This Week With John McCain

It seems fitting that John McCain sat down with George Stephanopoulos yesterday on a program called “This Week,” because the name itself carries the suggestion that what you hear McCain say will only be operative for a limited time. Next week may be a different matter entirely, and last week has succumbed to history’s dust bin.

The tone of the interview was set early on with McCain answering the second question in a distinctly political dialect:

Stephanopoulos: Congress has to pass a stimulus plan for the middle class, which extends unemployment benefits, adds infrastructure funding, and sends money to the states to shore up their budgets. Are you for that, as well?

McCain: I am for keeping taxes low. I am for whatever steps we think we need to be taking right now.

Wow! So, by extension, he’s against whatever steps he thinks should not be taken. That’s a courageous stance.

It was also noted by several observers that McCain would did not look at Obama at all during the entire debate. Even when they shook hands, McCain quickly turned away. This behavior was somewhat eerie and obviously purposeful. When Stephanopoulos asked him about it he said:

McCain: I was looking at the moderator a great deal of time. I was writing a lot of the time. I in no way know how that in any way would be disdainful […] I’ve been in many, many debates. And a lot of the times I don’t look at my opponents because I’m focusing on the people and the American people that I’m talking to. That’s what the debate’s all about.

Got that? He was looking at the American people. That’s why he was unable to glance at his opponent, to whom he was presumably engaged in discourse, even once in an hour and a half. Did he have a magic mirror that allowed him to see voters in their living rooms as they watched the debate on their TV machines? Would he also decline to look at Putin and other world leaders with whom he meets in order to keep his gaze on Americans that he is imagining?

Next up, Stephanopoulos asked McCain about Sarah Palin’s assertion that she, like Obama, would approve of cross border incursions into Pakistan to target Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is contrary to McCain’s own position, though he denies it:

McCain: She would not – she shares my view that we will do whatever is necessary. The problem is, you don’t announce it.

The problem is Palin did announce it, as did McCain in the same sentence that declared that he would not. McCain further argued that, while Palin said what she said, she shouldn’t be held to it because it was said while someone had a microphone picking up what she said, and besides what she said was the same thing that he was saying and that she did “just fine.” Can we hold him to that?

McCain also defended Palin from criticism she’s received, much of it from conservatives, that she is unprepared for the position that McCain has thrust her into.

McCain: Listen, I’m so excited about the reaction that Sarah Palin has gotten across this country, huge turnouts, enthusiasm, excitement. She knows how to communicate directly with people. They respond in a way that I’ve – that I’ve seldom seen. You know, they can complain all they want to. I’ll rely on the American people.

The American people have resoundingly rejected Palin. She has the lowest favorability ratings of anyone on either ticket. And it isn’t because she is getting bad press. In fact, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is reporting that many journalists are censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they’re piling on.” He also notes that CBS has more embarrassing responses from the Couric interview that they haven’t aired. So if CBS and others in the press were more honest and candid, the public’s view of Palin would be even worse.

That’s what McCain had to say this week on “This Week.” I can’t wait to hear what he’s going to say next week.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Random Thoughts: McCain, Palin And Olbermann

Just a few things that are running through my idle mind:

On John McCain: In last night’s debate, McCain suggested that folks check the website of Citizens Against Government Waste to confirm his allegations about Obama’s congressional earmarks. What he didn’t say is that CAGW is a McCain front group that has endorsed him for president, donated $11,000.00 to him or to PACs he controls, and is run by Orson Swindle, a long-time associate and an adviser to his campaign. Not exactly a neutral source, eh John?

On Sarah Palin: Did you all notice that Palin was AWOL for the post-debate commentary last night? Joe Biden appeared on every broadcast and cable news network, as VP candidates traditionally do following presidential debates. Palin appeared on none. The McCain camp must be terrified of her slipping out of her cage.

On Keith Olbermann: It just occurred to me that Olbermann has been mocked mercilessly by rightist pundits and bloggers as nothing more than a glorified former sportscaster. I wonder why they don’t direct that same ire toward Sarah Palin, who holds a degree in journalism and pursued a career as a sportscaster in her early professional life. If they think that Olbermann is unfit to be a political commentator based on his sports background, then surely they must think that Palin is similarly unfit to be vice president. Either that or they think that Olbermann would make a great VP.


Cafferty To Blitzer: Don’t Make Excuses For Her (Sarah Palin)!

This has to be enshrined as one of the premiere moments in television news.

CNN’s Jack Cafferty rolled tape of Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. Couric asked Palin about the expense of the White House’s Wall Street bailout proposal. Palin gave a rambling and non-responsive answer. But what came after is even more startling.

When the camera returned to Cafferty he merely stared into it for a few profound seconds and then said that that was one of the most pathetic things he has ever seen. He said if you aren’t afraid that she is a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency, you should be.

Then Wolf Blitzer tried to cover for Palin by saying that she was just trying to squeeze a lot into her answer. To which Cafferty replied:

“Don’t make excuses for her. That was pathetic.”

Cowed, but still deferential, Blitzer said it wasn’t one of Palin’s best moments. Does anyone have an example of one of Palin’s best, unscripted moments?

This is more evidence for why it so important for McCain to loosen the chains on Palin and let her speak. Most of the media doesn’t have the honesty and courage of Cafferty. But our nation’s future is riding on this: The Palin Watch

Addendumb: Later on Blitzer’s program he interviewed Lou Dobbs about tonight’s debate. Dobbs defied the reality that he is an anchor for one of the most prominent news enterprises in the world when he said…

“Imagine what it would take for the liberal national media to declare McCain the winner.”

Did he mean the same liberal national media for whom he works? Or maybe Fox News? Or GE, or Disney, or Viacom, or Simmons, or Comcast, or Tribune, or AP, or ….. ? The same media that employs Blitzer, Palin’s official apologist? Besides, Dobbs must not have heard that McCain won the debate before it even started.


Free Sarah Palin From Rupert Murdoch!

While John McCain is consumed with personally resolving the nation’s financial crisis, Sarah Palin is cavorting with the glamor set (elitist?) and the uber-conservative media barons who are propping up the Republican ticket:

“Sarah Palin schmoozed with controversial media tycoon Rupert Murdoch at a swanky charity gala here Wednesday night.”

And just because I may have to much spare time on my hands:

Free Sarah Palin

Silence of the Palins

As for John McCain’s promise to suspend his campaign so that he can concentrate on saving America by bailing out Wall Street … like much of what McCain says, it isn’t true:

McCain ads are still running.
McCain’s surrogates are still making the rounds on TV.
McCain is still scheduled to attend a Beverly Hills fundraiser Wednesday.

So much for saving America. Perhaps these campaign commitments are why he doesn’t have the time to debate Barack Obama tomorrow.


McCain Proposes Suspending Campaigns To Address Economy

John McCain has announced that he is suspending his campaign in order to return to Washington to help pass legislation on the financial bailout. He is characterizing this political stunt as a way of avoiding political stunts. In fact, Barack Obama’s team reportedly called McCain’s camp this morning to discuss issuing a joint statement, to which McCain agreed. But McCain then stole the ball and ran down field with it in an attempt to score all of the points for himself. So McCain wants to get away from partisanship by reneging on his agreement with Obama and returning to Washington, DC, where there is never any partisanship?

In addition to the suspension of campaign activity (which subsequent reporting suggests may just be dropping TV ads), McCain is proposing that the debate scheduled for Friday be postponed. He argues that the economy is too important not to take this step. McCain is right that the financial problems we are facing are important, but so is electing the next president. I don’t see how participating in the debate would throw the economy into a tailspin. And if you can’t participate in congressional actions in the daytime and show up for a debate in the evening, then you aren’t fit to president – a job that requires multitasking. The presence of the candidates in DC can be useful to focus attention, but they are not critical to the sausage-making process. They should lead by articulating direction and vision. What better place to do that than a nationally televised debate?

At this point, it appears that Obama wants the debates to proceed: Obama Camp: ‘The Debate is On’ That is exactly the right response. Let’s hope it sticks.

Update: Obama made a statement on the financial crisis and presented a timeline that shows that he was indeed the one who initiated the discussion. He thought that McCain was considering the things they discussed, but instead McCain went on TV with his statement, betraying the notion of bipartisanship.

With regard to the debates, Obama confirms that he thinks it is more important than ever to present themselves to the American people. He said that they ought to be able to deal with more than one thing at a time.


Part two is here.

I think it is also significant that after McCain made his statement, he scurried hurriedly out of the room. Obama stayed and took questions from the press, as a responsible leader would do.

Update II: The McCain campaign is now proposing that the first presidential debate occur on October 2, the date presently set for the vice presidential debate. The VP debate would then occur on a later, undetermined date.

If McCain really wants to move the presidential debate to Oct 2, why doesn’t he just suggest swapping the events and have the VP debate this Friday? Surely the economic bill can be written without Palin and Biden. The preparations, the venue, the personnel, and the media are already in place. And there is precious little time to reschedule the VP affair before the election on November 4. This seems to be a wholly transparent attempt to further avoid exposing Sarah Palin to any public scrutiny. She must really be failing miserably in her practice sessions.

Update III: McCain retreats! The debate is on. So I guess the financial crisis has been resolved (not). His statement contained these contradictions:

“There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress.” And… “He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement…”

He also said that he is resuming all campaign activities, which, of course, he never actually stopped.


CNN’s Campbell Brown: Free Sarah Palin

It would be a mistake to get too bogged down on the Republican spokesmodel for vice-president, Sarah Palin, but this commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown is notable for diving straight to the point:

This is also notable because Brown herself has not been a particularly bright light in the media sky. She has a history of leaning rightward in her reporting and is married to former Bush flack Dan Senor. But giving credit where it’s due, Brown has nicely summarized an argument not often heard with regard to the sequestration of Palin from the press – sexism:

“Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. […] Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one.”

The only problem with Brown’s demand is that the reason the Palin/McCain camp is treating Palin like she may wilt is because that’s what they are afraid she will actually do. They have calculated the risk of keeping her closeted with the risk of letting her out and concluded that they must keep that door shut tight.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Palin/McCain Camp Bars Press From UN Meetings

Continuing their strategy of stonewalling the media, Palin and McCain are refusing to admit reporters into the meetings that Palin has scheduled at the United Nations. Palin’s UN visit includes chats with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The campaign is hoping to enhance her foreign policy cred by having her spend a few minutes with a couple of U.S. allies.

Whatever public relations boost they intended to score with this stunt is going to be severely limited by the fact that they consider the press to be persona non grata. According to the AP:

“The campaign told the TV producer, print and wire reporters in the press pool that follows the Alaska governor that they would not be admitted with the photographers and camera crew taken in to photograph the meetings. At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected and were told that the decision was not subject to discussion.”

CNN, whose camera crew were assigned to cover the event for television news organizations, threatened to pull out of this sham photo opportunity if their producer (who is also a reporter) was not allowed in. As that would have denied Palin the all-important TV exposure for which these events are staged, the campaign relented (I guess the decision was open to discussion after all). But he will still not be allowed to ask any questions.

Without submitting to questions from the press, Palin’s tea party does nothing to inform her or the public. She is no more a foreign policy expert today than she was yesterday, and voters are no better acquainted with her qualifications to be vice president. Of all the questions that won’t be asked, there is one that is rising in urgency: What are they afraid of?


Rupert Murdoch: True To Form

Last May News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch attended the All Things Digital Conference and made a few headlines with his commentary on the presidential election:

[Murdoch] on Wednesday predicted a Democratic landslide in the U.S. presidential election against a gloomy economic backdrop over the next 18 months.”

That sort of talk had some folks wondering if the old fella was growing a soul. Could the uber-rightist media monarch be ever so slightly scooting over to the left? Asked directly whether he is supporting Barack Obama (like his daughter, Elisabeth) he said:

“I’m not backing anyone, but I want to meet Obama. I want to know if he’s going to walk the walk.”

Since then, Murdoch has met Obama. It should be noted, however, that on that occasion the purpose was primarily to persuade him to appear on Fox News. It was therefore imperative that he pour on the charm while appearing to be neutral. Subsequent to achieving his goal, Murdoch is now publicly displaying his expected preference for leader of the free world (other than himself), and it’s the Republican, John McCain:

Breaking down Murdoch’s reasons for supporting McCain, it seems to be primarily an anti-Obama decision as he never overtly praises McCain. Still it is perplexing given the facts. He says that Obama will:

  • “…give us a lot of inflation.” Never mind that inflation right now is at it’s highest level since 1991. At that time 17 years ago, Bush, Sr. was just wrapping up his term in office. Like father like son.
  • “…ruin our relationships with the rest of the world.” If that does not immediately invoke guffaws given the world’s perception of America under George W. Bush, then note this poll that shows that “Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries.” 46% said that relations would improve with an Obama win, only 20% held that view for McCain. Those numbers parallel American’s attitudes as well (46% Obama/30% McCain).
  • “…find companies leaving this country.” As if they haven’t been leaving in droves throughout the Bush years. Forrester Research projects a loss of 1.2 million jobs to foreign soil for 2008, increasing to 3.4 million by 2015.

To an objective observer the facts support precisely the opposite conclusion to which Murdoch has arrived. Nevertheless, the septuagenarian media mogul hangs unto his opinion that it is Obama, and not the Bush/McCain cabal, that threatens the nation’s future. That’s evidence of just how confined he is by his partisan worldview. He goes even further to tar Obama with the crusty old conservative slander that…

[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Coming from an old fashioned, 1940’s fascist, I suppose we’ll need to take that with a pound or so of salt.

Anyone who might have thought that Murdoch’s remarks last May signaled a shift in his political ideology may now return to their senses. He is as much a right-wing propagandist as he ever was, and he isn’t shy about it either. This appearance on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” is one of many that he has booked for himself. To underscore how peculiar that is, try to recall the last time that the CEOs of GE/NBC, Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, or Time Warner/CNN, appeared on their own news programs. They are rarely, if ever, guests, and certainly not even close to the frequency with which Murdoch pastes his face on his air.

This most recent booking appears to have been scheduled exclusively to disparage Obama just as the electoral momentum is shifting in his direction. The looming financial crisis has focused the campaign dialog back onto issues as opposed to personalities, and Murdoch wasn’t going to sit still for that. The trivialities and tabloidism that is Murdoch’s stock in trade just happens to advantage McCain, whose campaign relies on shallow griping about celebrities and lipstick. So he goes on Cavuto’s show, calls Obama a naive socialist, enumerates reasons to vote against him that are actually reasons to vote against McCain, and concludes the interview by plugging his new and struggling Fox Business Network.

That’s Rupert Murdoch in a nutshell: An arch-conservative, self-serving, greedy, monopolistic, liar. And always true to form.


Update On Journalists Arrested At Republican Convention

At the Republican National Convention in Minnesota this month, there was an unprecedented assault on freedom of the press as dozens of journalists were arrested along with the protesters they were covering. Those arrested included members of local broadcast media, the Associated Press, and mainstream newspapers, along with alternative media and Internet news sites.

The actions of law enforcement in St. Paul were thoroughly unjustifiable and smacked of police state suppression of free speech. It is a black mark on the city’s reputation, and the fact that it was done with the cooperation of the Republican Party doesn’t say much for their commitment to the First Amendment either.

Today Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul announced that the city will decline to prosecute all misdemeanor charges against journalists arrested during the convention. While dropping these charges is the only acceptable course of action, Coleman still believes that the arrests were proper and in the interests of the community. He asserts that “the police did their duty in protecting public safety.” (Exactly who in the public did Coleman think the journalists were threatening?) Nonetheless, he heaps praise on himself for reversing the police on their arrest authority.

“This decision reflects the values we have in Saint Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. A journalist plays a special role in our democracy and that role is just too important to ignore.”

If this is an example of how St. Paul protects and promotes the First Amendment, it is a sad commentary on their understanding of the Constitution. Dropping these charges is not a demonstration of principle. It is merely a correction of prior misbehavior. And it does nothing to undo the damage caused by the detentions in the first place.

If the reason for arresting the journalists was to limit the free distribution of information from the convention site, and there is no other plausible reason, then their mission was accomplished. Reporters cannot post stories from jail. By releasing them after the event was concluded they were effectively silenced. Whatever news these reporters might have gathered and supplied to the public is forever lost.

Another deficiency in Mayor Coleman’s statement is language that calls into question who will be cleared and what defines a journalist:

“The decision will only affect people identified as journalists who face the misdemeanor charge. Recognizing the growing media profession in print, broadcast and the Internet, the city attorney’s office will use a broad definition and verification to identify journalists who were caught up in mass arrests during the convention.”

What these means is that any person that doesn’t meet the city’s definition of a journalist, or any journalist the city chooses to indict on charges higher than a misdemeanor, is exempt from this absolution. This interpretation directs the power back to the government and away from the Constitution. It would be far too easy to apply these vague rules arbitrarily in order to harass selected individuals whom the government dislikes.

If the city of St. Paul faces no consequences for their repressive tactics, then they and other government bodies will have a green light for future clampdowns on lawful, Constitutionally protected activities. Hopefully one or more of these journalists will file suits for false arrest and violations of their Constitutional rights. At this point the courts are one of the few remaining paths left to affirm the principle of a press that is unshackled from government control.

Also on the path are the ACLU and Free Press. They are both in hot pursuit of truth and justice in this affair. Feel free to help them out.


Jill Greenberg’s Extra-Real Photos Of John McCain

On assignment for Atlantic Monthly Magazine, photographer Jill Greenberg took a series of pictures of John McCain. In the course of the photo shoot she asked McCain to pose for a set that she had deliberately designed to light him in manner that produced a more sinister, some might say more realistic, appearance. She later delivered the commissioned pictures to the Atlantic and took the others back to her studio for some Photoshop fun. Here are few of the results (and here are the rest):

imagebam.comimagebam.comimagebam.comimagebam.com

Needless to say, this caused an uproar in conservative circles amongst a bunch of hypersensitive hypocrites who oppose freedom of expression.

First of all, Greenberg is a superlative artist with a unique and evocative voice. She has a long record of quality work and a portfolio brimming with inspired imagery. She is also an avowed liberal and has produced work in the past that has attacked Republicans, particularly George W. Bush. That’s not a crime. That’s a civic duty. I myself have quite a collection of political graphics that are sure to offend somebody. The photographs presented in this series are akin to the political cartoons and editorial graphics that have long been a part of our political culture.

However, she is now coming under assault by elements of the right wing media who fault her for “deceiving” the hapless Republican nominee for president of the United States. The fact that he can be so easily duped is perhaps another argument that he is unfit to serve in the White House. Fortunately, he does have the media machine of Rupert Murdoch to run interference for him.

Murdoch’s New York Post (which endorsed McCain) published an article on the photos with a headline that declared Greenberg a “Mac Hater” and criticized her for not airbrushing McCain’s weathered skin and reddened eyes enough. Since when is it a photographer’s responsibility to sweeten a subject’s image, particularly when used as photo-journalism? Ironically, the Post is complaining that Greenberg failed to manipulate the photo in a column where they are chastising her for manipulating photos.

The Atlantic’s editor, James Bennet, appeared on Murdoch’s Fox News to disassociate himself from Greenberg, to threaten that he may sue her, and to announce that he has drafted a letter of apology to McCain. The FoxNews.com article on Bennet’s TV segment took a similar approach to the Post’s, but with an even more tortured spin on what constitutes photo manipulation:

“Greenberg said that the cover shot for The Atlantic article was manipulated to leave McCain’s eyes red and skin looking bad.”

It seems to me that “…manipulated to leave…” alone is another way of saying “not manipulated.” It’s a little like saying, “The appendectomy was performed to leave the appendix where it was.” In other words, there was no appendectomy.

This rhetorical device is a staple of conservative thinking. The notion that something can be altered in order to keep it the same can be observed by anyone following the 2008 presidential election. You hear it every time McCain says “Vote for me if you want change.” Translation: Vote for me if you want another four years of Bush – if you want more of the same.

The hypocrisy of the Murdochites is glaringly present in their selective outrage. Just two months ago Fox News was itself embroiled in a Photoshop controversy. During a segment of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade mocked Jacques Steinberg and Steven Reddicliffe of the New York Times, and featured photos of them that had been digitally altered to create humiliating caricatures. What makes this far worse than the Atlantic incident is that Fox News broadcast their mockery on national television, while Greenberg reserved her pieces for her personal website. None of the Murdoch items, in print or on air, mentioned their own history of photo manipulation.

The big, unmanipulated picture here is that Greenberg is a courageously outspoken artist who is yet another victim of the Dark Agists who seek to stifle free speech. For her trouble she has been dropped by her agency (she says she quit), and is facing litigation. In my view she should be admired for her talent and applauded for her efforts on behalf of creative freedom for all artists and those who love art and, of course, freedom. Remember freedom?

Update: Jill Greenberg has some new photos of Glenn Beck.