Fundraising in June: Obama Campaign, $52 million. McCain Campaign $22 million. The national committees show a different picture, however, with the Democratic National Committee having $4 million on hand, while the Republican National Committee has $68 million in the coffers.

Inflation:  The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is the most common measure of inflation, rose  1.1% in June, which means that inflation for 2008 so far is 5.5%.  For comparison’s sake, the CPI for all of 2007 went up 4.1%.  If you take the inflation rate of the past three months and annualized it, it comes to an annual seasonally adjusted inflation rate of 7.9%

Jobs: New claims for Unemployment benefits numbered 366,000 last week. The number of people on unemployment rolls is 3.12 million — the 12th straight week it has been over 3 million.

Troops: As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, suggests that he may suggest some troop pullout from Iraq in the Fall depending on the security situation, these numbers to note — Number of U.S. troops in Iraq, about 150,000. Number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, about 36,000.

Any numbers that you think we should be noticing this week?

Phil Gramm’s interview in the Washington Times has created a great deal of reaction among all media, on and off the Internet.  His bizarre statements about us being in a “mental recession” rather than a real one illustrates just how removed both he and McCain are from reality. Some excerpts:

We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said…

Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers’ biggest assets.

“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”

I am sure that with his seven-figure salary, Gramm does not feel as though the economy is in a sharp decline. But for a large portion of this country, the attempts to get by on a day-to-day basis has very real effects on their lives.  It isn’t what they read in a media that is trying to sell misery, but their own, real experiences.  Obama struck back pretty quickly:

“That’s what he said. We’re in a mental recession. He didn’t say this but I guess this is what he meant, it’s just a figment of your imagination.”

“This comes after Senator McCain recently admitted that his energy proposals for the gas tax holiday and the drilling will have mainly psychological benefits,” Mr. Obama went on. “Well, you know, America already has one Dr. Phil. We don’t need another one when it comes to the economy.”

He added, “It isn’t whining to ask for more than psychological relief.”

John McCain quickly realized the damage that Gramm’s comments could cause him and suggested that if elected the only thing that Gramm would be considered for is Ambassador to Belarus. But McCain’s and Gramm’s problem is bigger than this.  The whole shape of this economic downturn is due to a runaway, unregulated investment environment put in place by one Phil Gramm.

When asked on his European farewell Tour (though most Europeans seemed to view it as a “good riddance” tour) what he thought his legacy would be, President Bush responded:

“I want it to be said about George W. Bush that when he finished his presidency he looked in the mirror at a man who did not compromise his core principles for the sake of politics or the Gallup Poll, or the latest whatever, and you can’t lead in this world if you’re chasing something as temporary as a popularity poll.”

When I heard this, my first reaction was, What principles, exactly, are those that you were talking about? What, exactly, did he not compromise? Looking at his record, there actually are some principles that stand out:

1. What’s Good for Big Oil is Good for America — Seen as recently as this week with his call for new drilling for oil off America’s coastline, this principle includes protecting their tax loopholes, letting their lobbyists write the industry’s regulations, and making certain that their profits continue unfettered. He once admitted that “America is addicted to oil,” but his policies show that wasn’t really a bad thing in his mind.
2. A Crisis isn’t a Crisis Unless it Hurts the Republican Voting Base — Hurricane Katrina hits Democratic and poor sections of New Orleans? Look at it through an airplane window and send political hacks to do something about it. Hurricanes hit the state where his brother was Governor in 2004, and the $12 billion in federal aid was requested and delivered almost immediately.
3. You’re Either With Us or You’re Against Us – This principle, stated most clearly, is for all the allies who supported the United States after September 11th, or all the countries caught up in the maelstrom of politics before the invasion of Iraq, or just anyone who didn’t think the Bush Administration’s post September 11th “strategy.” Either you support the War in Iraq, the shredding of the Constitution, the wiretapping of American citizens, the no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Guantanamo, or you supported the terrorists out to destroy our way of life. Any questions?
4. If the President Says it, It Must be True — Bush can make statements like “The economy is strong,” ” America doesn’t torture,” “Mission Accomplished,” and “We are winning in Iraq,” and it doesn’t matter what the actual facts are — when the President tells you what is reality, there is no need to question it.
5. Loyalty Overrides Competence and Experience — When hiring people for critical jobs in the Executive Branch, look at whether someone is a blindly loyal Republican, like the 20 year olds fresh out of college sent to the Green Zone fix Iraq, or appoint people who have contributed a lot of money to your campaign, like when you appoint people to head FEMA, or just Republican hack operatives, like for your Cabinet. Competence is for wusses.

So Bush does have a legacy of principles. Not particularly good principles, but they are there. Did I miss any?

Booker T. and the MG’s:

Bush has never been accused of being too introspective, and Scott McClellan’s book emphasized how Bush is not only unreflective, but doesn’t want to hear dissent once he has made a decision. So in the twilight of his presidency, when he looks back, what does Bush regret?  In an interview with The Times he explains:

President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq…

In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”.

Right. His rhetoric must have confused us, because if it weren’t for his tone, then the world might understand that he is really, “a man of peace.” Or maybe not.

The counter to Bush’s claims that he was misunderstood and is not someone who wanted to go to war, is the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The analysis was reported out of the Committee by a bipartisan 10-5 vote. It is long and comprehensive and while I have yet to read the whole thing, there is a nice summary on the Committee’s website.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø      Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. 

 

Ø      Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. 

 

Ø      Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products. 

 

Ø      Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. 

 

Ø      The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information. 

Ø      The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. 

This of course is not surprising. It has long been documented in other ways that the Bush Administration ignored or cherry-picked the findings of the intelligence community to rationalize their own behavior. So if you look at the way the President and the rest of the Administration tried to justify an invasion of Iraq, not at the cowboy rhetoric, but just at the case that was being made as to why awar with Iraq was supposedly “necessary,” from the WMD, to connections to Al Qaeda, to the rosy scenario as to the Iraqi response to an American invasion, there is a conclusion that one could easily make… that this was a guy really anxious for war.

Miliband answers questions from Labour youth at the party’s 2007 conference.

Tariq Ramadan has been an extremely controversial figure and me posting this video does not reflect an endorsement of the full gamut of his views; I assert only that he is a provocative and important thinker.

More here.

For more information see the official website.