Playing With Fire : McCain and the Raging Right

'McCain's own campaign is playing with powerful extremist themes to denigrate Obama'
By E. J. Dionne Jr. / October 14, 2008

McCain pastor tells rally that non-Christians want Obama victory. Story and video, Below.

Are we witnessing the reemergence of the far right as a power in American politics? Has John McCain, inadvertently perhaps, become the midwife of a new movement built around fear, xenophobia, racism and anger?

McCain has clearly become uneasy with some of the forces that have gathered around him. He has begun to insist, against the sometimes loud protests from his crowds, that Barack Obama is, among things, a "decent person."

Yet McCain's own campaign is playing with powerful extremist themes to denigrate Obama. When his running mate, Sarah Palin, first brought up Obama's association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, who has become a centerpiece of McCain's attacks, she accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists." What other "terrorists" was she thinking about?

Since Obama was a child when Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, and since even Republicans have served on boards with Ayers, this is classic guilt by association.

Ayers has been dragged into this campaign because there is a deep frustration on the right with Obama's enthusiasm for shutting down the culture wars of the 1960s.

Precisely because Obama is not a baby boomer, he carries none of that generation's scars. Most Americans (including most boomers) are weary of living in the past and reprising the 1960s every four years.

Yet culture war politics is relatively mild compared with the far-right appeals that are emerging this year. It is as if McCain's loyalists overshot the '60s and went back to the '50s or even the '30s.

What we are witnessing is the mainstreaming of the far right, a phenomenon that began to take shape with some of the earliest attacks on Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

False claims that Obama is Muslim, that he trained to overthrow the government and that he was educated in Wahhabi schools are a standard part of the political discussion. These fake stories come from voices on the ultra right that have dabbled in other forms of conspiracy, including classic anti-Semitism. McCain and his campaign do not pick up the most extreme charges. They just fan the flames by suggesting that voters don't really know who Obama is, hinting at a sinister back story without filling in the details. That is left to the voters' imaginations.

The tragic irony here is that McCain was the victim of some of the very same extremist forces in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

To bring McCain down, some of George W. Bush's supporters on the far right peddled all manner of falsehoods about McCain, raising despicable charges about his time as a POW and suggesting (again falsely) that he had fathered an illegitimate child of color. In the past, McCain publicly condemned some of the very people who are now going after Obama.

McCain cannot be blamed for all of the crazies who see in Obama a chance to earn fame and fortune by concocting lies about him. And yes, we should defend the speech rights even of those whose views we find abhorrent.

But the angry McCain-Palin crowds, and particularly those who threaten violence or shout racist epithets, should be a wake-up call to McCain. The dark hints about Obama that McCain's campaign is dropping dovetail too nicely with the nasty trash floating around the Internet and the airwaves.

We are in the midst of what could become -- and here's hoping it doesn't -- the worst economic downturn in decades. The last thing we need is a campaign that strengthens fanaticism, tarnishes the authority of the next president and whips up the worst kinds of prejudice. This works both ways: Obama should not be delegitimized if he wins, and McCain should not want to win in a way that would undermine his own capacity to lead.

When Christopher Buckley, a novelist and former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush, announced last week that he would vote for Obama (his first vote ever for a Democrat), he referred to words once spoken to him by his late father. "You know," the conservative hero William F. Buckley Jr. said, "I've spent my entire lifetime separating the right from the kooks."

McCain has an obligation, to his own legacy and the country he has served, to separate himself and his campaign from the kooks. Extremism in defense of liberty may be no vice, but extremism in pursuit of the presidency is as dysfunctional as it is degrading.

Source / Washington Post

Rev. Arnold Conrad speaks before McCain rally : A Christian Crusade?.

Pastor at McCain rally says non-Christians want an Obama win
By Tasha Diakides / October 11, 2008

DAVENPORT, Iowa -– A minister delivering the invocation at John McCain’s rally in Davenport, Iowa Saturday told the crowd non-Christian religions around the world were praying for Barack Obama to win the U.S. presidential election.

“There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,” said Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport. . . .

Source / Political Ticker / CNN

Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Gambling on McCain : The Stakes are Big

John McCain the High Roller
By Sherman De Brosse / The Rag Blog / October 13, 2008

This is the first of several articles by Sherman De Brosse on John McCain and his shady involvements, past and present.

Senator John Mc Cain is known for his love of gambling and frequently engages in gambling marathons in Vegas. He is probably an addict with a serious problem. It is no secret, that he is given to taking great risks at the tables. Sometimes a gambling stint for him will last 14 hours. He does not gamble every day but is prone to monthly binges.

By all accounts, he gambles a lot, and Obama recently criticized McCain for gambling in a Connecticut casino with a lobbyist representing the Mashantucket Pequot tribe. At that time, he chaired the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which oversaw Native American casinos. The Arizona senator should have refrained from voting on matters that affected that tribe.

However, the Senator, who gambles a few thousand at a time, tried not to take loans or markers from the house. So he is not entirely reckless, yet, some wonder if a legislator should be gambling in the casinos he regulates is proper. Forty of his fundraisers are in the gambling industry. Lately, to avoid publicity he has taken to playing craps in a private room, a right he has as a high roller.

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Government filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee on October 9, claiming McCain never reported on his taxes gambling losses or gains. Reporting losses should be a personal option. Yet it is bothersome that someone with so much influence in this area is not entirely open. Of course, the complaint will not be dealt with until long after the election.

Many of us have noticed over the years that gambling establishment seem to be more often linked with unsavory people than, say, dry cleaning establishments or donut shops. One might wonder what kinds of people Mc Cain meets in these dens for high rollers?

John and Cindy McCain are very rich people, so his gambling habit is not something that will take food off the family table. Some good psychologists claim it may not even be a major character disorder. However, a Swedish study suggests these gamblers are likely to be more impulsive than non gamblers and to be somewhat more dishonest. They are also inclined to extravagant behavior. Gamblers are somewhat less inclined than non-gamblers toward responsible behavior. We do not have enough iron-clad evidence to say McCain is a compulsive gambler. Decide for yourself if Mc Cain seems more impulsive and less responsible and truthful than most people.

Gamblers Anonymous says that compulsive gamblers have problems with emotional security, immaturity, and accepting reality. Think a little about McCain's explosive temper, and you might see a connection.

McCain is considered one of the founding fathers of the Native American casino industry and he has close ties with many gambling interests. In May, 2007, J. Terrence Lanni, a Vegas casino executive, raised $400,000 for his pal John MC Cain. In 2000, the Bush campaign complained about McCain's close ties to Native American casinos.

Though his committee, oversees gambling, he does not recuse himself when gambling comes up. He oversaw the investigation of Jack Abramoff's abuse of Native Americans, which resulted in helping Abramoff's rivals -- McCain's pals -- and also smited some folks in the GOP who had opposed McCain in 2000. He found that Abramoff and others took over $66 million from the Native Americans and promised to get to the bottom of the matter. But the investigation ended there and McCain let the "perps" walk because much of the money was funneled to his Republican Party. He did not even call Ralph Reed to testify, though the Christian Right was deeply involved in Abramoff's abuse of the Native Americans. In 2008, McCain used Reed in his campaign.

Its up to the reader to decide if the man who has a hand in regulating gambling should be so close to the industry and then fill his presidential campaign with gambling and communications lobbyists. He also has a big role in regulating communications. It does not seem prudent. There is more than a touch of arrogance here. He seems to be saying that everyone should know that John McCain has so much integrity that he need not avoid appearances of impropriety. It is absolutely true that McCain has had a masterful publicity campaign running over more than two decades burnishing his image as Mr. Integrity, but an examination of the facts reveals many chinks in his armor.

Sherman De Brosse, the peudonym for a retired history professor, is a contributor to The Rag Blog and also blogs at Sherm Says and on DailyKos.

Sources for this article.

Temperament and Character in Pathological Gambling / Journal of Gambling Studies

About the Problem of Compulsive Gambling / Gamblers Anonymous

John McCain's gambling addiction (and tax "issues" too") / Blog for Arizona

CREW files ethics complaint against Senator John McCain / Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

John McCain's Gambling Problem -- and Ours? / By Greg Mitchell / July 7, 2008 / The Huffington Post

John McCain Criticized For Casino Game Playing / by Grant Nelson / Oct. 1, 2008 / 777 Gaming News

John McCain, Gambling Addict by Matthew Yglesias / Oct. 8, 2008, The Atlantic

John McCain's gambling habit / by Alex Spillius / Sept. 29, 2008 / i report

McCain forged close ties to Las Vegas, tribal casinos / by Jo Becker and Don van Natta Jr. / Sept. 28, 2008 / NY Times News Service / boston.com

Senatorial Courtesy: Will John McCain Let Republican Perps Walk? / By Louis Dubose / Aug. 26, 2008 / Texas Observer

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

GOP Rallies : Conservatives Go Ballistic

A McCain supporter yells at Obama supporters before McCain and Palin arrive at a rally, Oct. 8, 2008, in Strongsville, Ohio. Photo by AP.
McCain campaign riling up base by 'ratcheting up fears and frustrations.'
By Jonathan Martin / October 10, 2008

The unmistakable momentum behind Barack Obama's campaign, combined with worry that John McCain is not doing enough to stop it, is ratcheting up fears and frustrations among conservatives.

And nowhere is this emotion on plainer display than at Republican rallies, where voters this week have shouted out insults at the mention of Obama, pleaded with McCain to get more aggressive with the Democrat and generally demonstrated the sort of visceral anger and unease that reflects a party on the precipice of panic.

The calendar is closing and the polls, at least right now, are not.

With McCain passing up the opportunity to level any tough personal shots in his first two debates and the very real prospect of an Obama presidency setting in, the sort of hard-core partisan activists who turn out for campaign events are venting in unusually personal terms.

"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”

"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."

At both stops, there were cries of, “Nobama,” picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers.

And Thursday, at a campaign town hall in Wisconsin, one Republican brought the crowd to its feet when he used his turn at the microphone to offer a soliloquy so impassioned it made the network news and earned extended play on Rush Limbaugh’s program.

“I’m mad; I’m really mad!” the voter bellowed. “And what’s going to surprise ya, is it’s not the economy — it’s the socialists taking over our country.”

After the crowd settled down he was back at it. “When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!”

Such contempt for Democrats is, of course, nothing new from conservative activists. But in 2000 and 2004, the Republican rank and file was more apt to ridicule Gore as a stiff fabulist or Kerry as an effete weather vane of a politician.

“Flip-flop, flip-flop,” went the cry at Republican rallies four years ago, often with footwear to match the chant.

Now, though, the emotion on display is unadulterated anger rather than mocking.

Activists outside rallies openly talk about Obama as a terrorist, citing his name and purported ties to Islam in the fashion of the viral e-mails that have rocketed around the Internet for over a year now.

Some of this activity is finding its way into the events, too.

On Thursday, as one man in the audience asked a question about Obama’s associations, the crowd erupted in name-calling.

"Obama Osama!" one woman called out.

And twice this week, local officials have warmed up the crowd by railing against “Barack Hussein Obama.”

Both times, McCain’s campaign has issued statements disavowing the use of the Democrat’s full name.
A McCain aide said they tell individuals speaking before every event not to do so. “Sometimes people just do what they want,” explained the aide.

The raw emotions worry some in the party who believe the broader swath of swing voters are far more focused on their dwindling retirement accounts than on Obama’s background and associations and will be turned off by footage of the McCain events.

John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said. “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”

“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”

But, if it were up to them, such hard-edged tactics are clearly what many in the party base would like to use against Obama.

That McCain has so far seemed reluctant to do so has frustrated Republicans.

“It's time that you two are representing us, and we are mad,” reiterated the boisterous Republican at McCain’s town hall in Wisconsin Thursday. “So go get 'em!”

"I am begging you, sir, I am begging you — take it to him," pleaded James T. Harris, a local talk radio host at the same event, earning an extended standing ovation.

“Yosemite Sam is having the law laid down to him today in Waukesha, Wis.,” quipped Limbaugh on his show Thursday, referring to the GOP nominee. “This guy, this audience member, is exactly right,” the conservative talk show host said of the first individual.

“You are running for president. You have a right to defend this country. You have a responsibility to defend this country and not just fulfill some dream you had eight years ago running for president against Bush. It's time to start naming names and explain what's actually going on, because, Sen. McCain, the people of this country are dead scared about what we face if you lose.”

John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at California’s Claremont McKenna College and former Republican operative, suggested core Republicans were acting out their longstanding frustrations with their self-proclaimed maverick nominee.

“McCain has always frustrated the Republican base,” Pitney said. “In this campaign, he has alternated between partisan attacks and calls for bipartisan cooperation. It’s nice that he thinks he can round up congressional votes the way a border collie rounds up sheep. But you can’t be a border collie and a pit bull at the same time. The crowds want a pit bull.”

There is also the belief that taking out Obama is the only way to win.

“They know that when McCain has taken off the Senate mantle and put the stick to Obama (celebrity ad, as a case in point), we get movement in the polls,” said Rick Wilson, a GOP consultant not working on the presidential race. “They want McCain to call out Obama — on the Fannie/Freddie mess, on Wright, on Ayers, on guns, on [the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] — because they know that if McCain says it, it penetrates the MSM filter. ... Only McCain and Palin can really drive that message.”

The two have begun to get more aggressive on many of these topics, with both discussing Ayers in multiple venues Thursday. The RNC is also going up for the first time with an ad featuring the former domestic terrorist.

It was enough to stir hope that McCain may stay on the offensive, even in Limbaugh, who has often criticized the Arizona senator for working with Democrats more than attacking them. The radio host praised his sometimes-nemesis for singling out Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) as partly responsible for the credit crisis.

“McCain/Palin fired back today in Waukesha, and 15 years of frustration is coming out joyously in the voices of GOP supporters at these rallies,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail, arguing that Republicans were fed up with having been portrayed as the bogeyman for myriad issues since the Clinton years.

But to the exasperation of many in the party, Obama’s pastor, the most damning of all his associations, remains off-limits, at the express desire of McCain. Palin ignored Wright and focused on Ayers when she was asked about the two in an interview Thursday with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. And McCain focused on Ayers only when he was asked an open-ended question at the town hall about Obama's “associations.”

“It is a shame McCain took Wright off the table,” lamented one prominent Republican operative not working on the race. “He is a legitimate issue, and we may look back and realize he was the issue that could have changed the race.”

For now, though, party members don't seem to be looking back with regret as much as fearing what lies ahead.

“McCain is behind in the polls, and the Republicans have no chance of regaining control of Congress,” Pitney noted. “Republicans are facing the prospect of unified Democratic control of the government for the first time since the first two Clinton years. And even then, Clinton’s agenda had moderate elements (e.g., [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and deficit reduction). With Obama, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi in power, Republicans worry about a hard push for a hard-left agenda.”

Source / Politico

Thanks to CommonDreams / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Sarah the Scoundrel : The High Art of Lying

Sarah Palin: Drive-by liar?
'When a candidate repeatedly lies about herself and her accomplishments, the lies reflect profound character disorders.'
By Sherman De Brosse / The Rag Blog / October 10, 2008

See video of Sarah Palin defending the 'Bridge to Nowhere' during 2006 campaign for governor, Below.

Sarah Palin has set a new standard of mendaciousness in politics. Americans are usually only slightly annoyed when one candidate tells a flat-out lie about an opponent. Palin and McCain have taken this to a new level, repeating the same lies even after numerous fact checkers disprove their claims. But these are only lies about an opponent, so people think they do not reflect on the liar’s character. Maybe they are only white, excusable lies.

But when a candidate repeatedly lies about herself and her accomplishments, the lies reflect profound character disorders. Her claim to having initiated action to act on behalf of Darfur demonstrates a shocking opportunism and that she has no respect for truth.

It is no surprise that Governor Sarah Palin lied about the State of Alaska ending its investment in Sudan. She claimed that as soon as she learned of the Darfur situation she took the lead in the divestment cause. In fact, she ignored a 2007 postcard campaign aimed at getting her to act. Save Darfur people also met with her staff in 2007. She did nothing. The fact is that the Palin Administration openly stated its opposition to divestment in 2008 and prevented it from coming to a vote! This is what her deputy revenue commissioner said in a hearing:

The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination

The hearing minutes are on line as of this date. State Representative Les Gara said that killed the bill. He said, "I walked out of that hearing livid." The committee would not vote on divestiture. The Alaska Permanent Fund still had the $22 million invested in Sudan as of a few weeks ago.

Some say she has the power as chief executive to change the investment. In the debate, she said action will be taken when the legislature reconvenes.

She lied about when she knew about the problem and about taking leadership at the outset. Perhaps she came to see Darfur as a winning political issue a little belatedly and decided she could still claim this as a political feather.

She retained two clear lies in her standard stump speech long after they were disproven.

1.) She boasted that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere. The fact is Congress pulled the plug on the bridge and she then reversed her position. She had supported it.

2.) She said she opposed earmarks. The fact is she zealously pursued them as mayor and is seeking them as governor.

There are other important questions to be raised.

3.) She said she did not use religion in her first campaign for mayor. In fact she criticized the incumbent for not going to church enough.

4.) She told Wasilla employees their jobs were safe, and then she set about firing six department heads.

5.) She told the police chief she was firing him because the NRA disliked him. Then she changed her story and said the man intimidated her.

6.) The evidence is clear that she wanted to censor books in the library and that she tried to fire the chief librarian for not going along with censorship. Then she said the discussion was only hypothetical.

How can we believe anything this woman says. Can we believe her denials about Troopergate when she did so much to block the investigation?

For whatever reason, she believes it is right for her to lie whenever it accomplishes her political purpose. Her distorted claim that Obama’s limited ties to William Ayers constitute proof of lack of patriotism remind us of the axiom that patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel. Her own words prove that she is, indeed, a scoundrel.

Sherman De Brosse is the peudonym for a retired history professor who was once chased off the Ohio University campus for protesting the John Birch Society. He is a contributor to The Rag Blog and also blogs at Sherm Says and on DailyKos.

Sarah Palin defending the 'Bridge to Nowhere' during the 2006 election:



Also see Sarah Palin and Dominionism : Kingdom Now by Sherman DeBRosse / The Rag Blog / October 8, 2008

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Keating Five Ring a Bell? Remember That John McCain?

Sen. John McCain at a March 1990 hearing of the Senate Ethics Committee investigating the relationship between a group of senators and banker Charles Keating Jr. Photo by John Duricka / AP.
Past collides with Present: McCain, the Keating Five and the Wall Street debacle
By Rosa Brooks / September 24, 2008

Once upon a time, a politician took campaign contributions and favors from a friendly constituent who happened to run a savings and loan association. The contributions were generous: They came to about $200,000 in today's dollars, and on top of that there were several free vacations for the politician and his family, along with private jet trips and other perks. The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.

That politician was John McCain, and his generous friend was Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings & Loan. While he was courting McCain and other senators and urging them to oppose tougher regulation of S&Ls, Keating was also investing his depositors' federally insured savings in risky ventures. When those lost money, Keating tried to hide the losses from regulators by inducing his customers to switch from insured accounts to uninsured (and worthless) bonds issued by Lincoln's near-bankrupt parent company. In 1989, it went belly up -- and more than 20,000 Lincoln customers saw their savings vanish.

Keating went to prison, and McCain's Senate career almost ended. Together with the rest of the so-called Keating Five -- Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), Don Riegle (D-Mich.) and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), all of whom had also accepted large donations from Keating and intervened on his behalf -- McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and ultimately reprimanded for "poor judgment."

But the savings and loan crisis mushroomed. Eventually, the government spent about $125 billion in taxpayer dollars to bail out hundreds of failed S&Ls that, like Keating's, fell victim to a combination of private-sector greed and the "poor judgment" of politicians like McCain.

The $125 billion seems like small change compared to the $700-billion price tag for the Bush administration's proposed Wall Street bailout. But the root causes of both crises are the same: a lethal mix of deregulation and greed.

Today's meltdown began when unscrupulous mortgage lenders pushed naive borrowers to sign up for loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The original lenders didn't care: They pocketed the upfront fees and quickly sold the loans to others, who sold them to others still. With the government MIA, soon mortgage-backed securities were zipping around the globe. But by the time many ordinary people began to struggle to make their mortgage payments, the numerous "good" loans (held by borrowers able to pay) had gotten hopelessly mixed up with the bad loans. Investors and banks started to panic about being left with the hot potato -- securities backed mainly by worthless loans. And so began the downward spiral of a credit crunch, short-selling, stock sell-offs and bankruptcies.

Could all this have been prevented? Sure. It's not rocket science: A sensible package of regulatory reforms -- like those Barack Obama has been pushing since well before the current meltdown began -- could have kept this most recent crisis from escalating, just as maintaining reasonable regulatory regimes for S&Ls in the '80s could have prevented that crisis (McCain learned this the hard way).

But, despite his political near-death experience as a member of the Keating Five, McCain continued to champion deregulation, voting in 2000, for instance, against federal regulation of the kind of financial derivatives at the heart of today's crisis.

Shades of the Keating Five scandal don't end there. This week, for instance, news broke that until August, the lobbying firm owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was paid $15,000 a month by Freddie Mac, one of the mortgage giants implicated in the current crisis (now taken over by the government and under investigation by the FBI). Apparently, Freddie Mac's plan was to gain influence with McCain's campaign in hopes that he would help shield it from pesky government regulations. And until very recently, Freddie Mac executives probably figured money paid to Davis' firm was money well spent. "I'm always in favor of less regulation," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in March.

These days, McCain is singing a different tune.

"There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week, explaining the sudden mass conversion of so many onetime free marketeers into champions of robust government intervention. Fair enough. But as you try to figure out what and who can get us out of this mess, beware of those who now embrace regulation with the fervor of new converts.

Source / Los Angeles Times

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...