McCain's 1968 Heroism Can't Excuse His 2008 McCarthyism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-green/mccains-1968-heroism...
Mark Green
McCain's 1968 Heroism Can't Excuse His 2008 McCarthyism
Posted July 30, 2008 | 10:17 PM (EST)
Pundits on the talks shows say that the '08 election is all about Barack Obama: Can he pass the commander-in-chief test and avoid gaffes and reassure white voters? The burden is always put on him.
But another question is whether John McCain can pass the character test. So far, he's failing.
What? A bona fide war hero and POW survivor is being questioned about character?
Well, yes. It's time that McCain's acolytes and the mainstream media stopped assuming that his
extraordinary military service nearly 40 years ago gives him immunity to questions about being President today in a different century.
First, there is the unpleasant fact that in the past week McCain has sounded more like McCarthy in his patriotism-baiting of Obama. When he repeatedly says that Obama for political reasons "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," he's imputing a political motive than he can't know, doesn't know, and is contradicted by the available evidence.
Agree with Obama's Iraq policies or not, surely he's been consistently opposed to our invasion and occupation of a country that didn't attack us, dating from the speech he gave in 2002 -- of course before he was a U.S. Senator or presumptive Democratic nominee.
Bluntly, what McCain is doing is a familiar trope -- from tail gunner Joe to Richard Nixon's "positive polarization" to Bush 41's campaigning in flag factories against a guy with a foreign-sounding last name to Bush 43's "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric after 9/11. Divide and conquer.
This is especially unconvincing since Obama's policies are essentially the same as those held by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, nearly all Senate Democrats -- and McCain himself, who told Wolf Blitzer that Obama's 16-month withdrawl timeline might be acceptable.
Do Senators Clinton, Biden, Hagel, Kennedy etc. too want America to lose a war, or do they simply disagree with McCain's judgment?
Second, this line of personal attack is one of numerous examples of McCain's Zig-Zag Express. When it comes to flip-flopping, McCain recently has made John Kerry (falsely accused of this) look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
For years MCain impressively built up his popular "maverick" brand, attacking the far right on a variety of issues. But in frequent 180 degree turns, now he instead supports tax cuts for the rich, panders to the religious right, opposes affirmative action and votes against anti-torture rules for the CIA. Exactly who is shifting positions for political reasons?
McCain said two months ago that he wanted to run a "civil campaign" free of personal attacks. Now he all but accuses Obama of being unpatriotic, nearly treasonous. His recent ad asserting that Obama refused to visit troops because he couldn't bring cameras along and chose to go to the gym instead is, well, a lie. Factcheck.org, the Washington Post and the New York Times have analyzed the facts and said as much. But it plays into McCain's strategy that he's a "real American President," as one of his first ads unsubtly put it.
Normally, when a Republican presidential candidate wants to "swift boat" an opponent, he winks at third party groups to do it for him -- like the ads spotlighting Willie Horton in 1988 (which we now know that Bush 41's Lee Atwater helped coordinate) or those by veterans falsely attacking Kerry's war record, which McCain rightly and courageously condemned. Yet here it's McCain himself who is personally swift-boating Obama in a dishonorable and desperate attempt to trip up the leading candidate. He's engaging in the tactics that he deplored.
But as Ann Coulter knows, sometimes a narrative is too lucrative or compelling not to use even if it's untrue. So a campaign full of Karl Rove proteges will continue the story of McCain as patriotic and Obama as a combination of Lennon and Lenin. Until two things happen.
First, the national media needs to start covering McCain's sleazy tactics and repeated lies as often, say, as they covered Rev. Wright. That shouldn't take the courage of a Murrow, only reporters who won't let McCain continue to hide under his hero halo anymore.
And second, while Obama should and will stay calm in the face of personal, contrived assaults, he can't and won't accept Pat Buchanan's convenient suggestion to me in a Hardball debate and to others -- i.e., just ignore it. Democrats learned from Gore and Kerry, as Mark Twain informed us, that "a lie gets half way around the world before truth puts on her boots." So while Obama himself stays cool, his campaign and surrogates and ads have to bludgeon McCain not on personal attributes but on policy flaws -- on his unpopular plans on Iraq, social security, oil giveaways, global warming, tax fairness, mortgage fraud, on being George Bush's poodle. If McCain insists on telling lies about Obama, the Obama Team should respond by telling the truth about him.
Start with the truth that a maverick has morphed into a McCarthy -- and that the honorable McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the angry McCain of 2008.
Mark Green
McCain's 1968 Heroism Can't Excuse His 2008 McCarthyism
Posted July 30, 2008 | 10:17 PM (EST)
Pundits on the talks shows say that the '08 election is all about Barack Obama: Can he pass the commander-in-chief test and avoid gaffes and reassure white voters? The burden is always put on him.
But another question is whether John McCain can pass the character test. So far, he's failing.
What? A bona fide war hero and POW survivor is being questioned about character?
Well, yes. It's time that McCain's acolytes and the mainstream media stopped assuming that his
extraordinary military service nearly 40 years ago gives him immunity to questions about being President today in a different century.
First, there is the unpleasant fact that in the past week McCain has sounded more like McCarthy in his patriotism-baiting of Obama. When he repeatedly says that Obama for political reasons "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," he's imputing a political motive than he can't know, doesn't know, and is contradicted by the available evidence.
Agree with Obama's Iraq policies or not, surely he's been consistently opposed to our invasion and occupation of a country that didn't attack us, dating from the speech he gave in 2002 -- of course before he was a U.S. Senator or presumptive Democratic nominee.
Bluntly, what McCain is doing is a familiar trope -- from tail gunner Joe to Richard Nixon's "positive polarization" to Bush 41's campaigning in flag factories against a guy with a foreign-sounding last name to Bush 43's "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric after 9/11. Divide and conquer.
This is especially unconvincing since Obama's policies are essentially the same as those held by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, nearly all Senate Democrats -- and McCain himself, who told Wolf Blitzer that Obama's 16-month withdrawl timeline might be acceptable.
Do Senators Clinton, Biden, Hagel, Kennedy etc. too want America to lose a war, or do they simply disagree with McCain's judgment?
Second, this line of personal attack is one of numerous examples of McCain's Zig-Zag Express. When it comes to flip-flopping, McCain recently has made John Kerry (falsely accused of this) look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
For years MCain impressively built up his popular "maverick" brand, attacking the far right on a variety of issues. But in frequent 180 degree turns, now he instead supports tax cuts for the rich, panders to the religious right, opposes affirmative action and votes against anti-torture rules for the CIA. Exactly who is shifting positions for political reasons?
McCain said two months ago that he wanted to run a "civil campaign" free of personal attacks. Now he all but accuses Obama of being unpatriotic, nearly treasonous. His recent ad asserting that Obama refused to visit troops because he couldn't bring cameras along and chose to go to the gym instead is, well, a lie. Factcheck.org, the Washington Post and the New York Times have analyzed the facts and said as much. But it plays into McCain's strategy that he's a "real American President," as one of his first ads unsubtly put it.
Normally, when a Republican presidential candidate wants to "swift boat" an opponent, he winks at third party groups to do it for him -- like the ads spotlighting Willie Horton in 1988 (which we now know that Bush 41's Lee Atwater helped coordinate) or those by veterans falsely attacking Kerry's war record, which McCain rightly and courageously condemned. Yet here it's McCain himself who is personally swift-boating Obama in a dishonorable and desperate attempt to trip up the leading candidate. He's engaging in the tactics that he deplored.
But as Ann Coulter knows, sometimes a narrative is too lucrative or compelling not to use even if it's untrue. So a campaign full of Karl Rove proteges will continue the story of McCain as patriotic and Obama as a combination of Lennon and Lenin. Until two things happen.
First, the national media needs to start covering McCain's sleazy tactics and repeated lies as often, say, as they covered Rev. Wright. That shouldn't take the courage of a Murrow, only reporters who won't let McCain continue to hide under his hero halo anymore.
And second, while Obama should and will stay calm in the face of personal, contrived assaults, he can't and won't accept Pat Buchanan's convenient suggestion to me in a Hardball debate and to others -- i.e., just ignore it. Democrats learned from Gore and Kerry, as Mark Twain informed us, that "a lie gets half way around the world before truth puts on her boots." So while Obama himself stays cool, his campaign and surrogates and ads have to bludgeon McCain not on personal attributes but on policy flaws -- on his unpopular plans on Iraq, social security, oil giveaways, global warming, tax fairness, mortgage fraud, on being George Bush's poodle. If McCain insists on telling lies about Obama, the Obama Team should respond by telling the truth about him.
Start with the truth that a maverick has morphed into a McCarthy -- and that the honorable McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the angry McCain of 2008.
On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-levy/on-joe-klein-and-th...
Daniel Levy
On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives
You may have missed it, but renowned Time columnist Joe Klein and the Jewish neoconservative blogosphere are at war with one another. The reason this is more important than an argument on who sits where in shul is that Klein has refused to cower, and as a respected member of the mainstream media is pushing back against one of the uglier and more debate-restricting phenomena of recent years. Here is what Joe had to say on 'Swampland', his blog http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/when_extremists_at... on the Time website:
There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who unsuccessfully tried to get Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, and then successfully helped provide the intellectual rationale for George Bush to do it in 2003... Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country...I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel...But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek...I believe there are a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who are pushing for war with Iran because they believe it is in America's long-term interests and because they believe Israel's existence is at stake. They are wrong and recent history tells us they are dangerous. They are also bullies and I'm not going to be intimidated by them.
It came in response to the latest outburst from Podhoretz Jr. at the Commentary blog http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/... : "As for his [Klein] use of classic anti-Semitic canards, I am happy to report that the Jewish people will long survive Joe Klein". Mazal Tov, Joe, you have became a thing that the Jewish people will survive, no less.
All of this came on the heels of an earlier and none-too-friendly exchange of letters http://www.adl.org/media_watch/Letter_response_jKlein.asp between Klein and the Anti-Defamation League, when the latter saw fit to attack Klein over his characterization of the role of the Jewish neoconservatives in the run-up to the Iraq War. Joe stood his ground then, too, effectively dismissing the claim of anti-Semitism and explaining that "most Jews disagree with their [the Jewish neocons] politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior."
I would suggest that this is not just Klein's private kerfuffle: it matters to Jewish America, to America and Israel too, and to being able to have a more serious conversation about anti-Semitism in the future.
The Klein thesis shared by a great many commentators and analysts (this writer included) goes something like this: Bush administration policies in the Middle East have had disastrous consequences for the US; Israel too is in a less secure and worse place as a result of these policies; ultimate responsibility for all this lies with the president himself and his hawkish and close group of senior aides--principal among them Veep Cheney; the neoconservatives played an important role in providing an ideological framing for these policies; within that neoconservative world there operates a prominent and tight-knit group of Jewish neocons who are ideologically driven in part by an old school Likudist view of Israeli interests.
Were the Jewish neocons in control and did they make the fatal decisions? No. Are all Jews neoconservatives or are all neoconservatives Jews? Please! Are the Jews or Israel to blame for the Bush Middle East debacle? Get outta here.
Something did happen though -- there was a failure within the mainstream, Jewish and non-Jewish, to identify the existence of a particular Jewish neoconservative narrative and then to challenge that narrative as being fundamentally flawed in its reading of both American and Israeli interests. One of the causes of that vacuum was the abuse and cheapening of the term anti-Semitism as it was hurled at many who went after Podhoretz, Perle, Feith, and co. They tried, and sadly rather successfully, built a wall of untouchability. Klein is taking his shofar or trumpet to that wall, as many have done before, but Joe is particularly MSM, and therefore important.
Too many Jewish communal leaders and institutions made the mistake of not standing up and speaking out more against the right-wing excesses of a small minority of their co-religionists. Some even embraced and feted the neocons -- a mistake AIPAC particularly excelled in and something I get the impression that AIPAC is at least partially trying to walk itself back from. Israeli leaders, interestingly enough, appear to be less enthusiastic -- there is evidence that Prime Minister Sharon thought the Iraq War not to be a good idea and outgoing Prime Minister Olmert has begun proximity talks with the Syrians.
Similar mistakes are being made with the far-right Christian Evangelical Zionists, and John Hagee's group CUFI. Can there be a more vile poster-boy for Israel than Hagee?!
Polls consistently show that American Jewish opinion http://jstreet.org/files/images/PRJStreetpoll_final.doc is in a very different place. Over a decade ago, J.J. Goldberg described how what he called the "new Jews", who were out of sync with the majority, assumed the mantle of leadership in the American Jewish community. In his book Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Power-Inside-American-Establishm... , Goldberg claimed that a set of facts had emerged by the mid-1970s that transformed organized Jewry, based around the 1967 Israeli military victory, the role of the Soviet Jewry campaign in Soviet-US relations, and the belated rise of popular Holocaust awareness with its attendant "never again" maxim. This created the counter-revolution of the "new Jews" -- a passionate minority of defensive nationalists, driven by a terrible vision, living amidst an overwhelming majority of still optimistic Jewish liberals. To quote J.J. Goldberg, "their defiance was so strident, and their anger so intense, that the rest of the Jewish community respectfully stood back and let the new Jews take the lead."
The "new Jews" of Goldberg's 1997 book are today's Jewish neoconservatives, and the reason this is so important right now is the issue raised by Joe Klein -- their aggressive advocacy of a military strike against Iran, a position that again places them out of step with the majority of American Jews. There have been a series of articles http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-case-fo... advocating such military action. It is true that such voices are also heard in Israel (and some even appear in the New York Times op-ed page, most notably this truly horrific and pathetically argued piece by Benny Morris http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?pagew... ).
I would argue that Israel has made a strategic mistake in making the gevalt approach so central in its response to suspected Iranian nuclear ambitions. Israel is stronger than that and it also has the capacity to deter Iran. It also has U.S. support. It is worth remembering that Israel, evidently, has not attacked Iran, so in practice, at least so far, the military is not the preferred option. In their declarations, Israeli leaders express a preference for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question. And prominent ex- and even current officials have endorsed American engagement with Iran as the best option, including ex-Mossad chief Efraim Halevy and ex-Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. In private, Israeli leaders are apparently more circumspect. This report http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916777.html appeared some time ago in Haaretz about Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni:
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel...Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.
I will not go too deeply into the Iran policy debate, but a more compelling case than that of Podhoretz and co. is that military action would be a disaster for Israel, for America, and for the American Jewish community, too.
The problem for the American Jewish community would not seem to be with exposing the objectionable positions of Jewish neoconservatives and then having a debate. The danger is in the opposite approach -- in creating the impression that the Jewish neoconservative voice is the Jewish voice, or that of the "pro-Israel" lobby, and in drowning out, or more accurately, suppressing the voice of the majority. That would be a way to not only increase the risk of an extremely dangerous policy being pursued and to make support for Israel the partisan domain of the far-right bomb-bomb-bomb Iran crowd, but it would also cede the ground to those who are emptying the charge of anti-Semitism of all meaning. And those are good enough reasons for Joe Klein's cause to be our cause too.
Daniel Levy
On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives
You may have missed it, but renowned Time columnist Joe Klein and the Jewish neoconservative blogosphere are at war with one another. The reason this is more important than an argument on who sits where in shul is that Klein has refused to cower, and as a respected member of the mainstream media is pushing back against one of the uglier and more debate-restricting phenomena of recent years. Here is what Joe had to say on 'Swampland', his blog http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/when_extremists_at... on the Time website:
There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who unsuccessfully tried to get Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, and then successfully helped provide the intellectual rationale for George Bush to do it in 2003... Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country...I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel...But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek...I believe there are a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who are pushing for war with Iran because they believe it is in America's long-term interests and because they believe Israel's existence is at stake. They are wrong and recent history tells us they are dangerous. They are also bullies and I'm not going to be intimidated by them.
It came in response to the latest outburst from Podhoretz Jr. at the Commentary blog http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/... : "As for his [Klein] use of classic anti-Semitic canards, I am happy to report that the Jewish people will long survive Joe Klein". Mazal Tov, Joe, you have became a thing that the Jewish people will survive, no less.
All of this came on the heels of an earlier and none-too-friendly exchange of letters http://www.adl.org/media_watch/Letter_response_jKlein.asp between Klein and the Anti-Defamation League, when the latter saw fit to attack Klein over his characterization of the role of the Jewish neoconservatives in the run-up to the Iraq War. Joe stood his ground then, too, effectively dismissing the claim of anti-Semitism and explaining that "most Jews disagree with their [the Jewish neocons] politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior."
I would suggest that this is not just Klein's private kerfuffle: it matters to Jewish America, to America and Israel too, and to being able to have a more serious conversation about anti-Semitism in the future.
The Klein thesis shared by a great many commentators and analysts (this writer included) goes something like this: Bush administration policies in the Middle East have had disastrous consequences for the US; Israel too is in a less secure and worse place as a result of these policies; ultimate responsibility for all this lies with the president himself and his hawkish and close group of senior aides--principal among them Veep Cheney; the neoconservatives played an important role in providing an ideological framing for these policies; within that neoconservative world there operates a prominent and tight-knit group of Jewish neocons who are ideologically driven in part by an old school Likudist view of Israeli interests.
Were the Jewish neocons in control and did they make the fatal decisions? No. Are all Jews neoconservatives or are all neoconservatives Jews? Please! Are the Jews or Israel to blame for the Bush Middle East debacle? Get outta here.
Something did happen though -- there was a failure within the mainstream, Jewish and non-Jewish, to identify the existence of a particular Jewish neoconservative narrative and then to challenge that narrative as being fundamentally flawed in its reading of both American and Israeli interests. One of the causes of that vacuum was the abuse and cheapening of the term anti-Semitism as it was hurled at many who went after Podhoretz, Perle, Feith, and co. They tried, and sadly rather successfully, built a wall of untouchability. Klein is taking his shofar or trumpet to that wall, as many have done before, but Joe is particularly MSM, and therefore important.
Too many Jewish communal leaders and institutions made the mistake of not standing up and speaking out more against the right-wing excesses of a small minority of their co-religionists. Some even embraced and feted the neocons -- a mistake AIPAC particularly excelled in and something I get the impression that AIPAC is at least partially trying to walk itself back from. Israeli leaders, interestingly enough, appear to be less enthusiastic -- there is evidence that Prime Minister Sharon thought the Iraq War not to be a good idea and outgoing Prime Minister Olmert has begun proximity talks with the Syrians.
Similar mistakes are being made with the far-right Christian Evangelical Zionists, and John Hagee's group CUFI. Can there be a more vile poster-boy for Israel than Hagee?!
Polls consistently show that American Jewish opinion http://jstreet.org/files/images/PRJStreetpoll_final.doc is in a very different place. Over a decade ago, J.J. Goldberg described how what he called the "new Jews", who were out of sync with the majority, assumed the mantle of leadership in the American Jewish community. In his book Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Power-Inside-American-Establishm... , Goldberg claimed that a set of facts had emerged by the mid-1970s that transformed organized Jewry, based around the 1967 Israeli military victory, the role of the Soviet Jewry campaign in Soviet-US relations, and the belated rise of popular Holocaust awareness with its attendant "never again" maxim. This created the counter-revolution of the "new Jews" -- a passionate minority of defensive nationalists, driven by a terrible vision, living amidst an overwhelming majority of still optimistic Jewish liberals. To quote J.J. Goldberg, "their defiance was so strident, and their anger so intense, that the rest of the Jewish community respectfully stood back and let the new Jews take the lead."
The "new Jews" of Goldberg's 1997 book are today's Jewish neoconservatives, and the reason this is so important right now is the issue raised by Joe Klein -- their aggressive advocacy of a military strike against Iran, a position that again places them out of step with the majority of American Jews. There have been a series of articles http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-case-fo... advocating such military action. It is true that such voices are also heard in Israel (and some even appear in the New York Times op-ed page, most notably this truly horrific and pathetically argued piece by Benny Morris http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?pagew... ).
I would argue that Israel has made a strategic mistake in making the gevalt approach so central in its response to suspected Iranian nuclear ambitions. Israel is stronger than that and it also has the capacity to deter Iran. It also has U.S. support. It is worth remembering that Israel, evidently, has not attacked Iran, so in practice, at least so far, the military is not the preferred option. In their declarations, Israeli leaders express a preference for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question. And prominent ex- and even current officials have endorsed American engagement with Iran as the best option, including ex-Mossad chief Efraim Halevy and ex-Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. In private, Israeli leaders are apparently more circumspect. This report http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916777.html appeared some time ago in Haaretz about Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni:
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel...Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.
I will not go too deeply into the Iran policy debate, but a more compelling case than that of Podhoretz and co. is that military action would be a disaster for Israel, for America, and for the American Jewish community, too.
The problem for the American Jewish community would not seem to be with exposing the objectionable positions of Jewish neoconservatives and then having a debate. The danger is in the opposite approach -- in creating the impression that the Jewish neoconservative voice is the Jewish voice, or that of the "pro-Israel" lobby, and in drowning out, or more accurately, suppressing the voice of the majority. That would be a way to not only increase the risk of an extremely dangerous policy being pursued and to make support for Israel the partisan domain of the far-right bomb-bomb-bomb Iran crowd, but it would also cede the ground to those who are emptying the charge of anti-Semitism of all meaning. And those are good enough reasons for Joe Klein's cause to be our cause too.
The Huffington Post | John McCain Plays the Race Card
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-press/john-mccain-plays-th...
Bill Press
John McCain Plays the Race Card
Posted July 31, 2008 | 09:33 AM (EST)
"I have great admiration and respect for Senator Obama."
If so, McCain has a funny way of showing it. All we've seen and heard from him for the last month is a string of personal attacks, culminating in yesterday's ad smearing Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/mccain-ad-links-pari... as "the biggest celebrity in the world." He's just another famous, pretty face, in other words, and not ready for the presidency.
True? No. Childish? Yes. But that's not all. This ad is also deliberately and deceptively racist.
Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?
Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.
One thing for sure. This isn't the John McCain we first saw in 2000, running a campaign on the issues. And this isn't the positive McCain campaign he himself promised us for 2008. This is a campaign that, from the beginning, is nothing but negative, personal, dirty and, yes, racist.
Bill Press
John McCain Plays the Race Card
Posted July 31, 2008 | 09:33 AM (EST)
"I have great admiration and respect for Senator Obama."
If so, McCain has a funny way of showing it. All we've seen and heard from him for the last month is a string of personal attacks, culminating in yesterday's ad smearing Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/mccain-ad-links-pari... as "the biggest celebrity in the world." He's just another famous, pretty face, in other words, and not ready for the presidency.
True? No. Childish? Yes. But that's not all. This ad is also deliberately and deceptively racist.
Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?
Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.
One thing for sure. This isn't the John McCain we first saw in 2000, running a campaign on the issues. And this isn't the positive McCain campaign he himself promised us for 2008. This is a campaign that, from the beginning, is nothing but negative, personal, dirty and, yes, racist.
ENERGY | The Corrupting Influence Of Oil Money
July 31, 2008
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Brad Johnson
ENERGY | The Corrupting Influence Of Oil Money
The world has never looked better for the Big Five oil companies. This morning, Exxon Mobil, the world's largest corporation, announced its "second-quarter profit rose 14 percent, to $11.68 billion, the highest-ever profit by an American company. Exxon broke its own record." Joining Exxon Mobil as the only oil companies to "earn more than $10 billion in a single quarter, Royal Dutch Shell said its profit rose to $11.56 billion." ConocoPhillips and BP last week reported their "massive second-quarter profits." The fifth oil major, Chevron, will release its earnings report tomorrow. Yesterday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced "a new five-year leasing plan for offshore oil drilling" to give oil companies a "head start" on attacking protected waters, should the Congress follows President Bush, who recently lifted the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling "first issued by his father in 1990." Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) described Kempthorne's announcement as a "Going Out of Business Sale" on behalf of Big Oil. The unprecedented profits for Big Oil come at the expense of practically everyone else in the form of a collapsing economy, international instability, rampant commodity inflation, and deadly climate change. However, Big Oil's windfall has also meant largesse -- and criminal levels of corruption -- for some in Washington.
RECORD PRICES, RECORD PROFITS: Since 2001, gasoline prices have more than doubled, and oil companies have made more than half a trillion dollars in profits. The price of oil has surged from below $30 a barrel to over $125, a fourfold increase. The Big Five oil companies could make a "projected $168 billion in profits" this year alone. The United States has only two percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. "At current oil prices," conservative oil man T. Boone Pickens argued, "we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone." If we continue on the same path for the next ten years, "the cost will be $10 trillion -- it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind," he added. The surging price of oil is due in part to demand growing faster than supply, but also to factors such as "the war in Iraq and the value of the dollar" and unregulated, Enron-like speculation. Instead of investing in 21st century energy, the oil companies are plowing most of their profits into stock buybacks, a windfall for their rich investors.
OIL'S GIFTS: In a "state-shattering tremor in an earthquake of change in Alaska politics," Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) "was charged on Tuesday with concealing more than $250,000 worth of gifts, including home renovations, that he received from an Alaska oil services company," VECO Corp, "the top Alaska-based contributor to federal politics for at least five election cycles." The federal indictment "accuses Stevens, a former chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and the longest-serving Republican senator ever, of using his position and office in the Senate on behalf of VECO between 2001 and 2006." Uncle Ted's indictment represents the culmination of a multiyear oil corruption scandal of Alaska's "bullying, nepotistic political culture": five state legislators (including Stevens's son Ben), four other officials, and Alaska's congressman Don Young (R) have also been implicated for their involvement with VECO CEO Bill Allen (Allen once told a state lawmaker, "I own your ass"). Over his career, Stevens has funneled over ten million dollars from his oil-funded war chest to other conservative politicians. Politicians who benefited from the $340,000 in campaign contributions from Ted Stevens's Northern Lights PAC this year alone are being pressured to return the money. Senate conservatives met yesterday to fill the positions vacated by Stevens, whose indictment forced him to give up "his plum committee posts."
MCCAIN'S EMBRACE: On June 13, 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) declared, "I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." Since then, McCain's tenor on Big Oil has completely changed, now championing the views of "oil executives." "My friends, we have to drill offshore. We have to do it. ... The oil executives say within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?" he said recently. McCain's reversal took place on June 16, when he headed to Texas for oil-sponsored fundraisers and "declared support for offshore drilling." In the following month, his campaign's embrace of a Big Oil agenda has grown tighter. The campaign arranged an oil-field photo shoot after McCain had to cancel a planned visit to an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico because of a hurricane and an "untimely" oil spill. And Big Oil has embraced McCain, now that he has climbed aboard the Big Oil express. The day after his speech, "McCain raised $1.3 million at a closed-door luncheon and reception at the San Antonio Country Club." The Washington Post reported recently, "Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June. ... Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May."
Fix America's Bridges, Levees, and Schools Before They Collapse
Invest in America Now
------------------------------------------
One year ago tomorrow (August 1), Minneapolis’ I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed during rush hour, killing thirteen people. This tragedy is an illustration of a much larger problem—the deterioration of our nation’s infrastructure. Progressives should not be afraid to talk about spending priorities during this election. A new poll by Time magazine and the Rockefeller Foundation found that 83 percent of the public supports “increasing government spending on things like public-works projects to help create jobs.”
* America’s bridges and roads need much repair. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that nearly 25 percent of bridges in the U.S.—over 152,000 bridges—are “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.” Nearly one in four miles of urban interstate is in only “poor” or “mediocre” condition. Sources http://ga3.org/ct/Z1Niw6K1JYtb/
* America’s levees and waterways have become unreliable. In 2007, the American Society of Civil Engineers found more than 150 levees to be at high risk of failing due to poor maintenance; the Army Corps of Engineers cannot confirm or deny this because they have not even made a comprehensive levee inventory. Over a quarter of the dams overseen by the Corps of Engineers have exceeded the lifespan for which they were designed and need major repairs to ensure their safety. Sources http://ga3.org/ct/Z1Niw6K1JYtb/
* America’s schools are falling apart. School construction spending was lower in 2007 than in any year since 1999. About 17 percent of public schools are considered in “unsatisfactory” physical condition, and in roughly one-third of all schools, deficiencies in the school facilities interfere with the ability to teach. Sources http://ga3.org/ct/Z1Niw6K1JYtb/
Progressive solutions:
We should repair American bridges, roads, and schools—creating jobs that can’t be sent offshore. Investing in American construction projects will also make our country safer and more efficient. Barack Obama and a bipartisan coalition of Senators support the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years, generating nearly two million new jobs.
Making Sense Alerts and Fact Sheets:
For Invest in America Now, click here http://ga3.org/ct/Z1Niw6K1JYtb/
For The Unaffordable Economic Costs of Iraq, click here http://ga3.org/ct/Z7Niw6K1JYtO/
For The Minimum Wage Remains a Key Issue, click here http://ga3.org/ct/ZdNiw6K1JYt6/
For others on education, energy, health, taxation, trade, social security, and more, click here http://ga3.org/ct/KpNiw6K1JYtg/
About This Email
----------------
This is the fifteenth of CAF's Making Sense 2008 emails. We're sending brief talking points to our progressive allies throughout 2008 regarding kitchen table economic issues. Please feel free to share these with your colleagues. They can subscribe to our Making Sense 2008 email list here: http://ga3.org/caf/making_sense_2008_email_signup.html
Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
Tell-a-friend! http://ga3.org/join-forward.html?domain=caf&r=gdNiw6KqLksG
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Campaign for America's Future. http://ga3.org/caf/join.html?r=gdNiw6KqLksGE
Transportation by the Numbers
Transportation by the Numbers
Posted: 28-Jul-2008; Updated: 30-Jul-2008
With gas prices skyrocketing, public transit ridership is at an all time
high. Instead of cutting back on public transportation services, we should be reforming our national transportation system to create more affordable travel options for the whole country.
Check out our 10 Facts About Oil and Gas to learn more.
96
Percent of the world's transportation energy currently supplied by oil.
$75
Cost of barrel of oil on July 18th, 2007.
$131
Cost of barrel of oil on July 18th, 2008.
9.6 billion
Number of fewer miles Americans drove in May 2008 compared to
May 2007.
10.3 billion
Number of trips taken via the U.S. public transportation system in 2007, the highest in 50 years.
44
Percent increase in price of diesel fuel paid by public transit agencies.
20
Percent of America's public transit agencies that are cutting services due to budget constraints.
46
Percent of population that has no access to public transit.
$6,251
Amount the average two-worker household saves annually by taking public transportation instead of driving a car.
2030
Year by which lifting the ban on offshore drilling may start to impact the price of gas.
Sources:
* Institute for the Analysis of Global Security http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
* USA Today, July 28, 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-07-28-miles-driven-m...
* American Public Transportation Association http://www.apta.com/
* Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings Report [PDF] http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/apta_publi...
McCain Lies About Oil Drilling and the Media Yawns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-lies-about-o...
Joseph Romm
McCain Lies About Oil Drilling and the Media Yawns
Posted July 29, 2008 | 04:12 PM (EST)
I don't really see how there is any serious prospect for solving either our energy security problem or our climate problem if the traditional media doesn't do any policing whatsoever of statements by major politicians. Here is McCain yesterday:
"... it will be vital that we continue oil production at a high level including offshore drilling. Now, the briefings that I have had with the oil producers, there are some instances that within a matter of months, they could be getting additional oil." http://www.aptnvideo.net/pages/browse/player/player_script.js...
Standing in front of a large California oil drill, in what appears to be filming of a new movie, There Will Be Lies http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/19/there-will-be-oil/ , McCain went so far as to say:
But there's abundant resources in the view of the people who are in the business that could be exploited within a period of months. So offshore drilling is something we have to do. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/mccain-offshore-dril...
Okay, I can understand why he believes whatever stuff the oil producers make up -- they are lining his pockets now. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/27/youve-heard-of-polluter... And I understand the three reasons that McCain would lie to the public:
1. His original "placebo" argument wasn't very compelling: "Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial." http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/23/mccain-nukes-the-fridge...
2. The truth is even less compelling: Ending the moratorium on coastal drilling holds no serious promise of reducing gasoline prices for US consumers even a single penny two decades from now according to Bush's own energy analysts (see "The cruel offshore-drilling hoax" http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/10/the-cruel-offshore-dril... ).
3. Since he has no actual plan for getting us out of the economic mess Bush got us into, McCain is now going so far as "framing his support for expanded offshore drilling and other energy proposals as economic stimulants in an effort to woo voters concerned about the floundering economy" http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2008/07/29/5/ (Greenwire 7/29, subs. req'd). Seriously!
But why does the media let a major party candidates get away with such disinformation? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/mccain-offshore-dril... And it is disinformation. As a U.S. Energy Information Administration analyst told me earlier this month:
... the constraints on offshore drilling have little to do with the price of oil, but a lot to do with timing. Once the leases are available, it is a 5 to 10 years before you get to exploratory drilling. There is a tremendous shortage of drilling rigs and manpower. Plus, offshore drilling is so expensive, you don't want to make any mistakes. So you spend do a lot of seismic analysis to minimize your chances of a dry well.
And it is probably another five or more years from drilling your exploratory well to getting significant production from the area -- and that assumes you didn't dig a dry well. If you did, then you are probably going to be even more cautious. And all that assumes you have developed a pipeline infrastructure for delivering the oil. But the Atlantic Coast lacks such an infrastructure, so who knows how long it would take to get its oil?
On top of that, California won't allow drilling off its coast anytime soon. And Sen. Martinez won't allow drilling off Florida's coast anytime soon. And Big Oil has tens of billions of barrels of oil yet to find and retrieve from the Gulf of Mexico leases that were opened up two years ago.
So McCain's claim is spin wrapped in a lie wrapped in a hoax.
If there is no penalty in the public arena for lying, then we're just going to get more and more of it.
Joseph Romm
McCain Lies About Oil Drilling and the Media Yawns
Posted July 29, 2008 | 04:12 PM (EST)
I don't really see how there is any serious prospect for solving either our energy security problem or our climate problem if the traditional media doesn't do any policing whatsoever of statements by major politicians. Here is McCain yesterday:
"... it will be vital that we continue oil production at a high level including offshore drilling. Now, the briefings that I have had with the oil producers, there are some instances that within a matter of months, they could be getting additional oil." http://www.aptnvideo.net/pages/browse/player/player_script.js...
Standing in front of a large California oil drill, in what appears to be filming of a new movie, There Will Be Lies http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/19/there-will-be-oil/ , McCain went so far as to say:
But there's abundant resources in the view of the people who are in the business that could be exploited within a period of months. So offshore drilling is something we have to do. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/mccain-offshore-dril...
Okay, I can understand why he believes whatever stuff the oil producers make up -- they are lining his pockets now. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/27/youve-heard-of-polluter... And I understand the three reasons that McCain would lie to the public:
1. His original "placebo" argument wasn't very compelling: "Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial." http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/23/mccain-nukes-the-fridge...
2. The truth is even less compelling: Ending the moratorium on coastal drilling holds no serious promise of reducing gasoline prices for US consumers even a single penny two decades from now according to Bush's own energy analysts (see "The cruel offshore-drilling hoax" http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/10/the-cruel-offshore-dril... ).
3. Since he has no actual plan for getting us out of the economic mess Bush got us into, McCain is now going so far as "framing his support for expanded offshore drilling and other energy proposals as economic stimulants in an effort to woo voters concerned about the floundering economy" http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2008/07/29/5/ (Greenwire 7/29, subs. req'd). Seriously!
But why does the media let a major party candidates get away with such disinformation? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/mccain-offshore-dril... And it is disinformation. As a U.S. Energy Information Administration analyst told me earlier this month:
... the constraints on offshore drilling have little to do with the price of oil, but a lot to do with timing. Once the leases are available, it is a 5 to 10 years before you get to exploratory drilling. There is a tremendous shortage of drilling rigs and manpower. Plus, offshore drilling is so expensive, you don't want to make any mistakes. So you spend do a lot of seismic analysis to minimize your chances of a dry well.
And it is probably another five or more years from drilling your exploratory well to getting significant production from the area -- and that assumes you didn't dig a dry well. If you did, then you are probably going to be even more cautious. And all that assumes you have developed a pipeline infrastructure for delivering the oil. But the Atlantic Coast lacks such an infrastructure, so who knows how long it would take to get its oil?
On top of that, California won't allow drilling off its coast anytime soon. And Sen. Martinez won't allow drilling off Florida's coast anytime soon. And Big Oil has tens of billions of barrels of oil yet to find and retrieve from the Gulf of Mexico leases that were opened up two years ago.
So McCain's claim is spin wrapped in a lie wrapped in a hoax.
If there is no penalty in the public arena for lying, then we're just going to get more and more of it.
13 Things To Know About The 3rd Straight Mac Attack Ad
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/13-things-to-kn...
William Bradley
13 Things To Know About The 3rd Straight Mac Attack Ad
Posted July 29, 2008 | 08:50 PM (EST)
Okay, another day, another John McCain attack ad on Barack Obama. This one came in over the weekend. It's the third straight, as the McCain campaign is increasingly abandoning positive advertising in favor of negative ads on the frontrunner. Though the positive ad I wrote about on July 10th is still in rotation, at least for now. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/macs-new-suprem...
The latest Mac attack ad plays above. And here is the text:
Announcer: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.
He hadn't been to Iraq in years.
He voted against funding our troops.
And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.
Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.
John McCain is always there for our troops.
McCain. Country first.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
Here are 13 things to know about this ad.
1. Campaigns go very negative like this when they are very worried. John McCain's campaign has now put out out three straight negative TV ads in a row, attacking Barack Obama. And the McCain message in the free media is virtually all negative. http://pajamasmedia.com/billbradley/2008/07/28/monday-morning...
2. The reason the McCain campaign is so worried is that the Olympics start in less than two weeks. At the height of summer, most experts think that whomever has a steady lead going in will have a steady lead coming out. The next big event after the Olympics? The Democratic National Convention. At which Obama will accept the presidential nomination in a speech at Denver's football stadium before 80,000 screaming supporters.
3. This TV ad is media bait. There is no serious buy behind it. I've gone through this before with McCain's new campaign director, Steve Schmidt, when he was Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign manager in 2006. The Schwarzenegger campaign rolled out a couple of TV ads early on, which I pointed out then were running in San Diego at midnight. In this case, think Denver, Harrisburg, and, naturally, Washington. The purpose of this ad is to further press commentary to continue a storyline. A major caveat. This does not mean that there is not a serious ad, and a serious new ad buy, coming.
4. In keeping with what I just wrote, this ad is the highest-rated YouTube video for McCain of the general election campaign. What that means is that the ad is being pushed out to create a frenzy amongst the conservative Republican base, whipped up by the right-wing talk show circuit and blogosphere. I think more people have seen it on YouTube than have seen it on their TV sets.
5. Obama is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe. Afghanistan, as it happens, is not in Europe. Afghanistan is covered by an entirely separate subcommittee. Thus the attack on Obama for failing to hold a hearing on Afghanistan is non-serious. This does not mean that he should not have done so, as an eager beaver presidential candidate. Surely, McCain would have been opportunistic enough to do so.
6. ... But it turns out that McCain has missed every hearing for the past two years of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan. McCain is the ranking Republican member of this very powerful committee. It's only in the last week that McCain has endorsed Joe Biden's -- and Obama's -- plan to send more US brigades to Afghanistan.
7. It's true that Obama hadn't been to Iraq for two years. McCain has been there a lot. There was the time last year when he toured a Baghdad market, declaring everything to be copacetic. As it should have been, with him wearing a bullet-proof vest, accompanied by a company of paratroopers and a flight of helicopter gunships. As most shoppers undoubtedly were.
8. Obama voted for troop funding on all but one occasion. When he decided to try to force the Bush administration to set a timeline for US troop withdrawal.
9. Obama's visit to the US military hospital in Germany was never, despite the statement in this ad, on his media schedule. He actually visited the US military hospital in Baghdad a few days earlier, sans media. The former head of the military hospital in Germany has denounced the ad http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Former_Rams... , noting that Obama visited the military hospital in Baghdad with no fanfare whasoever.
10. Obama pulled out of the German military hospital visit when the Pentagon informed his military advisor on the trip, retired Air Force General Scott Gration, that only Senate staff could accompany him. This happened after all the Senate staffers along for the Congressional delegation visit to the Middle East had been sent home. Which meant that General Gration, a highly decorated Air Force veteran who is not a member of Obama's Senate staff, was effectively disinvited from visiting the military hospital at the well-known Air Force base at Ramstein.
11. While the TV ad says that McCain is always there for the troops, he actually opposed the new GI Bill authored by Obama ally Jim Webb, the former Navy Secretary-turned-Virginia Senator. Webb, as it happens, is an old friend of McCain, who has called him "a legendary fighting man," as befits the most highly decorated Marine combat officer of the Vietnam War. McCain lost badly in the Senate on Webb's new GI bill, but he and President Bush later tried to take some credit for its passage.
12. And with regard to always being there for the troops, it is interesting to note that McCain actually voted against $360 million for armored tactical wheeled vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that McCain just held a big ticket fundraiser at the home of one of the country's largest defense contractors, Ronald Perelman, whose MacAndrews & Forbes holding company owns AM General, manufacturer of the HumVee. The HumVee became known in the Iraq War as a "Purple Heart box."
Here is the actual scene from which Obama's purported German workout in lieu of visiting wounded troops is taken. Note that it is Obama visiting enthusiastic American soldiers in the Middle East.
13. The footage in the McCain attack ad which accompanies the text about Obama spending time at the gym rather than visiting wounded troops is not actually of Obama working out in Berlin.
Actually, it is, as you see above, footage of Obama visiting with the troops in Kuwait. Hitting a 3-point jump shot on the first try, to the screams of the enthusiastic American soldiers.
Oh, what a tangled web ... And all that stuff.
William Bradley
13 Things To Know About The 3rd Straight Mac Attack Ad
Posted July 29, 2008 | 08:50 PM (EST)
Okay, another day, another John McCain attack ad on Barack Obama. This one came in over the weekend. It's the third straight, as the McCain campaign is increasingly abandoning positive advertising in favor of negative ads on the frontrunner. Though the positive ad I wrote about on July 10th is still in rotation, at least for now. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/macs-new-suprem...
The latest Mac attack ad plays above. And here is the text:
Announcer: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.
He hadn't been to Iraq in years.
He voted against funding our troops.
And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.
Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.
John McCain is always there for our troops.
McCain. Country first.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
Here are 13 things to know about this ad.
1. Campaigns go very negative like this when they are very worried. John McCain's campaign has now put out out three straight negative TV ads in a row, attacking Barack Obama. And the McCain message in the free media is virtually all negative. http://pajamasmedia.com/billbradley/2008/07/28/monday-morning...
2. The reason the McCain campaign is so worried is that the Olympics start in less than two weeks. At the height of summer, most experts think that whomever has a steady lead going in will have a steady lead coming out. The next big event after the Olympics? The Democratic National Convention. At which Obama will accept the presidential nomination in a speech at Denver's football stadium before 80,000 screaming supporters.
3. This TV ad is media bait. There is no serious buy behind it. I've gone through this before with McCain's new campaign director, Steve Schmidt, when he was Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign manager in 2006. The Schwarzenegger campaign rolled out a couple of TV ads early on, which I pointed out then were running in San Diego at midnight. In this case, think Denver, Harrisburg, and, naturally, Washington. The purpose of this ad is to further press commentary to continue a storyline. A major caveat. This does not mean that there is not a serious ad, and a serious new ad buy, coming.
4. In keeping with what I just wrote, this ad is the highest-rated YouTube video for McCain of the general election campaign. What that means is that the ad is being pushed out to create a frenzy amongst the conservative Republican base, whipped up by the right-wing talk show circuit and blogosphere. I think more people have seen it on YouTube than have seen it on their TV sets.
5. Obama is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe. Afghanistan, as it happens, is not in Europe. Afghanistan is covered by an entirely separate subcommittee. Thus the attack on Obama for failing to hold a hearing on Afghanistan is non-serious. This does not mean that he should not have done so, as an eager beaver presidential candidate. Surely, McCain would have been opportunistic enough to do so.
6. ... But it turns out that McCain has missed every hearing for the past two years of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan. McCain is the ranking Republican member of this very powerful committee. It's only in the last week that McCain has endorsed Joe Biden's -- and Obama's -- plan to send more US brigades to Afghanistan.
7. It's true that Obama hadn't been to Iraq for two years. McCain has been there a lot. There was the time last year when he toured a Baghdad market, declaring everything to be copacetic. As it should have been, with him wearing a bullet-proof vest, accompanied by a company of paratroopers and a flight of helicopter gunships. As most shoppers undoubtedly were.
8. Obama voted for troop funding on all but one occasion. When he decided to try to force the Bush administration to set a timeline for US troop withdrawal.
9. Obama's visit to the US military hospital in Germany was never, despite the statement in this ad, on his media schedule. He actually visited the US military hospital in Baghdad a few days earlier, sans media. The former head of the military hospital in Germany has denounced the ad http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Former_Rams... , noting that Obama visited the military hospital in Baghdad with no fanfare whasoever.
10. Obama pulled out of the German military hospital visit when the Pentagon informed his military advisor on the trip, retired Air Force General Scott Gration, that only Senate staff could accompany him. This happened after all the Senate staffers along for the Congressional delegation visit to the Middle East had been sent home. Which meant that General Gration, a highly decorated Air Force veteran who is not a member of Obama's Senate staff, was effectively disinvited from visiting the military hospital at the well-known Air Force base at Ramstein.
11. While the TV ad says that McCain is always there for the troops, he actually opposed the new GI Bill authored by Obama ally Jim Webb, the former Navy Secretary-turned-Virginia Senator. Webb, as it happens, is an old friend of McCain, who has called him "a legendary fighting man," as befits the most highly decorated Marine combat officer of the Vietnam War. McCain lost badly in the Senate on Webb's new GI bill, but he and President Bush later tried to take some credit for its passage.
12. And with regard to always being there for the troops, it is interesting to note that McCain actually voted against $360 million for armored tactical wheeled vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that McCain just held a big ticket fundraiser at the home of one of the country's largest defense contractors, Ronald Perelman, whose MacAndrews & Forbes holding company owns AM General, manufacturer of the HumVee. The HumVee became known in the Iraq War as a "Purple Heart box."
Here is the actual scene from which Obama's purported German workout in lieu of visiting wounded troops is taken. Note that it is Obama visiting enthusiastic American soldiers in the Middle East.
13. The footage in the McCain attack ad which accompanies the text about Obama spending time at the gym rather than visiting wounded troops is not actually of Obama working out in Berlin.
Actually, it is, as you see above, footage of Obama visiting with the troops in Kuwait. Hitting a 3-point jump shot on the first try, to the screams of the enthusiastic American soldiers.
Oh, what a tangled web ... And all that stuff.
ECONOMY | The Gender Pay Gap
July 30, 2008
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers
ECONOMY | The Gender Pay Gap
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act (EPA) into law, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform equal work. At the time, women earned 59 cents to every dollar earned by men. Today, a pay gap persists, as women earn 77 cents to every dollar that men earn. The Institute of Women's Policy Research found that this wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages. An April Senate report found that in contrast to previous slowdowns, the current economic downturn "is hitting women harder than men. They are suffering more job losses and larger reductions in wages than the general population." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA), which will strengthen current laws against wage discrimination. The bill passed the House Education And Labor Committee last week and is scheduled to come to a floor vote later this week. As DeLauro urged, "The marketplace alone will not correct this injustice -- that is why we need a legislative solution."
UNACCEPTABLE STATUS QUO: While the wage gap has narrowed throughout the 20th century, gender-based financial disparities between are, in many cases, growing. Unmarried women, for example, earn only 56 cents for every dollar that married men make. In the last year, the unemployment rate among adult women workers increased 20 percent, in contrast to a 17 percent increase among adult men. As women get older, the wage gap broadens: females aged 45 to 64 earn only 71 percent of what men earn, a pain exacerbated by the necessity to prepare for retirement. In the current subprime crisis, despite their better overall credit scores, women are over 30 percent more likely to have expensive subprime loans and are at greater risk of facing foreclosure. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) noted, "Between 1963 and now, the wage gap has narrowed by less than half a cent a year. At this rate, it would take about another 50 years before men and women reach parity in pay in this country." Currently, there is not a single state in which women have gained pay equality with men.
RESTORING EQUALITY: The Paycheck Fairness Act would "close loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay" and strengthen accountability in the workplace. The legislation increases penalties for sex discrimination in pay unless the company has a business-related reason for the inequality in wages. The PFA puts gender discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination such as those based on race, disability, or age, allowing women to file lawsuits for compensatory and punitive damages. The bill also prohibits employers retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers. The legislation also strengthens opportunities for women. The Act requires that the Department of Labor "improve outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities" and "creates a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women."
STALLING EQUALITY EFFORTS: Failing to note the persistent inequalities between men and women, congressional conservatives claim the Paycheck Fairness Act is "unnecessary" because the Equal Pay Act "already makes wage discrimination illegal" and complain about "increased litigation costs." Conservatives seem to be worried about employers being required to pay women a fair wage, but PFA simply closes loopholes in existing law so that fair pay laws can be better enforced. Furthermore, conservatives' record on equal pay is dismal. The PFA received its first hearing in 2007 -- after progressive captured Congress -- while the legislation sat in conservative-controlled Congress for a decade. While the bill enjoys the support of 230 House co-sponsors and 22 Senate co-sponsors, conservatives have consistently mounted vigorous efforts to stall equal pay legislation. In April, Senate conservatives blocked cloture on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have rectified the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear "that made it much harder for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims." Labor Secretary Elaine Chao has recommended that President Bush veto the PFA.
Stand Up for Health Care & Encourage the Candidates to Do So
http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/takeaction
Dear Supporter:
We have exciting news here at Families USA -- and we want you to be the first to know.
Today we are kicking off a brand new action project called Stand Up for Health Care -- with the goal of persuading our elected leaders to provide quality and affordable health care for all.
Check out our brand new Stand Up for Health Care website:
www.standupforhealthcare.org
Stand Up for Health Care will be an important part of Families USA and provide a vehicle for your activism and enthusiasm for health care reform. You can watch videos, share your thoughts, stay informed and learn how you can get involved.
We're kicking off this project with a petition urging John McCain and Barack Obama to make health care for everyone a national priority both on the campaign trail and in the White House.
Add your voice to the call for quality, affordable health care for all -- sign the petition right now:
http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/takeaction
Currently many health insurance companies operate in a wild west environment of little or no rules or regulation—unfettered to cherry pick the healthiest and to deny coverage to those who need it the most.
How do insurance companies do this? They look for "pre-existing conditions” and then they can legally deny someone coverage because they have an imperfect bill of health. Insurers might also charge these individuals much higher premiums for their coverage.
Health insurance shouldn't be reserved only for the healthiest among us.
Make sure John McCain and Barack Obama get this message, and tell them they must include everyone in their plans for quality, affordable health care:
http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/takeaction
Thank you so much for being part of Families USA. Together we can get organized and Stand Up for Health Care.
Sincerely,
Ron Pollack, and the team at Families USA
Visit the web address below to tell your friends to Stand Up for Health Care!
Tell-a-friend! http://ga3.org/join-forward.html?domain=standupforhealthcare&...
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Families USA Stand Up for Health Care. http://ga3.org/standupforhealthcare/join.html?r=413ED2nq5DAVE
--------
Stand Up For Health Care, a project of Families USA | 1201 New York Ave., NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005
www.standupforhealthcare.org | info@familiesusa.org
Categories
