A top McCain adviser recently said this:

“[Sarah Palin] is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

Wow. If it was just the diva part, you could crack it up to frustrations with campaigning. But to say that she has no relationship of trust with anyone, not even McCain, and *not even her family*?!? This sounds like someone who doesn’t think she’s even fit to be a mother to her children.

You would think McCain would have really hit down hard on his staff after that came out, but instead we get another word the next day about Palin. “Whackjob.” Well, I knew it, and now we know that McCain’s people know it too.

And as for this “gotcha” stuff about Obama saying he wants to “spread the wealth around,” that’s pretty funny coming from the governor of Alaska, which because it has more oil than people, it gets tons of free money just for living there. As Palin herswelf said:

“And Alaska – we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

McCain’s said it too:

McCain, Oct. 12, 2000: [W]e feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.
….
And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans … all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they – you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view.
…
[H]ere’s what I really believe, that when you are – reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

St. Reagan also enacted “redistribution” of wealth as well:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Gergen_Reagan_supported_redistributed_wealth_program_1028.html

Chris Matthews calls Christopher Hitchens a “Neo-Neo-Conservative.” It makes sense. Neo-Conservatives are largely old school liberals who broke with the far left in the 60s. Hitchens was (and still is) a hardcore anti-Vietnam protester who has rebelled against the Left in their comparison of Vietnam with Iraq.

This is a pretty interesting debate on God that Hitchens has with a rabbi.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/32162629.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/pothead_hedge_funder_throw_awa.html

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say good- bye. Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.”

I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America. There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are. I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck.

Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life. So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don’t worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer’s company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job. I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle.

I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life – where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management – with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established. On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions.

These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won’t see it included in BP’s, “Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions,” television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM’s similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female.

The evil female plant – marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let’s stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient. With that I say good-bye and good luck.

Although I think Obama and Biden won all the debates, I have to say that I thought McCain was both ballsier and funnier at the Memorial Dinner.

Larry King and Bill Maher Comment on Memorial Dinner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx4zSJb33LY&feature=related

Bill Maher on Joe the Plumber

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dik_92C-Dds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMQLW-T0KzI&feature=related

Liberal Eric Alterman Debates With Trotskyist/Neo-Con Christopher Hitchens on Iraq War

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/15143?in=08:15&out=18:14

HBO Presidential Debate

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/was_there_too_much_sex_and

After “Joe the Plumber” got mentioned over 20 times in the debate, the media is now obsessed with him, I guess because anything’s better than talking about the issues. McCain brought him up because Joe had asked Obama if he was going to stop him from purchasing his boss’ $250,000 plumbing business by raising his taxes. This has upset him so much that he is denouncing Obama as a “socialist.” Both conservatives and the media has affixed themselves to him because he seems to symbolize your average middle class “Joe”. But there’s a couple of problems:

1) His name isn’t Joe.
2) He isn’t a plumber.
3) He doesn’t have the money to buy the business.
and
4) According to some tax analysts, if his gross receipts from his business is $250,000 — and not his taxable income — then he would not have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut.

One thing was true though. He doesn’t like to pay taxes. He still owes the state over $1,000 in back taxes.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJsPHiQlgYvAsrHz9mvHJlezQJLwD93RSUA00

I got sent another one of these “news articles” that attempt to discredit alternative energy:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=PR&date=20081016&id=9284042

>An analysis by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers shows that if the U.S. had adopted the federal Lieberman/Warner bill (S.2191 with its target of reducing GHGs by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 70 percent by 2050), California would have lost income and jobs

Both of these are lobbyist groups that takes money from Exxon. ACCF has collected over a million dollars from Exxon.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=77

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Manufacturers

> “The facts remain as relevant today as they did two years ago, AB 32 will result in a lot of economic pain for Californians,” Dr. Thorning said. “The cap and trade system will cause ‘leakage’ of industry to states and countries with no mandatory emission caps resulting in job losses and higher energy prices. This is a high price tag to pay for no net reduction in greenhouse gases.”

How can “leakage” create no net reduction in greenhouse gasses unless 100% of it leaks? Of course, Thorning was against Kyoto, and now he’s using the fact that we’re not in Kyoto to make the argument that its stupid for California to lose out to the rest of America.

>”Energy use and economic growth go hand in hand, so helping the developing world improve access to cleaner, more abundant energy should be our focus. Reducing emissions in the developed countries should not take priority over maintaining the strong economic growth necessary to keeping California one of the key engines for global economic growth,” concluded Thorning.

How are we supposed to be helping the developing world improve access to clean energy if we can’t do it ourselves?

Nothing in that email even attempts to address the loss of GDP due to global warming or what money could be made from creating a new market. All it says is underfunded clean energy is not as profitable as over-funded dirty energy. Maybe instead of funding these “nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations” that say alternative energy is bunk along side all those commercials to convince people that they are investing a lot in alternative energy, they should just be using all that money to just invest in alternative energy.

Here’s an excerpt from a MediaMatters article:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100015?f=h_top

Let’s start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain’s efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s — when Barack Obama was a young child — Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama’s first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers “do not appear to have been close,” and Obama has denounced Ayers’ actions as a member of the Weathermen.

A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers — more than 1,800 this week alone.

Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychologist’s office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in “if necessary.” He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a “gangland figure” to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap “leftist guerillas” at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy’s bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents (“Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests.” In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: “Kill the sons of bitches.”) During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.

What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain’s campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy’s radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, “John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07,” includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an “old friend.” During the segment, McCain praised Liddy’s “adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great,” said he was “proud” of Liddy, and said that “it’s always a pleasure for me to come on your program.”

McCain even backed Liddy’s son’s congressional bid in 2000 — a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy’s history.

To sum up: John McCain is “proud” of his “old friend” Gordon Liddy — an old friend who plotted to kill one of the most respected journalists in American history, and who urged listeners to kill federal agents and advised them on how to do so. McCain campaigned for Liddy’s son, and Liddy has even hosted a fundraiser for McCain at his home.

So McCain’s relationship with Liddy is pretty much a direct parallel to Obama’s relationship with Ayers. Except that McCain and Liddy have apparently spent time together more recently than Obama and Ayers. And Liddy’s extremist activities continued well into the 1990s, at least. And Liddy says he and McCain are “old friends,” while The New York Times says Obama and Ayers aren’t close. And Obama has never said Ayers adheres to “the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.” Other than all that, it’s a direct parallel.

Yet even as they obsess over Barack Obama and Bill Ayers — just as the McCain campaign tells them to — the news media have all but ignored John McCain’s close ties to Gordon Liddy. A Nexis search** finds fewer than 100 news reports that have mentioned McCain and Liddy this year.

As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman — who has criticized Obama’s relationship with Ayers — has noted:

Liddy, now a conservative radio host, has never expressed regret for this attempt to subvert the Constitution. Nor has he developed any respect for the law. … Yet none of this bothers McCain. Liddy has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns, held a fundraiser for McCain at his home and hosted the senator on his radio show, where McCain said, “I’m proud of you.” Exactly which part of Liddy’s record is McCain proud of?

While Obama has gotten lots of scrutiny for his connection to Ayers, McCain has never had to explain his association with Liddy. If he can’t defend it, he should admit as much. And if he thinks he can defend it, let him.

To repeat:

* 2008 news reports that mention Obama and Ayers: more than 4,500.

* 2008 news reports that mention McCain and Liddy: fewer than 100.

Incredibly, The Atlantic’s Ambinder today suggests that the media have not covered Ayers: “To truly drive Ayers into the public conversation, to trick what they consider an irredeemably biased press corps into biting, McCain has three vehicles gassed up and ready to go. … So far, McCain has done none of those things.” There are 1,800 Nexis hits for Barack Obama and Bill Ayers in the past week, and yet Marc Ambinder thinks the media have not bitten on the Ayers “story” — and that McCain, who is running ads about Ayers, isn’t “really serious” about pushing it, anyway. Even Steve Schmidt would likely be too embarrassed to try to claim that the media have not covered Bill Ayers.

Incidentally, Ambinder doesn’t seem to have ever mentioned McCain’s relationship to Liddy.

Not only have the media avoided stand-alone reports on McCain and Liddy, they consistently fail to bring up the connection when reporting on McCain’s attacks on Obama’s ties to Ayers, or in interviews with McCain staff who bring up Ayers. The McCain/Liddy relationship is such an obvious parallel — except arguably much worse — that it’s hard to imagine how any evenhanded journalist could possibly justify ignoring it. Yet it happens again and again. And, needless to say, McCain aides do not get badgered about Liddy the way Time’s Mark Halperin badgered Obama aide Robert Gibbs about Ayers.

Just this morning, NBC’s Chuck Todd said he is “sure” Ayers will come up during the final presidential debate next week, adding that moderator Bob Schieffer “may feel no choice but to bring it up” in light of the “TV ads” the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee are running. Setting aside the absurdity of the suggestion that a debate moderator is compelled to bring up a topic simply because John McCain is running ads about it, if Schieffer does ask about Ayers, basic fairness demands that he ask McCain about Liddy as well.

OK … moving on. How about controversial religious figures? Earlier this year, Media Matters showed that The New York Times and The Washington Post had published a total of 161 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright — and only 12 that mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. That disparity wasn’t unique to the Times and the Post — and it hasn’t evened out over time.

161 to 12.

Land deals? Barack Obama once bought a parcel of land from a controversial donor named Tony Rezko. Obama paid more than the land’s assessed value — but that hasn’t stopped the news media from suggesting Obama had an improper relationship with Rezko.

Comparatively little attention has been paid to John McCain’s relationship with real estate developer Donald Diamond. Diamond, a co-chair of McCain’s campaign finance committee, has raised more than $250,000 for McCain’s presidential bid and is a “close personal friend” and longtime political patron. For his part, McCain has sponsored two bills sought by Diamond that helped the developer gain what The New York Times described as “millions of dollars and thousands of acres” of land. And McCain helped Diamond buy another parcel of land from the U.S. Army — a deal that helped Diamond turn a $20 million profit. The Washington Post and USA Today have identified other land deals McCain has facilitated as senator that have benefited some of his biggest donors and fundraisers.

Yet a Media Matters review last month found that five national newspapers had run a total of 39 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Obama and Rezko — but only seven that mentioned McCain and his donors’ land deals:

[S]ince The New York Times’ initial April 22 article [about McCain and Diamond], the land deals have been mentioned in only six additional news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post, and have yet to be mentioned on any evening network news program. By contrast, during the same time period, 39 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; and the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports.

39 to 7.