But where’s Johnny Mac?

by lestro

So I saw a McCain ad today in the Washington Post:

And according to Factcheck.org, “McCain misrepresents Obama’s tax proposals again. And again, and again.”

Want to know how John McCain voted on Senate Concurrent Resolution 70?  Well, on both March 14 and June 6, the senior senator from Arizona did not vote.

Let me pull a Biden here and say that again: Did not vote on the budget resolution in question. In March, he was one of four to not vote (there was one ‘present’ vote) and five in June (two ‘present’). In fact, so far this year, McCain has missed 81 percent of the votes including 98 percent in the second quarter and every single vote in the third quarter.

(To be fair, Obama has missed 64 percent of the votes this year.)

Now, this happens all the time, but McCain and his ilk have been attacking Obama for voting ‘present’ during his time in Illinois, a vote that in the Illinois state senate actually means something (I don’t live in Illinois and it seems a bit odd to me too, but so do a lot of other state’s laws…).

I had already decided that voting present does not really matter to me as it is a procedural vote, but McCain seemed jazzed about it, so it really seems hypocritical to me considering the facts at hand.  At least you have to actually be there to vote present.

But this is another example of the McCampaign attacking Obama on something and then doing it themselves.

For example, saying Obama does not have the experience to be president and then putting Sarah Palin on the ticket.

I don’t particularly think Sarah Palin is qualified to be mayor of Wasilla, let alone president (which the veep really should be qualified to do…), but if your whole gig is to say your opponent is not experienced enough for the job, why would you pick someone with even less experience as your back-up?

Or in a debate, saying “I’ll actually answer your question” as if your opponent didn’t, and then spend the next 90 seconds not even remotely attempting to say whether or not you’ll set a two-year time goal on shoring up Social Security and Medicaid.

Or in a debate saying ‘you can work on all three at once,’ when you “had to” suspend your campaign because of the bailout negotiations.

Or going from ‘fundamentals are strong’ to ‘economy is in crisis’ in three hours.

The reason John McCain is dropping in the polls, more than anything else, is that people are literally seeing him say one thing while doing another.  It makes it so much harder to believe his vagaries and bullshit.

Advertisements

4 Responses to But where’s Johnny Mac?

  1. leapsecond says:

    To be fair, boys and girls, factcheck has also debunked the claim — one that you have circulated on this site — that she tried to get books banned.

    Although, yet again, to be fair, that same article says:

    Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support.

    A loyalty test in a town of 5,000? Firing them because they didn’t radically support the mayor? It really wouldn’t make a difference in my mind if the librarian was fired because of a push to ban books or not: that firing is bad.

  2. lestro says:

    leap –
    good to hear from you again.
    whether or not sarah palin tried to ban books during her time as mayor is really a personal call based on the facts (what has been debunked, however, is the list of books).

    personally, i think if the mayor goes to the librarian, asks what she would think about removing books that some people find objectionable and then tries to fire the librarian when she refuses, that is trying to ban books.

    the “what if” discussed in that factcheck link really is a semantic thing.
    the only reason those books are still on the shelves is because the librarian refused to remove them. that is an attempt to ban in my book.

    but that really has nothing to do with this post, which is about the rampant hypocrisy of the mccain campaign, the latest example of which appears to be slagging obama for voting present and then not voting himself.

    but as always, i appreciate your comment.

  3. leapsecond,

    Your comment is appreciated – we definitely looked closely at the book banning allegations before adding links related to the issue.

    I think you are referring to this post:

    https://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/when-sarah-palin-kills-a-mockingbird-it-stays-dead/

    “Maybe To Kill a Mockingbird is one of those books Sarah Palin would ban”

    which includes the line:

    [Palin] asked about banning books at the Wasilla library (having previously supported censorship as a member of the city council)

    with a link to this article by the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3&oref=slogin

    which includes this bit:

    Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

    But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

    “Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

    Also, your link to Factcheck is dated Sept 8, 2008, and the NYT article is dated September 13, 2008. My impression is that more information developed after the original “debunking” of the rumor mill’s version of the allegation, which is why we added the source to what appears to be the outcome of additional investigation.

  4. leapsecond says:

    Gotcha. (No, not gotcha journalism like Barracuda Moose Hunter Barbie Master Debater would have you think)

    Though, for me, the “book banning” allegation (whether factual or blown out of proportion, or both) is the icing on the cake that is the librarian-firing fiasco. (Cue the “You can put icing on a cake, but it’s still a cake” saying?) Again, just to reiterate my view: you know things are bad when the librarian of a town of 6,000 or so is fired just because the mayor doesn’t think said librarian supports said mayor. Maybe it’s just me, but the version of the story where Palin fired the librarian because of “loyalty” issues alone is more disturbing to me than if Palin fired her because she refused to ban books.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: