To most people paying attention, it’s been evident for some time that neither the DNC, nor its Chairman, Howard Dean has any credibility on a wide variety of matters.  If you’ve ever wondered why that is the case, though, an item posted over at the DNC blog today is in and of itself an excellent indicator.

The post in question claims that “Bush made some outrageous comments that ‘Democrats are in favor of  “appeasement” of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.’”  Here’s a screenshot of it:

Presumably, the blogger believes this occurred this morning in the President’s much analyzed speech to the Israeli Knesset (though you can’t exactly tell from the way the blogger has written the post—a separate issue).The problem is, though, the President didn’t say the words the blogger puts in the quotation marks and attributes to him.  Seriously, go take a look at the transcript over here and do a search for the word “Democrats” if you don’t believe me.  Nothing—literally nothing-- shows up.

The President did say:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (emphasis mine)

But that’s not the same thing as what the DNC is claiming.  And the fact that the staff there can’t check a transcript properly and/or think that misdescriptions repeated at left-leaning blogs like this one qualify as being as credible as actual verified quotes included in, say, actual reporting of the speech says a great deal about how seriously they, as an organization, should be taken—i.e., not very.

As a Georgia native I can tell you first-hand, the failed tax policies of the Carter presidency are far from fondly remembered - even by his fellow Georgians.

Today the RNC released a new web video, “Carter-Obama Taxes.”  Take a look:

 

Yesterday, John McCain was in my home state of Washington, talking energy and the environment at a roundtable discussion at the Cedar River Watershed Education Center.  PolitickerWA covered the event and has a good (and fairly lengthy) write-up.  Here’s an excerpt:

At the roundtable, the participants discussed issues like federal subsidies, carbon cap-and-trade systems, nuclear power and sustainable communities. McCain tended to moderate, asking questions of those on stage with him about their experiences and how he could help as President.

“I loved seeing them balancing, trying to figure out a balance of the ideas," Pflug commented. "Having someone from REI, Sally Jewell, talking about the brass tacks of good intentions and economic consequences, that is important because ‘sustainable' is not just an environmental word, it is also an economic and a budget word.”

McCain told the gathered crowd that he had become a strong believer in global warming based on trips he had taken, on the taxpayers dime he admitted, to places like Antarctica, Greenland and the Great Barrier Reef where he had seen the drastic changes in the landscape.

“These are the miner's canaries," he warned.

On climate change, McCain supports a cap-and-trade system that allows for a market-based system to draw down carbon emissions rather than a government mandate.

“The Europeans have a camp and trade system," he reported. "We're not inventing the wheel here. We're trying to put free enterprise market based incentives.”

McCain also addressed the climate change deniers. He suggested that even if skeptics are correct, moving toward more sustainable and renewable energy production measures is a good thing. Besides, he figured, with American ingenuity and innovation, creating new systems would only be a boon for the economy.

“I just firmly and steadfastly reject the notions that this is somehow going to be harmful to our economy," McCain said.

“Do I have some passion about it? Yes. Yes, I have some passion," McCain asked himself before adding that he knew America's youth agreed with him.

As Glenn Reynolds might say, indeed-- though I’d add that I agree with Washington State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser’s assessment that McCain’s concern for the environment is also going to appeal to independent voters in Western Washington, and I’d add irrespective of their age.

Highlight from the DNC blog today:

Blogger evidently looking to complain about the supposed lack of media scrutiny of John McCain describing McCain as “the only candidate who has media scrutiny.”

There’s been a lot of discussion of this post in the blogosphere since yesterday, so I’m linking up to it, too.  Ten word synopsis: Megan McArdle finds a lot to like about Bobby Jindal.  Excerpts particularly worth noting:

Jindal and the legislature passed anti-corruption laws that in a surprising turn of events actually seem to have done something about corruption--suddenly the state is getting the best scores in the country. They pushed through disclosure rules for all government officials--state and local, appointed and elected. He got a law passed that forbid legislators from doing business with the state. And he took on a tax and regulatory structure that had been built around the notion that companies couldn't go anywhere, and could hence be bled dry.

[…]

Louisiana seems to have been very lucky in getting a governor who is actually focusing on institution-building which will--if it works--give the state vastly more economic and political flexibility for years to come.

Well, yes.

The past few years have given rise to a disturbing and categorically false narrative: That conservative ideals and policies aimed at environmental protection are mutually exclusive.

With John McCain’s speech on climate change at the Vestas Wind Technology training center in Portland, Oregon today, however, that notion was put to bed just a bit—as was the notion that one party has a monopoly on the best ideas when it comes to addressing global warming.

We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and on all the resources a free market can provide. We need to keep our eyes on big goals in energy policy, the serious dangers, and the common interests of the American people.

No matter what we call it, “climate change” or “global warming,” we’re all left dealing with the same startling set of events: the dramatic disappearances of polar ice sheets, sustained drought in the Southwest, and high incidence of extreme weather conditions. The manner in which we approach this situation is of vital importance and the circumstances call for urgent action by Washington-- but also the right action. High taxes and crippling regulation are not the answer; “cap-and-trade” as outlined by McCain can be. In addition to delivering reduced emissions, the McCain plan would avoid hampering economic growth, prioritize international cooperation, and work to spur innovation and technological advancements. In McCain’s own words, the US government cannot simply “summon… talents by command,” but must employ the “free market [to] draw them out,” a free market and the resultant strong and growing economy being “essential to all of our goals, and especially the goal of finding alternatives to carbon-based technology.”

It looks like one key environmental organization might agree, or at least view McCain’s proposal as equally meritorious to what Democrats have to propose. This year, the Sierra Club might refrain from endorsing a candidate (it has endorsed Democrats in six of the past seven presidential elections, and declined to endorse in 1988)—much to the chagrin of Obama, I’m sure.

Team McCain is out with a new ad today in Oregon, this one with an emphasis on climate change.

 

More to come on McCain’s common sense approach to climate change, which has earned him praise from Democrats including Barack Obama and Senator Clinton.

Over at TIME’s Swampland, Michael Scherer notes that the DNC is playing “spending chicken” with John McCain. 

Perhaps.  I think a more accurate game metaphor might be “high stakes poker,” though, given that the DNC is attacking McCain on a signature issue and one on which I strongly suspect more Americans agree with McCain than not.  To McCain’s “house,” the DNC is playing the gambler who’s gone “all in,” hoping for big winnings against all the odds—that much is clear from this off their blog.  Not only have they simply slapped up undistilled, unfiltered research material (and a lot of it).  They’re also proverbially playing with their hearts, not their heads, and putting themselves further in the hole by—you guessed it—sticking up for earmarks, and more importantly, the actual practice of earmarking.

It’s good to know that Howard Dean and his staff, and presumably Barack Obama by extension, have zero problem with federal money being allocated and spent in a distinctly non-transparent fashion, which neither entails nor allows for even minimal oversight or public scrutiny at the time such spending is proposed.  I wonder whether anyone else finds it amusing and ironic that Democrats are sticking their necks out to stand up for a process that patently looks so undemocratic.

Perhaps this is all a ploy to get the media and sadly uninformed swing voters who may be passing by the DNC blog to focus in, in a roundabout way, on a more specific point that seems to be being pushed, by virtue of certain specific earmarks the DNC chooses to make an issue of.  It looks suspiciously like the DNC might be trying to covertly pre-empt all the heralding of John McCain as a forward-thinking leader on the environment that is likely to take place when he puts that issue front and center next week. 

More below the fold.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal featured an interesting piece about Barack Obama and taxes, which argues that “Going back to the tax rates of the 1990s doesn't mean that households will pay 1990s taxes. Because the tax brackets haven't risen along with incomes, average taxes would be significantly higher, and grow each year.”

How so?  In short, bracket creep.

Read the piece for a full, and number-packed, explanation.  For now, suffice it to say that when Obama says "I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed,” that’s not the full story. 

Last night we launched CanWeAsk.com – much to the chagrin of Barack Obama, who we all know prefers his waffles over substantive questions, from reporters and voters alike.

Can we ask Barack Obama why he voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois State Legislature avoiding decisions on issues including abortion, crime, and guns?  Can we ask how he proposes to pay for $660 billion in new spending?  Can we even ask if he intends to raise taxes on families and small businesses?  Yes we can—and, indeed, you can:

 

We’ve given you an opportunity to pose your questions to Obama in either text or video form thanks to YouTube, whose political blog, CitizenTube, incidentally notes the GOP’s previous successes using new media.

One of the DNC bloggers linked to this item over at The Hill yesterday in an effort to prove his point that “the health care system would be put on ‘life support’ under McCain.”

What he fails to mention is that the author of the piece is a Democratic strategist, who worked for John Kerry in 2004—and that it’s really not news that someone fitting this profile might not like John McCain’s proposed solutions on health care very much.  

Next thing the DNC will be referencing Howard Dean’s clips and attempting to pass off his opinions expressed therein as weighty and neutral.

Last night, John McCain stopped by The Daily Show. Disclosure of his Secret Service code name and announcement of his running mate were on offer. Check out the clips from both segments:

Yesterday, I posted about the problematic rhetoric emanating from Barack Obama and Senator Clinton on trade.  Funny that when clicking over to the Financial Times this morning, I should find this item indicating that one very important European leader, who lives and breathes trade, is also troubled by what they’ve had to say on this subject.  Excerpts:

 

Peter Mandelson, European trade commissioner, has said the protectionist stances taken by the US presidential candidates risk taking the world trading system back by decades.

In an interview with the BBC’s Hardtalk programme to be broadcast on Thursday, Mr Mandelson said: "It is irresponsible to be pretending to people you can erect new protection, new tariff barriers around your economy in this 21st century global age and still succeed in sustaining peoples’ living standards and jobs. It is a mirage and they know it."

So says Sen. John Sununu, quoted by new site Now! Hampshire (which, incidentally, was founded by Granite Stater and Official Friend of RNC Bloggers Patrick Hynes).

Sununu’s obviously talking about a particular politician, in this case, his opponent, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, who seems to have reversed herself on several major issues in recent years:

  “She supported the Bush tax cuts, now she’s against them. She supported our involvement in Iraq, and now she has changed her mind. She took a pledge back when she was governor not to impose a broadbased tax, and then she pushed and tried to give the state a sales tax that would have devastated our economy,” said Sununu.

The latter flip will, I suspect, prove a particularly big headache for Shaheen when push comes to shove.  No one likes new taxes—but from what I can tell (as someone who hails from outside the Granite State), that’s especially the case in New Hampshire.

Live Free Or Die, as the state’s motto goes.

11PM/10PM Central.

Via the Financial Times comes this piece about how Barack Obama and Senator Clinton are “toughening” their anti-trade rhetoric.  Choice excerpts:

 

Both candidates last week agreed to co-sponsor in the Senate a bill that would allow the US to apply countervailing duties against China on behalf of manufacturers deemed to be damaged by “currency misalignment”, or the low value of the renminbi compared with the dollar.

[…]

The two candidates also recently indicated that they would not support a “lame duck” vote on the Bush administration’s Colombia and South Korea trade deals before the new administration takes office. Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton had already signalled their opposition to the deals but their new pledges have eliminated any potential get-out clauses.

What do you think will happen?  Will each Democrat win a state apiece, or will one win both?

Politico has plenty of good stuff to help you answer that question today… or, alternatively, cloud your thinking with new information.

Whatever happens, I think it’s fair to say the Dem race will continue, which in my opinion, anyway, is good for John McCain.  What do you think, though?

Things are looking better and better for Dino Rossi out in my home state of Washington.  After raising a fantastic $625k in April, PolitickerWA now reports that he’s surpassed his 2004 donor total:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi recently received his 30,746th contributor. Normally, word of such an uncommon number would not be newsworthy, but in this case the Rossi campaign is making a big deal of it.

The reason is that four years ago the campaign only had 30,745 contributors. When Rhonda Ray Wells of Auburn ...

The DNC issued an attack on John McCain on the subject of judges earlier.  You can read my response here.

 

(Photo: Cinco de Mayo in Long Beach, CA)