Double standard

Is McCain’s VP slot for sale to the highest bidder?

This commentary in the British paper The Independent, puts the money angle front and center:

The Republican hunt for a Vice-President has focused on one word: money. Panicked conservative commentators and senators have urged McCain to find a super-rich man to bolt on to the ticket, fast. Why? Because he could “invest” tens of millions of his own cash in the campaign – and persuade his friends to do the same. George W Bush’s former chief speechwriter David Frum says megabucks Mitt Romney is the current favourite for Republican number two.

McCain following the money? Why, yes, there is a bit of a pattern here.

McCain has already sailed full-speed in the direction of his super-rich donors. His campaign has taken a fortune from the oil companies. In return, he promises to give them $4bn in tax cuts a year, to drill off the coast of the US, and to maintain US troops in Iraq even as the country’s prime minister asks them to leave. It’s a logical next step to put a representative of the super-rich on the ticket.

Yet some naïve observers are shocked – shocked! – because McCain built a reputation as a campaign reformer. But they forget the context. McCain only began to call for restrictions on corrupt donations after he was revealed to have taken a great tide of them. In the late 1980s he took money from a fraudster called Charles Keating, and in return lobbied hard for the government regulators to stop looking into his affairs. It worked. Keating went on to steal billions. McCain’s reputation was busted – until he tried to make Big Money itself the issue.

But even as he was apparently campaigning for change, McCain continued taking donations from the super-rich and then lobbying federal regulators on their behalf. Now he even says he will appoint Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia, who is committed to striking down campaign finance reform. Pairing McCain with a super-rich tycoon would be a perfect symbol of what the world can expect from his presidency.

Study shows media easier on McCain

Um, about that well known liberal media bias?

A media analysis group, well-respected by conservatives, has found solid evidence that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that the “mainstream media” — the major broadcast networks –are being more critical of Obama than McCain.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

The networks may be trying to compensate due to the criticism they receive from conservatives. But bias is bias, whichever way it goes. They need to be fair to everyone, search for the truth, and report it as fairly and accurately as possible.

Vets: McCain ad ‘dishonest and shameful’

We previously noted that McCain’s latest attack ad — which criticizes Senator Barack Obama for not making a campaign event of a visit to wounded troops — is being questioned by media analysts. But now veterans themselves are making their displeasure known — and one vet in particular carries a great deal of weight on the issue. It comes from the former chief of medical operations for United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) Headquarters at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

In a press release from VoteVets.org, a statement from Dr. Katherine Schierman was quoted:

“John McCain’s new ad is dishonest and shameful, and I say that as the former Chief of Medical Operations. Senators Hagel and Reed confirmed to Bob Schieffer yesterday that Senator Obama visited the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad as a part of their CODEL, with no media present.
“In Germany, Senator Obama made the right decision to respect wounded troops, and the doctors and nurses doing crucial and time-sensitive work, by not making a visit that was characterized as a campaign event by the Pentagon. Senator Obama should be thanked for putting our military above politics. And, I would hope that John McCain would think in those same terms, the next time he is put in a similar situation.

“Senator Obama has voted for the troops when John McCain has not, most recently on the new GI Bill. I am happy that Senator Obama puts the welfare of our troops above politics.”

The release explains:

Dr. Katherine Scheirman, MD, MHA, CPE, FACPE, is a Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org, and has twenty years experience in the Department of Defense medical system. She retired from the Air Force in 2006 with the rank of Colonel. During her time in the military, she was assigned to a number of duties where she saw ‘first hand’ the shortcomings of the DOD medical system and its effect on troops. Most recently, she was at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, which saw the majority of those injured during the war in Iraq.

During that assignment as Chief of Medical Operations, she directed four branches responsible for medical operational and legal policy guidance for 10 USAFE medical facilities and an Air Force squadron at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and provided oversight and mentoring for 11 Chiefs of Medical Staff and over 700 medical personnel throughout Europe. She was responsible for all quality of care, patient safety, behavioral health, JCAHO compliance, community health programs and business plan execution there, among her decades of other assignments at home and abroad.

McCain’s voting record against the troops

Veteran’s sites are saying that “McCain is not a friend of the military.”

What? How is this possible? Everyone knows that McCain is a military hero. He talks about his love for the troops all the time.

… John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans…

Yes, McCain talks pro-trooops, but words are cheap. What counts is how the wannabe president actually voted on bills that would, in real life, help troops, veterans and their families. Unfortunately, when McCain’s voting record is examined, it becomes clear that McCain has little regard for the troops, their safety, their post-war health and well-being, much less the fulfillment of the promises this country made to them in exchange for their service.

September, 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment that would have provided all troops in Iraq have at least as much time home and in training as in theater. (S.Amdt 2909, 2910, 2910; 9/19/2007, 5:30 pm)

May, 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would have provided the VA with an additional $20 million for healthcare facilities. (S.Amdt 3704; 5/4/2006, 11:34 am)

April, 2006: McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against $430 million for VA outpatient care and facilities. (S.Amdt 3642; 4/26/2006, 5:55 pm)

March, 2006: McCain voted against increasing VA medical services funding. (S.Amdt 3007 to S.Con.Res 83; 3/14/2006, 4:22 pm)

March, 2004: McCain voted against establishing a VA reserve fund to treat veterans. (S.Amdt 2745 to S.Con.Res 95; 3/10/2004, 9:34 pm)

October, 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment that called for an additional $322 million in safety equipment for soldiers in Iraq. (S.Amdt. 1817 to S. 1689; 10/2/2003, 7:36 pm)

April, 2003: McCain voted to table a senate vote to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq. (S.Amdt 452 to S. 762; 4/2/2003, 5:35 pm)

August, 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650 million. (S.Amdt. 1218 to S.Amdt. 1214; 8/1/2001, 6:02 pm)

McCain ad “literally not true”

From the blog First Read:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell [who accompanied Obama on the trip] reports that there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign — violating rules that it not be a political stop.

Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he’d been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed — never any press.

[...]

“One GOP strategist with close ties to McCain’s campaign said the new line of attack reflected the operation’s ‘schizophrenic’ nature. He said that tendency was also on display last week, as McCain spoke at length about media coverage of Obama rather than sticking with his plan to focus on the economy. ‘They couldn’t help themselves,’ the strategist said, adding that the ad over the hospital visit is ‘churlish and unlike McCain, and hardly will resonate with the swing voters who are going to decide this election.’ The strategist continued: ‘They’re doing it because the candidate, and the campaign, is not happy with where they are and they’re lashing out.’”

Emphasis added.

Is McCain honest, or honestly desperate to be president?

Many analysts are saying that McCain’s integrity and credibility are in danger of being lost in this quest of doing anything and everything in order to become president. This ad’s false attack on his Democratic opponent would seem to indicate that they are right.

Factcheck.org has a thorough dissection of the ad. The summary states:

A new McCain ad says Obama “made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.”

McCain’s facts are literally true, but his insinuation – that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time – is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier – without cameras or press – both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine.

The Obama campaign canceled the visit with wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, Obama says, when he learned that the Pentagon would not allow him to bring along a retired Air Force major general who is serving as a foreign policy adviser to the campaign. Obama says that “triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political.”

The Factcheck.org article goes into further analysis, with all charges and facts sourced, and done so impartially. Worth a read if you want the truth.