The stereotype is that the US military is overwhelmingly composed of Republicans, and as both a Republican and a veteran, McCain would be far and away their favorite candidate. But the stereotype is wrong.

According to a report by OpenSecrets.org, a transparency group that tracks political donations and their industry origins, Barack Obama is the overwhelming favorite of military personnel who contribute to a presidential candidate. Obama leads McCain $335,536 to $280,513 in contributions from all military personnel. Obama also leads in the total number of contributions, 859 to 558.

Among troops deployed overseas, the difference is even more stark; Obama leads by nearly a 6:1 ratio, $60,642 to $10,665. Also note that antiwar Republican Ron Paul leads McCain in contributions from overseas troops and nearly ties him in overall contributions.  

Barack Obama and John McCain delivered competing radio addresses today. The tone of each, shall we say, was distinct.

Barack Obama’s address, as provided by his campaign:

This is Senator Barack Obama. This morning, I’d like to talk to you about why America needs to move in a new direction.

In recent days, we’ve seen two stark examples of exactly what’s wrong with Washington, and what’s at stake in this election.

First, we learned that the federal budget deficit could reach nearly half a trillion dollars next year.

Eight years after we had a record surplus, we’re now faced with record deficits. This mortgaging of our children’s future is a direct result of the Bush Administration’s dangerously failed fiscal policies.

Instead of helping Americans who are struggling, we’ve seen loopholes and lavish giveaways for corporations that ship jobs overseas, and tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them.

Now, Senator McCain proposes to continue these costly and unfair Bush tax policies. He would continue to put special interests ahead of Americans who are struggling, while short-changing the investments we need to get our economy moving again.

The second thing we learned this week was that the Iraqi government now has a $79 billion budget surplus thanks to their windfall oil profits. And while this Iraqi money sits in American banks, American taxpayers continue to spend $10 billion a month to defend and rebuild Iraq.

That’s right.  America faces a huge budget deficit.  Iraq has a surplus…

…Now, Senator McCain promises to continue President Bush’s open-ended commitment to the war in Iraq, while refusing to pressure Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country.

Let me be clear: we are well over five years into a war in a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Our brave men and women in uniform have completed every mission they’ve been given. Our country has spent nearly a trillion dollars in Iraq, even as our schools are underfunded, our roads and bridges are crumbling, and the cost of everything from groceries to a gallon of gas is soaring.

Now think for a moment about what we could have done with the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that we’ve spent in Iraq. We could have rebuilt American schools and roads and bridges. We could have made historic investments in alternative energy to create millions of American jobs. We could have headed-off $4 dollar a gallon gas and begun to end the tyranny of oil in our time.

Instead, the President decided to spend our money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and a war in Iraq that has already lasted longer than World War II. And Senator McCain has fully embraced these Bush policies.  

So the choice in this election could not be clearer.

The American people are worse off than they were eight years ago. Everywhere I go, I meet people who are working hard for their families – but are still falling behind. Our government has lost touch with the most fundamental American values – the belief that everyone should be able to live the American Dream; the sense that we are all in this together as Americans.

Senator McCain talks about putting our country first, but he is running for a third term of the very same policies that have set our country back. We can’t afford to take that chance. We can’t afford to keep running up record deficits while we favor the few over the many. We can’t prioritize a misguided war in Iraq over the urgent needs of the American people.

I believe that we need to move in a new direction.

It’s time to restore balance and fairness to our economy, and to give working people immediate and meaningful relief.

It’s time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and to put a tax cut into the pocket of 95 percent of working Americans and their families.

It’s time to end the war in Iraq responsibly by asking the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future and to invest in their own country.

It’s time to make a historic effort to end our dependence on foreign oil by investing $150 billion over the next decade in alternative energy and more fuel efficient cars, even as we push oil companies to increase production. This will create millions of new green jobs – good jobs that lift up our families and communities.

This is a defining moment in our history. We can either continue down a failed course, or we can choose a better future. With your help, I know that we can come together as Americans to meet the challenges of the 21st century, to renew our common purpose, and to reclaim the American Dream for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you and God bless America.

We interrupt this post for a history lesson and a word from the AFL-CIO:

McCain Has Received Almost Twice as Much in Donations from Oil and Gas Industry PACs and Employees as Obama or Clinton. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, John McCain’s campaign has received $723,777 in donations from oil industry political action committees and employees during his 2008 presidential campaign, almost twice as much as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. (Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 5/31/08)…

…McCain’s Tax Plan Gives $3.8 Billion in Tax Cuts to the Top Five Oil Companies. McCain’s current plan would deliver $3.8 billion in tax cuts to the five largest American oil companies. (“The McCain Plan to Cut Oil Company Taxes by Nearly $4 Billion,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/27/08)

McCAIN VOTES TO PROTECT BIG OIL’S PROFITS McCain Skipped a Vote to Repeal Tax Breaks for Oil Companies. In 2007, McCain was the only senator to miss a vote on the energy bill repealing tax subsidies for oil companies. (H.R. 6, Vote 425, 12/13/07)

McCain Voted Against Curtailing Oil Companies’ Windfall Profits to Give a Tax Rebate to Working Families. In 2005, McCain voted against imposing a temporary windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the proceeds to provide nonrefundable tax credits to working families. (S.Amdt. 2635, Vote 341, 11/17/05; S.Amdt. 2587, Vote 331, 11/17/05)

McCain Voted to Protect Tax Breaks for Big Oil. Earlier, McCain opposed eliminating tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies related to depletion and drilling costs. (S.Amdt. 2782/H.R. 776, Vote 159, 7/29/92)

And this:

…Ronald Reagan’s first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter’s conservation and alternative energy policies…

If I recall correctly Ronald Reagan was in office from January 1981 to January 1989. I wonder who else was around Washington during that period of time?

…John McCain…In 1982, he was elected to Congress representing what was then the first congressional district of Arizona. In 1986, he was elected to the United States Senate…

I wonder what he’s been doing to bring back alternative energy policies all those years? Ah, right, our friends in the AFL-CIO have already told us.

We return to our regularly scheduled post.

John McCain’s address, as provided by his campaign:

Good morning, I’m John McCain. As you may know, the Democratic National Convention is just a couple of weeks away. It was four years ago, at the same gathering, that America heard a fine speech from an Illinois state senator named Barack Oba
ma. He’s done pretty well for himself since then. And the smart money in Denver is on another celebrated performance.

But even the most stirring speeches are easily forgotten when they’re short on content. Taking in my opponent’s performances is a little like watching a big summer blockbuster, and an hour in realizing that all the best scenes were in the trailer you saw last fall. In the way of running mates, Senator Obama should consider someone with a knack for brevity and directness, to balance the ticket.

In the meantime, let me take a stab at a plot summary of the Obama campaign: America is finally winning in Iraq, and he wants to forfeit. Government is too big, and he wants to grow it. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. Congress spends too much, and he proposes more. We need more energy, and he’s against producing it.

Energy in particular seems to confound Senator Obama, because if there is any problem that can’t be solved by words alone it’s America’s need for secure and affordable energy supplies. So far, he’s managed to come up with an energy plan that’s so timid only OPEC and a few interest groups in his own party are happy with it. And this week, Senator Obama set about correcting that impression.

First there was his call for Americans to check their tires — which is commonsense advice, but hardly has the makings of a national energy strategy. If we can’t drill our way out of the problem, it seems even more unlikely that we can inflate our way out of it.

Next came Senator Obama’s mention of offshore drilling — formerly known in the Obama campaign as a “gimmick” and a “scheme.” As more people notice that his answer to most every form of energy production is “no,” my opponent tried to simulate a “yes.” He pledges a vague willingness to possibly consider limited drilling as part of some hypothetical compromise at an undetermined date. Careful listeners are still waiting for an actual commitment to offshore drilling.

Apparently, Senator Obama was trying to get credit for changing his mind on drilling, without actually changing his position against drilling. This was the rare case of a politician actually hoping to be accused of a flip-flop. But even that would be giving Senator Obama’s energy plan too much credit. As of today, he still has no plan to produce more oil by drilling offshore. And my opponent’s most memorable flip-flop remains his frequent criticism of the Bush-Cheney energy policy, despite voting for the Bush-Cheney energy bill in 2005 — a bill I opposed and voted against.

Finally, Senator Obama proposed to release oil from our nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. For those keeping track, this comes exactly a month after he said he was firmly against using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

A serious energy plan involves a lot more yes’s than no’s. And that is why I say yes to drilling, here and now. Yes to 45 more nuclear power plants to provide our country with electricity. Yes to clean coal technology, so that we can create jobs and use America’s most abundant resource. Yes to renewable energy sources, so that we can shift away from petroleum over the long term. Yes to a break from the federal gasoline tax, so that our government helps you in a time of need instead of just adding to your costs. In short, yes to all of the above — to a bold plan for achieving energy independence that starts today.

Regaining control over the cost and supply of energy in America will not be easy, and it won’t happen quickly. But no challenge to our economy and security is more urgent. And you have my pledge that if I am president, we’re going to get it done. Thanks for listening.

A word about tire inflation:

Proper tire inflation is critical to fuel economy….Underinflated tires cause vehicle drag and increase fuel consumption….

…An estimated four out of ten vehicles on the road have at least one underinflated tire. Pressure that’s 3 pounds per square inch (psi) below the recommended reading may reduce gas mileage by 1.5 percent. Some experts suggest even greater decreases. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that running tires at 20 psi or lower can easily cost you a full mile per gallon…

Hmmm. 40 per cent of the vehicles on the road times increased gas mileage equals less gas consumption. That’s called “conserving energy”. What a novel idea. You’d think a major party’s presidential candidate would understand that. I’m certain he does. It’s just that it’s not in his best friends’ interest.

As we’ve said: McSame – if you’ve liked the last eight years, you’re gonna love the next 100.

John McCain and other Republican “leaders” offer pretend solutions like offshore drilling to our energy problems. MoveOn calls ’em out with this ad:

Ouch!

On the occasion of Obama’s Wednesday swing through Missouri (Rolla, Springfield, and a bbq in Union where he’ll flip burgers for the first 200 people to claim the free tickets), Roy Blunt has words of praise for the presumptive Democratic nominee: “‘There’s no question Senator Obama is an exciting candidate, with a great delivery.'” Now wait for the “but”: BUT Obama “‘is not ready to be president.'”

Let me translate that last part for you, in case you’re not tuned in to the nuances of racist-speak: “we’re not ready for a black president. Heavens to Betsy, Blunt would deny any such accusation, and perhaps I’m oversensitive. After all, Obama has much less experience than John McCain. Much less. So much less that Blunt opines that Barack is “‘all style and no substance.'”

Blunt doesn’t mention McCain’s main appeal, which being that he’s a nice, safe, white male–not elegant or nuanced, maybe, but straightforward. He’s a maverick, chock full of what Blunt would call “substance”.

Eric Alterman’s article, “Loving John McCain”, in the June 19th issue of The Nation, lays the fact that Blunt can assume Americans believe that about McCain squarely at the door of the MSM:

As David Brock and Paul Waldman demonstrate in their book Free Ride, the words “maverick” and “McCain” appeared within ten words of each other 2,114 times in 2000, a practice that has continued to the present at roughly the same rate.

Not only has the mainstream media convinced most Americans that McCain is a straight shooter, they’ve also convinced the public that McCain is a centrist:

Indeed, the effects of past coverage can be discerned in the results of [a] survey released in May, by the Pew Research Center, which found that most voters described McCain as “a centrist whose views are fairly close to their own.” These voters might as well be visiting Casablanca for the waters. McCain calls himself a thoroughgoing conservative, and he’s got the statistics to prove it.

Why? Why have the media given McCain this free ride? Alterman quotes Tucker Carlson’s explanation:

“McCain ran an entire presidential campaign aimed primarily at journalists…. To a greater degree than any candidate in thirty years, McCain offered reporters the three things they want most: total access all the time, an endless stream of amusing quotes, and vast quantities of free booze.” Ryan Lizza, reporting for The New Yorker from the current Straight Talk, notes the dichotomy of McCain’s press-friendly campaign style and that of his opponents: “The Democratic candidates rarely speak to the traveling press. McCain not only packs his bus with reporters (whom he often greets with an affectionate ‘Hello, jerks!’) but talks until the room is filled with the awkward silence of journalists with no more questions.” Lizza also notes that the “chumminess” between the campaign and the reporters has almost no boundaries. Questions of strategy–even media manipulation–are discussed openly with reporters present, and “McCain’s senior advisers dine almost nightly with the people covering the candidate.”

They’re besotted by the man, falling victim to what Alterman calls the “never mind” syndrome.

• Never mind that McCain thinks U.S. economic woes are purely psychological.
• Never mind that McCain let his housing policy be shaped by a lobbyist.
• Never mind that McCain helped Bush plug his plan to privatize Social Security.
• Never mind that McCain approves of NAFTA.
• Never mind that McCain would be “fine” to keep troops in Iraq for “a hundred years”.
• Never mind that McCain defends Bush’s Iraq strategy.
• Never mind that McCain thought Bush was right to veto the kids health insurance expansion.
• Never mind that McCain, like Bush, opposed expanding the GI Bill.
• Never mind that McCain would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

Here’s what’s odd about the MSM love affair with McCain: his own party members don’t share the enthusiasm. Granted it’s almost a compliment if Tom DeLay disapproves:

“There’s nothing redeeming about John McCain … he’s a hypocrite.”

But the senators McCain has worked with somehow have gotten the opposite opinion from the press about McCain’s likeability:

“He is a vicious person. Nearly all the Republican Senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.” –Former Representative Charles LeBoutillier, R-NY

“John was very rough in the sandbox. Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. He hasn’t built up a lot of goodwill.” –Former Senator Santorum, R-PA

“I don’t like McCain. I don’t like him at all.” –Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO

“What has struck me about McCain is that everybody underestimated the ability of his advisers and him to hypnotize the national media, because most of us in the media in Arizona thought of him as a guy who had a terrible temper, occasionally had a foul mouth, a guy who whined and pouted unless he got his way. McCain has a temper that is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?” –Pat Murphy, former editor of the Arizona Republic, and a former friend of McCain

McCain seems to have successfully hidden this side of himself from the media who travel with him, but it frightens the brethren in his own party:

“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.” –Senator Thad Cochran, R-MS

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.” –Senator Pete Domenici, R-NM

“His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, that should disqualify him.” –Former Senator Bob Smith, R-NH

“What happens if he gets angry in crisis in the presidency? It’s difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it’s almost impossible when you’re the type of guy who’s so angry at anybody who doesn’t do what he wants. It’s the president’s job to negotiate and stay calm. I just don’t see that he has that quality.” –Former Arizona GOP Chairman John Hinz

And the coup de grace:

“John McCain (as President) will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” —Patrick Buchanan on NBC Today show, Feb 6, 2008.

And may I add, Mr. Blunt, that, no matter how inexperienced Obama may be, compared to McCain?–he’ll look like a combination of Gandhi and Solomon.  

On Monday, I asked members of Congress in Missouri and those running for the position if they would comment on the recent dustup between Barack Obama and John McCain over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s support for Obama’s withdrawal plan.

The first two responses are in. Byron DeLear was not surprisingly first to comment, doing so (bonus points!) in a long comment here on the blog. Money quote:

We must reverse Bush and Akin’s policy in Iraq, send a message to the Iraqi government that we don’t intend on occupying their country permanently, and begin an immediate and responsible “phased withdrawal” of our troops.

This means systematically redeploying those troops, bringing our national guard troops home, and reengaging the international community, including the UN into a peace-keeping role.

Most candidates like to discuss these issues as if they were running for Commander-in-Chief, that is, ‘here is my plan for Iraq’ — or — ‘this is my 10 year road map for the Iraq War’, etc.

And although there may be value in unpacking the ‘big picture’ here from an academic perspective, or just from a conversational one, as a Federal legislator for MO-2, I will be just one of 435 votes in the US House.

A progressive vote.

And Lyndon Bode, a relatively conservative Democratic candidate for the 9th Congressional District, chimes in via e-mail:

Yes – I would support the withdrawal of troops with the request of Iraq government officials saying they are ready to take charge. Therefore if they support Obama’s plan then I support the plan. I believe this has been the goal from the start. A free Iraq country and government.

We’ll keep posting responses as we get them.

Earlier this week, Iraq’s prime minister announced that he agreed in principle with Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. McCain thinks US troops should remain for a hundred years or more.

Now that we know where the two prospective leaders of our country stand, and where the leader of the country we currently occupy stands, I’m curious about you stand on one of the top issues facing America. And by you, I mean you, the commenters on this blog, and you, Claire McCaskill, and you, Kit Bond, and you, Sam Graves, and you, Russ Carnahan, and so on, right through everyone in Missouri either serving in Congress or running a campaign to do so next year.

Do you agree in general with Obama and the prime minister of Iraq, or with John McCain? Where do you stand?

I’ll post the answers from electeds and candidates as I receive them through e-mail or in comments.

After two days of calling McCain headquarters asking for credentials (they don’t do credentials) to today’s town hall at Union Station in Kansas City I was told to show up with my identification. They put me on their media notification e-mail list and I received the press logistics notice. So I hauled myself out of bed at 5:00 a.m. and got to Union Station at about 7:30 a.m. Then we waited around for a while. Then we went through security.

The early line up in the lobby at Union Station.

They didn’t know what to do with all the “freelancers” who showed up to cover this event. After a bit of head scratching from the people on the ground they decided to let us “media orphans” in.

Then we were informed we might be asked to leave. Then we were informed we’d be allowed to stay. Right now I’m here, waiting for the event to begin and watching the crowd and the media. At least there’s WiFi.

Two other “media orphans”.

The audience gets seated.

I probably won’t live blog, considering how well that went last time, but I may post a comment or two. Probably not, but it could happen.

Yeah, this became a process story, instead of an event story.

Brett Penrose follows the money…

…and so does John McCain.

Awhile back, John McCain took some fire indirectly from a fellow Republican, Jo Ann Emerson, when she defended the concept of earmarks. Now it looks like it’s Claire McCaskill’s turn.

Barack Obama recently took a jab at John McCain for voting against  The Water Resources Development Act Of 2007, which appropriated billions for levees and flood control programs:

‘I know that Sen. McCain felt as strongly as I did,’ Obama said, ‘feeling enormous sympathy for the victims of the recent flooding. I’m sure they appreciated the sentiment, but they probably would have appreciated it even more if Sen. McCain hadn’t opposed legislation to fund levees and flood control programs, which he considers pork.’

McCain voted against the measure because he doesn’t believe in earmarks, and the bill was filled with them. But as McCain was all too happy to point out (h/t Political Fix), Claire McCaskill voted against the same bill for the same reason.

So who’s right? Barack Obama and Jo Ann Emerson are. Earmarks are not in and of themselves a problem. As a whole earmarks constitute approximately $18 billion (only .65% of the federal budget) and address many local needs. Of course, the process needs to be reformed to curtail the influence of lobbyists and increase transparency on which member of Congress is requesting an earmark, when they are doing it, and why. But Barack Obama has already done brilliant work on all those fronts and he’s only going to press harder once he gets in the White House.

Sorry you got dinged in the crossfire, Claire. But Barack is correct on this one.  

John McCain will be in Springfield today, and Jo Mannies has an article in the P-D that reports on how important the southwest corner of Missouri is for him. She quotes a few Republicans.  When I read pap like this, sometimes I despair of democracy.

The difference could be provided by Republican-leaning Springfield residents like Randa Evans, 28. Evans, who works in a fast-food restaurant, hasn’t been paying much attention to the particular issues bandied about in the presidential contest. And she won’t be in the audience at McCain’s event today.

But McCain can probably count on her vote. “I think he has strong leadership qualities,” she said. “I think that’s what we need.”

Picture Jon Stewart’s deadpan because, what can you say to such ignorance?

Except this: Hey, Randa? John McCain is a:

flip,

flopping,

pandering,

Scrooge,

not,

a,

strong,

leader!