John McCain should know better

by lestro

When the basis for the closing weeks of your campaign comes down to emphasizing the differences between the “pro-America” sections of the country as compared to the cities (a concept the Philadelphia Inquirer recently ripped to shreds) you should really make sure you are on the up and up yourself.

Because for the record, this:

image via The New York Times

violates the flag code.

Section 176 (”respect for flag”), subsection (g) of the US Flag Code states:

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

Johnny Mac should know better.

Read more of this post

Liberal media, my ass

by lestro

This time it hits home because it is coming from one of my very favorite newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer (as reported in the NY Times):

Over the weekend, the Philadelphia Inquirer joined the many newspapers that have endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president rather than Senator John McCain, contributing to the 3-to-1 advantage that Mr. Obama already has in newspaper support, according to Editor & Publisher.

Yet the Philadelphia Inquirer also endorsed Senator McCain. That’s not a typo.

On the same page that the newspaper published a 901-word editorial supporting Mr. Obama, it ran just beneath it a 391-word dissent in support of Mr. McCain.

Seriously. They actually did that. What the fuck? Officially, of course, nothing happened:

Brian Tierney, chief executive of the company that owns The Inquirer, Philadelphia Media Holdings, and who sits on the newspaper’s editorial board, would not say. In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Tierney would only say, “We don’t talk about what goes on on the editorial page.”

But the Times has its ways:

But another member of the Editorial Board, who asked not to be identified because of possible repercussions, said that it was Mr. Tierney who pressed the case for Mr. McCain. After arriving at the meeting, the board member said, “we went around the room” and Mr. Obama was the “overwhelming winner.”

At that point, the person said, “Tierney weighed in and made the case for McCain.”

Mr. Tierney, an advertising executive who in the past had been involved in Republican politics, was among a number of business executives who bought the Inquirer and its sister paper, the Philadelphia Daily News, from the McClatchy Company in 2006 for $562 million.

So let me get this straight: It was actually the REPUBLICAN forcing his view on the newsroom and using his power and influence to try and sway an election?

Read more of this post

Why I can’t vote for Hillary

by twit

It has come to this. The zen-like realization, thanks to several insightful comments, that a side effect of mercilessly blogging about Hillary Clinton is that it feels impossible to vote for her, if she somehow manages to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party.

Recently, there has been “NAFTAgate,” with the Clinton campaign alleging that the Obama campaign assured Canada that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was not sincere. It became the issue in the Ohio primary and NAFTA is expected to strongly influence the upcoming Pennsylvania contest. However, now we learn that it was actually the Clinton campaign reassuring the Canadian government that she stands by her earlier support of NAFTA, and she’s simply putting on a show for the voters.

This isn’t the first time that the Clinton campaign has been caught saying something when it was politically expedient, then completely changing course when it suited the constituency of the moment. For example, there is what happened in Florida, with all candidates agreeing to not campaign in the state, due to the early primary scheduled in violation of Democratic Party rules. The agreement to not campaign in the state didn’t stop Hillary, though.

It isn’t just the impossibility of trying to figure out what Hillary Clinton stands for. The behavior of her campaign makes it increasingly clear that the only consistent position she will take is whatever she thinks you want to hear. There’s an implied insult to the intelligence of the American people, as if we can’t watch television or work the internet well enough to see that she is playing fast and loose with her message by tailoring it so closely to the daily needs of the campaign.

Hillary’s campaign has been divisive, focusing on various demographic groups, including attempts to play women against men with her ludicrous assertion that it is her gender that has cost her the presumption that she would be the Democratic nominee. Nothing says ‘elect me’ like ‘I can’t win,’ but that apparently means little to a campaign making an appeal to specific demographic groups.

I also see the conduct of her campaign as a distinct warning about how her administration, if ever elected, would behave, not to mention how painful it would be to experience the meltdowns and infighting during the campaign for the general election. Clinton campaign insiders repeatedly run to the press en masse as they wage their wars against themselves.

Read more of this post