John McCain’s Bottomless Pit Of Lobbyists

Maverick McCainIt hardly seems that a day goes by without a new revelation of lobbyists in John McCain’s campaign. Last week I reported that, so far this year, five tainted staffers have had to resign. Still on the McCain wagon are uber-lobbyists Charlie Black and campaign manager Rick Davis. Media Matters has compiled a superb list of even more tainted McCain staffers

Now the Washington Post is reporting another unethical, and perhaps illegal, McCain relationship with a political benefactor. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has a long history with McCain. They have endorsed his candidacy for president, heralded him as a “Taxpayer Hero” and contributed $11,000 to his campaign. The Post article describes an even deeper partnership that potentially violates election law prohibiting coordination between campaigns and independent advocacy groups:

“For weeks, Republican presidential candidate John McCain had been hammered for supporting the Air Force’s February decision to award a $40 billion contract for refueling tankers to Northrop Grumman and its European partner. Democrats, labor unions and others blamed the senator for a deal they say could move tens of thousands of jobs abroad.

McCain’s advisers wanted to strike back against key Democratic critics. But they did not mount an expensive advertising campaign to defend the candidate’s position. They called a tax-exempt nonprofit closely aligned with the senator from Arizona, seeking information and help.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) partnered with Northrop and one of its consultants to produce a vitriolic advertising campaign defending the tanker deal.”

In addition to the rash of lobbyists fleeing McCain’s campaign, two of his closest allies, Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, were forced to resign their board posts at Vets for Freedom, a 527 political organization. The resignations accompanied McCain’s announcement of his campaign’s policy toward such groups:

“No person with a McCain campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate.”

On the board of CAGW, which has endorsed McCain, is his campaign’s Veterans Liaison, Orson Swindle. Swindle is a long-time friend and associate of McCain. They met as cell mates in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp where Swindle says that he and McCain “slept side-by-side for almost two years.” Politicians in bed with lobbyists? That’s nothing new. In fact CAGW has had problems of it’s own with one of lobbydom’s premier figures:

“CAGW has been criticized for accepting donations from organizations that benefit from its advocacy. Two years ago, investigators probing the activities of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff for the Senate Finance Committee examined whether CAGW advocated on behalf of Abramoff clients, including the Magazine Publishers of America, in exchange for donations. The committee concluded: ‘The e-mails show a pattern of CAGW producing public relations materials favorable to Mr. Abramoff’s clients.'”

But as far as compromised associates go, Swindle is a two-fer. In addition to being a 527 operative he is also a Senior Policy Advisor at the lobbying firm of Hunton & Williams. His specific charge is within the firm’s Center for Information Policy Leadership, which was founded to “develop innovative, pragmatic approaches to privacy and information security issues from a business-process perspective while respecting the privacy interests of individuals.” Their clients include dedicated privacy rights activists like American Express, Eli Lilly, GE, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart.

If nothing else, this election season is shaping up to be a masters course in media priorities. After weeks of perpetually looping video of Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the hysteria appeared to be on the wane. Now, as if on cue, another minister has been catapulted to stardom by news broadcasters across the land. The only talent requisite for such fame is the ability to embarrass Sen. Obama, regardless of how tenuous your connection to him.

Hiding in the wings is Sen. McCain who has had his own problems with God’s messengers. He recently had to reject the support of bigoted Revs. Hagee and Parsley, whose endorsements he had actively pursued.

The media obsession with religion is characteristically shallow. It demonstrates a tendency to cling to tabloid sensationalism rather than to provide information about matters relevant to public service. With that principle in mind, broadcasters can relentlessly hype Obama’s crazy preachers while virtually ignoring McCain’s dubious connections to the real political power players that have infested his campaign. The difference between the two is that McCain’s associates would be very likely to have real influence over policy in his administration. They would end up in cabinet positions and other appointed regulatory offices. And, of course, they would still have their lobbying portfolio which would extend all the way up to the White House.

But expect the media to continue to put the spotlight on the sideshow because, let’s face it, we’ll never have video of corrupt lobbyists prancing and wailing the way crazy preachers do.

McCain And Obama’s Excellent Adventure To Iraq

A few days ago, John McCain challenged Barack Obama to visit Iraq with him. McCain charged that, since Obama had not been there for a couple of years, he was unqualified to assess the situation. But McCain’s criticism descended into condescension and allegations of weak resolve:

McCain: “He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time,”

This seems to be a hollow complaint coming from a fellow who’s been to Iraq a half dozen times but still fails to make a correct assessment of it, and who has no problem with another 100 years of occupation. In addition to the fact that McCain’s invitation was no more than a publicity stunt, security experts agree that the Secret Service would never sanction such a trip. And if they did, what would the travelers find?

Michael Ware, a CNN reporter who has lived in Iraq for most of the past five years gives his take on the value of such visits:

Ware: And let’s not forget what do American officials get to see?

Well, they get to see the rooftops of a lot of Iraqi houses as they chopper over them or across vast expanses of desert. They get to see rooms in the inside of U.S. bases in the Green Zone, both of which are divorced from reality. And they’ll get inundated with military briefings.

Now, in these briefings, in the past, officials have been told the insurgency was in its death throes, there was no civil war, that Iranian influence wasn’t that big a problem, that Al Qaeda had been defeated. I mean, you really aren’t going to get much of a real picture. It’s almost by definition impossible.

On a previous visit to Iraq, McCain returned with the delusional impression that…

“…there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today.”

On that occasion McCain showed up in Baghdad wearing a Kevlar vest, with an entourage of 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships. The absurdity of this manufactured photo-op prompted Ware to remark at the time:

“I don’t know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.”

McCain will first have to return from his junket to Neverland, where he appears to have taken up residence, before he can go to Iraq with Obama.

Rupert Murdoch Predicts Obama Landslide

This week’s All Things Digital Conference brought Rupert Murdoch to the stage for a surprising interview that included his views on the economy, Barack Obama, and the 2008 election.

Reuters: “News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch on Wednesday predicted a Democratic landslide in the U.S. presidential election against a gloomy economic backdrop over the next 18 months.”

Murdoch referred to the current status of the nation’s electoral mood as an “Obama phenomenon” that is fueled by a weak economy. He believes that, while race will be factor, Obama has “totally overcome” any lasting impact from the issue. Asked whether he is supporting 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.”

However, when asked if he had anything to do with the New York Post’s endorsement of Obama he said simply, “Yeah.”

As for John McCain, Murdoch, who called McCain a friend, contends that he “has a lot of problems” and will be hurt by his long tenure in Washington and his association with a party that is battling a “rising political tide” for Democrats.

The surprising thing about these remarks is the abundance of paradox that envelops them. If Murdoch is sincere (not something that can be assumed), then why does he allow his networks and newspapers to spew so much vile disinformation about Obama? The endorsement of the Post, it should be noted, was only for the Democratic primary, not the general election. And the content of the endorsement read more like an indictment. To those who would argue that Murdoch doesn’t meddle in the editorial affairs of his news operations, Murdoch has just openly declared that he does, at least with regard to the Post.

Murdoch also stated that the U.S. is “undoubtedly” in a recession that he predicts will last for up to 18 months. That is squarely at odds with the position of his new Fox Business Network that was founded in part to promote rosy economic scenarios. His managing editor, Neil Cavuto, is a persistent cheerleader for economic viewpoints that are blindingly sunny.

We’ll have to see where this all leads to in time. Will it have any impact on Fox News or other Murdoch assets? His recent conversion on the threat of global warming has not filtered through to his publications or broadcasts, must of which still ridicule the notion as a hoax. In the end, this may just be a strategic move to alleviate pressure from his critics. By making statements like these he can assert that he is a political independent. Meanwhile, his media empire can continue to hammer at Democrats and progressives in an effort to manipulate public opinion. Millions more will see Sean Hannity’s disparagements of Obama than will ever hear of these remarks by Murdoch.

Stay tuned.

Barack Obama Is Serious About Anti-Trust

In a statement Sunday at a campaign stop, Barack Obama made it clear that he does not want to continue the Bush policy of ignoring, or advancing, corporate collusion, consolidation, and other anti-competitive activity.

Obama: “We’re going to have an antitrust division in the Justice Department that actually believes in antitrust law. We haven’t had that for the last seven, eight years.”

Obama specifically cited the media as an example of an area that warranted scrutiny with regard to anti-trust behavior, although the scope of his comment was much broader. He has previously addressed media consolidation via his support of the Media Ownership Act of 2007, and an op-ed he co-authored with Sen. John Kerry:

“In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented consolidation in our traditional media outlets. Large mergers and corporate deals have reduced the number of voices and viewpoints in the media marketplace.”

Taking a hard-line on matters that impact the media’s ambition to grow unrestricted has historically proven to be fraught with risk. Ask Howard Dean. If Obama intends to pursue this issue in the campaign, and in the White House, he better be prepared for the battle. Liebling’s lament that, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” has evolved in the electronic era into, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own a massive, vertically integrated, publishing, broadcasting, and Internet monopoly.”

The media can be a dangerous enemy, and any effort to take it on must be approached with an awareness of what’s at the other end of the tail you’re hanging onto.

Bush Spiritual Adviser Endorsed Obama

The media obsession with pastors to politicians has an exciting new vein to mine.

Rev. Caldwell

The picture above shows Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, frequently identified as President Bush’s spiritual adviser. He presided over the wedding of Jenna Bush on Sunday. And ….. he has publicly announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President of the United States, citing his “character, confidence and courage.”

Will the press that has been relentlessly pounding Obama for his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright (whom Obama has repudiated) be as eager to report that Bush’s pastor (who officiated at both of his inaugurations) prefers Obama to Bush’s aspiring successor, John McCain? Will they saturate the airwaves with this news? Will they even ask Bush or McCain a single question about it?

God knows.

Clinton And Obama On Fox News: A Damage Assessment

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton’s rendezvous with O’Reilly is now history. All that is left is to try to assess the damage and establish what lessons were learned.

The Damage: Bill O’Reilly’s ratings leaped 81% in total viewers and 43% in the 25-54 demo (two night average). That is a massive, though temporary, increase and it will have the effect of inflating his average over time. I’m assuming that the bulk of the new viewers were Clinton supporters, curious independents, or morbid voyeurs hoping to observe a train wreck. It is highly unlikely that these numbers will endure. Last year I did an analysis that showed that Fox News viewers were more loyal to the network and its stars than they were to Bush or Republicans: The Cult Of Foxonalityâ„¢. O’Reilly’s base audience will quickly return to normal, probably tonight. (For the record, The Factor’s ratings dropped significantly from part one of the Clinton interview, to part two. There was a 12% decline in total viewers and a 26% drop in the 25-54 demo).

However, the damage is done. O’Reilly gets his ratings spike, bragging rights, and legitimacy transferred by osmosis from Clinton. Clinton gets nothing. O’Reilly’s base audience is firmly predisposed against her. The visiting viewers have all had plenty of opportunities to see her on other networks. So if you’re scoring it’s O’Reilly: 1.2 million (viewers) – Clinton: zero.

Clinton on O'ReillyThe Lessons: Now that both Clinton and Obama have capitulated to Fox News, will Fox abandon their crusade to defeat Democrats? Hardly. Consider a couple of the classic taunts frequently leveled at Democrats by Foxies:

“If you can’t deal with Fox how can you deal with Iran or Al Qaeda?”

Now that the Democrats have dealt with Fox, will Fox announce their confidence in the Democrats’ ability to deal with terrorists and hostile nations?

“The Democratic Party is held hostage by “far-left, liberal interests groups” like MoveOn, DailyKos, and MediaMatters, who pressure them to reject Fox.”

Now that the Democrats have accepted Fox, proving that these groups are not controlling them, will Fox cease to make these accusations? Will they refrain from disparaging our patriotism? Will they stop insinuating that we’re socialists? Will they present honestly our positions on war, faith, global warming, health care, etc.?

Clearly the answer to the questions above is “No on all counts!” In fact, the reversion to form has already begun. Chris Wallace can hardly contain his glee that the Democrats have folded. This morning he explained to the Fox & Friends crew why he was in such a good mood:

“…after all the boycotting, after all the huffing and puffing, [the Democrats] have found their way to Fox News, and you know, it’s really fun to watch, and particularly to watch the heartburn among the left-wing base – the anti-war, the MoveOn.org, they can’t stand it.”

In this spew of triumphant ecstasy, Wallace has just admitted his own personal bias against a broad swath of progressive citizens. And, shockingly, it is not just a political bias. He is actually deriving pleasure from the pain of the ideologically diverse majority of Americans who oppose the war. Indeed, he is laughing at them … at us.

He also joked with F&F that John Edwards’ poor performance in the presidential race is somehow attributable to his refusal to go on Fox? By that logic, Obama’s and Clinton’s success in the race is likewise attributable to their refusals to go on Fox. They only just agreed to appear this week, so all of their prior success was achieved without Fox and, therefore, due to its Foxlessness.

O’Reilly has been in just as good a mood as Wallace.

“The greatest thing about this interview . . . is that it’s emasculated all these far-left extortion types like MoveOn and the Kos, which threatened Hillary Clinton and threatened Barack Obama and all the other Democrats.”

So the greatest thing to O’Reilly is “emasculate[ing] all these far-left extortion types.” The most fun for Wallace is “watch[ing] the heartburn among the left-wing base.” It should be noted that the number of members of MoveOn and DailyKos alone exceed the number of viewers of many of Fox’s programs. And there is much more to the liberal base than those two examples. From what part of this should Democrats and progressives draw comfort? Fox doesn’t care about the interview. They don’t care about informing the public. They only care about how badly they can cripple their enemies.

Bill O’Reilly, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, et al, were flailing pathetically when they were being ignored by the cool kids. We were having a real impact on their ratings, their revenue, their reputation, and their respiration. It was unwise to loosen the screws at this time. Hopefully, after having seen how they’ve reacted to our largess, our Democratic representatives will realize that Fox News is unfriendly and untrustworthy. They will whine about not being invited to the party, but will break all your furniture when you admit them. Then the whining will begin all over again.

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

Hillary Clinton To Suck Up To Bill O’Reilly

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton is following in the futile steps of Barack Obama after his appearance on Fox News Sunday. My analysis of that affair applies in spades to Clinton’s announcement that she will fraternize with the noxious Bill O’Reilly this Wednesday. This is what I said about Obama’s lapse in judgment:

“A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire.”

It’s even worse for Clinton. The number one priority for O’Reilly is to applaud his own magnificence. The boundaries of his ego are approaching a state that is becoming an imminent danger to Earth’s orbit. The number two priority for O’Reilly is to bash Democrats. In pursuit of that he will have an ally in Sen. Clinton. She is likely to use this opportunity to assail Obama on tangents like Rev. Wright. And if she doesn’t volunteer to do so, O’Reilly will provide her with the opening. O’Reilly’s obsession with Wright is a near fetish. He has featured the ex-pastor in 19 of his 26 Talking Points Memos since the story broke last month.

Clinton’s friendliness with right-wing media is nothing new, of course. She attended a fundraiser thrown for her by Rupert Murdoch, then was endorsed by his New York Post. She sat down with Richard Mellon Scaife, who had accused her of murder when she was still First Lady, then was endorsed by his Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Her campaign’s General Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, appears in Fox News promos lauding their fairness and balance. And now she will sit across the table from the 21st century’s Father Coughlin.

As I’ve said many times before, no good can come of this. In Clinton’s case it is even more foreboding because she has demonstrated a willingness to collude with conservative opponents for her political gain. Obama promised to “take Fox on” prior to meeting with Wallace. He didn’t. If Clinton gives O’Reilly a hard time, he will hit back, but not until after she has left the stage, and for days after that. But he will come close to endorsing her if she throws him enough red meat about Obama.

There is just no upside. Fox only exists to defeat Democrats. When will these people learn?

Spin-Com: Obama And Clinton Step Up – Media Cowers

SpinComThe propaganda scandal uncovered last week by the New York Times has been virtually blacked-out by the rest of the media – particularly television. Even though this may be the most brazen act of disinformation ever perpetrated against American citizens. Why would the press seemingly act in concert to bury this story?

It really doesn’t take much imagination to understand the panic these media outlets must be experiencing. The Pentagon-driven program of dispatching retired generals to serve as TV pundits with the intention of painting an artificially rosy picture of the war in Iraq poses a slippery dilemma. These TV networks were either pawns, dupes, or accomplices, in a scheme to mislead the country and enrich the players. Therefore, it is not surprising that the media has acted to sweep it all under the rug. To report on it would be to indict themselves.

Well, at least some of the candidates for president have finally weighed in:

Senator Clinton is very concerned by a recent press report that the Department of Defense (DOD) hid behind “an appearance of objectivity” in a concerted media “campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” The report raises issues of credibility and trust at the Pentagon.

~~~

Senator Obama is deeply disturbed by this latest evidence that the Bush Administration has sought to manipulate the public’s trust. From its misleading case to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to its argument for keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, the Administration has depended on spin because its assertions have not been supported by facts.

Both Democrats are calling for various levels of investigation. So is the Pentagon, whose spokesman has announced that they are temporarily suspending the program “pending further review.” The only candidate to fail to take a position is that straight-talking maverick, John McCain. Of course he may be the only public official who has been even more unquestioningly upbeat than the bought and paid for war spinners.

This isn’t over. It is still possible to get the press to be responsible and to perform their duty to inform the public. Write letters and emails to any national and/or local media outlet you patronize. And be sure to visit FreePress where they are collecting signatures to urge Congress to further investigate this breach of the public trust.

Barack Obama On Fox News Sunday

Obama on FoxJust prior to Chris Wallace’s interview of Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday, I argued the futility of making an appearance on Fox:

“A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire”

I was right. There were no notable gaffes or exploitable vagaries and, consequently, the interview has all but disappeared. So far today I have not seen a single clip of this program on Fox News (or any other network). This despite the fact that prior to the broadcast it was so highly anticipated and heavily promoted. After Wallace made such a big issue of Obama’s appearance, invented his “Obama Watch” countdown, and called Democrats damned fools for not going on Fox, they have not seen fit to re-air any portion of this news-making broadcast.

On the other hand, Fox News (and most other networks) have been re-playing Rev. Wright’s remarks in speeches before the NAACP and the National Press Club repeatedly all day long. That should tell you something about media priorities. Obviously the words of a controversial ex-pastor are far more important to the press than the words of an actual candidate for president.

As for Wallace’s priorities, Josh Nelson at The Seminal provides this revealing breakdown of questions he asked Obama:

  • Jeremiah Wright: 8 questions
  • Race: 6 questions
  • Reaching Across the Aisle to Republicans: 3 questions
  • The Economy (#1 issue for voters): 2 questions
  • Gas Prices (#2 issue for voters): 0 questions
  • Health Care(#3 issue for voters): 0 questions
  • Iraq (#4 issue for voters): 0 direct questions, 3 through the lens of Petraeus

Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap

Fox News has begun airing promos announcing that Barack Obama will appear this week on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday. This is a huge error in judgment and is sorely disappointing. There is literally no advantage for Obama to subject himself to the prejudices of a network that is overtly hostile to his candidacy. What’s worse is that Obama seems to be capitulating to pressure applied by Wallace himself.

Last month, in a fit of pique, Wallace launched the Obama Watch to shame the candidate into granting Wallace an interview. The whole ploy was unprofessional and innately biased as it sought to portray Obama as either uncooperative or afraid. Having succumbed to the tactic, Obama will now be interrogated by a man who has called Democrats “damned fools” on a network that is an endless loop of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers videos, when they aren’t talking about how elitist or unpatriotic he is.

At this point in the Democratic primary every appearance, every speech, every minute of a candidate’s time is precious. Why Obama thinks that this engagement with Fox in any way benefits him is inexplicable. The potential audience has little to no value for Democrats. And as the perennial fourth place finisher out of the four Sunday news shows, the potential audience is also, well … little.

My previous article, “Fox News: For Republicans Only,” shows clearly that Fox is unabashedly partisan. It’s CEO, Rupert Murdoch, is maxed out to both John McCain and Hillary Clinton in campaign donations. Nothing for Obama. For evidence of Murdoch’s hostile intent one need only to refer to his New York Post’s endorsement of Obama that reads more like an indictment. [See Starve The Beast for a detailed analysis of why it is not only pointless, but harmful, for Democrats to appear on Fox News]

This is nothing but a trap. It makes Obama look small for having conceded. It exposes him to risks from a pseudo-news operation that is working openly with his opponents to orchestrate his defeat. A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire. Look for any rhetorical slip to be broadcast incessantly on the Fox cable and radio networks. Watch for it to be published in over 100 News Corp. newspapers and magazines. Then wait for the rest of the media to pick it up and pile on.

Obama on FoxIn addition, Obama’s presence will lend his credibility to a news enterprise that has none of its own. Fox will immediately brag about having made him cry “uncle” and cite it as a victory that proves that they cannot be ignored. They may even edit Obama into future network promos as they just did with Clinton’s campaign chief, Terry McAuliffe.

We can only hope now that Obama has a change of heart or a scheduling conflict that forces him to cancel this interview. Almost any other use of his time will be more productive since this use will be only counterproductive. Fox only wants this so that they can build themselves up and tear the likely Democratic nominee for president down. No good can come of it.

Update: It didn’t take long but, just as I predicted, Fox is already bragging about Obama’s retreat. Chris Wallace responded to charges that his “Obama Watch” was obnoxious saying, “It may have been obnoxious but it was also effective.” He went on to boast that Obama must need Fox because of his loss in Pennsylvania. I told you so.