and Republicans have come together to support this.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush says there may be even more bailouts

Uh, where's this money coming from? Bush-McCain blew the bank with their failure to regulate and now they want everyone else to bail out the richest due to mistakes of their own. Bush-McCain wants America to give more handouts to the folks that already received tax cuts. Can you imagine?

While Bush is on the topic of potentially more bailouts, great read here about how the Chrysler bailout was not the great success that is suggested and it may have hurt the company more than helped. We may be looking at more future problems by bailing Wall Street, Detroit and everyone else out. Read the rest of this post...