The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

McCain Calls For Anti-Trust Investigation for Ohio Community Facing Job Losses

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:16:29 GMT

CINCINNATI, Ohio— Sen. John McCain paid a visit to Wilmington, Ohio, where a potential deal between shipping giants DHL and UPS could result in the loss of 8,000 jobs. McCain met with community activists at Wilmington College to discuss the issue. At a July 9 town hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, Mary Houghtaling—who runs a hospice in the Wilmington-area—brought the situation to McCain’s attention. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Tuesday that Sen. John McCain and his campaign adviser, Rick Davis—a former lobbyist who worked on behalf of DHL—played a role in the events that set the possible job losses in motion. From the Plain Dealer:

Little known to those citizens, McCain and his campaign manager, Rick Davis, played roles in the fate of DHL Express and its Ohio air park as far back as 2003. Back then, however, their actions that helped DHL and its German owner, Deutsche Post World Net, acquire the Wilmington operations resulted in expansion, not retraction.
In a private meeting Thursday, Wilmington residents will ask McCain for help in stopping DHL’s proposal to quit using the airport as a hub, which could cost more than 8,000 jobs. DHL says that it wants to stay in the freight business but that it can stem financial losses if it can put its packages aboard the planes of a rival – United Parcel Service – before delivering them in DHL trucks. UPS flies out of Louisville, Ky., so the proposed change would render the Wilmington airport unnecessary.
None of that was anticipated in 2003, when McCain and Davis, who was a Washington lobbyist before managing the presidential campaign, first got involved. Several Wilmington civic leaders said that what happened in 2003 created an economic gain for their community, lasting several years.
But because that gain, and now the prospective loss, came from the decisions of a foreign-owned corporation, look for some Democrats and labor to seek to tie Wilmington’s current troubles to McCain.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) yesterday called for McCain to send Davis to Germany to use his connections to lobby on behalf of the Wilmington workers. During the meeting, McCain vowed to write a letter to the CEO of Deutsche Post requesting the company hear from the people who will be affected by the deal. He also promised to push for a congressional hearing into the matter. In a statement to reporters after the meeting, McCain called for an anti-trust investigation into the proposed DHL-UPS deal. From the pool report:

My concerns are being reinforced in my meeting today with those facing the most personal consequences of what may happen here if the agreement pending between DHL and UPS is finalized. Should this happen, DHL will cede significant elements of control over cost and service quality to one of its chief competitors. This raises serious concerns that consumers all over America would suffer in terms of cost and quality in the services provided. And I’m a strong supporter of our anti-trust laws and I believe they should be vigorously enforced. I fully support a federal anti-trust review of the case, but I do not prejudge its disposition. In the meantime, planning must proceed to ensure that in the even the transaction does go through the rapid-response assistance mechanism—local state and federal—are in place. Job retention must remain our overriding concern and we should explore all options for proceeding with a viable commercial development plan if DHL ceases operations in Wilmington.

National emergency grant funding should be released to assure any potential response efforts have the resources necessary to meet the challenges ahead and we must have an effective displaced worker assistance and training program in place.

Now, I believe that congressional oversight is necessary. I believe that the Justice Dept. should conduct a thorough and complete investigation as rapidly as possible. I believe it would be important for the chief decision-makers at Deutsche Post would come here, come here to Wilmington and come here to Ohio and explain the reasons and rationale for their decision and meet with the people and their representatives because of the impact this decision made a long ways away from the state of Ohio.

McCain also cautioned the community activists that he could not promise any results. From the pool report:

Then he talked directly to Mary Houghtaling, the woman who asked the question at the town hall meeting on July 9 and who asked the campaign for this meeting.

‘I have to give you straight talk Mary,” he said, adding that he knew about the situation before that day but “I never knew it in the way that you described it to me in the human terms.”

Then he repeated his disclaimer: “I can’t look you in the eye and say I’m sure we’re going to avert this.”

He said he would do everything to fight it not just for the community but also on constitutional and legal grounds. “You have my sympathy but you also have my support—because of the legalities and the anti-competitiveness of this that you so eloquently stated.”

This is likely the reality of the situation. McCain got called out on an issue in which he was unwittingly involved—in one of the most important swing states. He had no choice but to give the appearance that he could do something about the situation, and he did. But, unfortunately for the poor people of Wilmington, the chances are probably pretty slim that McCain will be able to do much—without a change of heart in DHL’s executive board room.

Obama Shreds Conservative Pundit

Ari Melber — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:18:15 GMT

Sen. Barack Obama upped his intensity this week—launching three consecutive attack ads; tweaking Sen. John McCain, his Republican rival in speeches, and grappling with a feisty pundit in a key swing state. In a telling exchange, Obama pushed back hard against Nevada commentator Joe Ralston, staking out his energy positions and cornering Ralston as basically a stand-in for McCain. The performance thrilled one fan on Daily Kos, who cheered Obama taking on the "contentious interviewer":

Obama explodes a bunch of the mischaracterizations of his energy policy—but my absolute favorite part was how Barack just would not let the guy cut him off before he finished answering the question.

At the same time, some Democrats continue to worry that Obama is not hitting hard enough. A front page Washington Post story expands on that argument today, with blind quotes like this:

Obama has not responded [to the GOP’s personal attacks] with a parallel assault on McCain’s character…. Such attacks have raised worries among Democratic strategists—haunted by [losses in 2004 and 2000]—that Obama has not responded in kind with a parallel assault on McCain’s character. Interviews with nearly a dozen Democratic strategists found those concerns to be widespread, although few wished to be quoted by name…

Said another Democratic consultant: "There needs to be a negative McCain track beyond the Bush policy stuff. One of the great strengths of the Obama campaign has been to not listen to the D.C. chattering class. They have a plan and they stick to it. But clearly, the D.C. chattering class are all wringing their hands."

In person, Obama is good at directly rebutting attacks while maintaining his composure and dignity—as the video below shows. Overall, his campaign is raising more questions about McCain’s character, if often a bit delicately. The most galling part of the criticism from "nearly a dozen Democratic strategists," however, is that while warning Obama not to repeat the mistakes of past Democratic campaigns, they repeat their own—anonymously whining to the press about their fears of looking weak.. Obviously, a weak thing to do.

A Clarification About Gen. McCaffrey's West Point Status

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:57:00 GMT

I just got an email from West Point’s Col. Michael Meese, to whom Gen. McCaffrey addressed the Afghanistan memorandum I wrote about this morning. Meese—who apparently didn’t receive the emailed questions that I was led to understand were forwarded to him—clarified that McCaffrey was West Point’s Distinguished Professor of International Security Studies from 2001-2005 and then was named an adjunct professor. My understanding was that his West Point role was little more than an honorific, and so I regret the mistake. Meese adds:

As [McCaffrey] noted in the memorandum, his views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the position of West Point.

Hope this clears things up.

This Week In John Conyers' Pursuit of Karl Rove

Matthew Blake — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:25:31 GMT

Congress may be in recess, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) isn’t taking a vacation from his enduring probe of Karl Rove’s role in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Today Conyers wrote a letter (pdf) requesting that the Republican National Committee hand over all documents related to Siegelman, including emails sent between the RNC and the White House. He also requested documents and emails subpoenaed by the RNC in their investigation of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Conyers’ letter follows last week’s ruling, which limited the right of White House officials to invoke claims of executive privilege. District Judge John Bates ruled that White House officials are not “totally immune from ever having to respond to congressional testimony” when subpoenaed. Even when the president has asserted executive privilege, officials must appear before Congress and, when appropriate, invoke executive privilege. Bates also ruled that officials must give a specific description of subpoenaed documents they’re withholding based on executive privilege.

Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney active in the state Republican Party, told the Judiciary Committee last year that Karl Rove ordered the Justice Department to re-open a bribery probe into Siegelman, which ultimately resulted in a dubious conviction. After nearly a year of evasions based on a claim to executive privilege, Rove denied involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution in a written statement two weeks ago, but he has not done the same in sworn, public testimony. His statement did not prevent the committee from holding him in criminal contempt.

Conyers argues that if President Bush is allowing Rove to answer written questions about the Siegelman prosecution, then what’s wrong with producing a few emails?

Conyers is giving the RNC a week to respond. Rove, meanwhile, has a month to decide if he will appear before the judiciary committee, which will almost certainly subpoena the “boy genius” when it reconvenes.

The Democrats' Iraq Plank

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:48:00 GMT

Just leaked: a draft, current as of today, of the Democratic Party platform’s Iraq plank, which is called "Ending The War In Iraq." Here it is.

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. Our civilian leaders have failed them. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9-11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place.

Sorry to interject, but whoa! Looks like something straight out of Heads In The Sand by Matthew Yglesias. Okay, back to the plank.

We will re-center American foreign policy by responsibly redeploying our combat forces from Iraq and refocusing them on urgent missions. We will give our military a new mission: ending this war and giving Iraq back to its people. We will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely remove our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect to complete redeployment within 16 months. After this redeployment, we will keep a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress.

So no full withdrawal. Note as well that this doesn’t say anything about getting the contractors out, either. But for better or for worse, this has been Barack Obama’s position since 2007, so it shouldn’t exactly come as a surprise, either.

At the same time, we will provide generous assistance to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. We will launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic surge to help broker a lasting political settlement in Iraq, which is the only path to a sustainable peace. We will make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. This is the future the American people want. This is the future that Iraqis want. This is what our common interests demand.

That bit is as important as it is frequently overlooked. Withdrawal without a diplomatic and regional strategy really is irresponsible. But that’s not actually what we’re talking about: instead of a full-on bug-out, there’s going to be arduous negotiation over modalities and reconciliation and all that sexy stuff. From occupier to peacemaker, in other words. (If the plan works, that is.)

Does Exxon-Mobil Support Obama?

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:32:47 GMT

From the counter-intuitive file: Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee launched a new campaign called Exxon-McCain ‘08, seeking to paint Sen. John McCain as the darling of the oil industry. The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan organization that tracks money in politics and runs OpenSecrets.org, decided to take a look at how the two major-party candidates stack up in terms of campaign contributions from the employees of oil companies. What did it find? While McCain is the overall industry favorite—by a large margin—Exxon-Mobil employees actually prefer Sen. Barack Obama. From CRP:

While McCain has raised considerably more money from this unpopular industry, CRP was surprised to notice that it’s actually Obama who has received more from the pockets of employees at several of Big Oil’s biggest and most recognizable companies. Tallying contributions by employees in the industry and their families, we found that Exxon, Chevron and BP have all contributed more money to Obama than to McCain.

Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500. McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though—Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list goes on. (You can see detail on all these companies in the spreadsheet linked below.) McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. —$91,000 to Obama’s $8,000—which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain’s campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama’s has—$1.3 million compared to about $394,000.

I can already see McCain’s people in Arlington mounting their counter-attack. The CRP analysis also includes this chart, which is very revealing:

You can read the entire history of the McCain campaign in this diagram. Early last year, McCain was the odds-on favorite to win the GOP nomination—and the oil money flowed. Then, around July, word got out that the campaign had been spending money recklessly and was near bankruptcy. Sure enough, the petrodollars dried up, as the industry waited to see who would emerge as the front-runner. After McCain won the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary, and continued winning thereafter, his stock shot way up, resulting in a spike of oil contributions. I can’t really explain the dip in March, though McCain did take a week off from fund-raising when he spent a week abroad, which included a visit to Iraq. But we can clearly see that the contributions reached a new peak in June, when McCain announced his support for lifting the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling—popular within the oil industry, for obvious reasons.

McCain Drops False Claim From Stump Speech

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:40:39 GMT

LIMA, Ohio— Has Sen. John McCain taken a gander at FactCheck.org recently? It would appear so. When we asked him last week about the Website’s reports that found many of his recent ads contain false or misleading information, he claimed he didn’t know anything about the Website. But, at a town hall meeting here today—his first town hall in a week—McCain corrected one of his frequent criticisms of Sen. Barack Obama that was debunked by the nonpartisan fact-checking Website on July 8. As recently as last week, the Arizona senator said that Obama has voted for tax increases on individuals who earn as little as $32,000 per year. Today, the likely Republican nominee altered his charge to bring it more in line with FactCheck.org’s analysis:

"Sen. Obama says he’s only raise taxes on the rich, but in the Senate he voted for tax hikes that would have impacted people making just $42,000 a year."

The analysis notes that the vote in question, which was for a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the Bush administration 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire, would have affected people with an income of $41,500 or more—and it has no relation to Obama’s current economic policy proposals.

Keeping the bastards honest…it’s what we do. Now, if McCain would only address the other 10 reports FactCheck.org has issued about his ads since late June.

Dean Claps Back on McCain Ad Starring Dean

Ari Melber — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:10:00 GMT

In response to the McCain campaign’s new ad, discussed here, the DNC is blasting reporters with Howard Dean’s response:

John McCain a maverick? The John McCain of 2000 wouldn’t even consider voting for the John McCain of 2008. The American people are learning that the John McCain of 2008 represents more of the same failed policies we’ve gotten from George Bush for the past eight years.

Sen. McCain is clearly in the tank for Exxon and big oil, for keeping our troops stuck in Iraq for decades to come and for an economic policy that puts tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations above relief for hardworking families. John McCain has changed: he’s taken the low road, leveling false, negative and misleading attacks against Barack Obama. John McCain is no more a maverick within the Republican Party than Dick Cheney is. He’s just more of the same.

By name-checking so many Democrats in the ad, the McCain camp ensured plenty of crossfire. Like Sen. John Kerry, Dean characterized his past praise as inoperative because McCain has changed. The bigger question today is whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who begins campaigning for Obama again on Friday in Nevada, will rebut the ad. Unlike Dean and Kerry, her praise for McCain was recent. It was not, however, as recent as her husband’s new observation. Former President Bill Clinton told The Washington Post this week that "McCain is a very formidable man."

McCain's YouTube Problem

Ari Melber — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:49:30 GMT

The Washington Times reports that Sen. John McCain is finally rivaling Sen. Barack Obama’s YouTube success, after a burst of negative ads last week. TWI’s Matt DeLong predicts more "inflammatory ads," online and on-air, "if that’s what it takes to get people to pay attention to the McCain campaign."

And bingo—McCain stormed YouTube with a web exclusive ad today, (which I discuss here ). Yet while McCain’s YouTube views are rising, an undeniable plus, he has not yet closed any gap for deploying YouTube as a unique tool for political persuasion.

YouTube is most effective as an alternative platform for political information that is not otherwise easily available to voters. Lengthy candidate speeches, unscripted moments, documentary footage and unusual ideas can get a hearing that is impossible on broadcast television. The most influential YouTube efforts exploit this opportunity, from Macaca to The Speech. Now take the nominees’ top five YouTube videos. Four of Obama’s fit the bill—there are two long speeches—which are only counted for YouTube "views" when visitors watch the whole thing—and two specially recorded addresses to the YouTube community (like Perot-style infomericials, only shorter and better). And there’s one TV clip, from "Ellen." Yet all five of McCain’s top videos are from TV. Four are ads, including the recent offensive, and one is a clip of former President Bill Clinton telling Barbara Walters that McCain "might be the most electable" Republican. (Wonder why that didn’t make it in the new web ad of Democratic Praise.)

So McCain’s YouTube success uses the site as a duplicate platform to rebroadcast TV programming, while Obama has excelled by giving voters alternative content about the campaign. To be fair, McCain’s staff has tried to produce exclusive YouTube programming, like the "Cribs" video below, but it just hasn’t been very popular.

PRODUCTION NOTES: McCain’s "Cribs" video adopts MTV’s 360-degree shooting style, offering YouTube viewers a grainy, "behind the scenes" feel for life on the road. The score toggles between hip-hop instrumentals and modern rock, with a low-angle shot of an advance staffer hyping how they "roll in style" on a campaign bus with "22-inch rims." There’s a quick shot of the bus shower. It’s no wonder Jon Stewart calls him "JMac."

Obama Invites McCain to Celebfest

Bruce McCall — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:54:50 GMT

Shaken by celebrity-wannabe Sen. John McCain’s paranoid jealousy of his A-list address book, and the TV attack ad it recently generated, Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, has invited the Arizona Republican to “get down” with a gaggle of luminaries who gather to goof around at his basketball/backgammon/pilates weekends at Oprah Winfrey’s place and other retreats.

“It might cheer the senator up to rub shoulders with Oscar winners and Nobel Prize laureates and some of my pals from the N.F.L.,” Obama speculated. “I think he’d get a special kick out of the Sarkozys. They rock!”

Obama aides have also sent out VIP passes for the likely Republican nominee and his posse to attend Mick Jagger’s baby shower for Angelina Jolie in Monte Carlo next week. Perhaps out of embarrassment, the McCain camp countered by inviting Obama to a round of golf with their candidate plus former Vice President Dan Quayle, the 1998 Miss Teenage Mormon and “a top pro bowler,” in a country club near Phoenix.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The Obama campaign is rumored to be pulling out all the celebrity hospitality stops, not only out of pity, but also in hopes that McCain will respond by canceling a second celebrity TV attack ad. This one alleged features Roman Polanski, Fatty Arbuckle and Pee Wee Herman.

A reflective Obama told the reporters traveling on his private Falcon Jet, loaned by best-bud Tiger Woods, “I guess I’d be jealous too if my posse was Dom DeLuise, Florence Henderson and Jim Belushi.” He put his Blackberry on hold – family-friend Jack Nicholson was checking in on crony Warren Beatty’s impromptu Vegas lounge act with the Dalai Lama and Cher the previous night – to express his sympathy for the elderly Republican.

“I’m sure all good Democrats feel for the old gentleman,” he added. “But I’m a man of hope. So I’d say to the senator, it’s never too late to get a life.”

Bruce McCall, a humorist, is a regular contributor to The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. He is the author of "All Meat Looks Like South America: The World of Bruce McCall" and "Zany Afternoons."

And On the Fifth Day, Republicans Were Still Talking to Themselves

Mike Lillis — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:08:00 GMT

Today marks day five of the GOP’s empty-chamber self-debate over high fuel prices. For anyone who’s been vacationing on Jupiter, the Republicans are calling on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bring Congress back to Washington to vote on an expansion of offshore drilling. Nevermind that experts and independent analyses indicate that increased drilling would have no immediate effect on prices at the pump, the public is growing weary of $4-a-gallon gas, and the GOP’s drilling push is gaining momentum.

Although the debate to this point has revolved around fuel costs and environmental impact, there’s another facet of this argument that, unfortunately, has gone largely ignored: That’s the long-term damage that an oil-based energy model promises to wreak on the U.S. economy. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman pointed out last week:

Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuels, can see that clean renewable energy—wind, solar, nuclear and stuff we haven’t yet invented—is going to be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going to grow in a stable way.

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power industry is going to most own the next great technology breakthrough—the E.T. revolution, the energy technology revolution—and create millions of jobs and thousands of new businesses, just like the I.T. revolution did.

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric typewriters—and forget about these things called the "PC" and "the Internet." It is a strategy for making America a second-rate power and economy.

Don’t look for the inanity to end anytime soon. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed yesterday that the GOP revolt will continue right up to the Democratic convention.

McCain Touts Dems for McCain

Ari Melber — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:58:51 GMT

Fresh off a dramatic run of TV ads savaging Sen. Barack Obama, today the McCain campaign is changing gears with a web ad that gets downright chummy with Obama and a fleet of Democrats. The video features shots of progressive favorites like Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, vanquished Democratic contenders like Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who now advises Obama—and even a cameo from the presumptive Democratic nominee himself. And they all heap praise on Sen. John McCain.

McCain’s press office explains the concept:

The ad highlights major Obama supporters praising John McCain’s record of working across the aisle to get results for the American people. If we are to move America forward, we need a president who will put partisanship aside to do what’s right for the American people.

The shoutouts begin with standard Washington bromides: "Great guy" (Feingold) "Great friend" (Sen. Joseph Biden) "Patriotic American" (Kerry). Nothing new there; you can find senators saying every last one of their colleagues is great during a floor speech. Then things get warmer. Biden says he would like to run with McCain. Obama testifies that he came to Washington to follow McCain’s approach on regulating greenhouse gases. The finale is an attack from Clinton, touting McCain’s "lifetime of experience" in contrast to Obama, who only "has a speech he gave in 2002."

The ad isn’t for voters, really. It’s aimed more for the press and political junkies—so it can be talked about as free media. But it could also give Democrats a gut check. If Biden and Kerry want to advance a united Democratic front, they have to do it without gushing about their colleague. And if Clinton actually wants to help elect Obama, she should be the first surrogate rebutting a cynical attempt to suggest that she and other Democrats prefer McCain. But she’s busy planning her trip to Denver.

John Amato, who runs the popular video website Crooks and Liars, has criticized Democrats like Kerry for overdoing the McCain praise. After watching Kerry praise McCain this Sunday on "Meet the Press," he sarcastically blogged, "I have an idea, why doesn’t John Kerry make a campaign ad for John McCain and praise his service?" So today I asked Amato what he thinks of the new McCain ad. "It’s very frustrating watching Democrats fall all over themselves, making sure to praise John McCain in the media before they then disagree with his policies," he said via email, "while John McCain and the entire GOP try to define Obama as a light-weight, arugula-loving elitist who’s not qualified to lead." And there’s nothing praiseworthy about that.

Update: John Kerry released a response to the ad:

The McCain campaign is determined to give their Paris Hilton ad a run for its money in the desperation department, and they’ve succeeded only in shining a light on the fact that the John McCain of today is unrecognizable from the John McCain of just a couple years ago. The real

question is what happened to the John McCain we used to know and why he changed overnight into a George Bush nominee with a Karl Rove campaign. The new John McCain supports the Bush tax giveaways for the wealthy he once denounced, opposes his own immigration bill, flip-flopped on torture and runs negative ads after calling for an honorable campaign. Frankly, it tells you everything about this election that the McCain campaign spins its wheels recycling what we said about John McCain way back when, while scrambling and sputtering to explain away Gov. Pawlenty’s praise of Barack Obama today.

PRODUCTION NOTES: The ad opens by touting McCain as a "maverick," as demonstrated by all this apparent support from a wide range of Democrats. Upbeat guitar riffs compliment clips of Democrats from TV interviews, congressional appearances and press conferences. (Year of remarks: Daschle, 2000; Biden, 2005; Kerry, 2004; Dean, 2003; Feingold, 2006; Obama, 2007; Clinton, 2008.)

McCain Closes YouTube Gap

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:34:41 GMT

It’s no secret that Sen. Barack Obama has long dominated his rival, Sen. John McCain on YouTube, in terms of the number of videos and views each candidate receives. However, The Washington Times reports that the McCain campaign’s recent advertising offensive—particularly the ad that linked Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears—has drawn more viewers to McCain’s YouTube page than Obama’s every day for the last week.

Over the past two weeks, [McCain’s] “celebrity” attacks have stomped Democratic presidential opponent Sen. Barack Obama in YouTube hits.

Mr. McCain has pumped out a series of brutal yet entertaining attack ads and Web videos mocking the press and Mr. Obama, and the combination of wit and insult has pushed his YouTube channel to the sixth most watched on the site this week. Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama’s channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote.

That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain’s YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video viewing.

So not only did McCain’s edgy advertising dominate the news coverage last week, it appears to have also allowed McCain to achieve a form of online parity with Obama—at least temporarily. YouTube has the added benefits of being free, and its users cross all demographics. In 2006—granted, a long time ago, and the numbers may have changed somewhat—three different surveys found that the bulk of the Website’s users fell between the ages of 35 and 64. This is also the largest voting age bracket, spanning Gen X-ers to Baby Boomers. If inflammatory ads are what it takes to get people to pay attention to the McCain campaign—particularly online, where it doesn’t cost anything to air them—then we can probably expect a lot more.

Obama Pushing McCain's "Confusion" on Social Security

Ari Melber — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:10:38 GMT

Today the Obama campaign is circulating a Bloomberg article detailing Sen. John McCain’s many divergent arguments about funding Social Security:

McCain Irks Republicans With Confusion Over Social Security Tax

[McCain’s] contradictions reflect a central conundrum for the Arizona senator: He’s seeking to both placate conservatives. ... and project himself as an independent ready to work with Democrats on many of these issues. ... The tax-benefit dilemma has not only thrown McCain into rhetorical contortions, it’s also caused him to get testy when pressed to explain. During a campaign bus ride last week in Missouri, a reporter said his July 27 comment presumably meant McCain wasn’t ruling out raising taxes. "That’s presuming wrong,’’ McCain said in cutting him off, according to The Washington Post. Still, he has a history of being open to new Social Security taxes.

In a "Meet the Press’’ interview in 2005, McCain unequivocally endorsed the idea of levying such taxes on high- income earners, saying he could support that "as part of a compromise.’’ Then, as he closed in on the Republican nomination between last December and February, he pledged at least four times to oppose all tax increases, including Social Security levies…. His shifting rhetoric has entangled even some surrogates. In a Bloomberg interview in July, adviser Carly Fiorina ruled out Social Security tax increases on "middle-and working-class’’ Americans, but said if a bipartisan coalition is "creative enough’’ to fashion levies on wealthier people, that may be acceptable.

As the article explains in greater depth, McCain has taken several contrary positions about funding the entitlement programs that dominate domestic spending. It also reports that McCain is "confused" and "testy" when pressed about his inconsistencies. These are key arguments that the Obama campaign has been pushing. And they rankle McCain’s advisers, who strenuously complain that when people call McCain "confused," they are playing the age card. But it could be worse.

"Confusion" is one of the more charitable glosses for McCain’s funding flip-flops. Critics might say he is being dishonest, or lying, or cravenly telling different voting blocs whatever he thinks they want to hear. Those attacks presume some bad faith, while "confusion" assumes that McCain keeps changing his position on a huge domestic issue because he genuinely has difficulty maintaining one position. Voters can decide which is true—and which is worse.

McCain offers "some Straight Talk about Social Security" in a YouTube address last year.

The Forgotten War

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:50:12 GMT

As U.S. military casualties mount in Afghanistan, a retired four-star Army general, who just returned from reviewing the six-plus-year war effort, said the country "is in misery" and describes the war as "a 25-year campaign."

In a memo written for the Social Sciences Dept. at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on July 30, Barry McCaffrey, a division commander during the 1991 Gulf War and drug czar under President Bill Clinton, writes that there is "no unity of command"—either among U.S. and foreign coalition troops, or even among U.S. troops. Political and economic contributions to nation-building efforts are an additional source of disunity. Unity of command, in which all forces report to a single commander, is a basic principle of military strategy, without which military campaigns are rarely successful. McCaffrey writes that U.S. forces have two regional commands: European Command, which is also the NATO military command, and Central Command, which directs U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

"A sensible coordination of all political and military elements of the Afghan theater of operations does not exist," McCaffrey writes. "There is no single military headquarters tactically commanding all U.S. forces."

The deterioration of security in Afghanistan this year has propelled what was known as "the forgotten war" to the foreign-policy fore—with both Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, and Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP nominee, pledging to increase the U.S. troop presence there.

There are now approximately 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, compared to about 140,000 in Iraq, a far smaller and somewhat less populous nation. According to an Associated Press tally, 2,300 people—most said to be insurgents—have died violent deaths in Afghanistan this year; and attacks on the volatile eastern border with Pakistan are already up 40 percent from last year. Commanders on the ground have requested at least three additional combat brigades—roughly 10,000 troops—but military overstretch and the demands of the Iraq war makes it unlikely that a significant troop increase will occur this year.

The unity-of-command issue is hardly the only problem McCaffrey identifies. He writes that while "we cannot allow ourselves to fail" in Afghanistan, the war is "generational" in duration, and the U.S. lacks a military structured to fight wars of that duration. "Many of these troops and their leaders through general officer level are on their 4th or more combat deployments since 9/11,’" McCaffrey writes. "We have suffered 36,000 U.S. killed and wounded. Their families are getting tired. The country is not at war. The Armed Forces and the CIA are at war. We are at the point of breaking faith with our troops."

Robert Mackey, a retired Army officer, agrees with McCaffrey. "Simple fact is that our armed forces are not set up to fight a long-term war of any size at all with an all-volunteer force," Mackey said in an e-mail. "That isn’t what the [all-volunteer] force was designed or expected to do. It was supposed to be a stop-gap until mobilization back in the bad old days of the Soviet hordes pouring though Fulda. So, the administration after 9-11 sent the populace shopping and threw the Old Regulars on the Frontier to stop the Sioux. And then decided that invading Canada would be a peachy idea, but only using the troops on hand."

But Jack Devine, a longtime CIA official who rose to the position of acting director before retiring in the 1990s, sounded a note of caution over a war of that length. "I know McCaffrey," Devine said. "He’s a man of solid judgment. He’s just back [from Afghanistan], so there’s a certain ring of credibility to his observations. Unfortunately, I think we have to tough it out [in Afghanistan] until we find bin Laden, but then my personal recommendation would be to find a good way to extricate ourselves and reduce our presence to a minimum."

McCaffrey’s paper was first reported by the Small Wars Journal blog on Aug. 1. McCaffrey himself could not be reached for comment. A West Point spokesman said that McCaffrey was no longer affiliated with the school. Neither Col. Michael Meese, chairman of the Dept. of Social Sciences at West Point, nor Col. Cindy Jebb, responded to emailed questions about McCaffrey’s assessment.

McCaffrey praised Defense Secretary Robert Gates for deploying a small additional contingent of U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan, noting the additional force would "temporarily halt the slide into total warfare." However, he contended that NATO partner nations were not adding forces.

For the last two months, the U.S. military has opted to extend Marine tours in Afghanistan rather than redeploy forces from Iraq, where troop deaths per month have been dwarfed by the Afghanistan war for the last 90 days. At the Pentagon on Tuesday, spokesman Geoff Morrell did not commit to new Afghanistan deployments before 2009, despite the requests of commanders. "There are ongoing discussions about what else can be done to meet the needs of the commanders in the field," Morrell said.

McCaffrey’s report emphasized that winning the war in Afghanistan would require more than just the military. "The atmosphere of terror cannot be countered by relying mainly on military means," he writes. He chided the Bush administration, partner governments, and the United Nations for failing to develop an integrated political-economic-military plan for success. "There is no clear political governance relationship organizing the government of Afghanistan, the United Nations and its many Agencies, NATO and its political and military presence, the 26 Afghan deployed allied nations, the hundreds of [non-governmental organizations, and private entities and contractors."

Yet McCaffrey still asserted that 2009 would be "the year of decision" in Afghanistan. His predictions were bleak. "The Taliban and a greatly enhanced foreign fighter presence will: strike decisive blows against selected NATO units; try to erase the [Pakistani Federal Administered Tribal Areas] and Baluchi borders with Afghanistan; try to sever the road networks and stop the construction of new roads (Route # 1—the Ring Road from Kabul to Kandahar is frequently now interdicted); and try to strangle and isolate the capital," McCaffrey wrote. "Without more effective and non-corrupt Afghan political leadership at province and district level, Afghanistan may become a failed state hosting foreign terrorist communities with global ambitions. Afghan political elites are focused more on the struggle for power than governance. "

Andrew Exum, who led infantry and special operations units in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2004, praised McCaffrey’s report, but said it might not be the most helpful guide to future strategy. "Gen. McCaffrey’s reports from the field are always must-reads, because they’re clear and concise while reserving plenty of deserved praise for soldiers in the field and our allies," Exum wrote in an email. "Gen. McCaffrey confirms what we’ve known for quite some time: Afghanistan is an under-resourced war that suffers from both a serious lack of unity of effort and no clear guidance across the NATO forces as to what we’re supposed to be doing. The report is less helpful from a policy perspective with respect to how, in an environment of scarcity, we’re supposed to balance our resources between Iraq and Afghanistan—and whether or not we have the treasure or patience to stay in Afghanistan long enough to both defeat the insurgency and reform a hopelessly corrupt establishment."

McCain Calls For 'Economic Surge,' Offers No Explanation

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:09:53 GMT

MARION, Ohio—Sen. John McCain made a campaign stop in Jackson, Ohio yesterday Merillat Industries, a cabinet manufacturer. There, he adopted the language of the war in Iraq to describe his economic plan, calling for an "economic surge."

"What we need today is an economic surge. Our surge has succeeded in Iraq militarily. Now we need an economic surge to keep jobs here at home [and] create new ones. We need to reduce the tax burden on businesses [that] choose to make their home the United States of America. We need to open new markets to U.S. products. We need to reduce the cost of health care, and we need to end the out-of-control spending in Washington that’s putting our debt on the backs of our children. Now’s the time for action. When I’m president we are going to get it done."

As you can see from the quote, McCain offered no new proposals or details to go along with the new language—it seems to just be a new term. This is a perfect example of the effectiveness of the McCain campaign’s restriction of media access. McCain can roll out something new like this, and the traveling press, starved for new information to report—particularly on a day like today, when most of the traveling press spent the bulk of the day on the bus, away from the candidate—dutifully report a nice new sound bite. Ooh, an economic surge. That sounds tough. But because McCain did not take any questions, the press did not have an opportunity to ask him, well, what exactly is an "economic surge," and how does it differ from what you’ve already proposed? McCain gets his message out into the media, and he doesn’t have to worry about facing any real questions. The strategy is working like a charm, and there’s no reason to expect a change of course.

Kerry as Obama's Late Bloomer

Ari Melber — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:39:05 GMT

John Kerry has been everywhere lately.

The Obama campaign tapped him as their prime surrogate on Sunday’s "Meet The Press," to counter a crispy Sen. Joseph I Lieberman (I-Conn), who appeared for McCain’s campaign. Kerry slammed McCain as "wrong" on everything, from embracing "liberation theology" as a rationale for invading Iraq to predicting that oil would pay for the war. He amplified the case against McCain in a counterterrorism speech at the Center for American Progress, and continued the air war in a sharp TV debate with Sen. Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.) over the "celeb" ad. Sam Stein argues that Kerry has become a key face for Obama’s general election strategy:

The toughness, campaign experience and media and political savvy has members of Obama’s team gushing with gratefulness over having Kerry as a political henchman. "He really is doing a great job," said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Illinois Democrat. Added an aide who had worked on the 2004 campaign: "Kerry is a content and happy warrior for Obama. He’s been an extraordinarily effective surrogate, on everything from finding an end to the war to beating the Republican attack machine. He’s hit his stride on many levels."

Democrats often turn on their failed presidential nominees. Gore spent years in the political wilderness before his green rebirth, and Kerry was repeatedly blasted for his 2004 campaign—and then pushed offstage after a supposed gaffe before the 2006 mid-terms. Yet with the blessing of the biggest star in Democratic politics, Kerry is making a comeback in the role of loyal lieutenant. He is far better at pitching Obama than he was at pitching himself.

McCain Camp Repeats Debunked Info to Support New Ad

Matthew DeLong — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:16:33 GMT

The McCain campaign released a new TV ad attacking Sen. Barack Obama today. In the spot, titled "Family," the announcer picks up on the "Celeb" theme and refers to the presumed Democratic nominee as ‘the biggest celebrity in the world." Otherwise, the ad is relatively generic, using McCain’s familiar attacks on energy and taxes to suggest an Obama presidency will be bad for the American family. What is notable, however, is that on the press release announcing the new ad—available on the campaign Website—the McCain campaign provides a fact sheet to substantiate the information in the ad. Among these "facts" is an item that was previously discredited by FactCheck.org, the non-partisan fact-checking Website. From the press release:

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On "Dirty Energy" Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

We’ve already been over this, so I’ll just briefly summarize. The above quote was taken out of context. Obama was actually responding to a question from his interviewer about whether new taxes on energy could be a way to fund education—which he actually said he opposes. Here’s the full exchange:

Guerra: Have you considered other funding sources, say taxing emerging energy forms, for example, say a penny per kilowatt hour on wind energy?

Obama: Well, that’s clean energy, and we want to drive down the cost of that, not raise it. We need to give them subsidies so they can start developing that. What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.

But I think that the real way to fund education is for local communities to step up and say this is important to us. There are no shortcuts. When people say they want to fund education with lotteries, or do this or do that, what they are saying is that this isn’t a top priority. It should be a top priority and people should be saying, we get what we pay for.

So the McCain camp continues to rely on false information to bolster its ads.

PRODUCTION NOTES: As I said, the ad is pretty generic and doesn’t contain anything new. However, the spot is almost evenly balanced in the amount of time it spends attacking Obama versus promoting McCain—a departure from past attack ads that were almost exclusively about Obama. This may be a response to criticism that the McCain campaign’s recent advertising has focused too much on tearing down the Democratic nominee. There may be one other point worth pondering. A reporter on the McCain press bus suggested that one shot may contain a subliminal message. At about eight seconds in, a message appears—"Obama: READY TO HELP YOUR FAMILY?"—as a child sits is on his father’s shoulders. There is a flash and the image ominously shifts from color to black-and-white before fading out—a technique commonly used to suggest death in television and movies. Is the McCain campaign’s implicit message that an Obama presidency will spell the death of the American family? Maybe not, but the imagery is certainly suggestive.

Obama Criticizes Terror Trial, McCain Doesn't

Ari Melber — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:06:38 GMT

Sen. Barack Obama issued a statement responding to the Military Commission verdict for Salim Hamdan, who was just found guilty of material support for terrorism. This was the first trial since the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s legal regime for terrorists—along with parts of the Military Commissions Act, or MCA—as unconstitutional. Obama voted against the MCA, while Sen. John McCain supported it. In today’s statement, after Obama commended U.S. soldiers for presiding over the trial and serving their country "with valor in the fight against terrorism," he stressed how the administration’s fatally flawed legal framework delayed attempts to bring "justice" to America’s enemies:

That the Hamdan trial – the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 – took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the Administration’s legal framework. It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice. And while it is important to convict anyone who provides material support for terrorism, it is long past time to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who murdered nearly 3000 Americans.

By citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Obama is nodding toward proposals by many legal experts, and administration critics, to scrap the military tribunals and rely on the UCMJ to handle cases from Gitmo. For example, in congressional testimony responding to the first Hamdan decision, Yale Law Dean Harold Koh, who oversaw human rights at the State Dept. under President Bill Clinton, laid out the basics of a UCMJ approach:

Ideally, the [alternative to military tribunals] would resemble those applied in courts-martial conducted under the UCMJ, [and] strictly adhere to the fundamental requirements of international human rights law and the laws of war.

According to Koh, the fundamentals include a fair public hearing before an independent tribunal, a "presumption of innocence," right to trial without "undue delay," the right to "examine evidence and witnesses" and the right "not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt." These requirements would make trials more accurate, legitimate and consistent with American values, say proponents. Meanwhile, supporters of President George W. Bush’s system counter that raising the bar for evidence—or detainee rights—would help terrorists go free. McCain hit this theme in his response today:

This process demonstrated that military commissions can effectively bring very dangerous terrorists to justice. The fact that the jury did not find Hamdan guilty of all of the charges brought against him demonstrates that the jury weighed the evidence carefully. Unlike Sen. Obama who voted against the MCA and favors giving Al Qaeda terrorists direct access to U.S. civilian courts to contest their detention, I recognize that we cannot treat dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield as we would common criminals.

In fact, Obama has discussed using both civilian courts and a UCMJ court martial system to try terror suspects. And a second fact: Just about everyone supports using "U.S. civilian courts" for some terrorism trials—even Bush. Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted in a U.S. civilian court of far more serious charges than those facing many Gitmo detainees—including plotting 9/11. That’s one step in the fight against terrorists that Bush, Obama and McCain can all support—even if McCain won’t admit it anymore.

Offshore Drilling Tests Pelosi

Mike Lillis — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Last week, when Congress left Washington for a month-long break without addressing the nation’s towering fuel costs, there was little mystery what topic would dominate August’s political debate.

Indeed, in the five days since the exodus, the partisan battle over how to lower prices at the pump has reached a fever pitch. The White House and congressional Republicans are urging a broad expansion in offshore drilling; Democratic leaders are pushing for greater emphasis on renewable energies; and lawmakers from both parties have proposed legislation seeking some happy union between the two.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The issue is poised to be an election year monolith, with the potential to decide races right up to the White House. Indeed, the likely presidential contenders—Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)—have entered the fray, each charging the other with failure to offer an effective remedy to gas prices tickling $4 a gallon.

But in a competitive campaign season, with just a few legislative weeks remaining before November, major reforms of any kind are highly unlikely—particularly on a hot-button issue like offshore drilling. The underlying dynamic, then, is not which side will have its way on energy legislation, but which party can make the other look worse for doing nothing. In this highly charged political atmosphere, victory hinges less on policy than on how the debate is packaged for the public.

"Each candidate is going to say the other candidate isn’t doing enough to lower gas prices," said John Morton Blum, history professor emeritus at Yale University and author of "V Was for Victory: Politics and American Culture During World War II." "There’ll be no end to the jockeying over this."

The saga will prove a tough test of leadership for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The California Democrat has adamantly refused GOP calls to stage a vote to expand offshore drilling, saying the move would benefit the oil companies but not consumers.

"[T]he misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump," Pelosi explained Sunday on ABC’s "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" in discussing the push to expand offshore drilling sites. "This is a decoy. It is not a solution."

Complicating Pelosi’s position, a number of moderate Democrats—particularly those in regions with coastal oil reserves—support the proposed increase in drilling. Indeed, one reason the speaker has resisted a vote is that the measure would likely pass.

Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University, said that staging the vote could harm certain Democrats hoping to set themselves apart from their Republican opponents. "Some Democrats might think that giving in on this issue would undercut their effort to really distinguish themselves from the GOP," Zelizer wrote in an email, "particularly with McCain running."

There is something else that Pelosi has little acknowledged: the GOP decoy is working. Nationwide, Americans approve of an offshore drilling expansion by a whopping 69 to 30 percent, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released last week. Such figures put Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the uncomfortable spot of bucking, not only their Republican opponents, but public sentiment as well.

Sarah Binder, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and professor of political science at George Washington University, pointed out that Pelosi has been partly influenced by the politics of California, where just 35 percent of Democrats support the drilling expansion, according to a recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California.

"In this sense, Pelosi is NOT bucking public opinion," Binder wrote in an email, "she’s reflecting it quite well, at least from the perspective of her broader state constituency."

Still, the national poll numbers have emboldened Republicans in their quest to paint Democrats as negligent public servants, unwilling to address high gas costs. And they’re taking their case directly to the public. "The sooner Congress lifts the ban [on drilling]," President George W. Bush said during his weekly radio address on Saturday, "the sooner we can get this oil from beneath the ocean floor to your gas tank."

The confrontation has evolved into political theater in the House, where dozens of Republicans have taken to the dimmed chamber floor for the four days since the recess began to demand a vote on offshore drilling. Republican leaders have promised to repeat the stunt through the week and, possibly, beyond.

Pelosi has thus far stood her ground. She accuses the Republicans of misleading voters into thinking the increased drilling will lead to immediate relief at the pump. "I’m just not going to be a party to it," she said.

Bolstering Pelosi’s argument, the Bush administration’s Energy Information Admin. reported last year that expanding offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

Based on evidence like that EIA report, many experts say the Democrats have the substantive advantage in the energy debate. But that’s different than selling the message to voters. "The amount of ignorance on offshore drilling is sort of appalling," said Blum of Yale.

Most Democrats favor plans to stem fuel costs by releasing some of the nation’s emergency reserves, dedicating more funding to the development of alternative fuels and targeting speculators on Wall Street.

On Friday, the debate took a turn when a group of 10 senators—five Democrats and five Republicans—proposed legislation containing controversial elements of each party’s energy wish-list. For Democrats, for example, the compromise bill would repeal billions of dollars in oil company subsidies to be used instead to develop alternative fuel vehicles. For Republicans, the proposal includes an expansion of drilling off of Florida’s coast in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a move that alienated some liberal voters, Obama expressed an openness to support increased drilling, so long as it came as part of a larger, comprehensive energy package.

Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, said Pelosi is fighting to maintain the support of environmentalists, who vehemently oppose increased drilling, while also allowing Obama to hedge a bit by supporting some new exploration as a part of a far broader energy proposal. Refusing a stand-alone vote on the offshore issue, Mann said, could accomplish that dual goal.

"Whether she will be able to sustain her agenda control on this until Congress adjourns for the year is uncertain," Mann added.

Much of the outcome, experts say, will depend on how gas prices behave between now and September, when the congressional break is slated to end. That could bode well for the Democrats. Oil prices have fallen in recent days on the news that demand is dropping as Americans drive less. Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May versus a year earlier, the Federal Highway Admin. reported last week. AAA says the average cost of gas fell to $3.87 per gallon Tuesday, down from its historic height of $4.11 on July 7.

The trend is evidence, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank quipped Tuesday, "that Congress should do nothing more often."

The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

McCain Calls For Anti-Trust Investigation for Ohio Community Facing Job Losses

Obama Shreds Conservative Pundit

A Clarification About Gen. McCaffrey's West Point Status

This Week In John Conyers' Pursuit of Karl Rove

The Democrats' Iraq Plank

Does Exxon-Mobil Support Obama?

McCain Drops False Claim From Stump Speech

Dean Claps Back on McCain Ad Starring Dean

McCain's YouTube Problem

Obama Invites McCain to Celebfest

﻿And On the Fifth Day, Republicans Were Still Talking to Themselves

McCain Touts Dems for McCain

McCain Closes YouTube Gap

Obama Pushing McCain's "Confusion" on Social Security

The Forgotten War

McCain Calls For 'Economic Surge,' Offers No Explanation

Kerry as Obama's Late Bloomer

McCain Camp Repeats Debunked Info to Support New Ad

Obama Criticizes Terror Trial, McCain Doesn't

Offshore Drilling Tests Pelosi

And On the Fifth Day, Republicans Were Still Talking to Themselves