It's illegal for federal campaigns to coordinate with outside groups. Looks like we're dealing with more illegality from the McCain campaign:
Politico has a story up showing the clearest indication yet that the McCain campaign is illegally coordinating television advertising with an outside group. The short-story is this: on July 2, the McCain campaign placed $1.5 million in advertising in the Virginia area. The next day -- July 3 -- the McCain campaign canceled that media buy. On the very same day -- July 3 -- the outside group made a large media buy in the same region, filling the gap created by the McCain campaign's cancellation.
What a coincidence...or not. Watch this video of McCain and his lap dog, Lindsey Graham, parrot the talking points of the same outside group, Vets for Freedom.
Yeah, that was McCain calling Vets for Freedom "a wonderful organization." Lap dog Lindsey and Joe Lieberman were leaders of that group, too. But, there's no coordination....sure.
Saturday, we reported on the blockbuster scoop from the Huffington Post that Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were already breaking John McCain's policy against campaign advisers working for 527s or any "other independent entity" that engages publicly for or against a presidential candidate. Both of the Senators have a leadership role in a group called "Vets for Freedom" -- that group's PAC began running a negative ad against Obama last week. Here's McCain's policy:
According to the policy: "No person with a McCain Campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate."
Turns out, McCain himself is quite familiar with "Vets for Freedom." In fact, just last month, John McCain proclaimed that the group is a "wonderful organization." No wonder he likes them, "Vets for Freedom" is already doing McCain's dirty work. Because the McCain and his crew have nothing positive going for them, they're already in the slime.
Watch Jed's latest video -- and see the very cozy relationship that exists among McCain, Lieberman and Graham and the "Vets for Freedom." Just how independent is "Veterans for Freedom" from the McCain campaign? Doesn't seem like there is much distance at all. Lieberman and Graham show up on the "Policy Board of Advisors" on the website paid for by the Vets for Freedom PAC. There's another reason why this matters. Under the law, PACs or 527s and election campaigns cannot "coordinate" their activities. Meaning, they can't speak and strategize together. So just what is John McCain's relationships with this political entity that's running ads against Obama?
The obstruction of the Webb amendment is incredibly frustrating and sad. As a commented noted yesterday, "You don't support the troops if you don't give them adequate time home. You don't support families that way either."
Sadly, Republicans even understand that they're working against the will of the American people in service of Bush's misbegotten war . . . but they still seem to be just a little deluded. To wit, the last paragraph of the NYTimes story on the vote on Webb's amendment:
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who worked to defeat the Webb plan, said the Republican support for the war could have a political cost. "The Republicans own this war," he said. "If it goes bad, the nation loses and the Republican Party loses disproportionately compared to the Democratic Party."
GOP Senator Lindsey Graham keeps doing reserve duty in Iraq, despite longtime unconfirmed speculation that his sexual orientation might preclude such duty under the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Why does the military not having a problem with a man who, to me at least, certainly talks like a flaming homosexual risking the unit cohesion of our troops? Because, face it, if I think Lindsey Graham sounds like a flaming gay, then some of our soldiers in Iraq probably do too. And in order to ruin unit cohesion, according to the Republicans who support DADT, all you need is for people to think that you're gay and thus not want to shower with you, bunk with you, etc. So why haven't they investigated Lindsey Graham? Or are some pink elephants more equal than others?
[Note from AJ: This post tickled my brain when I read it, like a memory was trying to emerge from long ago. And then it came to me, and I realized that there's actually a theme song for this subject! Ahh, Dumbo, reminding us just how scary pink elephants can be. Enjoy:]
CBS reports that GOP Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) served as active duty military recently in Iraq. This raises a very serious question of national security.
I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable having a US Senator serve active duty in Iraq as a "colonel" when there has been persistent chatter about his sexual orientation and whether it conforms to the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. The Republicans, and Senator Graham, can't have it both ways. Did the Pentagon investigate the rumors about Senator Graham's orientation prior to choosing to have him serve active duty? Doubtful. But the rumors are out there, and the Senator's very presence has been known to fuel such rumors, so it is not out of the realm of the possible that others with whom he served had the same questions. And once they have those questions, per Don't Ask Don't Tell, there is a threat to unit cohesion. So why did the Pentagon risk unit cohesion in this case?
I'm serious. They can't have it both ways. Either there is a problem with gays, or people who are suspected to be gay, serving in the military or there isn't. But Senator Graham, the Pentagon, and every other supporter of the gay ban can't talk about how the presence of someone known (or thought) to be gay would destroy unit cohesion, but at the same time let a senator serve who may not meet the criteria of the ban itself.
Yes, it's not polite to discuss such things. But we do discuss them, we are forced to discuss them, under the very bigoted and not-polite policy that Senator Graham embraces.
