Has McCain written off Wisconsin?

July 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates)
Tags: , , ,

No, I really don’t think he has, but Packer fans can be quite the rabid bunch, and this substitution may not go over well in Packer-land.

Asked what first comes to his mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, McCain chuckled, “the Steelers.  I was a mediocre high school athlete but I loved and adored the sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me particularly in my early years.”

And then McCain told a rather moving story about his time as a P.O.W. “When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, physical pressures on me, I named the starting lineup, defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron mates.”

“Did you really?” asked the reporter.

“Yes,” McCain said.

“In your POW camp?” asked the reporter.

“Yes,” McCain said.

“Could you do it today?” asked the reporter.

“No, unfortunately,” McCain said.

Here’s one reason he likely couldn’t do it today — the Steelers aren’t the team whose defensive line McCain named for his Vietnamese tormentors. The Green Bay Packers are. At least according to every previous time McCain has told this story. And the McCain campaign just told ABC News that the senator made a mistake — it was, indeed, the Packers.

Now the campaign came clean, but it sure sounds like pandering to Western Pennsylvania sports fans, he should thank god it wasn’t the Dallas Cowboys, then he would have lost Wisconsin for sure.  Maybe there are some Packer fans that will be disillusioned with his mistake.  And as my old roommate would say, Packer fans are all over the US, every state, maybe it could cost some votes in close states!

-Josh

Leave a Comment

Question of the day – July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008 at 9:33 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates, Question of the Day)
Tags: , , , , , ,

If Phil Gramm, national co-chair of the McCain campaign, doesn’t speak for McCain when he says we are in a “mental recession” and a “nation of whiners”, how is that Obama can’t disavow General Wesley Clark’s statements questioning McCain’s executive experience, when I can only see Clark referenced as a “surrogate” no official capacity with the campaign?

-Josh

Leave a Comment

How does that saying go?

July 8, 2008 at 7:55 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates, Economic policy)
Tags: , , , ,

I think it is, “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Well apparently the McCain campaign is not familiar with it, thanks to this gem,

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”

Most comments I have seen to this focus on the pro-war, pro-surge, aspect of McCain’s foreign policy efforts, not the much simpler, what did he just say?

How do you apply money that you would have borrowed to offset, the savings part, to reduce other money you are borrowing?

Lets say that your budget deficit for the year is going to be $500 and you add an additional (what is called supplemental funding these days) $100 to that deficit for the war, you have a total annual deficit of $600.  Now lets say you end that war, saving $100 from the deficit, that means you still have $500 in deficit for the year, and no additional funds to reduce that amount below $500 from ending the war.

Now a defender of McCain could make the argument that reducing the deficit will reduce the fiscal burden of interest payments, but that would be the case in any deficit reduction, not solely due to reduction in war costs, so I would not count that argument as explaining away the imaginary numbers he is playing with.

Thanks for opening up your mouth and proving without a doubt that you are fool on basic economics.

-Josh

1 Comment

Tale of two politicians with tax issues

July 8, 2008 at 6:59 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates, Economic policy)
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Two months ago, we learned that Al Franken had not paid state income taxes in each of the states that he spoke in, rather he overpaid in his state of residence at the times.

The net result, Franken said, was that between 2003 and 2006, he overpaid taxes in New York and Minnesota while failing to pay in 17 other states where he earned income.

Franken said the $70,000 is his newly hired tax team’s estimation of taxes and penalties owed in the various states. Once those tax returns have been processed, he said he will be able to apply for a credit on taxes overpaid in New York and Minnesota.

In total Franken said he under paid taxes by just over $4,000.

He was short a bit, but it seems like the intent was there to meet his tax obligations.

Now Minnesota Republicans were a little unforgiving of Franken as reported in USA Today,

Party chairman Ron Carey said Franken’s business activities “must have a full, and complete public airing if he is to retain any credibility as a candidate for public office.”

In a conference call with reporters, Coleman called Franken’s admission troubling. “Paying taxes is an obligation that I think Minnesotans expect to be adhered to, and that Minnesotans do,” Coleman said.

Yet, when it is disclosed that Presidential candidate John McCain’s San Diego condo is 4 years delinquent on property tax payments, it is met with silence in most of the corporate media (although originally reported in Newsweek), and from Minnesota Republicans, as reported in Salon.

Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42.

I agree with Salon’s analysis that the McCain’s were not trying to avoid paying their taxes, it was more an administrative mix up (sound like Franken’s situation). However, I haven’t heard Coleman comment about what we Minnesotan’s think of this delinquency.

What I really liked in Salon was this,

Exactly. I very much doubt that the McCains deliberately avoided their tax bill, but their defense is kind of awkward. In effect, their argument is, “We own so many properties, it’s hard to keep track of how much we owe to whom.” It’s not the kind of argument that screams, “Everyman.”

Moreover, embarrassing stories about McCain’s personal finances don’t exactly inspire confidence. It creates an interesting contrast — Barack Obama has no credit card debt and has set up college funds for his daughters; John McCain has a six-figure credit-card debt and hasn’t paid one of his property tax bills. Which of these candidates sounds like the fiscally responsible one?

Do we think that McCain is going to be a fiscally responsible budgeter-in-chief, since he has admitted (Media Matter’s summary of all his admissions) the economy is not his strength?

-Josh

Leave a Comment

Question of the Day – July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008 at 8:38 am (2008 Presidential Candidates, Question of the Day)
Tags: , , , ,

Will John McCain or Barack Obama commit to removing all US troops from Iraq if Iraqi’s exercise their right of self-rule and vote to end the occupation?

-Josh

1 Comment

The McCains split on Cluster Bombs

June 24, 2008 at 6:46 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates)
Tags: , , , ,

In trying to research some information on the tax credit that John McCain talked about for zero emission cars, kudos, that he states will be available to everybody. I have e-mailed the campaign to double check that it will a refundable credit so that all families, even those with out a tax liability will benefit from the credit. I will post what I learn later.

I noticed a section on Cindy McCain and checked out some of her activities and noticed this trip in April to Kosovo (scroll to the bottom) to look at efforts to remove munitions from the country.

Cindy recently visited HALO Trust’s operation in Kosovo. She met with the de-miners and reviewed minefields and cluster bomb strikes. While in Kosovo, she talked with the students of a school that still has unexploded munitions in their playground. She also spent time with the members of HALO Trusts operation in Kosovo learning about new de-mining techniques and the obstacles HALO faces in making Kosovo mine free. She wrapped up her visit by meeting with both the President and Prime Minister to get their assurances of their commitment to a mine free Kosovo. Shortly after her visit, one man was killed and three were injured at a site she had reviewed.

Now for me the easiest way to prevent this problem is don’t let it happen in the first place. In a weird way it is like a prevention plan, don’t let the mines and cluster bombs be available, then they can’t be put down, which means later they won’t need to be cleaned up.

Now cluster bombs are the worst, they are small, a lot of them don’t explode and they stick around for a long time. Oh, and they are expensive to remove. Cluster bombs are sooo bad that there is a new international convention on this type of munition, the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Countries that ratify the convention are obliged “never under any circumstances to”:

(a) Use cluster munitions;
(b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;
(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

Now sadly the US is not currently a party to this convention.  You might wonder what the US has done on this topic.  Well in 2006, there was an amendment that address this issue, SA 4882 (roll call)

SA 4882. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5631, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following:

Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages, camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups of nomads.

Now this amendment isn’t that horrible, it is basically asking that the military draw up (or amend current ones) rules of engagements that will protect civilian locations before authorizing any purchase and movement of cluster munitions.

Now the amendment didn’t pass losing 30-70.  Of the recent candidates, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and McCain voted against it (for open rules of engagement for cluster munitions), and Obama for it.

To me this seems like a bit of a split in the McCains.

-Josh

Leave a Comment

Who is breaking their word on public financing?

June 22, 2008 at 9:29 am (2008 Presidential Candidates)
Tags: , , , , ,

If you listen to all the talking heads, I mean pundits, and representatives for the McCain campaign, Obama’s decision this week to not seek public financing is like killing a baby. He broke his word to the public, he is flip floping, he is full of blind ambition, and doesn’t care about keeping his word.

The supposedly liberal counterpart, Mark Shields, to David Brook on the Newshour said this,

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: Judy, Barack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.

Nice smear, equating the forgoing of public financing in the general campaign (not the primary portion) with tricky Dick. But when I look at the Federal Election Commission web site on this topic, this is what I see,

The Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program in 1976. Eligible Presidential candidates used federal funds in their primary and general election campaigns, and the major parties used public funds to pay for their nominating conventions.

So to talk about the history of the system and go back to Nixon as the last example of a candidate not taking public financing, when the FEC says that the program was first administered post Nixon is an unfair comparison.

Now according to the Wall Street Journal, not exactly your liberal press, this is what they report on this topic,

Both candidates support public financing, and early in the campaign season Obama was a vocal supporter of the system. His campaign, however, has raised unprecedented funds—some $265 million and growing–from a grassroots network of small individual donors.

The Obama campaign argument, in part, is that their campaign is its own version of public financing, since it is built on individual donors and does not accept money from lobbyists or political action committees.

Earlier Obama had pledged that he would sit down with McCain to work out an equitable system if the two candidates were to accept public funds. The Associated Press reported that Obama’s lawyer Robert Bauer said he had met with McCain’s lawyers to discuss terms, but the talks were fruitless.

The decision to opt out of the system will likely set up Obama to have a significant cash advantage over McCain in the general election if the Arizona senator opts in to the system. Even if McCain changes his mind and also opts out, he is unlikely to be able to match Obama’s fund-raising successes.

So Obama is backing out because he is not accepting lobbyist or PAC money, but rather small donations, the net roots. His folks talked with McCain’s folks and they couldn’t iron out an agreement, which it sounds like a condition of his accepting public financing. Also the WSJ suggests McCain might change his mind, which is kind of ironic because he has already done that this election cycle.

As this Washington Post blog covered this March, McCain has already changed his mind on public financing in the primary part of the campaign,

McCain Blows by Public Spending Cap

By Matthew Mosk
Sen. John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, reports filed last night show.

McCain has now spent $58.4 million on his primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid.

So has McCain broken the law? The answer is far from simple.

It depends on whether he has, in fact, withdrawn from the public matching program. McCain was certified to enter the matching program last year when he was starved for cash. But once he started to win primaries, he decided to step back from it. On Feb. 6, after his Super Tuesday victories, he wrote to the FEC to announce he would withdraw from the program.

McCain’s lawyers said that gave him freedom to spend as much as he wanted — once he announced his intent to withdraw from the system, they say, he was released from the spending caps.

But Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason wrote McCain’s campaign last month to alert him that the commission had not yet granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw, and that the commission would first need to vote on the matter. A snag: The FEC has four vacancies and therefore lacks a quorum to consider the matter.

There’s little agreement on what the FEC would have done, had they been able to meet. In part, that’s because McCain borrowed $4 million from a commercial bank, and promised to pay the money back through his fundraising efforts. If the campaign went badly, he told the bank, he would use future matching funds to help repay the loan. The rules say that candidates who use matching funds as collateral have to remain within the confines of the system. The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint to the FEC about McCain’s actions, but without that quorum, evaluation of the complaint has been stalled.

Meanwhile, McCain’s fundraising has roared ahead, now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His campaign announced yesterday that it repaid the $4 million loan last week, ahead of schedule.

So he used public financing as collateral for a loan to keep the campaign going, but the rules say you cannot later opt out, which is what he says he did by a letter, maybe it was another get out of trouble letter that Republicans have when they do illegal things, like ask telecomms to spy on Americans without a warrant. When you really think about this, it is like he is doing the Hokey-Pokey on public financing, “you put your campaign in, your take your campaign out, then your put campaign in again…..”

So when we look at issues of Obama and McCain’s word, it is hard to see where McCain has any ground to stand on, out of need to to stay in the race, he opt-ed into public finance to guarantee a loan, but when he was doing better, spent past his limits, arguing that his letter to the FEC was enough to withdraw. I don’t know about you, but that is a flip-flop, that is political ambition, doing whatever it takes at the time to become the presidential nominee. It definitely isn’t straight talk.

Of course you don’t hear about this hypocrisy from the talking heads, pundits, because it wouldn’t give them something to be outraged by, they might actually have to discuss the issue. And well, the folks paying them make money on political advertisements.

-Josh

1 Comment

Math triumphs and Obama is the Democratic candidate

June 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates)
Tags: , ,

Last night Obama did the math and claimed the mantle as the presidential candidate for the Democrats.

It looks like Clinton will be expressing her support for Obama as the candidate.  It is key that she bring her supporters to support Obama also.  I have heard calls to Air America, read letters to the editor, etc… from people that say they will vote for McCain because of how Clinton has been treated, especially the sexism during the primary/caucus season.

My questions to these people:

1. Will McCain be better for women, after all if sexism is a problem, how is McCain on issues for women?

McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted “no” on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

2. Have you looked at the Supreme Court?

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

and who would McCain select?  Well think Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

3. Would you have been okay if African Americans had said that the nomination process was too racist and decided to vote for McCain rather than Clinton?  That would have been the same reaction for the other possible outcome, Clinton beating out Obama.  This is truly walking in someone else’s shoes.

4. Was Obama sexist to Clinton?  Or was it our media that was the source of the sexism?  And isn’t McCain beholden to the media lobbyists?

Of the 66 current or former lobbyists working for the Arizona senator or raising money for his presidential campaign, 23 have lobbied for telecommunications companies in the past decade, Senate lobbying disclosures show.

McCain has netted about $765,000 in political donations from those telecom lobbyists, their spouses, colleagues at their firms and their telecom clients during the past decade, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance records shows.

So for those Clinton supports that are thinking of not voting for Obama, take some time to go through the stages of grief if you need, and then come out and support the Democratic nominee for president.  While Obama was not my first choice, John Edwards was, I was ready to vote for Obama or Clinton because America and Americans can not afford a McCain presidency!

-Josh

1 Comment

Governor Pawlenty is looking more like the veep for McCain

April 20, 2008 at 8:20 am (2008 Presidential Candidates)
Tags: , , , , , ,

Watching ABC’s This Week, John McCain was being grilled by George Stephanopoulos on tax increases or cuts.  Finally McCain fell back on the tired mantra we are so familiar with in Minnesota, the problem is not government revenue (reason not to raise taxes) but a spending problem.  We have been hearing this from Minnesota Republicans for a couple of years now.  Maybe McCain spent too much time hanging out with Tim Pawlenty.

On medical care, McCain spewed the typically right wing talking points, attacking Canada’s system.  He talked about health care decisions should be made by people, not government, but as usual, what about private insurance companies.  They make a majority of the decisions for Americans these days, just a bit of an omission.

-Josh

3 Comments

The difference one or two words could make

February 21, 2008 at 6:57 pm (2008 Presidential Candidates)
Tags: , , ,

Selective editing can make a big deal in the perception we have of people.  We have learned this week about the editing of Michelle Obama’s audio, taking “really” out of the audio.   That extra word does make a difference in how you perceive her words.

To further make the point, lets look to John McCain.  I am taking this from the NY Times story on the Romancing the Lobbyist.

“I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor can be bought,” Mr. McCain wrote about his Keating experience in his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For.” “From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable. Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life.”

Now imagine if took that last line and dropped the “one of” from it, it would look like this:

…a time that I will forever consider the worst experiences of my life.

Now if you were to this phrase, minus two little words “one of” connect to the Keating 5 scandal, then contrast that description with his recent vote to not tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual and highlight what type of torture he faced as a POW in Vietnam.   Well that would make it seem that a scandal was the worst experience ever.  That torture, isn’t that bad, or least not the worst thing that ever happened to him.  That would put a very different perception on his vote and his stance on torture over all.

So let us make sure that what is reported is what is said.  No editing audio and no distorting the context.  And if you are part of the media, highlight that deceptive behavior.

-Josh

Leave a Comment

« Older entries Newer entries »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started