Who Is The Real John McCain?

We've been hearing a lot from the McCain campaign these last few days about "Who is the real Barack Obama?" I would like to know who the real John McCain is.  I always thought that I knew a great deal about John McCain and respected him and his service to this country.  However, since he's began his bid for the presidency he has completely thrown his ideals out the window, and switched his position on several issues as I've written about before. In addition his general demeanor and obvious temper has been coming through as the campaign winds up.

We've seen his erratic behavior in times of crisis, his snap decisions throughout the campaign, like his appointment of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential nominee and his "non-suspension" of his campaign during the financial meltdown.  It has become apparent that John McCain will do just about anything to become President of the United States.
But why?  Who is John McCain and why does he want to be President?  Is it truly because he wants to put the "country first?"
In a recent article in Rolling Stone Magazine John Dramesi, an Air Force Lt. Colonel who was with John McCain during his days in a Hanoi prison camp was quoted as saying: "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man...but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
Please read the full article from Rolling Stone Magazine written by Tim Dickinson who is a registered Republican and voted for McCain in the 2000 primary; it's eye opening and gives us great insight into who John McCain is and what motivates him.  The article is lengthy but well worth reading.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Read more-->

Can We Vote Already?

What was a three ring circus has now become a four ring circus, if there is such a thing.  With nineteen days until the 2008 Presidential election, and Obama leading in key counties in battleground states across the country, according to www.politico.com, McCain has made one last desperate, spontaneous, and erratic move to try and regain some ground.  Enter "Joe the Plumber."
Anyone who watched the debate on Wednesday night and hasn't been living under a rock for the last couple days knows who "Joe the Plumber" is.  The McCain campaign has once again put the full weight of their campaign behind an individual who has emerged to celebrity status from total obscurity.  According to McCain campaign officials they did not thoroughly vet this individual before thrusting him into the national media scene, and first learned about him from reading The Drudge Report.  Well it's too bad that they didn't vet "Joe" because the media has and have found some pretty interesting facts.

Turns out "Joe the Plumber" is not a licensed plumber, "never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union" according to The New York Times.  It also turns out the "Joe the Plumber" who's real name is Samuel, owes $1,182 in backed taxes and does not make $250,000 a year meaning that Obama's plan would currently give "Samuel the non-licensed plumber" a tax break.  It also turns out that plumbers across America seem to think that they would do much better under an Obama-Biden administration as "The national plumber's union, the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics, endorsed Mr. Obama" according to The New York Times.
It's pretty clear that Senator McCain is desperate here, and it says a lot about his judgement and the judgement of his campaign staff, who could potentially become his cabinet members, to make a move like this.  However, they do bring up an interesting question that is fundamental to this campaign.  McCain raised the question in the debate in asking Obama why he would want to cut people's taxes in a time of such financial turmoil, and Obama responded in kind by reminding McCain that under his tax plan corporations would continue to receive billions of dollars in tax breaks.
This issue is very important to explore and is one that the country is deeply divided over.  The issue is a redistribution of wealth in this country.  It's a known fact that a very small percentage of the population in this country controls the great majority of the wealth, and therefore the power.  Under the Bush administration this small percentage of the population and large corporations have done quite well while much of the rest of the country has suffered, and these economic problems have been exacerbated by the recent economic downturn.  With Senator Obama's tax plan, 95% of individuals in this country would get a tax break and taxes would be raised for those making over $250,000.  There are many exceptions for small businesses in Obama's tax plan and only 2% of small businesses in this country make over $250,000 a year.
There are really two schools of thought here, and they are wildly different.  If you make a lot of money you are entitled to keep as much of it as you can, which involves the many loopholes that currently exist in our tax system that allows those with the most to pay a very small amount of taxes.  The idea being that if those wealthy individuals have money to invest and start businesses etc. the money will "trickle down" to the lower classes.  The other school of thought is based on the idea that those who make more money should pay more in taxes, and those making less should get relief from the tax system and not the other way around.  This way, the lower classes are guaranteed some relief.
Warren Buffet is worth an estimated $52 Billion and famously said in June of this year that "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income than our receptionists do, our cleaning ladies, for that matter.  If you're in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent" according to www.thetimes.com.  He demonstrated this fact by showing that he was only taxed at a rate of 17.7% last year while his secretary was taxed at a rate of 30% of her income.  Who do you think needs that money more, and shouldn't the wealthy be taxed at at least the same rate as lower income individuals?  Yes, Warren Buffet paid more money in taxes, but as a percentage of income it was about half what his secretary paid.
This is the crux of Obama's argument and Senator McCain's campaign is trying to make it about raising taxes on the average "Joe's."  You know, "Joe the Plumber," "Joe Six-Pack," and "Hockey Mom's across America!"  In reality these people are going to do much better under an Obama adminstration than under the McCain administration which will continue the failed tax and economic policies of the Bush administration. What is odd about this issue is that many American's don't understand it.  They have continued to buy into the "tax and spend" label of the Democrats that the Republicans put forth.
What's also interesting about this campaign cycle is that it's the Democrat who is proposing massive tax cuts for the majority of the country, and McCain is now asking why Senator Obama would want to cut people's taxes during this time of economic turmoil; my how the tables have turned.
The bottom line is that this is just another distraction in a long line of distractions during this campaign season.  The last thing the American people need during these times is distractions from the important issues that should be front and center in this campaign; and the media is being too easily distracted by these circus acts.  This isn't a time for politics, it's a time for leadership.

Read more-->

Just the Facts

Here are the facts on the latest distortions from both campaigns courtesy of www.factcheck.org

 

Read more-->

McCainisms

I've commented in prior posts about the inconsistencies that McCain and his surrogates are positing, but they just keep coming and bear response.  The Obama campaign has had its share of inconsistencies as well, but not nearly in the flagrant manner of John Sydney McCain.  In this post I would like to discuss the latest McCainisms, most notable his new housing bailout plan, and several other of the latest attacks coming from others in the McCain camp.
There has been a lot of talk in the media today about the economic plan that McCain announced in Tuesday's town hall style debate.  During the debate McCain initially proposed a plan to purchase bad mortages from the lenders at a "discounted rate."  The homeowners would then be issued new 30 year fixed rate mortages at lower interest rates while passing the buck on the losses to the taxpayers.  While McCain was espousing his "new" plan during the debate his campaign staffers were putting out all sorts of "information" about the plan on McCain's website and throughout the internet.  According to the original statement issued by the campaign regarding the proposal "Lenders in these cases must recognize the losses they've already suffered."

Dateline: The Day After - Overnight, the McCain campaign realizing the error of their ways quickly issued a new statement regarding the proposal that had conveniently left that sentence out, citing that it was mistakenly included in the original, "a simple mistake" according to one McCain campaign staffer.  A simple mistake that will cost American taxpayers $300 Billion.  I think we can all agree that struggling homeowners need help, but let's discuss what the problem is with this proposal.
The government and the taxpayers are already bailing out Wall St. with a $700 Billion bailout package, and now McCain is proposing $300 Billion in relief for the lenders whereby the government will purchase these bad assets at their full values with taxpayer money.  We know that these assets aren't worth their original values, and right away the taxpayers will be taking a loss.  In doing so, the money will be handed over to the very lenders that got Americans into this mess in the first place.  Yes, the argument can be made that these homeowners should not have bought houses, but I've worked in the mortgage market and over the past few years these lenders were giving away loans.  There was no accountability, the lender loans the money, sells the loan to another bank, and the cycle continues.  Mortgage brokers aren't even required to take any qualification tests.  And now, John McCain wants to bail these lending institutions out at the expense of the taxpayer?
This seems to me like it's a another erratic move by the McCain campaign to appear as though they are putting together a detailed proposal for this plan.  In reality this plan was put together prior to the debate by campaign staffers.  Perhaps the very people that McCain will place in cabinet positions if he's elected, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually wants to help homeowners.  According to www.politico.com, Douglas Holtz-Eakin who is an economic advisor to McCain has said that this plan has been in the works since March of this year.  The McCain campaign is touting this as though it's an original idea even though something similar was proposed in or around March by the democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. McCain said back in March about that plan:
"It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.  Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."
I think we can all agree that we are in a time of systemic risk and danger to the economy and I commend McCain for making an attempt at solving this issue.  The problem with this plan and the way that it has been proposed is "it seems hastily put together...given the lack of detail, specificity, and overlap with other programs" according to one Republican financial services lobbyist.  I really don't think McCain is helping himself with yet another "hail mary," and you know it's bad for McCain when even Republican financial services lobbyists are coming out against his economic plans.  Let's also not forget that we're coming to the head of a heated campaign season and McCain is trailing in the polls mainly because of the economy.
I want to finish up here by commenting quickly on what we're seeing from the other side of the ticket.  The DOW dropped over 678 points today, and what are we hearing at McCain's campaign rallies?  Are we hearing more about substantive issues that voters care about?  No, we're getting more smears and distortions; they've even dragged Cindy McCain into the fray.  Cindy McCain was on the stump reading a prepared statement about how Barack Obama doesn't support the troops because he voted against funding for the troops at one time or another. Most of us who follow politics know that the reason that Obama voted against that bill was because it did not contain a timeline for withdrawal.  What Cindy McCain failed to mention is that John McCain voted against various war funding provisions at one time or another because they did have timelines for withdrawal in them.  Cindy took it a step further saying that Obama voted against supporting "[her] son" and then suggested that he "walk in her shoes" for a day.  If we want to walk in Cindy McCain's silver spoon fed shoes we can go rent The Stepford Wives.
McCain also voted against more body armor for the troops and other bills that contained provisions that supported the troops which I won't get into here; if you'd like more detail on this I'd encourage you to visit www.votevets.org.  Votevets.org also reported that according to a study conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics in August of this year troops overwhelmingly have contributed to Obama's campaign vs. McCain's at a rate of 6:1 especially among those actually deployed.  Does that mean that the troops don't support the troops as the argument goes?  Think about it.

Read more-->

McCain's Rage is of Serious Concern

We've all heard the stories about McCain being an unstable person with a brutal temper.  We've seen hints of this at the debates with McCain often clenching his jaws whenever Obama speaks, but also his compulsive, erratic behavior on the campaign trail.  This video shows testimonial from many officials in government who work with, or have worked with McCain in the past.

Does this behavior represent a "cool hand at the tiller" to use McCain's words?

DISCLAIMER: Although much of this appears to be true, I think the story about McCain backhanding a staffer is seriously exaggerated.

Read more-->

Here comes the mud!

As the Presidential election year comes to a head in October we need to prepare ourselves for the worst.  In spite of all of the important issues that we face as a nation such as the economy, two wars (did we forget about those?), an energy crisis, 40 Million Americans without healthcare, illegal immigration out of control, the restructuring of the Justice Department, and a whole host of others, the McCain campaign has decided to do everything it can to distract us from those issues by continuing to wage one of the most negative campaigns this country has ever seen.
The Obama campaign has responded in kind with their resurrection of McCain's ties to "The Keating Five" and the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and earlty '90s, as well as several other ads that are misleading.  But one has to ask themselves whether the Obama campaign would have come out with this if McCain didn't strike first by essentially insinuating that Barack Obama is a terrorist and/or terrorist sympathizer.  I would have to say, I think not, and the assertion that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer is ludicrous.

One thing is clear, McCain has taken a huge hit in the polls with the recent economic developments in this country and abroad, and Obama has risen.  This is characteristic of the American electorate, in times of economic crisis they look to the democrats.  As a last ditch effort to save a campaign in dire straits the McCain campaign has ratcheted up the negativity against Obama in an attempt to cast doubt on him among undecided voters, while the Obama campaign is doing their best to depict McCain as "out of touch" and show character flaws in his judgement; i.e. choosing Sarah Palin, involvement in "the Keating Five," flip-flopping on his stance on the economy, does "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" ring any bells?  Let's not forget the war, McCain essentially stands alone with his stance on the war in Iraq, not even the neo-cons support this sort of "perpetual war" strategy with no defined timeline.

This weekend we've seen Sarah Palin on the stump accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."  We've also seen the media jumping all over this from both sides to purport or refute these claims.  What I find most interesting about McCain's strategy here is that in 2000 when then Gov.  Bush was running his smear campaign against McCain, Jack Tapper, a senior McCain advisor was quoted as saying:
"When the going gets tough for Governor Bush, he turns to the darker side of our party...they could care less how they get elected."  McCain, during this time, was quoted as saying: "I can look you in the eye and say I wanted to be President of the United States, not in the worst way, but in the best way."
McCain also was quoted as saying in response to the slew of negative ads against him that "sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you don't have the ability to articulate it."
I can't say that much of this comes as a surprise.  Many of us know that the Republican base was not thrilled with John McCain being nominated to run for President.  McCain has done his best to pander to these constituents by switching his position on several issues such as his position on offshore drilling, the Bush tax cuts, executive power, and amnesty for telecom companies among others.  Not to mention the fact that McCain has employed several of George Bush's campaign advisors.

A direct correlation of this campaign staff switch, has lead to what we're seeing from McCain in these last few months: a last ditch smear effort to save his campaign.  The McCain camp is essentially throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, and doing everything in their power to destroy the credibility of Barack Obama.  In a recent McCain campaign commercial the narrator discusses how Obama promised a higher level of discourse, to paraphrase, and then discusses some of the negative ads that he's been running in battleground states and ends the commercial with the words, "He lied."  

Obama in turn has been running a number of negative ads, especially on the radio which mostly go unnoticed by the media.  Both campaigns have been forced to fire back on each other, McCain needing to respond to Obama's ads that he's "out of touch" on the economy and the war, and Obama needing to respond to McCain's assertions that he's a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer, is sexist (lipstick on a pig), wants to teach sex education to children, and is off the charts liberal.
What strikes me is the difference in tone of these negative ads.  While the Obama camp tries to link their character attacks on McCain to the issues for the most part, the McCain camp's commercials have a different tone to them, meant to distract voters from what is really at stake in the election.  

I think at such an important time, where the markets are extremely volatile, parents are sending their children to fight for this country, only 12% of the population think the country is heading in the right direction, and people are generally fearful about the future, we deserve more.
We deserve more than partisan politics as usual, attack ads, distractions, lipstick on a pig, Sarah Palin, and general distortions of each others positions.  We need to have a candid discussion about where this country is today, where it needs to go, and how each candidate will get us there. What we need now is real leadership, and we're certainly not seeing that from the McCain/Bush/Palin campaign.  It will truly be depressing if the old "Rovian" political games play out here and the American people are duped into making one of the most important decisions of our time based on disinformation and distraction again.  One can only hope that this time, the American people will see through the smokescreen.

Read more-->

Form Over Substance...

The much anticipated Vice Presidential debate has just come to a close and I'd have to say that neither candidate committed a fatal "gaffe." I think that both campaigns are happy about the way that their candidates performed last night, and each side most likely thinks that their candidate won the debate. I think that this debate can be boiled down to form vs. substance. I think if you liked Sarah Palin before the debate, chances are this didn't change your view of her and probably helped. I think if you were going into this debate looking for more depth and substance in the answers then you probably liked Joe Biden.

I truly find it comical that the media and the American people think that this debate was as close as they're portraying it. I haven't gone back to the debate yet, but it appeared to me while watching the debate that Sarah Palin never really answered ANY of the questions that were asked of the candidates. She would often say "Yes, I do" and then completely change the subject and revert back to her scripted talking points or energy where she is most comfortable. Joe Biden called her out on this a couple of times but not nearly enough.

I do think that both candidates did what was expected of them. Sarah Palin did not hurt her image and did her best to put to rest the doubts and fears that the American people had about her after the embarrassment that were the Katie Couric interviews. Joe Biden stayed middle of the road and did his best to stay on the topic of McCain, and Obama's policies; although sometimes it appeared that "Joe Biden," as he referred to himself, was running for President. I also think that he often let her get away with too much. Certainly both candidates were guilty of their distortions of the other's policies and positions.

From a political standpoint, to Palin's credit, she did OK. She stayed on message and stuck to the political talking points that were prepared for her.  But at a point in the campaign where the American people need more than just political rhetoric Biden unquestionably had the advantage. Biden was confident and knowledgable in his answers particularly around foreign policy.  He layed out specifics in his answers as to how an Obama administration would deal with the most important issues that our country is facing today.  Palin simply dodged the questions such as when she answered one question this way: "That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy -- your ticket's energy -- ticket also.  I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan, again, that was voted for in '05."  Let's be serious, are these even complete sentences?

I think that this type of answer characterized Palin in this debate.  She was sort of all over the place, her mind cluttered from the three days of rigorous debate prep.  She reminded me of a student who had spent the previous night cramming for the test only reach "the dreaded essay question" where you must provide specifics.  Instead of actually answering the question at hand, she found a way to turn back to the areas where she was, or at least she thought she was, most comfortable.  She often did this by outright changing the subject and at one point early on in the debate she mentioned that she may not answer the questions the way the moderator wanted her to, but rather, would speak directly to the American people about her record.

I think for those middle of the road voters this strategy didn't really pay off.  If you look at the two candidates, Biden clearly offered these voters a stance on the issues, while Palin did not. Being in the senate as long as he has, Biden had a long voting record to talk about as well his vast foreign policy experience, for better or worse.  Often times Palin looked like she was grasping at straws and pleading with the American people to give her a second chance.

When the candidates were asked about their weaknesses, Biden again offered several, and explained that he was not going to change.  Palin, instead, decided to focus on her strengths and once again never answered the question.  Does this remind you of anyone?  If it doesn't, why don't we explore her response to the powers of the Vice President when she actually proposed EXPANDING the powers of the Vice Presidency beyond what Dick Cheney has done.  Indeed, this a scary thought.

I think overall the selection of Gov. Palin for Vice President could be one of the greatest political blunders in history, but if the McCain/Palin ticket wins they will be lauded as geniuses and it will be a sad day for American politics and the country as well.  Clearly, Gov. Palin, is not nearly qualified to be Vice President, let alone the President.

Read more-->

Let's open the floor...

Hello all:

I'm excited to be making my first post to this blog.  Politics is something that I feel passionate about, and I think that it is extremely important for the citizens of a democratic society to be engaged in politics and to have open and honest discussions about issues that are important to our time.  For a variety of reasons, however, there are many of us who are losing interest in politics or simply don't take the time to understand what exactly is at stake.

As the medium for information has moved from speech, to print, to radio, to television, and eventually to the 24 hour news cycle, too often is the electorate not provided with the proper information, or given a clear understanding of what the choices are for any given issue.  Instead we are subjected to endless soundbites, and countless quotes taken completely out of context.  It is unfortunate that so many of us are forced to make decisions with regard to our opinions, as well as how we may vote on an issue, based on a total lack of depth in coverage or reporting.

It is my hope that by starting this blog there are others out there who feel the same way that I do and are longing to have open and candid discussions about the issues and challenges that we face.  I do not intend for this blog to be liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, but rather a forum for anyone to share their ideas and perspectives and engage others in debate; but then again these things seem to take on a life of their own.

I look forward to the upcoming discourse that will take place here, and gaining new perspectives from others that I may not otherwise interact with.  Tomorrow night is the first Vice Presidential debate and should provide plenty for us to talk about.  Until then... 

Read more-->