With the news of Lehman’s frenzied courting of Barclay’s for a shotgun marriage, and the elopement of Merrill and Bank of America, everyone is nervous. On the Twitter stream, the buzz is that the end of America is nigh, that maybe even the end of the world is upon us.

This was not entirely unexpected. The ball was put in motion at the end of March when the subprime crisis finally burst into the public consciousness in a big way, Bear Stearns failed, and Lehman teetered on the edge.

Last week’s bailout of FreddieMac and FannieMae simply brought the next round of illiquid financial institutions to the fore.

Hear this: We have a situation, brought on by a national addiction to credit on an individual, corporate and governmental level. It’s not going to go away anytime soon. It’s not going to get easier.

As long as our government continues to finance the Iraq War with abandon, credit will be tighter, financial institutions will be as squeezed as the individual, and our nation will leverage the future of our children in the name of “national security”. Just as a reminder, the architect of the blueprint for the failure of these financial institutions can be laid directly at the feet of Phil Gramm, John McCain’s chief economic adviser. McCain continues to try to tell Americans he will not raise taxes and will extend the Bush tax cuts, but he does not admit that what he proposes is impossible.

This is important, because it goes straight to the heart of our faltering economy. There is no question that the debt we’re racking up in Iraq (last tally it was 3 TRILLION). Despite the Bush Administration promise that Iraqis would help foot the bill, the facts say otherwise. They have not contributed one penny to the debt the US has accumulated during our occupation of their country. Why should they? It’s not as if we were invited in, and asked to stay.

The continued shakiness of our financial institutions and Federal bailout responses are cause for concern, but not cause for panic. It is not time to make a run on the bank. It IS time to be smart about how your money is banked. Make sure you’ve got cash in FDIC-backed institutions, be prudent and get rid of as much personal debt as possible. (I have more suggestions here).

As a third-party pension administrator, I admit to having concern about how 401(k) investors are going to react to today’s news. As the single largest cash investor in US markets, it’s really important that participants in 401(k) plans react with caution, rather than on impulse. Retirement plans are long-term investments, and investors have an opportunity to buy at bargain-basement prices while the markets react to the Lehman/Merrill news. This is not a time to pull funds out of the market; it’s an opportunity to leverage the state of the market for future growth.

But on a higher level, all of us need to ask how much bleaker this economy will get before we’re staring down a full-fledged depression. While McCain and Bush try to tell us it’s in our heads, facts remain facts.

Paul Krugman:

To understand the problem, you need to know that the old world of banking, in which institutions housed in big marble buildings accepted deposits and lent the money out to long-term clients, has largely vanished, replaced by what is widely called the “shadow banking system.” Depository banks, the guys in the marble buildings, now play only a minor role in channeling funds from savers to borrowers; most of the business of finance is carried out through complex deals arranged by “nondepository” institutions, institutions like the late lamented Bear Stearns — and Lehman.

The new system was supposed to do a better job of spreading and reducing risk. But in the aftermath of the housing bust and the resulting mortgage crisis, it seems apparent that risk wasn’t so much reduced as hidden: all too many investors had no idea how exposed they were.

This is the problem in a nutshell. The twisty passages of current banking and securities law have done a wildly effective job of hiding vulnerabilities until it’s far too late to correct without drastic measures. The best solution is going to be a steady diet of transparency, mandatory disclosures, belt-tightening, and putting an end to the bleeding of our resources into Iraq.

Areas to watch: Insurance companies, who typically invest heavily in the mortgage markets but usually have lower liquidity needs than brokerage houses and banks, and the larger institutions like Bank of America and Citibank. As they consolidate and bring the troubled securities children under their corporate umbrella, there should be concern that they are not putting us at greater risk by concentrating exposure in one place.

Oh, and listen carefully to what John McCain has to say about this latest shakeout. My guess is that he will try to brush it off as less than it is or write it off to market adjustment. Don’t believe him. I cannot say this loudly enough. Attention should and must be paid to this. That doesn’t mean panic, it means heads-up, stay alert, and watch your back.

Someone should ask Sarah Palin how she’d handle this too. I’d love to hear her very detailed and experienced answer.

Wow. On the day Palin attends a deployment ceremony for her son, she advocates for war with Russia. This is just so wrong on so many levels…

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep… GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Now, let’s unpack this just a little bit. Russia was not unprovoked. As much as McCain/Palin want to paint the conflict in Russia as the big bad wolf eating the innocent Georgia, it didn’t really happen like that. In fact, following her logic about protecting smaller democratic countries, she should pay due respect to South Ossetia and acknowledge that Georgia was annexing them even as they expressed desire to be independent of Georgia. There was plenty of provocation.

Of course, it’s much more convenient to dumb down the argument to RNC talking points and argue that Georgia was somehow being punished by Russia for joining Nato. It’s also more convenient to ignore the fact of the gas pipeline crossing Georgia that the neo-cons desperately want to control.

Oh, but then I forgot. John McCain says Palin knows more about energy than possibly anyone else in the US.

Those gosh-darn Republicans sure are given to knowing everything, aren’t they? Just ask Meghan McCain.

Keith Olbermann’s special comment last night echoed everything I’ve been saying whenever I hear John McCain pronounce that a) He knows how to win wars; and b) he will bring our troops home from Iraq after we ‘win’ and with honor.

Let me just say this here and now: I believe that our troops have honor just by virtue of the fact that they are serving, have served, have placed their lives at risk and have obeyed orders that they perhaps didn’t even agree with. Every day that they get up and put their boots on and go back out there, they serve with honor. There is absolutely nothing in the outcome to Iraq that will change the fact that these are honorable men and women serving their country with, yes, honor.

Olbermann’s special comment re: trademarking 9/11

With that said, every single time McCain makes the broad claims about victory and honor, I find myself screaming the words “Define victory!” at my television set. Or my car radio. Or even my iPod, on occasion.

The fact is, victory in Iraq is undefined now, and will forever be undefined. This is largely because there was no clearly-stated objective beyond getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and that objective was completed 5 or so years ago.

Even General Petraeus agrees. From an interview with the BBC:

Q: Do you think you will ever use the word “victory”?

Petraeus: I don’t know that I will. I think that all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements, if you will. And we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves.

and

“This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade…it’s not war with a simple slogan.

Once again, McCain lies and distorts for political gain. Oh, don’t we all want to puff out our chests and proclaim ‘victory’. And of course, McCain has to take that tack in order to lie about Barack Obama as being a ‘quitter’ who wants to ‘give up’ in Iraq, with quips and sound bites like this one:

“This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word `victory’ except when he’s talking about his own campaign.”

Now you hear Petraeus echoing more or less what Barack Obama has said throughout the campaign — that withdrawal from Iraq must be done with caution, but that it must be done, particularly with Afghanistan at grave risk.

Make no mistake about this: John McCain’s idea of honor IS victory — HIS. And he will lie and sell out to the highest bidder to be victorious.

Democrats cannot afford to be complacent about Sarah Palin, nor can they afford to be shrill. I mentioned on Twitter over the weekend that I thought it was a horrible idea to even repeat the rumors that were flying around in high number and force. Nor could they be judgmental about her parenting skills, her daughter’s pregnancy, or any other personal issues that might arise.

This, despite the fact that Republicans have traditionally used those issues to undermine Democrats’ candidacies, and especially Barack Obama’s.

Here’s why. Framing this election one around personalities and personal attacks will benefit the Republicans. They know this. From Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager:

“This election is not about issues,” said Davis. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

Davis added that issues will no doubt play a major role in the decisions undecided voters will make but that they won’t ultimately be conclusive. He added that the campaign has “ultimate faith” in the idea that the more voters get to know McCain and Barack Obama, the better the Republican nominee will do.

Davis understands that if Democrats make this a contest of personalities, they’ll lose. Barack Obama gets that, too, which is why he so masterfully shouted out yesterday for the press and his supporters to step back from attacks on Palin and her children, while tying it all into his own past as the child of a single parent who got pregnant at age 18.

George Lakoff understands this, too:

But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the “issues,” and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call “issues,” but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind — the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can’t win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

If bloggers and twitterers and the media focus on the personal side of Palin, they miss the larger picture, and in so doing, allow the McCain campaign to frame the election in terms of personality — in the ‘gut factor’. The gut factor involves all of those things which the right trumpets as “their” issues: family values (with a twist of authoritarian bent but still, family values).

What Palin represents is the symbol of the Republican base: solid, conservative, religious, towing the line for those “traditional family values”. Even her daughter’s pregnancy will be viewed in that light, make no mistake about it.

So we have a choice. We can speak to the family values that we hold dear or allow them to be hijacked in a petty debate that misses the larger picture in favor of nonsensical pissing matches over whether Palin should have stayed at home, whether she should have kept better track of her daughter, whether she parented right. Those are non-issues. NONE of us ‘parent right’. Or correctly. We all just do our best in the circumstances we have.

What Palin does is validate McCain’s rapid turn to the base. No longer the darling of independents, he has taken one large step to the right and turned in that direction as he moves ahead. But without Palin, who is standing there already, that turn doesn’t have much credibility. WITH her, it’s a much more powerful case for McCain’s candidacy with the base.

Democrats didn’t stand much chance of winning that base anyway. But they do have the opportunity to frame the debate around what matters to independents and the majority of Democratic voters, and that frame has to be in the context of family and family values.

• It is a family value to want your loved ones to be healthy and have access to health care when they need it.
• It is a family value to aspire to home ownership and expect to be able to not only achieve that goal, but not lose it after the fact because of greedy mortgage companies.
• It is a family value to want your children to be educated and have access to higher education.
• It is a family value to have the opportunity to work at a decent job with a decent wage.
• It is a family value to enable parents to adequately care for their children in situations where both parents must work, and for laws to protect working women and give them equal pay for equal work.
• It is a family value to expect your country to send our sons and daughters into wars worth fighting, wars over principle or security, rather than wars for oil and greed.
• It is a family value to expect our returning soldiers to be cared for and given respect not only in tribute, but in investment in their futures and their health

These are all planks on the Democrats’ platform. If we want Palin to be neutralized and for Obama to win the election, the dialogue should be all about family values, but family values as seen through the eyes of real people suffering all around this country as the result of the last 8 years of failed “family value” policies.

With that in mind, I would challenge you to go to the Momocrats’ site and read their post series entitled “Palin in Comparison“, where they look at what she represents to the Republican base and then answer with the Democrats’ position on those same issues. Then talk to family, friends. Remind them that the Republicans have had eight years to demonstrate even a small regard for the family, but have only shown an amazing tendency toward greed, avarice, and the destruction of just about every value we hold dear in this country.

The election is certainly not about personality. It is about values. It is about who voters feel will stand up for them as we face some of the hardest issues we’ve had as a nation, while cleaning up the Constitutional and economic mess left behind by the Bush Administration. When it’s seen through that frame, it’s no longer McCain’s election to win.

In a nutshell, it is all about the fierce urgency of NOW.

This was the topic of our discussion today on NewsGang Live. I recommend downloading today’s episode. Well worth the listen.

One of his best yet. The full text is here.

The 5 goals he outlined were:

1. Securing all loose nuclear materials
2. Working toward a world with no nuclear weapons
3. Investment of $150 billion in alternative energy with a goal to end dependence on foreign oil
4. Arriving at a diplomatic solution with Iran
5. Rebuilding alliances to meet common challenges of 21st century

Here’s one of the most compelling moments in the speech:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down
and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the
terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in
Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and
updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the
challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in
alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and
end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships,
and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong
currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers,
Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland–investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and
broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for
every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a
trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all
in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country
that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, imagine.

Really a fine speech from Sen. Obama. Don’t listen to the pundits, go read it or listen when they post it on the Obama website.

An astounding sound bite from Tran Trong Duyet, keeper of Hoa Lo prison, where John McCain was held, beaten, and tortured:

“I don’t know how he’d react if he met me again,” said Mr Duyet, flicking through old black and white photographs of himself and his American prisoners at Hoa Lo.

“But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners.”

I guess we know where our government learned to say that waterboarding wasn’t torture, too. By McCain’s own account, he was beaten, held in solitary confinement, and subjected to torture that permanently disabled him.

Duyet’s entire interview is nothing but party-line propaganda, similar to the same spew that comes out of this administration about torture, Guantanamo, and civil rights.

So is Mr Duyet implying that that Senator McCain lied about his treatment at the Hanoi Hilton?

“He did not tell the truth,” he says.

“But I can somehow sympathise with him. He lies to American voters in order to get their support for his presidential election.” .

Reading this just leaves me cold. I believe McCain was tortured in Vietnam, which makes his vote against the Intelligence Authorization Act that much more unbelievable. How can someone who was subjected to torture turn to a propaganda spinner like Duyet?

I suppose it depends upon how desperate he is to get elected.

• Appeals Court Invalidates Detainee’s ‘Enemy’ Status

  A federal appeals court in Washington has invalidated the Bush administration’s finding that a detainee held for more than six years in the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba is an “enemy combatant,” and has ordered the government to release him, transfer him or offer him a new hearing.

  Oh, and the White House pooh-poohed legal advice saying he risked judicial scrutiny of detention policies.

• Report Says Partisanship Reigned in Justice Department Hiring Program
  

  High-ranking political appointees at the Justice Department labored to stock a prestigious hiring program with young conservatives in a five-year-long attempt to reshape the department’s ranks, according to an inspector general’s report to be released today.

  Wow, there’s a surprise. After firing US Attorneys that didn’t toe the Bushies’ line, who’s surprised by this?

• McCain: No Habeas for Bin Laden, Right to the Gallows John McCain says:
  

  …After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg [sic] war trials…There was no habeas at Nuremburg [sic] and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden.

  ..Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed.

  Just to be clear here, does anyone seriously believe bin Laden would set foot on American soil. Pulease! Meanwhile, Al Qaeda grows more vocal online.

• The new FISA bill now in the Senate gives “wholesale approval for NSAt o conduct bulk monitoring of electronic communications.
• Bush Administration shoots down plan to overhaul army contract oversight. After all, why be accountable for nearly 5 billion charged in fraud or another 5 billion spent without documentation?
• Wexler points out how the McClellan testimony points to the Bush Administration crimes, and calls for accountability

This is really why the American electorate should not be so dumb about their constitutional rights. I have just listed six separate stories published in one day, all pointing to the utter disregard this administration has for basic civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

While the mainstream media stokes the fear that Iran will attack, participating once again in the administration’s plan to keep us in line by keeping us afraid, no one is paying attention to the true goal of Bush and the neocons: To erode civil rights and the constitution so deeply that Americans will not understand what they have surrendered through ignorance, nor what they have lost.

This week’s top fear flavor: Iran. Fear that Iran will attack us if Barack Obama is elected. And fear that if Iran doesn’t attack us, Israel will attack Iran after Obama is elected but before he is inagurated. (Okay, the second one is really not tied to Obama being elected, just saying that between election day and Inaugural Day Iran will attack, but somehow John McCain is strong enough to deal with it. HUH?) And if Iran doesn’t attack us and Israel doesn’t attack Iran, then we’re screwed anyway because…oh NO!…European officials are afraid that if Obama engages Iran via direct diplomacy, he will somehow undercut progress with Iran.

Yes, it’s the newest flavor of FUD, custom designed to make voters be afraid…very afraid. Everyone get your worry beads out and start using them, religiously. Tonight is Uncle John and Mr. Bill’s story hour. Scoot up and let me tell you what they’re talkin’ about.

Uncle John Bolton thinks Israel will attack Iran after November 4th and before January 20th. Uncle John thinks that Big Daddy McCain is stronger than the Bush administration about handling the Iranian nuclear program.

Big Daddy Bill Kristol says that Bush might bomb Iran if he ‘thinks Senator Obama’s Going to win‘.

Waaaaait a minute. You mean Bush THINKS? I thought he just cowered in the corner while Big Dick (Cheney) hands him his latest talking points along with a stiff…something.

Comedy aside, let’s take a walk down memory lane and see what happened in 2002, before we sent our young men and women into Iraq to invade and occupy a country which, it turns out, hadn’t given us reason. Turn the time machine on, folks…moving back in time now…

August 16, 2002, George W. Bush in Crawford, TX

First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say.

There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run.

We’ll continue to consult. Listen, it’s a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know, I’ll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.

October 7, 2002: George Bush, speaking at the Cincinnati Museum Center –

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

September 14, 2002 (coincidentally timed around the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks):

Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

And so it goes, on and on. Does any of it SOUND FAMILIAR? It’s a broken record, same song, different verse, substitute a different country this year but the timing and the message is the same.

Only, this time it’s a blatant effort on the part of the neocons to reframe the 2008 election inside everyone’s fear buttons.

If it weren’t so desperate, it might be funny. The sending of three separate surrogates out to writhe and moan over Iran’s clear intent to go on the attack is ridiculous. It doesn’t even pass the smell test.

It also defies logic. To believe what these neo-yoyos are saying, you have to believe that diplomacy is a threat to world peace.

Tragically, it seems that free and fair elections in Zimbabwe are pure fantasy. But reading the insane remarks of the “neo-fights” today makes me wonder whether we can reasonably count on the Bush/Cheney regime to: a) allow free and fair elections in our own country; and b) surrender power peacefully to the rightfully elected President on January 20, 2009. It’s clear to me from reviewing the recycled warmongering with respect to Iran and our election cycle that if the Bush regime could force an outcome to their liking, or manipulate voters into believing the reconstituted bullshit they’re serving, they would gladly do it no matter what price our democracy paid.

Someone really needs to tell Congress to get a grip. That someone needs to be us. This is absolutely NOT the time to be saber-rattling in a serious way with Iran, and CERTAINLY not the time to be authorizing any resolution for military action.

Over the last three weeks 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush “initiate an international effort” to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.

Some facts:

1. Play the memory game. This is how the Iraq disaster started. By shaking our fists at a country that did not attack us, did not in any way play a role in 9/11 and wasn’t responsible for whatever problems we had.
2. Iranian people, for the most part, do not agree with aggressive moves toward other countries. Remember, armies need to have troops. Successful armies need to have troops with a cause.
3. Believe it or not, Israel has the means and motivation to defend themselves.
4. Afghanistan is going to hell in a handbasket.
5. The motives for such a resolution are about oil, not security. Stop kidding yourself.

I’m not interested in fighting anyone else over oil. I’d just as soon quit using it. The political aim of introducing a resolution into Congress to encourage aggression against Iran is simply to force a choice between offshore drilling or aggressive action against a sovereign nation who has not threatened or attacked us.

It isn’t the job of our military or the citizens of this country to ensure that the Bush and Cheney families leave a fat oil inheritance to their families and cronies. Don’t be fooled by the absurdity of the proposal of these ‘elected officials’. Dethrone them instead.

And in the meantime, call your Representative and tell them NO WAR WITH IRAN. In fact, tell them NO MORE WAR FOR OIL.

Update The full text of the resolution is here. In the first paragraph, they mention the IAEA to bolster the claim that there is a threat. In fact, on 6/18/08, the IAEA published a communication from Iran in PDF format that indicates Iran’s willingness to address the issues around their nuclear program. The IAEA note at the end says it should be evaluated in six months. Of course, six months means Bush couldn’t shove us into war with them before the end of his presidency.

The horsemen of the apocalypse are on the hunt. Here’s the latest news on the pale horses of death: ExxonMobil, Total, Chevron, Shell, et al who have been given preferential treatment and no-bid contract opportunities to service Iraq’s oil fields. (Remember this?)

The NY Times reports:

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

By now there’s probably very little doubt in anyone’s mind about the evil living in the White House. But this should make us all choke on our $4.50/gallon gas.

And the Bush/McCain diversion? Offshore domestic drilling, endorsed by flip-floppers Bush and McCain.

Here’s a rhetorical question. After George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons have raped us all for the last 8 years and now do it again without the benefit of even a kiss, do you think it wise to allow them to rape our natural resources here in the US for…oh…another 50 years or so? 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?

Just like McCain’s fake gas tax holiday, the call for domestic offshore drilling is just another invitation for the American people to bend over and take it quietly.

Seriously, there is much more to say about this, but for now, just let the brazen, wanton greed of our current Administration and their chosen successor to sink in. Breathe the stench. Be as disgusted as you want, and then feel free to copy this and email it to your friends with the title “Bush/Cheney into rape and incest. Will McCain follow suit?”

Let it go viral.