Reactions to story from The Washington Post

• 

  Wednesdays campaign round-up

  http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15535.html
  202 days ago in The Carpetbagger Report - Commentary and Analysis on Politics in America by Steve Benen · Authority: 2,231

  Todays installment of campaign-related news items that wouldnt generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * If this morning is any indication, the results from the West Virginia primary have not slowed down Obamas
• 

  Reactions to Obama's Consolidation of the Party

  http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5749
  202 days ago in Open Left · Authority: 1,669

  Yesterday, Ben Smith in the Politico confirmed the story I broke last week on Obama's consolidation of the party, and today, Jonathan Weisman and Michael Shear of the Washington Post added added more detail . I argued that Obama is both transforming
• 

  "Obama, McCain Aim to Curb '527s'"

  http://electionlawblog.org/archives/010802.html
  202 days ago in Election Law · Authority: 189

  The Washington Post offers this report.
• 

  Why People Have Had It Up To Here With Republicans

  http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2008/05/why-people-have.html
  202 days ago in Hoffmania! | All That's Left! Liberal News & Free Speech · Authority: 49

  This psychotic mindset. "We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy," promised Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans
• 

  KEN SILVERSTEINTip to McCain: To promote reform, bag your national finance co-chair

  http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/hbc-90002931
  202 days ago in Harper's Magazine · Authority: 3,165

  The Washington Post reports today that Barack Obama and John McCain are both working to . . .
• 

  Campbell Brown’s Bullshit on Obama Fundraising (and Palin Wardrobe)

  http://robotpirateninja.com/2008/10/29/campbell-browns-bulls...
  34 days ago in Robot Pirate Ninja · Authority: 8

  Campbell Brown’s Bullshit on Obama Fundraising (and Palin Wardrobe) I saw the baby-bumping Campbell Brown on the Daily Show the other day.  I thought she did a decent job in the interview, although I’ve been noticing curious levels of b.s. emanating from the brunette for a bit now. In the interview, she talks about the “false-equivalency” that the news media often tries to use to portray an air of impartiality.  She does a good job of both giving a good example of the practice in the intervew (re: Candidate A and Candidate B). Sadly, however, she then goes on to forget that when you are going to call bullshit on what Candidate A says over what Candidate B says, you kinda have to first lay out which one is saying what.  Her point was that she was going to do the layout and then call the bullshit. Sadly, it looks like she is more focused on calling the bullshit. Her first episode of this tendency was demonstrated when she called out “the media” for focusing on Sarah Palin’s $172,000 wardrobe/hairstyling/make-ups fees.  Forget the idiocy of Palin saying the clothes are “borrowed” or the hypocrisy of railing on Hollywood and then hiring their most expensive make-up artist.  No, that’s completely unfair.  You can’t focus on a woman being a woman.  It’s fine for her to charge the State of Alaska $21,000 grand for airfare and $17,000 for staying at home because, you know, she’s a working mom. I’m sorry, but if any person, man or woman, that I have every worked with tried to pass travel or “amenities” expenses of that magnitude, they would be fired.  Flat out.  A couple of questions would be asked, and a couple have been, but given the answers (”I’m borrowing the clothes” and “My girls had to fly there and stay in a hotel to pick raffle tickets.“) they would be fired immediately. John Edwards got raked over the coals for a $400 haircut, and got called a sissy for it.  Palin spent 100 TIMES THAT MUCH, and it’s a pass.  But it’s o.k., because she’s a woman.  And a working mom. Sorry, but that’s crap.  And it’s biased crap.   As a working mom herself, Brown is biased as hell about this.  As a working mom who’s income and success is largely dependent on looking fabulous in front of a camera, this is ludicrously biased crap.   I’m not saying this is Campbell’s fault, I’m just saying it’s a blind spot, and everyone has one. They usually become revealed when someone becomes more agressive, as Campbell Brown has become recently.  It’s part of the game, welcome to it. Which brings us to campaign fundraising questions, and the actual point of this article. Campbell started out with some basics. CNN) — You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people. He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign. Actually, it’s not his money we are talking about here.  I know this is a nitpick, but I think it’s a rather important one.  It’s his campaign’s money.   End of story.  He doesn’t get to keep it. This is why John Edward’s $400 haircut became a story, it was bought with his campaign’s money.  This is why Palin’s wardrobe was a story, it was campaign money.  This is why it isn’t Obama’s or McCain’s money, it is campaign money. And you are wrong about something else, Mrs. Brown, according to tax records (and cars and houses) McCain is the one who is loaded.  Obama is the one running the campaign that is inspiring people in record numbers to give “it” (the Campaign) money.   More on that later, when you insult us all. Campbell continues… Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November. One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits. Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word. Now this is interesting, as one would assume to have a direct quote here.  When one is accused to going back on one’s word, it is usually considered polite to point out what the word was. Campbell, like the hack she is becoming, doesn’t worry about stuff like that.  It’s a good thing too, because if she had spent a couple minutes, she would have seen words like this and her whole rant would have fallen apart. Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would “participate in the presidential public financing system” if his “major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign,” Obama checked the box marked “yes,” then outlined his vision for the 2008 contest. “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election,” he wrote. “My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” So you have a check box “word” and a bunch “words” that clarify a check-box.   I’m not going to split hairs here, but it seems pretty evident that accepting public financing came with some strings. During the summer we got to see those strings. At a meeting in Indianapolis on May 2,  “top [Obama] fundraisers… asked his campaign donors to refrain from contributing to liberal independent political organizations in hopes of controlling the tone and message of the general-election campaign.” Meanwhile, McCain has adopted a hands-off stance, telling the Boston Herald earlier this month that he “can’t be a referee of every spot run on television.” The truth is, neither candidate can control what 527s do on their behalf; the groups simply don’t have to answer to federal or state political finance committees. [source, from a longer article that covers the same question, which Campbell ignored] What this comes down to is that Obama has asked people to give to his campaign, and not give money to people like MoveOn.org and other groups that can run whatever nasty crap they want.   McCain made it clear that he wasn’t going to even make the effort to influence these groups, and by accepting public financing (that $3 checkbox on your tax return) it frees up his regular donors to shower these groups with money. That was the sticking point.  This is illustrated in the press leaks (the, “She said, “He said”" part of the program). Trevor and I met at my office on June 6, and we discussed the June 18 panel and then, for 45 minutes, the public funding issue. I asked him to address a serious of issues of concern to the Obama campaign — such as the McCain campaign’s active raising and spending of private money since February for a general election campaign, including for media, while we were still in the middle of a primary contest. He gave me his perspectives — the best arguments he could offer for an agreement on both sides to accept public financing — and it was clear to me that these offered no basis for any further exchange. Not too long thereafter, John McCain announced he could not and would not “referee” 527 activity. [source] —-vs—- Potter says this account is not factual “This is not true!” Potter says in an email. “I met with Bob Bauer on a different subject (a joint panel we had yesterday in Rhode Island sponsored by the National Assoc. of Attys General) about 10 days ago. During that meeting, he asked what Sen. McCain’s position was on public general election funding, and I said we were for it, and hoped Sen. Obama would participate as well. There was absolutely NO discussion of ‘negotiations’ about participating—the word was never mentioned.  [source] This all cuminated, BTW, in Obama releasing this video. Campbell dismisses this video by ignoring CNN’s very own ads (I’m looking for the one that I keep seeing on CNN about how Obama will destroy small businesses…with his lazer eyes, I would assume…can’t find it). [Obama] broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It’s funny though, those attacks never really materialized. Really?!  Nobody has been using crazy attacks to go after Obama?  No attacks at all? Strange….other people in swing states seem to be seeing them a lot. John McCain would be wise not to condemn the National Republican Trust PAC’s latest ad regarding Jeremiah Wright. Running in key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, the ad points to Obama’s association with the anti-American pastor. Perhaps more importantly, it points out that Obama had no problem sitting in Wright’s church until doing so became a political liability. When it became clear that McCain would be following this nutjob blogger’s advice (like he followed that other nutjob blogger’s [Adam Brickley] advice and picked Palin) and not stopping the kinds of attack he himself is too honorable to make, it really became silly for Obama to hamstring his own’s campaign’s ability to respond to the bullshit. Especially since he had already inspired so many to give. Campbell then insults a few million people by mischaracterizing “pointing out the obvious” as “courage”. The courageous among Obama’s own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama’s financial advantage. Well, that’s true, except for the lie that it is Obama’s money.   We want Obama to win.  That’s why we’ve given him so much money.  We want him and Joe Biden to take the White House.  BADLY. That’s why we’re giving so much money.  To fight the bullshit you are saying doesn’t even exist (hmm, kinda “HYPOCRITICAL” isn’t it Campbell?). What, exactly, are you insinutating, BTW, by your constant assertion that it is Obama, personally, that is raking in the dough. I mean, you even use that word… For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign’s final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise. That’s not fairness, Mrs. Brown, that’s bullshit. Much like this one-sided hit piece. October 29, 2008 Categories: Doh, Examples of Work, Poli-Fi, President 08, TV Reviews, bullshit, government, media, ninja, pirate, us . Tags: 527, Barack Obama, Biased Reporting, Campaign Fundraising, Campbell Brown, The Daily Show . Author: RoPiNi . Comments:
• 

  Obama and McCain seek curbs on 527's

  http://journals.aol.co.uk/scitman/scitmans-presidential-elec...
  172 days ago in Scitman's Presidential Election 2008 Blog · No authority yet

  What are 527's? Non-profit organisations who buy advertising and attempt to influence political campaigns. They are not allowed to express support for any candidate, but can make comment on issues, attack candidates etc.. They first made their appearance in 2004, as lobby groups tried to get round the McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were amongst the highest profile 527's, and they produced some of the most negative and corrosive advertising of the campaign. McCain wants nothing to do with them, and Obama isn't keen either (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302868.html?wpisrc=newsletter ) but can they stop them?
• 
  http://global-equality.org/news/blog/2008/05/agent-orange-au...
  195 days ago in Sherman's Blog - Political & Social Commentary · Authority: 1

  Agent Orange: Australia: Veterans here fought for years to have their illnesses recognized as a result of the defoliant; Vietnamese have been fighting in U.S. courts for justice, children/ grandchildren of those afflicted continue to manifest symptoms. And, in Australia: Claims by a leading researcher that cancer deaths in a small town in Queensland, Australia, are 10 times higher than the state average owing to the secret testing of Agent Orange there more than 40 years ago are to be investigated by the authorities. Australian military scientists sprayed the toxic herbicide on rainforest near Innisfail during defoliant testing in the early years of the Vietnam war, it is alleged. The jungle began dying and has never recovered, according to local people. The site is near a river which supplies water for the town in the far north of the country and researchers believe the spraying may be responsible for cancer rates in the area being 10 times the state average and four times the national average. The Innisfail claims were made by the researcher Jean Williams, who has been awarded the Order of Australia medal for her work on the effects of chemicals on Vietnam war veterans. She said she found reports of the secret tests in Australian War Memorial museum archives. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/19/australia Somalia: Fear that food crisis and warfare make for a ‘perfect storm’ The global food crisis has arrived at Safia Ali’s hut. She cannot afford rice or wheat or powdered milk anymore. At the same time, a drought has decimated her family’s herd of goats, turning their sole livelihood into a pile of bleached bones and papery skin. The result is that Ms. Safia, a 25-year-old mother of five, has not eaten in a week. Her 1-year-old son is starving too, an adorable, listless boy who doesn’t even respond to a pinch. Somalia — and much of the volatile Horn of Africa, for that matter — was about the last place on earth that needed a food crisis. Even before commodity prices started shooting up around the globe, civil war, displacement and imperiled aid operations had pushed many people here to the brink of famine. But now with food costs spiraling out of reach and the livestock that people live off of dropping dead in the sand, villagers across this sun-blasted landscape say hundreds of people are dying of hunger and thirst. This is what happens, economists say, when the global food crisis meets local chaos. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/africa/17somalia.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print Paulson predicts economic rebound… in the second half of 2008. Those who want to defer to his confidence should note that he thinks the bogus ‘economic stimulus’- those dumb rebates- will be a key to the turnaround. Despite continuing challenges in the housing market, the overall picture of U.S. financial markets has steadily improved over the past couple of months, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Friday. Mr. Paulson, in a rather upbeat speech that seemed to suggest the worst of the credit crisis is over, said market liquidity and investor confidence are improving in several sectors, such as corporate bonds, leverage loans and high-yield debt. At the same time, capital and credit markets are stabilizing, leaving markets "considerably calmer now" ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121095444493998929.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news Iran: Slipping away from Target Status?: The Administration keeps trying, but the evidence too rarely checks out. Eric Alterman, George Zornick A lonely news report emerged last week on the “Babylon & Beyond” blog of the Los Angeles Times about the Bush administration and Pentagon’s continued attempts to build a case for war against Iran. Tina Susman reported on a news briefing by Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner in Iraq about the discovery of what was said to be a huge a cache of weapons seized by U.S. forces. In what Susman described as a “striking change,” Bergner did not point the finger at Iran. In fact, that nation’s name never even came up. This significant omission comes on the heels of another barely noticed event, also reported by Susman: “A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.” Few news outlets reported the press conference’s cancellation, which was going to be conducted by both the Pentagon and the White House. (Though Newsweek helpfully attributed the cancellation only to “fighting in southern Iraq.”) The administration has been beating the drums on alleged Iranian malevolence in Iraq with increasing intensity, going so far as to move an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf last month to serve as a “reminder” of the Iranian threat, in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And many in the mainstream media have repeated these claims with frequency and without much challenge. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/fire_next_time.html/print.html Voter Fraud: The fraudulent campaign continues, a key to conservative voter suppression efforts, including the Voter ID. More than two years ago, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott pledged to root out what he called an epidemic of voter fraud in Texas. He established a special unit in his office, tapped a $1.4 million federal crime-fighting grant and dispatched investigators. Since then, Mr. Abbott has prosecuted 26 cases – all against Democrats, and almost all involving blacks or Hispanics, a review by The Dallas Morning News shows. The cases usually have resulted in small fines and little or no jail time, and for all the extra attention, Mr. Abbott has not unraveled any large-scale schemes with the potential to swing elections. Democrats accuse Mr. Abbott of a partisan operation to discourage voters, especially minorities. They contrast the prosecutions with complaints that more than 100 ballots were mishandled in a 2005 Highland Park election, a case in which Mr. Abbott took no action. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/051808dnpolvotefraud.3c75dcb.html Debt: The gist: We’re not given the real figures, and it’s getting worse. The federal government's long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits as more baby boomers reach retirement. That's double the red ink of a year earlier. Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That's nearly $500,000 per household. When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages. The $2.5 trillion in federal liabilities dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year's deficit, down from $248 billion a year earlier. "We're running deficits in the trillions of dollars, not the hundreds of billions of dollars we're being told," says Sheila Weinberg, chief executive of the Institute for Truth in Accounting of Chicago. The reason for the discrepancy: Accounting standards require corporations and state governments to count new financial obligations, even if the payments will be made later. The federal government doesn't follow that rule. Instead of counting lifetime benefits for programs such as Social Security, the government counts the cost of benefits for the current year. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080519/1a_lede19.art.htm CAMPAIGN: The Democrats are now making nice, beginning talks on integrating their respective campaigns; even Bill has emphasized Unity. Top fundraisers for Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have begun private talks aimed at merging the two candidates' teams, not waiting for the Democratic nominating process to end before they start preparations for a hard-fought fall campaign. Despite Obama's apparently insurmountable lead in delegates needed to claim the nomination, aides to both candidates are resigned to the idea that the Democratic contest will continue at least through June 3, when Montana and South Dakota will cast the final votes of the primary season. But in small gatherings around Washington and in planning sessions for party unity events in New York and Boston in coming weeks, fundraisers and surrogates from both camps are discussing how they can put aside the vitriol of the past 18 months and move forward to ensure that the eventual nominee has the resources to defeat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in November. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/17/AR2008051702425_pf.html On a ‘feeling level,’ Hillary isn’t quite there- "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me -- the 17 million people who have voted for me -- understand what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. McCain . . . uh, Sen. Obama, and against Sen. McCain," http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/index.html#cnnSTCVideo CNN later cleaned up the quote. And, she continues to push that she’s leading the popular vote, a royally misleading characterization: “My opponent said the other day he wasn’t coming back, so I’ve got the whole state to myself,” Mrs. Clinton said on Sunday afternoon at an outdoor rally in Bowling Green. “What a treat!” She has continued to make the case that she is a better candidate than Mr. Obama, delivering a stump speech in Bowling Green that highlighted many familiar points: that she will be ready on Day 1, will be a more capable commander in chief, and is more experienced in foreign policy matters. “I’m going to get to work as soon as I’m inaugurated to make sure that we do build a strong and prosperous middle class,” she told a crowd at the Maker’s Mark distillery in Loretto, Ky. And she has argued to audiences here that she is leading in the popular vote, based on a count that includes the elections in Florida and Michigan, whose votes were moved up in violation of Democratic Party rules. (Mr. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan; neither candidate campaigned in Florida.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19campaign.html Annoying, but it’s over… Obama will all but proclaim victory Tuesday night. Interest in Obama only grows; he drew 75,000 in Portland on Sunday. With the race over, it's timely to look at the successful, tight organization that Obama has built. He’s looking to run a centralized, accountable, transparent, non-mean-spirited campaign, pressuring McCain to do the same. These three reports generally describe how well organized the campaign is and specifically how Obama’s not only a unique money machine, but that his methodology leaves him not beholden to the usual moneyed interests. The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years. What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA. Here’s another thing: he is doing it almost effortlessly. That is to say, in an era when the imperative for campaign dollars demands more and more of a politician’s time and lurks behind so many recent scandals (including the auctioning-off of the Lincoln Bedroom), Obama has raised more money than anybody else without plumbing ethical gray areas or even spending much of his own time soliciting donations. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance Sen. Barack Obama's top fundraisers have asked his campaign donors to refrain from contributing to liberal independent political organizations in hopes of controlling the tone and message of the general-election campaign. At a meeting in Indianapolis on May 2, members of the Democratic front-runner's finance committee made it clear Obama (Ill.) is worried that overtly negative advertising from outside organizations could undermine his themes of unity and hope. "If people want to support our campaign, they should do it through our campaign," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. The meeting was only the most overt effort by Obama or Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, to freeze out "527" groups -- named after a provision in the tax code -- which are not allowed to openly support a candidate but have helped define recent elections through negative advertising. The McCain campaign has been less organized than Obama's in its efforts to counter the groups, but the senator from Arizona has made clear his antipathy toward them -- without much effect. "We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy," promised Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry in 2004. LaCivita added: "At the end of the day, every individual has a right to participate in the political process whether John McCain likes it or not. It's their constitutional right." But so far, such groups have been remarkably silent, in part because of the signals Obama and McCain have sent to donors to steer clear.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302868.html?hpid=topnews A few weeks ago, Media Matters' David Brock announced to great fanfare that he was taking over Progressive Media USA, a third-party group that would, he vowed, raise $40 million for ads to soften up John McCain in advance of the general election. Now the group is quietly shuttering those efforts with barely a whimper. Barack Obama's fundraising team has been quietly putting out word to major donors that they didn't want any money to go to such third-party groups. Instead, they wanted the cash to go to the Obama campaign, so Obama advisers could be in sole control of the campaign's message. It worked. Brock has quietly leaked a statement to The Washington Post saying that his group is, for all practical purposes, defunct. "Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," Brock's statement to WaPo said, adding that "donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality." One interesting footnote: With the likelihood of Obama donors helping them pretty much non-existent, Brock and company reportedly realized that Clinton donors, too, would be unlikely to help fund an effort to get Obama elected. Two things about this. First, the speed with which Obama closed this thing down is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the party in advance of his all-but-certain nomination. And second, it looks as if this election is going to be impacted far less than anyone expected by groups like this, at least on the Dem side. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/david_brocks_toughtalking_thir.php McCain is shedding aides who, it turns out, were lobbyists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/18/AR2008051802212.html?hpid=topnews McCain is stuck w/ Bush and struggling to reconcile past positions with his current charges that Obama demonstrates weakness by urging talks with Iran. Examples abound of McCain advocating such in recent years, including his supporting talks with Syria, another “state sponsor of terrorism.” After the invasion of Iraq there was much talk among conservatives about invading Syria. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell was heavily criticized for taking a trip to Syria to talk to its leadership. Newt Gingrich said, “The concept of the American secretary of state going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist-supporting, secret-police-wielding dictator is ludicrous.” What did John McCain have to say about the trip? Despite the fact that John McCain believed that Syria was a “state sponsor of terror,” was “harboring terrorists,” and were sending “Syrians in to fight Americans,” he thought it was worth talking to them, saying that Powell’s trip was “appropriate.” […] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/mccain-was-in-favor-of-ta_b_102099.html -R

Advertise on Technorati