brainrow

Atrios is introspective:

It’s important to remember that none of us are above the fray, that we all have hackish tendencies to suppress information which doesn’t fit our worldview and privilege information that does. We’re more likely to excuse behavior from people we like and exaggerate the ills of people we don’t like. I try to fight hackish tendencies especially during this intra-Dem battle, but I don’t claim to have superhuman Nonhack powers.

In a later post, he adds:

One reason for my Obama leaning ways is that it’s time to get some new blood into the Washington permanent floating ruling class system. I was never bothered by the personal element of the Clinton “dynasty.” That is, I wasn’t bothered by having another Clinton in office. But I was concerned with the ossification of the elite class structure in Washington. I was bothered not by the return to power of the Clintons, but by the return to power of Clintonites. I’m tired of seeing the same damn people on the teevee.

It’s not the same old people who bother me, it’s the same old ideas.

Politicians and pundits all seem to have a collection of tape loops. Ask about the economy, they all play a pre-recorded “economy” sound bite. Ask about health care, get the canned “health care” message.

Many of the tape loops have been unchanged for decades. When terrorists flew hijacked planes into American buildings, Bush Administration officials just pushed harder for the same irrelevant anti-missile systems and tax policies they had wanted before. Don Rumsfeld didn’t want to fight al Qaeda because there weren’t any good targets in Afghanistan, but there were lots of good targets in Iraq.

Tape loop minds don’t respond well to the unexpected.

How I would love to see people in government who are actively thinking about issues. How I long to see people on the teevee who have a light behind their eyes.

Obama’s got that.

Via Daily Kos, The Week looks at the Iraq money pit:

How much has the war cost so far?

About $600 billion since 2003, and the total is rising fast. Because of soaring fuel costs and the high price of repairing or replacing damaged equipment, the U.S. is spending about $12 billion a month this year, up from $4 billion a month in 2003. … The $600 billion figure does not include such costly consequences as higher oil prices, the interest on the billions borrowed to pay for the war (see below), and the burden of long-term care and benefits for Iraq war veterans.

So what’s a more realistic figure?

Anywhere from $1 trillion to $5 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said that the war’s cost would amount to $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion by 2017. Harvard researcher Linda Bilmes and Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, in their book The $3 Trillion War, say that the war’s long-term cost will range from $2 trillion to $5 trillion. Iraq is already the second most expensive war in U.S. history. Only World War II cost more, about $5 trillion, adjusted for inflation. …

Has the money been well spent?

In many cases, no. … Contractors hired to rebuild the country’s infrastructure or provide security have overcharged the U.S. for everything from soft drinks — $45 a can — to gasoline. Millions of dollars in no-bid reconstruction contracts were diverted to things such as Super Bowl tickets, prostitutes, watches, and jewelry. And much of the reconstruction work has been substandard.

…

The credit card war

The Iraq war, says economist Joseph Stiglitz, is “the first U.S. war financed entirely on credit.” When the war started, the Bush administration said it would cost no more than $60 billion. But the U.S. budget was already in deficit, so the administration had to borrow money to finance the invasion. About 40 percent of the money was borrowed from China and other international investors — the first time since the Revolutionary War that foreigners financed a U.S. war. At the same time, the administration and Congress lowered taxes instead of raising them, as is customary in wartime. … Today, say Stiglitz and other economists, the bills for the country’s spending spree are starting to come due, in the form of higher prices, a weakened dollar, and lower living standards. “There’s no such thing as a free war,” Stiglitz said. “The U.S. — and the world — will be paying the price for decades to come.”

Oh, give it another hundred years.

Daily Kos notes the anniversary of VE Day:

CHEERS to real “Mission Accomplished” moments.  Today is the 63rd anniversary of VE Day, commemorating the surrender of the Nazi terrorists during World War II.  If Bush and had been in charge, we’d probably still be fighting that war … in Mexico.

This blog has already explored that particular alternate history.

Kos also notes that today is Harry Truman’s 124th birthday, so go there and scroll down to the Bush-Truman debate:

Bush: Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Truman: In the circumstances, alarm is justified. The man who isn’t alarmed simply doesn’t understand the situation — or he is crazy. But alarm is one thing, and hysteria is another. Hysteria impels people to destroy the very thing they are struggling to preserve.

History’s interesting, isn’t it?

Republicans can take heart: the Arizona Republic says McCain’s not such a maverick after all:

Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues.

But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party’s objectives.

The presumptive Republican nominee arguably cast the decisive vote 14 times since 1999 to ensure Republicans got their way, and he had five other close cases where his vote may have made a difference, Senate records show. By comparison, McCain effectively handed Democrats a win on roll-call votes four times in the same period.

…

But the votes also suggest that when McCain broke from Republicans, others often joined him, keeping the votes from being so close.

…

“He is a conservative who votes conservative on most issues,” said Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. “By no means is he a liberal or even a moderate.”

Poole, who compiles a widely respected analysis of all Senate votes, ranks McCain as slightly less conservative than most Republicans throughout his career and near the far edge of the right while running for president.

So, no maverick. No moderate. But John McCain is flexible, especially during election years. What more could a Republican want?