When Rush Limbaugh left his job as a nurse he switched to radio broadcasting in Sacramento.  It has been reported that a discovery he made prompted him to develop an approach that has served him ever since as a key to riches.

Limbaugh observed that when he turned into a sour curmudgeon spouting hate for the approval of the perpetually disgusted his ratings soared.  The rest is history as he achieved a radio standing in which he reportedly plays to an audience of 30 million listeners per week as delighted sponsors reward him with contracts involving millions of dollars.

Limbaugh's on the air blitzkriegs, while offensive to those of sensibility and sensitivity, provide a measure of comfort to those who delight in being uncomfortable.  

His non-stop gutter sniping at anyone to the political left of his listening audience, which might well be anyone other than his 30 million faithful along with those so busy watching Fox News that they lack sufficient opportunity to pay him sufficient due, is a two step approach.

by CODY LYON

The doubter kept saying that this is America, a place where hypocrisy and secrets were often reveal themselves in subtle fashions.  He charged that America was still a place where inequity could be measured along racial and class lines and that it was on full display in policy and even in the most mundane activities of day to day life.  

John McCain has taken to once more demagoging the economic issue as the Republican right has traditionally done beginning in the modern era with the tactical and markedly unsuccessful propaganda front directed at Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Roosevelt's first reelection campaign in 1936 was fresh on the heels of congressional passage and the president's signature on the landmark 1935 Social Security Act.  There was much anger as well resulting from such sweeping legislation as the National Recovery Administration and the creation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with disciplinary powers applicable to Wall Street.

Laissez faire was what the members of the American Liberty League, the vigilant opposition group to Roosevelt's economic policies, favored.  His comprehensive changes in U.S. economic policy during a critical Depression period prompted them to hurl charges of "socialism" while others went beyond that and asserted that FDR was a dictator of a Communist or Fascist model.

It was under Woodrow Wilson, another Democratic president known for comprehensive change, that the federal income tax became a reality.  Not only did those of the American Liberty League and their well heeled predecessors not wish to pay federal income tax; they feared and were incensed by the national government using taxation as a leveling tool.

Note: The cartoon is the logo of the real Joe the Plumber in Amarillo. Send him some business, I'm told that he's an Obama guy. If his website takes off because of all this attention maybe he can switch from actual plumbing to an online plumbing advice column. Bob

The month began with Sarah Palin celebrating her campaign's close identification and long association with "Joe Six Pack," the mythic every man vision of America that he and they dream that they represent.

Then in last night's "debate" came "Joe the Plumber," a guy who claims that he wants to buy a business which "makes" 250k a year and he's worried about Obama's tax policies. Who's next, Joe Bananas, Joe Cool, Joe Mama?

Forgetting for the moment that I have strong suspicions that "Joe the Plumber" is a ringer. Yes, nefarious as it sounds I'm afraid that Joe may be, a not too carefully selected, and poorly rehearsed plant from the McCain camp. He was probably chosen by the same group of desperately drunken political geniuses who trotted out Sarah Palin.

During the 1968 election, one of the keystones of Dick Nixon's campaign was his "plan to end the war in Vietnam." Of course he had no real plan, or, if he did it was a poor one, evidenced by the fact that the war dragged on for seven brutal years after that sad election season.

It has been said in some quarters that the "plan" Nixon alluded to, but never spelled out, was a nutty scheme (nutty schemes seem to abound in the halls of power) to have Kissinger convince the Russians that Tricky Dick was just batshit crazy enough to use nuclear weapons if the North Vietnamese would not come to the table and end the war on his terms.

History has shown that Nixon was nuts enough. So was and is, Henry the K, but the Vietnamese, after fighting a collection of Yankees, French, Japanese and Chinese among others, for uncountable hundreds of years weren't impressed with new and improved threats, from new and unimproved enemies.

They had been hardened over the centuries to leave early for work knowing that they might have to bury their dead or rebuild a bridge or two on the way. They would not be cowed by threats of death and destruction; death and destruction was all around them, forever.

On Tuesday, the very day that Barack Obama's campaign announced he would be taking a 36-hour respite from campaigning to visit his seriously ill grandmother in Hawaii, CNN  reported that John McCain's campaign was giving up on Colorado just one day after a blitz in the state by running mate Sarah Palin.

The flurry of activity in Colorado followed by a decision to concede the state is reminiscent of what happened recently in Wisconsin.  It was in Wisconsin that a man attending the rally sizzled with rage when he asked what America could do about turning the federal government over to "socialists" in a certain reference to a prospective Obama administration.

The correlative proposition one strategically ponders following the Colorado move is the curious McCain strategy to intensify efforts in Pennsylvania, a state carried by the Democrats not only by John Kerry in 2004 but extending back all the way to the last Republican victory in the Keystone State by George Bush the Elder in 1988.

It appears that the "wing and a prayer" strategy devolves heavily on Sarah Palin and her ability to generate enthusiastic crowds in rural areas.

Since the Republican right is seemingly incapable of looking forward and only looks backward, meaning backwards to America's most cruel political and economic past, it is interesting to examine the antecedents of the current robo calls being made in important battleground states by the forces of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Richard Nixon made his first foray into national politics after being discharged from the Navy after answering an ad placed by a committee of right wing professionals seeking a candidate to run for the seat of 10-year veteran Congressman Jerry Voorhis.

Nixon was intrigued.  The district included Nixon's hometown of Whittier.  The young lawyer demonstrated himself to be politically active as he ran successfully for student body president at Whittier College.  

He would also prove adaptable at serving the needs of his professional benefactors, as was later exemplified by the secret fund established by them for his personal use after he was elected.  

This gave rise to the teary-eyed Checkers Speech when he denounced that he was not giving up the Cocker Spaniel that his daughters had been given by a citizen admirer, hardly on point, but then again when the facts are clearly against you, what do you do if you are Nixon?

Wasn't it George Bush who, when asked if he consulted his father, the Elder Bush, regarding the Iraq War, answered no, explaining that he did consult with his other Father, meaning God?

Of course it is blasphemy to suggest God advised Bush to launch the Iraq War.  The logical reason is that we now know that the Iraq War was launched on a well orchestrated media blitz of lies.

This week on Turner Classic Movies I saw the Alexander Korda move "The Jungle Book" starring Sabu.  One powerful scene of an individual being designated as a witch and being run out of town aroused my interest.

My mind flashed back to a Keith Olbermann MSNBC television scene of an Alaskan Pentecostal preacher with his hands held over Sarah Palin's head as he performed some unspecified religious rite.  It was mentioned that this same preacher had visited a Kenya village, where the natives invited him to help due to the fact that villagers were having so many accidents.  

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Political debates are an excersise of vapid talking points, quips and body language. Substance is irrelevant. Candidates are programmed to hold the attention span of people that watch American Idol and read tabloids while sitting on the toilet. Yet even these over scripted, dumbed down, brain massaged events have revealing moments.

Yesterday, like most political bloggers, I posted my analysis of the Biden-Palin debate and referenced Palin's most memorable sound-bite:

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Change is passé. Barack Obama squeezed all the juice out of the change orange since announcing his candidacy in February 2007. Personally, I never thought much of the "change you can believe in" slogan but there is no denying Obama went far with it.

However, Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate has convinced the public change is coming no matter who wins. Even worse, the very same corporate media that complained Obama only offered "words" compared to Hillary Clinton's policy specifics during the primary season now argue that McCain's lack of specifics does not diminish his stature as a maverick. Is that fair? Of course not! But there is no sense whining about it. These are the cards we've been dealt.

So how do we change the narrative? The solution is to present the voting public with a stark choice: progress or calamity. Change vs. more of the same is stale and no longer resonates.

Presidential campaign teams notoriously seek to spin debate performances, especially the first in a series, where momentum is seen as especially important, into "wins" for their respective candidates and the aftermath of last night's Oxford, Mississippi is no exception.

What is observable, however, from the McCain forces is the level of apparent frustration along with lack of imagination for the nature and shape of their post-debate strategy.  In a new ad released following the debate the spin was to capitalize on how many times Barack Obama used the word "agree" in references to points discussed in the debate.

Considering that McCain had at one time sought to postpone Friday's encounter because  America faced a financial meltdown crisis, the strategy appears all the more absurd along with contradictory.

It appears that the McCain strategists feels that this is the best they can do, which reveals how truly lamentable the candidacy of the Arizonan is at this juncture.  If it is so important to rush back to Washington to meet regarding the crisis and political partisanship has become temporarily irrelevant, then wasn't Obama reflecting that spirit?

While certain mainstream media analysts and political professionals point to what they view as an unprecedented strategy to run away from a titular leader of a party, these are not typical times and this effort can be understood.  The major question to be begged, however, is how workable is the strategy?

John McCain came out of Arizona early in his career proclaiming himself to be a "maverick," someone operating outside the typical and more traditional aspects of America's two party structure.  When he ran for the Republican presidential nation in 2000 he presented himself in this manner.

It has been carefully analyzed frequently and carefully noted many more times what happened during that pivotal race.  When McCain secured an advantage with an impressive victory in the New Hampshire primary Lee Rove and the Republican right attack machine surged forth with one of the most venomous campaigns in the key state of South Carolina ever seen on U.S. political soil.

McCain understandably was shaken and outraged by being subjected to such an outpouring of outrageous lies, the most hurtful of which involved questions evoked about his personal sanity as well as an attack on his wife and a racist frontal assault on his adopted Bangladeshi daughter.

This piece is for the skeptics. Not for skeptical Republicans (I imagine you have your minds made up already), but for all the undecideds and independents, for all the middle-of-the-roadsters, for the person who is right now saying "I would be happy with either candidate as President" or, I suppose, for the one who is saying "I can't stand either of these guys". I've been listening to you, reading your editorials. I know what you're saying. Dare I say, I know what you're not saying too. Obama skeptics: This piece is for you.

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Sarah Palin has enabled John McCain to revive the culture war as we argue over who is the real elitist, sexist or patriot. We've seen these sorts of smokescreens from Republicans before. They're diabolically brilliant at distracting voters with visceral appeals to the politics of cultural resentment while exploiting America's dark underbelly of racism and xenophobia. McCain/Palin even have the chutzpah to campaign as patriotic change agents eager to fight on behalf of regular folks while promoting polices that amount to class warfare against wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.

How easy to get caught up in Sarah Palin's polarizing celebrity and lose sight of the real issues at stake. That's exactly what the GOP wants. I too have been consumed by the Palin phenomenon in recent days and the GOP's toxic convention. Well it's time to get back to basics. Obama did a good job of that yesterday with respect to the new unemployment figures. I'd like to take a moment and focus attention on another vitally important issue that's easily overtaken by cultural politics: infrastructure.

by Cody Lyon
"Is Palin and her party's attempt to elevate her into a tomboyish tough love Mom with conservative virtues a party that deep down, at least appears to be complacent with a woman knowing her place in the grand political game of the true powers that be in the western world? While it might be true, that the Republican party claims to be a party that endorses a stronger philosophy of individual responsibility, does the scent of hypocrisy not waif through the minds of millions of women who recognize it is also a party that would deny them the right to choose? "

***