The McCain campaign refused to release Cindy McCain's tax returns today:
McCain released his tax returns today. They include 2006 and 2007 and nothing previously. In addition, no returns or summaries are included for wife Cindy McCain, who heads a privately held beer distribution company.
This is an issue because she's the one with all the dough in that family, although the McCain campaign today tried to deny Cindy's financial role in John's life (from the same MSNBC article linked above):
Note About Mrs. McCain's Financial Information:
Since the beginning of their marriage, Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain have always maintained separate finances. As required by federal law and Senate rules, Mrs. McCain has released significant and extensive financial information through Senate and Presidential disclosure forms. In the interest of protecting the privacy of her children, Mrs. McCain will not be releasing her personal tax returns.
Note About Hensley & Company:
In her role as Chairman of Hensley & Company, a privately-held business founded by her parents, Mrs. McCain's main areas of responsibility focus on strategic planning and corporate vision. Having served the greater Phoenix area since 1955, Hensley & Company is widely respected as an exemplary corporate citizen, and makes significant charitable contributions of its own.
Now, that conflicts with the detailed Associated Press reported earlier this month:
The McCains' marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains' ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.
As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career -- even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.
Nearly 30 years before John McCain became the Republican presidential nominee, he worked in public relations at his wife's family company.
Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 House race, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money -- tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts -- helped him survive.
Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain's campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.
The campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses. The loans -- described initially by John McCain as coming from him and his wife -- caught the eye of the FEC, which repeatedly questioned him about them; spouses are held to the same donation limits as everyone else.
McCain told the FEC the loaned money came from his share of joint accounts. At the time, McCain reported drawing a $25,067 salary and $25,000 bonus working for Hensley in public relations and receiving a Navy pension of $11,038 a year; his 1982 financial disclosure report showed bank interest but didn't say how much the bank accounts held.
McCain's campaign debt grew to about $177,000 by the end of 1982. His 1984 House campaign repaid just under half the loans. McCain forgave about $93,000 in loans, a sizable personal donation to his inaugural campaign.
Sounds like the AP reporter found documentation that the McCains actually haven't always maintained separate finances -- despite the campaign's claim to the contrary. Someone is lying.
Surely, George Stephanopoulos is going to grill McCain about Cindy McCain's tax returns now that the McCain campaign won't release them. With assistance from the traditional media, then RNC Chair Ed Gillespie made the spouse's tax forms an issue in 2004 for John Kerry. Surely, the same standard applies in '08.
If -- and I know this is a big if -- but if Fred Hiatt and his cohorts on the editorial page of the Washington Post ever read their own paper, they would know that John McCain is in serious trouble for his campaign finance shenanigans.
The article that explains McCain's situation appeared on February 22, 2008:
But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
Today, the editorial writers at the Washington Post are trying to bully Obama on the issue of campaign finance. They want Obama to cut a deal over public financing with John McCain. But as the Washington Post itself told us in February, McCain is already in serious trouble with the FEC over his efforts to scam the public financing system.
And, putting aside the legal niceties for a moment - John McCain has already announced that he's pulling out of the public finance system (albeit illegally) because he wants to raise more money, unhindered by those pesky campaign finance rules he used to promote. But now McCain is signaling that he might just go back into the system in the fall general election, mostly because he hasn't been able to raise a dime from the public as compared to Obama and Clinton. So, McCain opted in to the system when he thought he'd get more money that way, then opted out (illegally) when he "realized" he'd make more money on the outside, and now he may opt back in again because the public is refusing to give him the big bucks he expected. But Obama is the one who the Washington Post editorial board has a problem with. Right.
McCain's illegal actions should be the subject of repeated editorials from the Washington Post editorial board. But, they still live in the bizarro world where John McCain is a campaign finance champion. In reality, John McCain is a campaign finance criminal. Obama cannot trust McCain on campaign finance. Ever.
As Jane Hamsher so aptly notes in the video below, John McCain is a "campaign finance criminal." We've written about this issue repeatedly here, here and here at AMERICAblog. The Washington Post reported on the potential for criminal behavior by McCain:
Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
Now, based on McCain's latest campaign finance report, we know the GOP nominee has violated the spending limit. So, it's time to take it to the next level. Yesterday, Jane delivered a complaint about McCain's criminality to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) -- and gives the background:
We decided that McCain shouldn't be allowed to get away with this without questions -- lots and lots of questions -- being asked. The hypocrisy of the so-called "maverick" violating a law which he championed because it suits his purposes this time around is horrifying. Even worse is the relative silence of the press on this, given the rank hypocrisy of violations of McCain's "signature" issue and all. Does it get to be your signature issue if you are blatantly violating it in an in-your-face maneuver after being warned not to by the head of the FEC? I think not.
If the press isn't going to ask the necessary questions, then we have to do it ourselves. You can join in, too -- sign your name to the complaint here. At that link, you'll find a copy of the FEC filing and a list of signatories thus far. And help us get the word out on the need for McCain to be held accountable for any violations of the law that has his own name on it....and any other laws of which he may be in violation.
Today's Washington Post editorial about John McCain and campaign finance rank as one of the paper's worst editorials ever (not counting all the pro-Iraq war cheerleading). Then again, big surprise. Fred Hiatt, who runs the editorial page, never reads his own newspaper, so his editorials always contradict the actual news, and facts, in his own paper. This time is no different. After a series of articles about McCain planning to break the campaign finance law, a crime punishable by 5 years in jail, suddenly the Post's editorial page says it's not a big deal.
You see, poor John McCain has gotten himself in to a campaign finance mess -- and none of it, according to the Post is his fault. The FEC is dysfunctional because of the GOP Senate, but that's not McCain's fault:
Mr. McCain shouldn't be trapped by a standoff over which he has no control -- although, we would note, the logjam could be fixed if Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were to allow an up-or-down vote on the pending nominees.
Yeah, because John McCain has no way to influence Mitch McConnell. That gives the flavor for the absurdity of the Post's position.
McCain is trying to scam the campaign finance system. Through that scam, McCain secured a loan (and get his name on the ballot in key states, which the Post fails to mention), but now he wants out of the system and all of its restrictions. The editorials notes:
this is not Mr. McCain's proudest moment as a reformer: He derived some benefit from the matching funds system and then abandoned it when that was to his advantage.
Okay, not his proudest moment? How about: McCain is breaking the law if he exceeds the spending. McCain can't just abandon the system that he entered of his own volition. He tried to pull a fast one - and he's been busted. And "some benefit"? Are they kidding? He got a $4 million loan when his campaign was broke, using the public finance system as collateral. That's "some benefit" according to the Post. Nice.
Best of all, the Post is worried that Democrats have more money this year. Yeah, because that's never the case for the GOP.
And, the NY Times isn't off the hook on this issue. That paper has an article about McCain's fundraising frenzy and never once mentions the major scandal brewing over the campaign finance violations. But, the article does explain why McCain gets special treatment:
And Mr. McCain said he planned to continue to hold forth with reporters on the back of his bus, the Straight Talk Express.
Aides believe that doing so makes Mr. McCain less likely to be the subject of what they call “gotcha” journalism, and not merely because he tries to develop a rapport with journalists, whom he has jokingly called “my base.” They believe that giving journalists access to the candidate, and the chance to hear about his positions at length, will make them less likely to jump on statements taken out of context.
They're all pals on the bus.
John McCain is breaking the campaign finance laws he purports to champion. That should be a very big story. And, it will be.
This is from former Republican party chair Haley Barbour in 2000 (he endorsed McCain today).
"[G]enuine American heroes got to play by the same rules of telling it like it is as everybody else. And Senator McCain says he's going to break up all these lobbyists, these power brokers, and his campaign is full of lobbyists. Some of my best friends -- There's nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is the phony baloney of being hypocritical about it."
In 2000, the Wall Street Journal reported on John McCain's uncomfortable closeness with lobbyists. And Bush was attacking McCain for doing favors for lobbyists too, flying on their jets, etc.
It's taken awhile for the media to grasp the severity of the McCain campaign finance scandal. But, it's slowly starting to permeate according to MSNBC's First Read:
*** Money trouble: We’ve noticed today the McCain/FEC stories -- that McCain very well might have to abide by spending limits before the GOP convention -- are starting to roll in. But why is this only now starting to get more traction, compared with all the stories about Obama waffling on his pledge to accept public funds in the general? For one thing, the McCain story is much more complicated; certainly the Obama pledge hedge was an easier one to tell. But is this starting to become a problem for McCain? At the very least, it makes it MUCH more difficult to criticize Obama for waffling on public funds…
Two things:
1) Okay, it is a bit complicated, but not that complicated. The bloggers figured it out pretty quickly -- bottom line: McCain is breaking the laws that he purports to champion. You can read a quick, easy-to-understand, short description of the entire issue here;
2) I actually think it takes the media awhile to get their heads around something that defies their pre-conceived notions. They know John McCain. He talks to them on his bus. He's a nice guy. And, they believe he is the leader on campaign finance reform. So, reporters have to actually think about this, think about the fact that Mr. Nice Guy might actually be breaking the law on his signature issue, and get beyond the herd mentality.
Reporters should be pressuring McCain to release his FEC report for February ASAP. If his total expenditures in this campaign to date exceed the $54 million cap for the primaries, McCain has broken the campaign finance law and committed a crime punishable by five years in prison. McCain and his campaign have no cred on campaign finance. None.
This is really unbelievable. Today's NY Times tells us the McCain campaign "stepped up its criticism of Mr. Obama" on the issue of campaign finance.
Seriously, how can the NY Times or any publication even listen to the McCain campaign when it is in the midst of breaking the campaign finance laws? McCain is scamming the system but has the audacity to attack Obama. Even worse, the so-called brain trust of campaign finance advocates are focused on Obama's "commitment" to campaign finance. So McCain is breaking the law. Obama is not only adhering to the law, he won't take PAC money or contributions from lobbyists. But the concern is Obama of Joan Claybrook and Fred Wertheimer. It's bizarro world.:
“You ought to be able to run a campaign for two months on $85 million,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, which lobbies for stricter campaign finance laws. She called Mr. Obama’s recent remarks “a very bad signal.”
“This whole idea started with Senator Obama, and we think he and whoever the Republican nominee is ought to follow through,” said Fred Wertheimer, founder of the advocacy group Democracy 21.
Um, Joan, "a very bad signal" is breaking the campaign finance law. That's what your champion, John McCain, is doing. He is making a mockery of the system.
Obama's campaign shouldn't listen for a second to any of these campaign finance types now. By ignoring the McCain scandal, they've lost any credibility.
Noam Scheiber at The Plank explains the situation pretty succinctly in his post, "McCain May Be Screwed":
Bottom line: Either McCain used the promise of public campaign funds as collateral for his loan, in which case he's locked himself into the public campaign finance system (and its strict spending limits) and is massively screwed until September. Or he didn't use potential public funds as collateral, which means he didn't have anything to offer as collateral, which means he received an improper loan. Neither one of those scenarios is very good for the Straight Talk Express.
Remember when good government groups were about stopping Washington insiders from helping their friends thwart the public good? Not so much anymore.
You'll recall we've been talking a lot over the past week about how John McCain is on the verge of committing a criminal act by pulling out of the public finance system, and violating its spending limits, after having used that system to get a $4m loan and to get on the ballot in numerous states? And remember how we told you that McCain's crime is punishable by a 5 year jail term? This isn't some esoteric campaign finance pledge McCain is breaking - it's the law.
Well, you might be surprised to hear that good government, pro campaign finance reform groups like Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG have all been silent on John McCain's impending campaign finance crime.
Now why is that? I mean, sure, Public Citizen is just waking up from its 4 year nap after the last time Ralph Nader came out of his hole, ran for president, and tried to throw the election to the Republicans, so we can forgive their inaction - I mean, they did just wake up. (And in any case, Nader seems hell-bent on throwing elections to Republicans, so should we expect the group he founded to endanger yet another 8 years of rampant Republican corporate welfare over a simple thing like our potential future president being a criminal?) But what about the other groups? What possible reason could Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG have for suddenly not caring so much about campaign finance reform rules and presidential candidates breaking the law?
Matt Stoller over at OpenLeft got a very angry email from Common Cause after he dared ask this question. Interestingly, Common cause responded to everything Matt wrote about except the main point of Matt's post, why Common Cause was remaining silent over McCain's impending criminal campaign finance offense. Funny that.
Then again, it is understandable. I mean, these groups have been around for a while, and they've worked for years with John McCain, they've laughed with John McCain, shared the good times and the bad with him - they like John McCain, and John McCain has become their friend. They have influence with John McCain, they lobby John McCain, and they may fear losing that influence if they hold McCain as responsible for his crime as they hold other politicians for their crimes.
John McCain claims to be the champion of campaign finance reform. That's why his attempt to scam the campaign finance laws is an even more important story. The DNC filed its FEC complaint against McCain this morning. Violating the FEC's campaign spending limits could result in criminal penalties.
The right wingers never liked campaign finance anyway -- and it's one of the reasons so many conservatives disliked McCain. So it must be bittersweet for them that McCain has boxed himself into a corner on campaign finance. Even the conservative National Review has clued into McCain's "potential headache from the FEC":
The key graphs of the New York Sun's eye-opening story on John McCain potentially running into trouble with the FEC:
The case could have far-reaching implications for the fall campaign. A decision that forces Mr. McCain to remain in the public financing system for the primary or that finds him in violation of federal law could severely limit the amount of money he could spend in the six months leading up to the Republican nominating convention in late summer. The restriction would have the effect of giving the Democratic nominee a spending head start equal to tens of millions of dollars.
The situation is complicated by the current state of the FEC. Squabbling over presidential nominees between the Bush administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress has four of the six seats on the commission vacant. The panel therefore lacks the four commissioners required for a quorum and cannot rule definitively either on Mr. McCain's attempt to withdraw from the system or on the forthcoming DNC complaint against him.
McCain has no more cred on campaign finance. None.
A friend wrote up a nice white paper explaining the other John McCain FEC scandal (this one has nothing to do with the blond lobbyist). I asked him to write up something that was 3 paragraphs long and explained in simple English what this scandal is about. He did an excellent job, please read this, it's bad:
Here's what it means and why it's important.
When John McCain's campaign was strapped for cash John McCain opted into the campaign financing system by requesting certification that he was eligible to collect federal money. As the New Hampshire primary approached and John McCain was broke he took material advantage of the system by using the promise of matching funds to borrow money to keep his campaign afloat. And he took advantage of a rule that gives candidates who take public financing automatic ballot access on ballots in several states. (Governor Dean estimated that he spent 3 million dollars in 2004 getting on ballots in states because he had opted out of the public financing system. )
Once John McCain had taken advantage of the system by gaining ballot access and securing a campaign saving loan, he won the New Hampshire primary and became the apparent nominee of the Republican Party. He then sent a letter saying that he was opting out of the primary process and claiming that the FEC is now impotent to stop him.
If John McCain is forced to stay in the matching system he will only be allowed to spend $56 million dollars before the Republican convention in September. As of the end of January John McCain had already spent $49 million dollars meaning that today he's either close to the cap or over the amount of money he can spend during the primary.
What does it mean for John McCain? It's yet another issue where John McCain tries to legislate one way and do something completely different. In this case it has to do with campaign finance issues. As Brad Smith, the former Republican FEC commissioner noted, if McCain drops out of the system the FEC will subpoena McCain, and his staff during and their records to determine whether they violated the law. If they're found to be in violation of the law they can be fined up to $25,000 and they can be jailed for up to five years.
What happened today?
Governor Dean announced that the DNC will be filing an FEC complaint against John McCain tomorrow. The complaint will ask the FEC to investigate whether John McCain has broken campaign finance law by taking advantage of federal matching funds to secure a loan, get on the ballot automatically in states and break that commitment by trying to get around spending limits.
Saint McCain is disingenuously attacking Obama over campaign financing. Yet, McCain is actually trying to game the public financing system -- but, he's been busted:
The nation's top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.
The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee, who still faces a fractured conservative coalition as he assumes the mantle of party leadership.
Bitter challenges that he brought on himself. Typical Republican.
Let's see if McCain follows the law -- or breaks it. Because, this issue has criminal implications:
Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
And, it's not like McCain doesn't know campaign finance law. He helped write it.
There's much more after the break.
McCain is stuck. He tried to outsmart the FEC -- but, he didn't. Let's see how the champion of campaign finance reform digs out of this one:
The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
I must say, I'm extremely impressed with Senator Dodd and his staff today. Dodd fought an uphill battle all the way on this, slowly but surely gaining ground, and today he won, and on a hugely important issue. He demonstrated leadership, rather than simply talking about how he might lead in the future, and really did something good for the nation.
The Senate late Monday delayed its consideration of a vote on a new government eavesdropping bill until January.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed the bill because there were more than a dozen amendments planned, and not enough time left on the legislative calendar to manage them.
Matt Browner-Hamlin at the Dodd campaign website has more, including this statement from the Senator: "Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy."
If you approve of this kind of leadership, maybe think about saying so with a donation. It's not so much the amount, but the message -- that we care and we're paying attention and that doing the right thing matters.
UPDATE: Joe just phoned in from Key West to tell me to look at the end of the article. Solomon does it again. He writes an entire article attacking someone, only to hide the tidbit exonerating the person at the every end of his story. This is exactly what he did to Harry Reid, repeatedly, and to John Edwards. Check out the end of the story - Common Cause, one of the biggest critics of big money in government - has given McCain the green light to do all the things the article criticizes him for doing, but you don't find this out until the very end of the very long story (quelle surprise):
McCain's allies in the campaign finance reform movement seem resigned to the fact that he will not abide by many of the principles he advocated for a decade as a reformer, including public financing and its associated spending and fundraising limits.
"Certainly we are disappointed that he has decided not to take the lead in fixing the presidential-financing system he is competing in," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, the ethics watchdog that cheered McCain's reform efforts for years. "But it is understandable he is opting out.
"It is apparent to us that to run a competitive presidential campaign inside a system that is still broken, that is what he has to do," she said.
That quote from Common Cause IS the story. But it's buried at the very end - why? - because Solomon wouldn't have a hit piece if he put the truth at the beginning. The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself.
---------
If I need to write a post undercutting a story attacking John McCain as a hypocrite, in order to convince the Washington Post how serious a problem they have with reporter John Solomon, then so be it.
The Post has a front page story today, entitled "McCain Taps Cash He Sought To Limit: Onetime Reformer Calls on Big Donors," eviscerating John McCain for being a hypocrite on campaign finance issues. The problem? The article is written by John Solomon, the same mediocre reporter who used to work at the Associated Press, and who is known for "investigate reporting" that's not-quite-right.
McCain is an idiot, and has become absolutely two-faced over the past few years, going back on pretty much everything he stood for (straight talk, standing up to the religious right, defender of our military), so I'm happy to believe that he's become a hypocrite on the campaign finance issue - his signature issue - as well.
But the Washington Post made the mistake of using a reporter who has a track record of writing these kind of hit pieces, only to find that the hit pieces usually don't hold together on closer inspection.
And while I can't stand John McCain, Bush's biggest defender of sending even more American troops to the Iraq quagmire, I'm not going to endorse crappy journalism in order to take McCain down. Some of us still have journalistic ethics.
