The man is dirty. Yeah, we get it, all you mainstream media types think he's "nice." Well, that's nice, but it's kind of irrelevant to you doing your job. The man has a history of being crooked, and that history keeps growing, first with his campaign finance law-breaking, then with the funny business with that lobbyist who looks an awful like a younger version of his wife, and now this. And let's not forget the Keating Five - hardly a youthful indiscretion - McCain was already in his 50s at that time. At least the Washington Post gets it (as has the Times in the past):
Sen. John McCain championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers.
Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.
Here we go again. I thought we were promised that none of Hillary's and Bill's old scandals would ever come up again because, you know, she's been "vetted." Well, the conservative, Moonie-run newspaper, the Washington Times, that just so happens to be a very clear indicator of what conservative Republicans are thinking, is now reporting on "new" documents, never before seen, suggesting that Hillary may have lied during the Whitewater investigation.
It doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not. The truth doesn't matter to the Republican noise machine. They will come after Hillary with every piece of dirt they have on her. Hillary's baggage, and her husband's baggage, are unfortunately our baggage so long as we continue to put them in positions of power. Every Clinton scandal - past, present, and future - will be fair game to the right this fall, and the Washington Times just proved it. Say what you will about Obama, but Reverend Wright doesn't hold a candle to the stuff in the Starr Report.
It looks like some gifts just keep on giving. At least 6 of the 20 big Dem donors who are now threatening to exort Nancy Pelosi on behalf of Hillary slept in the Lincoln Bedroom while Bill and Hillary were in the White House. (We only have the list of who slept in the bedroom during four years, i.e., half, of the Clinton presidency. Some reporters need to ask the Clinton campaign if anyone else on this list slept in the Lincoln Bedroom.) You'll recall that some 831 or so special friends of the Clintons got to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom during four years of the Clinton presidency (that's about 4 a week, every week, for 4 years). You would think that this is the kind of bad publicity that Hillary's little band of extortionists wouldn't want. Well they're going to get it. Here's the list of big Dem donors who are now threatening the party if Pelosi doesn't cave to their demands and help Hillary - the ones in bold are Lincoln Bedroom guests, per CNN (CNN only has the list for 4 years):
Marc Aronchick Clarence Avant Susie Tompkins Buell Sim Farar (CNN says a "Sym" Farar stayed in the bedroom) Robert L. Johnson Chris Korge Marc Lasry Cathy Lasry Hassan Nemazee Alan Patricof Susan Patricof JB Pritzker Amy Rao Lynn de Rothschild Haim Saban Bernard Schwartz Stanley S. Shuman Jay Snyder Maureen White Steven Rattner
Stoller also notes that nearly half of the group donated to Lieberman's Senate campaign.
As Joe noted last night, the Chicago Tribune editorial board has exonerated Obama 100% regarding his involvement in the so-called Rezko scandal. This is no small feat, as the Trib has a conservative editorial board, and the Trib is the paper that broke the Rezko story in the first place. Who'd have ever imagined that sitting down and candidly telling the truth could get you out of a pickle? There is now nothing more of substance that the Republicans (or Hillary) can throw at Obama. We may have our first Teflon Democrat in a very long time. And that's a quality the Clintons will never be able to claim.
One of these days it would be nice to see the wife not have to stand up and be so damned humiliated. I respect the work Spitzer did in the past but please, is it necessary to always drag wives into these seedy press conferences or TV interviews? There's always going to be another sex scandal, Democrats and Republicans alike, but there's no need to drag spouses through the mud.
My conservative friends are fond of telling me that the market is always right. Well let’s look how the market behaved yesterday.
According to the New York Post, after the Spitzer story broke:
"Traders were on such a high that stocks rallied for about a half-hour."
I don’t know about you, but I certainly trust a market that forgets about the mortgage crisis, lack of consumer spending, our trade deficit or any of the other economic troubles we are facing and values our nation’s companies based on the fact that Elliot Spitzer paid for sex.
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.
I think if I could put a dividing line, the Orthodox and Conservatives who have a Torah appreciation give us wholehearted support. The rest [of Jews] who are not driven by the Word of God have a liberal agenda.
And the liberal agenda is they are pro-abortion. They're pro-homosexual. They're pro-gay marriage -- they want men to marry men and women to marry women -- and their difference with me is not really what I'm doing with Israel. Their hostility to me is poisoned by their liberalism. They take a liberal position that poisons their view of what we could be doing for Israel.
Note that a bit more than one-third of American Jews (around 41%, per the latest PEW survey) belong to the Reform (or "liberal," as Hagee would say) denomination of Judaism. More here.
McCain is refusing to renounce this influential evangelist's support. From Media Matters:
HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
McCain supporter Pastor John Hagee, who seems to have some kind of odd control over McCain - McCain refuses to renounce the man's endorsement - has some rather disturbing things to say about Catholics (they worship a "whore"), about gays (they're responsible for Katrina), and now Jews:
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day....
How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God uppon his rebellious chosen people."
A March 7, 1996, article (accessed via the Nexis database) in the San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a "slave sale" to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, "The Cluster."
The item was introduced with the sentence "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave."
A July 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal article about Hagee noted the incident:
To help students seeking odd jobs, his church newsletter, The Cluster, advertised a "slave" sale. "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone," it said. "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." Mr. Hagee apologized but, in a radio interview, protested about pressure to be "politically correct" and joked that perhaps his pet dog should be called a "canine American."
This morning I had an extended breakfast with Senator John McCain of Arizona. Our topic of discussion was Israel and his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America....
We discussed his positions on other matters that I will share with you when I speak with you in person. This newsflash goes to the ends of the earth and I don't want to read it in the media tomorrow.
Another major scandal brewing for John McCain. This week, the GOP nominee got endorsed by a vehement anti-Catholic -- and doesn't seem to think it's that big of a deal.
Where's Tim Russert now? He sure made a big deal about Farrakhan with Obama during the debate the other night. And, Russert is never shy about discussing his Catholic roots.
Jane Hamsher has more details -- including a reaction from Bill Donohue, the wild man who runs the Catholic League, obtained by Glenn Greenwald. The outrage transcends politics. Jane thinks there is only one solution for Russert:
It's significant that this is not a partisan issue, both sides of the political spectrum are in agreement that McCain should be forced to account for this. Even the National Review is applauding Glenn Greenwald's efforts on this front.
It's going to be hard for Russert to garner an audience to address this matter that is quite as big as he did in a Presidential debate, so I'm going to make a suggestion here that I never thought I would...
(*sharp intake of breath*)
...he needs to have Bill Donohue on Meet the Press.
Fair is fair, right?
Jane is right.
This should be all the talk at Catholic churches around the country this weekend, like Blessed Sacrament parish here in DC. That's where Russert, Chris Matthews and lots of other political-types go to mass. Chances are their fellow Catholics won't appreciate the Church being called "the great whore" by a leading McCain supporter -- who McCain refuses to denounce and reject.
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.
More on Bill Cunningham, the guy who was introducing McCain and called Obama "Hussein" and then said Madeleine Albright was ugly. The guy who McCain says he never even met before. Well, a reliable source tells me that Bill Cunningham has had several invitations to McCain events at which he has met with McCain for relatively brief periods, and that McCain has been on Cunningham's radio show twice - once from the Capitol itself in 1995. Doesn't sound like John McCain has never even heard of this guy before. But then again, dementia isn't pretty.
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.
