08 September, 2008

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Another McCain media fan bites the dust:

In recent weeks, we've seen fairly strong denunciations of McCain from Time's Joe Klein, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, and the New York Times' Thomas Friedman. Today, it looks like
the Washington Post's
Sebastian Mallaby, hardly a reflexive liberal, has joined the club.

....McCain's swipe at Obama's tax plan was something other than straight talk. As a share of the economy, Obama's plan would create an overall tax burden similar to the one that existed in Ronald Reagan's time. It would not choke off job creation; rather, it would slow the growth of the deficit and soften inequality. But the really depressing thing is that McCain himself once knew that. He opposed the Bush tax cuts before he supported them, saying that they would deepen inequality. But now he touts a tax reduction that is larger and more radical than even President Bush proposed, and he slams his opponent for holding the view that he himself held until recently.

McCain used to be a real straight talker. On campaign finance, spending earmarks, Iraq and immigration, he has fought bravely for his principles; and that record might have been a trump against an opponent who has taken almost no such risks. But we are now witnessing what might be called McCain's Palinization. McCain once criticized Christian conservatives as agents of intolerance, but he has caved in to their intolerance of a pro-choice running mate. McCain claims to be devoted to his country, yet he would saddle it with a vice president who is unprepared to serve as commander in chief. In the same sad way, McCain has caved in to his party's anti-tax fanatics. The man of principle has become a panderer. The straight talker flip-flops.

I think this proves that you can only lie, stonewall, disrespect, and bullshit so many times before even your biggest fans start to step back and say, "Just wait a fucking minute." At a time when McCain needs the media to peddle his lies the most, they're starting to wake up to the fact that he is, in fact, a lying, pandering fuckwit.


I know you're probably expecting more Palin bashing, but for once, there's news that isn't about Sarah "Earmark Queen" Palin and John "Clueless" McCain. Except when you consider that a McCain/Palin administration would demonstrate this same breathtaking stupidity:

For weeks, the U.S. military has denied charges that its Aug. 22 attack on Azizabad, Afghanistan killed scores of civilians, despite the fact that Afghan witnesses, the United Nations, and other human rights and international officials all say roughly 90 villagers were killed. Yesterday, the military reversed course and requested an investigation into the strike in light of “emerging evidence.” Part of that evidence is cellphone images showing “at least 11 dead children,” according to the New York Times.

As Firedoglake points out, the Times of London revealed that the U.S. had been relying on accounts from an embedded journalist: Fox News’s Oliver North:

The US military said that its findings were corroborated by an independent journalist embedded with the US force. He was named as the Fox News correspondent Oliver North, who came to prominence in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair, when he was an army colonel.

Relying on North for a “fair and balanced” view is a major mistake.

You think?

Let's just consider how batshit insane you have to be to ignore the evidence of many well-respected international agencies and rely on the dubious veracity of the man who spearheaded one of the biggest scandals of the 20th century. I wouldn't take Ollie North's word on the color of the sky without independent corroboration, much less rely on that lying sack of shit to tell me how many civillians our military wiped out.

No wonder this country's such a huge fucking mess right now.

And you think McCain's going to reform any of this shit? Oh, fuck, no. In fact, that mavericky, champion-of-reform image needs to be rethought in light of a few select revelations, such as this:
In “The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” journalist Gary S. Chafetz details how Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pursued his investigation into the fallen lobbyist as “pure political payback,” rather than “the high-minded reform crusade he has made it out to be on the campaign trail.” McCain reportedly remained upset that Abramoff had backed Ralph Reed’s effort to defeat him in the 2000 South Carolina primary:

Chafetz argues that McCain nursed the wounds of that defeat for years, and in 2004 jumped on the chance to investigate Abramoff after the Washington Post published a damning expose of the millions of dollars in lobbying fees Abramoff had collected from his casino-rich Indian tribal clients.

Peppered with new quotes from Abramoff — who met with Chafetz while in federal prison in Cumberland, MD — the book alleges that McCain withheld the vast majority of emails he confiscated during the inquiry, many of which could be exculpatory to the former lobbyist or damaging to McCain allies.

My goodness. That sounds more like a vendetta than good, honest outrage at corruption, dunnit? Think McCain's going to be interested in "changing" the corrupt bits of Washington he's not personally upset at?

I think the answer to that would be "no."

1 comment:

Cujo359 said...

I always mistrust the sort of post hoc, ergo propter hoc thinking implicit in the article about McCain's investigation of Abramoff. What convinces me it might be true here, though, is that there were plenty of other things that needed investigating at the time, like the rest of the K Street Project, which, if memory serves, McCain wasn't all that interested in.