John McCain

10+ Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

Posted by on April 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm. 7 Comments :

Jon Perr at Perrspectives gives us an inspired list of questions that, in all likelihood, will never be asked of John McCain in a debate or in his interview with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday:

  1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
  2. Doesn’t your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?
  3. Doesn’t your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
  4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
  5. Doesn’t your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an “agent of intolerance” show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?
  6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren’t you – and not Barack Obama – the elitist?
  7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?
  8. Didn’t President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren’t you a hypocrite for voting “no” on the Senate waterboaring ban?
  9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?
  10. With the economy tanking, shouldn’t Americans be concerned over your past statements that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should?”

My only problem with Jon’s list is that some of the questions actually address substantive issues like the war and the economy. In goes without saying that Stephanopoulos will steer clear of such inquiry. Maybe some other less superficial “journalist” will approach these items. Also I would add a few questions of my own:

  1. Since the purpose of the surge was to produce political reconciliation in Iraqi and they are no close now than when the surge began, hasn’t the surge failed?
  2. As a pro-war candidate who frequently cites his experience as a veteran, why have you declined to support the bipartisan GI Bill now in Congress?
  3. You are an advocate of retroactive immunity for telecom companies and an opponent of the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Does your relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman have anything to do with this?

Jon has details and links to source material at his site. Check it out.

God Is Not Government … Yet!

Posted by on April 5, 2008 at 3:10 am. 1 Comments :

An organization called “God Is Not Government” is placing an ad today in Arizona’s Prescott Daily Courier. It is timed to coincide with a campaign visit by John McCain. The ad proclaims that Mitt Romney is “utterly unacceptable” as McCain’s running mate and that choosing him would be a “deal breaker” insofar as their support is concerned.

The funny thing about the God Is Not Government PAC is that the name does not mean what you might expect. It sounds like a declaration of principle but, if you look a little deeper, it actually appears to be a lament. Their website describes their mission as…

“…the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.”

It goes on to state that they will not support any candidate who will not affirm that they are…

“…pro-life, pro-family and stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation.”

In other words, they are an organization that is devoted to electing candidates who are committed to bringing biblical law to Washington, DC. So if God Is not government now, it will be by the time the God Is Not Government PAC is through with it. They even endorsed the only preacher to run in this campaign cycle, Mike Huckabee.

Some of the PAC’s member organizations include religious conservative stalwarts: Concerned Women for America, Faith2Action, Mission America, Republicans for Family Values, Defend the Family, Operation Rescue, and Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich had actually endorsed Romney earlier in the primary. Ironically, it seems that Romney’s endorsement of McCain has caused Weyrich to flip.

Despite all the tongue-wagging hyperbole, I see this whole charade as a face-saving effort on the part of the social conservatives. The less-than-cordial relationship between McCain and Romney already makes it highly unlikely that McCain would choose him as a running mate. With this show of false bravado, the theo-cons can claim victory when McCain chooses somebody else. Then they can pretend to support McCain as a reward for his acceding to their demands. It’s their way of justifying the compromise of their principles for supporting the candidate they have been railing against for months.

It’s groups like the God Is Not Government PAC that inspired the prayer, “Jesus, save me from your followers.”

John McCain’s Ad: Connecting The Dots

Posted by on March 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm. NO Comments :

Upon closer examination of John McCain’s new campaign ad, some interesting messages become apparent…

John McCain's Kool-Aid

Announcer: Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield […] we’ll never surrender.

Was that McCain or Jim Jones? No matter. The ad goes on to ask, “What must a president believe about us?” John McCain believes we’re idiots whose views are irrelevant. When challenged on the state of the war in Iraq he harrumphes, “We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says.” Then he yells at the kids to get off of his lawn.

The ad closes with the redundant declaration that McCain is “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” I suppose he’s just being precise so you don’t think that he’s talking about the Swedish president Americans have been waiting for; or the American president Brazilians have been waiting for.

Maybe we should appreciate his specificity, or maybe he just needs everything explained to him twice. He’s already confessed that he doesn’t understand important subjects like the economy or AIDS prevention, and he’s clearly demonstrated his ignorance of the Middle East. If he is the president Americans have been waiting for (which should read “the president for whom Americans have been waiting”), then we have seriously lowered our standards. Cue H. L. Mencken:

“As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

I thought that applied perfectly to Bush, but McCain is rapidly becoming a contender.

The Media’s Gift To John McCain

Posted by on March 28, 2008 at 4:55 pm. 3 Comments :

What is being called the first general election campaign ad has hit the airwaves. It is a biographical ad for Sen. John McCain that features him in a North Vietnamese hospital bed. Most of the Conventional Media is reporting on this as if it were somehow newsworthy. The New York Times covered the ad’s release on its political blog, The Caucus, and they have shown the same level of cluelessness as every other media outlet. In demonstrating how little they seem understand even the simplest truisms of modern candidate marketing, they note that the ad…

“…for now will play only in New Mexico – a sign that the campaign expects that state to be a major battleground this fall.”

The Times doesn’t provide any support for their contention that the New Mexico ad buy is a sign of the campaign’s view of the state’s role in the upcoming election. They haven’t interviewed the candidate or queried the campaign managers. They haven’t provided any context such as the ranking of the state in the electoral college (36th, with only 5 electoral votes). They simply make a dangling statement that fails to inform the reader of any substantive facts, and they present it as if it were verifiably true.

And the Times is not alone. Here is how the Associated Press covered it:

“For now, the 60-second ad will air only in New Mexico – a signal that McCain plans to compete in that swing state come the fall…”

And this is CNN’s take:

“The ad will air for now in the battleground state of New Mexico […] a sign the presumptive nominee will focus heavily on the swing states this fall.”

Sound familiar? Did these guys synchronize their alibis?

The truth, however, is likely quite different than these portrayals suggest. The McCain campaign, like most politicians and interest groups these days, knows that they can purchase a small amount of airtime in inexpensive television markets like New Mexico and announce the release of the ad to the press. Then the media will dutifully regurgitate the ad repeatedly, giving the campaign what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free airtime.

The McCain people know that they can manipulate the media to serve their ends. The media knows that they are being manipulated, but they allow it anyway. It should make one wonder what these big media corporations expect to get in return for their willingness to be exploited. After all, if they declined to provide free promotion for theses ads, the candidates would have to pay for them. That means the media is not only making valuable in-kind contributions to the candidates, they are also forfeiting untold millions in lost revenue. For what?

I previously wrote about this phenomenon with some historical examples of its use. I also recommended these reforms:

  • Don’t bother to report on any ad that has not exceeded a defined threshold of paid impressions. In other words, if the campaign doesn’t make a significant purchase of air time for their own ad, it isn’t news.
  • If the ad is shown it should be confined to a small percentage of the screen with a video watermark over the whole piece labeling it is a campaign ad. This would serve to blunt the promotional value of the airing and focus on the news value.

The press needs to start thinking about ways to be better servants to the public than they are to the powerful. But first they need to acknowledge their shortcomings. For the New York Times, the AP, CNN, etc., to make the wholly unsupported assertions that they did in the articles linked above is shameful. For them not to acknowledge their role in the campaign hype is an abdication of their journalistic integrity. They know better. They just hope that we don’t.

John McCain Worries That Al Qaeda Are Democrats

Posted by on March 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm. NO Comments :

According to the latest Republican spin, an Al Qaeda attack will help Republicans – except when it helps Democrats. Throughout the past five or six years, there were numerous occasions when Republicans either promoted or invented threats in order to bolster their campaign prospects or blunt good news for Democrats. The theory being that the elevated fear factor would induce voters to cling to the perceived security of hard-line right-wingers like Bush, and now, McCain. Keith Olbermann has documented this tactic in his ongoing series, “The Nexus of Politics and Terror.” [Video below]

However, when asked at a campaign event in Pennsylvania whether Al-Qaeda might step up its attacks to hurt his campaign, John McCain said:

“Yes, I worry about it. And I know they pay attention, because of the intercepts we have of their communications.”

Al Qaeda may be paying attention, but the press certainly is not. No one bothered to ask McCain why he thought such attacks would hurt his campaign. Why is he presuming that a more dangerous Iraq would be detrimental to Republicans; particularly in light of the historical exploitation of fear for which his party is well known. After years of selling Republicans as the party that will protect us from terrorists, all of a sudden Republicans are afraid that more terrorism will accrue to the benefit of Democrats.

Actually, McCain may be delivery a generous compliment. Perhaps he is finally admitting that escalating violence in Iraq would spur the American people to support Democrats because Democrats are trusted more with national security matters. He may have just realized that the public rates Democrats higher than Republicans with regard to managing the war in Iraq. Isn’t it wonderful that McCain now concedes the superiority of Democrats?

It’s too bad, however, that the media lets McCain get away with such blatant fear-mongering. The suggestion that Al Qaeda would increase violence in order to hurt McCain implies that Al Qaeda is rooting for Democrats. But that unconscionable falsehood is only trotted out when Republican strategists think they can use it to tarnish their opponents. Then, after having done so, the same strategists fabricate threats of increased violence to tarnish their opponents from the opposite direction. The logic just doesn’t gel. If Republicans really believe that increased violence by Al Qaeda will help Democrats, how can they also believe that the increased violence will help Republicans? Obviously, they don’t believe any of it. It is political gamesmanship of the most most cynical order. It would be nice if they got called on it by some enterprising and honest reporter.

The Nexus of Politics and Terror:

John McCain’s Opposition To Fair And Balanced Media

Posted by on March 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

The past several months have seen the rise of a variety of public discussions centered on the media. The Media Ownership Act of 2007 was introduced in the Senate. The FCC held their dog and pony hearings on consolidation, complete with the mischief of Comcast paying seat-fillers to prevent critics from attending the event. Byron Dorgan authored a resolution to nullify the FCC’s gift to Big Media. And the battle over network neutrality continued as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T endeavored to violate it.

Despite this activity, media reform has not assumed a particularly visible role in the current election season. None of the remaining candidates have gone out of their way to highlight their positions on media issues. So we should be grateful that Ars Technica has done it for them. Here a few excerpts from the article:

“Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have both co-sponsored the [Dorgan] declaration along with seven other Democrats and four Republicans. None of those Republicans include the GOP’s choice for the White House, Senator John McCain.”

~~~

“…on the big-ticket broadcasting/telecom issues, McCain plays to big media and the telcos. Along with 33 Senate Republicans and no Democrats, he’s a co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently bar the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. As for net neutrality, he calls for minimal government regulation of broadband.” [News Corpse translation: Let Big Media do whatever the hell they want]

~~~

“McCain declined late last year to co-sponsor a Senate bill that would have put the brakes on FCC Chair Martin’s rush to change the Commission’s newspaper/TV cross-ownership rule. Martin got the change enacted after barely two weeks of public comment by a narrow 3 to 2 partisan majority.”

It should also be noted that the lobbyist identified in a recent New York Times article as having had a “relationship” with John McCain, was a telecom lobbyist.

To be sure, the Democrats haven’t had a reliable advocate of media reform since John Edwards was driven out of the race by the media. Barack Obama co-authored an article with Sen. John Kerry that struck the right tone, but he has not given the issue much priority. Hillary Clinton, who counts Rupert Murdoch as a supporter, drifted even further from the pack when she agreed to break ranks and appear on a Fox News-sponsored debate.

There’s still time to get the candidates to refine and promote their positions on media reform, but it will be up to the people to press the matter. That means YOU! You have your assignment.

Update: SaveThe Internet just released a video of members of OK Go testifying (and playing) at a House committee hearing on net neutrality.

Spitzer Is To Clinton As Vitter Is To McCain

Posted by on March 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm. NO Comments :

New York governor Eliot Spitzer has blown it in a big way. Anti-corruption crusaders ought not to be dallying with call girls. Ordinarily I don’t like to assign much importance to personal and/or family matters. But when a personal act is both illegal and hypocritical, it becomes a hurdle that is very difficult to get over.

That said, the media is demonstrating its customary tunnel-blindness in reporting this story. The news is less than two hours old and I have already heard reporters on CNN, Fox and MSNBC asking about the impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Why would this have any impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign? It is unrelated to policy matters. It is not something she could have known. There is no connection to her whatsoever other than the fact that Spitzer had endorsed her.

Well, I haven’t heard anyone ask John McCain about whether he has the support of Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig (R-ID). And Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), an admitted patron of Washington’s DC Madam, endorsed McCain just yesterday. Neither Craig nor Vitter have resigned their seats in the Senate.

I also have to wonder if Dick Morris, a frequent guest on Bill O’Reilly’s program, and the subject of his own prostitution scandal, will appear on the Factor tonight to discuss the Spitzer affair. While he obviously would have no moral authority to criticize Spitzer, he could at least speak from experience. Knowing Morris and O’Reilly, they would probably not even bother to disclose it.

Here’s your homework for today: Anyone who reads or hears a reporter ask Clinton about Spitzer should demand that they also ask McCain about Vitter.

The Myth Of Maverick McCain

Posted by on February 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm. NO Comments :

Myth of Maverick McCainJohn McCain’s image, as propounded by his spinners (aka: the Media) is that of a maverick who shuns political opportunists and slaps the hands of greedy, special interest self-promoters. It’s an image that gets projected repeatedly by pundits and lazy journalists whose writing seems to be on auto-pilot. They reason that if it was said it about him last year (or last century), it must be true this year as well. This flawed logic even extends to government watchdog groups.

The Austin American- Statesman reports that McCain is circulating a letter from Public Citizen that attests to his commitment to good government:

“We are compelled to note something that has been lost in the recent criticism of Sen. McCain’s association with lobbyists: Regardless of how many lobbyists are working on his campaign or raising money for him, John McCain fought for 14 long, hard years for reforms that seriously limit lobbyists power.”

The “recent criticism” mentioned is probably a reference to the New York Times article detailing McCain’s relationship with Vicki Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist. Unfortunately, the blowback on the article has been focused on the salacious shenanigans instead of the more substantive financial ones. Still, Public Citizen is articulating a surprisingly positive assessment of a man that scored only 15% on their most recent congressional voting scorecard. What’s more, WhiteHouseForSale.org, a Public Citizen spinoff, ranks McCain as the candidate receiving by far the most contributions bundled by lobbyists.

McCain Lobbyists Bundlers

Yet Public Citizen still praises McCain for his past efforts while dismissing his present indiscretions. I suppose that, once upon a time, Public Citizen would defend the Unabomber because he was once a respected mathematics professor at Berkeley. For his part, McCain dodges charges of hypocrisy by stating simply that his lobbyists are different, they’re better:

“These people have honorable records, and they’re honorable people, and I’m proud to have them as part of my team.”

Media Matters has compiled an extensive profile of the McCain team, and it is littered with political and corporate glad-handers who stand to gain much via their relationship with McCain. This is true whether or not McCain becomes president. He is still a member of the Senate and sits on powerful committees including Commerce and Armed Services.

The presence of such a large contingent of lobbyists on McCain’s payroll raises some troubling questions. These are people who don’t do anything without expecting something in return. Indeed, they have clients who are paying them to produce returns and thus have a fiduciary duty to deliver. Is the press asking that question? And what happens when these staffers go off payroll, as has occurred in the course of McCain’s fiscally-strapped campaign? When lobbyists are working for nothing to advance the interests of a powerful politician, doesn’t that at least suggest an appearance of impropriety? Given that these lobbyists earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, isn’t their unpaid work as principal managers of McCain’s campaign also an unreported contribution? Has the press addressed that issue?

The right-wing criticism of the New York Times story seems to have effectively inoculated McCain from such inquiries. Even though the critics targeted the Iseman affair, their impact has sunk down into any topic covered by the story, including the accurate assertions of McCain’s coziness with lobbyists. McCain’s initial response to the Times displayed an indignant belligerence that promised that, “We’re going to go to war with them now.” But the very next day he changed his tune saying:

“I had a press conference yesterday morning and I am moving on and am talking about the big issues […] I addressed the issue. I addressed every question that was addressed to me. And I do not intend to discuss it.”

Well, that war was much shorter that the 100 years he would have us in Iraq. However, the press must not accept his refusal to discuss the issue of lobbyists attached to his campaign. This is one of the primary arguments he makes for his candidacy, and it is at the center of the image he wants to project to voters. It must, therefore, be at the top of any journalist’s list of issues to raise with the Senator. And if it isn’t, then the press should file it’s own declaration of an in-kind contribution to John McCain and his campaign folklore.

A Valentine For John McCain

Posted by on February 14, 2008 at 2:31 am. NO Comments :

On this special day, Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, can look back fondly on a lifetime of love and romance. And isn’t that what life’s really about?

Candy McCain’s Valentine’s Day Card:
Candy McCain

Whether it’s President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Giuliani, or some poor sap at a rally, Johnny sure loves to pour on the sugar.

Too bad he doesn’t feel that way about all the soldiers that he’s so proud to have sent to Iraq.

And it’s too bad that he thinks it’s OK for them to be there for the next hundred Valentine’s Days.

And it’s too bad that so many of them will not be celebrating Valentine’s Day with their sweethearts and families because they have been sent thousands of miles away to police another nation’s civil war.

And it’s too bad that some of them will never come home or will return so damaged that they don’t even know what Valentine’s Day is.

And it’s too bad that, despite previously condemning torture, Johnny just voted to allow it, perhaps as a gift to the president he is so fond of.

And it’s too bad that this “family values” advocate, who is presently on his second wife, won’t let others celebrate Valentine’s Day because he disapproves of their gender status.

And it’s too bad that he thinks that bombing civilians in Iran is joke to be put to the tune of a Beach Boys song.

But other than that, he should have a warm and enriching Valentine’s Day in the bosom of his family and not let the tragedies for which he is responsible spoil this happy occasion.

Giuliani and McCain’s Nightmare On Pennsylvania Ave

Posted by on January 24, 2008 at 5:48 pm. NO Comments :

Rudy Giuliani, the leader of the 9/11 Generation, and John McCain, the Beast of Baghdad, are starring together in this election year’s most TERROR-ifying fright fest. Nightmare On Pennsylvania Avenue is certain to scare the daylights out of everybody who sees it – especially Democrats who are already shuddering at the thought.

Nightmare on Pennsylvania Ave

Don’t miss the extravaganza that has Bill O’Reilly saying:

“There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.” ~ Bill O’Reilly

Here is John McCain’s new ad boasting that he is the Democrat’s worst enemy:

Here is Rudy Giuliani’s earlier ad boasting that he is the Democrat’s worst enemy:

News Corpse will maintain it’s neutrality and simply concede that they are both pretty awful and they are both enemies.

Their heroes are looking more pathetic with every passing day. Huckabee props up Chuck Norris, a 68 year old high kicker who is supposed to make us vote for Rev. Mike or he’ll beat us up behind the cafeteria during recess. McCain has his own 62 year old relic who will challenge Huckabee’s champion ala Gamera vs. Mothra at the Monster Leisure World in Boca. What’s next? Illegal Alien Vs. Terrorist Predator?

Not much we can do but sit back and watch as they threaten to destroy us or each other or whoever is their enemy of the moment. It’s not art, but with a bucket of popcorn and a large soda it might just be some fun.