All Posts Tagged With: "election"
Will Bradley /Wilder /Bubba /White Guilt Effects Play in November Election?
The “Bubba Effect” is a racist pejorative reference to the Bradley / Wilder phenomenon referring mostly to white rural and southern voters. Others say so-called “White Guilt” will overide any of these so-called effects.
The Sept. 15-17 Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows Barack Obama with a 48% to 44% lead over John McCain among registered voters, marking the first time that Obama has held a statistically significant lead in two weeks.
With a 14-point lead among women and a 91-point lead among blacks, Democrat Sen. Barack Obama leads Republican Sen. John McCain 49 - 45 percent among likely voters nationwide, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today
This compares to a 47%-42% Sen. Obama lead in an August 19 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
Zogby polling views the race 47%-45% for Obama and Rasmussen Reports that polls only likely voters, tags it tied at 48% each.
Democrats allege worry about the so-called Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder or Bubba effect, referring to a discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.
Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being far ahead in voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent. A sometimes used test is to ask a white voter how they’d vote and how their neighbor might vote, often resulting in different answers.
Tom Bradley was the black five term Los Angeles Democrat mayor (1973-1993) who ran twice for California Governor and was defeated both times by Republican George Deukmejian.
Lawrence Douglas Wilder was the first black Governor of Virginia 1990-1994 and was elected Mayor of Richmond in 2005. The so-called Wilder / Bradley effect was blamed for Bobby Jindal’s Defeat in the Louisiana governor’s race in 2003 but, of course does not factor into his election as Louisiana’s chief executive in 2007 after the state’s botched handling of Hurricane Katrina. Jindal is a 32-year-old native born Indian-American who was rumored to be on McCain VP list.
Phenoms
In April 2005, friends and family of golfer Chris DiMarco were crossing their fingers when Chris found himself tied with Tiger Woods by the end of the Masters. In the first sudden death hole, we thought Chris was going to win as Tiger was off to the left and long. But then the impossible happened. As the AP reported, Tiger chipped in and his ball aimed straight and true to the hole, where it paused right on the cup’s lip. After a second or two, which felt like an eternity, the ball slowly rolled over into the hole giving Tiger another Master’s win. To this day, that shot is considered one of the most amazing golf shots in history. How could Chris have possibly competed against that?
I think Chris and that guy who lost to Michael Phelps by a fingernail should get together and talk. I should probably extend that invitation to anyone who lost to Tiger Woods or Michael Phelps or Bolt, that amazing runner. But it doesn’t only happen in sports. Ask Hillary.
Tiger, Phelps and Bolt are all what I would call “Phenoms”. And heaven help anyone who competes against them. I truly feel sorry for the DiMarcos, and other swimmers for if it had not been for these rivals they would have easily won. But they had the bad luck to be on the playing field when these Phenoms are at the top of their game.
Obama is not a true Phenom, such as these athletes. It wasn’t until he started to gain momentum earlier this year that he turned into a Phenom. Even though people still were voting heavily for Hillary, the media had crowned him the next political whiz kid, the next JFK. It was to be expected that because of their similar racial mix, there were more and more articles comparing Obama to Tiger Woods, thereby implying that Obama was as much a winner as Tiger. The stories grew until everyone, even Obama, assumed that he was unstoppable. That Obama was “The One”.
The convention this week will work to convince the rest of the world (and I do mean world and not just the USA) that Obama is the chosen. Once both conventions are over the race moves into overdrive for the next two months. As DiMarco, and many of the Olympic athletes would tell you, it is not easy to defeat a Phenom.
McCain’s campaign is doing a brilliant job. Athletes are Phenoms based on measurable results. But other than barely beating Hillary, Obama is a Phenom because the press said so. It is sort of like the old story about the king’s clothes. This time it is McCain’s campaign which is pointing out that the king isn’t wearing any clothes, or rather that Obama is not a Phenom. In fact, McCain is ridiculing Obama for even thinking that he is “The One”.
Will this strategy work? I don’t know but I sure hope so. Making fun of Obama is better than believing the hype. For then McCain would be trying to compete against Obama as a Phenom, and as Chris DiMarco and many many others can tell you, it is nearly impossible to win against a true Phenom.
Communist Party USA Opposes McCain Election
None of the people’s struggles - from peace to universal health care … will advance if McCain wins in November.
An editorial on the Communist Party USA website does not officially endorse Barack Obama but, concludes saying, “One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles - from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street - will advance if McCain wins in November.”
The editorial dredges up shop worn platitudes from pre-World War II and the 1950-60s including, “A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.”
“Progressive” is a key word for the Communist Party USA that used it to try to disguise itself in 1948 when it ran former FDR Vice President Henry A. Wallace against Harry Truman.
What Liberals Are Thinking
I spent some time surfing liberal websites and found two underlying themes.
First there is a lot of hatred in that group. It goes without saying that liberals hate Bush, Republicans and John McCain. Some of their groups are still trying to get Congress to start impeachment procedures against Bush. Yup, that’s just what this economy and shaky Wall Street needs right now.
I had also heard that there was division within the Democrat Party but I didn’t realize until today how deep it went. There is a YouTube video of Howard Dean in Charlotte making a stump speech for Obama. At first all you could hear was the rhythmic monotone chanting of “Yes I Can”. It actually was rather scary as it came across so militaristic*. Then off to the side were more protesters with their own signs. Although there was no organization in their protesting they were still able to interrupt Dean’s speech. If you thought they were McCain supporters you are wrong. It was a group of Hillary Clinton supporters. Wow. I have yet to see the media cover any of this.
Hillary’s supporters are beyond mad at Obama. One of their signs requested a roll call during their convention which Dean said would happen. I’ll believe it when I see it. For a roll call of how each state voted would clearly show that Obama was not the chosen one and narrowly won the primary. If they do show it then look for it around mid afternoon when no one is watching. There were also a number of blogs by Hillary supporters who write that they will never support Obama and will vote for McCain instead.
The second point is that the Democrats are doing the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In those elections,
along with the current one, liberals are writing that the public is stupid to vote for McCain. I didn’t get it then nor do I understand it now. Because how much sense does it take to realize that if you want people to vote for your candidate then don’t call them stupid?
The recent polls still show McCain close to Obama, and in some polls actually surpassing Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the above contributes to McCain making a better show of it than expected.
* Shortly after Obama won his primary he sent out an email to say he was creating a “Fellowship”. He talked of sending people to training programs and then these “leaders” would be assigned where to work during the summer. When I first read this I was confused since not much happens in the summer. After that video I think I now understand the purpose of his “Fellowship” which in this light makes it all that much scarier.
Changing Everything But His Own Mind
For some reason I keep imagining the following scene…..
Dinner time and everyone is sitting around the kitchen table.
“I don’t like this.” said Joshua looking at the peas on his dinner plate.
“You haven’t even tried them.” Replies his Dad.
“Don’t care. I just know I won’t like them.”
“Why?”
.
“Because it’s green and looks funny and it smells!” Joshua is now building up to a full fledged temper tantrum.
“Stop that screaming and just eat your peas.” Dad is starting to get another headache.
“No. You can eat them.”
“Don’t talk back to me like that. You can’t get down from the table until you try them.” Dad’s getting annoyed with his son’s attitude. “How can you say you don’t like something if you haven’t even tried it? That doesn’t make any sense” (Apparently Dad has forgotten that adolescent boys rarely make sense.)
“I don’t care. I just know I don’t like them.”
Father and son stare at each other.
“Oh alright”, Joshua pouts. He balances two peas on his fork, puts them in his mouth and starts to make a gagging sound. “Yechhhh! Are you trying to poison me? That’s really gross! You never listen to me. I knew they would be awful even before I tasted them. And I was right - they are awful and I don’t like them! So now get the rest of them off of my plate!”
~
Hmmm. Maybe some little boys never do grow up…
No Peace Until After U. S. Election - Syria’s Assad
Syria Hopes For Obama Win In U. S.
Middle East peace is unavoidable but most likely will not be achieved until a new US administration is elected, Syrian President Bashar Assad said on Sunday.
Bush, according to the Syrian leader, “has no vision for peace” and lacks the will to push forward the process, an encoded message that if the U. S. continues its pro-Israel stance war is inevitable with his Iranian financed nation. Reports from Damascus and Ankara, however, indicating that Syria will not enter into direct negotiations with Israel before the advent of new American administration show an obstructive apprehension on the part of the Syrian government.
Clearly Syria is hoping for the election of a less reliable Israeli ally, namely Barack Obama, who will not go to the mat for the Jewish state.
The Ultimate Reality Show
A decade or so ago it appeared as if everybody loudly proclaimed that they were “victims” based on their gender, religion, race, heritage etc. etc. It became so ludicrous that even white men, the group that everyone felt were the ones in control, soon believed that they were victims because they were now being excluded from opportunities going to minorities. We were told that political correctness was the solution to all of our problems. We had to make sure that everyone went through sensitive training and in order to be diverse we had to actively strive to include “victims” from each group.
Political correctness quickly filtered down to our schools. In order to be fair to all children, schools tried to eliminate any situation where a child might be perceived as a loser. To this end most of the games we grew up with were deemed inappropriate and it seemed as if every parent was given a “My child is on the honors list” sticker. And in both schools and work if you didn’t like someone then you were assumed to be prejudiced of whatever group the person was in. So if you disliked a person it was considered to be your fault and you needed to change because you had to like everyone.
Then along came a new show - Survivor. Shortly thereafter there were a slew of similar shows: American Idol, Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars, Project Runway, Hells Kitchen etc. etc. What these shows all had in common was the new idea of actually saying somebody was a loser. Instead of being inclusive, as we were told we had to be, these reality shows were actually kicking someone off the show and not only was someone ousted but they were often told why they were losers. We loved it when Simon would tell someone what we all wish we could say sometimes - that the person did not have any talent or that they were strange or creepy or weird.
How refreshing! After being beaten over the head with the notion that you must accept everyone and how it seemed as if everyone were victims and needed special treatment, here were shows that had people saying to someone “we don’t like you” or “you’re terrible no matter what your mother said”. Even those with disabilities were treated the same as everyone else and were given no special treatment. Regular folks, victims, minorities, disabled, and famous people were all treated equally and eventually were each called losers and kicked off the show.
Wow. How politically incorrect is that? But we loved it as evidenced by the continuously high ratings these shows had.
Now we have the election, the biggest reality show there is. What makes this interesting is that it is also a clash of sensitivity against the Survivor type meanness. After watching both blacks and whites being called losers on reality shows will people be mean to both candidates? Or will all that sensitivity training and diversity create a fear of being called racist even if we simply are disagreeing with Obama’s positions? I guess it boils down to which is more important: To be a survivor; someone equally mean (or nice) to everyone and to identify who you like or don’t like, regardless of race, gender, religion etc. or to be politically correct and sensitive to people who are victims and to give them preferential treatment.
So ask yourself this: Are you politically correct or are you a survivor?
Summer Flip Flops
I seem to recall an old saying that went something like “You leave the dance with the one that brung ya.”
This came to my mind after listening to the recent reports about how McCain and Obama are flip flopping on a variety of critical issues. Both candidates now seem to be moving towards the center in their need to acquire the largest voting base possible. But as so often happens, this is angering the far right and left supporters who elected these candidates in the first place. And any movement to the center can only hurt Obama more than it hurts McCain.
The far right has always been wary of McCain’s more centric outlook, as well they should be. He paid lip service to the basic tenants of the Christian right during the primary but now that he is the candidate he is moving back to the center again. No one is really surprised at this change, including the far right candidates. There is discussion of making this an issue during the convention but it is doubtful if much will happen. As long as McCain promises to stay the course in Iraq, continue to support the Second Amendment and be pro-life then most Republicans will continue to support him.
On the other hand, Obama cannot afford to anger the far left that elected him over Hillary this spring. Yet he did just that when he tried to sneak in during the start of the long weekend an idea of taking more time on bringing the troops home. But it backfired on him and Obama now has to spend time trying to explain that he didn’t really mean that. It is on this promise, of bringing home the troops immediately, that most differentiated Barack from Hillary and his supporters will not give him any leeway on this issue.
Yet if Barack stays true to his far left supporters then he won’t be elected. It is as simple as that. We have
seen this happen time after time in the Democratic Party. Candidates who promote far left issues find themselves out of sync with the rest of the nation. Bill Clinton, the only Democratic candidate in the past 25 years to be elected, ran on a centrist theme from the start and therefore was not tied to far left extremist ideas. All the other recent Democratic candidates relied on far left supporters to win the primary and found they had very little room to move towards the center. And so they lost.
Barack Obama’s first effort to move slightly towards the center, even during a four day weekend when no one is supposed to be paying any attention, did become an issue and was met with resistance from his supporters. It will be interesting to watch over the next four months if Obama can become more centrist in order to appeal to a bigger voter block. Or perhaps I should rephrase it to read; if Obama’s supporters will allow him to move to the right from their far left stance.
Can he appeal to more centrist voters or is he stuck with the far left ones that he brung to this dance?
Disco, Manilow and Obama
I wrote over half of an article before I realized that my conclusion wasn’t what I thought it would be. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Yet in light of these unexpected findings I am now feeling optimistic about John McCain’s chances in the upcoming election. So how did I come to this conclusion?
My initial premise was that going back to Peter lying about knowing Jesus over 2,000 years ago right up to today, people lie about liking someone if it might be dangerous or unpopular or simply uncool to admit they liked or knew that person. For example, how was it that disco was so popular back in the 70’s if everybody now say they despised it back then? Same with Barry Manilow, who everyone hated yet he still managed to sell millions of albums. Or more recently, if everyone says that Amy Winehouse is, at best, sad and, at worst, mentally deranged, how is it that her Back To Back CD is the biggest selling album of all time on Amazon.com?
I went on to say that this same phenomenon happened during this election where people are lying both for and against the candidates. Obama’s message of change is what everybody says they want. And yes, his race is also a major issue but a positive one, for to say you are voting for Obama proves you are not a racist, right? On the other hand, everybody hates Bush and the Republicans and therefore they dislike John McCain, too. Plus everyone is saying he is too old to be president, and more importantly, voting for him might indicate that you are a closet racist. Therefore if you want everyone to know that you, too, want change and are popular, cool and definitely not a racist then you tell them you are for Obama and against McCain and those awful Republicans.
I continued by saying that we saw this during the primaries. Obama easily won in the caucuses where people had to publicly indicate who they wanted and may have feared being considered a racist or even uncool if they literally didn’t stand in Obama’s corner. On the other hand when people voted in the secrecy of a voting booth where no one would know who they chose then Obama lost.
Where I got in trouble with this article is that based on all of the above I would assume that people are continuing to lie and say they are for Obama in order to look good to the pollsters. So a review of the polls should therefore show that Obama is decisively beating McCain, right? But he’s not. A few polls show he is ahead but only by single digits and one recent poll showed that they were tied!
What does this mean? How can McCain be doing so well when everyone knows that Obama is the man of the hour. He’s even on the cover of Rolling Stone and you can’t get much cooler than that! What about the historically known premise that people tend to lie to pollsters to make themselves look good? This would mean lying that they are for Obama because lets face it, nobody would lie about voting for McCain thinking that would make them look popular. So if you factor in that some people are lying about planning to vote for Obama and if he currently only leads by a few points, at most, then, oh my, it might mean that McCain is actually in the lead.
If the election were held today I wouldn’t be surprised if, to the shock of everybody, McCain is the winner. But the election isn’t for another 4 months and a lot can happen. Nonetheless, Obama shouldn’t be quite so certain that everybody will be voting for him, even including those who are standing in his corner. As for McCain? He needs to let people know that a vote for McCain is definitely not racist nor a third term for Bush. Most of all McCain needs to let us know that it is ok to support him and maybe even popular and cool to vote for him. Although just like disco and Manilow, if you want to deny you liked McCain after the fact, well, once elected and in the White House McCain probably wouldn’t even mind if you denied him three times.
Catching up with Shirley Golub
When I interviewed Shirley Golub on May 3, she was in the midst of challenging Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional seat in San Francisco’s 8th District. Three days prior to the election (May 31), I phoned to check in with Shirley just to how things were going with the election just around the corner.
D: So, Shirley, how are things going out there on the left coast?
S: Well, it’s pretty amazing! I have three days left to make an impact here.
D: What are you focusing on right now?
S: Well, right now, I have volunteers lined up to walk the neighborhoods and distribute flyers. I have another set of volunteers going out to put up signs. I also have volunteers from all over the country making last-minute phone calls on my behalf.
D: How has media coverage of your campaign been in the last month?
S: Well, it’s been disappointing. It’s disappointing enough when the mainstream media doesn’t provide coverage, in spite of the fact that I’m challenging the nation’s first female Speaker of the House. However, it’s especially disappointing when the progressive media is missing in action.
D: What do you think the reason is for the progressive media’s lack of attention?
S: I’m not sure. Maybe they think I’m running against Cindy Sheehan, which I’m not. The idea is to get as many progressives in as possible. If I win against Nancy Pelosi in the primary, then Cindy Sheehan will just run in another district. The whole idea was for us to run as a one-two punch, if you will. If I fail in my bid to win the primary, then Cindy will run against Nancy Pelosi in November as an Independent.
D: I know Cindy was in the process of getting the required number of signatures. How is that going?
S: Right now, she has about 2,000 of the 10,000 she needs to get on the ballot. I believe she has until August to get all the signatures she needs.
D: Has Nancy Pelosi responded to your challenge at all?
S: Not at all. She’s been running as though she doesn’t have an opponent. I’m sure she sees my candidacy as nothing other than an irritant.”
At this point, Shirley had to cut the conversation short. I assumed it was because there was so much to do with so little time remaining. We agreed to reconvene and continue the interview the day after the election. When I spoke with Shirley on June 4, the day after the election, I found out why she had to end our conversation so abruptly.
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich appeared together in an ad on climate change that was paid for a group called the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization started by former Vice President Al Gore. Several people contacted Shirley encouraging her to file against Speaker Pelosi because they believed that the ad was a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which limits the degree to which a candidate’s campaign can work with an independent group.
After investigating the situation and thinking about it for several days, Shirley decided it was not worth pursuing. As it turns out, Judicial Watch did file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore may want to save the world, but they still have to follow federal law.” After a few more minutes on this topic, Shirley and I picked up the interview, albeit from a different standpoint.
D: So, the election is over. How did you do?
S: Well, the numbers show that I got 10.83% of the vote. That means that something like one in ten voted for me.
D: Considering what some of the presidential candidates did on a national level, I’d say you did pretty well.
S: Oh, thanks. It would probably have been higher had the voter turnout been better. It was pretty low. We tried to use the rent control issue to increase the number of people going to the polls. A bit more media coverage would also have helped.
D: And how did the rent control ballot question fare?
S: It did well. We managed to keep rent control in place.
D: What else has happened since the election? Any more excitement on any fronts?
S: Well, I just did a press conference for the California Impeachment Slate. We have about twenty candidates running across the state on an impeachment platform. We’re trying to get Monica Conyers to run for Congress in Detroit on an impeachment platform. Do you know who she is?
D: I could take a guess.
S: She’s the wife of Representative John Conyers, who is on the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment is stalled right now. She is the President Pro Tempore of the Detroit City Council. In May of 2007, she placed a pro-impeachment resolution in front of her colleagues and it passed unanimously!
D: So, Shirley, now that this is all over, do you think you’ll stay in politics?
S: I don’t really know. Politics is a lot of work, even though it can be very rewarding. You know, my goal was always to push the impeachment issue, so I don’t know what the future holds for me beyond that. Right now, I’m just going to lay back a bit.
D: Well, thanks, Shirley for giving us a look inside your campaign and taking the time to talk to me now that the battle is over. I hope we can stay in touch.
S: Oh, you’re welcome and we will stay in touch. Talk to you later.
A few days after this interview was over, I received an email from Shirley. She forwarded an email that she had received from another member of the California Impeachment Slate who attached a story that had run in the Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert. The article stated that only 30% of registered voters gave Nancy Pelosi a positive job performance rating in a survey conducted at the end of May, just before the election. Who knows what might have happened had Shirley Golub’s campaign received more media coverage.
Even though Shirley Golub fell short in her attempt to remove Nancy Pelosi from office, her impeachment message was not lost on her constituents. Perhaps Shirley has lost this battle, but the war can still be won!
The Politics of Hypocrisy: McCain slips out from under his rock
John McCain recently slithered down to the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans just to walk a few blocks and tell the American public how appalled he is by the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. To the area hardest hit by Katrina, he vowed, “never again will a disaster of this nature be handled in the terrible and disgraceful way it was handled.” This is classic political posturing to help McCain look like somebody who might actually have an ounce of empathy for the downtrodden. John McCain was an active member of the Senate throughout the entire Katrina ordeal. To suggest that he was surprised about the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina is hypocrisy at its best. In fact, he helped to shape that response by voting down several measures that would have helped the Katrina victims.
McCain voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2006, which would have provided, among other funding, $28 billion for hurricane relief. He also voted against a measure to provide emergency health care and other types of much-needed relief to Katrina survivors, such as access to Medicaid, $800 million in compensation to those providing care to Katrina evacuees, and access to the TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) Contingency Fund for the states affected by Katrina and those taking in Katrina evacuees. If John McCain truly cares about ensuring a more appropriate response to the next natural disaster, then why did he vote – not once but twice – against establishing a commission to provide a “post mortem” review of the response to Katrina? The final insult came in 2005 when McCain voted against extending up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits to those affected by Hurricane Katrina. These are not the votes of a compassionate conservative.
The ultimate indignity for the people of New Orleans is John McCain using their city as a political prop, painting himself as the ‘kinder, gentler’ GOP candidate and vowing that such a disgraceful response will not happen if he’s elected. That’s great John, but the people of New Orleans are probably wondering just exactly what you’re going to do to help them out of the mess they are in right now. When asked about rebuilding the lower 9th Ward, he fumbled around for an answer that ended up being clear in the end: He didn’t know if he would rebuild it or tear it down if he is elected president. I’m sure it’s a comfort to those who live there that McCain can authorize a $12 billion-a-month war but he cannot commit to providing affordable housing in an area devastated by natural disaster. There’s something wrong about that.
McCain’s PR handlers and the mainstream media can spin him any way they want, but his actions are at direct odds with what they want us to believe. In 2001, after being defeated by Bush, he voted against the administration’s tax cuts. From the Senate floor he stated that he could not “in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of the middle class Americans who most need tax relief.” That was six years ago when he had lost his bid for the presidency and was, by several accounts, disgusted with the way the Bush campaign was waged.
It’s 2008 and John McCain is fighting for his political life. Do not ever misjudge his drive to become president. Bush’s tax cuts will expire in 2010 and now Mr. McCain is in favor of making the majority of those cuts permanent (the one exception being the inheritance tax). Nothing has changed about them. The cuts are still weighted to the wealthiest people in America. What has changed is McCain’s situation and whom he must assuage to reach what he no doubt feels is his destiny. It gets even more ugly when McCain is left to think for himself. He also has his own plan to eliminate the alternative minimum tax (originally created to prevent the wealthy from exploiting tax loopholes) and reduce the tax rate on corporate profits. The middle class may not be the only victim of McCain’s tax plan. Some experts are concerned about the nation’s solvency should this plan go into effect.
One other connection here that is rarely made by the mainstream media is the fact that John McCain’s net worth is in the $40 million dollar range. His wife is the chairwoman of the third-largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship in the nation. They also have impressive real estate holdings. It is said that McCain and his wife own eight homes. Seems that the McCain family is in a perfect position to reap the benefits of those tax breaks. The media attention McCain receives for his position of wealth is minimal compared to the scrutiny given to John Kerry and John Edwards. McCain’s supporters, of course, point out that it’s really not his wealth. It’s his wife’s. So was John Kerry’s, but that didn’t stop the media from having a field day with it.
Throwing the public a bone
McCain’s extraordinary compassion has inspired him to suggest rescinding the 18-cent gas tax through the summer. It saves the public about sixty cents a day (or $4.20 per week; just about where gas will be per gallon this summer). McCain went on to place his foot in his mouth by acknowledging it’s not much money, but it will provide the American people with a “little psychological boost.” This is absolutely useless to the people suffering sticker shock at the food stores and getting gouged for profits at the gas pumps. By the way, the money for this idea would be taken from funds used to build and maintain our roads and bridges. This money actually does create jobs and stimulate the economy.
While he’s throwing the public a bone with the gas tax, he’s collecting $58,358 a year in tax-free disability benefits for his war injuries. Disability payments suggest that he can no longer perform certain duties. In fact, McCain came back from Viet Nam in 1973 and proceeded to undergo extensive physical therapy to work his way back to fighter pilot status. He then became the commanding officer of the VA-174 “Hellrazors,” the Navy’s largest attack squadron. He did not retire from the Navy until 1981. When his advanced age is mentioned, McCain insists he has the stamina to out-campaign his younger foes. He recently boasted about how he hiked the Grand Canyon with one of his sons, so it’s not clear what disability he is being compensated for. One staffer suggested he’s being compensated for the torture he endured while a POW in Viet Nam. Without belittling Mr. McCain’s ordeal, the question remains what is a millionaire U.S. Senator with no overtly apparent disability doing collecting a stipend funded by the taxpayers?
Things are not as they seem
A good hard look will show that John McCain has degenerated into the political double speak that characterizes the present administration. There is not much difference between his projected policies and the ones Bush has in place now. If anything, he holds even more ‘hawkish’ views than Bush, which ensures the long-term occupation of Iraq and the increased potential of an attack on Iran. His voting record suggests he is anything but compassionate, nor is he an ally of the middle class. When people ask why he is so well perceived by the American people, the standard response is that its because the Democrats are still fighting it out among themselves rather than focusing on McCain. This is a convenient answer, but not the only one. The reality is that the mainstream media is still the primary carrier of information to the general public, and remains committed to the image that they have created for McCain even when the facts dispute its veracity.
Vote for McCain in 2008 (if you think George Bush deserves a third term)
Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But why would Americans want to give a third term to the most unpopular administration in American history? While many Americans still envision John McCain as the straight talking, special interest-disdaining maverick candidate of the 2000 election season, the fact is that he’s never really been any of those things. To make it worse, he’s even changed his position on the issue of waterboarding. Why? Now 71 and perhaps sensing his “running” days are coming to an end, he is John McCain, candidate for President of the United States and it is now or never. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush and a McCain win is akin to giving our current imperial president an undeserved third term.
Marching in step with the Bush war doctrine
Mr. Bush recently stated that the GOP will prevail in the 2008 election so that we can continue what he no doubt feels is the good fight in Iraq. If this is the case, then Bush’s worldwide aggression is in good hands. John McCain is a full-fledged “hawk” and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s war effort. Not only is he on record stating that the surge is “working,” but McCain also believes that the Iraq war is winnable and that winning is essential. Citing our long-term occupation of Korea, Mr. McCain has no problem at all seeing U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq for many years to come. He has acknowledged, however, that he must convince the American people that the war is noble and worthwhile during the campaign’s stretch run. Another notable point is that McCain is in lockstep with George Bush on Iran. There is no question he’d use military force against Iran if he deemed it necessary. This is a dangerous equation, given the milquetoast character of Congress. Would they stand up to John McCain or roll over and play dead as they have for George W. Bush?
America’s reputation has deteriorated under the Bush regime. Regardless of the thought process behind the “Bush Strategy,” his unwarranted invasion of Iraq has reduced America to worldwide bully status. George Bush proudly refers to himself as a “war president,” and he is right. In seven years, George W. Bush has, excuse the term, “pissed away” more than two hundred years of diplomacy, favoring instead the pre-emptive strike position so strongly advocated by the neo-cons. The Bus administration was so intent on attacking Iraq that it managed 935 outright lies to justify American aggression in the lead-up to the invasion.* Make no mistake that John McCain was one of the leading advocates of the Iraq war, he is presently one of the most vocal “cheerleaders” of the Iraq war, and he will no doubt carry on with (or expand) Bush’s Iraq policy. Invading Iran remains on the table now and, unless Mr. Bush twists a few facts and tells a few lies to justify invading Iran before he leaves office, it will remain on the table for the entire term of a John McCain presidency.
Out of touch with reality on reproductive rights
An issue that should be of concern to all American women is that of reproductive rights. On this count, the National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a 72% rating for the years between 1997-2000, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 1% for the same time frame. Senator McCain is generally out of touch on this subject. When pressed on the issue of contraception during a bus trip between campaign stops, McCain fumbled around for an answer, sounding like anything but presidential material. It was actually painful to read this exchange. Yet, when McCain was asked specifically if grants for sex education should speak to the the use of contraception or if it should adhere to Bush’s “abstinence only” position, he chose abstinence only. McCain’s mentor on all things reproductive is none other than Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose name he invoked several times on that bus trip. Coburn is not only a Senator, but also a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. Senator Coburn believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion in all cases, except in the rare case where the mother’s life is in danger. It should also be noted that Senator/Doctor Coburn advocates the death penalty for abortion providers, a position that is – at best – disturbing for a doctor to take.
A sudden change of heart on torture
Until recently, Senator McCain has been vocal critic of the President’s use of waterboarding and other extreme (and inhumane) interrogation techniques, having been subject to torture himself as a POW in Viet Nam. When both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney bowed out of the race, McCain’s nearly DOA campaign was not only given a new life, but also thrust into “frontrunner” status. With Mike Huckabee dropping out after the Texas and Ohio primaries, McCain is officially the GOP candidate for president. Now comes the need to cater to the very vocal and powerful right wing element in the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it, this is one faction of the party that is not enamored with John McCain and the candidate knows it. Suddenly waterboarding isn’t such a problem anymore. In fact, on February 13 of this year, the new John McCain voted against an intelligence bill designed to effectively outlaw torture by making the Army Field Manual the law of the land.
A legend in his own mind
McCain’s outward disdain of special interests and “soft” money donations is as legendary as Bush’s fundraising prowess. In fact, in 2002, Senator McCain and Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) teamed up to pass the McCain-Feingold act in an attempt to eliminate large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. They even won the Profiles in Courage award for their efforts. Do not be fooled. Here the only difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain quietly straddles the line that he himself draws in the sand.
In spite of his rhetoric to the contrary, McCain has done his share of favors for donors over the years. Few recall that McCain was one of the infamous “Keating Five,” five Senators who sought to influence the investigation into the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan and its chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Mr. Keating was faulted for that failure, which reportedly cost taxpayers anywhere between $2.6 and $3.4 billion. After a reprimand, McCain won re-election as a congressman from Arizona’s first congressional district and was then elected to the Senate in 1986. In spite of his efforts to convince people that he and Keating were not friends, the facts show something different. By the time he entered the Senate in 1987, he had received $112,000 in donations from Keating, his family and his employees.
The New York Times reported that McCain’s association with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first campaign in 1999 concerned his staff. While he was photographed out and about with Iseman and even used the corporate jet of one of her clients, the issue isn’t whether or not they had an “extramarital affair.” The issue is that Iseman “lobbied” McCain on behalf of Paxson Communications, who had business in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Mr. McCain was the Chairman. In spite of his denials, the paper trail shows that John McCain wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson Communications as a result of her influence.
It’s time for a reality on the wisdom of electing John McCain. His 2008 campaign staff is like a role call of those associated with large soft money donations, like A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision and presently a McCain national finance co-chairman. Mr. Perenchio has raised a whopping $11.3 million in soft money donations since the 1998 elections. Several of George Bush’s moneymen also litter McCain’s landscape.
Can’t you see the real me?
We cannot see the real John McCain because the mainstream media is enamored with the mythological John McCain persona. They helped to create it and they continue to foster it. The one time a mainstream media outlet dares raise something questionable about Mr. McCain and the repercussions are clear. It appears that the Times has come under fire by its readers because they perceived the story as trashing the candidate by intimating he had an extramarital affair with Ms. Iseman without offering proof of said affair. Know what? Even if the Times had offered proof of an affair, that isn’t the most disturbing thing about their relationship. What is disturbing is that the article shows that McCain “talks the talk” but does not “walk the walk.” (This is another trait he shares with Bush.) He does not steer clear of lobbyists and is keenly aware of what they can do to put him in the White House.
It would be nice if we could have a real picture of the candidate so that people would know they are essentially re-electing George W. Bush, architect of the most unpopular administration in American history. George Bush knows it. He has endorsed McCain
Democratic Strategy and Choices in 2008 Election by Ben Smith
Keep up to date on what the Dems are doing to furhter their 2008 Presidential ambitions according to Ben Smith.