So Obama is mocking McCain’s recommendation that we need a commission to look at the causes of the current financial crisis, saying that we already know what caused it, and that a commission is just a way of putting off doing something about it. No argument there.

But I’m finding it odd that McCain keeps referring to this commission he wants as “a 9/11 commission.”

New York Times, 16 September:

“We need a 9/11 commission, and we need a commission to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it,’’ he said. “And I know we can do it and how to do it.”

AHN, 16 September:

Speaking from Florida, McCain said on CNN the nation had been “the victim of greed, excess and corruption on Wall Street” and that “we’re going to need a 9/11 Commission to find out what happened and what needs to be fixed.”

The Hill, 16 September:

“We’re going to need a 9/11 Commission to find out what happened and what needs to be fixed,” the Arizona senator said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

If he wants a commission, then fine — he wants a commission. But what does he mean when he says he wants a 9/11 commission? A commission is a commission. Was there something about the 9/11 commission that somehow set it apart from all other commissions (apart from the fact that it was about 9/11), thus creating a new genre of commission to be known as a 9/11 commission?

If Senator McCain bought a blue car, and referred to it as his blue car, and then bought a red car, would he then refer to the red car as his new blue car?

Last night, Obama and McCain both spoke at a forum on public service at Columbia University. There weren’t many surprises — both candidates support public service — but there was one exchange between Judy Woodruff and McCain that I found rather interesting. It’s in the video below, from about 5:10 to 6:35.

Woodruff: Senator, at the Republican convention, a couple of speakers, most notably your running mate, vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, made somewhat derisive comments about Senator Obama’s experience as a community organizer. I’ve heard you say… you haven’t taken that tone, so I guess my question is, are you saying to others in your campaign and your supporters that that’s not the kind of language you want to hear… How are you approaching that?

McCain: First of all, this is a tough business. Second of all, I think the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different if Senator Obama had accepted my request for us to appear in town hall meetings all over America, the same way Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had agreed to do so. I know that because I’ve been in enough campaigns. Look — Governor Palin was responding to the criticism of her inexperience in her job as a mayor in a small town. That’s what she was responding to. Of course I respect community organizers. Of course I respect people who serve their community, and Senator Obama’s record there is outstanding. And so, I praise anyone who serves this nation in capacities that frankly we all know that could have been far more financially rewarding to individuals rather than doing what they did.

I can forgive the lack of clarity in that last sentence. I got the gist of it, and I’m a lousy public speaker myself. His excuse for Palin is bogus, but that was to be expected, as was his effusive praise for service in general and specifically Obama’s service.

What pricked up my ears was his claim that the tone of the campaign would have been different had Obama agreed to go on a tour of town hall meetings with McCain. Just what is that supposed to mean? Did the McCain campaign start putting out lies because McCain was angry that Obama didn’t want to do things his way? Is this revenge? Maybe it’s an offer of a bribe: come on tour with me and I’ll behave.

I honestly can’t think of a logical explanation for that statement that doesn’t involve anger or revenge.

McCain and Palin, “the original mavericks,” as they’re described in the video below, (I know McCain is ancient, but Palin’s younger than I am. How is she one of the “original” mavericks?) have now announced that “change is coming.” That’s right — they’re not just mavericks. They’re mavericks of change. You betcha.

I was watching MSNBC today, and they had a couple of those dueling pundits (or as Palin calls them, “pundints”) segments. The big stumper question they hit the democrats with, after pointing out how McCain and Palin had ostensibly taken that tough as nails maverick stance and bucked the established powers that be in their party, was “What examples can you give us of Obama and Biden openly disagreeing with the rest of the Democratic party?”

What bullshit.

First of all, how many of the examples of McCain or Palin being “mavericks” — really standing up to their party — are true? Of those positions, how many do they still hold? Standing up to your party and then changing your mind and agreeing with the bosses doesn’t count as maverick in my book.

Mavericks, my ass.

And they don’t really talk about what they’re going to change. They just say “change is coming.”

Considering the fact that Republicans have been in power for almost eight years now, and that for all but about a year and a half that power was absolute, “change” is represented by the other party. Who says you have to be a maverick Democrat to represent change?

So when someone points out that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time, and the counter argument to that is that Obama voted with the rest of the Democratic party about 90% of the time, the proper response should be that that represents voting against Bush well over half of the time.

And that represents change, whether Obama chooses to strap on a six-shooter, hop on his horse and call himself a “maverick” or not.

Thanks, agents of intolerance! If I’d been allowed to choose for myself, we all know I’d have reached across the aisle and picked some pro-choice heathen.

Remember when Fox caught Jesse Jackson on an open mic expressing some disappointment with Barack Obama? Well, that ain’t nothing. Make sure you listen all the way through, after the camera cuts away. This apparently went out live on MSNBC today.

Who knew Peggy Noonan, she of the shining city on the hill, even knew the word “bullshit”?

Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old daughter of the Governor of Alaska, is five months pregnant. I honestly don’t care.

She’s planning on marrying the father. I don’t think it’s any of my business.

There had been rumors that her baby brother, Trig (or Pre-Calc, as I prefer to call him) was in fact her son. Doesn’t matter to me, except I question the sense of taking the long trip from Texas to a small-town hospital in rural Alaska after his mother’s water had broken. That sort of risk-taking makes more sense as a cover-up of a young mother giving birth and her mother pretending to. But again, even that really has nothing to do with me, and whether the crazy trip or the cover-up is the truth, I don’t particularly care.

Here’s what I care about: the Palins put out a press release on September 1.

We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.

We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby…

Bristol Palin made a decision to have this baby? Sarah Palin is on record in support of overturning Roe v. Wade. When she was running for Governor, she responded to a questionnaire put out by the Eagle Forum of Alaska. In response to a question on abortion, she wrote:

I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.

In response to the question, “Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?” she wrote, “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”

So who believes Bristol Palin made a decision that made her parents proud? Who believes her parents think there was ever a decision to make? If McCain and Palin are elected, are they going to allow any women to make that decision for themselves?

I don’t know any native Alaskans. I know maybe a dozen people who have lived there at one time or another, but nobody who actually grew up there. Consequently, I don’t know what an Alaskan — a real Alaskan — actually sounds like. And it’s a pretty big place. I’m sure to the native ear, somebody from Fairbanks sounds very much unlike a person from Juneau.

When McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was genuinely shocked. She sounds like she’s from the wilds of Wisconsin! I can just imagine her swearing in ceremony next January (in the bizarro universe where she and McCain actually manage to win this thing, of course).

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. Oh, ya, sure.

Oh, what a filthy mind you have. That is not what I meant at all. I just thought it was a good title for this new video from the Jed Report.

I’ve been saying lately that McCain and his campaign have been lying about Obama and his record, but now I’m having second thoughts. After all, they keep telling us what a maverick McCain is. When I hear the word “maverick,” I naturally think of Bret Maverick, that hero of the wild west on the eye of hell. And Brett Maverick was a gambler! From that perspective, it all makes sense: McCain isn’t a liar. He, like that other Maverick, is just bluffing.

To aid you in thinking the right way — the hard drinkin’, hard livin’, all-American gambler way — about Maverick McCain, I’ve created the file below. Just mouse over it and see if it feels right. Oh, and make sure your speakers are turned up.

Convinced? Me neither. On second thought, never mind. McCain is just a liar.

No, not that L Word. This is a different one, but one which, at least in the political sphere, seems to be just as taboo.

Here’s a hint. Remember when Obama suggested to some people at a rally that if they wanted to decrease the amount of gas they used, they should make sure their tires were properly inflated and their engines were tuned up? McCain (and every other Republican, by some odd coincidence) yukked it up over how Obama’s energy plan was all about getting those tires inflated. They were even offering “Obama Energy Plan” tire inflation gauges for donations of $25 to the McCain campaign. As of the writing of this post, the offer was still up:

Obama’s response to this latest bit of levity from the right was just perfect:

I’m sure you caught the “l word” in there, but if not, I’ll make it easier in my next example. The McCain campaign put out this new video today:

Here’s a piece of a Los Angeles Times article on the video and the Obama campaign’s response to it:

The Obama campaign immediately denounced the ad.

“This ad is a lie and it’s part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam,” said spokesman Hari Sevugan.

The Obama campaign has been smarting from McCain’s attack on his celebrity, which compares the Illinois senator to Paris Hilton. The charge is that Obama lacks the experience to lead the nation and is out of touch with most people’s economic difficulties.

To support its claim, the McCain campaign cites two Obama votes in favor of a budget resolution. Obama’s yes vote means he voted in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts, “effectively raising taxes on those making $41,500 in total income.”

The Obama camp has repeatedly complained that McCain is distorting Obama’s position on taxes. The vote was for a non-binding budget resolution that did not include any tax increase, though it does assume that the Bush tax cuts will end. It bears no relation to the tax plan that Obama has announced, his campaign said.

“Even though a host of independent, nonpartisan organizations have said this attack isn’t true, Sen. McCain continues to lie about Sen. Obama’s plan to give 95% of all families a tax cut of $1,000, and not raise taxes for those making under $250,000 a single dime,” the Obama campaign argued. “The reason so many families are hurting today is because we’ve had eight years of failed Bush policies that Sen. McCain wants to continue for another four, and that’s what Barack Obama will change as President.”

Finally, this isn’t coming from the Obama campaign, but check out McCain’s bronze medal win on tonight’s Countdown:

“John McCain either lies or can’t tell the difference between reality and stuff he dreamed or imagined. Those are not two good options.” I say we stick with option 1. If we start labeling these obvious falsehoods as cases of McCain getting confused, they’ll claim we’re playing the age card — the wrinkly, white-haired age card. If we accuse McCain of lying (which is what I think he’s doing most of the time, except in the cases where he starts repeating words like he’s lost his place), their only real defense will be to say that the Senator just misspoke… again. Those self-proclaimed errors are going to add up pretty quickly if they’re not willing to admit to just making shit up.