McCain gets his last pass, remembered lovingly as a mavericky moderate

While McCain's death is being mourned as the death of political civility and remembered as everyone's favorite middle of the road maverick, I'm struck by a bit of deafening dissonance. 

I get that by lavishing praise on a guy you disagreed with a lot seems like a credit to your own vast open mindedness in the era of Trump, where encouraging the beating of protesters is normal, executive toilet time includes degrading people you disagree with via Twitter, and voting as a block is more important than who is president because white supremacy and the patriarchy are in danger. Now, I respect his time suffering a POW  (and lasting effects) and his willingness to sometimes not vote Republican, but as for everything else, you might want to consider another hero...

An incident that sums up McCain's life and philosophy could be that time in 2008, when his bigot supporter stood up, stating she didn't trust Obama because he's an Arab. He corrected one fact, but did so at the expense of revealing his true dangerous, far right of center beliefs: No, ma'am, he's not an Arab. He's a decent family man. He was widely praised for this half response/half insult in every corner of the US as brave, courageous, civil and polite. He was never seriously questioned on what most believed a harmless slip of the tongue. His public statements and policy positions on war, the Middle East, immigration, and adjacent issues support the harmless slip being intentional.

At least one was talking about it:
Arab or Decent? --from 2008
https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/arab_or_decent.php


So as we read the eulogies and feel some warm fuzzies, remember what was - as well as what wasn't. He had some good qualities or moments, but his politics were still pretty terrible run of the mill GOP white supremacist sexist fare. We were able to forget about all of Bush's incompetence, lies, warmongering, prisoner abuse and other atrocities because he made a silly with his rain poncho that one time. Maybe this will be the same.

Respect people by all means, but that doesn't mean giving them a political face transplant and sweeping bigotry and destructive policies under the rug.


Despite what the press says, John McCain has a long record of horribleness -- from  July 2017
Not so mavericky:  voted with Trump 90.7% of the time, hawk, Reagan republican, ran on tax cuts and trying to block MLK Day, supports Israeli massacres.

As FAIR.org media analyst Adam Johnson has observed, we have been fed a “childlike narrative of McCain as brave truth-teller, rather than predictable champion of war and empire who occasionally makes toothless references to human rights for the purposes of image curation.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/john-mccain-fake-maverick-horrible-record/


Here's a quote from the Palestine Chronicle piece:

And that last pattern has been typical of McCain’s entire public career. Shoot off his mouth, make big noises about being tough and honest, and then crawl back quietly shortly afterward, having achieved nothing but adding a notch to the reputation he relishes as a maverick.

 John McCain: A Matter of Character -- from 2008
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/john-mccain-a-matter-of-character/


And two more, if you want: The Man Who Never Was -- from 2010
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/mccain-201011

The real McCain -- from 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/22/johnmccain.uselections2008


There were quite a few from 2008 when he was running for president because I guess that was the only time it was okay to challenge him on the whole most moral, most civil, most bipartisan guy thing.

McCain email

I signed up for McCain campaign updates to see what's going on from the other point of view.
See a piece from an Obama one below this one.

The McCain campaign certainly has an interesting take on the final hours of the election...
There's Rick Davis, still at the helm. And they want people to be nervous about Obama's very few negative "connections".
Another interesting tidbit is that their campaign offices are called Victory Offices.
You've gotta love the use of the words surge, victory, etc. I another email they talk about the volunteer army, fighting for McCain.
They make it sound like the media and everyone has written them off. That's pretty crazy since polls before elections are generally made up of people who will and won't go out and fill out the ballots. As has been said before, the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.

To:	Interested Parties
From:	Rick Davis, Campaign Manager
Date:	October 31, 2008
RE:	The Final Push

The State of the Campaign

If your television is tuned to cable news as frequently as ours are here at campaign headquarters, you have seen the pundits say John McCain and his campaign are done. And, if you've followed this race since the beginning, this is clearly a song you've heard before. I wanted to take some time today to give you some insight on the state of the race as we see it.

An AP poll released this morning revealed a very telling fact: ONE out of every SEVEN voters is undecided. That means, if 130 million voters turn out on Tuesday, 18.5 million of them have yet to make up their mind. With that many votes on the table and the tremendous movement we've seen in this race, I believe we are in a very competitive campaign.

Here's why:

All the major polls have shown a tightening in the race and a significant narrowing of the numbers. In John McCain's typical pattern, he is closing strong and surprising the pundits. We believe this race is winnable, and if the trajectory continues, we will surpass the 270 Electoral votes needed on Election Night.

• National Polls: Major polls last week showed John McCain trailing by double-digit margins - but by the middle of this week, we were within the margin of error on four national tracking surveys. In fact, the Gallup national tracking survey showed the race in a virtual tie 2 days this week.
  
  
• State Polls:
  
  Iowa - Our numbers in Iowa have seen a tremendous surge in the past 10 days. We took Obama's lead from the double digits to a very close race. That is why you see Barack Obama visiting the state in the final days, trying to stem his losses. It is too little, too late. Like many other Midwestern states, Iowa is moving swiftly into McCain's column.
  
  The Southwest - It is no secret that Republican candidates in the Southwest have to focus on winning over enough Latino and Hispanic voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado to carry them to victory. John McCain has overcome challenges Republicans face, and has made up tremendous ground in these states with these voters. For these voters, the choice has become clear, and you have seen a big change in the numbers. John McCain is now winning enough voters to perform within the margin of error - putting these states within reach.
  
  Colorado - Barack Obama tried to outspend our campaign in Colorado during the early weeks of October and finish off our candidate in Colorado. However, after our visit early this week, we saw a tremendous rebound in our poll position, and Colorado is back on the map.
  
  Ohio and Pennsylvania - Everyone knows that vote rich Ohio and Pennsylvania will be key battlegrounds for this election. Between the two: 41 electoral votes and no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been campaigning non-stop in these key battleground states and tonight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pumped up our campaign at a rally in Columbus. Our position in these states is strong and undecided voters continue to have a very favorable impression of our candidate.

Obama campaign faces tremendous structural challenges in the final days of this campaign
(Funny they should say this when McCain and Palin appeared to be butting heads at various points on various issues...)

• Obama has a challenge hitting 50%: Barack Obama has not reached the 50% threshold in almost any the battleground state. He consistently is performing in the 45-48% range. When we look closely at the primary votes, we see a history of a candidate whose Election Day performance is often at or behind his final polling numbers. If this is true, our surge will leave Obama with even or under 50% of the vote on Election Day.
• (This seems like awfully strange logic; he has in fact hit above 50% at various times/polls)
  
  
• Early Vote: The Obama campaign has promised that their early vote and absentee efforts will change the composition of the electorate. They have sold the press on a story that first time voters will turn out in droves this election cycle. Again, the facts undermine their argument. In our analysis of early voting and absentee votes to date: The composition of the electorate has not changed significantly and most folks who have voted early are high propensity voters who would have voted regardless of the high interest in this campaign.
• (Who can say what this means? I think the public and media alike are waiting to see the impact of early voting since more people seem to have taken advantage of it this year. No one's sold on anything, as far as I've heard, and I hear a considerable amount of news.)
  
  
• Expanding the Field: Obama is running out of states if you follow out a traditional model. Today, he expanded his buy into North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona in an attempt to widen the playing field and find his 270 Electoral Votes. This is a very tall order and trying to expand into new states in the final hours shows he doesn't have the votes to win.
• (Doesn't have the votes?! I've seen a ton of scenarios based on polls, etc and none had McCain with the 270 and most had Obama with over 300. I don't think this is media bias- the polls show it. Of course the maps and polls to date don't matter unless these people actually vote and vote the way they polled.)
  

The Final Barnstorm

• On Monday, we will have a 14 state rally with our candidates crisscrossing the country trying to turn out our voters and sway the final undecided voters. Governor Palin will hit Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Alaska in the final day of campaigning, while Senator McCain will travel from Tampa, Florida, to Virginia, then Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada and finish the night in Prescott, Arizona. The enthusiasm and excitement we generate on Monday will be the electricity that powers our "Get Out the Vote" efforts on Tuesday.

On the Ground

• Our field organization has tremendous energy and is out-performing the Bush campaign at the same time in 2004. This week our field organization crossed a huge threshold and began reaching more than one million voters per day, and by week's end will have contacted more than 5 million voters. Our phone centers are full and our rate of voter contact is significantly out-pacing the Bush campaign in 2004. We have the resources to do the voter contact necessary to support the surge we are seeing in our polling with old fashioned grassroots outreach.

On the Airwaves

• In the final days of the campaign, our television presence will be bigger and broader than the Obama campaign's presence. The full Republican effort - the RNC's Independent Expenditure and the McCain campaign will out-buy Barack Obama and the Democrats by just about 10 million dollars.
• (??)
  

In short: the McCain campaign is surging in the final 72 hours. Our grassroots campaign is vibrant and communicating to voters in a very powerful way. Our television presence is strong. And, we have a secret ingredient - A candidate who will never quit and who will never stop fighting for you and for your families.

In these final hours, Senator McCain and Governor Palin are counting on you - they are counting on you to knock on doors, to make turnout calls, to contact your friends and neighbors. Get our voters to the polls and help John McCain fight for your and for our country. This is our last mission on behalf of John McCain and I have no doubt I can count on your effort and energy to carry us across the line to victory.

***
In an Obama email:

"When this campaign began, we weren't given much of a chance by the pollsters or the pundits. But tomorrow, we can make history."

Everyone's an underdog!

Obama's a terrorist, this time for real guys

Ok. They've got a real live Arab (and the PLO's got a whole slew of 'em) to link Obama to, so Obama MUST be a terrorist...right? Maybe this is the plural "terrorists" the campaign was thinking of when they gave her the Ayres material.

As Palin says, let's go to the videotape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm-8d2gRvJM

...even today we’re learnin’ new things still about our opponent...

"It’s not negative campaigning and it’s not mean spirited to call someone out on their record, their plans, or their associations so we’re gonna do it!"

She makes it sound like she's going to do all three, here, but this looks like another simple, and rather sloppy "guilt" (manufactured guilt, at that) by association to me. What did this have to do with his record or plans? What's she implying? She calls Khalidi a radical and wants to talk about Obama's record and plans??

This Rashid Khalidi thing was described as the “latest item”, but I think this has been discussed before... Yes, it has. This is only the latest item in the McCain-Palin fishing expedition. You know, if you judge it based on body language- winking, knowing looks, smug smiles, pride, etc- you'd think McCain's really found something every time one of these "items" is unleashed (rehashed?), but when you look at the substance, it turns to dust and blows away; there's nothing there.

She went on to describe one of a number of Obama's "interesting assortment of friends".

She claimed Khalidi is another "radical professor from the neighborhood."

He's a political ally of Obama and former spokesman for the PLO, she also said. No doubt the mention of Palestinians was supposed to conjure up images of kids with AK47s, suicide bombings and move people to boo.

"The twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for Mr. Khalidi and in that Barack Obama he, being there at the videotape for a pa- in a- a party in 2003, Barack was there, and we know that very derogatory things were said about Israel and about American support for that nation."

Obama was there...with Khalidi...I think I get it...

"Israel was described as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of victim."
This line was no doubt the guilt she was trying to associate with Obama. Obama couldn't have been elected to the Senate without being fanatically pro-Israel (there are only a couple of exceptions) and he has proven it, so she's wong, there. Ascribing guilt to both sides is fair and truthful, so her Israel the perpetual victim claim is also wrong. I'd go farther in that Israel uses dispoportionate force on Palestinians, uses collective punishment that could amount to terrorism of the innocent population, and is engaging in illegal activities, including but not limited to settlement building and extrajudicial assassinations. We should be sanctioning them, not rewarding them with money and unconditional support of all kinds.

And, Ms Palin, criticism is not anti-Semitism. I'm not anti-Semitic because I disagree with the government of Israel and neither are Israelis who disagree with their government. No doubt she was trying to make Obama look like he has the same views as Khalidi, label these views as anti-Semitic and then make Obama look anti-Semitic. She's going to have a hard time making him look like he has the same views as Khalidi. On this issue, he and almost everyone in Congress are far extreme right, much like the Israeli government. Criticizing Israel would seem radical left only because Americans are so far right on the issue, but really it would make us more toward center right.

Palin wants to know Obama’s response to these things and is distressed that the LA Times won’t release this videotape. That's all well and good to try and make yourself look like a candidate who's for free press and transparency,but I can understand not releasing it. It makes sense to me based on the reaction of the McCain-Palin supporters to just Obama (off with his head, terrorist, kill him, he’s and Arab so can’t trust him, booing Khalidi, etc) that releasing that footage would put all at the party at risk for totally unjustified (and criminal) bodily harm.

This line cracked me up:
"It must be nice for a candidate to have a major news organization looking after his interests like that and maybe other politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own."

Doesn't the GOP have an entire network called Fox News?? Must be nice indeed. She speaks from experience at least on that issue!


Before demonizing Khalidi and all Arabs, perhaps she should ask McCain about his associations:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."


But, maybe he gets a pass on this one for some unknown reason, like the I married my mistress but somehow it's irrelevant one he got by "values voters."

Diva Palin and who did you say's cutting the net?

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," the McCain source said. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."

Ouch. That was pretty harsh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081025/pl_afp/usvotemccainpalin_081025214702
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/25/palin-diva/

Interesting how she keeps trying to distinguish herself from McCain; in a way that reminds me of how McCain keeps trying treat his Bush connection. It’s like she’s already moved past the campaign and election day and onto advancing her own political career and possible bid for presidential nominee. She says her focus is on this race, but I think we’ll see her try for the top of the ticket for a number of reasons, including the fact that she didn't really answer one way or the other. Though, if she doesn’t serve as VP, she’s pretty well proven that she’s far from the best man/woman for the job.

Maybe she’s mad at how her coming out party resulted in all those bad interviews and bad choices of Bush handlers. Just another example of bad judgment by McCain. I don’t trust those he surrounds himself with. Bush proved that can be disasterous for the country and your legacy, so McCain should have learned from that.

***

"But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the net."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7931556

Palin claims Obama already has written his inaugural address.

First, not quite- a general one was written for the nominee by a former White House chief of staff. Similar to her own speech she gave at the RNC, wouldn’t she agree?
Second, McCain said something that might qualify as cutting the net recently.

In Obama’s defense, I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea for both candidates to start working on an acceptance, concession, and inaugural speech now. I’d call it a good idea rather than presumptuous. He’s making a closing argument on Monday. You do that just before the jury deliberates and makes the decision, so it doesn’t really look like he’s acting as though he’s already won.

McCain’s predicting a come from behind victory...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14951.html
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mccain-predicts-victory-at-rockefeller-rally/70766/
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3802

In all honesty, I think McCain was saying he can guarantee a close race, which is kind of obvious. He, like all political candidates have to assure supporters he will win. But, I do think it was pretty crazy for Palin to accuse Obama of cutting the net in light of McCain’s prediction that made headlines and the fact that upon closer inspection, neither is actually cutting the net just yet.

Throw enough mud and some might stick:

ACORN. So what's up with this organization, really?

At first glance, I thought there might be something to the recent attack, but as I read more, I don't know. It's more believable than Obama colluding with terrorists (when it's convenient, of course), but I'm not sure how true it is.

Should we be scared ? (like the McCain camp wants us to be-he's the most liberal-EVER!, works with terrorists, teaches Kindergardeners about sex, etc)

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=308358130652174&secure=1&show=1&rss=1

Or not ?

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/9/greg_palast_on_vote_rigging_and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302724_2.html?sid=ST2008101302869&s_pos==

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/10/acorn_under_fire_but_is_it_jus.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2201958


I have serious doubts, not the least of which is the fact that most of the GOP smears have been laughable, petty pot shots that have little if any real connection the the truth, but I'm not finished looking into it.

Even if there's nothing to it, with the amount of attacks coming from McCain, I think damage can be or is done. People don't always look into things and even when they are later proven false, they sometimes hang onto the original falsehood. Like the 9/11-Saddam Hussein link, for instance. Throw enough mud and some will stick, merited or not.

***
I just heard the Ayres thing might come up in the debate and that Republicans want McCain to bring it up. Crazy. It's really one of the weakest smears. Perhaps they should talk about ACORN and have McCain address an Obama attack on character, etc as well. Unless they know there's nothing ot the ACORN stuff.

Economy, Palin chaperoned, advisers, etc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902049.html

The majority of House Republicans were against the bailout and McCain’s blaming Democrats- principally Obama and Pelosi- for the failure. Politics ahead of country? That’s reaching. I guess they need to create a little controversy to deflect attention away from the Palin interviews. McCain sat in on yesterday’s. She didn’t do as bad this time, but with McCain sitting there policing, it sent the message that she couldn’t handle the situation or wasn’t trusted to do so (maybe for good reason). There was the question about the voter asking about Pakistan…again McCain tried to divert attention away from the issue (reminiscent of Bush when under fire for a variety of questionable actions in his Presidency) with the “Gotcha Journalism” (another Bush tactic-give everything a catchy nickname so people remember the diversion, rather than the issue of concern) commentary. It was a “gotcha” moment. Palin gave an answer like the one McCain criticized from Obama. It’s a legit “gotcha”! Palin’s allowed to tell the terrorists our general plan, but Obama’s supposed to not let anyone know what he thinks should be done on foreign policy issues. Doesn’t really make sense.

Obama didn’t blame anyone for the crisis, but is talking about McCain’s deregulation history. McCain did say “ Fundamentals of the economy are strong.” And that he’s “fundamentally a deregualtor”.

I have heard some in conservative circles about McCain’s bill and warning of the financial crisis. If McCain did cosponsor something to fix Fannie and Freddie in 2003 or 2005, why is he not talking more about that? It seems like that would be ripe for disputing Obama’s digs…unless it is not as it seems. The bill never made it out of Republican committee, to Senate floor. His economic plan is more like Gramm’s, not this bill. Gramm left the campaign as chief economic advisor after the whiner comment this summer, but still assists the campaign, which is frightening.

On the one hand you’ve got that and on the other you’ve got different things McCain has said. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html
(It was at this point he looked to Gramm for advice-yikes!)

This is a sore point for both campaigns. Both candidates have connections to Fannie and Freddie- McCain’s got Phil Gramm and Rick Davis, among others.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-18-econteams_N.htm

Here’s a different view:
It wasn’t Fannie and Freddie
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/once-again-it-w.html


Old McCain foreign policy adviser list:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/

More recent list:
http://www.connectusfund.org/mccain

Economic adviser list:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/other-list-mccains-economists.html


Voting record
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/69733

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/


This could be an interesting site. I didn’t have a chance to peruse it for long…
http://www.procon.org


Two oft repeated McCain quotes that make me chuckle:
(He repeated them in the debate, though he rushed through the delivery of the veto pen one so it wasn’t as dramatic as at stump speeches)
*veto pen; “ I will make them famous and you will know their names”
*”snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”- talking about Obama’s plan

Debate #1 Obama-McCain

First in debate business is I am surprised that there was one at all! I really thought since McCain thought the financial crisis grounds for suspending the campaign, canceling the debate, returning to Washington (to do who knows what), and urging Obama to do the same that he wouldn’t show. It was really a lose-lose situation. If he goes, he has to flip flop, if he stays in Washington, he lets Obama have the forum unopposed at a time when he’s really not serving a critical function or doing anything constructive at all. I guess this just goes to show that McCain’s big announcement and effort to look presidential and take charge really was as crazy as I thought it was. The McCain response to the debate, released about a minute after it, said McCain was presidential and Obama was political. McCain’s actions clearly show that at best, both are political! If this is true, this is also rather political- an ad was placed announcing McCain won the debate before it was known if he’d go or not. I hope the ad thing is some kind of joke the media picked up thinking it was real because that is really lame if it is in fact real. I was going to say it wasn’t presidential, but actually damage control and false information has become presidential, so that’s up in the air.

A second observation is how mad McCain appeared at the beginning to even be there. Or was it embarrassment?

I was disappointed that Obama didn’t focus on McCain’s history of pushing deregulation when talking about the current financial crisis. I think it was mentioned in voting with Bush or very briefly. McCain took the opportunity to mention a Fannie or Freddie tie with Obama’s campaign, but Obama didn’t return the favor by pointing out how many were/are working for McCain. Sometimes I think the time and format were to blame for either candidate not getting in a last dig.

Obama’s “John is right”…will we see this again? If not by comedians or Fox commentators, then in another McCain ad filled with half truths and lies (like the Messiah and sex ed ads).

McCain claims that Pakistan was a failed state before Musharraf. Not true. Ouch. Not looking good if foreign policy is supposed to be his strong point.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/703847.html

McCain also said he warned us about the financial crisis, but in November 2007 he said he hadn’t seen it coming.

The candidates argued over Kissinger’s position. Obama said Kissinger agrees that there should be talks without preconditions. McCain said Kissinger said there should be talks with low level officials and that he’s always supported that. Obama’s point was the preconditions issue, not high level vs. low level and McCain hasn’t supported talks with Iran. McCain did say that Kissinger doesn’t support high level, only low level talks and it appears he supports high level talks after all. I don’t know if McCain considers Secretary of State low level, though…

Kissinger’s position:
"Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic..." Sesno: "Put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger: "Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to. Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government." (CNN's "Live Event," 9/20/08)

McCain: "And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion -- aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is -- shows to me that we -- that -- that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that."
*OK, McCain tries again to compare Obama to Bush. Still funny. Especially since McCain repeats the false statement about Obama’s initial statement about Russia and Georgia and the campaign let Palin repeat the bridge to nowhere half truth, etc. The whole thing about the surge working is not the whole truth in the first place, so Obama has nothing to “admit”. It is a little more involved than McCain would like to lead us to believe. There were apparently several factors independent of the surge that contributed to a “success”.

MCCAIN: "It's well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoner, on - on Guantanamo Bay. On a -- on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I'm happy to say that I've got a partner that's a good maverick along with me now."
*Obama was talking about tax plans and how McCain voted with Bush and wants to keep his tax cuts and McCain used the time to bring up his legendary maverick label and how he picked another maverick as a running mate. Not the reply with the most substance. But staying on topic would mean convincing us that voting with Bush on budgets, increased spending and tax cuts has helped our economy. Instead, lets talk about how he didn’t vote with Bush on climate change and torture. Bravo, McCain! You don’t agree with torture! Way to reach across the aisle!

Speaking of reaching across the aisle, one example McCain gave was working with Leiberman. I’d argure that Leiberman was the one reaching…

McCain managed, for good measure, to work this into talk about the possibility of another 9/11- “And I want to tell you that one of the things I'm most proud of, among others, because I have worked across the aisle. I have a long record on that, on a long series of reforms.”

Kudos to McCain for only saying "my friends" once or so! Maybe that was due to the fact that they were supposed to be talking to each other in this format?


Here's factcheck's summary:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

Election notes

I'll fix these links and edit soon...

Reading List:
Angler- Cheney VP book. I think I want to read it. It may give me nightmares, though, so maybe not.


More election notes:

McCain criticized the Obama campaign recently for saying the economic trouble and bailouts will help him politically . McCain accused Obama of exploitation. (I don't think just the Obama campaign is saying that-seems everyone knows it.) This sounds familiar…wait a sec… McCain’s campaign had the same to say about McCain and another terrorist attack…how it would help them or something like that…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7470399.stm


At least in Obama’s case, this is just a generally acknowledged fact. The crisis is here. In McCain’s case, I think the guy was caught implying that he was hoping for another attack. Since this was not said in the immediate aftermath of an actual attack, this came off sounding rather more sinister than (I hope) it was meant.

Palin said this recently of Obama… 'He likes to point the finger of blame,' she said of the Democratic candidate 'But has he ever really lifted a finger to help?'
The much ridiculed community organizing comes to mind, among other things...

Palin talks about experience as a mom, but no one can criticize or ask about balancing a 5 month old with Down’s Syndrome, pregnant teen, and other family issues with her very demanding, very public jobs.
Also, people say no one would talk ask about family obligations/balance for a man, so we shouldn’t of Palin. BUT, the men generally don’t stand up and talk about being a dad as though it qualifies them for public office. Maybe this is unique to her or maybe it speaks to the unique role of the woman in the home. I’m not one to say women should stay home, but in considering a job of this magnitude and the fact that she has made being a mother into a resume item, I think it’s legit to ask about the work/family balance and related issues.


83 Wall Street Lobbyists Among McCain Aides, Donors
Meanwhile, a new analysis of his donors and advisers has found McCain has extensive ties to eighty-three lobbyists of the financial industry he’s been criticizing. According to Mother Jones magazine, the eighty-three include McCain’s chief political adviser, Charlie Black; his national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman; and his vice-presidential search director, Arthur Culvahouse.
From Democracy Now 9/19/08
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9753_mccain_campaign_lobbyists_wall_street_aig.html


It is odd to hear Obama talking about corruption in Wall Street, etc, and making the populist appeal when he had a fund-raising event that was $28,000 per ticket!


"The congressional leaders who give him his marching orders now say this mess isn't their fault and they aren't going to take any action on this crisis until after this election. What?" (audience booed)
"That's the kind of 'Me First, Country Second' politics that's broken in Washington.”
*He makes it sound like Obama is Washigton’s robot and this “brain” is responsible for the whole enchilada. McCain’s been there longer and supported deregualtion, which actually did lead to this mess! McCain trying to paint Obama as the elitist establishment candidate is always good for a laugh.

All that being said, either of the two candidates effecting real change in Washington is equally unbelievable.


Three funny quotes:
'I could walk [100 miles] from here to Lansing and I wouldn't run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.'
Joe Biden, Monday

'The fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.'
John McCain, Monday

'Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's President he'll take on, and I quote, "the old boys' network in Washington" ... The old boys' network? In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting.'
Barack Obama, Wednesday

more campaign comparisons and observations...

Candidate profiles are interesting. You can compare foreign policy experience with 3 of the 4 candidates on the tickets. They are probably about equal in experience, though what makes it up is different for each. McCain and Biden have long careers and resumes. McCain was in the Navy, but Biden has a focus on foreign relations specifically and is chair of that Senate committee. Obama has a shorter career, but with personal overseas experience. His resume is impressive and pretty serious for someone not long in Washington- he’s proven he can reach across the aisle and he’s familiar with a wide array of important issues, and has visited a handful of countries in an official capacity. Palin definitely trails behind these three, though she has a couple of years of executive experience. If she (and Giuliani and other assorted conservatives) laughs/smirks/ at Obama’s community organizing as a resume item, then I definitely don’t think “living next to Russia” (you can see it from an Alaskan island) should count as foreign policy experience!
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/2008presidentialrace/2008_Presidential_Candidates_and_US_Foreign_Policy.htm


In the past, McCain has tended to be more independent (“pro” column) and has said more things that make sense than other Republicans, so I didn’t feel like it was so bad that he was going to win the nomination. BUT he doesn’t always vote the way that makes sense and for several years he’s been getting more conservative, perhaps in preparation for the nomination.
Anyway, here are some McCain foreign policy “cons”:
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usforeignpolicy&cdn=newsissues&tm=8&f=00&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//hnn.us/articles/50983.html

When the issue of McCain not being such a maverick or of Palin accepting a boatload of earmarks while claiming to have refused them, their supporters always point out how Obama hasn’t stood up to his party or how he participates in the earmark game as well rather than addressing the fact that McCain’s not a maverick or Palin’s earmark successes. Obama isn’t running on a platform of standing up to his party and trying to win independents and or democrats. He may be guilty on the earmark thing if you look at the whole issue of reform, though.

Another thing that bothers me about McCain are his adviser choices. I don’t think he chooses wisely- he’s picked some infamously controversial ones as well as ones that don’t make sense. Bolton as a foreign policy adviser?? There are few more controversial than that. If Bush chose this person for anything, you don’t want him! That and his record. Some say he spins intelligence, isn’t too diplomatic, hates the UN, and generally isn’t someone you want involved in diplomacy.

McCain himself has said some rather odd things foreign policy wise. Maybe some view it as revolutionary or reform minded, but I’m going to go with crazytalk or schizophrenic. He is very antagonistc toward Russia, which I don’t think will help a anyone or anything. He has said something about leaving them out of the G8 and or creating an alternative to the UN and not allowing Russia to join. And, he wants an arms control treaty with Russia and more transparency. Doubt that’s going to happen if he excludes them from all the clubs.

Phil Gramm was an economic adviser to McCain. He’s the Enron guy who said we should stop whining; the economy’s fine or something like that. I think scandal has caused some distance here, but I doubt McCain’s judgment on many of his choices of advisers. This proved to be an indicator of how the Bush presidency turned out, so we’ve got to look into these things. Bush surrounded himself with neoconservative war hawks who ended up pushing us into a war we had no right to start.

Palin also appeared to be a rather hasty choice. Rove wanted Romney. McCain wanted Lieberman. Palin was chosen. Palin, with no foreign policy experience (except that Russia is next door) and little to no economic experience (we can’t all balance our budget with Big Oil money). Palin, with a rather interesting personal “situation”- a pregnant teen daughter. On the surface, it seems like a reckless choice, though I’d like to think she’s more vetted than it looks. It doesn’t make much sense, unless he was looking to make ultra conservatives happy, which it did. They may have been trying to “steal” some bitter Hillary fans, but that’s probably not going to be very successful, unless those supporters didn’t care about any issue except the gender of the candidate.

McCain and Iran

McCain singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html

I realize it was a joke, but it's really uncalled for when you're talking about bombings that will involve killing innocents. Unless they have those magic weapons that Israel has that don't kill any inncents, right? The "threat" is another resurrected one, so far unsubstantiated, so he should even be talking like that, let alone joking about it.

US Exports Cigarettes and more to Iran-supporting terrorism??
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html

McCain responding to the above report of exporting cigarettes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iran_dc

Again, yes, it's joke. But sometimes some kinds of jokes are inappropriate. Especially if you're running to be in charge of such matters in the near future! I want someone that I know will take matters seriously, especially ones that involve life and death. One who will consider the human cost and make absolutely sure there's an imminent threat before we cause harm to us and others.

Speaking of responsible choices... McCain's probable pick for Treasury Secretary is Phil Gramm. THE Phil Gramm. Enron (he and his wife). Forclosure crisis. Is that someone who you wnat anywhere near financial decisions?? Yikes. And recently he said Americans need to stop whining about a mental recession. Where is this guy living? Mars? Anyway, McCain did the obligatory backpedaling, but will we see him kick Gramm to the curb, as Obama has done with controversial figures?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on

McCain and Rabbis

This stuff is from last week, but I've got a few things to say about them.

McCain Backs Israeli Actions In Gaza

Ok. Can McCain be any more obvious? He's not visiting the Palestinians at this time. Hmmm. Who's he courting?? Could it be the Jewish vote?? Foreign policy credentials. That's embellishing a bit. You could get by with that if you met with both sides. He's kissing up to American Jews by making nice with Israel and telling them what they want to hear. You are the victims, we'll protect you no mater what, of course you are justified in killing Palestinians etc, etc.

"That is not a way for people to live," McCain said. "No nation in the world can be attacked incessantly and have its population killed and intimidated without responding. That's one of the first obligations of government, to provide security for its citizens."

This quote is absolutely ridiculous in light of facts on the ground. Israel routinely harasses and kills the Palestinian population and that's ok. When Israel faces any sort of retaliation for their actions, suddenly they are being intimidated and justified in a violent response. It has been going on for 30+ years!! Innocents under attack by the Israeli military are in much more danger than those facing crude, homemade Palestinian rockets.

I guess the key is the last statement. Palestinians have no state and so they have no government whose job it would be to provide security for them. I guess if you don't have a state, you have no rights and don't matter. You are invisible. Or might as well be.

***
Arab MK to chief rabbis: Slam rabbinic calls to harm Arabs

Some rabbis are encouraging repayment for the seminary shooting- "measure for measure".
Whenever the radical Palestinians say something like this, it gets broad coverage on every major news network here in the States and is reinterpreted as the whole Palestinian population's view. I heard nothing about this except for this article. When rightist rabbis say these things it is the exception rather than the rule. When Palestinians say them, it is the rule rather than the exception. The news broadcasters (or their company) extrapolate and superimpose the views of extremists onto the whole Palestinian population.

I was going to look at several candidates on all issues, but I don’t seem to have the time. I have the most to say about the Republican view of Israel, so I started here. I remember considering McCain at one time, but there’s not enough there this time. I think I'm more of a Democrat, but I don't think either party really is a good fit for me.

Sadly Kucinich is out of the Democratic race. I think he was going to announce it last week, but I didn’t hear for sure. He was a better fit for me when he was pro-life, but he had to ditch that to go Democratic and pick up more votes. I don’t know how much good it did him, though.

Anyway…

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/may/24/five_presidential_candidates_offer_their_positions_on_israel_new

McCain
Sacred soil? Beacon of freedom and faith? Is McCain now Jewish?
Sometimes when Republicans get to talking about Israel I feel like shaking them and reminding them A) they are Christians (aren’t they?) and B) they are Americans. Those facts easily get lost in their rhetoric; one would assume oftentimes by listening to them that they are Jewish Israelis, Zionist even.

Existential threats. He’s using that term. The one Israel likes to use to justify any and all disproportional uses of force and torture and collective punishment. Great.

McCain’s priority appears to be giving our money to Israel, overlooking ALL faults, and bringing them into any diplomacy efforts we have with other nations. The sentence about bedrock support for Israel’s security sums up his focus. The focus won’t be any sort of peace process.

League of Democracies? Don’t we already have a United Nations? Israel will play a leading role, though it is standing on the edge of the cliff overlooking apartheid (or is it falling off already?), collectively punishes all of a particular race, has a Cabinet member who suggested busing all Palestinian prisoners into the sea to drown, builds/expands settlements in defiance of international law and our own position??

Half of his comments deal with how he will isolate enemies of Israel. Diplomacy what? Throw it out the window. Who needs it. As long as Israel is safe beyond a shadow of a doubt almost entirely at our expense, right?

He’ll never force Israel to make concessions… That sounds about right. I know there is more to the sentence, but that part is key. It is another red flag that diplomacy won’t be used or it will only be used when conditions are favorable in every way to Israel and all of its demands (unreasonable or not) are met (which won’t happen).

I found this quote particularly absurd, but fitting as it was the last in his statement on the subject on the website.

“I will make sure the American people understand that if we are to defeat the extremists that threaten our way of life, Israel's security cannot be compromised.”

On other issues…
Abortion- He is pro-life as I am, but I worry a bit about the implications of banning all abortions (ectopic pregnancies, etc?) and/or making them illegal (mother goes to prison or could be prosecuted if someone determines she didn’t do enough to defend herself and her baby if she narrowly escapes death in an accident or attack?). I absolutely believe life begins at conception, but there are some issues I’m still thinking about that keep me from being as rabidly or absolutely pro-life as some.

Budget- He is against wasteful spending, which is supposed to be a Republican thing, I guess. I like that idea in theory, but in practice it seems Republicans cut the budget in the wrong areas (cancer researchers among others are finding it hard to get grants at present among other misappropriations) and give themselves pay raises.

Environment- He’s better than most Republicans here, but not great.

Defense, Intelligence, Judges- He supports the “war on terror” and Bush’s judges. I have a big problem with neocons, here, and slightly less problem with regular cons.

Immigration- He seems big into amnesty, which I’m not sure I support. They are breaking the law, so I think there should be consequences. I don’t know how harsh those consequences should be. They may not understand the requirements so I don’t feel infuriated by illegals like some, but at the same time the punishment should be harsh enough to deter illegal immigration.

Gay Marriage- He wants to define marriage by an act in Congress, but not by the Constitution. I’m not sure we should be defining marriage by laws if it is a religious institution. We can’t legislate people into heaven. This act, unlike abortion doesn’t hurt others, so I hesitate more to support defining marriage as one man and one woman by the Constitution. I kind of think the states should be uniform, though.