Well, we've seen this sort of thing the entire campaign,occasionally from the Obama camp, relentlessly from McCain. Today's edition of scrofulous mudslinging--aided and abetted by a banner headline from the Drudge Scourge--involves a wildly inaccurate reading of remarks that Barack Obama made in a 2001 radio interview. It turns out that he wasn't criticizing the Supreme Court for its failure to "redistribute" wealth. He was saying the exact opposite: that the Supreme Court wasn't the way to go. He was saying that political power was the only real way to make decisions about the distribution of taxation. Obama's sentiment is, of course, a wildly radical notion--or, at least it was, before the American Revolution.

To state the obvious, once again: We have had a redistribution of wealth, upward, during the Reagan era. Taxes on work, a.k.a. payroll taxes, have increased. Taxes on wealth, the upper margins of the income tax plus capital gains plus estate taxes, have decreased. To call Obama a socialist because he wants to redress this imbalance is as accurate as calling McCain an oligarch because he doesn't.

Now that McCain's been called out on this, you figure he'll stop using it, right? Yeah, sure. After all, this is mild compared to the trash going out in those robo-calls. You wonder how McCain returns to the land of the living after this campaign is over--after all, his voice and vote, and his pre-campaign moderation, would be valuable on issues like immigration and global warming. There must be some sort of political detox, right?

Obviously, the big draw in Leesburg this morning was Tito the Builder, aka Tito Munoz, aka defended of Joe the Plumber. If you had ever wanted to hear a crowd of Northern Virginian White People chant "Tito! Tito! Tito!" who weren't looking for a Jackson brother encore, well, you missed your chance. But I managed to grab a few minutes with the guy after the crowds departed -- after he finished posing for pictures and signing bumperstickers -- and he was perhaps the most articulate and on-message McCain spokesman I've ever talked to that is still talking to the press. Transcript after the jump. I've sent the audio to HQ to see if they can post it as well.

He as actually quite thoughtful and, despite his "Solinksy" bumpersticker, apparently pretty well-informed. At least about Joe the Plumber. His views on Constitutional issues were, while not standard, passionately presented. His views on plumbing were all of the above:

I have a construction license. I do heavy construction. I do a lot of piping work. Sewer pipe. But I don't need a plumbing license to do the work. So you guys are going to extremes to silence a person and I think that's dangerous to do because you are stealing my first amendment.

UPDATE: Audio here.

(more...)

Guilty on all counts.

UPDATE: It's hard to see how he can win after this, but does he realize that? And if he does win? AP notes:

Despite being a convicted felon, he is not required to drop out of the race or resign from the Senate. If he wins re-election, he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress. The Senate could vote to expel Stevens on a two-thirds vote.

"Put this down: That will never happen — ever, OK?" Stevens said in the weeks leading up to his trial. "I am not stepping down. I'm going to run through and I'm going to win this election.

UPDATE2: Stevens vows to fight it:

I am obviously disappointed in the verdict but not surprised given the repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct in this case.  The prosecutors had to report themselves to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility during the trial for ethical violations.  Exculpatory evidence was hidden from my lawyers.  A witness was kept from us and then sent back to Alaska.  The Government lawyers allowed evidence to be introduced that they knew was false.  I will fight this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have.

I am innocent.  This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial.  I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights.  I remain a candidate for the United States Senate.

For those who haven't had quite enough, thank you, of the vagaries of democracy, there are two fascinating, maybe crucial, elections coming down the pike in early 2009--in Israel and Iran. (Actually 3: the regional elections in Iraq, scheduled for late January will be pretty important, too.)

Now that Tzipi Livni has failed to form a government--those pesky ultra-orthodox parties play Chicago ward politics and her proposed bribes were insufficient--there will be elections in Israel in February or March. The current front-runner is the eternal Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud, who sets neoconservative hearts aflutter in the U.S...but who knows how this will shake out? Livni is much admired in Israel--and clean...but is she tough enough? (Does this sound familiar?) She faces competition not only from Bibi on the right but also from (Ehud) Barak on the left. If Netanyahu and Obama win, there could be some real tensions between the U.S. and Israel. If Netanyahu and McCain win--kaboom--there will be a much more aggressive, perhaps martial, posture toward Iran.

Speaking of Iran, there are intriguing reports today about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's health. He's exhausted, it is said--a condition that might have something to do with the unpopularity of his domestic policies (30% inflation) and the probability that he will face a tough reelection fight next June. Ahmadinejad is likely to be challenged by the reformers--Mohammad Khatami, who proceeded Ahmadinejad and raised some hopes for reform, but didn't have the power to do very much, may run again. And so may Ali-Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, another former president--and the candidate of the business elites (but considered corrupt by the public). More to the point, Ahmadinejad may be challenged by a candidate favored by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, whose support tends to be pivotal (his minions supported Ahmadinejad in the runoff against Rafsanjani last time, but there have been signs that Khamenei may have had second thoughts). As with all things Iranian, the import of this election is murky, although it may be provide an indication of how public opinion is trending. If the Supreme Leader really pushes a preferred candidate other than Ahmadinejad, the election may be very significant, indeed.

The Iraqi elections will be closely watched as an indication of the relative strength of the Shi'ite parties. Will Malaki's Dawa Party gain strength? Is Muqtada al-Sadr still a force? And what about the Iranophilic Hakim family's fate? Since these are regional elections, they'll have only a tangential impact of the future of the Baghdad government. But they'll be a leading indicator--and, if they proceed quietly, it will be another sign that our job in Iraq is getting closer to finished.

A question on the lips of many campaigns watchers this weekend: "McCain is on a 'Joe the Plumber Tour.' Why is Joe the Plumber not with him?"

From reporters' lips to McCain's ears -- or someone's. Today in Leesberg, who introduced Sarah Palin but another "-o" the Job Description: Tito the Builder.

Joe need not worry about another small busines caricature taking his place in the heart of GOP candidates, however: He was much on the minds of everyone including -- during a sort of odd moment -- Palin's invocation of those who call themselves "JoeMomma."*

More later,

Ana the Blogger

*Pop culture pile up possibility here.

The McCain Campaign uncovers a novel bit of oppo today: A heavily-edited 2001 audio tape of Obama on a Chicago radio station discussing the failure of the Civil Rights Movement to redistribute wealth through the courts. Obama says it was a tragedy that civil rights activists were not able to put together "coalitions of power through which you bring about reditributive change."  This speaks to the McCain late-stage argument that Obama harbors a radical plan to redistribute wealth in America. More concretely, McCain is criticizing Obama for wanting to take away the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and replace them with targeted tax cuts to those with lower incomes. (Update: The full audio has been posted here. A rough transcript here.)

This argument remains problematic for McCain, because back between 2000 and 2004 McCain also had concerns about the distribution of wealth in America. More specifically, he opposed the Bush Tax cuts because a "disproportional amount went to the wealthiest Americans."

NBC's Tom Brokaw asked McCain about this on Sunday, during a Meet The Press sit down. McCain's answer is a bit difficult to parse. He seems to suggest that some progressivity is good in the tax code, but that progressivity should be minimized (or at least not increased) during difficult economic times.

On Sunday, Brokaw played McCain tape of his 2000 and 2004 quotes opposing the Bush tax cuts, which he now supports extending, on the grounds that the wealthy do not need such a big tax break. Here is McCain's response:

MCCAIN: That's what -- listen, even the flat tax people somewhat pay more. Even -- you put into different, categories of wealthier people paying, higher taxes into different brackets. I mean -- and the -- and these are different times, my friend. These are times of the biggest financial crisis we've faced in America.

BROKAW: Well, let me raise that, then, if I...

MCCAIN: So -- so let me just tell you again, I also said, when I opposed the Bush tax cuts, said -- that is left out of this equation. I said I've got to -- we've got to get spending under control. Spending was completely out of control. We laid a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America. We owe the Chinese a half a trillion dollars. Spending was the -- was the, I think, the really biggest aspect, to a large degree. It weakens the dollar, it raises the cost of goods to Americans. The housing crisis combined with a country that's living way beyond its means is a combination which has put us into this great financial crisis we're in.

UPDATE: Per Politico's Ben Smith, the Obama campaign has pushed back with the Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, who makes the point that Obama did not say in the interview that he supports the courts creating a right to redistribution of wealth. But Sunstein does not contest the fact that Obama is advocating in this interview "redistributive change" through popular organization, which is presumably another way of saying legislative action.