Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Friday, February 22, 2013
Friday, November 21, 2008
John McCain vs. Jackson Browne
The Huffington Post reports that John McCain is now claiming Jackson Browne used him by bringing a lawsuit last summer in order to increase sales for his latest release.
At the time of Browne's lawsuit, it was revealed that it wasn't the McCain campaign per se, but rather the Ohio Republican Party that wrongly appropriated the song for a TV spot.
It seems to me awfully shabby to disclaim responsibility for this because it was done on the local level, but even pettier to now claim that Jackson Browne did the whole thing for purposes of lucre.
What do you think? Wouldn't it be reasonable to disapprove of your music being used in an ad campaign that you don't support? Isn't it great that we don't have a man like John McCain as the next president?
And, how about that Jackson Browne? That's one talented guy, huh?
John McCain is returning Jackson Browne's August lawsuit complaining about McCain using his song "Running on Empty" during his campaign by claiming Browne is just trying drum up publicity for his own album, reports TMZ.
At the time of Browne's lawsuit, it was revealed that it wasn't the McCain campaign per se, but rather the Ohio Republican Party that wrongly appropriated the song for a TV spot.
The music icon also claims that in doing so, the false perception is created that he is endorsing McCain's candidacy.
It seems to me awfully shabby to disclaim responsibility for this because it was done on the local level, but even pettier to now claim that Jackson Browne did the whole thing for purposes of lucre.
What do you think? Wouldn't it be reasonable to disapprove of your music being used in an ad campaign that you don't support? Isn't it great that we don't have a man like John McCain as the next president?
And, how about that Jackson Browne? That's one talented guy, huh?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Candidates Roasting Each Other
On the wonderful site Donklephant there's an article called A Night for Laughs.
The Alfred E. Smith Dinner in NYC is one of those things you look forward to hearing about every year because, for one night at least, politicians can just throw out some zingers and the only thing you’ll hear from their opponents are laughs.
The Alfred E. Smith Dinner in NYC is one of those things you look forward to hearing about every year because, for one night at least, politicians can just throw out some zingers and the only thing you’ll hear from their opponents are laughs.
I found these speeches absolutely hysterical. After all the super seriousness of the three debates, after all the finger pointing about negative advertising, what a relief to just laugh. I think the candidates themselves must have felt it too, or perhaps especially.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barack Obama By a Landslide
I really know next to nothing about politics. This is due to the fact that I turned my back on it, figuratively speaking, after the Viet Nam period. Only about two years ago did I begin to get interested again, partly because I do read the news and feel the world is in terrible shape now, much worse than in the 70s, and partly because I heard Obama speak and thought he was the only credible sounding politician I'd ever heard.
I predicted Obama by a landslide. It was a bit tongue in cheek because of my near total ignorance on the subject. It was more wishful thinking than anything.
Today The Washington Post front page headline says Obama is 10 points ahead of McCain.
With just over three weeks until Election Day, the two presidential nominees appear to be on opposite trajectories, with Sen. Barack Obama gaining momentum and Sen. John McCain stalled or losing ground on a range of issues and personal traits, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
What's your opinion? Do you think this is exaggerated spinning on the part of a liberal newspaper?
I predicted Obama by a landslide. It was a bit tongue in cheek because of my near total ignorance on the subject. It was more wishful thinking than anything.
Today The Washington Post front page headline says Obama is 10 points ahead of McCain.
With just over three weeks until Election Day, the two presidential nominees appear to be on opposite trajectories, with Sen. Barack Obama gaining momentum and Sen. John McCain stalled or losing ground on a range of issues and personal traits, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
What's your opinion? Do you think this is exaggerated spinning on the part of a liberal newspaper?
Monday, September 29, 2008
John McCain the Gambler
The New York Times has run an exposé over the last two days of John McCain's gambling ties . He has been involved in the intricate and ruthless business of casino gambling in America for decades both as a behind-the-scenes wheeler dealer and as a player.
(Big H/T to George)
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
Once the Native American Gambling Business grew to this extent, largely due to McCain's efforts, the Senator's patrons in Las Vegas began to be concerned.
In the spring of 2005, Mr. McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it. In a 2005 interview with The Oregonian, Mr. McCain said that if Congress did not act, “soon every Indian tribe is going to have a casino in downtown, metropolitan areas.”
Carl Artman, who served as the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of Indian Affairs until May, said Mr. McCain pushed him to rewrite the off-reservation rules. “It became one of my top priorities because Senator McCain made it clear it was one of his top priorities,” he said.
The new guidelines were issued on Jan. 4. As a result, the casino applications of 11 tribes were rejected.
Besides being involved behind the scenes, John McCain himself is a high-stakes player. From Arizona, he was known to make weekend jaunts up to Vegas, about once a month, where he was wined and dined like any High Roller with influence in Washington.
Perhaps one of the unspoken implications of the NY Times piece is that the kind of person who gambles by playing Native American interests against those of Las Vegas, the kind of person who personally likes to throw the dice in high stakes crap shoots in casinos, would bring that "maverick" attitude into the White House, should he be elected president.
What do you think? Is taking weekend trips to Vegas to let your hair down incompatible with the Office of President? Is there something disonorable in representing Native American interests then changing teams and going to bat for Vegas? Do you think taking Sarah Palin on as a running mate was an example of reckless gambling? Is gambling a vice?
Please leave us your thoughts in a comment.
(Big H/T to George)
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
Once the Native American Gambling Business grew to this extent, largely due to McCain's efforts, the Senator's patrons in Las Vegas began to be concerned.
In the spring of 2005, Mr. McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it. In a 2005 interview with The Oregonian, Mr. McCain said that if Congress did not act, “soon every Indian tribe is going to have a casino in downtown, metropolitan areas.”
Carl Artman, who served as the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of Indian Affairs until May, said Mr. McCain pushed him to rewrite the off-reservation rules. “It became one of my top priorities because Senator McCain made it clear it was one of his top priorities,” he said.
The new guidelines were issued on Jan. 4. As a result, the casino applications of 11 tribes were rejected.
Besides being involved behind the scenes, John McCain himself is a high-stakes player. From Arizona, he was known to make weekend jaunts up to Vegas, about once a month, where he was wined and dined like any High Roller with influence in Washington.
Perhaps one of the unspoken implications of the NY Times piece is that the kind of person who gambles by playing Native American interests against those of Las Vegas, the kind of person who personally likes to throw the dice in high stakes crap shoots in casinos, would bring that "maverick" attitude into the White House, should he be elected president.
What do you think? Is taking weekend trips to Vegas to let your hair down incompatible with the Office of President? Is there something disonorable in representing Native American interests then changing teams and going to bat for Vegas? Do you think taking Sarah Palin on as a running mate was an example of reckless gambling? Is gambling a vice?
Please leave us your thoughts in a comment.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Keating 5 Scandal
Over at the wonderfully informative blog called Hullabaloo, Digby wrote a post entitled They've Been Listening, which makes reference to a poll indicating that "By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks."
I find this extremely gratifying because all too often in this campaign things that I've concluded and surmised seem to go unnoticed. For example, the idea that Palin was qualified for the office of Vice President seemed to be accepted by many of the same people who berated Obama's qualifications. In spite of this apparent contradiction, the Republicans seemed to receive the breath of life from her candidature. Thank goodness that's subsiding now.
I became aware of the Keating 5 scandal some months ago via another site I like very much, Opinione. In the Digby piece, there's a concise explanation of McCain's role.
McCain's role in that scandal was very specific: he pressured regulators into going easy on his friend Charlie's savings and loan.
The Wikipedia article on the Keating 5 says this:
Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
What's your opinion? Do you think "poor judgment" is a euphemism for "criminal behaviour but we're giving you a break this time?"
I find this extremely gratifying because all too often in this campaign things that I've concluded and surmised seem to go unnoticed. For example, the idea that Palin was qualified for the office of Vice President seemed to be accepted by many of the same people who berated Obama's qualifications. In spite of this apparent contradiction, the Republicans seemed to receive the breath of life from her candidature. Thank goodness that's subsiding now.
I became aware of the Keating 5 scandal some months ago via another site I like very much, Opinione. In the Digby piece, there's a concise explanation of McCain's role.
McCain's role in that scandal was very specific: he pressured regulators into going easy on his friend Charlie's savings and loan.
The Wikipedia article on the Keating 5 says this:
Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
What's your opinion? Do you think "poor judgment" is a euphemism for "criminal behaviour but we're giving you a break this time?"
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sarah Palin and Amy Winehouse are Twins
The crack investigative team at mikeb302000 have uncovered this fascinating story. It seems the adorable twins were separated shortly after birth, raised on different continents and only reunited this week. Amy, the younger by two and a half minutes, was watching Fox News as part of her latest rehab treatment program when she recognized her twin on the screen. "It was more of a, like, visceral thing," said the beleaguered pop star. Sarah Palin, at first visibly shaken to learn that her biological mother had given her up for adoption before fleeing to the UK with her twin, rebounded quickly and issued the following statement: "The important thing here is that Amy and I are now reunited, which proves that our mother had international foreign policy experience as well as a pro-life philosophy. My running mate, who is don't forget, the only man in this campaign who ever fought for his country, has welcomed Amy and her entourage to join me and the entire Palin clan on the campaign trail."
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain/Palin Would Remove Abortion Rights for Women
Over at Hullabaloo, Tristero has posted an article entitled "Teen Marriages," which cites the New York Times at some length. Their point is that teen marriages don't fare very well statistically. The chances of ending in divorce, and often very quickly, are much higher for teenagers than for older folks who get married. I don't think we needed the NY Times to tell us that. It sounds like common sense to me.
The real problem as Tristero explains it is if the Republicans have their way and Roe is overturned, it's the poor and underprivileged who will suffer.
Wealthy, well-connected families will always have access to safe reproductive choices including accurate information, effective contraception, and several abortion choices. If McCain is elected, the poor and lower middle class will not.
Wealthy, well-connected families will always have ways to support a child who becomes pregnant and chooses to take the pregnancy the term. The poor and lower middle class often do not. A vote to continue the repellent ideology of Bushism, a vote cast for McCain to extend the hateful policies of the current administration is a vote to repeal Roe and eviscerate necessary social services. A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the class war against the poor and blue collar workers.
Now, I'm certainly no one to argue with Tristero, who is one of the experts I go to for information and analysis. But, although I always find this argument compelling, I don't think it's the best reason. The fact that lower and middle class women will suffer while the upper class will not, many of whom are among the McCain/Palin and Christian Right throngs, is not the primary reason to safeguard women's rights to reproductive services. The primary reason is because it's a basic human right. If women are free citizens of the Republic, with all the attendant rights and privileges, then no one should tell them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, not a husband, a father, a minister or certainly not the State.
This argument is not unlike the one we often have about capital punishment. It is discriminatory. A disproportionate number of blacks and poor are put to death. But that's not the reason to abolish it. The reason to abolish it is because it's morally unacceptable in a civilized society to do state sanctioned killings.
I'm pro-choice for women and anti-capital punishment for everyone.
What about you? What do you think?
The real problem as Tristero explains it is if the Republicans have their way and Roe is overturned, it's the poor and underprivileged who will suffer.
Wealthy, well-connected families will always have access to safe reproductive choices including accurate information, effective contraception, and several abortion choices. If McCain is elected, the poor and lower middle class will not.
Wealthy, well-connected families will always have ways to support a child who becomes pregnant and chooses to take the pregnancy the term. The poor and lower middle class often do not. A vote to continue the repellent ideology of Bushism, a vote cast for McCain to extend the hateful policies of the current administration is a vote to repeal Roe and eviscerate necessary social services. A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the class war against the poor and blue collar workers.
Now, I'm certainly no one to argue with Tristero, who is one of the experts I go to for information and analysis. But, although I always find this argument compelling, I don't think it's the best reason. The fact that lower and middle class women will suffer while the upper class will not, many of whom are among the McCain/Palin and Christian Right throngs, is not the primary reason to safeguard women's rights to reproductive services. The primary reason is because it's a basic human right. If women are free citizens of the Republic, with all the attendant rights and privileges, then no one should tell them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, not a husband, a father, a minister or certainly not the State.
This argument is not unlike the one we often have about capital punishment. It is discriminatory. A disproportionate number of blacks and poor are put to death. But that's not the reason to abolish it. The reason to abolish it is because it's morally unacceptable in a civilized society to do state sanctioned killings.
I'm pro-choice for women and anti-capital punishment for everyone.
What about you? What do you think?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Gustav, Another Katrina?
The evacuation of New Orleans is in full swing, as reported by CNN. Having learned so much from Katrina three years ago, today's evacuation numbers are impressive.
About 1.9 million of Louisiana's 2 million coastal residents had fled ahead of Hurricane Gustav by Sunday evening in the largest evacuation in state history, Louisiana's governor said.
The Republican National Convention activities in Minneapolis for Monday have been mainly suspended. But I wonder if anyone really believes McCain is talking straight. Isn't he just concerned that the country will associate the John McCain folks with the ineptitude that tainted the Bush administration three years ago?
"This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans. We have to join the 300 million other Americans on behalf of our fellow citizens. It's a time for action. So, we're going to suspend most of our activities tomorrow except for those absolutely necessary," said McCain, speaking from St. Louis, Missouri.
And it seems even Bush himself has learned something from the past mistakes. This time he's acting even before the devastation.
The president ordered federal aid to supplement state and local efforts in the areas in the forecast path of Hurricane Gustav. Bush and his administration were heavily criticized in 2005 for not moving fast enough to send federal help to the Gulf Coast when Hurricane Katrina hit.
Over at The Riff Blog there's a very entertaining series of articles entitled, "God Understands Irony." The story includes a link to the hysterical speech, although he was seriously trying to make his conservative point, by Stuart Shepard encouraging people to pray for rain to drown out Obama's speech. It's really funny that the very type of rain he was describing for Obama, is actually interfering with the Republican activities. That's irony and schadenfreude all rolled into one.
About 1.9 million of Louisiana's 2 million coastal residents had fled ahead of Hurricane Gustav by Sunday evening in the largest evacuation in state history, Louisiana's governor said.
The Republican National Convention activities in Minneapolis for Monday have been mainly suspended. But I wonder if anyone really believes McCain is talking straight. Isn't he just concerned that the country will associate the John McCain folks with the ineptitude that tainted the Bush administration three years ago?
"This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans. We have to join the 300 million other Americans on behalf of our fellow citizens. It's a time for action. So, we're going to suspend most of our activities tomorrow except for those absolutely necessary," said McCain, speaking from St. Louis, Missouri.
And it seems even Bush himself has learned something from the past mistakes. This time he's acting even before the devastation.
The president ordered federal aid to supplement state and local efforts in the areas in the forecast path of Hurricane Gustav. Bush and his administration were heavily criticized in 2005 for not moving fast enough to send federal help to the Gulf Coast when Hurricane Katrina hit.
Over at The Riff Blog there's a very entertaining series of articles entitled, "God Understands Irony." The story includes a link to the hysterical speech, although he was seriously trying to make his conservative point, by Stuart Shepard encouraging people to pray for rain to drown out Obama's speech. It's really funny that the very type of rain he was describing for Obama, is actually interfering with the Republican activities. That's irony and schadenfreude all rolled into one.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Why Sarah Palin?
On the wonderful Blue Marble Blog there's another story about the polar bears. I'm not so sure it's about the polar bears, really. It's about a mindset. The same mindset that can deny global warming and insist that the jury is still out, can also deny evolution and align with the fundamentalist Christian right.
"Science will tell us," her spokesman said. "She thinks the jury's still out." If by "jury" she means "the Bible," then yes, the jury is still out. But if "jury" means scientific consensus, then Palin needs to check out the IPCC's site or pick up an issue of Nature.
At the Daily Kos there's a good explanation of why the fundamentalist Christian right are happy with her nomination. It makes perfect sense that a savvy political choice like this had the effect of garnering for McCain the not insignificant fundamentalist vote.
In this article in the New York Times, Gail Collins convincingly writes that McCain's choice of Palin as VP was probably not about the female vote.
The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong.
If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice.
According to Ms. Collins, it was about Sarah Palin's executive experience as governor of Alaska.
He [McCain] was looking for someone who was well prepared to fight against international Islamic extremism, the transcendent issue of our time. And in the end he decided that in good conscience, he was not going to settle for anyone who had not been commander of a state national guard for at least a year and a half.
If that's true, he may have failed as badly as if he'd chosen her to win the ex-Hillary supporters. Palin describes herself as a soccer mom who got into politics relatively recently to combat corruption. Her experience fighting terrorism and her capacity to do so, is very limited to say the least.
This brings us back to the religious right. I agree with those who say this is what's behind the choice. In winning over the huge conservative Christian movement, John McCain has much to gain. But, is that the kind of person we want as Vice President to an aging cancer surviving president? Considering McCain's age and health record, I'd say her chances of taking over the number one spot are greater than many vice presidents in recent history. Haven't we had enough of mixing church and state? I know these concepts have always been there, annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum and the Manifest Destiny, but in recent years the fundamentalist Christian movement has achieved unprecedented influence in government. I say enough is enough.
What's your opinion?
"Science will tell us," her spokesman said. "She thinks the jury's still out." If by "jury" she means "the Bible," then yes, the jury is still out. But if "jury" means scientific consensus, then Palin needs to check out the IPCC's site or pick up an issue of Nature.
At the Daily Kos there's a good explanation of why the fundamentalist Christian right are happy with her nomination. It makes perfect sense that a savvy political choice like this had the effect of garnering for McCain the not insignificant fundamentalist vote.
In this article in the New York Times, Gail Collins convincingly writes that McCain's choice of Palin as VP was probably not about the female vote.
The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong.
If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice.
According to Ms. Collins, it was about Sarah Palin's executive experience as governor of Alaska.
He [McCain] was looking for someone who was well prepared to fight against international Islamic extremism, the transcendent issue of our time. And in the end he decided that in good conscience, he was not going to settle for anyone who had not been commander of a state national guard for at least a year and a half.
If that's true, he may have failed as badly as if he'd chosen her to win the ex-Hillary supporters. Palin describes herself as a soccer mom who got into politics relatively recently to combat corruption. Her experience fighting terrorism and her capacity to do so, is very limited to say the least.
This brings us back to the religious right. I agree with those who say this is what's behind the choice. In winning over the huge conservative Christian movement, John McCain has much to gain. But, is that the kind of person we want as Vice President to an aging cancer surviving president? Considering McCain's age and health record, I'd say her chances of taking over the number one spot are greater than many vice presidents in recent history. Haven't we had enough of mixing church and state? I know these concepts have always been there, annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum and the Manifest Destiny, but in recent years the fundamentalist Christian movement has achieved unprecedented influence in government. I say enough is enough.
What's your opinion?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
McCain's Girl
A lot of people were surprised at John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate. CNN Reports that the Alaska governor was not really on anyone's radar screen.
"She's got the grit, integrity, good sense and fierce devotion to the common good that is exactly what we need in Washington today," McCain said.
One of the obvious advantages to this choice is that the Republicans might pick up some of those Hillary Clinton supporters who, supposedly quite numerous, were not placated by Hillary's overtures to vote for Obama. But could those women actually bring themselves to vote for a staunchly pro-life ticket?
Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade.
It's certainly going to be interesting.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"She's got the grit, integrity, good sense and fierce devotion to the common good that is exactly what we need in Washington today," McCain said.
One of the obvious advantages to this choice is that the Republicans might pick up some of those Hillary Clinton supporters who, supposedly quite numerous, were not placated by Hillary's overtures to vote for Obama. But could those women actually bring themselves to vote for a staunchly pro-life ticket?
Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade.
It's certainly going to be interesting.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)