Ariana Huffington recently reported John McCain told her that he did not vote for Bush in the 2000 election and that he only nominally supported his run out of obligation to the GOP.
While McCain quickly denied the story, it was confirmed by several sources at the party, including, get this: two cast members from the presidential drama The West Wing. Jed Bartlet for president!
Even without confirmation, I don't know that I would've denied the story so quickly. Bush's campaign made some shockingly nasty attacks on McCain and his family in the run-up to that election including accusing him of being crazy and fathering an illegitimate black child. Talk about putting swiftboaters into context!
With Bush's approval ratings falling to historic lows, rejecting the current administration may be McCain's only chance.
There's a lot of talk lately that Clinton's supporters will shun the polls if she doesn't get the nomination and vice versa. Can John "McGain" from the animosity?
Let's say Clinton is Democratic nominee. How can McCain capture disaffected black voters? Well, his association with Bush isn't going to help.
"You would have to get a really finely tuned GPS to find any African Americans who approve of Bush," David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Economic Studies, told me.
In fact, the headline of a recent Gallup poll says it all: "Bush May Be as Harmful to McCain as Wright is to Obama."
And what about the more likely alternative of Obama being the blue candidate?
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women wrote in a recent "Below the Belt" column:
"What if we end up with a Bush sequel that looks frighteningly like the last eight years? If Sen. John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, he will carry on Bush's tradition."
Considering she refers to the Bush administration as the "Conservative Misinformation Network," it's safe to say she'll make it to the polls for the Dems even if Clinton isn't the nominee.
It may turn out to be impossible for McCain to remove himself from the Bush hook.
"The Democrats have no intention of letting him put any distance between himself and Bush," said Bositis. Not only that, Bush lovers may be McCain's only chance. "If he doesn't have their support, he doesn't have any at all."
However, this alliance may a "what have you done for me lately?" case.
As I've written previously, the "campaign finance candidate" is in a fair amount of campaign finance trouble. Not the Clinton kind of trouble, mind you. Quite the opposite, McCain might have too much money. The FEC is due to rule on whether McCain can eschew the public funds he asked for when his campaign was desperate for money.
The FEC hasn't been able to rule on it, however, because they didn't have enough members to reach a quorum. McCain appealed to Bush to restock the FEC so that the matter can be resolved. Bush complied, with a cherry on top: he dumped chairman David Mason, who had indicated he didn't see things the way McCain would like.
If Bush can't get McCain any votes in the electoral college, perhaps the FEC is the next best thing?
Well, let's just say the FEC is no Florida.
"This election is going to be about a referendum on George Bush and Bushism," said Bositis. "And it's going to be a negative verdict."
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
For the Nina Totenberg in you
There's a whole slew of code phrases put out by presidential candidates to hint at their potential impact on the long form institution of the Supreme Court: litmus tests, constructionist judges, legislating from the bench, etc. McCain, in his search for a base, however, doesn't mince words.
He's said he believes in "judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are our true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."
Also, the "Maverick" seems content to tow the party line when it comes to approving whomever Republican presidents nominate for the court. He even went so far as to vote in favor of the doomed nominee Robert Bork.
However, McCain made somewhat of a surprising announcement about his judicial views on Monday. Maybe it was just because he was addressing journalists at the annual Associated Press luncheon, but he offered tentative support for a federal shield law protecting journalists and the right to maintain confidential sources. He said that, though he's had a "hard time deciding," he "would vote yes" if the proposal reaches a vote in the Senate because it has a provision for national security.
"This is why judicial appointments are so important," McCain said.
Well, that's why journalists think judicial appointments are important. I'd bet Gloria Steinem and Pat Robertson would say there's a more important judicial issue...
Anyway, McCain didn't seem to feel like he was overstepping his bounds in legislating to judges, saying he thought the bill "gives them the guidance most judges would like to have."
His support puts him at odds with the President, who threatened to veto the bi-partisan legislation. I guess that's what distinguishes a senatorial candidate for president from a gubernatorial one. McCain seems happier to hand down legislation to "guide" judges that he is to pick out the actual judges himself.
Speaking of senatorial candidates for president, Obama and Clinton are already sponsoring the bill. So, no matter who makes it to the White House next January, us journalists at least have some lip service coming our way. I wonder if that's contingent on us behaving ourselves during the rest of the election cycle?
He's said he believes in "judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are our true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."
Also, the "Maverick" seems content to tow the party line when it comes to approving whomever Republican presidents nominate for the court. He even went so far as to vote in favor of the doomed nominee Robert Bork.
However, McCain made somewhat of a surprising announcement about his judicial views on Monday. Maybe it was just because he was addressing journalists at the annual Associated Press luncheon, but he offered tentative support for a federal shield law protecting journalists and the right to maintain confidential sources. He said that, though he's had a "hard time deciding," he "would vote yes" if the proposal reaches a vote in the Senate because it has a provision for national security.
"This is why judicial appointments are so important," McCain said.
Well, that's why journalists think judicial appointments are important. I'd bet Gloria Steinem and Pat Robertson would say there's a more important judicial issue...
Anyway, McCain didn't seem to feel like he was overstepping his bounds in legislating to judges, saying he thought the bill "gives them the guidance most judges would like to have."
His support puts him at odds with the President, who threatened to veto the bi-partisan legislation. I guess that's what distinguishes a senatorial candidate for president from a gubernatorial one. McCain seems happier to hand down legislation to "guide" judges that he is to pick out the actual judges himself.
Speaking of senatorial candidates for president, Obama and Clinton are already sponsoring the bill. So, no matter who makes it to the White House next January, us journalists at least have some lip service coming our way. I wonder if that's contingent on us behaving ourselves during the rest of the election cycle?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Flogette
What if I were a Meghan whose dad was running for president? What would my blog look like if I had a professional photographer and producer working on it? What if, instead of a career in journalism, I was hoping to create my own line of couture fashion?
Me, my blog and I might look a little more like John McCain's daughter, Meghan and her online venture.
Even though we have the same first name (hey, most people spell it Megan!) she and her blogettes declined to answer my request for an interview. Or even an email. Here are my impressions anyway:
I could live without her music recommendations. There are too many photos and her captions leave much to be desired ("Zack Pack has the best name ever" or "We ate Chick-fil-A for lunch (My fav!)" or "I've always loved swings at a playground").
On March 10th, Meghan's post started like this:
"As you may have noticed, I seldom use the Blogette as a medium to discuss social or political issues unless I feel particularly compelled to do so. This is one of those times."
OMG!! What is she going to talk about? Maybe she's going to talk about an actual issue like abortion or the war or immigration or something besides fashion and make-up tips? Is she finally gonna call out the New York Times for what they said about her dad?
[the night the NYT story broke she wrote, "Having grown up in politics, I know it's an industry that, for all intents and purposes, is known for being dirty and cruel," and did not mention the story specifically...unlike me]
No. She was upset about people on the campaign trail criticizing her weight. The last straw was someone handing her a business card for a liposuction professional. Honestly, I agree that such behavior is disturbing. Kudos to her pride in her curves. I just wish she hadn’t announced it with such gravity. Her self image is not a “social or political issue;” it’s a personal one.
Politics is a cruel "industry." And if you don't give people something substantive to criticize, like your policy views, people start making fun of your pantsuits.
Me, my blog and I might look a little more like John McCain's daughter, Meghan and her online venture.
Even though we have the same first name (hey, most people spell it Megan!) she and her blogettes declined to answer my request for an interview. Or even an email. Here are my impressions anyway:
I could live without her music recommendations. There are too many photos and her captions leave much to be desired ("Zack Pack has the best name ever" or "We ate Chick-fil-A for lunch (My fav!)" or "I've always loved swings at a playground").
On March 10th, Meghan's post started like this:
"As you may have noticed, I seldom use the Blogette as a medium to discuss social or political issues unless I feel particularly compelled to do so. This is one of those times."
OMG!! What is she going to talk about? Maybe she's going to talk about an actual issue like abortion or the war or immigration or something besides fashion and make-up tips? Is she finally gonna call out the New York Times for what they said about her dad?
[the night the NYT story broke she wrote, "Having grown up in politics, I know it's an industry that, for all intents and purposes, is known for being dirty and cruel," and did not mention the story specifically...unlike me]
No. She was upset about people on the campaign trail criticizing her weight. The last straw was someone handing her a business card for a liposuction professional. Honestly, I agree that such behavior is disturbing. Kudos to her pride in her curves. I just wish she hadn’t announced it with such gravity. Her self image is not a “social or political issue;” it’s a personal one.
Politics is a cruel "industry." And if you don't give people something substantive to criticize, like your policy views, people start making fun of your pantsuits.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
McMarketing
This past Sunday, I was listening to the Tavis Smiley Show and his first guest was none other than Sen. John McCain (via telephone).
They talked about the economy, the war, media coverage...then McCain brought up the African American community, asking if Smiley minded if he switched gears.
Well, we all knew Tavis was going there, and the host said as much himself. "But go ahead," he told the Republican candidate.
"I'm a realist. I know I'm not going to get a majority of the African American vote," McCain conceded. "But I'm going to go all around this country...I'm gonna fight for their votes."
Smiley acknowledged that McCain has been on the right side of several issues of concern to the Black community, mentioning his support of the MLK holiday in Arizona and his views on immigration reform. But Smiley made a thinly-veiled reference to McCain's willingness to switch sides.
"I've said before, if this John McCain shows up...he has something to say to Black America," Smiley told McCain.
"There really isn't much that Sen. John McCain can do to convince Black voters to vote for him," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "The Democratic Party has spent the past 40 years convincing them Republicans are the racist party, when really it's the exact opposite."
Though she says her organization doesn't endorse specific candidates, she told me they support all Republicans and that they might even change their stance this year and endorse McCain.
"We may decide that this is a good year," she said.
...if the "right" McCain makes an appearance? I have a feeling her idea of the right McCain and Smiley's might differ. Now, if Bush's McCain shows up...
How about some electoral history?
Bush got 11 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and 9 percent in 2000. And this is the guy who ignored the country's premier civil rights organization until 2006!
Going back to the B.W. ("before Dubya") era, Republicans scored 12 percent in 1996 and 10 percent in 1992. But these numbers are even more shocking when you consider America's "first Black president" only got 83 and 84 percent in those two elections, significantly less than both Gore and Kerry (Perot stole a good share of the African American vote both years-7 and 4 percent, respectively). I am really more surprised by George W.'s success with the Black vote than Clinton's failure, however. Not that I'm an identity voter, but it would piss me off if a male candidate that only goes to church every once in a while was billed as America's first woman or agnostic president...
In all, I think Tavis got it right. Support the right issues and you'll get the votes you deserve. Identity politics is so out of style. Or if it's not yet, it will be by the time we get to November.
They talked about the economy, the war, media coverage...then McCain brought up the African American community, asking if Smiley minded if he switched gears.
Well, we all knew Tavis was going there, and the host said as much himself. "But go ahead," he told the Republican candidate.
"I'm a realist. I know I'm not going to get a majority of the African American vote," McCain conceded. "But I'm going to go all around this country...I'm gonna fight for their votes."
Smiley acknowledged that McCain has been on the right side of several issues of concern to the Black community, mentioning his support of the MLK holiday in Arizona and his views on immigration reform. But Smiley made a thinly-veiled reference to McCain's willingness to switch sides.
"I've said before, if this John McCain shows up...he has something to say to Black America," Smiley told McCain.
"There really isn't much that Sen. John McCain can do to convince Black voters to vote for him," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "The Democratic Party has spent the past 40 years convincing them Republicans are the racist party, when really it's the exact opposite."
Though she says her organization doesn't endorse specific candidates, she told me they support all Republicans and that they might even change their stance this year and endorse McCain.
"We may decide that this is a good year," she said.
...if the "right" McCain makes an appearance? I have a feeling her idea of the right McCain and Smiley's might differ. Now, if Bush's McCain shows up...
How about some electoral history?
Bush got 11 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and 9 percent in 2000. And this is the guy who ignored the country's premier civil rights organization until 2006!
Going back to the B.W. ("before Dubya") era, Republicans scored 12 percent in 1996 and 10 percent in 1992. But these numbers are even more shocking when you consider America's "first Black president" only got 83 and 84 percent in those two elections, significantly less than both Gore and Kerry (Perot stole a good share of the African American vote both years-7 and 4 percent, respectively). I am really more surprised by George W.'s success with the Black vote than Clinton's failure, however. Not that I'm an identity voter, but it would piss me off if a male candidate that only goes to church every once in a while was billed as America's first woman or agnostic president...
In all, I think Tavis got it right. Support the right issues and you'll get the votes you deserve. Identity politics is so out of style. Or if it's not yet, it will be by the time we get to November.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Can I be done now?
Ok, I am clearly sick of my duty to blog about McCain every week, but my whining has left little impression on my professor. I'm so sick of it that I wasn't even going to post this week's episode due to its hack-y nature. But I've decided to operate under the internet code of quantity over quality and post it anyway. As a way of making it up to you all, I should have some juicy Rezko trial stuff for you all tomorrow.
Thank you for your patience,
-m
Guiliani- $64,800
Romney- $46,200
Thompson- $24,600
The RNC- $13,051
The DNC- $10,500
Obama- $10,450
McCain- $8,900
Bear Stearns:
Dodd- $183,600
Clinton- $125,085
Guiliani- $138,991
McCain- $45,150
Thank you for your patience,
-m
There were no primaries this week and my "favorite candidate" was out of town visiting friends in the Mideast. Not that he was campaigning, no-o...
Good thing he wasn't, because otherwise the Dems and the media might have noticed that he doesn't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Luckily, Sen. Lieberman whispered a correction in McCain's ear. That may be the closest we get to bi-partisanship: conservative Democrats picking up liberal Republicans after they slip on the banana that is tribal conflict.
Because of his trip, McCain missed the fallout from the Bear-Stearns debacle this weekend. I had spent the weekend studiously avoiding newspapers after a trip to Springfield left me legislatively exhausted. I came home, fired up the ol' computron and a friend of mine immediately bombarded me with news of financial calamity.
Here's some of the apocalyptic talk I got as I was trying to wind down:
"I recommend investing in bottled water, ammunition and antibiotics…"
"Duct tape. Buy duct tape."
"Just want everyone to get through the dust bowl okay, what with the inevitable descent into anarchy."
Let's be real though; it's not all hyperbole:
$3.5 billion company + $1.2 billion worth of office space + "risk" covered by the Federal Reserve Bank = $236 million.
McCain supported the Fed bailout, but said he hoped it wouldn't be necessary: "After the savings and loan crisis (of the 1980s), I think we all knew the government had to act. But we wasted billions."
This seems familiar…oh, right. Because I just blogged about it last month. Try this exercise. Google "mccain" + "savings and loan crisis"
I'll tell you right now, you will not get the above quote first, though it's newsy. In fact, that quote won't appear anywhere on the first page of your results. You'll get this first.
On the up side of financial integrity, McCain's campaign contributions from both Bear Stearns and JPMorgan since January 2006 have been much less than many other candidates (math mine, data FEC's):
JPMorgan:Guiliani- $64,800
Romney- $46,200
Thompson- $24,600
The RNC- $13,051
The DNC- $10,500
Obama- $10,450
McCain- $8,900
Bear Stearns:
Dodd- $183,600
Clinton- $125,085
Guiliani- $138,991
McCain- $45,150
Too bad Bear Stearns owned more McCain stock than JPMorgan. However, much as McCain takes over the coffers of the RNC, JPMorgan will absorb the risk, profit and political influence of Bear Stearns.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
What's up, doc?
I was in a doctor's waiting room today when a couple came in inquiring about adoption counseling. I watched from behind a newspaper as they got a serious run-around and ended up leaving in frustration.
I thought about when I was sixteen, just having seen that awful video in health class of the woman giving birth. I got totally grossed out and vowed never to get pregnant. My health teacher was glad to hear it, I'm sure, but asked me what would happen if I wanted children later in life. I said I could always adopt. And the reply was, "no, you can't always adopt."
While any idiot can get pregnant, adoptive parents have to endure a battery of tests and monitoring by health professionals of every stripe in order to "have" a baby.
Being a parent is an important job, to be sure.
However, being president is arguably the most important job in the country, and the only test is whether you're approved of by the American people. Don't get me wrong, I dig representative democracy and all its wacky implications. And I don't mean to imply that any idiot can become president. But I do think the American people should be given more tools with which to judge the suitability of their future president and I'm not the first to suggest it.
McCain, if elected would be the oldest person to be inaugurated as president. He hasn't released medical records since 1999, the last time he ran for president. I'd imagine even the healthiest septuagenarian's health could change quickly, and anyone's bound to be a quite different person after more than eight years of political life.
Also, McCain's been treated for skin cancer and takes medications for high blood pressure, heart attack prevention and allergies.
In an interview on 60 Minutes McCain said he'll release his medical records within the next two months. Why the wait? He's already the nominee. He's already been to the doctor; why can't his campaign release the results now?
Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign didn't respond to my two press requests for information on the subject. Too busy redacting?
Another note: yes, I want to see Hillary's tax returns, too. But what about her medical records? And how about the less and less transparent Sen. Obama? He could explain his friendship with "T.R." at the same time and save us all a truckload of speculation.
I thought about when I was sixteen, just having seen that awful video in health class of the woman giving birth. I got totally grossed out and vowed never to get pregnant. My health teacher was glad to hear it, I'm sure, but asked me what would happen if I wanted children later in life. I said I could always adopt. And the reply was, "no, you can't always adopt."
While any idiot can get pregnant, adoptive parents have to endure a battery of tests and monitoring by health professionals of every stripe in order to "have" a baby.
Being a parent is an important job, to be sure.
However, being president is arguably the most important job in the country, and the only test is whether you're approved of by the American people. Don't get me wrong, I dig representative democracy and all its wacky implications. And I don't mean to imply that any idiot can become president. But I do think the American people should be given more tools with which to judge the suitability of their future president and I'm not the first to suggest it.
McCain, if elected would be the oldest person to be inaugurated as president. He hasn't released medical records since 1999, the last time he ran for president. I'd imagine even the healthiest septuagenarian's health could change quickly, and anyone's bound to be a quite different person after more than eight years of political life.
Also, McCain's been treated for skin cancer and takes medications for high blood pressure, heart attack prevention and allergies.
In an interview on 60 Minutes McCain said he'll release his medical records within the next two months. Why the wait? He's already the nominee. He's already been to the doctor; why can't his campaign release the results now?
Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign didn't respond to my two press requests for information on the subject. Too busy redacting?
Another note: yes, I want to see Hillary's tax returns, too. But what about her medical records? And how about the less and less transparent Sen. Obama? He could explain his friendship with "T.R." at the same time and save us all a truckload of speculation.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
post primary addendum
Shortly after I posted my most recent blog, McCain won Vermont, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island and Mike Huckabee bowed out of the race, endorsing his former rival (as if he had a lot of choices).
Continuing the goodwill religiosity tour I started yesterday, let me posit that Jesus would be happy his children are getting along so well.
With all four March 4 contests under his belt, McCain has secured the nomination. Will he get the Catholics too? Apparently, Catholics are the new swing voters.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
WWJVF?
This week, John McCain accepted the endorsement of San Antonio televangelist John Hagee.
The president of The Catholic League said Hagee has "waged an unrelenting war" on the Catholic Church. That may seem a little extreme, but Hagee did call the church a whore and a cult and associates it with both Hitler and the anti-Christ. McCain said, while he doesn't endorse Hagee's views, he'll take the endorsement. This is a marked departure from Obama rejecting Farrakhan's help.
I was raised Catholic and made it (begrudgingly) to confirmation. I'm admittedly non-practicing. But I wondered, if things were different, would the Catholic Church have the answer to this burning question: who would Jesus vote for?
I called The Catholic League and they told me they don't endorse candidates for president. Knights of Columbus has the same policy.
In the Priests for Life Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, they advise voters to "avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies."
Ok, no evil. That's good to know.
I called the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and they said that while they do not endorse particular candidates, they publish guides leading voters to the "right" candidate. This year's guide doesn't mention any candidate by name. However, Catholic Online insisted that Mike Huckabee fits the Bishops' description best, expressing surprise that the "best Catholic running for the highest office in the land seems to be the best Evangelical too."
See, there? We can all get along! Until Huckabee drops out, that is.
I grew up in a family of Democrats, but recently all my aunts, uncles and cousins have switched allegiances to the Bush/Cheney machine. I was going to call them up for a quick poll, but I have a feeling it's easier to get an answer from The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At least they don't have my church attendance record on file. And they haven't been at the table for Christmas dinner. They also have never called me a devil-worshipping communist. Thankfully, my immediately family is still quite liberal and I don't hold grudges.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thanks to poorly-staffed watchdogs and short attention spans...
I'll be the first to admit it: I am prone to tirades.
My last blog could be fairly described as a rant against the New York Times. One of my objections was their sordid accusations against McCain for his supposedly inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. It seems I'm not alone in my criticism of the Gray Lady.
It also seems the accusations have largely rolled off the Maverick's back, even with the specter of a lawsuit looming.
I called up David Morrison at the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform to see what he thought of all this.
"If he has dirty laundry, now is the best time for the story to appear," Morrison said. McCain is mostly secure in his nomination and the Democratic nomination has certainly not been sewn up, so the general election campaigning hasn't yet begun.
Once it does, Morrison said McCain will have a ready response if anyone tries to bring up this story again:
"We've dealt with that; this is old news."
Okay, then. What about this buzz about McCain vs. the FEC? That can't be good...
It seems McCain may have promised to use public funds to get a loan back when he was short on campaign cash. He said if he did poorly in New Hampshire, he would accept public funding (along with the requisite spending limitations) to pay back the loan.
Well, guess what? McCain didn't fail the New Hampshire test. And now everyone wants to give him money! Fantastic!
Except that the FEC might want to hold him to his earlier intentions. However, the FEC can do little except yell at McCain. It seems they don't have enough board members to reach a quorum on the matter.
The esoteric nature of this current bind could go either way for McCain's public image. A protracted, public fight with the FEC sure doesn't look good, even if the commission can't rule one way or the other. But the weirdness of the FEC's inability to answer their own question might mean that most Americans turn off before the issue is resolved.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Gray Lady turns yellowish
Let me just first acknowledge that I subscribe to two newspapers. Not that those are the only ones that I read, but they are (supposed to be...) on my doorstep every morning. The Chicago Sun-Times, with its cultivated populism gives me the local gossip. I balance my beloved Chicago rag with the generally venerable New York Times. This week, however, I have been distinctly disappointed with its campaign coverage.
First, the NYT reported Obama's "plagiarism" of his pal Gov. Deval Patrick's speech.
In fact, the senator had disclosed the provenience of those remarks previously, but not every time he appropriated them. Gov. Patrick backed up Barack. Personally, I blame Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod, who worked on Patrick's campaign, too. Axelrod should know better, though, being a former newsman and long-time politico.
Then, Sen. Clinton, feeling like she looked a bit petty for attacking Obama, said it was the NYT, not her campaign who exposed the so-called plagiarism. Which is, in a word, a lie(thanks, Mr. Skoglund, for the link).
A lie I would've liked to have read in the NYT. And, let me just offer that I prefer someone who borrows rhetoric instead of just making shit up. At least when were talking about, oh I donno...the leader of the free world?
But it gets worse. Today's front page insinuated the John McCain had a sordid, extra-marital affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior.
First of all: ewwwww. Lobbyists are icky.
Second of all: you needed four reporters to write a muckraking story and you couldn't even get one untainted source to go on record about Iseman?
Third of all: at least four-fifths of the article was about his role in the Keating Five scandal. McCain did his political time for that already, and I'd hope anyone considering voting for him already knows about it. His participation in a decades-old scandal does not make him more likely to sleep with a skeletal blond living in Bud Paxson's pocket.
A NYT editor defended the article saying the information was "nailed down to the New York Times' satisfaction." Well, I'm glad someone's satisfied.
I, however, am not. And I will not be until the Gray Lady goes after her own with the same tenacity with which she is attacking the opposition. Hillary needs a minor miracle or serious political collusion to get the nomination at this point, NYT, and neither one should be coming from you.
First, the NYT reported Obama's "plagiarism" of his pal Gov. Deval Patrick's speech.
In fact, the senator had disclosed the provenience of those remarks previously, but not every time he appropriated them. Gov. Patrick backed up Barack. Personally, I blame Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod, who worked on Patrick's campaign, too. Axelrod should know better, though, being a former newsman and long-time politico.
Then, Sen. Clinton, feeling like she looked a bit petty for attacking Obama, said it was the NYT, not her campaign who exposed the so-called plagiarism. Which is, in a word, a lie(thanks, Mr. Skoglund, for the link).
A lie I would've liked to have read in the NYT. And, let me just offer that I prefer someone who borrows rhetoric instead of just making shit up. At least when were talking about, oh I donno...the leader of the free world?
But it gets worse. Today's front page insinuated the John McCain had a sordid, extra-marital affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior.
First of all: ewwwww. Lobbyists are icky.
Second of all: you needed four reporters to write a muckraking story and you couldn't even get one untainted source to go on record about Iseman?
Third of all: at least four-fifths of the article was about his role in the Keating Five scandal. McCain did his political time for that already, and I'd hope anyone considering voting for him already knows about it. His participation in a decades-old scandal does not make him more likely to sleep with a skeletal blond living in Bud Paxson's pocket.
A NYT editor defended the article saying the information was "nailed down to the New York Times' satisfaction." Well, I'm glad someone's satisfied.
I, however, am not. And I will not be until the Gray Lady goes after her own with the same tenacity with which she is attacking the opposition. Hillary needs a minor miracle or serious political collusion to get the nomination at this point, NYT, and neither one should be coming from you.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
McCanoodling
Love is in the air. This Valentine's Day saw a hallmark moment with Mitt Romney snuggling up to his former rival John McCain with a big, sloppy endorsement. Smack!
Will this new union gestate into a Republican White House nine months from now? It's surely too soon to tell.
Romney had simply suspended his campaign after Super Tuesday, but now he has officially released his delegates and pushed them over to McCain's side. Some say Romney is hoping to mend fences with the Republican Party so he can make another run for president.
That may be. He's certainly not going to get the vice presidential spot. McCain's going to need to make his own peace with the party after he gets the nomination, and he'll surely do so by picking a more conservative running mate than Romney. Or at least a more consistent one.
Romney has been accused of being a flip-flopper during the campaign (incidentally, a political insult I've hated since it was attached to former candidate John Kerry. Since when are we not allowed to change our minds? I have this sneaking suspicion our country might be better off if certain leaders could learn to say oops, sorry
and I changed my mind). So, I guess his most recent change of heart shouldn't surprise me. But I can't help myself...
Romney on McCain before:
He's disingenuous!
He's Nixon!
He's a dirty trickster!
He's a liar!
He's a liberal!
The silliest part of all this is when Romney endorsed McCain, he said "the character of [McCain] was apparent" throughout the campaign. Apparent to everyone but Mitt, apparently.
Will this new union gestate into a Republican White House nine months from now? It's surely too soon to tell.
Romney had simply suspended his campaign after Super Tuesday, but now he has officially released his delegates and pushed them over to McCain's side. Some say Romney is hoping to mend fences with the Republican Party so he can make another run for president.
That may be. He's certainly not going to get the vice presidential spot. McCain's going to need to make his own peace with the party after he gets the nomination, and he'll surely do so by picking a more conservative running mate than Romney. Or at least a more consistent one.
Romney has been accused of being a flip-flopper during the campaign (incidentally, a political insult I've hated since it was attached to former candidate John Kerry. Since when are we not allowed to change our minds? I have this sneaking suspicion our country might be better off if certain leaders could learn to say oops, sorry
and I changed my mind). So, I guess his most recent change of heart shouldn't surprise me. But I can't help myself...
Romney on McCain before:
He's disingenuous!
He's Nixon!
He's a dirty trickster!
He's a liar!
He's a liberal!
The silliest part of all this is when Romney endorsed McCain, he said "the character of [McCain] was apparent" throughout the campaign. Apparent to everyone but Mitt, apparently.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The king-unmaker continues...as does punditry
Continuing the tradition I pointed out last week, Sen. John McCain unmade the kingdom of Mitt this week. After a poor showing on Super Tuesday, Romney suspended his campaign. The news bolstered the media, who have been calling McCain the Republican frontrunner as of late. I'm sure the pundits are pleased about being right this time, after sounding the death knell for his campaign last summer.
National Public Radio's "political junkie" Ken Rudin went so far as to compare the Senator to Ed Muskie! Sure, there are a lot of parallels between the 1972 race and this one, but now McCain looks a lot more like McGovern than anyone else.
But that's all behind us. And among those looking to the future are the top two Democratic candidates. McCain was mentioned in both Clinton and Obama's speeches following primaries in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state and the U.S. Virgin Islands this Saturday.
However, just because the media and the Democrats say "front runner" doesn't make it so. Voters in two southern states seem to disagree; it was not a particularly good weekend for McCain.
David Espo wrote for Associated Press that "McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting, losing the Kansas caucuses on Saturday to Mike Huckabee." That's heavy criticism from the usually bland AP. McCain also lost Louisiana to the former minister and only squeaked out a win in Washington state.
Up next are Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia on Feb. 12.
McCain still has almost 500 delegates over Huckabee, though, so his nomination is all but assured. However, that doesn't mean that he (or Huckabee) is going to slow down, that the news media will put down its collective crystal ball or that I'm going to stop watching.
National Public Radio's "political junkie" Ken Rudin went so far as to compare the Senator to Ed Muskie! Sure, there are a lot of parallels between the 1972 race and this one, but now McCain looks a lot more like McGovern than anyone else.
But that's all behind us. And among those looking to the future are the top two Democratic candidates. McCain was mentioned in both Clinton and Obama's speeches following primaries in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state and the U.S. Virgin Islands this Saturday.
However, just because the media and the Democrats say "front runner" doesn't make it so. Voters in two southern states seem to disagree; it was not a particularly good weekend for McCain.
David Espo wrote for Associated Press that "McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting, losing the Kansas caucuses on Saturday to Mike Huckabee." That's heavy criticism from the usually bland AP. McCain also lost Louisiana to the former minister and only squeaked out a win in Washington state.
Up next are Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia on Feb. 12.
McCain still has almost 500 delegates over Huckabee, though, so his nomination is all but assured. However, that doesn't mean that he (or Huckabee) is going to slow down, that the news media will put down its collective crystal ball or that I'm going to stop watching.
The McKing-unmaker
Now that Sen. John McCain has been anointed the Republican frontrunner by the media, everyone seems to be falling in line behind him. Giuliani dropped out and endorsed him, but with the former mayor's liberal leanings and lack of delegates, he's unlikely to be much of a king-maker. Same goes for the independent Republican Governator of California's McCain endorsement.
In fact, McCain himself is somewhat of a king-unmaker. His success is draining the life out of rumors of a presidential bid by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It appears that McCain has filled the moderate Republican hole convincingly enough.
Either way, with the conventions looming, there is no doubt that McCain's surge is having an effect on general election projections.
A friend of mine is an active Obama supporter in Minneapolis and frequently indulges my inner political junkie via Gmail's chat function. He recently told me he's concerned about this turn of events.
"I hate Hillary. I hate Romney. I fear McCain," he typed.
McCain has been criticized for being too liberal by almost every right-winger who counts in this country. He is too centrist, they say.
Which is why my friend fears him, instead of hating him. McCain has the ability to draw independents that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee do not. In fact, Romney has been calling for Huckabee to drop out and stop splitting the right-wing vote. Huckabee counters that Romney should do the same, albeit less convincingly so.
The only threat to McCain's middle ground would be if Ron Paul decides to run as a Libertarian. Or whatever he is these days.
With all these left-leaning Republicans in the limelight, whither the hard-core right wing? If McCain is nominated, will they stay home? Watch Super Tuesday carefully, kiddies. It'll be the beginning of the beginning or the beginning of the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
