While others in the media have played snippets of Rev. Wright’s sermons over and over to call into question Barack Obama for his association with his pastor, they’ve remained conspicuously silent on the statements of conservative Christian leaders John Hagee, Jerry Falwell and Rod Parsley. As I’ve blogged many times before, the snippets of Wright’s words have been taken out of context to twist and make malevolent his intent. But Keith Olbermann allows the full statements of Hagee, Falwell and Parsley to air, revealing their hatred, ignorance and intolerance.
John Hagee: I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are, were recipients of the judgment of God for that.The newspaper carried the story, in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the…Katrina came, and the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades.So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing.
I’m not sure how I feel about exhorting believers to follow a God so willing to callously end the lives of more than 4,000 Gulf Coast residents, most of whom, I think it’s safe to say, were not planning on attending the Gay Pride parade in New Orleans.
Almost half of the economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey decided against answering a question on which presidential candidate offers the most responsible fiscal policies. However, Sen. John McCain was the clear favorite of those who answered the question.
McCain offers the most responsible fiscal policies? Notice that this wasn’t about who you think will be most economically sound in general, or who you think would be better at fiscal management in practice — although even there, nothing in the Republican party’s past 30 years offers any reason to believe that it would be responsible in any way shape or form. But this question was about what the candidate is offering — and McCain’s proposals are, demonstrably, wildly irresponsible.
It’s hard to imagine what those economists are thinking.
Last night while in NYC for his appearance on The Daily Show, John McCain also made time to attend a controversial fundraiser hosted by New York Jets owner Robert Wood Johnson IV on his behalf that may not have violated the letter of the campaign finance laws that McCain championed just a few years ago, but certainly the spirit of them. The event was said to have raised over $7 million, including a pledged $100,000 each from the 19 co-hosts and another $25,000 from each of the 39 co-chairs. Donors were apparently not limited by the $2,300 cap on individuals and could give tens of thousands of their own cash thanks to McCain’s Victory Committee created specifically to get around donation limits.
This isn’t the first McCain fundraiser to raise eyebrows. Just a few days ago Judicial Watch “filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Senator McCain’s (R-Arizona) campaign may have accepted an in-kind contribution from foreign nationals in contravention of federal election laws” for a fundraiser that “took place in London, England, on March 20, 2008 — and Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton says the event involved two British nationals.“
You may also recall that the McCain campaign has already “officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system” and is facing lawsuits. On Tuesday, the White House moved to “rig any FEC enforcement decision concerning campaign finance questions” related to it. Also, McCain has been breaking the campaign finance law he backed just last year that requires presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets through his campaign’s privileged use of his mega-millionaire wife’s “Sugar Momma Express” at heavily discounted rates, which is especially troubling that he’s able to tap into such marital perks since McCain keeps all of his assets in his wife’s name, save for one checking account, and, as Steve reported earlier, Cindy McCain’s now openly swearing that she will “never” release her tax info.
The lengths to which McCain is going to get around the very rules he used to support until they applied to him and the secrecy surrounding his wife’s assets is very troubling. He’s becoming more and more McSame as Bush every day.
Jon Stewart proved again last night that he is one of the best, if not the best, interviewer on television. Although the first part of the interview (not included here) was very cordial and weak, the second part heated up quickly. Stewart quizzed McCain on the Hagee endorsement, his seemingly detrimental connection to George Bush, his campaign’s disgusting implication that Hamas endorses Obama, and a few other things.
Stewart: “Will you take the opportunity to repudiate and denounce President Bush?”
The media double-standard when it comes to McCain is sickening. Barack Obama had to jump through hoops in order to distance himself from Rev. Wright. Yet John McCain is allowed to stutter and stammer through his excuses for holding onto the endorsement. I’m sure this is just a taste of things to come.
The Obamas released tax returns for both Barack and Michelle. The Clintons released returns for both Bill and Hillary. But when John McCain released his tax returns a few weeks ago, Cindy McCain’s tax documents will remain private.
It’s not too hard to understand why. The McCains are extraordinarily wealthy — one might even be tempted to call them “elites” — and Cindy McCain’s assets are estimated to be about $100 million, including a private jet, which her husband has been borrowing at a reduced rate.
Given the other candidates’ disclosures, and McCain’s own alleged commitment to transparency, will we ever see Cindy McCain’s returns? She was asked on the “Today” show this morning, and said, politely, “Never.”
I’ll tell you a little secret: at first blush, I’m not inclined to care. The McCains have more money than some countries, they haven’t been accused of any financial improprieties, and while it’s interesting when a guy like McCain opposes minimum-wage increases while flying around on his wife’s private jet, I’m not exactly itching to go through Cindy McCain’s tax returns. In fact, I’m not surprised that someone of her wealth would want to keep her returns free of scrutiny.
The Arizona Republic explains the reality the DC media establishment tries to ignore:
Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues.
But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party’s objectives.
As Paul Waldman reported, “What do you know? An article that actually takes a feature of the McCain image, and — hold on to your hats — attempts to ascertain whether it’s true. I’m floored.”
In the article, Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego, added, “He is a conservative who votes conservative on most issues. By no means is he a liberal or even a moderate.”
In another sign of the media’s sheepish acceptance of the Barack Obama “elitist” story line, the New York Times on Tuesday described the Illinois Senator as “tagged as elitist.” But just as disturbing as the Republicans’ apparent success in establishing the “out of touch” narrative as a fixture in campaign coverage is John McCain’s seeming inoculation from it.
After all, John McCain isn’t merely fabulously well off, courtesy of his wife Cindy’s $100 million beer distribution fortune. At almost every turn, the Republican presidential nominee has shown almost a total ignorance of – or yawning disinterest in – the real lives of American voters. From the growing financial hardships of the economic slowdown and the foreclosure crisis to the disintegrating American health care system and the dangers U.S. troops face on the streets on Baghdad, it is John McCain who is truly “out of touch.” Yet voters and pundits alike agree that the supposed maverick is treated with kid gloves by the press, an elitist masquerading as a man of the people.
Here, then, are John McCain’s Top 10 “Out-of-Touch” Moments:
When Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, he made things pretty easy for his Democratic critics. Before becoming a nominee, Bork had said or written all kinds of bizarre and scary things. Once his hearings began, Bork could have distanced himself from his record, but instead he tried to justify his body of unhinged right-wing work, as anyone with confidence in his or her beliefs might.
So, when Ted Kennedy noted, for example, that Bork supported a law that imposed a poll tax on voters, Bork acknowledged his position and said, “It was only $1.50.”
I mention this because John McCain spoke this morning on his commitment to nominating conservative judges to the federal bench if elected president. Bork’s name didn’t come up in his speech, of course, but so long as McCain’s intentions with regards to the judiciary are on the front-burner today, let’s take a closer look at the 1987 speech McCain delivered on the Senate floor on Bork’s behalf.
“I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual ‘loose cannon on deck,’ or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench. […]
“First, and most importantly, is the question of Judge Bork’s view of the role of the judiciary. Judge Bork is clearly a believer in judicial restraint. He believes that the courts should not create social policy or arbitrate social policy disputes unless the Constitution clearly speaks to the issues. He believes that in our republican form of government such decisions are properly left to legislatures elected by the people, not Federal judges appointed for life. I have no problem with that view, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.”
I realize 1987 was a while ago (I was 14 during the Bork hearings), and many may have forgotten the judicial record McCain was defending so enthusiastically. (Read the rest of this story…)
(I’d like to welcome Kathryn Kolbert from PFAW to the pages of C&L. (Kathryn has been recognized repeatedly by The National Law Journal as one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America) She will have a steady column here on a regular basis to share with us her expertise on all matters relating to the courts. )
Sen. John McCain delivered a speech at Wake Forest University today on judicial nominations. His basic message: I love George Bush’s judicial nominees – keep ‘em coming. He picked up where Bush is about to leave off, and read from the same script written by Sen. Sam Brownback, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, and Pat Robertson’s lawyer Jay Sekulow.
While McCain mostly pandered to the far right, he also threw a bone to moderates by playing up his involvement in the so-called Gang of 14. But let’s be honest, the “Gang” may have prevented Bill Frist from nuking the Senate, but it also put three of Bush’s very worst nominees – Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen – on the federal courts for life.
That’s consistent with McCain’s larger record on judges. He has voted to confirm every one of Bush’s controversial appellate court nominees, no matter how extreme and ideological. Back in 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork, McCain supported him too.
Here was McCain – regurgitating Bush’s favorite talking point – at a debate last year: “One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges.” “I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court,” he continued.
But Roberts and Alito, and their fellow right-wing justices Scalia and Thomas, are “legislating from the bench.” In just the last two years they have joined together to:
· make it much harder for victims of pay discrimination to get justice
· deny free speech protections to government employee whistleblowers
· make it harder for taxpayers to challenge federal spending that violates the constitutional separation of church and state
· uphold a ban on a particular abortion procedure even though the law has no exception to protect a woman’s health
· undermine school officials’ efforts to promote racial diversity in their schools
· undermine the Endangered Species Act
and so much more. The bottom line is that America just can’t afford another right-wing Bush justice on the Supreme Court
For the past several weeks, John McCain and his campaign have been enraged by the emphasis on his willingness to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for up to 100 years, and the audacity of Democrats to tell voters about his views on the issue. To hear them tell it, misrepresenting a rival’s stated policy position — which Dems really aren’t doing — is completely beyond the pale.
Which is odd, given McCain’s habit of wildly misrepresenting the Dems on healthcare policy.
Senator John McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain.
The suggestion is incorrect. While both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York are calling for universal health care and an expanded role for government, they stop well short of calling for a single-payer plan.
Mr. McCain has made the assertion several times in recent days, even as he and the Republicans have made repeated calls for accuracy on the campaign trail…. Yet on repeated occasions, Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has inaccurately described the Democrats’ health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine.
On a campaign stop on Thursday, for example, McCain said Clinton and Obama “want a massive government takeover of the health care system in America.” A few months ago, McCain said the Dems offer a “single-payer big government solution.” A few months before that, he insisted that the Dems are offering a “government-run, single-payer system like they have in Canada and like they have in England.”
The headline on Bill Kristol’s NYT column today reads, “McCain-Jindal?” It suggests to the reader that the column is about John McCain considering Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for the Republican presidential ticket, as has been rumored elsewhere. As it turns out, the first three-fourths of Kristol’s column was actually about Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama’s chances in November.
Eventually, at the end, Kristol gets around to the point.
[I]n separate conversations last week, no fewer than four McCain staffers and advisers mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick the 36-year-old Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak.
It might also be a way to confront the issue of McCain’s age (71), which private polls and focus groups suggest could be a real problem. A Jindal pick would implicitly acknowledge the questions and raise the ante. The message would be: “You want generational change? You can get it with McCain-Jindal — without risking a liberal and inexperienced Obama as commander in chief.” I would add that it was after McCain spent considerable time with Jindal in New Orleans recently, and reportedly found him, as he has before, personally engaging and intellectually impressive, that the campaign’s informal name-dropping of Jindal began.
On the surface, I can appreciate why Republicans would be buzzing about Jindal. He’s almost ridiculously conservative on social and cultural issues, and a darling of the James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh crowds. He offers McCain regional and age balance — Jindal is only a couple of years older than me — and he’s the governor of what ostensibly might be a swing state in November.
Talk about party loyalty. Hillary and Obama both have said they would support the nominee of the Democratic Party to their fullest extent. Apparently—that does ring true for John McCain.
The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency. By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush — both literally and metaphorically — he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn’t stomach voting for in 2000.
That’s the critical observation in Arianna’s piece. McCain has become an extension of BushCo’s policies which include extending the tax cuts and continuing this economy, 100 years in Iraq, war with Iran, torture, pandering to the extreme religious right, no improvements in health care and on and on. How could Independents vote for a man who would not vote for Bush because he got smeared to the high hills in 2000 and then—that same man—adopts Bush’s entire platform? Arianna asks McCain’s Media What will it take for the Swift Boat Media to realize that John McCain jumped the shark a long, long time ago?
Maybe we can do a doughnut drive. Send boxes of them to the network centers in honor of their great surrender. What say you? How can we get the media to cover him fairly?
Silent Patriot posted about this last week, as did many other outlets, a rare moment of candor out from an unexpected source. Whodathunk a Republican cheerleader for “liberating” Iraq from Saddam Hussein would admit that it has always been all about the oil? Whoops! Honesty is clearly NOT a Republican value, because McSame had to backtrack and claim that he didn’t mean this Gulf War.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clarified his comments Friday after suggesting the Iraq war was motivated by U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
His explanation: He was talking about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, not the current conflict.
It was the second time in as many days that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had to clear up his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year’s deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis.[..]
He sought to clarify his comments after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn’t mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.
“No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,” McCain told reporters.
One reason was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, he said.
“But also we didn’t want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it’s more important than any other part of the world,” he said.
“I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that’s all I mean,” McCain said.
Regarding the current conflict, he said, “The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.”
You have the video. Does it sound like he’s talking about the first Gulf War?
Senator Obama and Senator Clinton want to set a date for withdraw. That’s what they want to do is get everybody out. I believe that would lead to catastrophe and chaos and that we would have the whole region including the whole region and the country in such turmoil that we would be required to come back to the region. And I just want to promise you this. My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.
Anybody in the media think to remind McCain that neither Clinton nor Obama was in the Senate during the first Gulf War? They’re looking to withdraw from a conflict that ended 17 years ago? Huh? Is this another McCain Moment? C’mon media, if Clinton or Obama had something this patently false, you’d be covering it for days.
Download | Play 
Download | Play (h/t Bill W) 
