Trust Me, McCain Says



Senator John McCain has confirmed it: Mitt Romney is over 35, was born in the United States, and has lived here for at least fourteen years.

Newsweek/Daily Beast contributor Howie Kurtz recently speculated as to why the Republican party's nominee for President in 2008  has not been requested to campaign for its presumptive 2012 nominee, nor invited to speak at the party's national convention.    Unfortunately, Kurtz erroneously reported that McCain went on vacation to Tahiti following his loss in 2008, rather than after his defeat for the nomination in 2000, as indicated in this corrected version of Kurtz's piece.     McCain also labeled as "foolishness" and "left-wing trash" the contention there are "deep and personal wounds" between McCain and Romney left over from their contentious battle for the 2008 nomination.

These controversial statements, however, probably have served McCain well, encouraging attention to be diverted from a far more serious issue.    The GOP has moved significantly to McCain's right.   Further, the two are not in complete agreement on foreign policy, which is McCain's primary interest.    Kurtz quotes McCain's 2008 campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, arguing Romney's campaign, of necessity, "is about the future" while "John McCain is very much a figure of the immediate past."   Additionally, Kurtz, whom McCain vigorously attacks, cites his subject's "tendency to commit candor," as reflected in the Senator's statement that he bypassed Romney for Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot because "she was the better candidate."

Though it proved to be a product of faulty judgement, that should have been an uncontroversial assertion.  A presidential candidate always selects whom he believes, for whatever reason, is "the better candidate" and Romney was not the only qualified Republican rejected in favor of the Alaskan governor.    Indications are that Palin was selected as a hail Mary pass, with the McCain team mistakenly thinking that it needed a "game-changer" to defeat the charismatic Obama (who was more vulnerable that the campaign realized).

Kurtz was overly generous to McCain, not only by accusing him of committing candor but also for not reminding his readers that John McCain in 2008 asked for, and received, 23 years of Mitt Romney's tax returns.      As of July 17 there were, according to the Center for American Progress, twenty "prominent Republicans" who had called upon the former Massachusetts governor to release substantially more tax returns than he has.    Conspicuously absent from that list is the Man of Candor, John McCain.   Only Mitt Romney, Ann Romney, the Romney accountant(s), and the McCain campaign have seen records filed by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee with the I.R.S.    And John McCain has not suggested his party's choice to take over the Oval office reveal anything.

The Huffington Post reported that on July 17

When pressed about whether Romney might be shielding his returns because he paid no taxes, McCain refused to discuss such specifics.

"Please, I am not going to get into that kind of conversation," he said. "All I can tell you, and I can tell you again, is there was nothing disqualifying in his tax returns. And that is a fact."

And that is reassuring, given that we thought Romney may have been abroad, slipped unnoticed into this country a few years ago, and is awaiting his 35th birthday.     The United States Constitution is clear:  a President need only be a natural-born citizen, have lived in the U.S.A. for at least 14 years, and be at least 35 years of age.      Senator McCain is not lying about Willard Mitt Romney.   No doubt  he "can personally vouch for the fact that there was nothing in his tax returns that would in any way be disqualifying for him to be a candidate."

Mitt Romney is no prostitute.   (Odd that would be written but then, McCain assures us Romney is an American  over 35 years old.)   Nevertheless applicable is the old saying: "we know what you are.   We're merely haggling about he price."    We know Romney is hiding something, or things, on one or more of his returns.   We just don't know what it is.






Share |

A (Dangerous) Gaffe

In the world of apologies (Joe Wilson, Kanye West, Michael Vick), there are apologies and there are apologies. And then there is the not-apology; or non-apology; or, "you're wrong and I'm right."

Guess which Howie Kurtz of The Washington Post and CNN's Reliable Sources has issued? This, from an online chat, entitled, "Glenn Beck, Protest Coverage, More" he held on September 14:

Los Angeles, Ca.: Hey, Howie, in your column today you say that Kenya is Obama's "native country." Are you a "Birther" now?

Howard Kurtz: Oy. I obviously meant the country of his father. He wrote a book about it.

As long as Kurtz claimed context- "I obviously meant...."- here is the section, subtitled "Back in Kenya," of the column, "Beck And The Mainstream," in which Kurtz's comment appeared:

Back in Kenya

The Boston Globe has an interesting piece from Obama's native country on attempts to cash in:

"The price of land here has skyrocketed because of rampant speculation about an Obama family museum that the Kenyan Ministry of Tourism has promised to build. And there have been some modest, but tangible, signs of progress that seem tied to the village's new notoriety. Within a week of Obama's election victory last year, the government began to pave the main road to town. It also brought in an electricity and water lines to Obama's step-grandmother's compound.

"Some relatives have also set up foundations, trying to raise money for development projects using the Obama name. And strangers are suddenly a common sight in the market, attracted by safari companies that advertise heritage tours about the first African-American US president. A tourist hotel is planned.

"But what is missing is a direct infusion of cash from Obama or the U.S. government, say local residents and members of the extended Obama family, some of whom say they have relayed funding requests through e-mails and letters to Washington."

Admittedly, "oy" is coastal U.S.A. for "ohmigosh," suggesting that Kurtz realizes that for whatever reason, he shouldn't have written what he did. Nonetheless, he claims "I obviously meant the country of his father." But nothing in what Kurtz wrote precludes an implication that Kenya is the native country of Barack Obama himself. Nothing. Instead, he cleverly turns the charge on the questioner, reminding him/her: "He wrote a book about it."

Of course, Howie Kurz, being better informed than the average conservative "Birther," does not believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. However, he strongly implied that the President was born in Kenya. And when Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and other snake-oil salesmen pick up on this, it's unlikely they will put it (or practically anything else in the universe) into perspective. The "obviously I meant the country of his father. He wrote a book about it," is not likely to be omitted in service of their right-wing hucksterism.

Your response may vary, but response should have been unequivocal and decisive, perhaps something along the lines of: I carelessly inferred something which no thinking American believes.

Aside from the talk-show hosts who want to bring Obama's presidency down, and those individuals who aren't aware that these media personalities are making things up to stir controversy and ratchet up ratings, virtually everyone realizes that Barack Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, which entered the union the same year as Sarah Palin's State of Alaska.

Quote of the Week

"The media doesn't want either one of these to get off the stage."

Howie Kurtz, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, explaining the media's exultation at the possibility, raised during the 1/31/08 debate broadcast on CNN, of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket

The Republican Media- No. 8

On CNN's "Reliable Sources" on October 7, 2007, Howie Kurtz discussed the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" comment with three panelists- New York Times columnist Frank Rich, Callie Crossley of WGBH's "Beat the Press," and conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved. Kurtz began by saying "all right, let's play what Rush Limbaugh said on the air and then cut to his explanation after it became a controversy a day or two later." Then the video in its entirety:


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, EIB RADIO: The phony soldiers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they're proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. Morning update on Wednesday of this program dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier, by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq, was never an army ranger. They love phony soldiers and they prop them up.





Except that as MediaMatters.org explains here, this was not the original conversation or the original transcript but rather the amended transcript issued once the controversy arose. Note that after stating "they joined to be in Iraq,. They joined-" Limbaugh was interrupted by the caller, continued the conversation, and did not refer to Jesse MacBeth until one minute, fifty seconds after first mentioning "phony sodiers."


CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.


So Kurtz/CNN played the amended transcript as if it were a true rendition of the discussion on the 0/26/07 broadcast. This enabled all three guests to criticize the Democratic response, as in:

Rich: "I don't know what the big fuss is."

Medved: "...when you have the U.S. Senate actually talking about a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for this expression of opinion, we've really gone too far."

Crossley: "Once the General "Betray Us" ad got as much attention as it got, then people were looking on the other side for something to jump on."


Of course, they were criticizing the Democratic response to remarks which here were ignored by CNN. And, typically, in the interests of moral equivalence and inaccurate "balance," we have Rich claiming "it's a game we play where someone on the left and someone on the right makes some outrageous statement..." and Crossley imagining "tit for tat." Of course, the General "Betray Us" ad was carefully sourced, its accuracy never questioned. Rush Limbaugh then asserted that anti-war soldiers are "phony." Now, without a vote posted by the party in control of Congress to condemn a comment made by a commonly bombastic talk show host, the National Republican Congressional Committee, with a link to their donations page, is using the Limbaugh controversy to raise money. That's right- Congressional Republicans are not condemning Limbaugh, they're embracing him. Greg Sargent of talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth here explains, and reprints, the e-mail sent by Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia:


NRCC Raising Money Off Rush's "Phony Soldiers" Remark
October 4, 2007 -- 6:01 PM EST // //
Here's an amusing postscript to the whole Rush Limbaugh flap: Far from conceding that there's anything wrong with Rush's remark that troops who don't agree with Bush are "phony soldiers," Republicans in D.C. are now raising money off of Rush's sliming of antiwar troops.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has just sent out a blast email to supporters asking them to sign a petition protesting the Dem persecution of Rush. At the top of the email is a link back to the NRCC's donations page where you can contribute money. The petition -- sent our way by a D.C. pal -- was written by GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, a leading Rush defender. It says, in part:

It is at moments like these when we need to band together as conservatives and fight back.

This issue is bigger than you or me, it is bigger than Rush Limbaugh. With the recent liberal effort to resurrect the "fairness doctrine," we have to recognize that free speech -- conservative free speech is under direct attack. These are issues that speak directly to the core of the modern conservative movement – are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed around by liberal extremists, or are we going to fight back?

I want to send Washington Democrats a message that their attempts to distract aren't working – I stand with Rush Limbaugh against liberal attacks.



This is not both parties sinking to a new level. Only one party.