Actually, I love Wal-Mart....
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The Wisdom Of The Saint: In Case One Doubted He's Stupid Enough To Be The Next Beloved Leader
Drawing a sharp distinction between himself and the two Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona warned Tuesday against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused, saying that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”[more] (Emphasis added.)
And people who got ripped off by the greedy, thieving lenders, what about them? They're deserving of what? Nothing too?
Asshole. Big time.
Scumbaggery: Rightists' Subversion Of Free Elections And Democracy
Raw Story:
This month's primaries in Ohio and Texas resurrected Hillary Clinton from the political graveyard for the umpteenth time this election season.
Conservative talker Rush Limbaugh is taking credit for Clinton's continued presence in the race after encouraging Republican voters to switch parties before those two big states voted March 4, and he has called on Pennsylvania GOPers to do the same before their state votes April 22. Limbaugh's listeners are worried about an election fraud investigation, which could result in criminal charges for voters in at least one Ohio county.
MSNBC host Dan Abrams says the right-wing radio host's aim is "to subvert democracy and inject dirty tricks into the Democratic nomination process."
"I've said it before, I think it's un-American to encourage people to vote for a candidate they don't want to win, in order to corrupt the process," Abrams said. "But in Ohio, it may also be illegal."
He went on to discuss a probe in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, where Board of Elections officials are launching an investigation into crossover voters to determine whether any are guilty of election fraud, a felony. Results of the investigation will be released March 31.
It's unlikely that Limbaugh single-handedly swung the results to Clinton in either state, as was his stated intention. Clinton and her Democratic rival Barack Obama split Republicans in Ohio, and Obama won Texas Republicans, according to network exit polls.
In Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, the Plain Dealer reported that a "staggering" 16,000 Republicans switched parties to vote in the March 4 Democratic primary. Some GOP voters openly acknowledged their intention to meddle with the opposing party, writing messages like "For one day only" on pledges voters are required to sign indicating they will support the party whose primary they are voting in.
As staggering as the Cuyahoga County figure seemed, exit polls suggest crossover voters may have been even more prevalent elsewhere in the state. Nearly 325,000 voters cast a ballot for either Obama or Clinton in the Cleveland area, so Republicans accounted for about 5 percent of the Democratic turnout. Statewide, Republicans made up about 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, according to the exit polls.
Obama has touted his support among independents and GOP voters -- so-called Obamacans -- and while some crossover voters told the PD they voted for Clinton to set up an easy target for John McCain in the fall, others said they thought Obama would be an easier opponent. Plenty of Republicans also voted Democratic out of heart-felt beliefs, to be sure, as the GOP struggles in what is expected to be a rocky election year.
In Pennsylvania, Obama's campaign was working hard to get supporters to switch their registration from independent or Republican to Democratic. He even ran a radio ad reminding those voters that Monday was the last day they could register as Democrats to vote in the April 22 primary. Meanwhile, Limbaugh also has said he has "operatives" registering Republicans as Democrats to vote for Clinton.
Between March 10 and 17, the most recent timeframe available, more than 14,000 new Democrats registered to vote in Pennsylvania and 29,000 voters switched their registration to the Democratic party, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
Before Pennsylvania goes to the polls, the Cleveland, Ohio-area elections board will release the results of its investigation. Some ballots containt possible evidence of voter fraud, which in Ohio is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
"I'm looking for evidence," Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the county's elections board tells the Plain Dealer. "I'm not interested in a witch hunt. But I am interested in holding people accountable, whether they're Democrat or Republican."
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Man Pregnant!!!!!!!
Hallelujah! Read about this epic event here. (Yeah, yeah, it is something of a trick....)
Was Spitzer Set Up? IRS Investigation -- Or A GOP Target?
Raw Story:
In the 1970s, he was on the payroll of Richard Nixon's now-infamous Committee to Reelect the President. In the 1980s, he helped George Bush Sr. trounce Michael Dukakis by floating a racially charged ad about the Democratic governor's role in furloughing a black inmate. And in 2000, he organized the so-called "Brooks Brothers" riot, forcing the shutdown of a recount in Miami-Dade County, Florida, that may have turned the election to George W. Bush.
Last November, his lawyer wrote a letter to the FBI. In it, GOP political operative Roger Stone's attorney, Paul Rolf alleged that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer "used the services of high-priced call girls" while in Florida, basing his information on a "social contact."
The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Stone gleaned the information from "a social contact in an adult themed club."
"The governor has paid literally tens of thousands of dollars for these services," Rolf wrote. "It is Mr. Stone's understanding that the governor paid not with credit cards or cash but through some pre-arranged transfer."
It continued, including particular detail -- Stone's lawyer wrote that the governor hadn't taken off his calf-length socks "during the sex act."
It's unclear whether Stone's letter sparked the investigation: court papers say the investigation began "in or about October 2007."
The New York Times reported that law enforcement officials "stumbled upon" the prostitution ring after they'd begun an investigation of Spitzer for potential corruption, after a bank flagged "suspicious transfers."
The missive's timing -- in November -- was preceded by contact from the FBI. The Miami Herald, which first reported on Stone's lawyer's letter, said the letter was written in response to contact from federal investigators.
"His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted," Herald reporter Amy Driscoll wrote Friday.
Subsequent reports shed little light on why the FBI sought to speak to Stone before the letter was sent. The Times speculated that the bureau might have wanted to talk to Stone about a threatening message he allegedly left for Spitzer's father, which resulted in his being fired by New York's top Senate Republican.
Stone chose his words carefully when speaking to the Times: "He said that he was never interviewed by federal officials and that he was not sure his lawyers were contacted because of the reported call to Bernard Spitzer."
He did say, however, "in a series of e-mail messages on Sunday," that "his lawyers were contacted by federal investigators three weeks after the allegations about the call surfaced."
The FBI has declined to comment, either on whether they received Rolf's letter or if they contacted Stone directly.
Novak
Conservative columnist Robert Novak hinted at a possible Stone role in a column earlier this month.
"Republican political operative Roger Stone, Eliot Spitzer's longtime antagonist, predicted his political demise more than three months in advance," Novak wrote. "Spitzer's entrapment by federal authorities investigating a prostitution ring raised speculation that Stone, with a 40-year record as a political hit man, somehow was behind it."
"Eliot Spitzer will not serve out his term as governor of the state of New York,'' Stone said Dec. 6 on Michael Smerconish's radio talk show," Novak added. "He gave no details."
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, in the Wall Street Journal, avers that the Times' explanation of Spitzer's 'capture' after a bank flagged his transactions doesn't entirely ring true to career prosecutors.
"There is no hard evidence that Eliot Spitzer was targeted for investigation, but the story of how he was caught does not ring entirely true to many experienced former prosecutors and current criminal lawyers," Dershowitz wrote. "The New York Times reported that the revelations began with a routine tax inquiry by revenue agents 'conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks.' This investigation allegedly found 'several unusual movements of cash involving the Governor of New York.' But the movement of the amounts of cash required to pay prostitutes, even high-priced prostitutes over a long period of time, does not commonly generate a full-scale investigation."
"We are talking about thousands, not millions, of dollars. We are also talking about a man who is a multimillionaire with numerous investments and purchases," he added. "The idea that federal investigators would focus on a few transactions to corporations -- that were not themselves under investigation -- raises as many questions as answers."
In a nod to his beginnings, Stone has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on the back of his neck.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Second Step In Spitzer's Downfall
The first of course was the sex/prostitute addiction. Then this:
Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer ''used the services of high-priced call girls'' while in Florida.Link.
The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from ''a social contact in an adult-themed club.'' It offered one potentially identifying detail: the man in question hadn't taken off his calf-length black socks ``during the sex act.''
Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton's presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted.
''Mr. Stone respectfully declines to meet with you at this time,'' the letter states, before going on to offer ''certain information'' about Spitzer.
''The governor has paid literally tens of thousands of dollars for these services. It is Mr. Stone's understanding that the governor paid not with credit cards or cash but through some pre-arranged transfer,'' the letter said.
''It is also my client's understanding from the same source that Governor Spitzer did not remove his mid-calf length black socks during the sex act. Perhaps you can use this detail to corroborate Mr. Stone's information,'' the letter said, signed by attorney Paul Rolf Jensen of Costa Mesa, Calif.
The letter also notes that while Stone believes the information is true, he ''cannot swear to its accuracy'' because it is second-hand.
James Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI's New York office, would not say whether the bureau had received the letter. A spokeswoman for Spitzer also had no comment.
The letter was written several months after allegations were leveled at Stone that he had left a threatening phone message at the office of Bernard Spitzer, the ex-governor's father, regarding ''phony'' campaign loans involving his son's unsuccessful 1994 bid for attorney general. Stone denied making the call but resigned as a consultant for state Senate Republicans in Albany.
How About A Little Perspective?
Meet the man who inspired Reverend Jeremiah Wright's now famous tirade about America's foreign policy inciting the terrorist attacks of September 11.Link.
His name is Ambassador Edward Peck. And he is a retired, white, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter -- hardly the black-rage image with which Wright has been stigmatized.
In fact, when Wright took the pulpit to give his post-9/11 address -- which has since become boiled down to a five second sound bite about "America's chickens coming home to roost" -- he prefaced his remarks as a "faith footnote," an indication that he was deviating from his sermon.
"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday," Wright declared. "He was on Fox News. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true: America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Wright then went on to list more than a few U.S. foreign policy endeavors that, by the tone of his voice and manner of his expression, he viewed as more or less deplorable. This included, as has been demonstrated in the endless loop of clips from his sermon, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuking "far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."
"Violence begets violence," Wright said, "hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."
And then he concluded by putting the comments on Peck's shoulders: "A white ambassador said that yall, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open and is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice... the ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them... let me stop my faith footnote right there."
Watch the video (the relevant material starts around the 3:00 mark):
So it seems that while Wright did believe American held some responsibility for 9/11, his views, which have been described as radically outside the political mainstream, were actually influenced by a career foreign policy official.
Who is Peck? The ambassador, who has offered controversial criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank but also warned against the Iraq War, was lecturing on a cruise ship and was unavailable for comment. But officials at Peck's former organization, the Council for the National Interest, a non-profit group that advocates reducing Israel's influence on U.S. Middle East policy, offered descriptions of the man.
"Peck is very outspoken," said Eugene Bird, who now heads CNI. "He is also very good at making phrases that have a resonance with the American people. When he came off of that Fox News, a few days later he said they would never invite me back again."
And what, exactly, did Peck say in that Fox News interview that inspired Wright's words?
Here are some quotes from an appearance the Ambassador made on the network on October 11, 2001, which may or may not have been the segment Wright was referring to. On the show, Peck said he thought it was illogical to tie Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and that while the then-Iraqi leader had "some very sound and logical reasons not to like [the United States]," he and Osama bin Laden had no other ties.
From there, Peck went on to ascribe motives for what prompted the 9/11 attacks. "Stopping the economic embargo and bombings of Iraq," he said, "things to which Osama bin Laden has alluded as the kinds of things he doesn't like. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things that he sees us as having been doing, the same way Saddam Hussein feels. So from that perspective, they have a commonality of interests. But they also have a deeply divergent view of the role of Islam in government, which would be a problem."
Yesterday's Thought Of The Day
FDR's expansion of government, despised by the wingnuts, was effectively an insurance policy which the wingnuts have ripped to shreds. So now here we are, with the worst economic crisis since the 30s developing (possibility even worse) because of what the wingnuts did to the creations of the New Deal.
And we get headlines like this:
And we get headlines like this:
Political Pendulum Swings
Toward Stricter Regulation
Great News! The Creators Of The Sub-Prime And Related Economic Disaster Have A Plan To Personally Benefit From Their Disaster!
Yes, it is sickening.
For 27 years, former Countrywide Financial Corp. President Stanford Kurland made a fortune helping to build a mortgage-lending empire.Link.
Now, as parts of the mortgage market collapse, Mr. Kurland and some former colleagues have a new plan -- make another fortune on the way down.
On Monday, the group will announce the launch of Private National Mortgage Acceptance Company LLC, or PennyMac, an investment firm formed as a joint venture between asset manager BlackRock Inc., under Chief Executive Laurence Fink, and Boston investment firm Highfields Capital Management.
PennyMac seeks to raise more than $2 billion to buy distressed mortgages on the cheap, work with borrowers to restructure them, and then resell them as performing mortgages at a profit.
A Wingnut's Thoughts
Amazingly, I agree with him about maybe 1% -- but thenm, I work in Manhattan and ride the subways....
I don't hate black people. I can't pretend to be color-blind because absolutely nothing in my culture will allow me to be. I admire Thomas Sowell, Duke Ellington, Roberto Clemente, Muhammed Ali, Alexandre Dumas, Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Count Basie, Tiger Woods, and Bill Cosby. There are many others but that's a sampling of the famous folks whose courage, genius, character, and achievements I would be proud if I could get anywhere in the vicinity of. The bald truth of the matter is that they're better than I am, and it doesn't arouse a flicker of racial feeling in me to acknowledge it. They have enriched and elevated my own experience of life.Link.
On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it? I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings. It's like a broadcast dare: Go ahead! Call me a nigger! And then I'll cap your ass.
Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers. Black people know it. White people know it. And only black people are allowed to notice and pronounce the truth of it. Which would be fine. Except that black people are not a community but a political party. They can squabble with each other in caucus but they absolutely refuse to speak the truth in public. And this is the single biggest obstacle to healing the racial divide in this country. The dammed-up flood of good will in this nation for black people who want to work for their own American Dream is absolutely enormous. The biggest impediment is the doubt created in each and every non-black American by the clannish, tribalist, irrational defense of every low act committed by any black person. If you're offended when Republicans defend Richard Nixon or when Democrats defend Chuck Schumer, imagine what it's like when black people swarm the streets to defend Jeremiah Wright.
I'm not proposing the generalized use of the term, just trying to be clear for once, in the wake of Obama's call for us to have a dialogue about race. However much they may scream and protest, black people will know what I mean when I demand they concede that the following people are niggers:
- Jeremiah Wright
- O.J. Simpson
- Marion Barry
- Alan Iverson
- William Jefferson
- Louis Farrakhan
- Mike Tyson
You know what I mean. They hold you back. They're dirty, violent, and stupid. They make you look bad, and you foul yourselves by defending them, by reelecting them to office, by admiring them in spite of all their awful behavior.
We can have this conversation now -- should have this conversation now -- because African-Americans are on the verge of the greatest setback they've experienced since the election of Rutherford B. Hayes. You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone.
The path to equality is counter-intuitive. Admit and decry the failings of your community. Concede that a generation of single mothers has been a disaster. Let go of the fantasy that black mothers are some kind of infallible force of nature. Demand that your children spend more time reading and doing sums than farting around on the basketball court. Only about two thousand people in the whole country make a living by playing sports. The rest have to get real jobs. Do whatever it takes to make your preachers emphasize the value of being a good father instead of ranting from the pulpit about how all of life's woes are the fault of rich old white men. Tip your white waitress. Stay at work after 5 o'clock. Allow your kids to find somebody to admire and emulate who isn't black. (My two best friends in high school -- white guys -- fought like dogs about their conflicting candidates for best rightfielder in baseball: Clemente or Aaron.) Would it kill you if your kid fixated on Sandy Koufax, Mozart, or Shakespeare rather than Mays, Armstrong, or Jay-Z? Does being black really have to be a full-time job?
Here's the biggest thing we "racists" notice. Every single immigrant group that ever came to America -- including the Chinese who came as railroad slaves -- has risen out of poverty and want to prosperity and respect. The Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Jews, the Koreans, the Vietnamese. Every group but you. And you're the only group we fought a war to free.
Sorry to break it to you, but Obama won't be elected president. We were ready, but you clearly aren't. Time to think about getting ready.
FYI: The photo is posted to show a possible source of the "problem", not as a wingnut's wet dream of a solution or anything. Being "emigrated" to America by force was maybe a problem. Maybe the radically different culture was and is a factor. Maybe these wingnuts are, to a great extent, ignorant shitheads who just can't deal with too complex a problem and must reduce it to imbecilities. (That's part of the 99% that I disagree with. And FYI, there's nothing of a solution in the quoted post; just dumb whining.)
The Wingnuts' Regrets About Their Disaster In Iraq
Link.Meanwhile, our fatalities hit 4,000 over the holiday weekend, another milestone for Our Leaders.
A tanked economy, destroyed freedoms, the Iraq disaster and a significantly weakened military -- and we're about to elect four more years of that....
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Covering For The Saint';s Lies, Stupidity And Pandering
Media Matters again:
In a recent PolitiFact.com article purporting to examine Sen. John McCain's admittedly false claim at a March 18 press conference that "[i]t's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran," PolitiFact echoed the McCain campaign by characterizing his misstatement as a momentary lapse, asserting: "Maybe he was confused just for a moment. He did correct himself quickly." PolitiFact added later, "McCain recovered quickly, but we still rate his statement False." But McCain was not "confused just for a moment" -- he made the same error twice during the press conference, which PolitiFact did not note. Moreover, PolitiFact did not mention that McCain had made a similar misstatement the previous day -- further undermining PolitiFact's claim that "McCain correct[ed] himself" or "recovered quickly." As the blog Think Progress noted, McCain said to nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt during a March 17 interview: "As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."
PolitiFact introduced its rating of McCain's statement as "False" by writing the following: "We're not trying to pile on to Sen. John McCain over his misstatement on the link between Iran and al-Qaida." In an examination of critical articles about statements by Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, Media Matters for America could find no instance in which PolitiFact expressed concern that calling attention to what it deemed to be a false statement by Clinton or Obama might constitute "piling on." Nor could Media Matters find a similar statement or suggestion that the Democrat making the flawed statement may have been "confused just for a moment." As Media Matters noted, NBC News political director Chuck Todd observed of McCain's misstatement: "[H]ad Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over."
In a March 18 statement, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers claimed, "In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda -- as the transcript shows. Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates' judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief."
The Washington Post's Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported on March 18 that McCain made the misstatement twice during the press conference -- once in remarks, and again when he was "[p]ressed to elaborate" on it:He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.Video of McCain's first March 18 misstatement, in which he said Iranian operatives are "taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," can be found here at 2 minutes and 3 seconds into the video. Video of McCain's second misstatement, in which he said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known," can be found here.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists.
According to its website, PolitiFact.com is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly intended "to help voters separate fact from falsehood in the 2008 presidential campaign."
From the March 2008 PolitiFact.com article:We're not trying to pile on to Sen. John McCain over his misstatement on the link between Iran and al-Qaida. Maybe he was confused just for a moment. He did correct himself quickly. Still, it's worth exploring why McCain's statement is wrong.
"It's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaida is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran; that's well known. And it's unfortunate," McCain said during a press conference in Jordan, where he was traveling.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was also at the press conference spoke softly in McCain's ear, and McCain corrected himself to say "Islamic extremists" were going into Iran.
Most experts do not believe Iran is helping al-Qaida because their respective religious affiliations are at odds with each other. Both sides are Muslim, but the Iranian government is Shiite while al-Qaida is Sunni. And al-Qaida adheres to a fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam that considers Shiites to be apostate. It's not likely the two groups would work together, certainly not "common knowledge."
In Iraq, both al-Qaida and Shiite extremists are commonly believed to be committing acts of violence. But it was al-Qaida that was behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, not Shiite extremists.
[...]
McCain recovered quickly, but we still rate his statement False for saying everyone knows Iran and al-Qaida are working together.
The MSM Proves Its Love For The Saint
Via Media Matters:
John McCain's surrogates
John McCain should be having a very bad week. Fortunately for him, McCain's unofficial surrogates -- also known as "reporters" -- have leaped to his defense on a range of topics.
Taxes
Last week, I explained that despite obsessing over the fact that Hillary Clinton has not publicly released her tax returns, media are ignoring John McCain's failure to do so. If McCain were to release his tax returns, we might see, for example, additional details about the financial ties between McCain, his wife, and Charles Keating, a prime figure in the savings and loan scandals of the late 1980s. McCain and Keating vacationed together in the Bahamas, Keating gave McCain free use of his private jet (a violation of ethics rules; McCain eventually paid for the flights), and McCain's wife invested in a shopping mall with Keating. After McCain joined four other senators in urging federal regulators to go easy on Keating's savings and loan, McCain was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee.
But reporters aren't asking about when John McCain will release his taxes, and for what years. Worse, some are falsely giving him credit for having already done so.
This week, ABC News chief investigative reporter Brian Ross told viewers "more than a year into the campaign, Senator Clinton, unlike Senators Obama and McCain, has still not released any of her tax returns. The campaign says those are coming too by April 15th. But there's been no explanation, Charlie, about why the delay for those."
But McCain hasn't released his tax returns. Nor has he given any "explanation" for the "delay" in doing so. Ross' report was more than a simple mistake, or false claim. It was a deeply revealing indication of ABC's complete lack of interest in McCain's finances.
Ross is ABC's "chief investigative reporter," yet he apparently has no interest at all in looking at McCain's tax returns. If he had any interest at all, he would know that they haven't been released. But Ross thinks they have been released -- meaning he has never tried to obtain or examine them.
Brian Ross wants to see Hillary Clinton's tax returns, even though -- unlike McCain -- she is not her party's de facto presidential nominee. But he has no interest in McCain's. Ross has time to give a misleading report about Barack Obama's finances that breaks no new ground -- but he doesn't care about McCain's finances.
Maybe Brian Ross is too busy searching through Hillary Clinton's schedules to try to determine where she was at the precise moments her husband was with Monica Lewinsky. That's a nasty, pointless little exercise with absolutely no news value whatsoever. No reporter with any judgment would think such a thing is a good idea, and any reporter with any dignity would refuse to carry out such an assignment. But that's how Brian Ross spent his Wednesday. Trying to determine if Hillary Clinton was in the Map Room or the Blue Room or Akron while her husband was with Lewinsky. That isn't anything that matters at all -- it is investigative gossip, not investigative reporting.
But Brian Ross and ABC think that kind of thing is more important than examining (or even glancing at) John McCain's tax returns.
This is no surprise, of course. After years of dishonestly obsessing over Whitewater, ABC couldn't be bothered to report a single word about new evidence that emerged during the 2000 campaign indicating that George W. Bush may have been guilty of insider trading when he dumped more than $800,000 worth of stock in a company on whose board he served. Not one word.
ABC's casual indifference to Bush's finances helped give us the Iraq war. Their similar lack of interest in McCain's may help give us a war with Iran.
But at least we know where Hillary Clinton was while her husband was cheating on her. That's what's really important, isn't it?
Foreign policy
Earlier this week, McCain falsely claimed that Al Qaeda is receiving training in Iran. Multiple times, over the course of multiple days. He didn't correct himself until a traveling companion leaned over and whispered in his ear, presumably telling him that he was getting a rather basic fact wrong (Iran's government is Shiite, Al Qaeda is Sunni, and the Sunni and the Shia aren't known for close cooperation.)
Remember the media's excuse for obsessing over John Edwards' expensive haircut: The cut was deemed newsworthy because it was (supposedly) incongruous with his image as a fighter for the working class and poor. Well, few things are more incongruous with McCain's carefully cultivated image as a military and foreign policy expert than the fact that he apparently doesn't understand basic facts about Iran and Al Qaeda. So you might assume that, by the standard the media applied to John Edwards, John McCain's blunders would receive heavy media coverage, much of it mocking.
And, of course, we know how the media would have reacted if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Kerry had displayed such stunning ignorance about such a basic national security question.
But the media has different standards for John McCain.
Don't take my word for it.
Here's NBC political director Chuck Todd: "[H]ad Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over."
And MSNBC host Dan Abrams: "The problem is, when you're running for president and you're running on your foreign policy experience -- if it had happened to Obama or Clinton, I mean, I think it could have devastated -- if it happened to Obama, let's say, with this sort of lead that he's got, I think it might have even devastated his campaign."
And The Hill's A.B. Stoddard: "I think that if Barack Obama had confused Sunni and Shia, Al Qaeda, et cetera, it would have been a disaster. He would have been Mr. Green, wet behind the ears, can't find his way around." She added, "If Hillary Clinton had done so, it would have been, 'Oh, that poor first lady. She's just trying so hard to pretend that she could be president, but it's not going to work.' I think the problem for John McCain is that we assume that he knows his stuff, that he's Mr. National Security, so we say, 'It couldn't be an indication of his ignorance. He must be tired.' "
Stoddard was right: Reporters weren't just politely pretending McCain's mistakes hadn't happened; many of them were actively defending and making excuses for him.
Countless news reports indicated that McCain had simply misspoken -- and that he quickly corrected himself. CNN even aired a misleadingly spliced video that made it appear that McCain corrected himself immediately. In fact, as Media Matters noted, "in between the two statements, McCain was reportedly '[p]ressed to elaborate' on his misstatement and reiterated" his misstatement. Reporters frequently suggested McCain had made the mistake only once; in fact, he made it multiple times over the course of multiple days, indicating a lack of knowledge rather than a simple slip of the tongue.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough broke out the "he's tired" excuse, sarcastically saying, "John McCain also doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shia after he's been awake for 48 hours. Boy, that's a winning platform." Does anybody believe that, as Scarborough claimed, McCain had been "awake for 48 hours"? Anybody at all? Even if he had been, how does Scarborough explain the other times McCain got it wrong?
USA Today's Susan Page offered an extraordinary defense of McCain: "[M]ost Americans can't tell you the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, either."
PolitiFact.com -- a website operated by the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly claiming "to help voters separate fact from falsehood in the 2008 presidential campaign" -- seemed to apologize for having to correct McCain: "We're not trying to pile on to Sen. John McCain over his misstatement on the link between Iran and al-Qaida. Maybe he was confused just for a moment. He did correct himself quickly."
And CNBC's John Harwood asserted: "I think that at the end of the day, John McCain has got sufficient credibility on that issue that people are not going to look at that and say, 'Oh, John McCain's confused' or 'John McCain's too old' or 'John McCain doesn't get it.' ... But he obviously can't do that too many times or he's got a problem."
How many times is "too many"? If reporters are going to give McCain some number of free passes for blunders that would cause them to mock Democratic candidates, is it too much to ask for them to tell us that number in advance? Otherwise it's hard not to assume that reporters will keep increasing the number each time McCain gets something wrong.
John Hagee and Rod Parsley
Given intense media scrutiny of controversial comments made by a religious leader with ties to Barack Obama, many -- including Media Matters -- have wondered when news organizations will devote the same attention to John McCain's ties to Rod Parsley and John Hagee.
In February, shortly before the Ohio primary, John McCain stood with Rod Parsley in Cincinnati, declaring him a "spiritual guide." Parsley returned the compliment with his endorsement of McCain, who he praised as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." Parsley has written that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [of Islam] destroyed." As David Corn has explained, "Parsley, who refers to himself as a 'Christocrat,' is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis." He has suggested that the U.S. government was complicit in facilitating black genocide.
McCain won another key endorsement in February: John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.
Hagee has said of Hurricane Katrina, "[W]hen you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Hagee later defended his comment by saying, "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. ... 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. ... I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."
Hagee has written, "I encourage every person who has biblical beliefs to contact their congressman and their senator on a regular basis and implore them to pass this constitutional amendment recognizing only the marriage between a man and a woman. If we fail to achieve this, the gates of hell will be opened. It will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
Hagee once announced plans to hold a "slave sale" to raise money. According to the San Antonio Express-News, "Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin ... The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone' and ended with 'Make plans to come and go home with a slave.' " And Hagee has written "Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist" and "only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man. ...The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home."
According to Hagee, McCain actively sought his endorsement.
But despite McCain's embrace of Hagee and Parsley, their controversial views have not drawn the media scrutiny that has been given to Obama's relationship with his pastor.
Time's Michael Scherer actually claimed the McCain-Hagee connection has gotten extensive media coverage: "With rare exception, the press errs on the side of making a big deal out of anything that can be considered a 'scandal.' McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage."
"Lots" of "network news coverage"? The names "Hagee" and "McCain" have been mentioned in the same news report exactly one time on ABC -- in a comment by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. CBS has covered the matter in two brief reports. NBC has mentioned the endorsement one time, in a report that referred only vaguely to the fact that "some of the televangelist's public remarks have offended Catholics."
"Lots" of "negative newspaper" coverage? The New York Times has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in two articles. Both times, the Hagee mention was buried at the end of an article about another topic; combined, the two passages totaled only 251 words. Neither made any mention of Hagee's comments about Katrina, or gays, or women. The Washington Post has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in only two brief blurbs, only one of which noted any controversy surrounding the endorsement -- and, like the Times, that one mentioned only Hagee's comments about Catholics. Post columnist E. J. Dionne did briefly criticize McCain for not distancing himself from Hagee -- but he, too, ignored Hagee's comments about Katrina, gays, and women.
Scherer's claim that "McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage" was simply false; the endorsement has been all but ignored by the three networks and the nation's two most important newspapers.
By contrast, a Nexis search for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright" reveals 22 hits ... in The Washington Post alone. And 25 more in The New York Times (22 for "Obama and Jeremiah A. Wright" and three for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright.") And 15 hits in the NBC transcript database -- all since March 14. Fifteen more in the CBS database since March 14. Twenty-two more in the ABC database since March 13. That is "lots of negative coverage." And that is a huge imbalance.
While Scherer falsely claimed that McCain's ties to Hagee have gotten "lots" of attention, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough took another approach: claiming that McCain's embrace of Hagee is utterly unremarkable.
On the March 19 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, Rachel Maddow pointed out the "double standard" in the media's coverage of the situations. Scarborough responded by claiming, "This is not a serious argument. ... This is a ridiculous argument when you consider that Barack Obama is talking about his spiritual adviser for 20 years. Hagee didn't baptize McCain's kids. Hagee didn't marry McCain. John McCain's first book wasn't based on a sermon by Hagee."
Scarborough's argument might seem to make sense -- there is no doubt that Obama has closer ties to Jeremiah Wright than John McCain does to John Hagee. But this argument is backwards. Wright is Obama's pastor; their relationship is presumably far more personal than political. Indeed, it may not be political at all. McCain, on the other hand, sought Hagee's support solely for political purposes. His relationship with Hagee is nothing but political. Hagee's political views, therefore, are much more relevant than Jeremiah Wright's, as they are the entire basis for the McCain-Hagee relationship.
Put another way: What tells us more about Mary Matalin's political views? The fact that he has a personal relationship with James Carville, or the fact that she aligned herself politically with George Bush and Dick Cheney?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
