McCain's Dirty Campaign
In an interview aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday night, John McCain took a big step away from the President Bush, who has always kept his political advisers close at hand. McCain said if elected he would remove political advisers like Karl Rove from the White House in an effort to separate politics from the president’s daily duties. Wait just a minute. Did McCain think we forgot that on March 8, 2008 it was widely reported that he got not only Bush's endorsement and Bush money for his campaign, but hired both Steve Schmidt, Bush’s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, Bush's media strategist? And other big-name Bush operatives have signed on with McCain too. Karl Rove, G. W. Bush's top political hand since his Texas days, gave money to McCain and soon after had a private meeting with him. Although Rove refused to divulge the details, a top McCain adviser said that Ken Mehlman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove are now advising McCain's campaign. Mehlman ran Bush’s 2004 campaign and as head of the Republican National Committee, Mehlman played a key role along with Karl Rove in executing the Republican Party's long-term plan for dominance. CBS News analyst Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, Bush's 2004 reelection director, said they would provide any assistance and advice needed by McCain. Rove explains that he and McCain “got to know each other during the 2004 campaign.” Ken Mehlman noted that “McCain was completely loyal to the president in 2004 and worked incredibly hard to help him get elected.” Despite Bush's low approval ratings there are clear benefits to McCain with the Bush team. They are seasoned operatives with a track record of winning back-to-back national elections in tough political environments. But there are obvious drawbacks. First and foremost, any association with the Bush administration helps Democrats make their case that McCain represents a clear extension of an unpopular presidency - another four years of Bush. ______ sources: The Hill: Monday, September 22, 2008 "McCain would banish political office from White House" (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-says-hed-banish-political-office-from-white-house-2008-09-21.html) Politico: 09/21/08: "Mehlman, Rove Boost McCain campaign" (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8B58A658-3048-5C12-006F9CBBFFC54DE3)
|
Change Location:
|
Obama cannot win on policy, so he is smearing McCain with the old "He is a dirty campaigner" form of smear.
"Alzheimer Johnny"??
Yea, lets reference his age and attack Sarah Palin for her gender..and at the same time, accuse anyone who will not vote for Obama of racism. Yea, the politics of personal destruction are at work for the Democrat party.
This is the 1st time in a long time R-T did not mention hanging someone in effigy...must be wanting to be about not associating with politics of personal destruction?
Rolandmc: I wish Charlie Brown had not attended that rally, and I wish that rally had not been held.
I consider that kind of protest to be treason.
One eyed king, what planet did you just arrive from? That is politics. Trying to say that McCain is dirty and Obama is clean is about as naive as one can get. They are both politicians and if you pay close attention they both ignore issues and all they do is attack each other, issues are not an "issue" any more. Between now and election day it will be personal destruction on both sides. Vote for Ron Paul and you will be above all that.
Rolandmc, Charlie was at the gathering, period, end of story. Who cares if it was his BDU or purchased at an Army- Navy surplus store. There are pictures and he owes the voters of CD04 an explanation. While Charlie may owe an explanation McClintock owes the taxpayers of this State $306,000.00+ in Per Diem money.
Politician= CROOK
Personally, I find denying someone's right to assembly, right to speak out without incitement as afforded in the Constitution to be more an act of treason the the actual practice of assembly and right of freedom of speech.
Yes, as candidates they should be candid and the voters owe it to themselves to know the truth. There is enough stretching of the truth and lying from all that I believe those are no longer issues. That's what makes it difficult to make it a clear choice. I look at motives however. I see Charlie's motives as being more altruistic than McClintock's. I believe Charlie wants to represent the district, I believe McClintock wants another political position and will campaign anywhere he can to land a job. It's not about being the representative of the people, it's about personal gain. I may be naive about this, it's just where my thinking has gotten me to this point. I'll take my chances.
The continuing lies by the Palin/McCain campaign are clear to anyone who has their eyes open. This is just one in the long list of untruths told by McCain et al. Personal attacks about family, pastors and abandoned wives are to be expected and for the most part ignored. But when it comes to records and positions all the candidates need to remember their records are there for all to see. When one constantly makes statements in speeches and commercials saying things like the lack of regulation and Wall St's greed caused the whole mess and I'll be the to regulate them AFTER bragging about being "fundamentally a deregulator" and "I'm ALWAYS for deregulation" you have to expect to be questioned and your promise held very suspect by the people wha are paying attention to your words.
To continue the Brown drift...when McClintock spends as many years as Brown (or my husb, my father, my step-father, my cousin, my nephew and my sister) serving in this nation's military and sends a son to Iraq he will then and ONLY then have any right to cast aspersions on another's commiitment to country. McClintock is a patriotic poser who has added nothing to the nation, the sate or the world except as a drain on public coffers. He is a parasite like Doolittle, Lay, Cunningham et al and should be immediately kicked to the curb as un-worthy of representing an area he doesn't know, live in or care one whit about!
Do you want 4 more years of Rove politics are do you want a change. Thet is the question all this other "stuff" is manure.
loomisresident:
Where did One-Eye King mention Obama? I couldn't find it. I read his letter three times and there's no mention of Obama in it. Do you want people to think you're paranoid?
I think the subject is John McCain promising one thing and doing another. McCain said he's not like Bush and then he hired Bush's crew of campaign managers - - the same wrecking machine that humiliated McCain in the 2000 primaries. Remember that?
Try to not side-track the discussion anymore. You can argue about Ron Paul, Charlie Brown and Tom McClintock in another blog.
This blog is about John McCain's campaign.
I read this and I think, "so what!?!" If that's the "dirt" that "oneeyeking" thinks is groundbreaking, I think I'll just go have a good laugh. How naive.
well, oneyed king has one thing right
something we agree on
and I celebrate that, so kudos to you for allowing it the light of day
Bush won two national elections
yeah.....
let's have that just sink in a bit
yeah lefties, seethe on that a while
one of your own admitted Bush won both elections
in spite of the democrat controlled media trying to manilulate it
now, on the other hand, trying to impugn McCain by tying him to the Republican party is not a good idea
he is a republican and we like him a bit
but why not tie the democrat party to Bill Clinton
the only elected President ever impeached
but you'd be happy if he hired democrat advisors then ?
no, heck no you would not
you'd tie him to disgraced former President Clinton
make no mistake, McCain is not another Bush
but Obama is another Carter
yet a racist (or Muslim) to boot
Rational Thinker- your username is an oxymoron.
And thank you, Skeptic.
Watch what McCain's wrecking crew does with this:
___
Democrats have begun to push back on the bailout plan offered by the Bush Administration, specifically with legislation that would cut the salaries of the CEO's whose firms participate in the bailout and by adding oversight provisions. The Washington Post reports:
"Congressional Democrats considering the Bush administration's emergency plan to shore up the U.S. financial system yesterday countered with their own demands, presenting draft legislation giving the government the power to cut salaries of chief executives at firms that participate in the bailout and slash multi-million dollar severance packages for their top management..."
Democrats also sought to add government oversight provisions and taxpayer protections to the proposal, which amounts to the largest government intervention in the private markets since the Great Depression in 1929.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Sunday that Congress must move quickly to pass a $700 billion bailout package for financial firms. But key Democrats said the legislation needs to provide protections for taxpayers and homeowners in danger of losing their homes.
"We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
"I don't want the American taxpayer to get this bad debt and then the guy (whose company once held the bad loans) gets millions of dollars on his way out the door," said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. (Washington Post)
_____
The Bush Administration wants to just hand over $700 billion (with a "B") of our taxes to buy bankrupted giant financial corporations with no strings attached. Bush wants NO oversight on where it goes or how its spent, NO limits on executive hand-outs and severance packages, NO accountability, and NO plan for helping out those losing their homes to those same giant corporations.
Probably, Secretary Paulson's plan will be rammed through Congress with a few strings attached for "homeowners" and executive pay. Too bad, because the plan is flawed and taxpayers are likely to get hosed again.
Paulson's plan is this: If the government pays bargain rates for the bank's assets to protect the taxpayers, the banks will still be in trouble. Why? Because they'll have to raise humongous amounts of new capital to offset their losses. Where is this money coming from? Paulson doesn't say. One guess.
Under the Paulson plan, the way this problem will likely be resolved is that the government will deliberately pay way too much for the assets to "save the financial system." This way the government will also save two constituencies who deserve no protection whatsoever: bank shareholders and bondholders. Once again, we taxpayers pick up the tab for government stupidity and corporate greed.
OK. That's fair.
ThosPayne
but you neglect to mention that BUSH himself asked Congress for this oversight years ago and was stonewalled by Frank, Dodd and other democrats
even Obama, who was taking money from Fannie and Freddie
and is their second biggest recipient of money
behind only Dodd, another democrat Senator
yes, the democrats want the nation to fail or be harmed
they think it helps them at the ballot boxes
and it just plain makes them feel good to screw people over
common_sense:
This is not the blog about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions.
This is the John McCain/Karl Rove/ Dirty Tricks blog. Have you any facts in defense of McCain's actions verses his statements? Have you anything constructive to say?
It has become embarrassingly obvious that the McCain/Palin campaign is starting to anger the press. You only have to look at CNN and other news outlets to see the constant fact-checking and proven outright lies that are now (at last!) commonly discussed on the nightly news, to see that many in the news media are not sitting back and accepting the dirt and mudslinging that both candidates promised not to participate in.
I detest hypocrisy and honest John McCain is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The candidate who said he would run an honorable clean and fair campaign and change politics as usual, is now running the biggest smear campaign since Sen. Joe McCarthy. I believe Sen. McCain to be a basically decent man, albeit a desperate one. And desperation can drive a man to abandon his honor and decency in an obsessive pursuit of an elusive goal. McCain believes this is his last shot at the presidency because of his age, and probably his health. But McCain fails to understand in the power of the Internet, where facts can be checked in an instant from a variety of sources, and no lie goes unchallenged for more than five minutes.
Even after being confronted with statements from reputable sources such as FactCheck.org, which called McCain’s commercials “Less than honest” and proved that McCain used quotes from their site that were inaccurate or misleading, the McCain camp continues to run the commercials. Why?
Karl Rove knows that what is true or false is unimportant when you are shaping the public's perception of reality. It's not what is true, but what is perceived that matters.
John McCain has decided that we are too stupid to care about the truth, and as long as he plants sensational ideas in our heads, no matter how wrong, low or sleazy they are, it will serve to either influence your decision. You want to believe him, you NEED to believe him and you want to hear terrible things about Barack Obama so that you cannot vote for him.
Unfortunately, some of us really are that stupid. Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and Dan Bartlett may be evil and amoral but they're also frighteningly good at manipulating popular perception. If it didn’t work, they wouldn't have gotten rich doing it.
.
Thospayne;
This is a blog entry about dirty tricks in politics. Yes I agree.
And who is dirtier than CBS and 60 Minutes ?
No one !
remember Dan Rather and the CBS story about Bush's Guard service ?
you know, the one with the forged documents
the one within 90 days of an election, clearly a violation of the law
yeah, dirty tricks it is and the democrat party and democrat media are black belts at it alright
so you stepped in that all over the place and it does stink
also, you seem to infer that some Republicans are bad and therefor John McCain is bad by being in the same party - so my pointer to Clinton, impeached former President
and talk about shady associates - tied nicely to Obama's association with Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Kilpatrick, etc....
yeah, this is about shady politics and the democrats win that hands down, in just your first sentence with "CBS" and "60 minutes" being brought up
it's to laugh, you lefties just don't get it
we don't hate like you all do
we are actually in a constant state of wonderment at how blind you all are
we see flaws in McCain and have called him on it for years
but they don't rise nearly to the level that Obama has
and Palin has no flaws, that really kills you boys and girls, don't it ?
Are we to assume from this blog that this is the most damning position that McCain put forth during the interview? Didn't the interviewer ask how McCain plans to stop the bailout? Was he asked if he thinks any taxpayer in their right mind would vote for a senior senator who spouts rhetoric while our currency is debased and and great grandchildren are sold into tax slavery? Was he asked if he knew why Chuck Schumer looks like he is going to piss in his pants? Was he asked if he was going to grow a pair and stop Paulsen? Was he asked who he will appoint to head Treasury and how will they reverse the damage done by the Bush administration and the enablers in Congress? Did the interviewer ask if it was ironic that he was once held prisoner and tortured by communist Vietnamese and now his grandchildren will be indebted to an American socialist central bank? Did anybody ask what the bankers could possibly have on "squeaky clean" Barney Frank that would justify his inaction for the past two years? OEK-Who cares where the operative are sitting? I can assure that if they are not in the West Wing then they will be on K street and if not there, they will definitely be on the orange line..This is another non-issue and it is why TV is a waste of time.
We are in the biggest financial crisis this country has seen since the crash of '29, we are fighting a war, and the threat of terrorists still exists and you guys act like a bunch of kids. This isn't about Bush or the media or who is lying. They are all lying!!! You need to take a long look at the candidates. Really look at them. This election could change all our lives. We better pray the right choice is made. Hate to get serious when you'all were having fun, but jeez, someone had to do it.
common_sense, Yeah, the Dems really want the nation to be harmed or fail. Riiiiiiight. Take your medication. 'Cause that makes NO sense.
Salamander: Every time a part of our economy fails, the Democrats rush in to take it over.
Right now, they are pushing back on saving the banking industry because they want to own it and need to squeeze a bit harder on the bankers to get what they want.
I have no problem with the bailout if the outcome is to force the CEOs to pay huge fines AND to penalize those who walked away from homes that were over-mortgaged. The CEOs were able to squeeze more dollars out, but they were no less dishonest than people who bought houses they could not afford.
If the government bails out people who did not make their payments, they are screwing those of us who made our payments twice. Once when we made our payments, and again when we pick up the tab via taxes.
I like the idea of having the lenders "gift" the unpaid loans to those who walked away from them rather than simply screw their credit. They can gift 90% of it, and hold 10% back as a bad-credit mark.
Then the government can go tax them for the value of the gift.
I am familiar with more than one case where someone leveraged their home to the hilt, bought a lot of toys, went out and bought another house at a dramatically lower price, and then walked away from the first house. Its plain old every day robbery.
Skeptic, Too bad you don't like what I write. Since the implication that McCain is dirty and Obama clean that is sufficient for me to speak my mind. Darn that pesky first ammendment.
You wouldn't happen to be Ishmael also, would you?
One thing is becoming more noticeable in the leftist blogs or LTE replies, they sure try to silence everyone else. Is this what is to be expected if the Democrats take the White House, suppression of contrary thoughts?
common-sense: What part of "you guys had all the marbles" don't you understand? How could the Dems "stonewall" Bush when he was Pres and the Repubs had BOTH houses of Congress. Take a civics class, idiot...
rat-stink: Who but YOU has tied McCain to dementia here. Who "referenced his age"? YOU. There are plenty of video moments that might lead one to those conclusions (and no, they are NOT taken out of context). I think that those clips show that he's either REALLY stupid or lying. Either makes him UNFIT to be the President. I and others have presented a shload of examples. "...attack Sarah Palin for her gender..."? Examples, please. Well, we're waiting. Just as I thought, NONE. You guys, like Rove, plant, nourish and harvest non-issues, repeating them over and over, creating fear and confusion. Pathetic...
UhHuh: The post that I referenced with "Alzheimer Johnny" was removed by the censors. I cannot recall who posted it. They made that comment, I responded to it.
STOP! for just a moment please...now we all have information about who did what or didn't do what. Both major parties and their candidates are pretty good about letting us know how the other behaved. That's called living in the problem. I'm interested in living in the solution. What are the concrete answers for what they are going to do. I don't want to hear any more about what Obama thinks McCain would or wouldn't do...I want to hear Obama tell me what he would do. Same for McCain. Is this a pipe dream? And no, I'm not talking about "up in smoke." All I do know is my 401is taking a hit, I've been unemployed for 7 months but I am still making all my obligations because my wife is pulling us through and we've tightened our belts.
I will watch the debates. I will listen intently to their plans...not their attacks and come election day I will decide. Eventually, I have to make a choice...hopefully it won't be based on fear.
Hopefully the third party candidates, those who have got their name on enough ballots to receive enough electoral votes to theoretically win, will be allowed to participate in those debates. We need ideas, answers, and real choice. Why are they shut out? Because they can't win? Maybe they can't win because they are always shut out.
These attacks on both sides are a diversion, they put eveyone on the defensive, no one listens. It's effective, but you only have to participate if you want to.
Rational_Thinker: What on earth are you talking about? You can't remember who posted something about Alzheimers because "the censors" removed it? Grandpa, why would the nurses want to steal your false teeth?
At last R_T admits "every time a part of our economy fails, the Democrats rush in to take it over." Republican policies cause economic failures, then the Democrats are called in to stop the bleeding.
R_T wrote "I have no problem with the bailout if the outcome is to force the CEOs to pay huge fines AND to penalize those who walked away from homes that were over-mortgaged."
Just a question, if any highly compensated CEO runs a public company into the ground while the Board of Directors stand watch, how is paying a huge fine any punishment at all? Does it help stockholders? Does it help account holders? Wouldn't it be a more appropriate punishment for the company to go bankrupt? Isn't that what usually happens when companies are mismanaged? Then everyone (including shareholders and account holders) would be much more careful in the future. Remember, it is only money, no one will die. Many companies go bankrupt every year. I guess it is only because they are not in Hank Paulson's circle. If you don't have a problem with the bailout, than you, Hank, Ben, and G.W are free to bail out your friends. Leave the rest of us alone, we have better things to do with our little pot of beans.
People that walked away from mortgages will take the hit on their credit report, which is a system set up by bankers, for bankers to punish people for being human beings and having lives that do not revolve around money.
momof11- So, you think we should punish people who lost their homes and savings? OK. That sounds fair.
Skeptic- What???? Losing a home and losing savings IS a punishment! Have you ever lost a home? I have and guess what? In 1991, there was no talk about bailouts. My family helped me and I had to say please and I had to say thank you (it was a nightmare!) Now I own property that produces income for me instead of costing me money- I learned what it is to own property by losing my home. I have lost more money than I care to count in the stock market because of 401k regulations, which I have since realized are a scam to make it easy for people to be in the stock market without really paying attention. Nobody gave me my money back. No more, anyone who hasn't figured out that it is rigged game just isn't paying attention. Savings accounts are already protected by FDIC. Bankruptcy courts are for insolvent companies. Life goes on. Many of those who lose their jobs will start new and better managed companies, smaller, more service oriented, better technology etc. etc. It is just amazing to me that these wall street heavyweights think that life simply cannot go on unless they are running things. What hubris! McCain and Obama both benefited from the Wall Street kingmakers, now they are hiding and asking if the CEO's could please take a pay cut??? The man that says fire Paulson and replace Bernanke gets my vote. Pelosi and Reid should be impeached immediately for entertaining this nonsense. We have no money. What is there to discuss?
Rolandmc-give it up. The boys are not listening, they are too busy blaming each other's party.
mom: I was being facetious.
We are now in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Everyone, including John McCain, agrees that the source of this crisis is greed and lax regulation. But lax regulation is the basic philosophy of neocon Republicans - it's what they believe in. McCain describes himself as "basically a deregulator." The policies of Bush, McCain & Gramm are what got us into this mess.
McCain's campaign manager and Freddie Mac had a secret half a million dollar lay-a-way plan. For almost three years, Freddie Mac made secret $15,000 monthly payments to Rick Davis for him to provide special access to a future McCain White House. If McCain knew about this, his presidential campaign should be over. If he didn't know about it, he ought to fire Davis immediately." Although recent investigations show otherwise, McCain insists that his campaign manager had had no involvement with Freddie Mac for the last several years.
You can't count on THEM to fix the problem.
Skeptic- Are you ThosPayne? Very funny. My kids always say the exact same thing. By the way, both Obama and McCain are wholly owned subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Who ever stands up to these crooks can easily win this election in a landslide. Unfortunately, both Obama and McCain will be ducking this issue.
Obama the terrorist! Have you seen it? The new McCain ad goes completely beyond the pale by cynically exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 in an unfounded connection with Chicago academic (and former Weatherman) William Ayers. It claims that Ayers somehow “launched” Barack Obama’s career — an assertion so outlandish that not even Simmons’ fellow discredited Swift Boater, Jerome Corsi, included it in his own Obama smear book.
The ad may even be a criminal violation of campaign finance laws. Simmons has already been fined tens of thousands of dollars for campaign finance violations – including forging the signatures of his own daughters to make illegal political contributions from their trust funds.
The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s, including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. Ayers was never convicted of those attacks.
William Ayers is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He donated $200 in 2001 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state senate and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group. That's it. That's the connection.
The notion that somehow as a consequence of knowing somebody who belonged to a group that engaged in detestable and illegal acts 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old, somehow reflects on him and his values, really doesn't make much sense.
The attempt to link Obama to Ayers comes as polls show Obama continuing to build a strong lead over McCain. Last week McCain's campaign announced it is effectively ceding Michigan, which has 17 electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral-college votes to win the presidential election.
When the McCain campaign announced this weekend that it would start attacking Sen. Barack Obama via guilt by association, peddling smears about people he barely knows, I thought the tack would lead to the Keating Five. But I didn’t know it would happen this quickly.
The Obama campaign swung into action immediately. By the time the Sunday news shows were taping, Democratic surrogates were hitting McCain with opposition research on his associations with extremist, racist groups and the Keating Five. Today, of course, camp Obama is pushing a new Keating Economics website, which begins streaming a documentary about McCain’s Keating problem at noon.
Obama’s campaign has never pushed the Keating button before, so this attack carries an original punch–and is clearly salient given the current financial crisis. Because the scandal involved McCain’s actions while in public service, it is more likely to arise during the remaining two debates.
The Obama campaign was ready with the Keating Five stuff waiting for the moment the McCain campaign started flinging Ayers and Wright around.
This isn't your father's Democratic presidential campaign.