In the May issue of Harper's magazine, Ken Silverstein, in an article titled "My Lobby, Myself," draws a detailed picture as to how McCain's "reformist" stance is fraudulent. McCain's pose as a "champion of campaign-finance reform," which took shape after his involvement "in an influence-peddling scandal in the early 1990s," has no substance or connection with reality.
It was in 2001, after his run for the presidential nomination was smashed by Rove and Bush, that "McCain helped found the Reform Institute, a nonprofit whose stated aim was to advance the ideals of influence-free governance."
Silverstein says that today the Reform Institute, "his supposedly independent project functions rather obviously as a public-relations arm of his political machine. In fact, in its revolving-door policy for loyalists, its dubious fund-raising, and its improper support of its founder's aspirations, it resembles nothing so much as yet another Washington influence-peddling scheme."
John McCain, much like George Bush, believes that if he says something, it must be so, and all the people will take it as gospel. Indeed, Bush and his compadres have fooled most of the people for the past seven and one half years with lies and misstatements, but the tide may be turning as evidenced by his poll numbers which indicate a huge majority of Americans have no confidence whatsoever in George W. Bush or his administration.
John McCain, however, playing the "hero" card, is still being given the benefit of the doubt by the MSM and thus, by many of the people. But there are signs that too is changing. Finally, we are seeing some media reports questioning McCain's statements and misstatements.
Silverstein's cautionary tale about McCain's Reform Institute, if picked up by the MSM, should blow McCain's "reformist" stance out of the water! Here are some of the main points of his article.
1. The Reform Institute is forbidden by law (as a nonprofit) to become involved in partisan politics and/or to support political candidates. "Yet the staffs working for the Institute and McCain have often been interchangeable. The group's founding officers, including Merrill Lynch CEO Herb Allison, came directly from running McCain's first presidential campaign.
Joseph Schmuckler, a member of the Institute's finance committee, is treasurer of McCain '08.
2. During 2003 to 2005, the Institute was headed up by one Richard Davis who was at the time "one of Washington's most powerful telecommunications lobbyists. "The Reform Institute paid Davis $395,000 in salary and consulting fees, even as he continued to receive hefty retainers from telecoms with interests before the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain chaired."
Then there's the situation where in 2003, Charles Dolan, the CEO of Cablevision came before McCain's committee to promote "a la carte" cable pricing. Shortly thereafter Dolan and Davis met and lo and behold, Cablevision sent a $100,000 contribution to the Institute. In August 2004, Cablevision kicked in another $100,000 a mere "three months after McCain wrote a letter to the FCC in support of Cablevision's position."
3. Although the Reform Institute was supposed to be the enemy of "corrupt fundraising," money has flowed into its coffers partly "because McCain not only signed the Institute's early fundraising letters but provided lists of his campaign supporters."
Thus, the Chartwell Foundation, controlled by A. Jerrold Perechio, a big telecom poohbah, now working as finance co-chairman of McCain '08, has given almost 10% of the $5 mil "the Institute has raised since its inception." Not only so, but "Perenchio has also donated millions to '527' political advocacy groups, which function specifically to exploit a loophole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill."
Perenchio, up until last year, was the head honcho of Univision, the outfit for which Vicki Iseman worked.
What's really fascinating is the Chartwell Foundation does not appear on the Reform's Institute list of donors! (So much for transparency!)
4. Up until 2005, the Reform Institute concentrated on campaign-finance reform, generally following McCain's lead on the issues. In 2006, however, when McCain declared he was setting up a presidential exploratory committee, "the Institute suddenly broadened its scope to include such 'vital areas' as homeland security, global warming, and immigration--issues that just so happened to be the struts of McCain's political platform."
Juan Hernandez led an intensive lobbying campaign for the immigration-reform bill which McCain was promoting. Hernandez, a senior fellow at the Institute, took leave about a year ago to serve a "Hispanic outreach directcor for McCain '08."
Donald Murphy, a well-known lobbyist and political consultant, was hired to "help promote the Institute's 'critical public policy issues' in targeted states. Conveniently, these duties nicely overlap with Murphy's role as McCain's Maryland campaign coordinator."
McCain wants us to believe he walks the high road. He passes himself off as a foe of lobbyists and special interest groups. How can we be sure, though, that McCain is just another Washington politician, maybe no worse, but certainly no better than all the others with money and influence sticking to their fingers? We refer to what someone else once about verifying a person's credentials:
"If it walks like a duck, craps like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you better believe it IS a duck."
1 comment:
'Tis the season for "outing" candidates. Let us hope it is done with facts, rather than the swift boat crap we were fed to destroy a genuine hero, so that people would vote against him.
The facts, as outlined here, indicate that McCain is a lobbyist and uses many for his own purposes. I trust this will find its way into the media and be used against McCain, as other facts will be used against Obama. I think that is productive as long as facts are used. They should be used in context and answers should be listened to so we can decide wisely.
I like McCain, or alt least what I have seen on interview programs. I like his apparent openness and sense of humor. I do not like his Senate voting record, his frequent “mistakes” that seem to be very contradictory. Are they lies or mistakes? I do not know but will eventually form an opinion. I will probably not vote for him due to his long record of votes against things I am in favor of.
Obama was not my choice either as his résumé is too thin for the times we find ourselves in. I resented party leaders selecting any of the nominees so early on. I have not been satisfied with his lack of explanati0on as to his membership for twenty years in a church with a policy that he disapproves of now.
The chose will be McCain or Obama. I will probably vote for Obama as the better gamble as of now.
Bob Poris
Post a Comment