And now . . .
JOHN McCAIN –
VERY RICH!
So
he and his wife are a couple maybe in the $100 million range – which even these
days ain’t hay.
Maybe you’re not impressed, but I’ll bet Cindy’s jet, a Citation Excel, is nicer than yours.
Excerpts from a recent Media Matters post:
. . . Last Friday,
McCain released his tax filings – sort of. Not that there was any great media pressure on
him to do so; while hounding Hillary Clinton to release her tax filings, the media ignored the fact that McCain
had not released his – some even falsely claimed that he
had already done so. Even after Clinton
released hers, the media showed no interest in whether McCain would do
likewise. So when McCain finally released an extremely limited portion of his
filings – he released only those from
the past two years, and only his, not his wife, Cindy's – it came as no
surprise that the media neither dug in with the appetite they brought to
Clinton's taxes nor demanded more.
The media even bought the McCain campaign's bogus claim that John Kerry's
2004 campaign provided a precedent for McCain to keep Cindy's taxes secret.
While the Kerry campaign did not release Teresa Heinz Kerry's complete tax
filings, it did release summary pages that showed, for example, her total
income, which allowed The New York Times to analyze how much she
benefited from the Bush tax cuts. John McCain once said those tax cuts unfairly
benefit the wealthy; he and his wife are
spectacularly wealthy, and McCain now supports those tax cuts – but we have
no way of knowing how much money they save John and Cindy McCain. And the media
don't care.
Remember: Cindy McCain once was investment partners
with Charles Keating, around the time McCain was breaking ethics rules by
taking free flights on Keating's jet and being reprimanded by the Senate Ethics
Committee after urging regulators to go easy on Keating's savings and loan. Yet
the news media are content to assume that McCain is now clean as a whistle; no
need to scrutinize his finances the way they scrutinize Clinton's and Barack Obama's. (On MSNBC in
February, Time magazine's Rick Stengel asserted that "McCain is
so pure on this issue, ever since the Keating Five when he saw the light. ...
McCain has toed the line about lobbyists, about campaign fundraising." How
would Stengel know, if he and his fellow journalists refuse to actually examine
McCain's conduct rather than simply asserting his purity?)
On
Tuesday, The New York Times ran what should have served as a reminder
to other media outlets that stipulating to McCain's purity is not journalism,
it is cheerleading. The Times revealed that McCain helped Donald Diamond,
one of his biggest fundraisers, purchase a stretch of California coastal land from the Pentagon – a
purchase that netted Diamond a $20 million profit. Diamond explained: "I think that is what Congress people
are supposed to do for constituents. ... When you have a big, significant
businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help
move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with
legislation."
F The rest of the post is strong, too, but on a separate topic – McCain’s “decrying”
a TV commercial that attacked one of the Democratic candidates. I can’t resist a snippet:
. . . On Friday's Today
show, McCain insisted, "I've done
everything that I can to repudiate and to see that this kind of campaigning
does not continue."
. . . But the
simple fact is that John McCain could stop the North Carolina Republican Party from running
the ad in a heartbeat, if he really wanted to. As the presumptive Republican presidential
nominee, he holds enormous leverage over pretty much every Republican on the
planet. There are countless ways he could exercise that leverage to prevent the
ad from running. . . . McCain could do any of those things or
countless others. And he would, if he truly believed it is
"imperative" that the ad not run. He would, if he was telling the
truth when he said he would "bring every pressure to bear that I can to
stop it."
F We all honor McCain’s service. Or certainly should. But what of the rest?
The fact that he’s likeable
(like George W. Bush) – and got mediocre grades (like George W.
Bush) and comes from wealth (like George W. Bush) . . . and thinks invading
Iraq was the right move (like George W. Bush) and wants to appoint “clones”
(his words) of the Justices George W. Bush appointed
. . . and can’t keep straight whether Iran is Shiia or Sunni (as Bush couldn’t name the president of
Pakistan) . . . and wants to make the tax cuts for the wealthy
permanent, like George W. Bush (Dems want to keep
them for your first couple hundred
thousand in income, but go back to the Clinton/Gore rates for the rest) – does not necessarily make him the best
choice to shoulder more responsibility than anyone else on the planet. Unless that is, you want a third Bush
term. (May Day! May Day!)
Tomorrow:
McCain’s economic savvy.