A Good Week for McCain Despite the Media

The media has summed up this week as a bad for McCain because of Senator Obama’s rock and roll world tour. However on issues, the week goes to McCain. Finally, people are recognizing that the surge has worked; a strategy change that McCain championed under challenging circumstances. The media spun Maliki’s statement about the withdrawal of troops to sound like it was an endorsement of Obama, but Obama has been wrong on foreign policy throughout this campaign. Discussions about withdrawals are occurring because of the surge, a surge that Senator Obama will not recognize as a success despite overwhelming evidence. If voters view Iraq and foreign policy with more than superficial interest McCain wins hands down.

The McCain campaign also called out the media for its blatant bias in its new web ad. The media doesn’t like to be criticized, but they’re not even able to deny this weeks Obama love-fest. While continuing attacks on the media may sound like sour grapes to some, it is a reality that needs to be addressed. This week made it abundantly clear to any rational or balanced thinker that the press is in the tank for Obama, and in the long run public recognition of this is a plus for McCain.

It’s hard to deny that there is some frustration coming from the McCain camp and supporters. The obsurdity of the New York Times trying to dictate a candidate's foreign policy would get on anyones nerves. However, while understandable it isn’t helpful. It gives the media another opportunity to sum up the campaign as angry, frustrated, or not as strong as the Obama campaign.

However, a couple state polls show this race as getting even closer. Rasmussen shows McCain with a ten-point lead in Ohio. A Detroit News poll has Obama up only 2 points in Michigan. While state polls seem to be all over the board, it suggests that the country isn’t as enamored with Obama as the media is, and it’s another good sign for the McCain campaign. The race is extremely tight despite a numerous reports singing Obama’s praises, and that another reason that this is a good week for McCain.

Commander-in-Chief test McCain Wins in a Landslide

In the latest ABC poll when people were asked about which candidate would make a good Commander-in-Chief, Senator McCain won in a landslide. 72% believe he would be a good Commander-in-Chief, and only 48% believe Senator Obama would be a good Commander-in-Chief.



Senator Clinton agrees, and explains why...

Blocked Sites and A Recommendation for Google

First off a confession; I like Google. I've used many of their services over the years and have found that they offer a number of useful free services along with a number of affordable business services that help small businesses. That being said Google has some explaining to do. A series of pro-Hillary or anti-Obama were blocked recently. The authors locked out unable to post and being sent an email saying that spam-bots had determined these sites were spammers. Now, Google has returned service to most of these blogs, but has yet to adequately explain itself. There are two reasons Google should provide the users explanations. First, manners. You shut someone out then you return service with no explanation it's bad form not to provide a reason. Second, rumors. The internet is rumor prone even when there are no mitigating factors. When you combine actions that appear to be intended to silence a particular group of people, with reports that Google employees are among the top Obama donators, then rumors fly. If there was no wrong doing then explain what happened, if there was wrong doing fess-up and fix it. Google has a history of being a good company, don't tarnish that record through poor communication or poor business practices.
From NYT Bits Blog

Did Google use its network of online services to silence critics of Barack Obama? That was the question buzzing on a corner of the blogosphere over the last few days, after several anti-Obama bloggers were unable to update their sites, which are hosted on Google’s Blogger service.
The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs. “You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,” the Google e-mail read.

If so, that would be an embarrassment for Google. On its Web page explaining the “flag” feature, Google says that “it can’t be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.”

From David Brooks NYT

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

Muddled Foreign Policy or Clear Foreign Policy

This clip, which has been posted before as a part of the 'Susan Rice False Statements' story, shows Senator Obama agreeing to meet foreign dictators with no precondidtions; followed by Senator Clinton and Edwards disagreeing with that strategy. The reason why this comes up repeated is that this isn't just about a change in position, it is about knowing your stuff. There is a reality, that despite many people's unhappiness with the current administration's choices, we are a country at war. Picking a leader with experience and understanding of foreign policy matters, and it matters greatly.


This shows Senator McCain's reaction to an Obama change in policy regarding Israel...


Finally, here are parts Senator McCain's speach AIPAC...

The Trust Candidate V The Change Candidate

David Jamaal at DoneDems.com, a site for Clinton supporters who are not supporting Obama, makes an excellent point about candidate authenticity. Obama’s monicker of change has weakened as he has shown the willingness to flip his positions on issues such as public financing, gun control, and free trade for political expediency. Conversely, Senator McCain has a history of putting his country and his word before politics, therefor making him the quintessential trust candidate.

"Mr. Obama’s disappointing and persistent inconsistency has destroyed both his own brand and the notion that this is a “change” election. Change is a stale narrative and in Obama’s case, a false one.

This election will turn on trust.

Is there a third party candidate you trust to win and to serve competently?

Do you trust Sen. McCain, who puts country before Party, who has shown bravery in risking bold bipartisan positions , and who is quickly making energy independence central to his campaign while Mr. Obama offers nothing but ‘no’ to every new idea?"

Ironic McCain Defends Clinton but Obama Doesn't Bother

Seems ironic that Senator McCain comes to Senator Clinton's defense and Senator Obama doesn't. The statements out of the Obama camp adds doubt to Senator Obama's claim that he's a uniter. Senator Obama's statement expressed disappointment at the divisive remarks, but what about rebutting the content of the statement? The Clinton's have been criticized for decades, but even the most strident Clinton-hater has never suggested that Senator Clinton is a white supremist. This is really nasty stuff. Candidates I'm sure realize that when they decide to run they'll be criticized, be the but of jokes, and even be attacked (possibly unjustly) for things they do or say. However, this statement is slander and it's odd that the media and the Obama campaign aren't treating it as such. Senator Clinton has done nothing to warrant claims of racism/white entitlement/white supremacy. What she is entitled to at minimum, is an appology beyond the 'it you were offended, I'm sorry' drivel that Pastor Pfleger put out. This is the type of politics people are sick of; the I can say anything about the opposition to gain votes strategy.

Pastor Pfleger's Rant


Senator McCain's Reaction...

McCain Ad - Ignite

Illustrating what a lot of us Independents like about Senator McCain...

Capital Gains Tax

Not neccessarily the most exciting of topics, the Capital Gains Tax illustrates an important difference between Senator McCain and the Democrats. There is proof that a low capital gains tax helps spur growth in the economy across the different economic levels. Senator McCain’s plan states, “John McCain will keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains and fight anti-growth efforts by Democrats.” The trouble is that Senator Obama all but promised to raise capital gains taxes at the last debate. While many Americans may think since they aren’t heavily invested in stocks and bonds that this tax increase is not a big deal. Others may think that since people with these investments tend to be better off financially its only fair to increase these taxes. The problem with this type of thinking, particularly from a politician like Senator Obama, is that it is not sound economics. An increase in the capital gains tax will slow the economy, and in a time when the economy is already struggling this is a terrible idea. While it’s understandable that many may not see the connection between the capital gains tax and the overall economy, it’s the candidates job to know these issues and understand cause and effect of tax increases. Senator McCain has shown an understanding of how the economy works, while the Democrats have missed the boat.

http://blogs4mccain.com/2008/04/18/capital-gains-tax/

The Service to America Tour

On a blogger call today the McCain campaign announced the upcoming 'Service to America Tour'. It features stops in places, such as McCain field in Mississippi, Anapollis, and Pensacola Florida that were important places in the Senator McCain's life. Senator McCain is re-introducing himself to the American people through a bio tour that enuciates the roll service has played in his life.

Steve Schmidt, from the campaign, also answered several question about issues and the race. In reference to a question asked about Israel and foreign policy, Mr. Schmidt stated that it is unique situation that the the Democrat candidates have ignored the stated intention of the enemy, as the destruction of Israel has been explicitly stated as a goal by extremists. Also the economy came up, as Senator Obama recently stated that he planned to raise taxes only on the wealthy then classified the wealthy as anyone making more than $75,000 a year. Mr. Schmidt explained the burden that would put on middle class families and how tax hikes could devistate the economy. As Senator Obama recently made attacks against Senator McCain's economic policies, Mr. Schmidt noted that there is a detachment between the actions of Senator Obama and his rhetoric, as the style of attacks is classic old school politics, as opposed to the change in political discourse that his speeches promise. He pointed out that Senator McCain has the experience and the history of actually following through on real change that goes beyond rhetoric.

The Idea of Obama Versus the Actual Candidate

The problem with the Obama candidacy is that the public doesn’t know much about him. We know he’s an excellent speaker, a charismatic and charming guy; but we don’t know much about him of substance. To his credit his campaign has brilliantly utilized this by featuring change as a theme. The change theme promises something new and different without really having to say what that change is. The question becomes are people going to be satisfied with the promise of change without any real clue to what that change entails.

I have to admit that I’m one of the people that started out simply liking the idea of a President Obama. I love the idea of a non-white and/or non-male president. It promotes the idea that anything is possible and it shows that the country is showing signs of growing up and getting beyond past prejudices. Senator Obama’s message of unity is also very appealing to many of us who are fed up with political divisiveness and bickering. However, there is a lot more to being president than broad concepts. There has been little focus on the who’s, what’s, where’s, why’s, and how’s of change. Understandably some people have been caught up in the grand speeches and broad concepts, but responsible voters need to also consider the policies and experience of a candidate.

The reality is that Senator Obama would have a difficult time being a ‘uniter and not a divider’ because he is so liberal. He’s ranked as the most liberal senator and his positions reflect that. Whether it is health care or taxes, his positions are not ones that engender compromise. In foreign policy, it appears that Democrats have taken to pandering to the far left, and forgotten to listen to the experts. Withdrawal plans put forward have not only been unwise, but functionally impossible. The lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy matters is problematic. The presidency is not for beginners, and while Senator Obama has tremendous promise, earning ones stripes as president is risky at best as it leaves citizen hoping we won’t need another change candidate.

Why Become a Politician?

After the NYT article ran last week a question popped into my mind as it has done several times before; 'Why would anyone in his or her right mind become a politician?' There's been such a degradation in political discourse and journalistic standards that good people may start turning away from politics simply because they don't want to subject themselves to all the nastiness and cheap shots. The two candidates that often appear to take the brunt of this low-ball politics are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

This month Senator McCain has taken it from both sides. The NYT spreads rumors about him; right wing radio pitches a fit about his nomination. Both sources were so wrong and low-ball in their attacks that people are coming to his defense even when they are not on his side politically.

As for Senator Clinton, she seems to be a constant target for juvenile remarks. I don't know any public figure that takes as much flak for petty things like dress, appearance, or tone of voice. I can't imagine anyone has berated Senator McCain for a poor choice of tie like they do to Senator Clinton if they don't like her outfit. Two of the main problems with type of politics are one; we're forgetting that these people are human beings. There is a certain level of decency that all people should be afforded, even politicians. Two, as stated up front, this could easily dissuade good people from getting involved in politics, then the country looses out. I'm all for challenging politicians on issues, and questioning their actions. I'd just like to see it done with more fairness and maturity.

American Extremism

One of the reasons I am an Independent is because I feel the far edges of the two parties are hurting both their party and their country. The recent attacks on Senator McCain by some conservative talk show hosts have illustrated this point. Ann Coulter in particular has made such over the top statements that she shows how absurdity has afflicted the extremes of both parties. Her remark that Senator McCain, “has no honor” is the clearest example of this. Now, I’ll always defend Ms. Coulter’s right to make outrageous remarks, but ‘no honor’? Really? I’m not going to go down the list of reasons why I think Senator McCain deserves be considered an honorable person, because it’s not necessary. To me this just illustrates how some have lost touch with reality. Whether it is the extreme left implying that General Petraeus is a traitor, or the far right having a melt down over the potential McCain nomination, this is not what your party needs and this is not what your country needs.

One of the reasons I think both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have generated excitement and support has nothing to do with policy. Their policies differ dramatically, but the idea that we can have this debate in a civil manner, and actually put loyalty to ones country above loyalty to ones party is truly exciting to many of us who can’t stomach all this nasty partisanship. I have to believe that I am not the only one who lives in a world that isn’t all red or isn't all blue. If we can have this election in a manner that is respectful to people with all different opinions that could be very healing to a country that has been gripped by bitter partisanship as I don’t believe that represents the true character of America.

McCain Blogger Call - Addressing Iraq

Senator McCain conducted a blogger call this morning, which he addressed among other things the situation in Iraq. He discussed visiting the region over Thanksgiving, meeting with General Petraeus, and Lieutenant General Odierno, as well as the troops. He relayed signs of success evident in Anbar province, as well as improvements in Baghdad. He noted that while there is political progress on the ground, and there is some oil sharing occurring, that the political process is slow and difficult. Also, he noted that there is still potential for violence to flair up as Al Qaeda is desperate and on the run.

The other fact he conveyed is that Democrats are still trying to force a withdrawal by withholding funding regarless of the facts on the ground. This seems incredibly irresponsible. I understand the anger that Democrats have with the Bush administration, and I don't blame them for being skeptical about the surge at the begininning of the year, but I don't understand being defeatist in the face of success. This is why people don't trust Washington. Playing politics with taxes, health care, or spending is unfortunate, but playing politics when people's lives, likely thousands of people's lives, hang in the balance is disgusting. Maybe it's ego that keeps the Democrats from admitting that Senator McCain and the Republicans had it right when they pushed for this strategy change, but claiming that the Congress knows best what the troop levels should be in Iraq has already been proven wrong. It stikes me that this is the type of topic that one reads about in the history books. The choices made about Iraq will effect lives in America and around the world for decades if not centuries to come. This is the worst type of issue to play politics with. This isn't about red and blue this is about war and peace. It's time for people to use their brains, to learn their history, and to make wise choices and put politics aside.

---------

Click to View Clips of the Republican YouTube Debate.

John McCain and the Media Part II

It’s interesting how Senator McCain is received in the press. I’ve heard complaints that Senator McCain doesn’t get a fair shake in the press, and complaints that he’s a media darling. Oddly enough, I think both sides have a point. First, the reason Senator McCain has reporters that genuinely like him is simple, he’s incredibly accessible and a likable guy. He answers all questions, from reporters and voters alike. I challenge anyone to name another politician that takes all comers in the manner Senator McCain does. The other day I a was on a blogger call with Senator McCain, and I was sitting on the line thinking, ‘How in the world am I on the phone with Senator McCain?’ He doesn’t just talk to bloggers, he does Meet the Press, he does the John Stewart Show, he does Hardball, along with many more. Hardball and John Stewart illustrate why many members of the media like him so much. Both of those shows are not reflective of the Senator’s views, but he comes on and answers their questions anyway, and he does so gracefully and with humor. The hosts of those two shows have both made statements that they just like the guy, even though they often don’t agree with him. One can argue whether it’s fair that these people like him, but the Senator gives them good cause to do so.

Now the other side of the coin is, does Senator McCain get a fair shake in general media terms? While I don’t think networks sit around thinking up ways to trip up the McCain campaign, I do think he has received the brunt side of biased reporting. The most blatant example of this is Iraq. Unfortunately, Iraq has become one of the most politicized issues in years. This isn’t just done by politicians, but by networks and reporters as well. Senator McCain has made his stance on Iraq clear from the beginning and has taken a beating for it from left leaning news networks. Now that the situation in Iraq is improving he’s not receiving the credit he is due for pushing for a change in strategy and for answering hard questions from reporters that other candidates avoided with platitudes like, ‘There are no good answers in Iraq’.

Now it is somewhat a toss up whether the coverage of the Iraq last spring and summer was due to bias, poor reporting, or both. However, there was little information given about what the surge was and why it was different than the previous strategy. The impression left by news networks was that the surge simply meant additional troops. The change in strategy itself was given little to no coverage, and the surge (along with Senator McCain) was decried as being a foolish and stubborn policy. The perception given by the media was that Senator McCain walked in lock step with President Bush, and it was ignored that Senator McCain pushed for a strategy change years before it was implemented. Now that there are signs of success in Iraq you still don’t see these networks willing to point out progress, instead they say nothing.

Then the question comes up; are the networks pushing a particular candidate, and is this reflected in their reporting? Are they trying to promote a particular party? Does the network itself pick a candidate or are individual reporters responsible for promoting one candidate and not another? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that they are doing a poor job at appearing objective. Mayor Giuliani has a friendship with Roger Ailes the head of Fox News, and while I in no way fault either one for having this friendship, I do wonder if it affects the network’s objectivity. CNN has been dubbed the ‘Clinton News Network’ for a reason, and the over-the-top reporting of Rick Sanchez this week only helped to reinforce that moniker. The large number of opinion shows on cable news makes it difficult to know what is genuine reporting, and what is opinion. The strength of Senator McCain in the media is that he continues to keep answering the hard questions that others avoid, and it wins him respect from a wide range of people. His challenge is that the network’s agenda may not include him, and that he may have to find a way to win despite the fog created by poor and biased reporting.

Cross Posted from http://blogs4mccain.com/2007/11/16/john-mccain-and-the-media-part-ii/

McCain and the Media

I have a bone to pick with the media. I recently wrote an article about the lack of substance in the media titled, “Why Do I Know that Barack Obama Lost His American Flag Lapel Pin?” However, this latest dust up with CNN and Rick Sanchez has highlighted not only the media’s lack of substance, but their poor reporting, their sensationalism, and their bias. Now this is nothing new, but amazingly Mr. Sanchez was able to display all these shortcomings in one segment. Since this has become the most overanalyzed video clip in recent history, I’ll keep it short.

1. Poor Reporting – The clip should have been showed in its entirety, and breaking down phrases and expressions without context is simply poor reporting.
2. Sensationalism – The ‘Is this the end of John McCain’ remark is about as over-the-top as it gets.
3. Lack of Substance – What’s this all about again? Inappropriate laughter? Not scolding a questioner? Not saying loudly enough that he respects Senator Clinton?
4. Bias – I’ve been to several town hall meeting and I guarantee you this is not the first inappropriate question this or any other candidate has heard. Yet I haven’t seen other candidates taken to task when a questioner asks a nasty question about George Bush.

Now I’m less inclined to claim liberal bias, and more inclined to simply claim bias. I think everyone knows which networks slant left and which one slants right, but I’m disappointed in CNN because I used to think they tried to remain neutral. Yet this isn’t their first mistake. They reported Senator McCain would be dropping out of the presidential race last summer, which clearly he didn’t. Their coverage of Iraq is full of commentary and short on reporting. I still like watching Wolf Blitzer on Sundays because I think he’s an even-handed journalist, but I hope CNN will rethink its programming and follow the lead of journalists like Mr. Blitzer, instead of degrading itself for ratings with showmen like Mr. Sanchez.

Cross Posted from http://blogs4mccain.com/2007/11/15/mccain-and-the-media/

Senator McCain Back from Iraq

Decency on Immigration

Reprinted from - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301493_pf.html

Apart from John McCain, it's hard to find that quality in the Republican presidential contest.

Saturday, November 24, 2007; A16

THE SPEAKER was discussing the human face of illegal immigration. "People are continuing dying in the Sonoran desert, and it's just a very sad thing to see," he said. "One 3-year-old baby died, a 16-year-old girl with a rosary in her hand. There's a side of this that grieves me terribly. These are God's children. They're not from another planet, and the whole thing . . . frankly, this whole issue saddens me a great deal."

These statements were moving, but they would not have been especially remarkable except for the fact that the person speaking is a presidential candidate -- a Republican presidential candidate, in fact -- at a time when the campaign has taken a particularly toxic tone when it comes to the issue of immigration. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters the other day, Arizona Sen. John McCain described the toll that he believes his championing of comprehensive immigration reform took on his campaign. "It was the issue of immigration that hurt my campaign," he said. "I have not encountered a domestic issue that has provoked the emotional response that this issue does with a lot of Americans."

Indeed, even as Mr. McCain was speaking, his GOP rivals were busy turning an ugly immigration debate even uglier. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who said in 2005 he thought that the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration approach was "sensible," and former New York mayor

Rudolph W. Giuliani, who as mayor protected illegal immigrants from being reported to immigration authorities when they sought police protection or hospital care, competed to see who could sound toughest.

"As governor, I opposed driver's licenses for illegals, vetoed tuition breaks for illegals and combated sanctuary city policies by authorizing the state police to enforce federal immigration law," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "As president, I will secure the border and reject sanctuary policies by cities, states or the federal government."

The Giuliani campaign shot back, in a statement by communications director Katie Levinson: "On Governor Romney's watch, the number of illegal immigrants in Massachusetts skyrocketed, aid to Massachusetts sanctuary cities went through the roof and Governor Romney even went so far as to hire illegals to work on his lawn." Mr. Romney and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson have also taken shots at former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for allowing the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas to qualify for in-state tuition and academic scholarships if they graduated from high school there. As Mr. Huckabee told Fox News, "the basic concept, and I know this is still an anathema to some people, I don't believe you punish the children for the crime and sins of the parents."

Illegal immigration provokes strong emotions, understandably so. But it would behoove all the candidates to engage in a little less chest-thumping and speak with more of the decency and compassion that Mr. McCain exhibited.