In addition to Republicans and business leaders, Obama’s recently departed head of the Office of Management and Budget also argues, in the New York Times, for a two year extension of the Bush tax cuts:
Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt. And since financial markets don’t seem at the moment to view the budget deficit as a problem — take a look at the remarkably low 10-year Treasury bond yield — there is little reason not to extend the tax cuts temporarily.
Not only is there little reason not to — there is every reason to do so. Unless one is so locked into a “soak the rich” mentality that ideology trumps common sense.
If McCain thinks ‘bipartisanship’ is going to get him to the WH, he will lose, but like a gentleman, and can probably return to his position as every Democrat’s favorite GOP Senator. The rest of us will be scr*wed, but he’ll be OK.
If that was McCain’s message today, I’m absolutely sick!! That was his great message at the beginning of last week’s debate which probably caused him to lose that debate in the judgement of the undecided. Well, at least he’s being consistent it what makes him a loser.
What they said. Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately McCain is creating a situation whereby when he – any / forever more – claims he’s going to name names when big spending earmark laden pork barrel bills come across his desk – will lead to laughter. The answer is simple – go back to Washington this evening. Go to the floor. Tell his colleagues he just had time to read the bill and he’s aghast they’ve added another dozen pages of pork, etc., etc., etc.. NAME SOME NAMES. Then resubmit a bipartisan bill co-authored with Joe Lieberman that covers just the basics necessary to address the crisis and there certainly be enough votes to pass in both houses and will turn the race upside down. Right now he’s got a perfect issue setup on a tee and he’s playing whiffleball with Obama + Pelosi playing Lucy pulling away the football from the hapless Charlie Brown.
Gallup for McCain +4 since Monday, ABC +5 from last week. I do not know what is going on but maybe things are going on that we do not understand. Maybe counterintuitively the public is blaming the bailout mess on the dems? Maybe Pelosi’s speech hurt . Maybe the whole financial mess is more on the dems and the republican. I saw a poll that showed by a huge % the people blame congress over the president. The election is a month away.I saw 5 points for Bush Melt away in the last week of the campaign in 2000.
McCain’s got until the ‘rescue’ bill passes to figure it out. In the meantime, I like the FM/FM and taxes ads.
If Sen. McCain means to continue the theme of the scandal that profligate use of earmarks encourages, then why not highlight Sen. Obama’s earmark for the University of Chicago Medical Center. That money has, essentially, through the fantastic raise given to Mrs. Obama, wound up in Obama’s own accounts. Why should not, more in sorrow than in anger, perhaps, Sen. McCain specifically mention the clear conflicts that the system allows, and even encourages? Tie it to the fundamental quesion of integrity, irrespective of party, that contributed so greatly to the Fannie and Freddie malfeasance. Mr.s Obama need not even be mentioned. Call it what it seems to be: money laundered through a constituent.
McCain doesn’t seem to understand that he sparked an all-out culture war with the Palin pick. I thought that was actually his goal in choosing her; to trick the lefties into letting their masks slip and demonstrate to everyone exactly how elite and arrogant and disrespectful of “Main Street” they actually are. Now he’s prattling on about reaching across the aisle. Why in the world would he want to co-operate with the people responsible for week after week of hateful rhetoric directed against his VP? Why does he think any of us on the right would be interested in co-operation at this point?
To steal a phrase, the Fabulous Flyboy has pulled the pin on a hand grenade and tossed it on the table. Had he wanted to ride this “bipartisan”-shtick to the White House, then he should have picked Lieberman. He just can’t avoid a down and very dirty fight at this point, and if he can’t see that then he’s going to lose badly.
Stop trying to fix McCain and start thinking about your own country instead. The credit markets are on the verge of collapse, and if that happens the entire economy will blow up. There will be very real consequences, in real life, from sea to shining sea. This may well be inevitable. The House Republican irresponsibility will, in the rear-view mirror, be a watershed moment.
The question of the hour is how to keep money flowing, not how to rescue your lying, senile, corrupt, doddering old fraud of a Republican presidential candidate. Stick a fork in that guy. He’s done. There are bigger problems now.
McCain up in Gallup? Hmm, maybe the public is getting so scared by Congress and the MSM about the economy they don’t want to trust the future of the country to no experience, won’t make a decision Obama. How knows, mabye Mr. Steady at the Helm McCain will inspire more confidence.
Regarding Michael’s point at #5, I think part of the reason for the McCain improvement is that the MSM was so determined to blame the defeat of the bailout deal on McCain, thinking that it would hurt him, instead elevated opinion of him among the huge national majority that hated the bill.
Xavier,
If your hypothesis is correct, we may be in bigger trouble than we thought. I’d bet my sub-prime no-doc overvalued mortgage payment on McCain flying to Washington to shake hands with Obama after both of them vote yes on the bailout. Both of them are going to end up on the same side of this issue when all the damage is done.
Correction, McCain gained 4 in Gallup since monday not up 4 in gallup. He went from -8 to -4. However the point is still the same
Passing the bill is clearly good for McCain. He went down in all the tracking polls polls on Monday when the bill failed, and has gone up in the trackers since then as prospects for the bill’s return have improved.
A 4-point change in a single daily tracking poll with a margin of error of 2-3 points means nothing. Take an average of the national polls out just today (see Pollster.com) and you get Obama better than +5, the same lead he’s held for days now. The RearClearPolitics average has him at 4.9%, which represents a slight widening.
John McCain is a polls driven candidate. He preaching bipartisanship now because his poll numbers trended downward when he tried to lay blame for the failure of the bailout solely on Obama and the democrats. That said, so is Obama. The difference has been that Obama has seemed the more steady of the two.
Obama leads in all of the CNN Battleground state polls announced today:
NV: 51-47
VA: 53-44
MO: 49-48
MN: 54-43
FL: 51-47
Wow, 9 points in Virginia. Oh, and by the way, I have a friend who lives in Boone County, N.C., which is a Republican county located in the mountains and has <1% blacks. Her Republican mayor thinks Obama might carry it. Nutcases, if Obama is even within shouting distance in Boone County, N.C., your corrupt, senile, slimy, doddering old fool of a McCain is last week’s burnt toast. It’s over, baby.
Democrat, fine, you’re leading. You’re going to win. My question to you: why don’t you tell us some of the policies you favor? What do you want Obama and a Democratic Congress to do? Be a menche saying it–just don’t say whatever Bush did, the opposite. Go ahead. You have the stage.
p.s.: Nutcases, did you see this morning’s communist publication, the Wall Street Journal? It says that new voters are breaking for Obama 2:1. It adds that it’s a challenge to get these people to vote. My friend in North Carolina tells me you can’t turn on the TV there without seeing Obama get-out-the-vote advertising.
Another friend in Missouri tells me that Obama’s volunteers — not paid canvassers from ACORN, but unpaid volunteers — are bringing new registrations into election offices by the stackload. Come Nov. 5th, and you people aren’t going to know what the f*** hit you.
I’d say the McCain message should be about jobs, especially good paying jobs connected with and spurred by energy production. Tie the tax revenue to green energy development, if you want. (E.g., interesting developments of clean natural gas and goal with carbonates capturing co2 and then used for cement production. Very neat. See Climate Debate Daily. Deal with energy and co2 sequestration as a win-win. A $700B argument, with a nice assist to the war on terrorism, etc.
Mike Murphy lost McCain the nomination in 2000. He should just shut up.
I’ve basically said this before but it bears repeating. If forced to choose between (a) losing with people like Sarah Palin and (b) winning with the sort of people who authored #17 and #19, I’ll choose option A every time from now ’til the end of time. In most elections, there will be other, happier options to select from, and I think even this one may yet hold some surprises of the sort that will displease Bill Maher, Tina Fey, Jon Stewart, and the like. But even if that turns out not to be the case: So What. God is in Heaven, life on this earth continues as long as He permits, and we are not charged with winning this election or any other.
Democrat is ecstatic. Maybe Obama will win. I just wonder where his money is coming from. The MSM has been cheerleading all along so no investigation of his ties to ACORN and the Chicago corrupt machine have been done by anyone except a few conservative blogs. No one knows this man except his associates and they aren’t talking.
I think McCain and Plain should go the reform route the rest of the campaign. They both have the credentials. She will get her chance tomorrow night. I’d like to see a question on this story, for example.
Bipartisanship was buried by Pelosi on Monday.
Obviously, Palin is not Plain.
His message should revolve around BACKGROUND. McCain’s story is so compelling and heroic, he can’t pound on it hard or often enough. And it has the added advantage of highlighting how little we know of Obama, and the disturbing nature of what we do know.
The undecideds will decide this election, but anyone who hasn’t decided yet isn’t anyone who is going to make the decision based on nuance. McCain has to give them the unquestionable, blunt, compellingly true aspects of himself. And he must behave presidentially in response to all external events between now and November.
Not to pile on, but Pollster.com’s electoral map shows Obama at 260 electoral votes, not including a single toss-up state. In other words, Obama takes just one of about 10 tossup states, several of which show him leading in the latest polls, and he closes this deal.
The national trend is solid blue, 49.4 Obama, 43.9 McCain.
Of course, anything can happen between now and the election. I still expect a tight race.
Paul Z: You know our policy priorities. They’re hardly a secret:
Implement universal healthcare;
Negotiate, where possible, with adversaries;
Draw down in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan;
Prevent the Supreme Court from tipping to the right;
Restore America’s leadership on human and civil rights (Close Guantanamo, protect habeas corpus, etc);
Invest in education;
Invest in new energy sources, including solar, wind, water, nuclear, clean coal, limited off-shore drilling, to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Restore and increase environmental protections;
Cut taxes and improve services for the middle class — 80% to 95% of Americans– by increasing taxes on those making over $250,000.
That’s a pretty good start. Not necessarily in order of importance.
I am finding, as the election draws nearer, that I feel less and less invested in the outcome. Much as I think the country would be better-served by having McCain as President instead of Obama — and much as I know that the worst people in this country will gleefully and dishonestly ascribe to Palin 90% responsibility for any Republican defeats at the polls — I find that I just cannot summon up a great deal of passion or commitment to this campaign. I have never fully concurred with the idea that “the definition of Democracy is to allow the people to choose their government, and then let them have it good and hard”, but even so I have to admit there is some truth to it. If we really do live in a country where most voters prefer to be governed the Barry Obamas and Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of the world– well, sooner or later that bill was bound to come due. If not today than some other day.
In the past 3 days BO has gone from +8 in Gallup tracker to +4, from + 7 in Hotline tracker to +5, Rasmussen has no change from +6 (can’t compare Battleground since they just re-weighted).
So BO’s average has gone from +7 to +5.
On the Right,
After 8 years of Bush and Republican leadership, the country is nearly in ruin, on every front. How in the world could any party have crashed and burned more dramatically than the Republicans have? Anything Obama and Reid and Pelosi can imagine — no matter how perverse — will be better for America than the government we’ve just seen (and which can continue to do damage for several more months), objectively the worst in American history.
Well, we have to hope the Gallup moving down to four is a trend of tightening.
Obama is now averaging a five point lead nationally. Given election results in 2004, that should mean, roughly,
Obama by 8 in PA and MI
Obama by 3 in Ohio and Nevada
McCain by 2 in Missouri
Florida and Colorado tossup
The most recent polls have Obama up on average 7.5 in VA, 3.5 in Florida, 2.5 in Nevada, 1 in Missouri, .5 in Ohio.
These seem rather in the high side, unless Obama is more like eight points ahead nationally. State polls always lag, so hopefully the Gallup is a shift signal here. Also, CNN state polls always seem to favor the Dems substantially. I have trouble believing McCain is really 7.5 behind in a state Bush won by 9. That would be a shift of 17 points, nearly, in one election cycle! Is that really possible?
Any event, I have no dount that if the election were held today, McCain would suffer a loss. There may be some tightenign though, pre Palin-Biden, anyway!
Abe, it seems apparent that we do not look at life the same way. I do not think “the country is nearly in ruin, on every front” is a fair description of how things stand, and to the extent that it *is* a fair description, I blame the Democrats as much as the Republicans (more so, actually). Certainly President George W Bush had been a disappointment to me in many ways, but in many ways he stepped into a role that was bound to disappoint no matter what.
Anyway, I doubt there is anything we could say that would be considered persuasive to the other, so enjoy this season of (apparent) partisan triumph and fare well.
Democrat, fine, you’re leading. You’re going to win. My question to you: why don’t you tell us some of the policies you favor? What do you want Obama and a Democratic Congress to do? Be a menche saying it–just don’t say whatever Bush did, the opposite. Go ahead. You have the stage.
There’s a difference between what I want and what I expect. I’d want an Obama administration to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration and send a bunch of people to jail. I’d want a new 40% tax bracket on incomes above $250,000, and full FICA on those earnings, too. I’d want full investigations of Wall Street corruption, with incarceration and disgorgement of gains, including those that were given to various non-profits.
I’d go for big spending on alternative energy. I’d expand Medicare to everyone who wanted it. I’d end business tax deductions for salaries over $500,000 and I’d tighten way up on options and stock grants. I’d look at repealing a bunch of the patent protections that give too much pricing power to the drug companies.
I’d rewrite the insider trading laws to remove the loopholes that have been carved out of them in recent decades. I would consider some sort of war crimes tribunal for senior officials who ordered the use of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’d close Guantanamo Bay and send them back to where they came from.
I’d re-regulate the hell out of banking, and I’d have federal inspectors patrolling meatpacking plants again. I would encourage the unionization of Wal-Mart. I’d have a significant gas guzzler tax, so that people who did a lot of driving in low-mileage vehicles would pay up for doing it, with the money going for direct subsidies of electric and plug-in hybrids, on the condition that they meet local content rules.
You’d hate it if I were president. How much of any of this gets implemented is a matter of:
a) How bad the economy gets as the result of Bush’s criminality
b) How big a victory Obama wins. The media consensus is coalescing at a narrow (51% or so) popular vote, and maybe 320 or so EVs, and maybe 56 Dems in the Senate and another 10-15 in the House. Let this be a 56% Obama victory, and 375-400 EVs including in some “shocking” places, and 59-61 Senate seats, and 35 House seats, and then you’ll have to rely on Obama’s innate steadiness and lack of vindictiveness.
Unfortunately, from my point of view, Obama is likely to be cautious and consensus-seeking rather than a Bush-style radical, so I don’t think you’ll have a whole lot to worry about, at least in the beginning. How much will be as much a matter of how the right wing behaves as anything else.
By the way, Biden-Palin won’t matter at all. The most you’ll get out of it is some preservation of morale in Jesusland. It’s all downside risk for your side, but I don’t think she’ll crash and burn. She’ll evade the questions, turn on the trailer park charm ‘n religion, and survive.
The country is NOT (materially at least) nearly in ruin. It IS in very dangerous waters socially, thanks to decades of corrosive leftist thought and policy. The wavering of National Will to defeat islamic terrorism is just one evidence of that…
Jon,
Hotline daily tracker has Obama +5, where he’s been for four of the past five days. Where do you get the +7 number? It’s wrong. R2000 daily tracker has Obama at +10, same as yesterday and up vs. three days ago. And Rasmussen, which you mention, went out of its way to note that Obama’s advantage is stable. RCP average is widening. Pollster avg. is widening.
So basically, your argument rests on a small change in Gallup. That’s it.
State polls lag 2 weeks behind national polls. As I stated before, Bush +5 five days before election. All pundits said that undecideds break towards the challenger. It didn’t happen that way.
New Nancy Pelosi scandal. Pac Money went to her husband.Probably not illegal on the surface.But it looks bad.
When FDR took office in March 1933, the banks were closed and unemployment was 26%. He had a blank sheet of paper. In Obama’s case, the real-world effects of Bush’s criminality will be visited upon his administration. He won’t have a blank sheet of paper like FDR did, although he will have a reservoir of public understanding of the origins of the crisis.
The right wing will be screaming at him even before he takes office, but everyone else will understand. If I were Obama, I’d be pretty bold right up front, and then I’d do what Reagan did, which is give highly partisan condemnations of his predecessor’s policies at every opportunity. I was in Washington during the ’80s, and I listened to a lot of Reagan’s stemwinders.
Obama is someone who seeks accommodation. This will be his greatest strength but also his greatest weakness during the depression to come.
Another plus for Obama is going to be that the name George W. Bush will go down in infamy. He is going to leave office with an approval rating lower than Herbert Hoover’s, and it will only go down from there. Hey, does anyone know whether San Francisco passed that referendum to name their sewage treatment plant after him? I think you’ll see a whole lot of George W. Bush Waste Treatment Facilities in the years to come.
Out of curiosity since i do not visit leftwing sites, do they allow opposing opinions or do they shut them out? I am glad that their is tolerance for other points of view on this website as well as other conservative sites. If Obama becomes president then I will support him.
Democrat, thanks for informing about some of your positions. At least I got you away from some of your least admirable strident comments. Now, since you’re in the mood, please explain why you believe these are needed. Go on all day, if you desire. I’d much rather hear about what liberals want than how they hate.
Democrat, dear, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do hope you know that in my case I now just scroll right by when I see that name. Addressing people as “nutcases” seems hardly calculated to encourage conversation.
Anyway, that’s the last I’ll address you and I hope other people here have the sense to follow suit. It’s best just to let you scream away at length in your padded cell if you can’t be civil.
It must be very galling to you that you’re just another obsessed loser on the net who can’t even get a guest shot on Politically Incorrect or The Rachel Maddow Show.
Ok, I was wrong on Hotline, I’m certain they did have BO +7 recently but it must have been 5 or 6 days ago not 3. They had BO at +6 yesterday tho. So today JM picked up 2 points in Gallup and 1 in Hotline, no change in Ras (altho Ras usually lags Gallup by a few days, since they weight for Party ID).
I don’t follow the DailyKos/R2000 poll, it’s clearly an outlier skewed toward BO by about 5 points (unless everyone else is wrong).
Unfortunately, censorship is the rule on both left-wing and right-wing sites.
See, I just skipped right by that post, dear, and your one-line mini-effusions are the most challenging to skip.
I think that you tube video of democracts, especially Barney Frank back in 2003 is having some impact. Bostonians blame Frank more than Bush for financial crisis. After the bailout, it is time for McCain and Palin to take off the gloves and pin this mess on the dems. I want to see ads about ACORN, Fannie Mae, Barney Frank etc. At the same time I would run against congress and the dangers of the dems controlling all 3 branches of govt. If the people come to the conclusion that the financial mess started in DC and that the dems with their cozy relationship with Fannie mae are the main reason , then McCain has a good chance to with the month of Oct. Win this month and then you can win the election.
Implement universal healthcare–Wrong. More efficient true-market healthcare.
Negotiate, where possible, with adversaries; BS. Convince, contain, thwart, turn, or defeat them.
Draw down in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan; Utter BS. Victory over our enemies in Iraq, increase and further persistence, commitment, and skill in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Realign the dysfunctional NATO command structure. You don’t like Iraq because you don’t like GWB, his war, and his surge. But then you propose a surge for Afghanistan. Your position is we can’t win in Afghanistan without giving up in Iraq. Nonsense. Victories are hugely synergistic.
Prevent the Supreme Court from tipping to the right; Wrong. A further move to the right will do much to help return society to sanity, individual self-reliance, responsibility and accountability.
Restore America’s leadership on human and civil rights (Close Guantanamo, protect habeas corpus, etc); –we won’t do that by conceding the left’s nonsense positions. we’ll do that by gaining victory in GWOT and fostering democracy and free market capitalism abroad.
Invest in education; BS. You mean more spending. Instead restore respect for education and learning as a true value in our culture. That means more reverence for knowledge, more self discipline and work ethic, more respect for authority and the system. IE defeat the toxic hip hop, gangster ethos taking over society. That means strong families with a mom and dad. That means kids saying the pledge of allegiance. That means school choice and putting the interests of children ahead of the unions. That means elevating teaching to a profession again, with serious pay and accountability. But mostly it means returning our culture to the basics. Funny how asians, with their strong family and education ethic do just fine.
Invest in new energy sources, including solar, wind, water, nuclear, clean coal, limited off-shore drilling, to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. –with you there. But if you look, the private investment is happening. have government get out of the way and end counterproductive ethanol subsidies.
Restore and increase environmental protections; –in balance.
Cut taxes and improve services for the middle class — 80% to 95% of Americans– by increasing taxes on those making over $250,000. Wrong. Don’t tax job-makers. Make taxes vastly more simple but also unavoidable. Increase universality of stock ownership ( american pie ownership) by privatising some of social security and reducing and restructuring dividend and capital gains taxes.
Democrat, thanks for informing about some of your positions. At least I got you away from some of your least admirable strident comments. Now, since you’re in the mood, please explain why you believe these are needed. Go on all day, if you desire. I’d much rather hear about what liberals want than how they hate.
I’m no more “strident” than the right wingers. I’m just “strident” in a different direction, and you’re not used to it so it shocks you.
The tax increases on the rich are needed to restore fiscal health, and to promote a fairer system. Prosecution of crimes committed by Bush administration officials, and Wall Street executives, are a matter of basic justice. War crimes tribunals are an extension of the Nuremberg principles; if Latin America could do it, so can we.
Alternative energy needs aggressive promotion because everyone with half a brain can see that the search for oil is at the root of American wars, plus we have a big problem on the climate change front. We’re going to need local content requirements because the U.S. is danger of losing its manufacturing base.
Tighter banking regulation is needed to prevent the repetition of the excesses that got us into this mess, and maybe to help get us out of it. We need to encourage unionization because unions are the most efficient mechanism of insuring that the gains of increased productivity are broadly distributed throughout the population that must consume the products.
The expansion of Medicare is needed to address the health care crisis, and changes in patent rules are needed to stop the pharmaceutical companies from ripping us off.
Pedant, your sign-on says it all. How can I NOT call you a nutcase?
Can’t you say anything without an insult or personal attack? Not used to strident comments from a different direction? My friend, you should know what I have done and where I have been. You’ve become a time waster, and not worth my efforts. I hope others, even the few reasonable liberals on this blog, just ignore your postings.
Mike Murphy no longer has any credibility with me. Not after his “live mike” exchange with Peggy Noonan on Hardball.
Do note. Peggy attempted to explain away her remarks but Murphy did not.
paul, I didn’t insult you, I insulted Pedant. Fight your own battles.
By the way, what’s the deal with McCain’s face? Did you see those weird expressions of his in the last debate? As some points was was sticking his tongue out, and at others he looked like a troll under a bridge. And he’s got something going on with his left eye, plus he’s disoriented on stage. I don’t think your guy is well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haIAN02tlLM
The Fannie/Freddie/Dodd/Obama issue is so perfect for McCain, given his persona and his record, that he really should make it his signature domestic issue henceforth. I think he’s holding back a little until a deal is struck–since it would be idiotic to pull a Pelosi and insult the very people with whom you’re trying to forge an agreement. But once a deal is struck, he’d better unleash the big guns.
The point (first) should be not only that Democratic *policies* of pushing subprime loans led to the current crisis, but that Democratic *corruption* and *in-dealing* led to the crisis–the rivers of money flowing from Fannie and Freddie and Countrywide into Democratic campaign coffers–and (second) that *Obama* was eating from the same trough as others like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Obama is a part of the problem, he should emphasize, not the solution, while McCain has remained remarkably free over the course of his career from the whole pork and protection racket. In per-year terms, Obama took far, far more money than any other Senator from Fannie and Freddie. He is tied in with ACORN and with the slum-lord Tony Rezko. His hands are covered in the blood of our mutilated economy.
Americans like McCain as an anti-corruption crusader. That’s why this is McCain’s best hope, to frame the current fiscal crisis not only as a policy failure but as a failure of courage and integrity, a matter of corruption and backroom deals that Democrats would cover for Fannie and Freddie and prevent restraint and regulation in return for significant sums of money and “friends of Angelo’ or ‘friends of Rezko’ type deals. The American electorate already concedes that McCain is the better figure on foreign policy and military issues–if he can establish himself as the person to get rid of the kind of corruption that led to the fiscal crisis, then he wins.
There are competing stories out there, vying to tell how and why we came to this point. McCain and other Republicans need to coordinate their message and flood the airwaves to establish their story as the dominant one (not the “greed and cowboy capitalism” story). This is it. This is the tipping point, and McCain needs to seize the moment.
Something else to point out is that the Slimebag In Chief has a 26% approval rating with ABC-Washington Post, 23% with Time, 26% with FauxNews, and 22% with CBS. But 85% at Commentary! Now tell me, nutcases, who’s out of touch again?
Americans like McCain as an anti-corruption crusader.
Kind of tough to sell that one. McCain was one of the Keating 5, and his current campaign is stuffed full of lobbyists, including one who was paid $30,000 a month by Fannie and Freddie to do nothing at all. McCain’s anti-corruption credentials are, like everything else about him, thoroughly phony.
Speaking of McCain’s “anti corruption” crusade, someone really ought to ask him about his ties to the Bonnano mafia family.
In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph “Joe Bananas” Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.
And then there is the matter of where McCain spent his 70th birthday. Turns out it was on a yacht in Russia with Oleg Deripaska, controlling shareholder of the Russian aluminum giant RusAl. Why is that interesting? For one thing, RusAl supplies the aluminum to Airbus, the European company that makes the tanker that McCain supported rather than the one made by Boeing, the American company.
Who knows, maybe McCain just loves Europe. After all, his lovely wife Cindy, the one who wore $300,000 of jewelry to the Republican convention, just made a big pot of money as the result of the #1 brewer in America just being sold to a European holding company.
“Country First,” eh nutcases? Whose country?
McCain’s only chance is, and always has been, to expose Obama for the anti-American poser he clearly is. Ayers, Wright, ACORN, Born Alive.
Or lose.
Memo to “Dumocrat”
First, get a life, woman!
Second: How much is MoveOn.org/Mr. Soros paying you to troll this site? Obviously, it’s by the post/word count and not for intelligent content. But, it’s always amusing to see the infantile efforts of Lefty stooges (or as Stalin said “useful idiots”) play out in the modern world.
Meanwhile, the Messiah has lost four points since Monday in the Gallup poll. Something’s afoot besides Joe Biden six tickling the Senator’s tonsils.
Gwen “I FELL for Obama” has been outed, finally. Good luck with Mr. Anuyrism tomoroow night, Dems!
Speaking of polls, Obama is +7% in Associated Press and Pew, one of had McCain leading three weeks ago and the other of which had Obama up 2%. In the Pew survey, doubts about Palin’s qualifications are growing.
“Opinions about Sarah Palin have become increasingly negative, with a majority of the public (51%) now saying that the Alaska governor is not qualified to become president if necessary; just 37% say she is qualified to serve as president.”
By the way, I forgot to tell paul one of the things I’d want Obama to do. I want him to require that every American child sing his song at school. Twice for white children, to make up for slavery. Come on, don’t you think it’s just charming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA
Gwen “I FELL for Obama” has been outed
“I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional,” McCain told Fox News’s Carl Cameron.
Democrat is a woman? Yikes. Makes me glad I play for the other team.
Democrat, you are to be congratulated for being so remarkably predictable. Don’t let anyone (least of all me!) tempt you actually to educate yourself on a matter before you repeat the typical Democratic talking points. We are trying to harm you! We are the Stormtroopers of BushHitler! When we encourage you to think for yourself, we are sending mind-control beams from the great Halliburton Cheneybot 2000!
The full story of McCain’s involvement with the Keating 5 scandal is largely exculpatory. The Senate Ethics Committee judged that his involvement in the whole thing was minimal, he was cleared of all charges, and it was said only that he had exercised “poor judgment” in attending a meeting. To quote, McCain’s actions were “not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him….Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.”
It’s questionable whether that would be conveyed in the present media environment, but when one gets all the facts (which you obviously had not), one comes away with a greater respect for McCain, because he was obviously so bothered by the appearance of impropriety. He called it one of the worst experiences of his life, and came away determined to avoid any whiff of corruption. Plus it was 20 years ago, and most of the American electorate (and a substantial portion of the independent block) do accept McCain as an anti-corruption fighter, largely on the basis of his fight against pork over the years.
I don’t know much about the “Bonano” family (since you’ve been tacky enough to correct others’ spelling on this board, I don’t mind telling you it’s “Bonanno”), show me a reputable news organization that has reported on the issue, and I’ll look into it. I’m open minded, but I’m not going to trawl through the fever swamps, where the information is seldom reliable.
Nice try, Ahit. Typical Republican: If it’s bad for your guy (the corrupt, senile old fraud) then you ignore it.
McCain took $100K+ in campaign contributions from Keating, then intervened with regulators on behalf of Keating’s corrupt S&L. McCain’s current campaign manager took more than $2 million from Freddie and Fannie, within the last two years, and was involved in lobbying schemes with Indian casinos that McCain is legislatively involved with.
McCain’s “clean” image is a joke. He’s as corrupt as they get. All of this will come out in the month to come. I think Obama is saving the best for last.
p.s.: There are photographs of McCain on the Russian criminal’s yacht. Now imagine that, intervening to tilt a military tanker contract away from an American producer to a European producer that will use aluminum supplied by the Russian criminal — who threw you a 70th birthday party.
“Country First.” Let’s face it, you people couldn’t possibly care less about this country. Never did, never will.
Democrat:
Excuse me? “It’s bad for your guy (the corrupt, senile old fraud), then you ignore it.” First of all, is it too much to ask that you use substantive, rational argumentation rather than sophomoric name-calling? Anyone who was senile would not have performed the way McCain performed in the last debate (whether or not you think he won it, he showed an impressive grasp of international issues and recall of names and data; he was very sharp). Whether he is “corrupt” is exactly what we’re discussing, so one should not assume the conclusion, and calling him “old” is simply childish (congratulations, you’re on a par with Paris Hilton). And second, how did I “ignore” it? I responded to your allegation with facts. This is not ignoring the issue. I’ve already researched the issue, and I gave an argument in return.
You’ve got to read through the ethics committee’s report to get the full picture. Keating was a friend of McCain’s for years, yes, and gave contributions over the years. So far, nothing wrong; Obama too gets contributions from friends. He spoke with regulators on Keating’s behalf before it became apparent that there was any corruption involved. As the committee reported, nothing McCain did was illegal or against ethics regulations, but it showed “poor judgment” to speak with regulators when he did not know the whole picture. McCain trusted his friend, and in the end he got burned for it. Again, this was long ago, and since then McCain has established a strong reputation for government ethics reform.
Senators and Presidential candidates receive donations from thousands upon thousands of people. As was seen with the Gore and Hillary Clinton campaigns, sometimes those donations come from unsavory characters. And sometimes you will find yourself advocating for somebody who turns out to be using you or deceiving you. The question is how one responds when that becomes apparent.
I understand you’re not a McCain fan, but it is simply a matter of record that McCain has long fought for ethics reform, and has sought in numerous ways (ways that go far beyond what any other Senator has done) to stay away from a hint of corruption. I am able to acknowledge that Obama has his strengths, but you are apparently so blinded by your prejudice that you cannot see the facts right in front of you.
Unless you have a substantive argument, I have more important things to do than to educate you on matters that are right out there in the public record. Seriously, I’m an academic, so this is near and dear to me: have a little intellectual integrity and read–charitably, not merely for the sake of picking fights–some of the best arguments on the other side. It’s obvious where your “information” is coming from, and it’s not coming from reliable sources.
First of all, is it too much to ask that you use substantive, rational argumentation rather than sophomoric name-calling?
Ahit, this is a Nutcase website. There’s plenty of sophomoric name-calling here. You are shocked because I direct at the wrong way. Yawn.
Anyone who was senile would not have performed the way McCain performed in the last debate (whether or not you think he won it, he showed an impressive grasp of international issues and recall of names and data; he was very sharp).
They probably gave the old codger a B-12 shot for that one.
Whether he is “corrupt” is exactly what we’re discussing, so one should not assume the conclusion, and calling him “old” is simply childish (congratulations, you’re on a par with Paris Hilton).
It’s a fact to call him old. He’s 72 years old, going on 90. If he’s elected, he won’t finish out his term. That’s why Palin is such an issue.
And second, how did I “ignore” it? I responded to your allegation with facts. This is not ignoring the issue. I’ve already researched the issue, and I gave an argument in return
You wrote: “I’m not going to trawl through the fever swamps, where the information is seldom reliable.” The translation of that is that you will ignore the unfortunate truth. You know it, and so do I, so let’s cut the crap here.
As for Keating 5, McCain intervened with regulators on behalf of an S&L owned by his benefactor. That’s slimy. You know, and I know it. So let’s cut the crap here. Not only that, but he did it again in the case for Paxson Communications, which Vicki Iseman, his lobbyist girlfriend, represented. At Iseman’s request, intervened at the FCC on Paxson’s behalf.
Face it, your boy is a slimebag. Oh, and you haven’t even touched the Russian criminal, or McCain’s campaign manager’s dirty dealings with Fannie and Freddy, or the whole can of worms with Indian gaming. John McCain’s “clean” image is a joke. The man is a fraud. Always has been.
I can’t believe Gwen Awful played the race card already. The race card is the last refuge of a scoundrel and she went there first!
This chick is Carol Simpson the Second and will be to Obama what Carol was to Clinton.
I’m not sure that McCain knows what his message is… or at least his compaign doesn’t seem to. It seems to me that his own “advisors” are contradicting him more than his opponent (I’m looking at you, Tucker Bounds). How can he get a ‘message’ to the people, if his own spokespeople can’t stay on HIS message?
I really think McCain is melting down. Did you read about the meeting at the Des Moines Register editorial board? A former McCain consultant ripped him a new one over being in Iowa to begin with, given that Obama is ahead by 15 points there. And then McCain argues with them? What does he think he’s doing, posting on a blog?
No, Democrat, most of the sophomoric name-calling I’ve seen on this board is from you. I’m not at all shocked that you direct it toward McCain; as I said, it’s utterly predictable. It’s still childish.
A B-12 shot? Again, another excellent argument. Congratulations.
The point about calling him “old” is not that it’s false (depending on how you define the term). The point is that it’s silly. If you want to advance an actual argument that his age is a problem, then you’re welcome to do so. But simply mocking him by calling him “old” does not count as substantive argument.
I wouldn’t say McCain’s intervention on behalf of Keating was slimy. Keating was a friend and apparently McCain honestly believed he was upright and trustworthy. He was wrong. Therefore it’s correct to call it poor judgment. As for the “you know it and I know it,” “let’s cut the crap,” etc., as well as the name-calling, these are the rhetorical ploys of someone who cannot present a persuasive argument otherwise. You only show your weakness when you write in that way.
As for “the Russian criminal,” or the Bonanno family, you produce a reputable news organization that has advanced an argument that these associations are problematic, and I’ll look at them. I’m only saying that I’m not going to waste my time with garbage; given the fact that you haven’t produced any, I assume that you cannot produce any substantive news reports on these things. As for the other things you mention, Iseman, the campaign manager, these things have already been discredited. Are you even aware of this? Look, it’s easy to traffic in rumor and innuendo, but what you’re advancing here is basically on a par with the Obama-is-a-Muslim junk.
It’s questionable whether that would be conveyed in the present media environment, but when one gets all the facts (which you obviously had not), one comes away with a greater respect for McCain, because he was obviously so bothered by the appearance of impropriety. He called it one of the worst experiences of his life, and came away determined to avoid any whiff of corruption
Ahem:
Whatever McCain’s romantic entanglements with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman, he was clearly in bed with her clients, who donated nearly $85,000 to his campaigns. One of her clients, Bud Paxson, set up a meeting with McCain in 1999, frustrated by the FCC’s delay of his proposed takeover of a television station in Pittsburgh. Paxson had treated McCain well, offering the then-presidential candidate use of his corporate jet to fly to campaign events and ponying up $20,000 in campaign donations.
“You’re the head of the commerce committee,” Paxson told McCain, according to The Washington Post. “The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter.”
Iseman helped draft the text, and McCain sent the letter. Several weeks later — the day after McCain used Paxson’s jet to fly to Florida for a fundraiser — McCain wrote another letter. FCC chair William Kennard sent a sharp rebuke to McCain, calling the senator’s meddling “highly unusual.” Nonetheless, within a week of McCain’s second letter, the FCC ruled three-to-two in favor of Paxson’s deal.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/8
I for one would argue that’s a “whiff of corruption.”
No, Democrat, most of the sophomoric name-calling I’ve seen on this board is from you
You say that because you agree with the Nutcase name calling, while taking great umbrage at having it flung right back in your face. Bullies are always cowards. I don’t complain about the name calling. I return it in kind.
The point about calling him “old” is not that it’s false (depending on how you define the term). The point is that it’s silly. If you want to advance an actual argument that his age is a problem, then you’re welcome to do so. But simply mocking him by calling him “old” does not count as substantive argument.
I think calling McCain a senile, doddering old fraud is useful. It highlights his mental infirmity. I think you object to this because it’s effective. The man is older than some fossils, and it shows. He’s not up to the job. He’s too old.
I wouldn’t say McCain’s intervention on behalf of Keating was slimy. Keating was a friend and apparently McCain honestly believed he was upright and trustworthy. He was wrong. Therefore it’s correct to call it poor judgment. As for the “you know it and I know it,” “let’s cut the crap,” etc., as well as the name-calling, these are the rhetorical ploys of someone who cannot present a persuasive argument otherwise. You only show your weakness when you write in that way.
McCain says that it was an innocent mistake, but he can SAY anything. Your boy is not only slimy and corrupt, but (naturally) he’s a liar. Anyone with an elementary sense of right and wrong wouldn’t intervene with a regulator on behalf of a campaign contributor. And, having once been busted for it, he wouldn’t in 1999 do the same thing for his lobbyist girlfriend’s client, Paxson.
I notice you didn’t talk about that one. You don’t want to deal with your Republican slimbag’s corruption. It is too disturbing for you.
As for “the Russian criminal,” or the Bonanno family, you produce a reputable news organization that has advanced an argument that these associations are problematic, and I’ll look at them. I’m only saying that I’m not going to waste my time with garbage; given the fact that you haven’t produced any, I assume that you cannot produce any substantive news reports on these things.
Do your own research. I know you won’t, because the excuses you’ve made for your fraudulent old man show that you’re not in the thinking business. You’re in the excuse making business. This is because, when it comes right down to it, like any Republican you couldn’t possibly care less about your own country.
Of all McCain’s corruption, even worse than Keating 5 or the influence peddling for Paxon, or his campaign manager’s no-show $2 million job for Fanny and Freddy, or the whole sordid mess with the Indian casinos, is the association with the Russian criminal whose company supplies the aluminum to Airbus, a foreign company that McCain supported over Boeing, the American company.
This was for a military contract. A Russian criminal and a European company. Your boy is not just a slimebag criminal, he’s damn close to a traitor. And you couldn’t care less, because for you “Country First” is nothing but an advertising slogan.
p.s.: Go check any campaign donation site and you’ll see that the Bonanno family loves to give money to John McCain.
One other thing. McCain’s wife is a drug addict. Prescription pain killers. (Once an addict, always an addict.) She stole them from a non-profit medical foundation that she had endowed. John McCain intervened with authorities to short-stop the investigation.
Thank you, Xanthippas, for actually putting forward some serious evidence and argument. I appreciate it. It’s a refreshing break from dealing in smears and innuendo.
The story was originally reported in the New York Times, as you presumably know, and was strongly condemned at the time not only by the McCain camp but by many other media organs for implying an affair between McCain and Iseman, when there was certainly not enough evidence to make such an explosive claim. Here you’re quoting from Rolling Stone, which is quite explicitly committed to electing Obama and destroying McCain, but insofar as it presents facts it still needs to be addressed.
I would argue that here, indeed, there is at least an appearance of impropriety, and McCain should have steered clearer of the matter. That said, there are responses to be made. Was McCain “in bed” with her clients? Receiving donations in itself, of course, is not wrong. This is a part of democracy, that one can support the candidate whose views and policies will most benefit one. What has to be shown, for the charge of corruption to stick, is that the donations led the politician to do what he would not otherwise have done–that there was a quid pro quo. If Paxson presented a reasonable argument that the FCC was being unfair, then McCain did nothing against the rules by writing letters on his behalf. That is something Senators do; they use their influence on behalf of constituents and people and causes they support. Is Obama corrupt because he steered pork toward people who had contributed to his senatorial campaign? Is he corrupt for, as a state legislator, directing money toward Father Pfleger, one of his mentors? Is Biden wrong to request 52 million dollars of pork this year on behalf of his constituents?
The answer is no, not necessarily. If it was a worthy cause, and if it’s consistent with his principles, then being an advocate for someone is entirely within bounds. Whether McCain’s letter was really “highly unusual” or not I don’t know, but to say it’s unusual is not necessary to say, much less to prove, that it is wrong. So I would acknowledge there’s an anti-McCain case to be made here, but I find it inconclusive, since it operates mostly by suggestion, and I would need further information. Why had Paxson’s application been held up for so long? Did Paxson have a good case for why it should be moved forward? McCain showed his support for Paxson, but he hardly coerced the FCC board.
It still remains the case that McCain has never asked for a single dollar of pork-barrel spending, has passed significant ethics reform legislation, and over the course of 26 years in the Senate, after the Keating scandal, has largely steered clear of ethics scandals.
Democrat;
Congratulations. You got a few people to read your worthless comments. That’s quite the accomplishment. I’m sure your 12th grade teacher is glad you found something else to do rather than eat the Elmer’s Glue. It doesn’t matter though, because nobody reads more than one of your trollings. Incompetent misdirection like yours only works once. Your comments are just too vapid for anybody to take them seriously.
Troll on, loser. You chose the perfect screen name.
Democrat, you are just embarrassing yourself. I object to argument-by-name-calling whichever way it runs. I object to the “old” mockery because it’s childish. He’s clearly not senile or infirm; anyone who thinks otherwise is blinded by prejudice. Some concern about his age is legitimate, but slinging around “old” mockery is not. And you are the one throwing around allegations about the Bonanno family and “the Russian criminal,” so you have the burden of proof. Either supply the evidence from a credible source, or admit you have none.
And consistently you claim I don’t care for the country. Again, this is simply childish. I support McCain, and therefore I’m unpatriotic? I believe McCain is best for America, both in its domestic and in its foreign affairs. You think otherwise, and that’s fine. But you should have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that people of good will and sound reason can disagree on these matters. There’s no way that you or I could prove our patriotism on a discussion board, in any case, so it’s really a silly discussion to have.
As for me not being in the “thinking business,” I teach philosophy at Harvard, where I’ve just finished my PhD. I’m sitting by the Charles River right now. Honestly I don’t think much of the place, but I understand liberals tend to think it’s a decent school. That I even have to mention this is absurd, but since you’ve fallen to insulting my intelligence, this is the kind of answer you get.
As for McCain’s wife being a drug addict, yes, she admitted that she was addicted to opioids at one point and dealt with the issue. This is all out in the open. Does this make Obama a coke addict? Are you demanding to know more about his drug use? How he got the drugs? How he paid for them? How he took them? How long he took them? Whether he was ever chemically addicted, or how he got over them?
I doubt you’re especially curious about the matter. And neither is the rest of America, justifiably. It was a long time ago, and people get stronger and move on.
i think democrat is reely smart ive lerned alot from him
Democrat,
you’re a polemicist of the first order. I love your work.
Tyrone Smith
Johann Reichland/Wank in Michigan/Democrat/Pedro/etc.,
if you knew how enjoyable sex was, you wouldn’t be trolling conservative sites on the internet all night. Rather, if anybody were willing to have sex with an inept loser like you, you’d be spending time elsewhere.
Troll on, shut-in.
I know polemicists of the first order. I study polemicists of the first order (Kierkegaard is my main man). Democrat is no polemicist of the first order. Polemicists of the first order use satire and irony, but they also meet minimal standards of argumentation, they show some measure of intellectual integrity, and they have a breadth of learning and skill with language that goes far beyond what has been demonstrated here. Slinging around rumors and smears, and adolescent name-calling, does not come even close.
The story was originally reported in the New York Times, as you presumably know, and was strongly condemned at the time not only by the McCain camp but by many other media organs for implying an affair between McCain and Iseman, when there was certainly not enough evidence to make such an explosive claim.
McCain is a serial adulterer, and he’s ab abuser of women including his wife, who he once called a “c***” in public, in front of reporters. On a broader scale, if you look at leading Republicans you will typically find a trail of broken homes, addiction, dysfunction, and personal disaster. Given their penchant for playing the so-called “family values” card, this is remarkable, to say the least.
Come on, what can you say about John McCain, a man who, upon his return from Vietnam, learned that his wife had been in a car wreck and then unceremoniously dumped her for a rich trophy wife, who he then played around on?
Republicans always think that the rules are for everyone else. You’ve got Rush Limbaugh, a collegiate homosexual and more recently a drug addict. You’ve got the closeted gay Republican governors of Texas and Florida. There was Mark Foley, sending randy e-mails to a male page, and Larry Craig, trolling men’s rooms for a quick oral fix.
Louisiana Republicans, well, if they’re not into bondage and discipline like Bob Livingston, then they’re customers of hookers like David Vitter. Or they’re into the whole exorcism thing like Bobby Jindahl, which no doubt makes him popular in New Orleans but might raise eyebrows elsewhere.
Then let’s skip to Alaska, where we have Sarah Palin. The lovely Sarah, who had an affair with her husband’s business partner 10 years ago; whose son joined the military to escape criminal charges including drug addiction, a stolen goods ring and other problems, and whose daughter was a pass-around party girl and is now pregnant by an overgrown 12-year-old known for his boozing and drugging.
These are our Republican moral icons. Here at Commentary, they are useful tools. Somehow, you imagine that people aren’t aware of all of this. Well, I’ve got some news for you: Ever since the National Enquirer exposed the truth about the lovely Sarah’s family, her favorability ratings dropped by 25 points. So yes, hypocrisy is a problem for you.
Receiving donations in itself, of course, is not wrong. This is a part of democracy, that one can support the candidate whose views and policies will most benefit one.
Translation: “We are Republicans and we’ll sell influence if we damned well please. We can be as corrupt as we want to be, because the public is a bunch of idiots to be manipulated at will by our buddies at FauxNews.”
If Paxson presented a reasonable argument that the FCC was being unfair, then McCain did nothing against the rules by writing letters on his behalf.
There is NOTHING you won’t excuse. Let’s face it, liar, for you it is all about what you can get away with. You couldn’t possibly care less about this country.
It still remains the case that McCain has never asked for a single dollar of pork-barrel spending, has passed significant ethics reform legislation
Your boy is a corrupt scumbag. He sells himself to the highest bidder. Nothing is off limits for him. Any “ethics reform” is strictly for show.
I object to argument-by-name-calling whichever way it runs.
Please cite, with links, your objections to wingnut name-calling on this site. I’ll be waiting, but I won’t hold my breath.
As for me not being in the “thinking business,” I teach philosophy at Harvard, where I’ve just finished my PhD.
Poor Harvard, then.
Honestly I don’t think much of the place
But you don’t have the integrity to go anywhere else. Welcome to the Republican Party. You are where you belong.
As for McCain’s wife being a drug addict, yes, she admitted that she was addicted to opioids at one point and dealt with the issue. This is all out in the open.
Her corrupt husband interfered with a Drug Enforcement Administration investigation. John McCain is good at obstructing justice.
You’re a polemicist of the first order. I love your work.
Thanks, Tyrone! Around here, it’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but what the hell!
I bet Democrat has sex occasionally, though maybe it’s like that guy in Lars and the Real Girl who had the inflatable sex doll? Except of course instead of a girl it’s Obama, probably?