Craps vs Poker for President?

Interestingly, both of our Presidential candidates are gamblers. One plays small-stakes poker, while the other plays craps for thousands of dollars at a time. One is a game where skill matters, the other is a game where you are always at a disadvantage, at the whims of dumb random luck. Which would you rather have as President?

The casino craps player is a social animal, a thrill seeker who wants not just to win but to win with a crowd. Unlike cards or a roulette wheel, well-thrown dice reward most everyone on the rail, yielding a collective yawp that drowns out the slots. It is a game for showmen, Hollywood stars and basketball legends with girls on their arms. It is also a favorite pastime of the presumptive Republican nominee for President, John McCain.

The backroom poker player, on the other hand, is more cautious and self-absorbed. Card games may be social, but they are played in solitude. No need for drama. The quiet card counter is king, and only a novice banks on luck. In this game, a good bluff trumps blind faith, and the studied observer beats the showman. So it is fitting that the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, raked in so many pots in his late-night games with political friends. […]

...

In the past decade, he has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. “Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John’s life,” says John Weaver, McCain’s former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. “Taking a chance, playing against the odds.” Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. “He never, ever plays on the house,” says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

Only recently have McCain’s aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

“He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing,” says a Republican who has watched McCain play. “And he just sort of revels in it.”

So, even though he knew it was a border-line unacceptable behavior, he needed to play anyway. When he was blocked by staff once, he suggested playing in private and was blocked again. What is that they say about drinking in private, again?

From the New Yorker, we learn that McCain sometimes plays craps for 14 hours straight!

The moment the car stopped at McCain’s hotel in downtown New Orleans, he set out at his usual fast clip for Harrah’s, across the street. McCain is an avid gambler. Wes Gullett, a close friend who worked for McCain for years, told me that they used to play craps in Las Vegas in fourteen-hour stints, standing at the tables from 10 a.m. to midnight. "Craps is addictive," McCain remarked, and he headed for the fifteen-dollar-minimum-bet tables. At the most obvious level, the game is incredibly simple -- players rotate turns throwing the dice, and you either win or lose depending on what number comes up. But McCain’s betting formula makes it much more complicated. "Uh-oh!" he cried, as a player accidentally threw the dice off the table. "This is a very, very superstitious game," he said. When his turn came to throw the dice, he picked them up and blew on them first. He had placed chips on the number 5, so (envisioning a combination of 2 and 3) he called, "Michael Jordan! Michael Jordan!"

If you're playing for 14 hours, it is not just for fun.

Finally, The Telegraph chimes in with some analysis:

"You're always at a disadvantage at craps," said Mr Bloch. "It's a problem, if you have a leader who believes they can beat the odds. You don't want him shooting dice with the economy." Mr Holden added: "We poker players don't call poker gambling. It is a game of skill. Craps is an absurd game of luck. You may have thrilling short term wins but only madmen play craps."

I know which one I would rather have acting as my President.

McCain Admits being Tainted by Money

This is a good one, again from McCain 2000:



McCain:

I believe there have been times where I have probably been influenced because the big donor had - buys access to my office, and we know that access is influence. And honestly, that taints us all. It taints me.

And yet he breaks his own Campaign Finance law. And yet he continues to take money from PACs, and special interests. And yet he gives the ultimate access to lobbyists by having them run his campaign.

McCain at His Best

This is their guy? Really?



Really?

At least the new Rove-protege-filled Campaign did a decent job in preparation for this event, with significantly better scenery than the infamous lime and mayonnaise backdrop of his previous speech. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't seem that they can swap the candidate out so easily.

Obama's NotFlop on Iraq

On Friday, Obama held a press conference in which he said he would bring our troops home from Iraq in 16 months, and that he would listen to the commanders on the ground for specifics of how to accomplish that. Unfortunately for him, he used a new word: "refine."

The McCain campaign pounced, saying that Obama had adopted McCain's position that we must not leave until we have "won" in Iraq. "Winnning in Iraq" has no operational definition, of course, beyond the goal of keeping our troops there indefinately to "project power."

The press ate up the McCain statement, repeating it as fact, which caused Obama to call a 2nd press conference:

Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time.

So you tell me, does that sound like he's willing to stay in Iraq 100 years if that's what it takes?

How can our press be so bad at their jobs? Obama has always said that "we would be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in," and that means consulting with the generals in charge of operations on how best to accomplish that, since no President can dictate logistics. But now that the McCain campaign has lied about this being a changed position, the press is dutifully repeating the lie. Unbelievable.

How can the Republicans be so good at winning elections, but so bad at running the country after they win the election? (answer: they govern for the top 1% only, and do it very well.)

McCain's Flips - Partial List

There is an expansive post on McCain's flip-flops at The Carpetbagger Report. I've only quoted the flips he's engaged in since he won the nomination! It goes on for many more pages, since most of his flipping occurred in order to get him the Republicans nomination. If only we had McCain-2000 running, I could be much less concerned about Obama's election.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

Go read the whole thing. These are real flip-flops, as opposed to Obama's.

NSA Program Ruled Illegal - Again!

Once again, a Bush-appointed judge has smacked down the utterly ridiculous legal theory that the inherent Article 2 Powers of the President gave President Bush the authority to violate federal criminal law.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

...

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

There is no defense left for the Bush Administration. The AUMF didn't give them authority. The Article 2 Powers didn't give them the authority. Instead, they knowingly engaged in massive lawbreaking, arrogating unto themselves the power of the Legislature by breaking the law, and the power of the Judiciary by judging a target's validity themselves.

James Madison, easily one of the most conservative of the Founding Fathers, defined Tyranny thusly:

the combination of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial power in one man or
office.

In order to defend the Constitution and reaffirm the principles of limited government they say they hold dear, the Republicans must move forcefully to impeach George W. Bush. Hell, it might even save them some seats in Congress!

Boortz call notes - Habeas/Impeachment

Again, I got almost all of this on the air:

Neal started the call by saying the people mentioning Habeas bore him, so I led off with Churchill's quote:

Why Habeas is important: The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison
without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation
of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.

(That made him feel foolish right from the beginning. How nice for me.)

My question is a thought experiment about a President Obama, and what a libertarian minded person should do about it. Assume Obama wins, and argues at some point that he has the right to detain any US citizen, indefinitely, without charge, and does so for what he says are Nat Security reasons. I've gotta problem with that, and I assume you do too, right?

Right, that's a constitutional crisis. Well, what should be done about it? ... is impeachment the remedy for that constitutional crisis? (of course, he wouldn't allow himself to commit when he knew I was going to turn it against Bush.)

Reference Al Marri when he wants specifics.

When he quibbles over US Resident/US Citizen rights: Supreme Court has always found that anyone in the US Territorial Jurisdiction has constitutional rights.

BUT I don't need that, since the judge in the case wasn't an idiot. He asked:

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

Now that's not liberal fever swamp stuff, Neal! That's Bush's lawyers saying he has the powers of a King. Now I am a libertarian Democrat, and I don't want ANY president having that power! We have a few months Neal in which to fix this. YOU could do it Neal, if you made the full throated case. If you had Bruce Fein on, Reagan's Dept Attorney General, he'd convince you, and you could convince your millions. If the Republicans pushed for this, they might actually retain power!

Torture Policy Origins - the Communists

The Genesis of our torture policies:

WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

We knew that these tactics produced false confessions, and yet we used them to collect "important intelligence." These specific techniques were used by the Koreans to obtain false confessions from Americans which were then used for propaganda purposes - why shouldn't we do the same?

Of course, we knew what we were doing. Our policy was to use torture to make prisoners say exactly what we wanted them to, so we could use those false confessions to push whatever narrative the Bush Administration needed at the moment.

Once again, no European vacations allowed for senior members of the Bush team.

McCain Forgets His Opposition to GI Bill

McCain has forgotten that a couple of weeks ago he was opposing the GI Bill.



Tack it onto his list of forgetfulnesses.

Bush Thanks McCain for GI Bill they both Opposed?

File this under WTF. A more brazen black-is-white, war-is-peace moment I don't think I've ever seen!



It's unreal they think they can get away with this. Both McCain and Bush vigorously opposed the GI Bill, and now Bush is taking credit for himself and giving some of it to McCain? Absolutely through-the-looking-glass unreal!

McCain can be forgiven for forgetting that he had opposed the bill - his memory is always forgiven by our presscorps. But what excuse does Bush have?

As funny as that is, we know the real answer. Bush knows that the Press sees its job as playing stenographer for the culture's "newsmakers." Bush said it, so it gets repeated. If it gets repeated often enough without coordinated pushback from Democrats, the media and the American people figure it must be true. At no point is it journalist's job to adjudicate a statement's truthfulness - that would be liberal, after all. Of course, Democrats are not good at coordinated anything - much less coordinated messaging - so the Republicans successfully manipulate the media, and thereby become the win election after election. Let's see how it goes this time.

My VP Pick: Colin Powell

A Vice President typically fulfills one of three important roles in the campaign. First, they can be the campaign's attack-dog, giving a high profile to attacks the candidate cannot utter himself. Second, they can deliver a critical state or group. Finally, they can confer credentials in a particular area.

While it's no secret that Joe Biden, that wonderful curmudgeon, has always been my favorite pick for attack-dog VP. For Obama, however, there is a powerful choice who is signaling his availability.

Colin Powell will further solidify Obama's transpartisan appeal, and he is military-experience personified. That checks boxes 2 and 3 nicely. With Powell, who has signalled that he is strongly considering supporting Obama, we can turn this into the landslide we all want to see.

This will require explanation of the lie-filled UN presentation, of course. Distancing himself from Bush is a must. But Powell could easily say that certain discussions are still covered by executive privilege, but that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be a good idea.

Despite the slight danger in further pissing off the Left, this is a clear winner. Do it, Obama!

The Jerusalem Not-Flop

In a speech to AIPAC, Obama included Jerusalem must remain undivided. It was an excellent speech, as always, with specifics throughout amplifying the effect of the rhetoric:



He basically says the same thing here (youtube), way back in April.

Some think this means that Obama was dictating that in order for there to be any peace, Jerusalem must remain undivided. I'm surprised I have to point this out, but the President of the United States is not a party to the negotiations which will resolve such issues. That's between the Israelis and Palestinians. We may act as a mediator, lubricating the flow of events, but the views of our President don't determine the possible actions of soveriegn nations when deciding internal issues.

Once again, this may be explained by the fact that the Republicans have been living in a reality that they themselves create for so long. This works very well for embedding loyalty into your followers, but when the real world starts butting up against their constructed reality, they are at a disadvantage... and wars are started as a result. A small price to pay.

In this particular case, the Republicans have been playing games with the word "sovereignty" for so long that they have forgotten what it means. Iraq has an army of occupation on its streets. It is not sovereign. The parties to the Israeli Peace Talks, however, must be sovereign if they are to have any chance at success. If they are truly sovereign entities, then our President can take his personal views and go hang.

For the record, here is Obama's so-called flip-flop:

"Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

Judge for yourself.

McCain's Breaking His Own Freaking Law!

Just remember, the media thinks McCain can do no wrong:

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

He is breaking his own law, plain and simple.

Update: Marshall's take on this is excellent:

I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He's really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain's lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn't really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC -- a Republican -- says McCain cannot do this on his own.

Like everything that has to do with campaign finance, the details are a little ... well, detailed. But they're worth understanding. Last February in this episode of TPMtv, we explained just how McCain cheated the campaign finance laws ...

McCain Strenuously Disagrees with McCain

Wow. H/t Talking Points Memo.

This is a live one. John McCain said he strenuously disagrees with top adviser Charlie Black's comment that a terror attack on U.S. soil would help McCain's campaign -- but more evidence has just emerged that McCain does believe this, or a variation of it, anyway.

The latest? Back in 2004, as McCain was stumping in Connecticut on behalf of GOP Rep. Chris Shays, McCain said flatly that the recent release of an Osama Bin Laden tape had likely given the GOP a "little boost."

This is courtesy of The Hour, a daily paper in Norwalk, Connecticut, in November of that year (also verified in Nexis)...

But as McCain greets two breakfast-eating business partners, one from Stamford and the other from Bridgeport, the topic turns to the presidential race. The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"....

The two men, who requested anonymity, nod their heads in agreement. Later, while riding with Shays on an RV to a rally at the Stamford Government Center, McCain further explains, "(The video) is helpful to President Bush because it puts the focus on the war on terrorism."

The reference was to a tape of Bin Laden that had emerged a few days earlier. The McCain camp didn't immediately return an email.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that McCain believed that the specter of another terror attack on the U.S. helped the GOP back in 2004, and no longer believes that it would. But clearly, in the past a little light bulb has gone off over McCain's head and he's had the thought that the possibility of an attack would help Republicans. The thought isn't exactly foreign to him.

Black also said that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto had also helped McCain, something the McCain camp also disavowed. But back in December, when the assassination happened, he said it could "serve to enhance" his "credentials."

The point, again, is that McCain does believe, or has believed, what Black said, even if he's now saying he doesn't. After all, he told us so himself -- twice!

Maybe McCain just forgot again.

McCain Admits his Policies will not Help You

Kos on McCain's Oil-price plans:

He's proposing things he knows won't make a difference, then admits it:

At a town hall in Fresno, CA, McCain admitted that the offshore drilling proposal he unveiled last week would probably have mostly "psychological" benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy notes. "Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

In other words, "It won't do shit for you, but it'll make you feel like something is being done." That's not beneficial. In fact, it's the exact opposite of beneficial.

This isn't quite right, of course. McCain's policies will have more than just psychological benefits. A few Texas oilmen will get even richer. Thank god! They've had it rough.

Obama and Public Financing

So, McCain is calling Obama a hypocrite and flip-flopper over his decision to forgo public financing this election. They're saying that he "broke his word to the American people"... but what word did Obama actually give?

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Over and over, in every example I see cited, those are his actual words. Now, I've been led to believe by Rush Limbaugh that Words Mean Things. What Obama did not say is "I will take public financing." He said he would take public financing if an agreement could be reached. But McCain has given the green light to the Republican 527s - unaccountable organizations tailor-made for the Republican's brand of smear-and-fear based politics. Therefore, an agreement could not be reached. No words have been broken in this process.

Instead, this shines a light on the Republican's eagerness for a side-show driven election, where attacks come from outside groups and therefore the Maverick can appear above the fray. Why not shutter the 527s, as Obama has impressively done with MoveOn, and have an election driven by the candidates and what they themselves inject into it?

Why not? Because then the Republicans would have to talk about issues, and on the issues they fail epically. Let's get a little list of those failures from John Cole, my favorite ex-Republican:

The New York Times: Bush May End Term With Iran Issue Unsettled

No shit.

And Iraq
And Afghanistan
And gas prices
And food prices
And the economy
And the housing crisis
And our descimated military
And the debt
And emergency management
And healthcare
And North Korea
And Palestine/Israel
And the environment
And the trade deficit
And keeping religion out of government
And our relationships with Europe and the rest of the world
And human rights
And education
And the war on drugs
And food and drug safety
And cronyism
And the dollar
And the Supreme Court
And Medicare Part D. (I forgot about that one.)

The Republicans cannot allow this election to be about the issues, or they'll lose in an unequaled landslide. So they must make the election about being afraid of Obama personally, for a slew of reasons, not the least of which will be that he is Black. How will they do that? With the 527s. In order for Obama to "keep his word," in their eyes, he has to agree to this kind of campaign. Instead, he refused. Our election and nation will be better for it.

Unsurprising

Being sold at the Texas Republican Convention:


But remember, it's the Democrats that are the racists, since Senator Byrd was a KKK member 200 years ago, when the world was young.

McCain Hates Youtube

McCain vs McCain on Bush.



Ouch. No third term here... move along.

Boortz Call Notes - Impeachment

I was able to get almost all of this on the air:

I had an idea over the weekend that's just a doozy, Uncle Neal. Not only will it defend our constitution from what George Will - my favorite conservative voice - called Monarchical Powers! The powers of a King! The most unAmerican thing you can imagine! Not only will it defend our constitution, but it presents the only path to victory I can see for the Republicans. That path is having the Republicans impeach President Bush.

Now Neal, I know what you're thinking, and I just urge you to give this some serious thought. This is a crossroads for our constitution. Love it and take advantage of your podium.

1. Mr. 25% is hated around the country - repudiation of him would help you IMMENSELY
2. You actually put principle above Party for once
3. Defend the Constitution
4. Hilary would hate it - Pelosi the first female president.

What to impeach for:

1. Lying to the people about the Iraq War - he said things that were contradicted by intelligence. CIA told him the sources were untrustworthy - Newsweek on June 11th
2. Commissioning felonies - FISA - admitted to this on the White House Lawn
3. Ignoring Habeas Corpus - an 800 year tradition -Al Marri - AP, May 24
4. Obstructing Justice - pardoning someone to keep them from talking - selective leaking of classified NIE -> Valerie Plame (proven covert Mar 16th, 2007)

George Will, always my favorite voice out there, called these powers Monarchical! The powers of a King!

Missiles or Geese?

There seems to be an organized pushback on this:



The DoD says those are geese, because we don't have cruise missiles that can fly in formation. At least, we don't have declassified cruise missiles that can fly in formation.

They say that the apparent high-speed flight is just an optical illusion created by a huge difference in relative velocities. But look at the first couple of seconds of film? When the camera isn't panning, the ground is not moving that fast. When they zoom in and start following the "geese," you can easily correct for the initial ground-pan caused by the flight of the AC-130. Those are some damned fast geese.

Furthermore, Geese don't fly in V's just cuz it's stylish. Each bird flies slightly above the one in front of it, reducing wind resistance. This is an early evolutionary adaption, since all migratory birds share the trait. These "geese" are flying abreast.

Finally, there are an awful lot of "individuals" chiming in on the weapons-systems blogs saying emphatically that these are birds. The likely explanation for all of these curiosities seems like a coordinated push-back to me.