Where's John McCain?

By way of STLtoday.com comes an article this week on the largest takeover bid ever in the beer industry. Jeremiah McWilliams reports

InBev of Belgium has launched an unsolicited bid to take over St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch Cos., the brewer of Budweiser and the country's biggest beer maker. The $46.3 billion bid — amounting to $65 per share, in cash — would transform the industry, creating a global brewing behemoth selling about one-fourth of the world's beer.

Apparently, Missouri politicians, including Governor Matt Blunt and St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, are not amused, unsurprising given the probable impact on the metropolitan region.

Neither is Lou Dobbs. On the 7/7/08 edition of "Lou Dobbs Tonight," Dobbs noted, following a report by CNN correspondent Carrie Lee, "the madness created by free trade and the millions of jobs that have been lost. I hate what they call free trade. I prefer desperately fair trade." Lee's report included video of Senator Barack Obama commenting

I don't think that we can pass a law to prevent Budweiser's shareholders, Anheuser- Busch's shareholders from selling their company. That's part of the free market system. I do think it would be a shame if Bud is foreign owned.

Like most of Obama's relevant remarks these days, that's bland and inoffensive. However, it would be fascinating to hear a reporter, any reporter, asking John McCain his opinion of the takeover attempt. As Lee explained:

And that's the interesting thing. We hear from Obama and not a peep out of McCain. Keep in mind that his wife, of course, a very large shareholder in Bud stock, also owns a distributorship. He's been a free trade advocate. He also has some financial gain and he also has the tradition of patriotism, though, to contend with as well. So a little bit of a tough fight to be with.

That's right. McCain can support the causes of patriotism and of American workers- or of free trade and Cindy McCain's enormous fortune. It's his choice- if someone dares ask him about it.

Almost Accurate

I don't have a grudge against Andrea Mitchell, wife of overrrated former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. But one would think Ms. Mitchell would know better, as she did in her usual 1:00 p.m. role hosting on MSNBC, than to speak approvingly on July 7 of Barack Obama's "judgement in voting against the war."

I think A.M. meant "judgement in opposing the war," as Obama demonstrated when he gave a speech as an Illinois state senator. He never had a chance to vote on the bill authorizing military action. Fortunately.

Quote Of The Week

"There are responsibilities for government and this is certainly one of them."

Lou Dobbs on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7/7/08, on (inadequate) Food and Drug Administration inspections of tomato fields in light of the salmonella problem

Almost First

Today is Monday, July 7, 2008 on the set of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." It is the end of a segment with co-hosts Andrea Mitchell, Willie Geist, and the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart about the Democratic National Convention in which they discussed (not-yet announced) plans for Barack Obama to give his acceptance speech at Invesco Field (which holds approximately 75,000 people) in Denver. Mitchell says (in the half hour between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern):

"We broke it here first."

Not quite, Andrea. This would be Markos Moulitsas posting on his famous Daily Kos blog on July 3, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. Eastern time:


Obama acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium?
by kos
Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM PDT
There was talk about Dems shortening the convention to three days, but now, talk is about doing "something different" on the last night. Could it be this?

What better place to accept the nomination for the most powerful job in the world? Invesco Field at Mile High, the home of the Denver Broncos, can seat 75,000 people. It's just a short walk under I-25 from the Pepsi Center and would be a part of the rumored one-mile square radius security zone.

DenConWatch has heard rumors to this effect as far back as March 2006.

Denver's bid would put most of the convention action at the Pepsi Center, with the final night at Invesco Field.

I am very suprised by that last one. Having the convention in two separate places makes the logistics much harder. You have to build all the infrastructure twice: podium, floor seating, and media facilities. I can't imagine the media will be happy about having to pay for two sets of anchorbooths, wiring, etc. Security is also a nightmare. You have to setup the whole security infrastructure in two separate places. Not to mention the security checkpoint system gets used and worked out the first 2 days, before the big days of Wednesday and Thursday. If you have the final night in a completely new place, it seems to me you're asking for trouble.

And:

However, a source has told me that Dean has been dropping hints that he would like some sort of "public event" to close the convention week, which could, logically, be the nominee acceptance speech. (It could also just be a big rally the next day).

In 2004, I learned about a little trick apparently done at all conventions -- a group would walk in, a single person would collect all their passes, go outside, and bring a new group of people. Lather, rinse, repeat. There were likely three times as many people inside the convention hall for Kerry's speech than at any other time.

So why restrict Obama's historic acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" speech to the convention delegates and whoever they can smuggle in? Open that puppy up.


But MSNBC- and Mitchell- were among the first!

On Obama's Playlist

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama gave an interview, published in the July 10, 2008 issue of Rolling Stone magazine. Jann S. Wenner asked the Illinois senator: "What do you think of rap? Has it been unfairly attacked for destroying family values?"

Understandably, Obama did not answer the question posed. But he did provide an entertaining and, I fear, revealing response. Here it is in its entirety (p.4):


By definition, rock & roll is rebel music, which means if it's not being criticized, it's probably not doing its job. I am troubled sometimes by the misogyny and materialism of a lot of rap lyrics, but I think the genius of the art form has shifted the culture and helped to desegregate music. Music was very segregated back in the Seventies and Eighties — you'll remember that when MTV first came on, it wasn't until Thriller that they played Michael.

I know Jay-Z. I know Ludacris. I know Russell Simmons. I know a bunch of these guys. They are great talents and great businessmen, which is something that doesn't get emphasized enough. It would be nice if I could have my daughters listen to their music without me worrying that they were getting bad images of themselves.

First, Senator, the question was not about "rock & roll music" but about "rap," though I do understand you would want to blur the distinction inasmuch as your target audience (especially, but not entirely, because it is Rolling Stone) is non-elderly whites. Second, rap music has not desegregated, but possibly segregated, music. Third, there is a reason the artistic and business skills of the more controversial performers is not emphasized. This is one reason (profanity partially excised by blogger, not Ludacris), excerpted from "Move B----- (which helpfully is available as a ringtone):


"Oh wazzzupp, get my d--- s-----, what are yoouu doin'?"
Sidelinin' my f------' bussiness
Tryin' to get my baby child support soon
Give me that truck and take that rental back
Who bought these f------' T.V.'s and jewelry b----, tell me that?
No, I ain't bitter, I don't give a f---
But i'ma tell you like this b----
You better not walk in front of my tour bus....

F--- the dress codes, it's street clothes, we all street n-----
We on the dance floor, throwin' bows, beatin' up n-----"
(note: The last word is not "negros.")

And finally, Senator, a literal, not rhetorical, question: Does "it would be nice if I could have my daughters listen to their music without me worrying that they were getting bad images of themselves" mean that you severely restrict the access of your daughters to music of "misogynistic and materialistic" (and profane and violence- provoking) lyrics- or do you and your wife allow them to listen anyway?

Attacking A Smear

By now you have probably heard of, and possibly seen, the dust-up between Cliff May and Ed Schultz on Anderson Cooper 360 on Thursday, July 3, 2008 in which May charges "some on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good." This is the relevant portion of the argument:


MAY: Yes. And I think also on some of the more left-wing blogs, Obama is taking some hits.

But this does move him to the center. And, look, I want to put -- I'm not a big fan of his, but I'm going to put the best spin on it, which is that he understands the situation fairly well, certainly better than the Daily Kos does and some of those on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good.

SCHULTZ: Whoa. Whoa.

That is absolutely outrageous. That is outrageous for you to say that people on the left want to lose in Iraq. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that. This is the Fourth of July. We are Americans. We don't believe in fighting in Iraq the way we are doing. We're depleting our resources. That's ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: Well, Ed, just tell me how you're going to win in Iraq if we have no troops there.

SCHULTZ: You don't even know what the definition of win is.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: Tell me the definition of win is. If I don't know it, you tell me.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: We don't have enough money doing this. We are absolutely hurting ourselves staying in Iraq. The Iraqi people need to step up. The real enemy here is in Afghanistan.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: And they are.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: For you to sit here and say that liberals don't want to defend this country is unconscionable.

MAY: I didn't say it of you.

(CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: That is absolutely outrageous.

MAY: There are those on the left who would think that a U.S. defeat in Iraq would be like a U.S. defeat in Vietnam, an object lesson for Americans about the use of force.

SCHULTZ: Listen, Mr. May, I don't know where you get your information, but I spoke to Barack Obama face to face today.

MAY: Congratulations to you.

Schultz did well in denouncing this scurrilous charge, not unique to Cliff May. However, in a race in which the presumptive Democratic candidate has promised "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," the Democratic side can do even better. Perhaps something like this: ".... now that the Republican Party is carrying water for OPEC and endorsing price-gouging middle-class Americans" or "the Republican Party, working to keep oil prices high." Hopefully, some strategist, consultant, or public relations firm can come up with something snappier but, given the action by the Senate GOP on June 10, 2008 in blocking a bill which would have "opened the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel" and "made energy price gouging a federal crime," the charge seems only fair.

Repeating A Myth

Barack Obama gave a speech on June 30, 2008 in Independence, Missouri, homeplace to the greatest President of the 20th century, about patriotism. It contained this interesting observation:

some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Did you notice? "Some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted.... by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day."

It's distressing to hear Obama peddling this conservative urban myth, that the opponents of the Vietnam War shunned, or worse, veterans returning from the war. This self-serving tale of the right should have been put to rest with the publication in 1998 of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" by Jerry Lembcke. In an article written for The Boston Globe on April 30, 2005, the author told of a Michael Smith, who in a typical story, claimed that he returned to the U.S.A. via an airport in Los Angeles where "people were lined up to spit on us." But, Lembcke explained,


Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge.

The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.

I don't know. Maybe Obama, who wasn't born until August, 1961, was too young during, and immediately after, the Vietnam War to have been paying attention, and there were those four years (1967-1971) he was living in Indonesia. But with the FISA bill, withdrawal from Iraq, campaign financing, and gun control, at some point those of us on the left are going to have to stop making excuses for Mr. Obama and instead ask: What does he actually believe?


HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!