The New York Times gave its endorsements in the presidential primaries last week. They gave their wholehearted support to Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, but felt obligated to proffer up an endorsement for the Republicans, too. But while Hillary got the full wet kiss with tongue, John McCain got the Hollywood air kiss.
Ah, John McCain. Mr. Straight Talk. The American hero looking to collect his due, which was diabolically stolen from him in 2000.
Well, it seems that Mr. Campaign Reform has a few skeletons in his own closet.
First up, let's talk about his proudest legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.
And I'd better write this quickly, because as I understand the provisions of that law, it might be illegal for me to write this shortly after September starts.
I have absolutely no idea how the Supreme Court decided that McCain-Feingold (I'm sorry, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002") withstood Constitutional muster. It's nothing less than a wholesale raping of the First Amendment, spelling out just what people not only can not say, but what they do.
Probably the dumbest aspect is the candidate voiceover at the end of ads it mandates. Here in New Hampshire, I lost count of how many ads I heard that consisted of the candidate addressing the listener directly, and concluding with "I'm Candidate X, and I approved this message." No duh, dummy. I just heard you say it all in your own voice.
Another rankly offensive part of the Act is how it led to the proliferation of so-called "527 groups." These federally-recognized non-profit organizations soaked up pretty much all the money that the bill was supposed to get out of politics, and dumped it right back in. (After taking their cut, of course.) At one point during the 2004 election, I took a look at the 527 groups, and it was rather enlightening. It turned out that the whole part of the law dealing with these groups was, apparently, a way for George Soros to attempt to buy the election.
Thanks, Senator Straight Talk.
But the Act goes far, far beyond that. It restricts ads put out by anyone but a campaign within 60 days of an election. If a group decides that it has a very strong stance on an issue, and finds a candidate that it views as a threat to that position, they better get all they need to say said two full months before the actual election -- and hope the voters remember it on election day.
OK, we can excuse McCain for not fully anticipating the repercussions of his bill. After all, he'd only been in the Senate for 16 years at that point, and it takes time to learn the ropes.
But for someone who's made a key point out of cleaning up politics, McCain has a rather spotty record when it comes to ethics.
He was involved in the Charles Keating Savings And Loan scandal. He didn't get indicted or anything, but was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting a lot of gifts and favors from Keating, and then meeting with federal regulators on Keating's behalf. ("Quid pro quo" is such an ugly term, so we won't use it here.)
More recently, McCain started the "Reform Institute." This group's lofty goals are to clean up politics. Mainly, though, it seems that its main purpose has been to 1) soak up money from George Soros, and 2) keep McCain's campaign staff together and gainfully employed between his various runs for re-election and the presidency.
Oh, and it also kept a former Mexican cabinet official who is a staunch opponent to any sort of border enforcement on staff, until McCain needed a "Hispanic Outreach Coordinator" on his campaign staff.
John McCain's sense of political ethics is almost positively Clintonian. It's no wonder that the New York Times chose to endorse him and Hillary.
It must never be forgotten that John McCain served our nation with the utmost honor in Vietnam. He was the son and grandson of admirals who served with genuine distinction, making the McCain family a truly rare thing: three generations of genuine American heroes.
It's just a shame that his fierce integrity and devotion to principle hasn't extended to his own political conduct.
Ed Morrissey, the exceptional man behind Captain's Quarters Blog, provided truly remarkable information on John McCain -- see here. Michelle Malkin has also done yeoman's work on McCain, building on Morrissey's work here and here.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (12)
Yeah so lets nominate Mitt ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Michael | January 27, 2008 12:34 PM | Score: -14 (18 votes cast)
Yeah so lets nominate Mitt and elect Hillary...conservatives are so smart
with their non-pragmatic approach to politics and are country's future.
Me thinks that all these "pure" conservatives are not so pure in their own lives.
1. Posted by Michael | January 27, 2008 12:34 PM |
Score: -14 (18 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 12:34
2. Posted by NH_GOP | January 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
The citizens of NH were tricked into voting for McCain because they thought he was 'anti-war'. How could Mr. "Let's bomb Iran" be anti-war? I guess it's because all the liberal papers endorsed him. The liberal papers knew what they were doing - it looks like McCain is more dangerous to the country than Hillary.
Some interesting comments taken from other blogs that just about sum up how I feel about this traitor.
McCain's appointment of Dr. Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic Outreach Director puts a end to any possibility I will ever believe anything that comes out of McCain's mouth.
McCain said he now 'get's it' about securing the border and curbing illegal immigration yet he appoints to his staff a man who has made statements such as:
"I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico first."
And:
"We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people."
He has also stated that he considers California to be part of Mexico.
I will not vote for nor promote a man for President that will not stand up for our national sovereignty.
I guess John will have to go back to calling us who want secure borders "chicken shit racist, bigots, and xenophobes" that should win him lots of votes.
And an example of why McCain is the worst of the establishment:
Here's a shining example of John McCain's "integrity " and "dedication to public service":
Q: Which politician directly intervened to get the Arizona government to approve a $600 Million stadium for the Arizona Cardinals in Glendale, Arizona in 2003?
A: John McCain
Q: Which company was awarded the exclusive rights to serve alcohol at that stadium through 2010 - with a rubber-stamp extension through 2018?
A: Anheuser-Busch
Q: Which company has the Anheuser-Busch distribution rights for the Phoenix area?
A: The Hensley Company
Q: Who is Chairman of the Board of The Hensley Company?
A: Cindy Hensley McCain - his wife.
Q: Which Hensley Company executive was given a $48 Million bonus in 2003?
A: Cindy Hensley McCain.
*THAT* is the "Straight-Talk Express"
Don't be fooled. McCain is just another corporate-whoring panderer, liar and sodomizer of the people and laws of the United States. When McCain talks of "change in Washington," he's talking about changing the name (to his) on the kickback checks.
I suspect that those of the words of Americans who've actually done their homework.
2. Posted by NH_GOP | January 27, 2008 2:08 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 14:08
3. Posted by jackalope | January 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
I would like to remind everyone that McCain Feingold was a giant conspiracy of Leftist organizations to dominate political discourse. See John Fund on the matter:
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006449
3. Posted by jackalope | January 27, 2008 3:15 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 15:15
4. Posted by Steve | January 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I know it's hyperbole to say if the "maverick" wins the White House he will destroy the GOP, but why would any conservative want to donate anymore to them when this man embraces that smarmy Juan Hernandez, buddies up with Splash Kennedy and has as his lead lapdog Lindsey Graham?
4. Posted by Steve | January 27, 2008 3:46 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 15:46
5. Posted by marc | January 27, 2008 4:04 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
NH_GOP - "The citizens of NH were tricked into voting for McCain because they thought he was 'anti-war'."
I'll concede most of your post but have to ask how was the above done? How were they tricked, do you have links to his NH speeches or other statements that make that case?
5. Posted by marc | January 27, 2008 4:04 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 16:04
6. Posted by epador | January 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Playing at Diogenes, eh?
They're all crooks. Or crocks. Or both.
6. Posted by epador | January 27, 2008 4:09 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 16:09
7. Posted by Jim Addison | January 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The Senate Ethics Committee did NOT "rebuke" McCain in any official sense. From their final report:
and
Some "rebuke" that is, eh? The harshest phrase is "exercised poor judgment," but it is swiftly followed with "not improper" and "did not reach the level of requiring institutional action" and "violated no law or . . . rule" and "no further action is warranted."
If my Dominatrix tried to "rebuke" me like that, I'd demand a refund.
;-)
7. Posted by Jim Addison | January 27, 2008 4:59 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 16:59
8. Posted by LaMedusa | January 27, 2008 5:58 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Even with all his skeletons in the closet, Jay, I would still vote for McCain over the HillaryBillys any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Best case scenario for me would've been a Guliani/Thompson ticket, but with the hand that we're dealt, McCain seems to be the "lesser of two".
Echoing marc's question, I don't ever remember McCain tricking anybody with an anti-war stance. His only current oddity that I see right now is his commitment to fighting Global warming, unless he wants a cut of algore's profits.
8. Posted by LaMedusa | January 27, 2008 5:58 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 17:58
9. Posted by JFO | January 27, 2008 8:53 PM | Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Jay
I repeat in its entirety my comment on your Faux Libertarian 1st diatribe, err post, on this issue. Except, of course, changing the name from Clinton to McCain. I shall not vote for Hillary if she runs against McCain but will cast my vote for him.
Jay, it would be a no lose deal for me watching you turn your alleged Libertarian self inside out and watching the rest of the righties heads will explode. Oh what a delicious time it will be.
As for their competencies - both are fully capable of being an extraordinarily good president without even putting either one up against the current goofball residing in the White House.
And Addison, I am Jesuit educated and have no doubt the vast majority of Jesuits would agree with my views.
9. Posted by JFO | January 27, 2008 8:53 PM |
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 20:53
10. Posted by marc | January 27, 2008 10:02 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
JFO - "And Addison, I am Jesuit educated and have no doubt the vast majority of Jesuits would agree with my views."
And you know this how? Did you hire a polling company to do the research for you?
Or did you personally phone each one of the millions residing in the USA?
10. Posted by marc | January 27, 2008 10:02 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 22:02
11. Posted by Jay Tea | January 27, 2008 11:36 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Gee, JFO repeats much of his same old bullshit, and tosses in a bit of "hey, look at me, I'm smart!" in his best Fredo Corleone fashion.
Thanks for confirming your utter worthlessness, JFO. I was beginning to think I might have judged you a bit too harshly.
I have this fantasy that some day, you will actually say something relevant and not use every posting as an excuse to mock the authors.
Fortunately, I recognize it as a "fantasy" -- I know that civil discussion is something you're simply not capable of.
Someday, it might just piss me off enough to do something. Tonight, I'm just gonna go back to bed.
J.
11. Posted by Jay Tea | January 27, 2008 11:36 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2008 23:36
12. Posted by Oyster | January 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Some "rebuke" that is, eh? The harshest phrase is "exercised poor judgment," but it is swiftly followed with "not improper" and "did not reach the level of requiring institutional action" and "violated no law or . . . rule" and "no further action is warranted.""
Jim, he was just "sloppy".
12. Posted by Oyster | January 28, 2008 10:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 28, 2008 10:32