Who is John McCain? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 04-09-2006, 05:07 PM

My first choice in the 2000 presidential election was John McCain. He chose to take on the evangelical leadership and his campaign was over when he did so.

My impression of McCain has always been that he is a "straight shooter", he says what he means. He has crafted several compromise positions with the opposition that convinced me that he is a true conservative moderate. He has had my vote for 2008, until now.

If you are not familiar with Helen Thomas, you can find more about her with a google or wiki search. I know that she is left leaning and she also has longevity among the press corp. In the following article, she has made some critical comments about McCain in that she views him moving distinctly right of his former moderate position.

Obviously he is positioning himself for a 2008 presidential run, but I have to now wonder if he is genuine or not. There have been many comments about McCain within the politics forum. Does Thomas's beliefs change your view of him, or is she simply "stirring the pot" to lessen his chances?

Link

Quote:

Want more Bush? Elect McCain
By Helen Thomas
Hearst Newspapers

Sunday 09 April 2006

Washington - In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain is moving to the right.

The Arizona Republican, who failed to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, is the most visible Republican on television, outside the White House, and seems to never pass up an opportunity to appear on Sunday talk shows.

All this appears to be part of his effort to transform his image as a maverick independent so that he can make his pitch to the conservative Republican base that will vote in the party's primaries and caucuses two years hence.

McCain's focus is on Southern states where he will have to show his dedication to the conservatives who dominate the GOP. He was scheduled to be the main speaker at the Lincoln Day dinner in Lakeland, Fla., on Saturday. Later this spring, he will deliver the commencement address at Liberty University at Lynchburg, Va., the school founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell.

Falwell has indicated there are still some bridges to mend with McCain, who had called Falwell "an agent of intolerance" in his first bid for the presidency in 2000.

Although Falwell has not endorsed McCain, he has said that the senator "could be the GOP's best hope" if Sen. Hillary Clinton is nominated to head the Democratic ticket in 2008.

Falwell also says McCain is in the process of "healing the breach with evangelical groups."

Asked to explain his change of attitude toward the evangelist on "Meet the Press" Sunday, McCain said: "I believe that the Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason (that) is so is because they're so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be part of our party."

McCain also has gone out of his way to cozy up to President Bush after their bitter rift in the 2000 presidential campaign. McCain has said he does not look back in anger at old political battles. That's wise - he's going to need Bush's backing in a presidential bid.

McCain also has taken other stands that should put him in good with Southern conservatives. Hailing from a military family - his father and grandfather were admirals in the Navy - he is a strong supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and believes the number of US troops there should be beefed up.

He is against abortion rights and gun-control laws and believes students should be taught the religion-oriented "intelligent design" theory of creation as well as the theory of scientific evolution.

His painful experience as a POW during the Vietnam War led him to buck the White House on the question of using torture to interrogate detainees and prisoners of war. Despite White House opposition, he triumphed with a 90-9 Senate vote on his anti-torture amendment to the defense appropriations bill.

Well, almost.

In signing the bill, the president issued a statement that under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, he did not have to abide by the anti-torture amendment. This is a dubious claim of presidential power that should be challenged.

McCain's political record is not entirely pristine. He was a member of the so-called Keating Five - five senators linked to Charles Keating in the savings and loan scandals in 1991. But a special investigator found that McCain had not been substantially involved in influence peddling but criticized him and three others for "questionable conduct."

That searing experience may explain why McCain has been an avid advocate of campaign finance reform.

With his "hail fellow well met" persona and tendency to jaw with the media and pundits in the back of the campaign bus, he has created the impression in some quarters that he is a "moderate."

Forget it. His voting record speaks for itself.

McCain is working hard to prove his staunch conservative credentials as he woos the far right in his party.

If he wins the presidency, the country can expect a continuation of Bush's aggressive foreign policy and ultra-right domestic programs.

Ustwo · 04-09-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

My first choice in the 2000 presidential election was John McCain. He chose to take on the evangelical leadership and his campaign was over when he did so.

My impression of McCain has always been that he is a "straight shooter", he says what he means. He has crafted several compromise positions with the opposition that convinced me that he is a true conservative moderate. He has had my vote for 2008, until now.

If you are not familiar with Helen Thomas, you can find more about her with a google or wiki search. I know that she is left leaning and she also has longevity among the press corp. In the following article, she has made some critical comments about McCain in that she views him moving distinctly right of his former moderate position.

Obviously he is positioning himself for a 2008 presidential run, but I have to now wonder if he is genuine or not. There have been many comments about McCain within the politics forum. Does Thomas's beliefs change your view of him, or is she simply "stirring the pot" to lessen his chances?

Link

Helene Thomas is not left leaning, she is totally left. She could write for the front page of Truthout. Taking her word on anything political is looking to be missled.

I'm not a McCain fan, but the fact that the great Helene Thomas doesn't like him, means there might be hope for him afterall.

Edit: I didn't even check the link, I should have known better. Come now.

Toaster126 · 04-09-2006, 05:26 PM

Due to the nature of the political climate in the US, I think you have to polarize yourself to get elected. He's just doing it.

That said, I will vote for McCain on any ticket he runs on, and I'll be happy I won't be selecting which Menendez brother I like best.

djtestudo · 04-09-2006, 05:46 PM

It is definately a shame that we as a people are so willing to divide ourselves that people won't vote for someone in the middle because he is either not extreme enough, or not a member of one's party.

Topper · 04-09-2006, 05:56 PM

I don't think there's an issue with him reaching out to the evangelical republican base. But are there actual indications that he himself may be changing his own political position to better fit a presidential run? I've always had more respect for McCain then typical politicians for some reason. Perhaps because he has always seemed to be a straight-shooter as Elphaba said.

And I agree also that Helen is hardcore to the left. Felt bad that Bush blew her off in one of the few (if not only) times he took a question from her during a press conference recently. She's like the dinosaur of the white house press corps and I respect the time she's put there.

And yes djtestudo, it is a shame.

irateplatypus · 04-09-2006, 07:01 PM

if you've ever watched a live white house press conference it's plain to see that Helen Thomas has, literally, lost her mind.

/regrets attacking the source

politicophile · 04-09-2006, 07:45 PM

Elphaba, I don't really understand why that article made you change your opinions about McCain. Playing to the evangelicals is a clearly strategic move, as McCain was very clear in 2000 that he was not a fan. I haven't the faintest idea why Thomas wants to hurt McCain's primary chances, but this article surely isn't the way to do it, as the only piece of dirt she was able to dig up was the Keating Five allegation, which was never proven. I see no substantive reason to oppose McCain this time around and I will be supporting him against Allen in the primary.

Elphaba · 04-09-2006, 08:30 PM

Politico, you and I have shared the opinion that McCain was (2000) and is (2008) the best Republican candidate for the presidency. My concern is that the evangelical conservative leadership is now being wooed by McCain. I causes me to doubt his independence from extremism.

Elphaba · 04-09-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Edit: I didn't even check the link, I should have known better. Come now.

Ustwo, how many times will you continue to play this little game? Truthout hosted an article from the Hearst Newspapers. That Hearst is the source of this article is clearly shown in the OP. I thought I would no longer have to quote the link as "Yes, another Truthout Article" for your benefit.

"Come now." Walking right up to the line of the rules of politics, and then pissing over the line is beneath you, or so I would hope.

ubertuber · 04-09-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Helene Thomas is not left leaning, she is totally left. She could write for the front page of Truthout. Taking her word on anything political is looking to be missled.

I'm not a McCain fan, but the fact that the great Helene Thomas doesn't like him, means there might be hope for him afterall.

Edit: I didn't even check the link, I should have known better. Come now.

Ustwo,

You should have checked the link - or at least written a reply that indicated that you were at least PRETENDING to be responding to the content of the original post. Then your comments would seem to be more topical, and they would be more welcome.

1) This article is merely hosted by truthout.org.
2) Even if it was a truthout.org editorial, this thread would be about the content of the article. Go start your own thread if you want to talk about truthout.org's shortcomings.

FYI: original article

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-09-2006, 09:09 PM

Ofcourse Mccain is playing to the conservative base, they compromise over 20 million votes.

ubertuber · 04-09-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Ofcourse Mccain is playing to the conservative base, they compromise over 20 million votes.

Yup - I don't see any other way to get through the primaries. The real question is what will happen in the general election...

host · 04-09-2006, 09:29 PM

I want to contrast the efforts of earlier posters to voice their opposition to veteran and well respected White House correspondent, and now political columnist, Helen Thomas, with the methods I use to argue in opposition to political support for a John McCain presidential bid.

The comments posted against Helen Thomas simply insinuated that it is obvious that Ms.Thomas lacks integrity or the ability to report factually or reliably.

Notice that no evidence is posted to back their claims about Ms. Thomas.
I would not expect anyone to simply "take on faith", comments that I make in regard to the integrity, trustworthiness, amd suitability of John McCain. In contrast to the undocumented "shots" levied here against Helen Thomas, I offer some research to back my contention that John McCain lacks integrity to the point that I could never back him as a candidate for elected office.

It is not possible for me to know McCain personally. I am limited to observing reports of McCain's consistancy and his ethical standards. All I can know "is what I read in the papers", preferrably as close to the source as possible. In the case of McCain, his family, and his "new hire", Terry Nelson, reports from Arizona, New Hampshire, and Texas seem appropriate.

My previous documentation concerning McCain was posted recently, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...in#post1999605

I offer more documentation in opposition to a McCain canidacy.....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/19...ugs/index.html
How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Silverman

Oct. 18, 1999 | PHOENIX -- GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.

It was also vintage <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/12/salter/index.html">McCain media manipulation.</a>
I had déjà vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.

I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:

"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."

What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.

I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.

But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.

Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.

It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.

But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/arizona/index.html">vintage John McCain</a>. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.

McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.

Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.

This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.

. Next page | <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/index1.html">"I am working for a very sad, lonely woman"</a>

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA
Once-foe McCain makes a friend of Bush dynasty
Posted 4/9/2006 10:27 PM
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

........But McCain is dead serious about making sure that if and when he runs for the GOP nomination, this time he'll win. He's lining up some of the people responsible for Bush's success — among them Terry Nelson, who ran Bush's massive turnout organization in 2004; longtime Bush family fundraiser Tom Loeffler of Texas; and at least a dozen South Carolina activists and officials who were in the Bush camp and want to "get involved with McCain early," says McCain adviser Richard Quinn.........

Quote:

http://webarchive.unionleader.com/ar...?article=62039
Granite Status - October 20, 2005

Granite Status: Keough says Ray must go over staffer controversy
By JOHN DiSTASO
Senior Political Reporter

......TOBIN'S BOSS

Last week, we reported former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two Indian tribe clients of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff each gave $5,000 checks to the state Republican Party just a few days before the GOP's illegal Election Day 2002 phone-jamming operation, which happened to cost $15,600.

Chuck McGee, the now-jailed former state party executive director, has told the federal court he detailed the plan to now-indicted James Tobin, and that Tobin put McGee in touch with a Republican consultant to set it up. Tobin has pleaded innocent to all federal charges against him.

Republicans say the plan went no higher than McGee. Democrats believe national higher-ups may have known about it in advance.

Only those involved know for sure. But just for the heck of it, we note that the record shows Tobin's boss in 2002 was one Terry Nelson.

The New York Times reports Nelson was recently identified in the DeLay indictment as the recipient of a $190,000 check in illegal corporate campaign contributions and a list of Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature for whom the money was intended. .......

Quote:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-65395f7767fc

Granite Status: Meridian to guide Coburn race for governor

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Thursday, Mar. 23, 2006

.......CALLING KEN?

In the days before and after the state Republican Party’s 2002 Election Day phone-jamming scheme, the man who now chairs the Republican National Committee was the White House director of political affairs.

And a Democratic-affiliated advocacy group says that court records show Ken Mehlman’s office received more than 75 telephone calls from now-convicted phone-jam conspirator James Tobin from Sept. 30 to Nov. 22 of that year.

The Senate Majority Project, a brainchild “527” of former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, wonders why Tobin called the White House so often. Tobin at the time worked for the Republican National Committee and the affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee — and a hot race that year was the New Hampshire Senate contest between Republican John Sununu and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

On election morning, a telemarketer hired by the state GOP jammed the telephones of five state Democratic and one firefighters union get-out-the-vote phone banks.

Former state GOP executive director Chuck McGee admitted masterminding the scheme and served seven months in jail last year for it. Tobin was found guilty in December of federal telephone harassment charges for acting as a middle man. An appeal is expected if the trial court in Concord turns down his request for a new trial.

“All we have is the phone number and the fact that calls were made to the White House,” says SMP executive director Mike Gehrke, a former high-level Clinton administration staffer. “But we also know from the court record that a lot of other calls about the scheme were going on. For a period of time, this was the hot topic.

“With that many calls, I believe it’s inconceivable that there wasn’t some knowledge of this at the White House,” Gehrke said. “At the very least, it is evidence that there needs to be a bigger net cast here before the end of this case.”

Meanwhile, John McCain has hired Tobin’s old boss at the RNC, Terry Nelson, as an adviser to his Straight Talk America PAC.

Nelson was identified in the Tom DeLay indictment as the recipient of a $190,000 check in illegal corporate campaign contributions and a list of Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature for whom the money was intended.

In 2002, Nelson was Republican National Committee national political director while Tobin was both RNC New England political director and Northeast political director of the GOP senatorial committee.

Nelson and Tobin then moved to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign — Nelson as campaign political director and Tobin as New England chairman.

Dismissing the notion that Nelson had anything to do with phone-jamming, New Hampshire McCain strategist Michael Dennehy said of Nelson, “We’re happy to have him.”........

Quote:

http://www.talkcheck.com/johncarlson...ffersdirtypast
<div class="title" id="CONTENT_COPY_TITLE">
McCain Denies Knowledge of Staffer's Dirty Past
</div>
 
<div class="text" id="CONTENT_COPY_TEXT">
Josh Marshall's new website had an <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000137.php">interesting piece</a> earlier this week that pointed out how that maverick reformer John McCain had recently hired a rather dirty Republican operative. And as luck would have it, Senator McCain swung into Seattle today to promote the futile campaign of the Republican candidate for the Washington State senate race. Somewhere in between fundraisers the campaign finance reformer found time to stop by and help a local right-wing radio host with a different effort: the <a href="http://www.talkcheck.com/johncarlson/2006/02/14/johncarlsonchangestuneonmccain">campaign</a> to sell McCain to the local Republican base.

 
One clever caller decided to take advantage of McCain's appearance to try and get some "straight talk" on the senator's recent hire:
 
<blockquote>
CALLER: Thanks, I had a question for the senator. For a reformer, I'm kind of curious why he would hire a guy like Terry Nelson as a senior advisor.
 
Here's a guy who was actually in the indictment of Delay on his money laundering charges. When he was at the RNC, he agreed to take the corporate contributions from Delay's PAC and then recycle them back into the Republican congressional races.
 
And he was also, this guy Nelson was also the supervisor for James Tobin, who was the guy convicted last year for helping jam the Democratic get-out-the-vote phone lines in New England a couple years ago.
 
So I'm curious why would you hire someone with such a shady background?
 
MCCAIN: None of those charges are true.
 
CALLER: Do you believe what was actually written in the indictment from Texas?
 
MCCAIN: No.

 
CARLSON: All right.
 
[nervous laughter]
 
MCCAIN: I will check it out. But I've never heard of such a thing. I know that he was a grassroots organizer for President Bush year 2000 and 2004, and had a very important job in the Bush campaign as late as 2004, but the other charges I will go and look and see if any of them are true, but I've never heard of them before.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mccain20060321.mp3">Audio</a>
 
Isn't it amazing how a few blogs can know more about McCain's senior advisor than McCain himself? I'll leave a few references that should speed up the good senator's "research", courtesy of <a href="www.talkingpointsmemo.com">TPM Media</a>:
<ul><li>The Delay indictment that lays out Nelson's role in money laundering is available <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/delay-reindictment/?resultpage=3&">here</a></li>
<li>The witness list that shows Nelson's connection to the phone jamming scam is available <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/tobin-witness-list/?resultpage=2&">here</a></li>

</ul>
</div>
</div>

John McCain promised to "go and look and see if any of them are true" in regard to accusations levied against his hiring of campaign advisor, Terry Nelson. MCCain has not followed through by commenting further about his hiring of Nelson.

Quote:

http://webarchive.unionleader.com/ar...?article=59053
News - August 13, 2005

RNC has paid Tobin's legal bills since indictment
By JOHN DiSTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Bellwether Credit Union

CONCORD — The Republican National Committee began making huge payments to accused 2002 telephone jam conspirator James Tobin's private lawyers a week after he was indicted by a federal grand jury, records show.

According to RNC financial disclosures, it paid the high-powered Washington law firm Williams and Connolly $162,646 on Dec. 9, 2004, eight days after a grand jury charged that Tobin had aided former state GOP executive director Charles McGee in setting up an operation to jam voter-turnout telephone banks at Democratic and labor union offices throughout the state.

Five more disbursements were made on May 19, 2005, the same day a new indictment against Tobin was made public. Those five disbursements added up to $559,736, for a total of $722,382.

The Telegraph of Nashua reported yesterday that the RNC made another payment, of $164,260, to Williams and Connolly on June 15, although this could not be independently verified in a New Hampshire Union Leader review of monthly RNC financial disclosure reports.

If there was a seventh payment, the total expenditure by the RNC to Williams and Connolly since Tobin was indicted would be $886,632.

After refusing for nearly a month to comment on its arrangement with Tobin, the RNC confirmed on Wednesday that it has been paying for Tobin's lawyers.

Williams and Connolly, which in the past represented Bill and Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, has had at least three attorneys working on the Tobin case. Most of the paperwork on Tobin's behalf at U.S. District Court carries the names Dane H. Butswinkas, Dennis M. Black and Tobin J. Romero.

Tobin also has local counsel, Brian Tucker of Rath, Young and Pignatelli of Concord. Thomas Rath, a member of the RNC, has declined to comment on the arrangement, but several attorneys not involved in the Tobin case said this week that when a New Hampshire firm works as local counsel with a Washington firm, the Washington firm makes payment to the local firm.

Tobin has pleaded innocent to four conspiracy charges, including a charge that he conspired to deprive Granite Staters of their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. His trial is scheduled for December.

Tobin allegedly committed the federal offenses while working as a regional political director for the RNC-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which was working to get Republicans elected to the Senate. A key 2002 Senate race on which Tobin focused was John E. Sununu's victorious campaign against Democratic former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen...........

......Yesterday, a high-ranking Republican source insisted that the leadership of the New Hampshire Republican Party was taken by surprise by the RNC's confirmation that it has been subsidizing Tobin. The leadership was described by the source as the congressional delegation — Sununu, Sen. Judd Gregg and Reps. Charles Bass and Jeb Bradley — as well as local RNC members Rath and Nancy Merrill and party chairman Warren Henderson.

The source said efforts were being made yesterday by unspecified members of that leadership group to obtain more details from the RNC about the decision to foot Tobin's legal expenses. Tobin is a former employee of the RNC and is currently employed by DCI Group, a lobbying firm also based in Washington.

The RNC, meanwhile, put a lid on information about Tobin. The Union Leader yesterday asked Danny Diaz, the RNC's deputy communications director:

* When Tobin joined the RNC, when he left and what positions he held.

* At what point did Williams and Connolly begin representing Tobin

* Who approved paying for Tobin's legal expenses, and when

* Who signed off on individual disbursements made to Williams and Connolly.

Diaz said that while he would "look into" those questions, he would have no comment beyond those made by another RNC spokesman earlier this week.

Tracey Schmitt, confirming the subsidy, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Tobin is a "longtime friend who has served both as an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," and, "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing.".....

Quote:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...b-711a864a079e
Fourth man charged in phone-jamming scheme

By HOLLY RAMER
The Associated Press
Monday, Mar. 27, 2006

Concord – The former co-owner of a telemarketing firm yesterday pleaded not guilty to participating in a Republican scheme to jam Democrats' get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day 2002.

Shaun Hansen, 34, of Spokane, Wash., was indicted by a federal grand jury on March 8, but the charges were not made public until his arraignment yesterday.

Hansen is charged with conspiring to commit and aiding the commission of telephone harassment. Prosecutors say he was paid $2,500 to have employees at Idaho-based Mylo Enterprises place hundreds of hang-up calls to phone lines installed to help voters get rides to the polls on Nov. 5, 2002. Among the contests decided that day was the close U.S. Senate race in which Republican Rep. John Sununu beat outgoing Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen.

Three others have been convicted for their roles in the scheme.

Former state Republican Executive Director Chuck McGee pleaded guilty to devising the idea of jamming the lines and served seven months in prison. Allen Raymond, former president of Virginia-based GOP Marketplace LLC, pleaded guilty to executing the plan and is serving a three-month sentence.

James Tobin, who had served as New England chairman of President Bush's reelection campaign, was convicted in December of telephone harassment charges and faces up to five years in federal prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced in May..........

Elphaba, why would John McCain, hire, and then, even after he was alerted by a caller on John Carlson's radio show, more than two weeks ago, (if in fact, McCain di not know about Terry Nelson's background, beforehand) keep Terry Nelson, a man connected with the "stench" of two "Ops", that will end up costing the RNC, Tom Delay, and James Tobin, very dearly, in dollars and in prison sentences served. Shouldn't McCain be distancing himself from scandals like Tom Delay's money laundering indictment, and the New Hapshire/RNC "phone gate" scandal. These reports, over a twenty year span of time, indicate to me that McCain is either too ethically challenged, too stupid...or both...to be supported as a candidate for any elected office.

Paq · 04-09-2006, 09:53 PM

honestly, i liked mccain in 2000, i liked what he said, how he said neither party should cater to its extremists......then eh turns around and hires bush's political campaign people and goes to speak at Liberty University in lynchburg and just seems to ..well, have flipped a bit...couple that with the Obama incident (not sure whose fault that was, but mccain's way of dealing with it just wasn't kosher) and i can't really support him anymore. I respect what he's done, don't get me wrong, and i wish more people would adopt his old 'say what you mean" attitude, but lately, he's just going mainstream political which will kill him with the moderates IF he passes through the primaries...

Then again, i don't expect him to make it past primaries, honestly. We've seen how well senators do in presidential races....

trickyy · 04-09-2006, 10:30 PM

i'll admit i'm surprised he is even mentioning intelligent design.
and i'm not a big fan of his complacency for most of the crap that's come to pass over the last 4 or 5 years...he picks and chooses his maverick moments.

still i don't see too many worthy opponents. there are a few out there, but it's probably going to come down to the primaries. i can't say i put a lot of faith in the early primary states for selecting worthy candidates from either party, but we'll see.

Paq · 04-09-2006, 10:44 PM

trickyy brought up the other thing that has started to irk me about mccain...He does seem really complacent about many things, is buddying up to bush hardcore, and really does hand pick his chances for being nicknamed a maverick...

I still dont' see him being a big part of the 2008 elections/post primary

Ustwo · 04-09-2006, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ustwo,

You should have checked the link - or at least written a reply that indicated that you were at least PRETENDING to be responding to the content of the original post.

I don't need to check the link to answer the question, it was only after that I saw it was another truthout link, which is saddly typical.

Helene Thomas's opinion on anything has no bearing on how I view anything, which is what the question was

The source is so questionable that the article itself can not be trusted beyond the paper..ummm...electronic media its stored on.

As I've stated many times asking a leading question using biased material makes for a poor discussion.

host · 04-09-2006, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't need to check the link to answer the question, it was only after that I saw it was another truthout link, which is saddly typical.

Helene Thomas's opinion on anything has no bearing on how I view anything, which is what the question was

The source is so questionable that the article itself can not be trusted beyond the paper..ummm...electronic media its stored on.

As I've stated many times asking a leading question using biased material makes for a poor discussion.

I am sorry, Elphaba, but I will continue to raise objections to the repetitive, unsubstantiated comments of the poster quoted above.

This is my second request to address the oft repeated "technique" of attempting to smear a source, out of hand, with nothing added to support the accusations.

The effort that has gone into commenting about the link (truthout.org), about the author of the OP piece (it's "HELEN" Thomas, NOT "HELENE"), and even the mispelling of the name, in lieu of actually responding to the issues in the OP, or to any other issues raised in subsequent posts, speaks for itself.

The issue of the integrity and reputation of "Helen" Thomas, is discussed/debated on a link at the top of the actual page, here:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helen Thomas (born August 4, 1920) is a news service reporter and a member of the White House press corps. She was White House Bureau Chief for United Press International (UPI), where she was employed for 57 years until resigning in May 17, 2000 when UPI was acquired by News World Communications. News World owns The Washington Times; Thomas stated she resigned because of News World's ties to Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Thomas then became a White House correspondent and King Features Syndicate (Hearst Corporation) columnist.

Thomas has covered every President since John F. Kennedy. Born in Winchester, Kentucky, Helen was raised in Detroit, Michigan where she attended public schools and later graduated from Wayne State University. Upon leaving college, she served as a copy girl on the now-defunct Washington Daily News.

After joining UPI in 1943, Thomas wrote radio news and later covered Federal government news; her beats included the FBI and Capitol Hill.

In November, 1960, Helen began covering then President-elect John F. Kennedy, following him to the White House in January, 1961 as a UPI correspondent. During this assignment, Thomas became known for closing presidential press conferences with the tagline "Thank you, Mr. President."

Thomas was the only woman print journalist to travel with then-President Richard M. Nixon to China during his breakthrough trip in January, 1972. She has traveled around the world several times with Presidents Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, and has covered every Economic Summit. In November 1976, she was named one of the "25 Most Influential Women in America" by the World Almanac.

Helen Thomas has written three books, including her latest, Thanks for the Memories Mr. President: Wit and Wisdom from the Front Row at the White House.

Beginning in 2003, Thomas has been moved to the back row during press conferences, although she still sits in the front row during press briefings. She is rarely called upon in press conferences, and no longer ends Presidential news conferences by saying "Thank you, Mr. President." Asked why she is now seated in the back row, she said, "Because they don't like me...I ask too mean questions." [1] On March 21, 2006, during a White House press conference, Thomas was called upon directly by President Bush for the first time in three years, leading to a spirited exchange between Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bush.[2]

In July 2005 Thomas was quoted in the newspaper The Hill [3] saying "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar." Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does." Several days later, Thomas expressed outrage at The Hill for publishing her comments. [4]

In a November 2002 talk at MIT, Thomas revealed: "I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Two months later, the answer to that question revealed itself in an off-the-record comment to a reporter from the Torrance, California Daily Breeze following the Society of Professional Journalists annual awards banquet. "This is the worst President ever. He is the worst President in all of American history." The Breeze ran the quote. Around the third week of March 2006, she was discussed a lot in the news after asking the president about the reason for the War in Iraq.

She was inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame in 1986.

Now....can those who want to debate about American politcal journalist emeritus, Helen Thomas, do it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helen_Thomas">there</a>, and NOT here?

politicophile · 04-10-2006, 08:30 AM

The connection between Tobin and McCain seems to be both speculative and remote. McCain hired Tobin's former boss (who has not been convicted of wrong-doing) and that's as far as the rabbit hole goes, right? I suppose one could adopt a guilty until proven innocent posture with regards to campaign workers, but why treat them differently than ordinary citizens? Is it just to fire someone because they are suspected of wrong-doing? Firing convicted criminals like Tobin is entirely justified, but why should McCain purge those who have not been convicted?

On a personal note, I know Jim Tobin well: he came to my family's New Year's Eve party in 2005. While I do not dispute the fact that Tobin received due process, there is a part of me that finds it hard to believe an honest man like Tobin would continue to profess his innocence to his closest friends when he was in fact guilty.

kutulu · 04-10-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

He is against abortion rights and gun-control laws and believes students should be taught the religion-oriented "intelligent design" theory of creation as well as the theory of scientific evolution.

That's all I needed to see. Not that I'd really see myself voting R next time but McCain would have been a possibility. I can't take anyone seriously if they support that shit.

host · 04-10-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The connection between Tobin and McCain seems to be both speculative and remote. McCain hired Tobin's former boss (who has not been convicted of wrong-doing) and that's as far as the rabbit hole goes, right? I suppose one could adopt a guilty until proven innocent posture with regards to campaign workers, but why treat them differently than ordinary citizens? Is it just to fire someone because they are suspected of wrong-doing? Firing convicted criminals like Tobin is entirely justified, but why should McCain purge those who have not been convicted?

On a personal note, I know Jim Tobin well: he came to my family's New Year's Eve party in 2005. While I do not dispute the fact that Tobin received due process, there is a part of me that finds it hard to believe an honest man like Tobin would continue to profess his innocence to his closest friends when he was in fact guilty.

politicophile, I am fascinated by your close proximity to James Tobin. I have no idea if this gives you more or less insight into this situation...it probably makes it more puzzling for you and for your family.

I believe that you are in a position to accurately answer the question of where James Tobin could have received a fairer trial, before a more potentially sympathetic court or jury, than he must have received in conservative, caucasian, New Hampshire.

I can't disagree with much in your post. I'll reemphasize my main point....why would McCain want to risk immersing himself into two scandals related to RNC campaign related criminal activity...Tobin/phone gate, and alleged criminal activity, Delay/Terry Nelson $190,000 money laundering.

What is so imporant about Tobin/phone gate for the RNC to justify the expense of "picking up" the legal defense fees, in a losing effort, and what is the signifigance that Terry Nelson was James Tobin's "boss" at the time that the proven crimes took place?

I would not post anything about McCain's decision to hire Terry Nelson, to defend him live on the radio, to feign ignorance or to actually be ignorant of Terry Nelson's "background", or to fail to "get back to us" about his reaction to having Nelson as a key campaing advisor, now that he has been informed about Nelson's contoversial relationships and activities, publicly...on air....if...there was not the additional problem...for Nelson...and now for McCain...,that Nelson is at the core, according to the Texas indictment of Delay...of RNC complicity in actually laundering the $190,000 in question, and then distributing the laundered corporate sourced campaign contributions to Texas state office candidates.

What does all of this combined, say.....about a "candidate", McCain...who did not have to hire Terry Nelson, but...now that he has....is stuck with him.....attached to Nelson's "stench"...and by default....Delay's, and Tobin's....and the RNC's, too.

McCain trapped himself. If he fires Terry Nelson too soon, he will appear to validate money laundering charges against Tom Delay, and cast doubt on the effort of the RNC effor that involved spending millions of dollars to "cover up" whatever the actual potentially damaging facts are in the Tobin centered, republican party commissioned New Hampshire "phone gate" 2002 campaign "dirty tricks" voting interference "Op".

Republican centered corruption seems to be everywhere. Was McCain in too intense of a partisan centric "bubble, not to be aware that he needed to seriously delve into the backgrounds and associations of all key advisors, that he linked himself or his campaign to? Unless he hired someone already indicted or convicted, can you envision the hiring of a less attractive advisor for McCain's campaign, than Terry Nelson?

politicophile, what "edits" would you propose making to the coverage of "phone gate" in this wikpedia article, to increase the accuracy and decrease any partisan tone, if you perceive one?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Ne...amming_scandal

Quote:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...5-6fb654738e39
Granite Status: Tobin legal defense may total $2.5 million

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006

ARE REPUBLICAN donors still paying big time for the legal defense of convicted 2002 phone-jamming conspirator James Tobin?........

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/po...erland&emc=rss
How a Tested Campaign Tool Led to Conspiracy Charges

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: September 29, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - The indictment of Representative Tom DeLay on Wednesday put the Republican National Committee in an uncomfortable spotlight, saying a top political aide to President Bush was the funnel through which $190,000 in improper donations passed in 2002.

According to the indictment, Terry Nelson, the political director in the 2004 Bush re-election campaign, was the individual who received the $190,000 check, which was made out to a division of the R.N.C. That check is alleged to have included money illegally accepted from corporations.

Mr. Nelson, the indictment says, simultaneously received a list of Republican candidates for the Texas State Legislature for whom the money was intended. Under Texas law, it is illegal for state candidates to use corporate contributions.

Mr. Nelson has not been indicted, nor has any other official from the Republican National Committee been implicated. A spokeswoman for the committee declined to comment.

At the foundation of the criminal case is a fact stipulated by all sides: Mr. DeLay was determined to win Republican control of the Texas House of Representatives in 2002. And he succeeded.

Whether the managers of the fund-raising organization he helped create for that purpose - Texans for a Republican Majority, or Trmpac - broke criminal laws in the process is part of what will be decided as the case proceeds. But Mr. DeLay's aggressive style of marrying political power and money, and of creating entities designed to raise money for specific political purposes at the state and federal level, is already on display and certain to be examined in microscopic detail in the months ahead.....

maximusveritas · 04-10-2006, 01:55 PM

McCain has never been a straight shooter. He's a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was. The media has given him one free pass after another his whole life, but it looks like that's finally about to change (The new Howard Kurtz column has more)
This is just the latest in a long line of politically motivated moves by McCain. If anyone thinks he's a straight shooter, they're just kidding themselves.

First, he was against the MLK holiday, then he was for it.
First, the Confederate flag was "a symbol of racism and slavery." Later, when he was desperate for some racist South Carolinan votes, it was just "a symbol of heritage.” Finally, when his cheap political ploy didn't work, it was back to the former.

politicophile · 04-10-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

politicophile, I am fascinated by your close proximity to James Tobin. I have no idea if this gives you more or less insight into this situation...it probably makes it more puzzling for you and for your family.

I believe that you are in a position to accurately answer the question of where James Tobin could have received a fairer trial, before a more potentially sympathetic court or jury, than he must have received in conservative, caucasian, New Hampshire.

As I previously stated, Tobin received due process and was convicted in a fair trial. It is true that innocent people are sometimes convicted, but it does not happen often. There is no doubt in my mind that the available evidence and testimony was sufficient to merit a conviction, leaving two possibilities: either Tobin lied to my face about his conviction, or the evidence and/or testimony at his trial was flawed. Since I have no evidence of the latter, the prudent conclusion seems to be that he is, in fact, guilty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

I can't disagree with much in your post. I'll reemphasize my main point....why would McCain want to risk immersing himself into two scandals related to RNC campaign related criminal activity...Tobin/phone gate, and alleged criminal activity, Delay/Terry Nelson $190,000 money laundering.

We are in agreement that it doesn't seem very smart to hire potentially "damaged goods." However, the foolishness of the hire does not necessarily equate to corruption on McCain's part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

if...there was not the additional problem...for Nelson...and now for McCain...,that Nelson is at the core, according to the Texas indictment of Delay...of RNC complicity in actually laundering the $190,000 in question, and then distributing the laundered corporate sourced campaign contributions to Texas state office candidates.

I again appeal to the core value of presumed innocence. Until Nelson is indicted and convicted, claims about his alleged criminal history are mere hearsay. All defendants of all political stripes deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

McCain trapped himself. If he fires Terry Nelson too soon, he will appear to validate money laundering charges against Tom Delay, and cast doubt on the effort of the RNC effor that involved spending millions of dollars to "cover up" whatever the actual potentially damaging facts are in the Tobin centered, republican party commissioned New Hampshire "phone gate" 2002 campaign "dirty tricks" voting interference "Op".

Exactly. A past mistake has trapped McCain in an uncomfortable position. As you allege, there appears to have been significant Republican misconduct. However, I do not see how it is linked to McCain, save for his unwise decision to hire an advisor who has been accused by some of being corrupt.

That's all for now. Let me just say that, while McCain and I differ on several key ideological points, I do not believe he is corrupt. In some ways, Host's efforts to demonstrate corruption have had the perverse effect of reinforcing my opinion.

ASU2003 · 04-10-2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

First, he was against the MLK holiday, then he was for it. First, the Confederate flag was "a symbol of racism and slavery." Later, when he was desperate for some racist South Carolinan votes, it was just "a symbol of heritage.” Finally, when his cheap political ploy didn't work, it was back to the former.

That is all politics are. Getting the most people you can to vote for you without pissing off the other side. And there is no way that you can win as a Republican and be for abortion, against organized religion, say ID is wrong, even though he might not care or have the opposite views personally. Didn't Bush say something about fixing the budget in the previous election?

The biggest thing I like about McCain is what he would do with the budget and spending problem we have. If there isn't a Libertarian candidate that I like, he will be my second choice.

maximusveritas · 04-11-2006, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

The biggest thing I like about McCain is what he would do with the budget and spending problem we have. If there isn't a Libertarian candidate that I like, he will be my second choice.

But how can you trust that McCain will do that when he's shown that he's willing to flip-flip on any issue in order to get votes?

For example, he's already flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts. First, he was against them, supposedly because of the deficit. Now that he needs to win over conservatives, however, he's voting to extend them. Even the pro-tax cut conservatives are calling it a politically motivated flip-flop.

I know others have flip-flopped before, but I can't remember any of them doing it so blatantly as this. It's especially troubling since this guy used to call himself a straight shooter.

pan6467 · 04-11-2006, 06:25 AM

All I have to say is McCain is a great media manipulator and what's scary is he is so popular.

The award for Best Con Man in the country goes to John McCain. As he will play to every target he needs to. He's played his hand and has timed his little soiree perfectly.
Hopefully, enough people will see him as nothing more than a Perot. A guy with some interesting ideas but in truth an egomaniacal little man with a Napoleanic complex.

Say what you will about Bush or Clinton or Kerry or Gore..... the one thing you have to admit is they played to their strengths and the people they needed, but never tried to be something they weren't.

(I'm sure that statement will get attacked, but it's true...... W never has tried to be or sway the left, which has made him hated, same as Clinton, Gore, and Kerry never tried to win the neo Cons or Religious Right.)

Elphaba · 04-11-2006, 01:43 PM

The journalist I respect the most is George Will. The following article is his take on McCain. It is Washington Post link that may require a registration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...7.html?sub=new

Quote:

McCain's Media Unmasking

By George F. Will
Sunday, April 9, 2006; B07

First Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, now John McCain and the media. Even torrid relationships are perishable. It was only a matter of time before the media turned on their pin-up, and that time has arrived. A rivulet, soon to be a river, of journalism is reporting -- as a mystery deciphered, even a scandal unearthed -- that McCain, who occupies the Senate seat once held by Barry Goldwater, is a conservative Republican.

He has been unmasked as a "pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative." Those words are his, and they are a reasonably accurate description of the man who voted against the prescription drug entitlement and the most recent transportation bill because of their costs.

McCain proclaims his extravagant admiration for Teddy Roosevelt, a man of many virtues, not one of which was moral modesty. Speaker of the House Thomas Reed once said to TR, "If there is one thing for which I admire you more than anything else, Theodore, it is your original discovery of the Ten Commandments." St. John of Arizona can seem insufferably certain that he has cornered the market on incorruptibility. So, as he begins trying to assemble a presidential majority, he seems, as anyone trying to do that will, like a run-of-the-mill sinner.

But his quest for the 2008 Republican nomination was bound to require tactics inconsistent with his carefully cultivated reputation for unexampled authenticity. He has endorsed teaching "intelligent design" theory in schools and has sought a detente with Jerry Falwell, one of "the agents of intolerance" he denounced in 2000. But who has ever assembled a presidential constituency without endorsing positions formerly avoided or compromising positions formerly endorsed?

McCain is considered morally compromised because he now favors making permanent some of President Bush's tax cuts that he opposed when they were first proposed. But enacting the cuts as temporary was purely a parliamentary maneuver. Revoking them would be as much a tax increase as would be reversing President Ronald Reagan's reduction of the 70 percent income tax rate, and McCain says, "I've never voted for a tax increase."

Well, never, if you ignore the huge -- $516 billion over 25 years -- tax increase in his 1998 tobacco bill. But that was less a revenue measure than an exercise of the McCainian righteousness that has so enchanted many of the people who are now becoming disenchanted.

Few of them, however, are conservative Republicans whom McCain must court. Many of those Republicans especially abhor what his media friends most adore -- his unwavering commitment to campaign regulations that enlarge the government's power to regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech about itself, with the applauding media exempt from regulation, of course.

In 2000, McCain voted explicitly to amend the First Amendment, a vote that clearly confirmed his critics' contention that McCain's campaign "reforms" are incompatible with the First Amendment stricture that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Fritz Hollings, then a Democratic senator from South Carolina, brought to a vote a proposed alteration to the First Amendment. It would have empowered Congress or any state to "set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to" a candidate for federal office.

Hollings, whose candor was as admirable as his amendment was not, accepted the obvious fact that McCain's approach to campaign regulation was incompatible with the plain language of the unamended First Amendment. McCain voted for Hollings's amendment.

But to those Republicans who turn out to pick presidential nominees, one electoral consideration could trump ideological aversions: California. Ken Khachigian, a veteran of Ronald Reagan's White House, is a California Republican strategist who in 2000 was a senior adviser to McCain's campaign. Khachigian says McCain could "put California in play." McCain might be the only conceivable Republican nominee who could.

To put California in play is not the same thing as carrying it. But carrying it is not necessary to significantly improve a Republican nominee's national chances. If the nomination of McCain could force the Democratic nominee to spend a number of days and, say, $30 million to secure California's 55 electoral votes, those days and dollars could not be spent in Ohio, Florida and other battleground states.

This November could produce what McCain could use -- grim election returns for Republicans. If on Nov. 8 Republicans are reeling and a reelected Hillary Clinton is rampant, hitherto unenthralled Republicans might suddenly consider McCain as virtuous as he considers himself. For the politically nervous, "virtuous" is a synonym for "electable."

Poppinjay · 04-11-2006, 03:21 PM

He was my choice in y2k. I called his office and expressed sincere regrets when he dropped out.

McCain lost my vote when he agreed to give the commencement at Liberty U.

Every day he sells out another ideal to the Bedrock wing of the GOP, he gives one more bullet to the eventual democratic candidate. They'll need alot, but he seems to be willing to make more.

I've always known that McCain has a very conservative voting record, but I've also known that he likely could do a good job as president. We wouldn't have the incompetence of Bush or the silly scandals of Clinton. But anybody who is willing to give quarter to the religious right at a time when a real abortion ban is making its way through the system does not get my vote.

Mark Warner '08.

Elphaba · 04-11-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Mark Warner '08.

My curiousity led to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner

politicophile · 04-11-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

He was my choice in y2k. I called his office and expressed sincere regrets when he dropped out.

McCain lost my vote when he agreed to give the commencement at Liberty U.

Every day he sells out another ideal to the Bedrock wing of the GOP, he gives one more bullet to the eventual democratic candidate. They'll need alot, but he seems to be willing to make more.

I've always known that McCain has a very conservative voting record, but I've also known that he likely could do a good job as president. We wouldn't have the incompetence of Bush or the silly scandals of Clinton. But anybody who is willing to give quarter to the religious right at a time when a real abortion ban is making its way through the system does not get my vote.

Mark Warner '08.

I understand your dismay with McCain's efforts to cozy up to the religious right. However, it is widely believed that a Republican candidate cannot win the primary without doing so. If this is true, isn't it preferable for McCain to court the religious right and win the election, rather than losing in the primary?

If McCain wants the opportunity to enact any of his presidential agenda, he has to get the keys to the oval office first. In many respects, those are held by folks on the religious right.

Elphaba · 04-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Politico, I know I have to submit to the the realism of politics. It takes vast amounts of private money to get elected. That is why I am an advocate of public financing of candidates.

I realize that this is a whine with no immediate solution, but I am absolutely torqued that the Republican party has been co-opted by extremists. I think that I could live with that if the party had remained fiscally conservative.

Poppinjay · 04-11-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I understand your dismay with McCain's efforts to cozy up to the religious right. However, it is widely believed that a Republican candidate cannot win the primary without doing so. If this is true, isn't it preferable for McCain to court the religious right and win the election, rather than losing in the primary?

If McCain wants the opportunity to enact any of his presidential agenda, he has to get the keys to the oval office first. In many respects, those are held by folks on the religious right.

I'm not sure that that scenario is still required. The loss of support suffered by both Falwell and Robertson has been stunning. If anything, I would think given Robertson's moonbat uttering in particular, this would be the year that a Republican could win the primaries by rejecting televangelists and embracing the real tenets of judeo-christian values.

Isn't that scary to think about, that televangelists in the guise of the religious right have such a powerful grasp on one of our two parties that legislation is written with them in mind? Another argument has always been for a republican to win the early primaries in the south, they have to embrace the stars and bars as "southern heritage". As a southerner, I call bullshit on that. If you have to embrace something that offers only sickness for our country, then your party must generally be ineffectual at making rational decisions.

politicophile · 04-11-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Politico, I know I have to submit to the the realism of politics. It takes vast amounts of private money to get elected. That is why I am an advocate of public financing of candidates.

I realize that this is a whine with no immediate solution, but I am absolutely torqued that the Republican party has been co-opted by extremists. I think that I could live with that if the party had remained fiscally conservative.

Political expression in the form of protesting, giving speaches, writing letters, etc. is all protected by the first amendment. The relevant question here is whether there is a constitutional right to give money who whatever candidates you see fit to finance. Based on the (growing) longevity of McCain-Feingold, I imagine at least five of our robed kings has decided it is not. For a non-lawyer like me, however, the protectedness of candidate financing is still an open question.

Leaving the freedom issue aside, I have a family member involved in policing the use of clean elections funds in my neck of the woods and he is a big proponent of the funds, so I'm a bit divided on the issue.

Alas, being co-opted by extremists is hardly a trait unique to the Republican Party. The NEA is the first extremist organization that comes to mind as a Democratic equivalent. Perhaps one could add the AFL-CIO, ACLU, and NAACP to the list, as well. My point is that, in a two-party system, building a tent large enough to win elections inevitibly involves concessions to extremist groups, at least during the primaries. After he wins the nomination, McCain can go back to criticizing the christian fundamentalists like he did back in 2000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I'm not sure that that scenario is still required. The loss of support suffered by both Falwell and Robertson has been stunning. If anything, I would think given Robertson's moonbat uttering in particular, this would be the year that a Republican could win the primaries by rejecting televangelists and embracing the real tenets of judeo-christian values.

Indeed. I think the recent weakening of the televangelists explains why McCain's concessions to the religious right have been mere tokens: a speech at an extremist university, a hollow endorsement of intelligent design. I've got my eyes peeled for the real danger signs, but I haven't seen anything yet...

Elphaba · 04-11-2006, 07:29 PM

Politico, I'm certain you must know that I am not placing sole blame on one party vs. another. I think you know me better than most on this forum and would not make that assumption.

maximusveritas · 04-12-2006, 03:54 PM

The problem for McCain is that he built his reputation by not doing the exact kinds of things he's doing now. That's what makes this case unique from every other flip-flopping, triangulating politician.

These flip-flops may get McCain closer to the Republican nomination, but they are going to cause him to lose a significant amount of votes from Democrats and Independents who bought into his "maverick" "straight shooter" image. It's going to be very hard for him to win a general election against anybody other than perhaps Hillary.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2006, 04:20 PM

Depends on who the Dems nominate, if you get a Kerry, Dean, maybe even Hillary nomination, I bet that Mccain would garner a majority of middle road undecided, and probably would be able to steal more votes then he would lose.

politicophile · 04-12-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

The problem for McCain is that he built his reputation by not doing the exact kinds of things he's doing now. That's what makes this case unique from every other flip-flopping, triangulating politician.

These flip-flops may get McCain closer to the Republican nomination, but they are going to cause him to lose a significant amount of votes from Democrats and Independents who bought into his "maverick" "straight shooter" image. It's going to be very hard for him to win a general election against anybody other than perhaps Hillary.

I agree with your assessment, but think you underestimate the short memory span of the average voter. If McCain is friendly to the religious right in January, but distances himself shortly thereafter, I would imagine most voters would have entirely forgotten about it by November. As for his odds in the general election, I would predict victory over Kerry, Gore, Leiberman, Clinton, Biden, and Richardson. Warner would be somewhat more difficult, but I nonetheless hold that McCain would be really, really strong in the general election. Getting past Allen in the primary is a different story and my fingers remain crossed.

ASU2003 · 04-12-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

These flip-flops may get McCain closer to the Republican nomination, but they are going to cause him to lose a significant amount of votes from Democrats and Independents who bought into his "maverick" "straight shooter" image. It's going to be very hard for him to win a general election against anybody other than perhaps Hillary.

McCain knows that he has to win the Republican primary though. And he has to move to the right in order to do so. After the primary is over, then he might move back towards the middle.

I would think that Hillary (and Bill) would be the hardest people to beat. Most of the solid red states would go republican, but there would be enough women voters to push states like Ohio into the democratic column. I don't know enough about the new democratic candidates and how well they will do. But, I bet there will be 9 or 10 of them.

maximusveritas · 04-12-2006, 07:03 PM

You're both probably right that McCain will try to move back to the center if he wins the primary. However, while it's true that voters have short memory spans, I also expect McCain's opponents to bring up his flip-flopping throughout the campaign. He's obviously the front-runner and it's likely that his fellow Republicans will be gunning for him early.

As far as the Democrats, I think Hillary would be one of the weakest candidates. She's hated by both the left and the right and I don't think women are going to come out in force for her. I think Warner and Edwards are the strongest candidates. Feingold could also be strong if he managed to move more to the center, but that will be difficult. He will be a factor in the primary, no matter what.

host · 12-07-2006, 11:39 AM

In my first (#13) post here, I included a quote box which documents that a caller to a radio program informed John McCain about the "ethics" of Terry Nelson. We also know that Nelson was the architect of the "race baiting" campaing against Tenn. Congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the senate race, before last months election:

Quote:

http://www.talkcheck.com/johncarlson...ffersdirtypast
<div class="title" id="CONTENT_COPY_TITLE">
McCain Denies Knowledge of Staffer's Dirty Past
</div>
 
<div class="text" id="CONTENT_COPY_TEXT">
Josh Marshall's new website had an <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000137.php">interesting piece</a> earlier this week that pointed out how that maverick reformer John McCain had recently hired a rather dirty Republican operative. And as luck would have it, Senator McCain swung into Seattle today to promote the futile campaign of the Republican candidate for the Washington State senate race. Somewhere in between fundraisers the campaign finance reformer found time to stop by and help a local right-wing radio host with a different effort: the <a href="http://www.talkcheck.com/johncarlson/2006/02/14/johncarlsonchangestuneonmccain">campaign</a> to sell McCain to the local Republican base.

 
One clever caller decided to take advantage of McCain's appearance to try and get some "straight talk" on the senator's recent hire:
 
<blockquote>
CALLER: Thanks, I had a question for the senator. For a reformer, I'm kind of curious why he would hire a guy like Terry Nelson as a senior advisor.
 
Here's a guy who was actually in the indictment of Delay on his money laundering charges. When he was at the RNC, he agreed to take the corporate contributions from Delay's PAC and then recycle them back into the Republican congressional races.
 
And he was also, this guy Nelson was also the supervisor for James Tobin, who was the guy convicted last year for helping jam the Democratic get-out-the-vote phone lines in New England a couple years ago.
 
So I'm curious why would you hire someone with such a shady background?
 
MCCAIN: None of those charges are true.
 
CALLER: Do you believe what was actually written in the indictment from Texas?
 
MCCAIN: No.

 
CARLSON: All right.
 
[nervous laughter]
 
MCCAIN: I will check it out. But I've never heard of such a thing. I know that he was a grassroots organizer for President Bush year 2000 and 2004, and had a very important job in the Bush campaign as late as 2004, but the other charges I will go and look and see if any of them are true, but I've never heard of them before.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mccain20060321.mp3">Audio</a>
 
Isn't it amazing how a few blogs can know more about McCain's senior advisor than McCain himself? I'll leave a few references that should speed up the good senator's "research", courtesy of <a href="www.talkingpointsmemo.com">TPM Media</a>:
<ul><li>The Delay indictment that lays out Nelson's role in money laundering is available <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/delay-reindictment/?resultpage=3&">here</a></li>
<li>The witness list that shows Nelson's connection to the phone jamming scam is available <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/tobin-witness-list/?resultpage=2&">here</a></li>

</ul>
</div>
</div>

I am no fan of McCain. He strikes me as a candidate who will do anything to win. His character seems to be eclipsed by his ambition, he is extremely partisan, choosing to shield the impropriety of members of his own party in congress, who helped Jack Abramoff or benefited financially from Abramoff's political blackmailing of native American tribes, investigated by the senate committee chaired by McCain, instead of doing the thorough investigation that his committee is presumably empowered, and obligated to do, to represent the best interests of the American people, instead of the best interests of McCain and his cronies.....

Now, we have confirmation that McCain, knowing who Terry Nelson is, and what he has done, is tapping Nelson to help win a McCain presidential campaing victory:

Quote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra..._picks_ca.html
McCain Picks Campaign Chief

December 07, 2006 8:06 AM

ABC News' David Chalian Reports:

.....Later today, Sen. John McCain's exploratory committee plans to announce veteran GOP campaign operative Terry Nelson as his pick to be his national campaign manager, should the Senator choose to turn his exploring into a full-blown run for the White House.

"We couldn't be more pleased that John asked Terry to oversee the daily operation of the campaign if the McCains decide to move forward. All of us -- Rick (Davis), Mark (Salter), and me -- look forward to a crash course in metrics," McCain's top political strategist John Weaver told ABC News.

"Terry brings strong leadership, detailed and current knowledge, a wide range of impressive contacts nationally, and a drive to our core group," Weaver added.
The Washington Post was first to report the McCain camp's initial Nelson primary victory back in March when he joined McCain's Straight Talk America PAC as a senior adviser. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031800966.html">LINK</a>

Nelson served as national political director for Bush-Cheney '04. He has served in senior roles in both the political and field/grassroots organizing arenas at the RNC and the NRCC.

Nelson's hire is clearly a huge get, but will not come without controversy. Nelson made political headlines in the 2006 cycle as the strategist tapped to head up the RNC's independent expenditure which was responsible for that extremely controversial ad in Tennessee against Harold Ford, Jr. featuring a young blonde actress portraying a woman who met Ford at a Playboy party and who suggestively asks him to call her at the end of the ad. (It caused enough heartache for one of Nelson's other clients, Working Families for Wal-Mart, that they sought and received his resignation after the episode.) Nelson was also tied up in the recently settled New Hampshire phone jamming case and in Tom DeLay's TRMPAC troubles from his days at the RNC.

04-09-2006, 05:26 PM	#3 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	Due to the nature of the political climate in the US, I think you have to polarize yourself to get elected. He's just doing it. That said, I will vote for McCain on any ticket he runs on, and I'll be happy I won't be selecting which Menendez brother I like best. __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

04-09-2006, 05:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	It is definately a shame that we as a people are so willing to divide ourselves that people won't vote for someone in the middle because he is either not extreme enough, or not a member of one's party. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

04-09-2006, 07:01 PM	#6 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	if you've ever watched a live white house press conference it's plain to see that Helen Thomas has, literally, lost her mind. /regrets attacking the source __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

04-09-2006, 07:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Elphaba, I don't really understand why that article made you change your opinions about McCain. Playing to the evangelicals is a clearly strategic move, as McCain was very clear in 2000 that he was not a fan. I haven't the faintest idea why Thomas wants to hurt McCain's primary chances, but this article surely isn't the way to do it, as the only piece of dirt she was able to dig up was the Keating Five allegation, which was never proven. I see no substantive reason to oppose McCain this time around and I will be supporting him against Allen in the primary. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

04-09-2006, 09:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Ofcourse Mccain is playing to the conservative base, they compromise over 20 million votes. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-09-2006, 05:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
Topper Tilted Location: Seattle	I don't think there's an issue with him reaching out to the evangelical republican base. But are there actual indications that he himself may be changing his own political position to better fit a presidential run? I've always had more respect for McCain then typical politicians for some reason. Perhaps because he has always seemed to be a straight-shooter as Elphaba said. And I agree also that Helen is hardcore to the left. Felt bad that Bush blew her off in one of the few (if not only) times he took a question from her during a press conference recently. She's like the dinosaur of the white house press corps and I respect the time she's put there. And yes djtestudo, it is a shame.

04-09-2006, 08:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Politico, you and I have shared the opinion that McCain was (2000) and is (2008) the best Republican candidate for the presidency. My concern is that the evangelical conservative leadership is now being wooed by McCain. I causes me to doubt his independence from extremism.

04-09-2006, 09:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	honestly, i liked mccain in 2000, i liked what he said, how he said neither party should cater to its extremists......then eh turns around and hires bush's political campaign people and goes to speak at Liberty University in lynchburg and just seems to ..well, have flipped a bit...couple that with the Obama incident (not sure whose fault that was, but mccain's way of dealing with it just wasn't kosher) and i can't really support him anymore. I respect what he's done, don't get me wrong, and i wish more people would adopt his old 'say what you mean" attitude, but lately, he's just going mainstream political which will kill him with the moderates IF he passes through the primaries... Then again, i don't expect him to make it past primaries, honestly. We've seen how well senators do in presidential races.... __________________ Live. Chris

04-09-2006, 10:30 PM	#15 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i'll admit i'm surprised he is even mentioning intelligent design. and i'm not a big fan of his complacency for most of the crap that's come to pass over the last 4 or 5 years...he picks and chooses his maverick moments. still i don't see too many worthy opponents. there are a few out there, but it's probably going to come down to the primaries. i can't say i put a lot of faith in the early primary states for selecting worthy candidates from either party, but we'll see.

04-09-2006, 10:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	trickyy brought up the other thing that has started to irk me about mccain...He does seem really complacent about many things, is buddying up to bush hardcore, and really does hand pick his chances for being nicknamed a maverick... I still dont' see him being a big part of the 2008 elections/post primary __________________ Live. Chris

04-10-2006, 08:30 AM	#19 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	The connection between Tobin and McCain seems to be both speculative and remote. McCain hired Tobin's former boss (who has not been convicted of wrong-doing) and that's as far as the rabbit hole goes, right? I suppose one could adopt a guilty until proven innocent posture with regards to campaign workers, but why treat them differently than ordinary citizens? Is it just to fire someone because they are suspected of wrong-doing? Firing convicted criminals like Tobin is entirely justified, but why should McCain purge those who have not been convicted? On a personal note, I know Jim Tobin well: he came to my family's New Year's Eve party in 2005. While I do not dispute the fact that Tobin received due process, there is a part of me that finds it hard to believe an honest man like Tobin would continue to profess his innocence to his closest friends when he was in fact guilty. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

04-10-2006, 01:55 PM	#22 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	McCain has never been a straight shooter. He's a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was. The media has given him one free pass after another his whole life, but it looks like that's finally about to change (The new Howard Kurtz column has more) This is just the latest in a long line of politically motivated moves by McCain. If anyone thinks he's a straight shooter, they're just kidding themselves. First, he was against the MLK holiday, then he was for it. First, the Confederate flag was "a symbol of racism and slavery." Later, when he was desperate for some racist South Carolinan votes, it was just "a symbol of heritage.” Finally, when his cheap political ploy didn't work, it was back to the former.

04-11-2006, 06:25 AM	#26 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All I have to say is McCain is a great media manipulator and what's scary is he is so popular. The award for Best Con Man in the country goes to John McCain. As he will play to every target he needs to. He's played his hand and has timed his little soiree perfectly. Hopefully, enough people will see him as nothing more than a Perot. A guy with some interesting ideas but in truth an egomaniacal little man with a Napoleanic complex. Say what you will about Bush or Clinton or Kerry or Gore..... the one thing you have to admit is they played to their strengths and the people they needed, but never tried to be something they weren't. (I'm sure that statement will get attacked, but it's true...... W never has tried to be or sway the left, which has made him hated, same as Clinton, Gore, and Kerry never tried to win the neo Cons or Religious Right.) __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-11-2006, 03:21 PM	#28 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	He was my choice in y2k. I called his office and expressed sincere regrets when he dropped out. McCain lost my vote when he agreed to give the commencement at Liberty U. Every day he sells out another ideal to the Bedrock wing of the GOP, he gives one more bullet to the eventual democratic candidate. They'll need alot, but he seems to be willing to make more. I've always known that McCain has a very conservative voting record, but I've also known that he likely could do a good job as president. We wouldn't have the incompetence of Bush or the silly scandals of Clinton. But anybody who is willing to give quarter to the religious right at a time when a real abortion ban is making its way through the system does not get my vote. Mark Warner '08. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

04-11-2006, 04:46 PM	#31 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Politico, I know I have to submit to the the realism of politics. It takes vast amounts of private money to get elected. That is why I am an advocate of public financing of candidates. I realize that this is a whine with no immediate solution, but I am absolutely torqued that the Republican party has been co-opted by extremists. I think that I could live with that if the party had remained fiscally conservative.

04-11-2006, 07:29 PM	#34 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Politico, I'm certain you must know that I am not placing sole blame on one party vs. another. I think you know me better than most on this forum and would not make that assumption.

04-12-2006, 03:54 PM	#35 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	The problem for McCain is that he built his reputation by not doing the exact kinds of things he's doing now. That's what makes this case unique from every other flip-flopping, triangulating politician. These flip-flops may get McCain closer to the Republican nomination, but they are going to cause him to lose a significant amount of votes from Democrats and Independents who bought into his "maverick" "straight shooter" image. It's going to be very hard for him to win a general election against anybody other than perhaps Hillary.

04-12-2006, 04:20 PM	#36 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Depends on who the Dems nominate, if you get a Kerry, Dean, maybe even Hillary nomination, I bet that Mccain would garner a majority of middle road undecided, and probably would be able to steal more votes then he would lose. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-12-2006, 07:03 PM	#39 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	You're both probably right that McCain will try to move back to the center if he wins the primary. However, while it's true that voters have short memory spans, I also expect McCain's opponents to bring up his flip-flopping throughout the campaign. He's obviously the front-runner and it's likely that his fellow Republicans will be gunning for him early. As far as the Democrats, I think Hillary would be one of the weakest candidates. She's hated by both the left and the right and I don't think women are going to come out in force for her. I think Warner and Edwards are the strongest candidates. Feingold could also be strong if he managed to move more to the center, but that will be difficult. He will be a factor in the primary, no matter what.