I used to admire John McCain. I am grateful for his military and civil service and for taking on his own Republican party when they were just plain wrong. But the John McCain I see in this campaign is a shell of the man I once looked up to.

His general election campaign is being run not on the premise of bringing out the best in America, but rather by playing on the worst. He has stopped being the conscience of the party and instead has become beholden to its lesser angels. It appears that John McCain learned exactly the wrong lessons from his defeat at the hands of George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary. He learned that winning at all costs is more important than how the game is played.

In that primary, the Bush campaign targeted John McCain with an underground thrust of push polls and personal smears to undercut the momentum the McCain campaign had built from beating the Bush campaign in New Hampshire by 19 percentage points. Rumors were distributed that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually the illegitimate offspring of an affair with a black woman. The New York Times reported:

Literature began to pepper the windshields of cars at political events suggesting that Mr. McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, that he was mentally unstable after years in a P.O.W. camp, that he was the homosexual candidate and that Mrs. McCain, who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs years earlier, was an addict.
“You had a sense of besiegement daily,” said Mark Salter, a longtime aide to Mr. McCain.

The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt.

“One time in Hilton Head, we chased these punks down the block who were handing them out,” said State Representative James H. Merrill, the Republican state majority leader, “and when we got to them and asked them where they got them, they said some guy in a red pickup truck said, ‘Hey do you wanna make $100?’”

The Bush campaign denied any involvement in the smears but the last eight years have since well demonstrated the credibility and integrity of President Bush and his staff. John McCain ended up losing South Carolina by 11 points. The McCain campaign never fully recovered personally or politically from the loss in South Carolina and is now generally regarded as the key turning point that led to the nomination of then Governor Bush. Since then, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made a mockery of the law, the Constitution, and sullied the good standing and reputation of America around the globe.

My personal opinion is that 21st century American history would be dramatically different had John McCain won in South Carolina eight years ago.  And he knows it also.

Since the Republican convention, Senator McCain has applied the mislearned lessons of South Carolina and run one of the most negative and personally insulting (as a voter) campaigns I’ve ever had the misfortune to witness. John McCain likes to characterize himself as a maverick and at one time that description was apt, but now it rings hollow.

Choosing a vice-presidential nominee is effectively a candidate’s first presidential act. John McCain failed himself and the nation in this task multiple ways, the least of which was in selecting Governor Sarah Palin.  Palin is clearly not even close to having the level of general knowledge, professional acumen, and thoughtfulness I expect to see in a candidate- especially one that is next in line behind a 72 year old man with a history of cancer. Her ability to think on the fly and express herself coherently is abysmal. John McCain failed in his first presidential decision not by choosing Sarah Palin, and not by doing such a poor job in vetting his VP pick, but by bowing to pressure from the Christian conservative base and not choosing who he wanted as his VP nominee.

Senator McCain wanted to choose Senator Joe Lieberman or former Governor Tom Ridge as his nominee. According to the NY Times:

But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.

Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.

With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.

Maverick John McCain failed to stand up to his own party when it mattered most. Rather than choose a vice president, he chose a running mate. For someone who claims to not be in the pocket of special interest groups, he’s given in to pressure on his very first presidential decision. He’s placed politics over country and is willing to pass the fate of the country at this historic and critical juncture into the hands of someone who is clearly in way over her head.

Senator McCain, that isn’t “country first.” That’s winning at all costs. Being beat in 2000 by a Bush campaign the believed the ends do indeed justify the means doesn’t excuse your adopting the same strategy. Experience only matters when the correct lessons are learned from it. While I remain grateful for your past service, I will not vote for a person who willingly sacrifices their integrity and their best judgement for a chance to reside in the Oval Office. We, the nation, need and deserve better.

The New York Times has begun producing a useful debate transcript analyzer. The analyzer allows you to not only view the video and transcript of a debate, but also view how much time the candidates had to speak, how many words they said, and the order in which they spoke. This tool can be used on both Republican and Democratic debates that have occurred since December 12, 2007.

One really nice feature of the analyzer is that allows you to perform a word or phrase search of the transcript which visually identifies who spoke about that subject and when. You can even jump to a section of the video transcript where a particular subject is being discussed.

For those of you who feel the Times is a biased newspaper that can’t be trusted to be fair, I can assure you the analyzer contains no comment or analysis from the Times. It is an unbiased tool that you can use to dissect the transcript and reach your own conclusions- as it should be.

The Reagan Library Republican Debate finished just a couple hours ago and even though there were four candidates on stage, CNN’s Anderson Cooper was primarily focused on John McCain and Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee twice made the point that he was not getting nearly as many questions asked of him as of the titular front runners. Cooper even cut off Ron Paul less than 30 seconds into his answers early in the debate while allowing other candidates plenty of time to expand on their answers.

The most tense portion of the debate occurred when McCain and Romney clashed over an old Romney quote about Iraq withdrawal timetables. Cooper read the quote to both candidates late in the confrontation.

Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone.

Romney was indicating that he supported a timetable for withdrawal but that it should be kept private, not publicly known, so the insurgency wouldn’t know what to expect or how long to wait it out. Both Romney and McCain distorted the quote to their advantage. Neither came out looking good though CNN polling indicated that undecided Republicans favored Romney’s reaction to McCain’s.

Romney was asked if the Republican party was weaker now than it used to be. He stated that he thought it was weaker but pointedly did not blame President Bush but rather blamed some amorphous entity called “Washington.” He conveniently ignored the fact that Washington D.C. was run by Republicans for the entire Bush presidency until a year ago.

The goal of this analysis is the same as it was when I analyzed the Republican candidates in their previous debates. I don’t evaluate the merits of the candidates’ answers because that’s for you to decide.

Because this analysis focuses on how well the candidates answer the question asked, I left out the couple times when Anderson Cooper would make a statement and then simply ask for a reaction. A candidate could burp and stare in response and that would qualify as a reaction.

I broke down the candidate’s responses into five categories and valued them accordingly:

• 4 points = clearly answered a direct question
• 3 points = clearly answered a question posed to another candidate
• 2 points = gave an empty answer to a direct question by discussing the subject without actually answering the question
• 1 point = gave an empty answer to a question posed to another candidate
• 0 points = Didn’t address the question subject at all

The Straight Talk Award for being the one most likely to give a clear answer to a question goes to…

1. Mitt Romney(77% likely)
2. Ron Paul (75%)
3. John McCain (64%)
4. Mike Huckabee (56%)

Mitt Romney earned the straight talk crown for the first time just squeaking by two-time winner Ron Paul.

The DC Shuffle Award goes to Mike Huckabee. This award is for the candidate most likely to give an evasive answer as measured by the number of times a question was either avoided or was given an empty, hollow answer.

The Penn & Teller Award goes to the one who is most likely to give the illusion of answering a question without actually doing so. I call them empty or hollow answers. And the winner is:

1. Mike Huckabee (44% likely)
2. John McCain (36%)
3. Ron Paul (25%)

The Buck Stops Here Award for never avoiding a question goes to everybody but Mitt Romney. He avoided the very first question about whether America was better off economically than it was eight years ago as if he couldn’t give an opinion because it wasn’t a reflection of his personal record. Very weak.

The Put Up or Shut Up Award for never giving an empty answer was not earned by anybody. That’s truly a shame.

The Moderator’s Pet Award for being asked the most questions goes to:

1. Mitt Romney (13 questions)
2. John McCain (11)
3. Mike Huckabee (9)
4. Ron Paul (8)

Ron Paul got very little face time with camera not only because he was asked the fewest questions but because Cooper would either cut him off when he started to expound on his position or would quickly move on to the next question.

The list of candidate websites is here and the transcript of the debate is here.

Anderson Cooper, the moderator of the CNN/YouTube Republican debate, made a point of telling the candidates at the start that they were expected to address the questions asked and not drift off onto other subjects. “Americans put a lot of time into submitting these questions. We think they deserve direct answers. ” In that spirit, I analyzed the candidates’ ability to give a straight answer to each question during the debate.

The goal is the same as it was when I analyzed the Republican candidates in their third debate and the Democrats in their previous debates. I don’t evaluate the merits of the candidates’ answers because that’s for you to decide.

I watched the debate this time and made a point of only including questions that came from video or Anderson Cooper. The candidates were supposed to limit their responses to 90 seconds when answering direct questions and 30 seconds for other responses. That got blown out of the water on the first question when Giuliani started slinging mud at Romney over the issue of illegal resident aliens.

The candidates ignored Cooper’s reminders that their time was up the entire night. It got so bad that at one point I was reminded of the school teacher taking roll call in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” as Cooper kept repeating the word “time” in monotone to candidates who just kept speaking for as long as possible. Giuliani even got booed early on when he just wouldn’t stop.I broke down the candidate’s responses into five categories and valued them accordingly:

• 4 points = clearly answered a direct question
• 3 points = clearly answered a question posed to another candidate
• 2 points = gave an empty answer to a direct question by discussing the subject without actually answering the question
• 1 point = gave an empty answer to a question posed to another candidate
• 0 points = Didn’t address the question subject at all

I didn’t give any points for clearly taking a position on a question that nobody asked or was asked by a candidate of another candidate.

The Straight Talk Award for being the one most likely to give a clear answer to a question goes to…

1. Ron Paul(100% likely)
2. Rudy Giuliani (87%)
3. Fred Thompson (64%)
4. Mitt Romney (60%)
5. John McCain & Duncan Hunter (56%)
6. Mike Huckabee (50%)
7. Tom Tancredo (33%)

Ron Paul claimed his straight talk crown for a second time and this is the very first time any candidate has answered every question they were asked with a clear answer. That appears impressive but he also was only asked half the questions that were directly asked of Giuliani who was also very good at providing direct answers. The details were sometimes lacking a bit though.

The DC Shuffle Award goes to Tom Tancredo. This award is for the candidate most likely to give an evasive answer as measured by the number of times a question was either avoided or was given an empty, hollow answer. Tancredo performed remarkably poorly considering he was given the least number of questions to answer. He was actually twice as likely to give an evasive answer than a straight one. This is a huge change from when he won the straight talk award in the last Republican debate I evaluated. Is this a sign of a change in strategy for him or just a really, really bad night?

The Penn & Teller Award goes to the one who is most likely to give the illusion of answering a question without actually doing so. I call them empty or hollow answers. And the winner is:

1. Tom Tancredo (50% likely)
2. Mike Huckabee (38%)
3. Thompson (36%)

The Buck Stops Here Award for never avoiding a question goes to Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, & Ron Paul. All the other candidates avoided one question except for McCain who dodged two questions. An example of side-stepping a question is when Tancredo and Hunetr were asked about existing legal guest worker programs but both of them spoke about illegal immigration instead. They avoided even the appearance of discussing legal guest worker programs.

The Put Up or Shut Up Award goes to Ron Paul. This award is for never giving an empty answer. Not an easy award to earn.

The Moderator’s Pet Award for being asked the most questions goes to:

1. Rudy Giuliani (14 questions)
2. Fred Thompson (11)
3. Mitt Romney (10)
4. Duncan Hunter & John McCain (9)
5. Mike Huckabee (8)
6. Ron Paul (7)
7. Tom Tancredo (6)

Anderson Cooper did a pretty good job of moderating but he kept getting ignored by the candidates when it came time for them to end their response. The debate actually ran 15 minutes longer than scheduled because of it. He did well at keeping the candidates focused on the actual question though. He threw in a dumb question at the end from a Yankee fan asking Giuliani why he rooted for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series which I left out of the analysis.

If you want to know more about any of the candidates, their websites are here.

The analysis metrics for this debate are here.

I analyzed the Democratic candidates’ ability to give straight answers to questions during the NBC debate on October 30, 2007. I have done this before with the Republican candidates in their third debate and the Democrats in their second, third, and fourth debates. There have been a few debates between then and now that I unfortunately haven’t had time to analyze.

For those of you new to this blog, I don’t evaluate the merits of the candidates’ answers because that’s for you to decide. This is about getting candidates to answer the question that is asked instead of speaking around the issue or ignoring it altogether. I review the transcript and then break down the candidate’s responses into five categories and value them accordingly:

• 4 points = clearly answered a direct question
• 3 points = clearly answered a question posed to another candidate
• 2 points = gave an empty answer to a direct question by discussing the subject without actually answering the question
• 1 point = gave an empty answer to a question posed to another candidate
• 0 points = Didn’t address the question subject at all

I also don’t give any points for clearly taking a position on a question that nobody asked.

The Straight Talk Award for being the one most likely to give a clear answer to a question goes to…

1. Bill Richardson(88% likely)
2. Joe Biden (67%)
3. Bill Richardson & Dennis Kucinich (tie 73%)
4. Barack Obama (63%)
5. Chris Dodd (56%)

This is the first time Bill Richardson has won the straight talk award in a single debate even though his previous debate performances has made him the least evasive candidate overall.

The DC Shuffle Award is for the candidate most likely to give an evasive answer. An evasive answer is one where the candidate either talks around the question or ignores it altogether. Who was biggest shuffler this time?

1. John Edwards (64% likely)
2. Dennis Kucinich (62%)
3. Hillary Clinton (55%)

John Edwards also won the The Penn & Teller Award for being most likely to give the illusion of answering a question without actually doing so. This is a surprisingly poor performance for someone who had previously been one of the most candid debater. Did he just have an off-night or did he change debate strategy?

Dennis Kucinich seems to run hot and cold with his candidness with tonight being one of his more frigid performances while Hillary Clinton, for once, was not the most elusive debater. This doesn’t mean she’s being more candid as much as it means that others are being less. She consistently gives clear answers to less than half of the questions. If she’s speaking about illegal resident aliens getting New York state drivers licenses, it gets even muddier. Even the other candidates had no idea what she said.

The Buck Stops Here Award for never avoiding a question goes to John Edwards, & Chris Dodd. Edwards mouth was moving a lot tonight but not much was coming out. Chris Dodd received so few questions that he wisely never ignored any of them.

The Put Up or Shut Up Award for never giving an empty answer went to Bill Richardson. He didn’t talk around questions. He either answered it or ignored it entirely.

The Moderator’s Pet Award for being asked the most questions goes to:

1. Hillary Clinton (22 questions)
2. Barack Obama & John Edwards (14)
3. Kucinich, Biden, & Dodd (8)
4. Bill Richardson (7)

That’s right. The most candid presidential prospect on the stage was also the most ignored. NBC clearly favored the financial front runner by asking the most questions of Clinton. She received 50% more questions that the next two nearest candidates and more than three times the number of questions asked of the debate’s Straight Talk winner, Richardson. To be fair, some of the questions put to Clinton were opportunities to rebut charges made by other candidates. Nonetheless, NBC made it was clear that if they don’t consider you the front runner or at least a first tier candidate, you won’t be given much opportunity to speak. Mike Gravel wasn’t even invited to the debate despite having attended previous ones and still is actively campaigning.

Chris Dodd’s campaign produces a talk clock on their website to track the amount of time each candidate gets in front of the camera to illustrate the inequity of treatment.

To make matters worse, Tim Russert and Brian Williams wasted debate time for everybody with three extraordinarily pointless questions to ask a presidential candidate. As a matter of disclosure, I excluded these questions from the analysis.

• Kucinich was asked if he had ever seen a UFO.
• Obama was asked if he agreed with the Apollo 11 astronauts’ belief that there is life beyond earth.
• Obama was also asked what his Halloween costume was going to be.

Fortunately Russert and Williams ran out of time before asking the candidates if they get in the shower before or after turning on the water.

If you want to know more about any of the candidates, all their websites are here.

The metrics for this debate are here.

Author’s Note: Now that President Bush is no longer in office, I have compiled an updated and complete list of what grew to be 42 Bush administration appointees who resigned in disgrace which also includes and supersedes the original list of 21 resignations contained in the post below. Click on the link above for the complete list. -Feb 11, 2009

Hardly a month goes by these days without a Bush administration appointee resigning under a cloud of controversy. So many have resigned that it actually has become difficult to remember every one of them. Some were well illuminated by the mainstream media while others were just a passing blip on the political radar. How many Bush appointees do you think have resigned under a cloud of controversy? Would you believe at least 21?

In order to refresh my memory and yours, I’ve compiled a list to track Bush administration officials who resigned under at least questionable if not dishonorable conditions. Sometimes the resignations are ethically based, sometimes legally based, and others are just a matter of sheer ineptitude.

Not all resignations are a result of impropriety and not all resignations of controversial appointees are a result of the controversy. Mr. Karl Rove has number of controversies surrounding his tenure at the White House but his resignation does not appear to be related to any them. Not everyone who has resigned will be found below. Just the resignations that were nothing but cover for being fired or attempting to escape a controversy.

The descriptions below are mostly, but not entirely, quoted or paraphrased from the referenced source reporting. This list also does not address resignations that fall outside of the scope of the Bush administration, such as those in Congress.

In no particular order, here is the rogue’s gallery.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby- Office of the Vice President Chief of Staff
As reported by the New York Times:

• He resigned after he was indicted by a federal grand jury on five charges related to the Valerie Plame CIA leak controversy.
• Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
• His sentence was commuted by President Bush shortly before he was to report to prison.

David Safavian- Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President
As reported by the Washington Post:

• He resigned and was arrested the same day on charges resulting from the Jack Abramoff corruption investigation.
• He concealed his efforts to help Abramoff acquire control of two federally managed properties in the Washington area.
• He also made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.
• Mr. Safavian was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

J. Steven Griles- Deputy Secretary of Interior
As reported by the Washington Post:

• Mr. Griles is the highest ranking administration member to be convicted as a resulted of the Jack Abramoff corruption probe.
• Pleaded guilty to lying to the Senate about his relationship with Abramoff and was sentenced to 10 months in prison and a $30,000 fine.
• An 18-month investigation by the department’s inspector general found that he had dealings with energy and mining industry clients of National Environmental Strategies Inc. even as he continued to receive payments from his former firm. The report did not accuse Mr. Griles of violating any laws or federal ethics rules.

Kyle “Dusty” Foggo- CIA Executive Director
As reported by the Washington Post, MSNBC, & San Diego Union-Tribune:

• Mr. Foggo resigned while he was being investigated for using his seniority and influence at his prior CIA job in Europe to steer business deals to his longtime friend Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman and top Republican fundraiser.
• He has since been charged with fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

Eric Keroack- Dept. of Health & Human Services, Chief of U.S. Office of Population Affairs
As reported by the International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post

• Oversaw the population affairs office which is responsible for providing women with access to contraceptives and counseling to prevent pregnancy and has a $283 million annual budget.
• Served for more than a decade as medical director for A Woman’s Concern, a Massachusetts nonprofit group that discourages abortion and does not distribute information promoting birth control.
• Massachusetts’ Office of Medicaid has taken actions against his private medical practice within the state ordering him to refrain from prescribing drugs to people who are not his patients and from providing mental health counseling without proper training.
• He resigned only five months after he was appointed.

Randall Tobias- Deputy Secretary of State
As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

• Mr. Tobias was the director of U.S. foreign assistance and U.S. Agency for International Development administrator and previously had been the White House coordinator for global AIDS relief.
• His name surfaced in connection with the so-called D.C. Madam investigation involving Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is accused of running an illegal escort service in the nation’s capital.
• He abruptly resigned and stated that he had used the service to provide massages, not sex.

Kyle Sampson- Attorney General Chief of Staff
As reported by the Washington Post:

• Kyle Sampson, proposed selective removal of US attorneys based on performance reviews pegged to how closely the prosecutors adhered to administration policy.
• Mr. Sampson strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.
• He acknowledged that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.
• He resigned after his memos outlining a political strategy for the dismissals were disclosed.

Monica Goodling- Senior Counselor to the Attorney General & Justice Department liaison to the White House
As reported by the Washington Post:

• She refused to answer questions from Congress about the U.S. Attorney firings, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
• Mr. Sampson and Ms. Goodling worked closely together on the firings, particularly in the case of an Arkansas prosecutor removed to make way for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove. Both participated in briefings for Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and others prior to testimony before Congress that has since been shown to be inaccurate.

Michael Battle- Dept of Justice Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
As reported by the NY Times & AP:

• Mr. Battle carried out the U.S. Attorney firings and had contradicted Attorney General Gonzales’ assertions that he had limited knowledge of the dismissals and that the firings were based on performance, according to Sen. Charles Schumer
• Mr. Battle told congressional investigators that a memo about the firings was distributed at a Nov. 27 Justice meeting that Gonzales attended. Battle also said he “was not aware of performance problems with respect to several of the U.S. attorneys” when he called to fire them, according to Schumer.
• Generally believed to have not played a significant role in the decision to remove the United States attorneys, although Justice Department officials said he had accepted it.
• Mr. Battle stated that his resignation had no link to the controversy. He resigned in March 2007 during the height of investigation into the firings.

Paul McNulty- Deputy Attorney General
As reported by the NY Times:

• Mr. McNulty took one prosecutor off the removal list but acquiesced to the removal of seven others, according to Congressional aides’ accounts of his private testimony to Congress on April 27, 2007.
• He blamed himself for failing to resist the dismissal plan when Mr. Sampson brought it to him in October 2006, according to associates.

Michael Elston- Deputy Attorney General Chief of Staff
As reported by the Washington Post:

• Mr. Elston was closely involved in deliberations over the fate of a group of U.S. attorneys last December. He assembled one of the lists of prosecutors to be considered for removal.
• Four of the dismissed prosecutors said they later received inappropriate telephone calls from Elston, who allegedly warned some of them that they would suffer retaliation if they spoke publicly about their firings.
• Mr. Elston and his attorney have denied the allegations.
• He resigned June 2007.

William Mercer- Associate Attorney General (Acting)
As reported by the Washington Post:

• Mr. Mercer was nominated by President Bush as Associate Attorney General September of 2006.
• He also has had a permanent job as U.S. attorney in Montana since 2001
• Mercer was accused of spending much of his time in Washington over the past two years rather than in his permanent job as U.S. attorney in Montana. Mr. Mercer spent an average of three days a month in Billings, according to testimony.
• Montana’s chief federal judge often criticized Mr. Mercer’s absences and asked Attorney General Gonzales to replace him. The attorney general refused and assured the judge in a November 2005 letter that Mercer’s appointment was lawful.
• On the same day that letter was written, however, Mr. Mercer instructed a GOP staff member to insert language into a USA Patriot Act re-authorization bill allowing federal prosecutors to live outside their districts to serve in other jobs, according to documents and interviews. The provision — which retroactively applied to Mercer’s tenure in Washington — was passed by Congress.
• He withdrew his nomination for the job just days before he was scheduled to appear at a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in June 2007 and returned to Montana and his U.S. attorney position.

Sara Taylor- Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House
As reported by the Washington Post & PBS:

• Sara Taylor resigned from her position as the White House Political Director during the height of the U.S. Attorney firings controversy in May 2007 and appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee after being subpoenaed on the matter.
• Most of her testimony was either claiming to not remember events and conversations or claiming to have to adhere to the President Bush’s claim of executive privilege.
• In a revealing moment that displayed her frame of mind about her duties, she claimed to have taken an oath to the president after which Senator Leahy corrected her by pointing out that she took an oath to uphold the Constitution and not the president.

Paul Wolfowitz- World Bank President
As reported by the CNN & the Washington Post:

• A World Bank committee concluded Mr. Wolfowitz violated staff rules when he arranged a raise and transfer for his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a longtime bank employee.
• After Mr. Wolfowitz took over at the bank in 2005, Riza was transferred to a U.S. State Department job at a tax-free government salary of almost $194,000 a year.
• Mr. Wolfowitz said an ethics panel approved the deal, but the panel denies it. An investigative committee found that the deal was a conflict of interest.
• He resigned only after the bank board accepted his contention that he acted “ethically and in good faith.”

Harvey Pitt- Securities & Exchange Commission Chairman
As reported by the USA Today & Forbes:

• Mr. Pitt’s 15 month chairmanship occurred during the wave of accounting scandals that undermined global confidence in the transparency and ethics of corporate finance and the markets in general.
• Mr. Pitt was widely viewed as sympathetic to the accounting industry and took steps to undermine the effectiveness of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was designed to prevent future corporate accounting ethical lapses.
• Selected a man to head an accounting oversight board without telling his fellow commissioners that the man he was hiring was also the chairman of the audit committee of an Internet company itself under question for accounting improprieties.
  

Julie MacDonald- Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior
As reported by the NY Times & Contra Costa Times :

• Ms. MacDonald oversaw the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
• Inspector general investigation found she bullied biologists and improperly leaked documents to friends, political allies, and industry lobbyists including the California Farm Bureau, someone at ChevronTexaco and the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento property rights law firm.
• Federal biologists will reconsider several decisions affecting endangered mice, flies and the Canada lynx after an internal review found eight instances where MacDonald improperly altered scientific findings to change key decisions made in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional offices.

Francis Harvey- Secretary of the Army
As reported by CNN & Fox News:

• Mr. Harvey resigned after reports of substandard conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a key facility treating troops wounded in Iraq, came to light.
• Troops recuperating from wounds they suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan were discovered to be living in substandard conditions in Building 18, an adjunct structure at Walter Reed that was once a hotel. There also were complaints of too much bureaucratic red tape.
• Senior defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity said Secretary of Defense Gates was displeased that the officer Harvey had chosen as interim commander of Walter Reed — Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the current Army surgeon general and a former commander of Walter Reed — has been accused by critics of long knowing about the problems there and not improving outpatient care

Donald Rumsfeld- Secretary of Defense
As reported by every news agency on the planet:

• Mr. Rumsfeld was 9 days shy of being the longest serving Secretary of Defense when he resigned.
• Numerous controversies surrounded his tenure as secretary. Only a few are listed below.
• Stated desire to attack Iraq and Usama Bin Laden at the same time in a meeting a few hours after the 9/11 attacks.
• He had a reputation for not tolerating dissent and ignoring advice from the military. This was most notably demonstrated when he publicly named the replacement for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki more than a year before he was to retire because of his public statements about the need for a much larger invasion force in Iraq than Mr. Rumsfeld wanted. This was just one of the many disagreements they shared about the Army of the future. Retired military leaders increasingly called for his resignation as the Iraq war wore on.
• The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal as well as some of the interrogation techniques used at the Guantanamo Bay military detention facility that critics charge are torture have occurred during his tenure.
• Criticism of his handling of the Iraq war has been bipartisan and has come from both military and civilian circles. The criticism has focused on Mr. Rumsfeld not planning a post-invasion strategy, making several strategic mistakes, being unrealistic in his expectations, alienating national allies, and failing to bring the insurgency to an end, if not preventing it altogether.

Michael Brown- Dept. of Homeland Security Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response
As reported by Time:

• Mr. Brown’s handling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe can be at best described as anemic and at worst as criminally negligent. His inaction and bungled actions as FEMA Director turned a huge natural disaster into a national catastrophe highlighted by bureaucratic ineptitude which led to his resignation shortly thereafter.
• He was appointed as FEMA director despite not have any significant experience in emergency management.
• He lied several times on his resume and official biography claiming to have served as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight for Edmond, OK when in fact he was an administrative assistant with no managerial duties or authority. He was a student at Central State University at the time.
• He claimed to have been a Political Science professor at University of Central Oklahoma but the university states that Mr. Brown was never a faculty member and was only a student.
• He claimed to have been a director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond yet no one in that organization has ever heard of him before.

Alberto Gonzales- Attorney General
As reported by the Washington Post:

• Mr. Gonzales resigned as a result of the controversy surrounding selective U.S. Attorney firings that appeared to be politically motivated.
• He was also mired in controversy regarding the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, his redefinition of what legally qualifies as torture, and other applications of the Patriot Act.
• He has been accused of destroying the credibility of the Justice Department’s political independence by politicizing the department’s hiring and prosecution priorities
• Repeated calls for his resignation came from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
• Mr. Gonzales repeatedly angered lawmakers by saying that he could not recall key episodes and details related to the U.S. attorneys’ dismissals, testifying nearly 70 times at one hearing alone that he could not remember specific events.
• Justice investigators have said they are examining whether Gonzales purposely misled Congress or attempted to improperly influence a witness in his employ.

George Deutsch- NASA Public Affairs Officer
As reported by the New York Times:

• Mr. Deutsch told public affairs workers to limit reporters’ access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word “theory” at every mention of the Big Bang.
• Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
• Allegedly played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.

As I suffer through the increasing obfuscation of the Bush administration, I’m looking for a candidate who can give a clear answer to a clear question. I’ve had enough ridiculous parsing of every word that emanates from the White House and the tortuous Orwellian logic used to try to convince me that ignoring the Constitution keeps me safe and that secrecy leads to liberty.

Because of this, I compiled the performance scores of each candidate in the past three Democratic debates to see if I could identify any trends. Every candidate is going to have a poor public showing at one time or another. But doing the same thing repeatedly is a trend, if not a strategy. One of the best ways to judge someone’s intentions is not to fixate on what he does in a singular moment, but rather to pay attention to what he does over a stretch of time. Once is a mistake. Twice may be coincidence. Three times is deliberate strategy.

If you want to see their performances on an individual night, here’s the second debate, third debate, and the YouTube debate.

With that in mind I created the table below to analyze the Democratic candidates debate performance across the last three events. A couple surprising revelations resulted.

One surprise was despite never having won a Straight Talk award in any of the debates, Bill Richardson has been the least evasive overall. With Richardson, you have nearly a three-quarters chance of getting your question answered. Even more surprising is that five of the eight candidates just are about as straight forward as Richardson.

Chances of getting a debate question answered:

1. Bill Richardson (73%)
2. John Edwards & Mike Gravel (72%)
3. Joe Biden (71%)
4. Chris Dodd (70%)
5. Barack Obama (64%)
6. Dennis Kucinich (59%)
7. Hillary Clinton (48%)

Hillary Clinton was clearly the most evasive. This is not to surprising considering she was the most evasive in every debate I’ve tracked thus far. The especially sad part is you have better odds of getting heads on a coin toss that of getting a straight answer out of Hillary. If it weren’t for name recognition, she wouldn’t have a chance at being taken seriously because she usually doesn’t says anything substantial enough to even qualify as an answer.

When it comes to dodging a question, Barack Obama clearly favors hollow, empty answers. In fact he favors that approach just as often as Hillary does. So what is the main distinction between them? Only once did Obama ignore a question entirely, whereas Hillary ignored nine of them. So while you may not get a straight answer out of Obama, he’s not going to ignore you either. Edwards and Gravel appear to have the same strategy.

I’ll provide the same analysis of the Republicans as soon as I have data from at least three debates.

The YouTube Democratic debate analysis is in! I analyzed the candidates’ ability to give a straight answer to each question during the debate. The goal is the same as it was when I analyzed the Republican candidates in their third debate and the Democrats in their second and third debates. I don’t evaluate the merits of the candidates’ answers because that’s for you to decide.

I watched the debate this time instead of just reviewing the transcript. I broke down the candidate’s responses into five categories and valued them accordingly:

• 4 points = clearly answered a direct question
• 3 points = clearly answered a question posed to another candidate
• 2 points = gave an empty answer to a direct question by discussing the subject without actually answering the question
• 1 point = gave an empty answer to a question posed to another candidate
• 0 points = Didn’t address the question subject at all

I also didn’t give any points for clearly taking a position on a question that nobody asked.

The Straight Talk Award for being the one most likely to give a clear answer to a question goes to…

1. Mike Gravel(80% likely)
2. Chris Dodd (75%)
3. Bill Richardson & Dennis Kucinich (tie 73%)
4. John Edwards & Joe Biden (69%)
5. Barack Obama (60%)
6. Hillary Clinton (53%)

Mike Gravel claimed his straight talk crown for a second time after a very evasive performance last time. Everybody was much more direct this time compared to the previous debate. Dennis Kucinich seems to have finally figured out that he needs to speak to the question asked and not just to his talking points and so ended up scoring much better than he had in the previous two debates. His fixation with getting people to text the word “peace” though made me start to feel like I was watching an American Idol episode.

The DC Shuffle Award for the THIRD time in a row goes to Hillary Clinton. This award is for the candidate most likely to give an evasive answer as measured by the number of times a question was either avoided or was given an empty, hollow answer. She has established herself now as the most consistently slippery and evasive Democratic candidate. The silver lining for Clinton is that this is the first time her likelihood of giving a clear answer was over 50%. In other words, prior to this debate, she would be evasive more often than not.

The Penn & Teller Award goes to the one who is most likely to give the illusion of answering a question without actually doing so. I call them empty or hollow answers. And the winner is:

1. Barack Obama (40% likely)
2. Hillary Clinton (35%)
3. John Edwards (31%)

The Buck Stops Here Award for never avoiding a question goes to Barack Obama, John Edwards, & Mike Gravel. Only one person avoided giving an answer more than once- Hillary Clinton. There were only two questions that anybody avoided:

• How many family members do you have serving in the military?
• Is it true that Democrats are putting politics over conscience out of fear they will be blamed for the loss of the Iraq war?

The Put Up or Shut Up Award for never giving an empty answer went unclaimed again.

The Moderator’s Pet Award for being asked the most questions goes to:

1. Barack Obama (19 questions)
2. Hillary Clinton (17)
3. John Edwards (15)
4. Richardson, Biden, & Dodd (13)
5. Dennis Kucinich (11)
6. Mike Gravel (10)

Mike Gravel has now had to sit through two debates to answer the same number of questions Clinton or Obama received in one debate. It is clear CNN has favored the financial front runners in both of their debates by directing the most questions, and therefore airtime, to Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Kucinich and Gravel have been largely left to warm the benches in both debates CNN moderated. In the PBS debate, all the candidates received the same number of questions and the opportunity to answer each one presented. They all had the same amount of airtime.

Chris Dodd’s campaign is keenly aware of this inequity of airtime and produces a talk clock on their website to track the amount of candidate airtime in each debate.

I find the inequity of airtime disturbing. Obama had almost 400% more airtime than Gravel. That is largely a result of Gravel getting half the questions which he then compounds further by being more likely to give direct answers.

Despite his lack of face time with the camera, Mike Gravel had the most memorable moment on the stage. Gravel became emphatic while reiterating his previous statement that American soldiers in Vietnam died in vain. A visibly angry Gravel reinforced his point further.

Only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain, it’s more soldiers dying in vain.

Anderson Cooper did a reasonable job of moderating. He was especially good at keeping the candidates focused on the actual question. He did start to rush through questions in the last 30 minutes or so as if he had some sort of quota to meet. This led to some extremely important questions getting very short shrift.

• Only one candidate was asked how they’d standardize voting forms or practices to help maintain vote integrity in national elections.
• Only two candidates were asked about taxes.
• Only three candidates were asked how they’d keep social security solvent.

Given the huge impact these three issues have on the nation, I was disappointed to see Cooper in a rush to move on to softball questions like “What does ‘liberty’ and ‘in God we trust’ mean to you?” and ” Look at the candidate to your left and say one thing you like and one thing you don’t about them.” I don’t think more than a handful of people care about such fluff but I’m sure they all care about their taxes, their social security benefits, and their vote. Anderson, don’t let the format style overwhelm the substance.
If you want to know more about any of the candidates, their websites are here.

The analysis metrics for this debate are here.

I analyzed the Democrat candidates’ ability to answer a question the most recent debate. The goal is the same as it was when I analyzed the Republican candidates in their third debate and the Democrats in their second debate. If you’re looking for the analysis of the YouTube debate, you can find it here.

Who among them is most likely to answer the question asked?

Who prefers giving hollow answers by speaking about a question but never actually answering it?

Who’s given to avoiding the question altogether?

I also don’t evaluate the merits of the candidates’ answers because that’s for you to decide.

Tavis Smiley, the PBS moderator did a hell of a lot better than Wolf Blitzer did in the CNN debates. Some of the questions could have been clearer but he made sure every candidate had a chance to answer each question and kept anyone from monopolizing the air-time. I hope PBS is also moderating a Republican debate.

I reviewed the debate transcript and broke down the candidate’s responses into five categories and valued them accordingly:

• 4 points = clearly answered a direct question
• 3 points = clearly answered a question posed to another candidate
• 2 points = gave an empty answer to a direct question by discussing the subject without answering the question
• 1 point = gave an empty answer to a question posed to another candidate
• 0 points = Didn’t address the question subject at all

I also didn’t give any points for clearly taking a position on a question that nobody asked. And now on to the awards ceremony.

The Straight Talk Award for being the one most likely to give a clear answer to a question goes to…

1. Joe Biden (67% likely)
2. John Edwards & Bill Richardson (tie 60%)
3. Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, & Chris Dodd (tie 50%)
4. Mike Gravel (44%)
5. Hillary Clinton (40%)

It would appear Joe Biden broke out from the middle of the pack last time to take the award but you would be wrong. He was actually less forthcoming in than in the previous debate (77% likely). It’s that everybody else was so much more evasive than they were last time. John Edwards tied again for second, as he did in the last debate, for the Straight Talk award. Consistency in his case is a good thing. Hillary Clinton’s consistency was not.

The DC Shuffle Award for the second time in a row goes to Hillary Clinton for being most likely to give an evasive answer than a clear one. I wondered aloud after the last debate whether her first award was just a poor showing or part of a larger trend. Hillary’s starting to appear deliberately slippery. Mike Gravel also gets the award for also being more likely to not answer the question asked. This a complete reversal for Gravel who actually won the Straight Talk award last debate. His answers are beginning to sound like those of a grumpy old man with painful dentures.

The Penn & Teller Award goes to the one who is most likely to give the illusion of answering a question without actually doing so. I call them empty answers. And the winner is:

1. Mike Gravel (44% likely)
2. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, & Dennis Kucinich (tie 40%)

The Buck Stops Here Award for never avoiding a question goes an impressive number of candidates: Nobody. This was the most interesting category this debate because every single candidate failed to discuss, much less answer, the second question.

The second question discussed what they attributed to the fact that black high school dropouts were significantly more likely to be unemployed that white dropouts. This question is clearly about racism in the workplace yet every single candidate failed to understand that. Everyone started speaking about education, how that needed to improve and what they were going to do about it. I think we can all safely assume that most high school dropouts are poorly educated but that wasn’t the subject. All the candidates heard what they wanted to hear and spoke to that instead.

The Put Up or Shut Up Award for never giving an empty answer went unclaimed again. In fact, the percentage of empty answers were about double what they were in the last Democratic debate. The hollow platitudes just keep coming in.

I’m not handing out a Moderator’s Pet Award for who gets asked the most questions because they all were asked the exact same questions. Tavis did a great job here. He also made sure that none of them dominated the airtime and that each got there fair share. Chris Dodd’s website didn’t even bother to produce a Talk Clock because of it.

If you want to know more about any of the candidates, all their websites are here.

The analysis metrics for this debate are here.

This on Think Progress:

Yesterday on MSNBC’s Hardball, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) defended Ann Coulter’s attacks on John Edwards, including that she wishes he “had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

He said that Elizabeth Edwards’s calls to stop making “personal attacks” against her family were attempts to “silence conservative voices.” He added that Coulter “is a very articulate spokeswoman for the conservative view” and “closely approaching that level of being a great American.”

Hunter makes a huge leap in logic using a slippery slope fallacy by claiming that a simple request to keep the political debate focused on the issues is an attempt to muzzle conservatives. I hope the conservative voices he is trying to protect have more to bring than simple name calling.  I also hope he is able to bring sharper reasoning to bear in his candidacy than what he just presented.

The last thing the nation needs now is a presidential candidate who’s idea of running for office involves amplifying the voices of those who engage in the schoolyard equivalent of calling someone “poopie-pants.”