MOLDY CITY

Not that I expect it to be of interest to anybody else, but something in McCain's speech today

It is important that the candidates who seek to lead the country after the Bush Administration define their objectives and what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity.

brought back four year old memories

Leaving Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq was a risk the country could not take, McCain said. While the war "has surely had its ups and downs,'' Bush's efforts "deserve not only support, but admiration. He has led with great moral clarity and resolve.''

I can't be the only person who got sick of hearing McCain praise Bush for his "great moral clarity." I'd love to see a couple of clips of dancin' George's statement of golf principles interspersed with clips of McCain's praise of Bush for his "great moral clarity."

For more on McCain and clarity, see Pat Buchanan. Yeah, he spins history, but I'm serious:

Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a "realistic idealist," he told the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles.

But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a realist than he is a reflective man.

Labels: George Bush, John McCain, Moral Clarity

I'm pretty cynical about political reporting, but this is unbelievable:

FRANKEN: Well, there are couple of issues. First of all, the Clintons have a long standing credibility problem, going back to the Clinton presidency, all the investigations into the financial dealings then, and questions about just how credible much of what Bill Clinton have to say for instance starting with I did the nail (ph).
But beyond that, John McCain for the most part, we all agree that he, while he married up, he married into a fortune, he really did, his wife comes from a family that's probably worth about $100 million, one of the largest beer distributors in the United States. And so, it's entirely possible, I think we've all assumed that really, he can just pretty much rely on his government job and that's all we're going to really see.

Even though McCain reminds me more of little* Bill Macy (Maud's husband) than William H. Macy, I couldn't help but think of Fargo when I heard Bob Franken say that on "Verdict with Dan Abrams," last Friday. There's almost an embarrassment of riches in trying to decide where to begin documenting Franken's breath-taking stupidity.

First of all, the Clintons have a long standing credibility problem, going back to the Clinton presidency, all the investigations into the financial dealings then,

As CNN's primary correspondent on the Clinton impeachment, bright bulb Bob should remember that years of investigations into Clinton finances led to ... proof of an affair with a White House aide. Years of GOP smears have led to the Clintons having the most thoroughly investigated finances of any couple in America, Franken was talking out of his ass.

But, of course, it's hard to imagine a journalist coming up with something as stupid as Franken's assertion that the fact that McCain married into money means that his integrity is above reproach. Even without a prenup, that would be an absurd statement and an unbelievable position for a reporter to take. But, as Bob Somerby informs us, McCain signed a prenup (for more on prenups and double standards, click this).

I've been out-of-touch since Monday morning (hernia operation) so I don't what the overall reaction to the clinton tax returns has been. But for a little perspective on roughly $50M that Bill clinton has earned in speaking fees since leaving the White House, I'll remind you of the $4.5M that his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, made for one speech. Well, he did do more than give a speech to pocket $4.5M; he also showed the uncanny market timing that got Stewart Stewart arrested, or that conservatives cite as evidence of Hillary Clinton's dishonesty. I might be over-simplifying a little, but not much. You can read all about it at one those questionable, liberal sources that we liberal bloggers love to cite -- Business Week. We have one George Bush who had questionable dealings with Global Crossing, another George with his own questionable dealings, and there's Neil Bush, but Bob Franken would have us believe that family fortune is proof of integrity. I know that bloggers often get carried away with their pot shots at reporters, but really, how did this clown rise to the top of the journalism profession?

The other guest on Friday's show was Kate Obenshain, an obviously biased guest, who basically talked Abrams into submission:

OBENSHAIN: Look at John McCain, yes, he is a very wealthy man because of

who he marries. But the pressure to release the tax returns just didn‘t

come from the media. This is not a Teflon John issue. This is—the

Obama campaign in the midst of a bloody nomination battle demanding that

Hillary Clinton release her records -

ABRAMS: No, it wasn‘t just the Obama campaign.

OBENSHAIN: Yes, it was, Dan.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: The media has been demanding this—come on.

OBENSHAIN: Because they‘re following the lead of the Obama campaign. John McCain has already said he‘s going to release the issues. He‘s going to release the tax reforms. He‘s done that.

ABRAMS: He said it.

OBENSHAIN: He‘s going to.

I'm pretty sure that the Obama campaign has called for both Clinton and McCain to release their tax returns.

*Little Bill Macy

Labels: Bob Franken, Clintons, Dan Abrams, John McCain, Media Bias

Obama gave a good speech tonight, but I have to wonder where the Democrats have been for the last year:

The McCain Doctrine

In a potentially brilliant political move on ABC News' This Week, John Edwards (D) said he opposed a U.S. troop increase in Iraq -- or "surge" -- and referred to the proposal as the "McCain doctrine," after the strategy's biggest proponent, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Expect the phrase to be picked up by other 2008 presidential candidates soon.
January 2, 2007

I thought that I mentioned it in this blog at the time, but, alas, I can only find it an email that I sent to a friend last January:

How strongly do you dislike Clinton and Obama? I don't like winners being picked before the primaries, esp if your party doesn't have a sitting Prez or Veep running. I don't know why the machinery of both parties doesn't realize than it hasn't proven very successful. The Dems have picked Mondale and Kerry* that way. The last time the Repubs picked their candidate in advance they had to steal the general election. But I don't have any specific objections to either Clinton or Obama. I vaguely dislike Hillary and don't like being told that somebody has star quality. Right now, any Dem that joined Edwards in calling escalation the McCain Doctrine would go way up in my book. It's too late for it to catch on, but anybody who helped tarnish St. McCain's image, even in a way that gave Edwards credit, would look good to me.

Odd, I had forgotten that it was already shaping up as either Obama or Clinton against McCain way back then. Of course, McCain didn't stay on top the whole time, but it's looking like we'll see a one seed against a two seed.

At any rate, the year's been wasted in that respect. I just hope the Democrats continue to do everything possible to remind voters of McCain's flip-flops and to tie him to Bush. With that in mind, if the Democrats don't put this picture on every piece of campaign literature this Summer and Fall, they deserve to lose. If we don't see as much of that picture as we saw of Dukassis in a tank, I'll compare the Democratic party to a football team that needs to fire both its coaching staff and its front office.

For an example of why Obama's preferable to either Clinton or McCain, just click.

*I'm aware that it's debatable whether Kerry was the anointed candidate before the primaries, the quote is from an email. I try to do a google search are some type of fact check on things that I post, but emails to friends are a little different. I'm also aware that Gary Hart made a serious bid in 1984, but Mondale had the unions and most of the party bigwigs lined up by the end of 1983.

Labels: Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain

"Look, ask Jack Abramoff, who's in prison today — a guy who was a corrupt lobbyist — and his friends if I haven't cut spending," McCain said
link

By the time McCain took control of the investigation started by Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who retired from the Senate in 2005, investigators knew that Ralph Reed had taken large amounts of Indian casino money in more than one state. What Reed and Abramoff did to one small tribe in Texas justified bringing Reed before the committee and putting him under oath, as was done with Abramoff. Perhaps Reed was never called because he was too powerful to confront, or because he was still considered a prospect for elected office. But he got a walk, and the Tigua tribe in El Paso never got a full accounting of what Reed and Abramoff had done to them.
...
While John McCain is running for president on his success in pursuing Jack Abramoff, some reporter will inevitably ask him why he failed to pursue big funders who were considered too powerful to challenge.

Don't expect to hear Ralph Reed raise that question as a news analyst for "the most trusted name in news."
The Washington Spectator

The political slant of the Spectator is pretty obvious, but when I came across the quoted article, I decided to do a little googling. It seems to me that three possible conclusions can be drawn:

Pro-McCain -- He went after the truth and let the chips fall.

Anti-McCain, right wing version -- He grandstanded at the expense of his own party and/or was the tool of his liberal buddies.

Anti-McCain, left wing version -- some Republicans blamed the messenger at the time, but the cat was out of the bag and McCain actually engaged in damage control while grandstanding for a presidential run.

Draw your own conclusion. For your convenience, two links that are sympathetic to McCain. Two links that aren't.

Labels: Jack Abramoff, John McCain, Ralph Reed

Too busy for a long post, but I just heard McCain get in the tackiest twofer I've ever heard in my life -- Reagan and Vietnam: he became a Republican after he heard about then Governor Reagan of California in whispered tap codes. Apparently, Reagan's death inspired the straight talker to write something that his intentions told him were true, and it's now part of his campaign spiel:

I first met President Reagan and his lovely wife, Nancy, not
long after I returned from Vietnam. But I knew of him in the
years before I regained my liberty, when my fellow prisoners-
of-war and I would discuss in tap codes and whispered
conversations the governor of California who was giving such
eloquent voice to the convictions we believed we had been
sent to war to advance.
pdf or html

Not exactly what he said tomight, but almost. Show me one former POW, one former Pow who isn't involved in Republican politics, who heard these whispered tap codes about Reagan. If you believe McCain's story, you probably believe that Crist wasn't offered some kind of deal to endorse a guy who doesn't believe in national catastrophe insurance.

Five minutes later: I've never liked McCain. I've always thought McCain was a phony who would do anything to be president. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that I've heard that fairy tale before. But hearing McCain say that as the likely Republican nominee prompted the first visceral reaction that I've ever had to him.

Labels: bullshit, John McCain