world

McCain campaign savages New York Times

102 Comments

John McCain's White House campaign Monday lashed out at the media and declared the venerable New York Times was "150%" behind Democratic hopeful Barack Obama.

McCain senior strategist Steve Schmidt rebuked journalists he said had failed in their duty to submit Obama to intense scrutiny and accused news organizations of hounding McCain's running mate Sarah Palin.

"Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization," said Schmidt on a conference call with reporters.

"It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, and excuses Senator Obama.

"This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate -- in this case, John McCain."

The McCain campaign complaints were reminiscent of comments by the campaign of former Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, which claimed the media was giving Obama an easy ride and not properly "vetting" his candidacy.

Schmidt's outburst came in specific response to a question about a story in Monday's paper which said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis had lobbied for $30,000 a month for five years to defend mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The two firms were taken under government control earlier this month in the early stages of the economic crisis which has consumed Wall Street and transformed the presidential campaign.

Davis said on the conference call he had been on leave of absence from his company for 18 months, and had not done any lobbying work in the area for up to a year-and-a-half before that.

The McCain campaign also defended Palin over her lack of contact with journalists, saying she had spoken to ABC News and Fox News and would soon do an interview with CBS.

"If anybody ever asked us to make a choice between seeing 60,000 people at a rally ... or spending an hour with a reporter, I don't imagine that we'd have many questions as to what we'd rather do," said Davis.

Anger at the media was not just confined to the ranks of McCain's campaign brain trust on Monday.

At a rally Scranton, Pennsylvania, one woman stood up in the question-and-answer period, and berated journalists, pointed a journalists and accused them of exploiting the pregnancy of Palin's unwed teenaged daughter.

"They need to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies, shame on you," she shouted, provoking delighted cheers at the rally among the mainly Irish American audience.

The Obama campaign mocked Schmidt's comments as a "laughable screed" and sent journalists a list of 40 "probing" stories the paper had written on the Illinois Senator.

Spokesman Bill Burton said the Times had not done any stories on McCain's role in a 1980s Savings and Loans scandal when he was accused of improperly helping a financier counter regulators.

McCain was cleared of corruption in the "Keating Five" case but accused of showing poor judgement. He overcame association with the scandal by throwing himself into the reform of campaign finance laws.

The New York Times is regarded by some observers in America as a paragon of journalistic standards which keeps its news reporting and opinion comment strictly separate.

But it is reviled by conservatives who rail against the perceived liberal bias of the mainstream media.

© Wire reports

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments
Login to comment

“This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate—in this case, John McCain.”

150%.

Not understanding simple math is not going to help voters believe your campaign understands the economy.

I am 150% certain. ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Want some cheese to go with that whine, McCain? What.. Is Bill Kristol attacking you now?

The McCain campaign complaints were reminiscent of comments by the campaign of former Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, which claimed the media was giving Obama an easy ride and not properly “vetting” his candidacy.

Attacking the press. Always a signal of the desperation of a loser, Ms. McCain. Perhaps you and Palin ought to put out more substance and fewer lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

which said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis had lobbied for $30,000 a month for five years to defend mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I did not know about this before and now I do. That is what news is Mr. Schmidt. It is unusual that Mr. Schmidt did not inform us of any news about Obama we did not already know. How can he claim bias unless there is information about Obama that is not reaching the public via the press?

Let's face it they got caught in their own ploy. They have been trying to tie Obama to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. Their plan backfired and now they are pissed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's see I hear the Republican buzzing around about Rezko again. They are saying why don't they look into the Rezko connection to Obamma. Many are bringing up Rezko because of McCain's campaign complaints about their nailing Rick Davis. Oh and before you repeat his explanation from this article, please spare us, what on earth could he have said besides that. That was all they had left. The old "Oh I was just getting $30k per month but I wasn't really doing my job at the time, I was just ripping off their company by taking the money and not providing the work." Back to Rezko because McCain is now airing ads trying to make the connection. Are you ready for the bombshell NeoCons? Here it comes. Bush received money form Rezko. The Republican party received money from Rezko.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently taka313 has never before heard anyone use the term "150%" when describing something that is excessive.

goodDonkey: They have been trying to tie Obama to Freddie Mac and ( Fannie ) Mae"

Nah, just his economic advisors. And they are indeed up to their necks in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Check it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain is likely to become the next president.

I believe the NYT are fully aware of how a Republican presidency in this present political/economic climate would play out. What the newspaper may want is a return to the liberal posturing of a Democratic Whitehouse. However they contend with a Republican Party that has shifted across to the extreme right. This Party now represents the most fundamentalist religious and theo-fascist elements driving the party politics. The NYT is justafiably afraid of where that will take America and the world.

The NYT is fully complicit in the war crimes in this 'war on terror'. They fear what would happen if the country destroys itself and its ability to protect itself being subject to investigation from International war crimes trials, which any event are one day inevitable. The owners of the NYT and its editorial board want to push back that day of reckoning, which is understandable of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha - "McCain is likely to become the next president."

Many posters here would disagree. They are certain Obama will crush McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like typical repubs they lash out at the publications they imagine Barack's friends from Harvard and Columbia read.

It's like they can't get over what The Atlantic Monthly did to their candidate:

Atlantic Monthly Apologizes to McCain Over Photos

Monday, September 15, 2008 5:56 PM

By Tim Collie

A photographer working for a leading U.S. magazine says she intentionally shot John McCain in an unflattering light — shots that she is using to mock him on her own Web site.

The disclosure has embarrassed The Atlantic Monthly, prompting an apologetic note from its editor and an angry comment from the journalist who wrote its October cover story on McCain.

Jill Greenberg boasted to Photo District News that she submitted photos of the Arizona senator to the magazine while barely airbrushing them.

"I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she said.

Greenberg went on to explain that she tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor — a horror-movie style of lighting from beneath that turned the Republican’s face into a stark display of shadows. Asking McCain to "please come over here" for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.

"He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either.

"I guess they're not very sophisticated," she said.

Greenberg, a self-proclaimed "hard-core Democrat," has posted some of the images she was assigned to take to make a political statement on her Web site, Manipulator.com. It shows a series of McCain images in highly unflattering poses, including one that has a monkey defecating onto the Republican candidate's head. (Greenberg is known in photo circles for her pictures of apes.)

Another one reads, "I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer," with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking blood-smeared lips. "

Hahahahaha. Too funny!

Maybe mccain and his team are just jealous that they are not as clever as us progressives are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

42 days to go only,it is either president mccain or president obama. Good to know new change administration on the way, by 42 days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"it is either president mccain or president obama"

God help us, eh? Hee hee!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Another one reads "I am a bloodthirsty warmonger," with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking bllod-smeared lips."

That is indeed one of the funniest pictures I've seen! Even funnier than the one with Obama driving a car with Hillary in the back seat, titled "Driving Miss Hillary Crazy." Hee hee!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka313 - Get ready for President McCain and Vice President Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a+b=c if A is 100 and B is 50 then c is 150% of A (100+50)

Whats wrong with math:)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain campaign savages New York Times"

He's losing his grip.

America is getting ready for a President Obama and Vice President Biden.

I heard McCain's family has 13 cars (and - gasp! - two of those cars were not made in America!) and an as yet unknown number of houses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge

Many posters here would disagree. They are certain Obama will crush McCain.

Yeah, seems so. Boy are they going to be disappointed.

Taka

Have you looked at your figures yet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits - "Attacking the press. Always a signal of the desperation of a loser, Ms. McCain. Perhaps you and Palin ought to put out more substance and fewer lies."

Bang on.

mccain has just put hammered another nail in his rapidly closing coffin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Republicans really understood reality, they wouldn't need the NYT to tell them that mccain stands for the rich elites who really have no clue what the rest of America is going through at the moment.

13 cars and an unknown number of houses. Write that one down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwha,

What figures are you talking about?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3; Why this envy of McCain`s possesions he earnt through his hard work. The NYT can be as biased as they like, but the people have already turned against Obama and McCain will win with a landslide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama represents a shift back to a ‘liberal’ posture that placates the larger American population. However, it is just a posture.

Obama couldn’t possibly deliver any real ‘change’, either economic or in terms of foreign policy. As his speeches have made clear, he represents emphatically the same corporate and military interests as does McCain. The difference if any will be in the relative youth of the president, and the baseless hope that a charismatic and eloquent president can rally Americans and the world and somehow return the US to what looks comparatively speaking like its glory days of the past.

Remember George Bush won two election in highly dubious circumstances.

The faction of the ruling elite that support Bush will not relinquish their hold on power. Just look at the fundamentally undemocratic policies they have rammed through legislation, particularly most recently.

It really hurts their supporters to admit but the truth is the Democratic Party have proven themselves to be gutless over the years of the Bush Administration, unable or just plain unwilling to stop the dismantling of the American Constitution, or to impeach Bush, unwilling to end the Iraq war. Even though Democrats made speeches that encouraged their supporters to think they actually desired those outcomes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I heard McCain's family has 13 cars (and - gasp! - two of those cars were not made in America!) and an as yet unknown number of houses."

Props, my friend.

With interested followers of our election as eager, dare I say obsessed, as you are, it's lights out for old man mccain. he won't be able to hide his disgusting pro-free trade stance any longer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The press' job is to dig up as much dirt as they can about our candidates. If one candidate is dirtier than the other, does that mean the press is biased?

You know what's really scary? A government who distrusts/hates the media.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

Lebenty-leben times out of a hundred, 150% is too much. I disagree with Sarge that percentages over 100% are used to connote "excessive". I think they are used to connote "absolutely absolute".

The Times endorsed McCain as the Republican candidate. It also endorsed Clinton as the Democratic candidate. Schmidt would have us believe that these endorsements were somehow part of a grand plan to give Obama a free ride.

What Schmidt seems to desire from journalists is a standard of objectivity that is required of scholars. Setting aside the fact that those who disdain journalists have no greater love for university professors, for a newspaper to undertake that level of objectivity would be the kiss of death. Yuh pays yer money and yuh takes yer choice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

I picked up on your post to Sarge his 'math'. I posted you on another thread suggesting you do the numbers with regard to your mention that McCain would privatise veteran's care and social security. As the facts I posted demonstrate, they have no money (at least none they will care to share) to fund those two or any other similar social services such as Medicare, or Medicaid. I mean it doesn't matter whether McCain or Obama gets elected into office, unfortunately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheNewFed - "but the people have already turned against Obama and McCain will win with a landslide."

Ehhrr..last time I checked (yesterday) - Obama was 5 points agead and mccain's support was dropping because Obama was successfully tying him to the tanking economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If anybody ever asked us to make a choice between seeing 60,000 people at a rally ... or spending an hour with a reporter, I don’t imagine that we’d have many questions as to what we’d rather do.

Let's set aside for a moment that no one is asking Mr. Davis to make that choice. However, if I had to make that choice, I would make it in based on where I could find the greatest number of independent voters who I could win over to my side. I think I might take my chances with a press interview rather than with a rally.

Mr. Davis seems to want to cast this as a 60,000 to 1 proposition. My guess is that the rally is a rally of people who either already support Palin (whatever happened to McCain?) or who are leaning toward supporting her. At the rally itself she touches few independents and has to rely on press coverage, YouTube and the blogoshpere to reach the critical audience. On the negative side, when she speaks at a rally she has to use rally-speak and that is exactly the type of language that lends itself to dissection by a thousand sound bites.

On the other hand, when she interviews a national reporter, the independents sit up and take notice of what she is really saying. She either is or is not giving thoughtful answers to incisive questions and, in the hands of an unbiased reporter, she has an opportunity to show her skill in defending against follow-up questions. This interview is transcripted and usually broadcast on the media website.

So, yes, Mr. Davis may see this as a no-brainer. But I see it as a way to shield Palin from the necessity of doing anything difficult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your posts about any apparent republican advantage in this election ( not to mention "victory" in Iraq ) are always heroic feats of deconstruction, sez who. I cannot describe the comfort they bring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge

Nah, just his economic advisors. And they are indeed up to their necks in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Check it out.

I have checked it out and there is nothing there. Like I said before to such innuendos, post 'em if you got 'em; otherwise we will know you don't have anything at all. But for now let's get off the subject of your imagination and back to the facts. "Rick Davis [Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser] had lobbied for $30,000 a month for five years to defend mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

“The value that he [Rick Davis] brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae.

Well looky here we got a pic of McCain cozying up to the lobbyist. Looks like McCain himself is way past his neck in it. Priceless!

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/09/22/us/22mccain_CA0.ready.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Palin's interview with Sean Hannity would be equivalent to James Carville interviewing Obama. You don't schedule an interview with a political hack to prove your integrity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey; Hannity is a tough interviewer without bias. The NYT could learn from him how to behace during a political campaign.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Palin's interview with Sean Hannity would be the equivalent of Clinton adviser and Clinton admin communications director George Stephanopoulos interviewing Barack Obama. Oh, wait, I meant to write

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mccain's campaign team appears to contain more lobbyests than it does real people.

And it's funny watching him lash out with bitter attacks on Obama for 'ties to lobbyests' and for being an 'elitist' when mccain himself is the personification of both.

And now mccain is lashing out at the NYT.....heh, he can now see clearly that this campaign is going the way of the last one - straight down the tubes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alinsky4prez

That is odd for a progressive to say. Didn't you say you supported Obama? Didn't you say you contributed $50 to his campaign?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday.

Republicans are now facing the sobering truth that they are supporting yet another total loser - this time their guy is yesterday's man in today's world, too old, too bitter, too little, too late.

In the latest a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market; only 24 percent said Democrats are more responsible.

Oh, and the majority of respondents view Obama as better on economic issues.

But at least mccain has his rock star partner Palin on the side phew! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway McCain was on the campaign trail in Scranton, Pennsylvania and he could not take his eyes off the script. Often you will see a candidate look at his or her notes. But when they believe in what they are saying they only need it for a reference. He was talking about the current bailout and he had know idea what he was talking about so his eyes were glued to the script. If you can't stand listening to McCain for very long you can start at minute 6:30 out of 10:56. By all means listen to the entire clip if you feel I am trying to hide something from you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_mS8WQEZc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know what's really scary? A government who distrusts/hates the media." Moonbeams, true. But, aren't you equally concerned when powerful people in the media are the ones setting the agendas?

I wish I could properly read another language 100%. Lately, I've been trying to read Spanish news because at least I get the facts - not heresay, not opinions, not what probably was but was indeed. There is no doubt in my mind that the NYT leans towards dems but there are a few others that lean the other way I am sure, just haven't seen them.

Now, you can say its good that the NYT support Obama much more than McCain is that is what you want, but what about when things aren't what you want? Do you just take it in stride or do you voice your opinion?

What we do know is, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, NY Post, the LA Times, The Chicago Times, CNN, and Bloomberg News are all very very pro Obama/Dem. There is no debate about that. But, really whose fault is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3- McCains campaign is on track. He is heading for a win, obvious to all politically astute fellows.

The NYT sabotage campaign will not work, Obama will not win. I suggest all Democrats stay at home on election day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BombGroup303rd - You know what's really scary? It's when Republicans like you simply refuse to see the reality of the situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gooddonkey - I watched that mccain clip - mccain lies blatantly saying Obama doesn't have a plan. What a joke. mccain knows no shame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since when is stating a fact "savaging"? The writer here needs a dictionary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrats exist now principally to delude the people into thinking there is a democracy. They just do not represent any alternative to what the Republicans offer - a plutocracy manifesting itself nakedly at this point through the blatant dictatorship of the corporations.

McCain's plan? He hasn't really got one. It could best be summarised as 'business as usual' which also happens to translate as 'war as usual'.

The reason McCain will be president is simply because he is the nominated leader of the faction of the ruling elite that really do have control of politics and the country at this time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain's plan to fix the tanking economy? While mccain states he has one, the Bush Administration has already swiped it away as being unworkable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain and Obama both have a plan, and its the same one. To ensure no obstacle gets in the way of business as usual/ war as usual. They do however, have entirely different personalities of course. But that just means the posturing is different.

Which ever slice you choose, it will be the same toxic pudding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

The fact was that Davis was a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie. "[L]ast week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute." Tell us some unfavorable information on Obama that the press is ignoring. You say fact; back up what you say. Give evidence that "It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The reason McCain will be president is simply because he is the nominated leader of the faction of the ruling elite that really do have control of politics and the country at this time."

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I'll be very surprised if McCain wins. And those ruling elites you talk of, seem to me, ones who are controlling the media. And if you think about it, it makes sense. An elite would prefer to make it harder for you to compete for business. Social heath care, for example, would make it harder for blind bids and put only a few players on the court. This holds true for the media Media too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alinsky4prez,

I'm not talking about any Republican advantage, apparent or otherwise. And I'm certainly not talking about victory in Iraq--which has nothing to do with this thread. What are you on about?

I've made two points:

(1) That Schmidt is overboard in his characterization of NYT's coverage of Obama. That it is not NYT's job to ensure Schmidt's idea of balanced coverage but the reader's idea of balanced coverage. You know, the Fox News thing. Even so, Schmidt's contention is counter to fact.

(2) Davis seems to claim that Palin gets more coverage from a rally in front of 60,000 people than she would in a one-on-one interview and such a claim is not necessarily true. Coverage depends on how the events are disseminated more broadly. What Palin gets is greater control and the ability not to have to recognize a challenge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mmmmmmmmmm......toxic pudding.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mcCain just angry because he gonna lose to Obama. Obama gonna amke normal guys like me live better life.

I can move to better trailer, i am glad he is going to take from the rich to give to guys like me. Why shouldn't i have some decent money? Obama is the guy for me. The NYT must be telling, like, the truth and mcCain don't like the truth, you know what i'm saying?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip,

Not "ruling elites". Ruling elite. I'm only talking about one. Its not like there's a whole bunch of them vying in some kind of super league within the one country.

There is though a ruling elite in each country. That is entirely the norm. And yes, they do compete for resources. Its a zero-sum game. In other words, Capitalism has reduced down to a zero-sum game.

But in each country there is only one ruling elite, albeit a factionalized one. This is why the US is a plutocracy rather than a democracy. There is the illusion promulgated by the ruling elite that voters actually have a say in who governs them.

In reality the thin layer of extremely wealthy that make up the ruling elite have entirely all of the say. They say it through the corporations they own. The concept of 'the level playing field' and the ideology of the 'free marked', was an elaborate illusion maintained to give an appearance of naturalness to the whole construction.

Social heath care, for example, would make it harder for blind bids and put only a few players on the court. This holds true for the media Media too.

The "media" is run entirely by corporations owned by the ruling elite. The manner in which they report 'facts' defines the parameters of the public (your) choice. These two candidates represent entirely the same ruling elite, albeit two factions of it. Unfortunately neither are interested at this point in social services because they are hell bent on maintaining the dominance of the dollar on the world currency market, and as that is proving impossible they are totally focused now on directly grabbing control of the world's mineral resources and means to their continued profit through war. The USA is at war, you've heard it from both candidates. This means harsh times for the American public just as it does for the victims of war abroad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwha,

I don't believe McCain can win. The economy, his major achilles heel, seems to be ever woeful and recently polled voters rightly blame the GOP for running the county onto the rocks under the last painfull eight years of Bush Co. And like someone said, when you're whinging that the media is biased your clearly not doing very well.

The economy is more important to Americans right now, not far-away wars that they've become bored with and cannot win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The "media" is run entirely by corporations owned by the ruling elite.

Who are they? Since bush will soon be gone and Barack our dear leader you really needn't fear naming some names.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mad I don't believe he should win, but still believe he will.

The economy is more important to Americans right now, not far-away wars that they've become bored with and cannot win.

Totally agree with you, although it shouldn't be that way because the two - the American economy and America's wars - are reason for each other.

But there you go, I've been posting that the reality of what administration is in office and particularly the legislation they enact is shaped ultimately not by voters at all, however much they believe it to be. I'm sticking with that perspective, mostly because it is reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwha,

"the American economy and America's wars - are reason for each other."

I don't buy that. The wars are probably good for the economy as it's the American defense contractors that make the damned bombs, who in turn pay taxes in the US - and of course the cash stays more or less in the US.

The economy has gone tits-up because of un-checked lending....

And to be honest with you, I think both McCain and Obama are pretty brave for battling out to pick up the pieces of the Bush Co train-wreck.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwah: I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or refuting me, however I like what you point out: "These two candidates represent entirely the same ruling elite, albeit two factions of it." So, you agree with me that niether of them could careless about me?

Unfortunately neither are interested at this point in social services because they are hell bent on maintaining the dominance of the dollar on the world currency market" I wish they wouldn't.

"they are totally focused now on directly grabbing control of the world's mineral resources and means to their continued profit through war." " Ok, so here you are talking about Republicans only?

Madvets: Yes, most believe this mess is Bush's fault, but they should understand economies can not stay up for ever. If in four years time it isn't fixed, many here will still say its Bush's fault but won't bring themselves to understand that the rolling 90's was greatly due to Regan's policies. We have been forced to choose our parties by the media for the most part. I still to this day, have yet to see a line by line differences between the candidates (not just this election) and the pros and cons to each of those lines. Instead, tv shows are aired, famous people endorse (and I am sure you would agree that younger Americans follow celebs).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip,

"These two candidates represent entirely the same ruling elite, albeit two factions of it." So, you agree with me that niether of them could careless about me?

You have it.

"they are totally focused now on directly grabbing control of the world's mineral resources and means to their continued profit through war." " Ok, so here you are talking about Republicans only?

No. Let me clarify. The Republicans and the Democratic parties represent two separate factions within the American ruling elite. There are differences in perspective between them but nothing substantial. Both political parties after all serve the interests of the ruling elite, and not those of the larger American population. That is why no matter which is in power the general direction of US policy will not change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The NYT -- heh, the gold standard of U.S. journalism -- endorsed john kerry last time around and al gore before that. And everyone knows how those elections turned out.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans and the Democratic parties represent two separate factions within the American ruling elite. There are differences in perspective between them but nothing substantial."

Oh my god, finally! Thank you thank you thank you. All you blinding politico groupies take heed... common sense still exists.

I vote for Taniwha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And everyone knows how those elections turned out."

Heh, where were you on November 7, 2006?

Not on JT, I know that much...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

I guess I have to apologize to you. The moderators tell me that my retort was "impolite" to another user. From my point of view, when you opine about "toxic pudding" that seems mightily irrelevant in the first place and possibly impolite in the second.

So, what is a "toxic pudding" and why is it toxic. In other words, what are you talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is a self made man.

Grandpa, John S. McCain, Sr., was a four-star admiral in the Navy. Father, Admiral John Sidney McCain Jr., was a four star admiral in the United States Navy. You connect the dots.

Obama was not an elite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The latest TV ad now running in the States debunks his worshipers' image that "Obama is a self made man":

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0cq4Nytu8

It's amazing how Mr. Bush & Mr. Cheney have been roasted over the fires of abject liberal hatred for eight years because of their associations, yet obama's associations are not to be scrutinized.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mad,

I don't buy that. The wars are probably good for the economy as it's the American defense contractors that make the damned bombs, who in turn pay taxes in the US - and of course the cash stays more or less in the US.

Wars are good for the military industrial complex, and any industries given preferential treatment by the victors once the occupation begins. Sure all of that happens. What has also happened with the erosion of Capitalism is a clustering of wealth in the hands of a few. The notion that war is good for the economy is in any event nothing but a convenient myth. The realith is that when good economic conditions prevail those who own the means of production (factories etc) tend to be more socially aware. After all a healthy happy society equals a productive workforce.

When economic conditions turn adverse then profit becomes difficult to extract and it is always the worker that costs are extracted from one way or another. That's an economic and an historic fact. You can go back to prior to both World Wars to see how that process comes about and takes effect within a country such as say, the USA, or for that matter Germany, or Japan.

The one thing the US always had over the rest of the world's economies was a massive and advanced production base. That has been severely depleted and hollowed over the few decades. Globalization, inevitable in terms of the world economy, also contributed greatly.

Things are not as they were in the past.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mad,

You are wrong about cash staying in the US, it hasn't been doing that, and that is part of the problem.

The nature of the problem being faced by the Fed is nothing much to do with the recent Administration, although clearly policies coming out of Washington over the past decades has really accelarated the process. The emergence of the Bush administration, just like the batch of failed corporations and banks on Wall Street are symptomatic of the disease that is the death of Capitalism. Its been a long drawn out process.

There's no room to deal with it here. Go to WSWS.org - do a search under any keyword you like and you will find that since 1998 they have expertly and faithfully described the real events at the time and predicted with almost unparalleled precision the course events would take. Shorn of the spin and the need to obfuscate the real guts of what has happened, is happening, and even will happen is all there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, amendment to my first line in reply to you in the above post. Cold hard cash staying in the USA or moving out of it is not the essence of the problem for the US (or the world) at all.

Point of fact, over the past few decades cash has been flowing like a river into the USA, from China, India, Korea, and Japan principally. It was mostly because of the possibility that China would react badly by pulling its investments that the Bush Administration decided to nationalize Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. China had invested big time in both of them. A good part of Asia 'owns' a good part of the USA. If that part of the world panic and pull their investment America is feet up.

That is unlikely to happen because that in turn would mean curtains for say, China's export economy. The Japanese economy though dependent mostly on exports to China is also well and truely intertwined with the USA. The continuing relative good health of the Chinese economy is really the key to the entire world being able to stave off the next great depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's no room to deal with it here. Go to WSWS.org - do a search under any keyword you like and you will find that since 1998 they have expertly and faithfully described the real events at the time and predicted with almost unparalleled precision the course events would take.

My revolutionary friend, WSWS is hosted in america.

I fear you may be the victim of an elaborate hoax.

Join those of us who follow Barack if it is real change you seek.

Moderator: Enough with the "revolutionary friend" please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The NYT ... endorsed [Kerry] last time around and [Gore] before that. And everyone knows how those elections turned out.

Yes. Disastrous for the United States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My revolutionary friend, WSWS is hosted in america

Well, so is the UN. Could be relevant.

But in the case of the WSWS in what actual country the servers are located is irrelevant.

This is the Internet - news is disseminated to all points in cyberspace. A very large proportion of the contributing writers are based all around the globe. It is a news outlet. There is though a Socialist Equality Party associated with WSWS.org and they are all around the globe also, from Scri Lanka to New Zealand to Germany to USA and beyond - truely international indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha,

international but totally irrelevant and has been for over 50 years. Its not 1960 anymore. Time has moved on even if the soclialist movement you belong to has not.

Fact is that mccains campaign is loaded with flacks who sell out to the highest bidder. This latest news that his campaign manager collected $2 million over five years from Freddie Mac is not surprising. His georgia advisor was on the payroll of the georgian government. mccain takes money from all sources.

The real difference in this years election is the fact that obama has collected so much money himself from the normal demo sources but beyond that from real voters. Most of his contributions are below $200 bucks which for the repubs is what they pay for a box of cigars.

President Obama will change the country and by doing so the world. 8 years of failure need not become 12 or 16.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of his [His] contributions are below $200 bucks

Cool thing is much of it is from overseas - from the Middle east in particular. Can't be traced. Hahahahahaha. too funny!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

alinsky,

If it can't be traced, how do you know it is coming from the ME?

"Enquiring minds want to know." ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know as well as I do that He is a uniter -

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71431

0 ( +0 / -0 )

alinsky,

Do you have something more substantial than a conservative blog?

And did you notice that the people interviewed in your "news story" claim to have nothing to do with the Obama campaign.

And did you also notice that in one paragraph, a connection to Hamas in alleged and 2 paragraphs later, a quote from the interviewees states they have no connection to Hamas?

If you think that is a legitimate news story, than I can only imagine how serious you take the latest cover story by the National Enquirer, a personal fave of yours, if memory serves.

Again, do you have any source for your allegations that a sane person would consider a legitimate news source? If so, I would be happy to read it. Thanks in advance.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the U.S. media were doing their job, they'd be reporting on where the candidates stand on the following:

Federal Protection of Traditional Marriage:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

State Constitutional Amendments that Protect Traditional Marriage:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

Teaching of Homosexuality in Public Schools:

Mr. McCain-opposes obama-supports

Homosexual Adoption of Children:

Mr. McCain-opposes; obama-supports

Protecting Infants Who Survive Abortion:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

Prohibiting Partial-Birth Abortion:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

Nomination Of Supreme Court Justices Who Are Strict Constructionists:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

Private Handgun Ownership:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

Allowing Parents To Exercise School Choice:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

Government Control Of Health Care:

Mr. McCain-opposes; obama-supports

Reducing Dependence On Foreign Oil:

Mr. McCain-supports; obama-opposes

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RR, you forgot

Kindergarten free love Mr. McCain opposes; Obama supports.

And most damningly, Cafe au lait Mr. McCain opposes; Obama supports.

And why would McCain oppose items above that would fall under the category of states' rights? Oh, I forgot: He's not a conservative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey guys i'm new here. I think i agree mostly with RomeoRamenll, he seems to know what he`s talking about.

The New York Times and most of the media is very biased against Sen McCain, i find it unfair and undemocratic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To be fair, the media was biased for McCain during the Republican primaries once it became clear that Rudy the Brown Nosed Reindeer was going nowhere.

Regardless, it is going to be very amusing to watch the media reaction when their darling Obama gets smoked in a Republican landslide in November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie - "And most damningly, Cafe au lait Mr. McCain opposes; Obama supports"

Hee hee! Thanks!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And so RR has shown that he supports media bias when the media takes a conservative slant.

And that is what this story is about. I have been reading the Washington Post and they have been quite critical of McCain and scathing of Palin. But nary a word of protest from the McCain campaign.

The truth is that bashing the NYTimes is meant to rally supporters more than it is a deep concern about objectivity and neutrality in reporting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie,

And most damningly, Cafe au lait Mr. McCain opposes; Obama supports

I caught it. I think it's safe to say the cafe au lait issue is the most important one to ramen as well. Very clever, my friend.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey what's the lates on the McCain dudes still taking money from Fannie Mae? Egg on somebody's face this morning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey guys i'm new here. I think i agree mostly with RomeoRamenll

Then you must be new 'round these parts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrats and Barack Obama represent nothing so much as a lie.

If you want change then vote for the SEP (Socialist Equality Party). The Dems are there to soak up the working class and lost liberals. To obfuscate and turn people away from the real alternative to more of the same. The Dems posture as if they actually represent an alternative, but as US politics shows very clearly they are just an act.

If you want more of the same vote McCain.

If you want more of the same with a cherry on top vote Obama. But if its democracy you are after than take a good hard look at the reality of the fraud that is the two party system. The SEP is the only party offering democracy for real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha,

I think you have a good point. And I think more people should listen to what the SEP is saying. Particularly interesting, I think, are Jerry White's comments on the financial crisis.

http://www.socialequality.com/

However, in these comments, White acknowledges that either McCain or Obama will be the next president. So, in my opinion, if we are going to savage the press about anything, we should be savaging it for its persistent failure to address the SEP's message. Then again, most Americans don't really want to puzzle over The Socialist Worker at their morning coffee--even if the weekly subscription is free.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2

Good to see you on board, well, waving to the ship in recognition anyway.

That's the URL to go to for clarity on the issue. My feeling as I have already stated on JT is that McCain ultimately will win. I just don't think the faction of the ruling elite in control now will relinquish the Whitehouse when things are looking so bad for the Capitalist economy of the USA, never mind their profit margins.

The fact that the US dollar will likely be replaced by the Euro as the 'dominant' world currency (at least for the short term future) means they will be focused entirely on using American military force in an effort to maintain ensure US hegemony across the globe. Controlling the world's oil and gas resources is now the only game in town for them, and the means is by military force.

The situation now that the Capitalist economy is falling down (like a house of cards) across the world means that the elites of other major powers are looking in desperation at maintaining their own positions of control within their own economies. The US decision to replace diplomacy with military force as their tool to exert foreign policy has meant a rapid build up of militaries across the globe, and general turn to sabre rattling and jingo-chauvinist nationalism in many countries.

The hardline/neo-cons and including the fascist/ fundamental religious forces that have formed into the core of the Republican Party now, will simply not risk a member of the more moderate and the 'liberal' faction, as represented by the Democratic Party, take office. So I just can't see Obama being president, not in this environment and given those dynamics at play. John McCain has won the Republican nomination, and short of the US army taking control of the Whitehouse, I would bet on McCain sitting behind the desk in the oval office by January.

The best we can hope for is that under conditions that render the true nature of Capitalism naked to all - and of course the reality of the sham that is the two party politics - that people will realize that International Socialism provides the only logical and rational next step in bringing a peaceful and truely democratic world into being.

Yes, and Jerry White would be outstanding in a presidential debate. That would be a real debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha,

I agree with most of what you say. Any points of disagreement I have would be either in degree or in tone.

My concern, however, is that most Americans have--and at a very early age--been vaccinated against socialism and one-world-ism. We even had to be revaccinated for "creeping socialism". So the problem is one of getting the message out.

I think that what it will take to bring about the kind of change that you desire is a clear demonstration of the virtues of socialism in other countries combined with a total melt-down of the current US system. Even then, the immediate change would not likely be a system change, but more likely a conversation change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2

I agree with most of what you say. Any points of disagreement I have would be either in degree or in tone.

I'm not sure what you mean.

...most Americans have--and at a very early age--been vaccinated against socialism and one-world-ism.

Against socialism, yes. However, against "one-world-ism" apparently not. After all it would seem that a lot of Americans have no problem with the world being made in their image, with the notion of actually pushing American Capitalism onto other peoples in other countries. Many Americans seem not even to question the notion that there is something fundamentally wrong about invading sovereign powers to replace their leadership.

I do realise though, that neither notion is embraced by all or perhaps even a majority of Americans, but would argue and I think you would agree that most Americans would not even be aware of these realities as being issues - they wouldn't have thought about them hardly at all.

We even had to be revaccinated for "creeping socialism". So the problem is one of getting the message out.

Absolutely I agree. That would also go for virtually the whole of the industrialised world up until this year.

The problem there is that no country in the world has a Socialist system in place. There was the 1917 October Revolution in Russia where the working class took a hold of the state. That didn't last too long. Stalin and his supporters turned the revolution into a dictatorship. Since then other dictators such as Mao and Pol Pot followed with their own regimes based on Stalin's appropriation of the Marxist notion of Communism. It enabled them the support of the majority, particularly the peasants who formed the majority of the populations, whose dislike of their traditional overlords was readily harnessed under the promise of a socialist utopia.

In essence, the promise of Socialism was not fulfilled because the real intention on the part of the dictators was to replace internationalism with nationalism. By definition then Castro's communist Cuba cannot survive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even then, the immediate change would not likely be a system change, but more likely a conversation change.

This is a fundamental mistake. You are talking then about tweaking the current system, i.e. the Capitalist system. That's been done. It doesn't work. It cannot. Socialism ( I use Socialism with a big 'S' to refer to the actual) replaces Capitalism, the two don't walk hand in hand. What has happened since 1914 is that in the West to Socialists once imprisoning them or killing them was no longer viable was for the system to attempt first to placate them then to absorb them. The promise that the ruling class and the Capitalist system could be changed from the inside has proven to be a lie. The political parties of the left, including the unions don't even bother anymore pretend to be working toward a shift to Socialism.

The only people who can change the system are the working class.

Jerry White is an International Socialist/ a Trotskiast. He aims firstly for a working class audience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

check out the latest sarah palin interview..

its scary..

she cant even remember the stuff they told her to say..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwa, I think Sez was referring to the recurring flavor of jeremiad in your posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiad

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie,

If you want to say I write long and negative prose consider for a moment the themes I address. They are weighty issues that can't be addressed with simplistic homilies.

I do think though that there is always room for wit, so I'm quite happy to leave the one liners for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

flyingfish - Get ready for Vice President Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ive now watched the couric interview and thats even worse.. it doesnt make any sense at all what shes saying and some of it shes reading off a card.she doesnt know what shes talking about ..i feel sorry for her cos shes patently out of her depth but moreover it makes me very scared... how is this possible?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flyingfish,

How is this possible?

After two terms of the Bush junior/Cheney administration and you are surprised to see yet another naive and reactionary like Palin nominated for Vice President? I'm not.

For starters, the majority of Americans are not directly responsible for these kind of leaders. The George Bushes and the Sarah Palins are virtually placed into these position in a most undemocratic manner. George Bush junior after all, became president twice without winning the majority of votes either time.

The naive and reactionist character of both individuals makes them perfect for the job of looking after the interests of the thin layer of wealthy elite, the class that runs America, in what is a time of desperation - particularly for this lot. They have will not think twice about taking away the rights of citizens, or dropping bombs on civilians in a foreign country when the interests of the ruling elite are at stake.

What you have is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy.

We are all but certain to see a McCain and Palin administration. But the really shocking thing is that an Obama and Biden administration would follow an almost identical policy direction, both domestic and foreign. They would have to, because that is the nature of a plutocracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The George Bushes and the Sarah Palins are virtually placed into these position in a most undemocratic manner.

The naive and reactionist character of both individuals makes them perfect for the job of looking after the interests of the thin layer of wealthy elite, the class that runs America

Comrade Taniwha - why do you torment us like this? Who, exactly, is the ruling class.

Name some names! Then we can, you know, break a few eggs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and the NYT savages the GOP and conservatives/conservatism all day long and into the night.

It's what they do.

If someone prefers another side to the same stories, they can go to The Washington Times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha and others,

i can only assume you havent seen the interviews yet. were not talking about bush levels of incompetence-he at least appears to have some idea. palin does not..and she tries to blag her way thru im afraid there is 0 chance of mccain now winning because palin is such a laughing stock..that couric/palin interview ended his chances. i repeat its not the nature of her views that are the biggest problem for her(lets not even go to the witchdoctor stuff) as you say it didnt hinder bush,but the fact that she is quite demonstrably incompetent. as i say watch the interview ..and read the reactions .even the republicans are not trying to hide their feelings about her. this election in now over..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

0 chance of mccain now winning because palin is such a laughing stock

So has been George Bush junior!

Even during Bush's first term in office abroad there was incredulity expressed at how such a man could be president. What Bush has been openly admired for by colleagues is his ability as a team manager. But that is only one of the character traits that was behind the reason he became president. As I have pointed out above Palin shares at least two of these characteristics.

You assume that democracy prevails, and that votes actually count in the making of a president. They do not. And that is precisely my point.

If the last two decades taught you one thing about the way US politics now works it should have been that presidents are not voted in by the American population.

I am certain that McCain and Palin will win this election for all of the reasons I have given on these threads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

all i can say is that you havent watched the interviews. if you dont have time just watch the couric palin one.. its staggering

this election is now pretty much over as a contest which is a sad thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

conservative commentators are now calling for palin to pull out citing family reasons it really is that bad..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flyingfish,

I did, I did watch the interviews.

I felt the same way I did when I watched George Bush Jnr being interviewed prior to his first election. It was horrible, Palin is a pawn, and that makes having her in the role of Vice President dangerous. More so when as others have pointed out already she is only a few heartbeats away from being the president.

McCain is quite old for the job, and on top of that he's not in the best of health. So if the Republicans retain the Whitehouse, Palin will find herself at some stage in the role of President of America.

Its true Palin may be pulled as Vice President.

To be honest I think just about anything could happen here. Those who are in charge of running the country now will decide how the next president comes into office. But don't look for rationality behind what is taking place. This lot are not looking further ahead than tomorrow and even then not at all past their own interests.

My guess is that many, maybe even you, will be watching the Vice Presidential debate next week. Its kind of that 'you know its going to be so painfully-gut-twistingly-embarassingly-baaaad that it's unmissable viewing', where we find ourselves watching it even though we know it's really a joke that is at our expense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those who are in charge of running the country now will decide how the next president comes into office.

Comrade - who, exactly, is in charge? Give us names and we can, you know, hack their emails and expose them. Its what we do best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha,

Sorry to have neglected you. My PC exploded.

This thread is really about McCain and the New York Times, I think. So I have tried to confine my comments as much as possible to the candidates and to the press. I think your comments are interesting and that they deserve consideration. However, I believe that whether the American desire to cultivate a culture of democracy amounts to the historic concept of "one-worldism" or whether there is any rapprochement between Capitalism and Socialism are somewhat beyond the point.

What is to the point is whether the press is biased. And to that I would say, "Yes, it is." I don't think it particularly has a liberal bias. If it did, it would pick up some of the issues that Jerry White has been talking about and it does not. I think those issues would be better addressed than avoided and I think America does itself a disservice by institutionally and popularly rejecting Socialism out of hand.

At the same time I would observe that we have not yet found a panacea for the world's ills and are not likely to find one in any ideology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites