John McCain is a Corruptionist. He is a politician who has protected and upheld corrupt practices throughout his political career. The recent trust of his lobbyist laden and Rovian directed campaign is just the latest example from a career that has always been more hype than action, more spin than substance.

John McCain is an empty old man chosen to lead the parade in this cycle when years of lies, corruption and divisive politics are finally catching up with the Republican Party and the conservative movement. McCain got the nod because he has always been trusted to create the illusion of action, while actually doing nothing. When examined, his legislative "accomplishments" are thin and shallow—like McCain himself.

McCain and his fellow corruptionists have one path to victory. They must run the dirtiest campaign in American history. It is ugly and it will get worse. Get ready, because McCain is surrounded by the architects of the Conservative Wrecking Crew destroying our Nation and he is one of them.

To the jump...

Somebody has to say it, so I will:

John McCain is a grifter and a scoundrel.

He has built a career on a carefully crafted myth breathlessly repeated by his base of sycophants in the press. You know the hype: McCain the Maverick, McCain the Reformer, McCain the Straight Talker, McCain the ______ (insert worshipful drivel here).

Keep in mind that the same folks who sold George W. Bush and his failed policies to America are now working the streets to sell the myth of McCain—"the last honest man in politics".

Those willing to look behind the curtain will find a John McCain that has always surrounded himself with the most corrupt players on the political stage and kept himself one step ahead of exposure. His Abramoff investigation cover-up is a case in point (for details see this Diary).

Another one is the growing scandal swirling around his chief foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann.

Randy shapes McCain’s foreign policy and—surprise—that policy helps Randy’s former and future clients. Ca-ching!

This, you need to know about.

To the jump...

Thomas Frank in What's the Matter with Kansas:

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

Why? Because Republicans have convinced people that government can't make a difference in their lives, can't solve their intractable problems, hence the only thing that matters are divisive social issues. The demands that government be ineffective has been a planned hallmark of the Bush administration. You don't put a horse lawyer in charge of FEMA if you expect the agency to actually be effective in its mission. So as far as conservative ideology was concerned, Katrina was a resounding success.

This ineffectiveness is centerpiece in conservative self-preservation. If government becomes more effective and works for people, then it could prove devastating to conservatives. William Kristol wrote a now-famous memo as conservatives geared up to fight Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare efforts in 1993:

Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" — not amend — the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party.

And just last year, National Review writers Ramesh Ponnuru and Richard Lowry echoed those sentiments:

[2008 Republican defeats] would probably also mean a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life, and itself make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future.

Down in Austin I did a short segment on MSNBC's Road to the White House where I was asked such tripe as "what would Obama die for" and "can Obama win without the left?" I did the interview from a remote studio -- just a room with a camera, several backdrops depending on the kind of interview, and a satellite uplink to the network. The networks pay these studios for the time guests are on.

There was one middle-aged woman working the operation that day, roughly 50 years old. The TV was on the background and I heard "Obama" and "Afghanistan" in the same sentence. I asked, "Oh, is Obama already in Afghanistan?" She shrugged. "I don't know. I haven't followed the news."

I stayed quiet, because ill and desperate for sleep, I thought I might squeeze a quick catnap before my segment came on. But the woman continued on her own. "I'm really disenchanted with McCain." Oh, I responded, was she an Obama person? "No, I don't like him either. I don't trust him. And my daughter, she hates him."

I inquired further, why? "Because he's not patriotic, with the flag pin and the pledge of allegiance and his wife!" So we determined that she wasn't going to vote, which was disappointing to American democracy, but good for us because she had been a reliable Republican voter. My interest piqued, I dug a little further: given how the economy was going, people losing their homes, the cost of gas through the roof, none of that was as important as a flag pin?

"Well, they can't do nothing about those things." Aha. The Frank theory, of course. Well, I responded, what about health care, are you happy with your health care? She lit up, "I know no one who is happy with their health care!" and then segued into a rant about the disgraceful state of the health care system.  Well, I responded, Democrats are working for universal healthcare, but Republicans have gotten in the way. But we'll be able to do it next year.

"Ain't no one who can fix that stuff," she sighed, slumping. That brief expression of fire and brimstone snuffed out in an instant. She was adamant that it was all hopeless. Fair enough. She didn't look like someone who'd had an easy life. Health care had touched a nerve, so who knows what sad story or stories she had to tell on that front. But Republicans had convinced her that government was powerless to do anything about it, so ... flag pins!

I had one last argument up my sleeve. Look, I get it, I told her, government hasn't given us many reasons to be confident of late. I can certainly empathize. But can we make a deal? If Democrats push through universal health care in the next four years, will you vote for Barack Obama in 2012?

She looked initially uncomfortable at the thought, but after a pause and a brief internal struggle, she softened and said, "Yeah, I will."

That, in a nutshell, is what Kristol and Ponnuru and Lowry and every conservative in this country fears the most.

So, the news breaks that Phil Gramm is "resigning" as John McCain’s economic advisor. And like all members of his Corruptionist Party he whines as he leaves the spotlight for the shadows.

In truth, he isn’t going anywhere. It is a play for the rubes in the cheep seats and the well-trained media sycophants who make up McCain’s "base". McCain can no more quit Gramm than he can quit Bush or quit his very long record of enabling and protecting corruption in politics. Despite a well crafted myth to the contrary, Curveball McCain is running to continue the policies of Gramm, Bush, Gingrich, DeLay, Norquist, Abramoff, Black and the long, long list of Republican grifters who have built their identity, careers and livelihood on the destruction of our Constitution and our Government.

Together, they are The Wrecking Crew and they must be stopped.

To the jump...

Have you ever wondered about the seemingly endless scandals that have become an everyday attribute of Conservative rule?  Have you ever been appalled by the incompetence smothered with a thick coating of self righteous greed?

Have you ever thought that these endless scandals can’t be an accident, or random coincidence?  

Well, wonder no more. It is by design.

In August, Thomas Frank will have a new book out.

It is called "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" and it helps to explain why there is so much failure and corruption when Republicans are in charge—it is part of their plan.

The August issue of Harper’s Magazine has an essay adapted from the book. This is perfect reading material on the way to or from Netroots Nations or whenever you can get your hands on a copy.

To the jump...

This is interesting. The last 30 years we've seen a huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class and working class into the hands of the wealthy and big corporations. Despite this, $4 a gallon gas, foreclosures,
and stagnant wages a recent Gallup poll shows few Americans (13%) favor redistribution to fix the economy.

http://www.gallup.com/...

In November 2000 I was driving back to Maryland from Michigan where I had worked to GOTV for Al Gore and Debbie Stabenow. I helped elect a Senator, but as I listened to NPR on the way home I could not believe what was happening.

I was angry, frustrated and very, very concerned for the fate of the Country I loved. I knew things were going to get very, very bad if Bush stole the election. By that time I had already been researching Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and their web of corruption for a little over a year. It was clear to me what these guys would do if they had the run of our Government.

At a stop for gas I was so distracted by these thoughts that I drove away with the pump nozzle still in my tank—as I paid $125 in repairs, I knew that this was only the first of the many payments and indignities that Republican rule under George W. Bush would cost me and my Nation.

The reality quickly settled in: the core issue was (and still is) Taking this Country Back!.

Then came 9-11 and Bush used it to win the 2002 midterms. Next came Iraq and it seemed everybody had surrender to Republican rule.

Then a voice said NO...

In his review of Rick Perlstein's new book "Nixonland," Wall Street Journal writer Thomas Frank talks about how the 60's shaped Nixon and his political movement. As an aside, he makes this interesting observation:

Well, now the main events of the '60s are 40 years behind us, and still we can't shake them. In the last national election, we redebated the Vietnam War. In the one coming up, we will be forced to debate Barack Obama's not-even-tenuous connection to the Weathermen. (We will probably not be asked to judge the poisonous legacy of the Young Americans for Freedom, although McCain adviser Charlie Black was actually a leader of that group.)

Really? Charlie Black again? Not being of that era, I had to look up "Young Americans for Freedom." What I found is very interesting. Turns out they are very connected to the Goldwater campaign and the neo-conservative movement that Kos wrote about today when he said "the new progressive movement is being specifically built on the Goldwater model."

On April 21st, the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal announced a change in their opinion pages.

We've redesigned them to give you more, and more diverse, commentary on the debates of the day.

And to their credit, they have delivered with a weekly column from none other than What's the Matter with Kansas author, Thomas Frank.

Today the renowned populist commenced (though he did have a preview coulumn a month ago) his weekly foray into heart of capitalist media and the mouthpiece of corporate interests.

As I was pondering both the unique difficulties Obama faces in winning the election and my need to come up with something for todays Health Care, I recalled an excellent review article in Salon on the role of physicians' own racial bias in the problem of unequal treatment, which is just one part of the overall race and health disparities problems we have in the U.S.

Then I read McClatchy last night and realized it is all the same problem.

It turns out, surprise, that there is widespread "subconscious" so-called implicit bias against blacks among physicians who are not superficially seemingly overtly racist.

Many white voters may share similar "implicit bias."

'Scuse me Satan, does it usually get this cold here in Hell?

Today's Wall St. Journal(subscription), incredibly, has Thomas "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Frank on the top right side of the op-ed pages today. (!)
I shall try to keep within the "fair use" parameters.

The media flurry kicked up by Mr. Obama's gaffe powerfully confirms an argument I actually did make [in "Kansas"]: That as they return again to the culture war, what the soldiers on all sides are doing is talking about class without actually addressing the economic basis of the subject.

As a harbinger of the looming change, the Wall Street Journal on Line has a new columnist!  Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas has joined the stable of right wing frothers with a new take on my favorite topic:  what's the matter with being smart?

According to the general clucking of the national punditry, my 2004 book – "What's the Matter With Kansas?" – is supposed to have persuaded Barack Obama to describe the yeomanry of Pennsylvania as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or . . . anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Mr. Obama's offense is so grave that the custodians of our national consensus have elevated it to gatehood: "Bittergate."

Larry M. Bartels and Paul Krugman attempted to write stat based critiques of Barack Obama’s sociological assertions about voting behavior. I choose to ignore Krugman because his history has become very anti-Obama and his analysis has been shown to be less than stellar in several other dkos diaries. Bartels presents somewhat more of a challenge. I wrote one diary based on his critique and many people made several strong points regarding flaws in his theory. I then went back to do more research and see if i could illustrate what Bartels main point is in a more detailed fashion. I think he may have been limited by the length restrictions on his column and that has led to many of the apparent issues in his analysis. Even if you still reject him after this I hope you enjoy reading and that it presents some things to consider.

THOMAS FRANK, author, political commentator, and creator of the red state - blue state divide, stated that in his opinion,  Obama's words were "not that controversial.

You can read a fairly decent article here:  Not that Controversial

It is nice that some reality is finally seeping into media. The most reliable polls continue to show s close horse race in PA between Obama and Clinton. National polls show a steady or growing lead for Obama.

Finally, it is sinking in. No, not to the general public. To the media.

Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas wades in to the controvery via Sam Stein whose quickly becoming a daily addiction.

Thomas Frank, the author who redefined the perception of the red state/blue state divide in America, says he doesn't find Sen. Barack Obama's comments on the bitterness of small-town Midwesterners all that alarming.

"People are bitter in small towns," Frank told the Huffington Post. "People are bitter everywhere. I don't know if you have seen the stock market -- people are bitter about their situation. It doesn't strike me as a very controversial statement."

I think the Clinton's have misjudged this controvery...

A new study released last week revealed a Republican Party ever more out of touch with the mushrooming crisis of the American health care system.  Predictably, 68% of Republicans believe the U.S. has the best health system in the world, compared to only three in 10 Democrats.  Ironically, those findings come just as new studies show a growing "income gap" in Americans' life expectancy and the painful impact of rising health care costs on Americans' stagnant wages.  Most ironic, the failure of the health care system is at its worst in precisely those states that voted for George W. Bush.

As the 2008 campaign begins in earnest, one of the emerging storylines is so-called hyperpartisanship, the bitter and increasingly divisive conflict between Democrats and Republicans that is said to be fueling cynicism - and apathy - among voters.  In Iowa, Barack Obama proclaims that he will transcend partisan cleavages, while John Edwards vows to fight.  Meanwhile, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will meet in Oklahoma next week with prominent figures from both parties to encourage the 2008 candidates to form a "government of national unity." But lost in the cries of hyperpartisanship is the undeniable fact the Republican Party is almost exclusively responsible for it, aided and abetted by an "infotainment" media that has transformed politics into theater.