David Corn

What's that old saying? To know where someone's going, take a look at where he's been? In recent days, John McCain, responding to economic meltdown under way, has at campaign rallies declared that he will knock heads together and go after the greed-mongers of Wall Street and their enablers in Washington. On Wednesday, he issued this statement:

We should never again allow the United States to be in this position. We need strong and effective regulation, a return to job-creating growth and a restoration of ethics and the social contract between businesses and America.

Note his reference to regulation. Now let's rewind to a speech McCain delivered in April 2007 to the Economic Club of Memphis:

When I came to Congress, Democrats were in the majority and they used government to make our choices for us. They took from us an ever greater share of our freedom and property to do the things American families and communities are better able to do for ourselves. They grew government for the sake of their own power, and used the American economy, the wonder of the world, to serve their ends not ours. They taxed it, regulated it, and injured it for the sake of partisan and parochial interests rather than liberate it, incentivize it and put it to work for all Americans.

So 17 months ago, McCain had this sophisticated position:

Regulation is bad.

Now that McCain needs to show he's not out of touch with the economy, he is calling for strong regulation. Which McCain should voters believe?

As regular readers can tell from the past few days, I've been fixated on a point: as mega-finance firms fail, it's absurd for McCain to beat on Wall Street when his campaign is chockfull of corporate lobbyists (past and present) who have been paid lots of money to rig the system for Big Finance firms. And that includes UBS executive and McCain adviser Phil Gramm, who, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pulled a backroom legislative stunt in 2000 to make sure that credit default swaps--a certain financial instrument that helped pave the way to the subprime meltdown--would remain completely unregulated.

The nice thing about having an obsession and being head of a Washington bureau is that you can assign reporters to stories. So I asked Jonathan Stein and Nick Baumann, two colleagues of mine at Mother Jones, to go through a list of 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign and find those who have been influence-peddlers for financial firms. They did and discovered that over 80 of these lobbyists have been game-riggers for financial corporations. Consequently, we had a story to post:

In the past few days, as the economic crisis has deepened, Senator John McCain has been decrying the excesses of Wall Street. At a campaign rally in Tampa on Tuesday, he vowed that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, "are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street." He noted that the "foundation of our economy...has been put at risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington."

He blasted CEOs who "seem to escape the consequences." He denounced Wall Streeters who "dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand" and who used "derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage-backed securities" to try "to make their own rules." He excoriated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for gaming the system. And he slammed financial industry lobbyists for misguiding members of Congress. "I can promise you the days of dealing and special favors will soon be over in Washington." On Wednesday morning, after the federal government committed $85 billion to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG) insurance conglomerate, McCain again assailed irresponsible corporate executives. "We need to change the way Washington and Wall Street does business," he proclaimed.

McCain has been quick with fiery, populist-tinged speeches. But one thing has been missing: any acknowledgment that McCain's own campaign has been loaded with the type of people he's been denouncing. As Mother Jones previously reported, former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's onetime campaign chairman, used a backroom maneuver in late 2000 to slip into law a bill that kept credit default swaps unregulated. These financial instruments greased the way to the subprime meltdown that has led to today's economic crisis. Several of McCain's most senior campaign aides have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers.

Of those 177 lobbyists, according to a Mother Jones review of Senate and House records, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation's capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, the newest symbol of corporate excess; Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday sending the stock market into a tailspin; Merrill Lynch, which was bought out by Bank of America this week; and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black (JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank,, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America); McCain's national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman (AIG, Blackstone, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac); the campaign's congressional liaison, John Green (Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Icahn Associates, Fannie Mae); McCain's veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse (Fannie Mae); and McCain's transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr. (Citigroup, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group).

When cable news shows air footage of McCain railing against greedy execs and the lobbyists who rig the rules for the benefit of Wall Street dealmakers, there ought to be a crawl beneath him listing these lobbyists. (Talk about a fair and balanced presentation.) Short of that, here's the list of the McCain aides and bundlers who have worked for the high-finance greed-mongers McCain has pledged to take on. So far, it seems, none of them have been cast out of the campaign. If McCain were serious about his outrage, he might throw these money-changers out of his own temple.

To see that list, click here.

It is almost literally unbelievable.

John McCain, responding to the current economic troubles, says that "Wall Street has betrayed us." He calls the current mess the "result of excess and greed and corruption." He adds,

We've got to make sure that people like Fannie and Freddie, organizations such as Fannie and Freddie, never have the influence again that they had in Washington. You saw it, Joe. The old boy network -- Republicans, Democrats, they had influence with everybody. So therefore, we didn't act to have the sufficient oversight while these organizations grew and grew and became the corrupt institutions that they are today."

Old boy network? Influence? Can't McCain smell the stench of old-boy influence-peddling every time he enters his campaign headquarters? As I noted yesterday, several of McCain's top campaign aides lobbied for Fannie and Freddie. His campaign overall has at least 177 lobbyists working for his campaign. These are people who get paid large amounts of money to win special treatment for corporate interests, public interest be damned.

Then there's Phil Gramm, the onetime chairman of McCain's campaign. As I explained elsewhere, when Gramm chaired the Senate banking committee in 2000, he slipped into a massive must-pass spending bill a piece of legislation totally deregulating the the market for credit default swaps, a little-understood financial instrument. The swaps market then exploded, and the rampant use of unregulated swaps--which function kind of like insurance policies for big financial institutions--helped grease the way for the subprime meltdown.

So whose greed and excess is McCain now decrying? It is the greed and excess of some of the people who have helped run his campaign. His denunciation of influence peddlers, asleep-at-the-switch regulators, and me-first CEOs is absurd, given his own ties to these folks. His most prominent economic policy surrogate is Carly Fiorina, who pocketed $42 million in severance pay and other goodies when she was forced out as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The question is, how long can McCain get away with this?

Obama has a slight but narrowing edge in the polls when voters are asked who's best able to handle the economy. It's certainly obvious that voters don't review the details of each presidential candidate's economic policy before deciding whom they want in the driver's seat when the economy heads into a ditch. Many voters pick a favorite based on impressions. Right now, McCain is sounding a more populist tone than Obama, whose strategy seems to be to portray McCain as too tied to George W. Bush and too out of touch to be trusted with this hurting economy. So even with McCain stumbling (by declaring the "fundamentals" are strong), McCain looks more like the fighter, the guy who's ready to knock heads together--the heads of the greedy SOBs responsible for this mess--and get things going again with a healthy dose of reform. It's phony populism. It's like the head of a Mafia family decrying a crime wave caused by his own lieutenants. But that doesn't mean it cannot work politically.

In politics, being right doesn't always count. You have to show you can fight. McCain is ignoring reality to position himself as a populist reformer. Obama better burst that bubble.

In response to the news of the latest Wall Street meltdown, John McCain put out a statement that in part said:

Major reform must be made in Washington and on Wall Street. We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hardworking Americans and investors. The McCain-Palin Administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. We will rebuild confidence in our markets and restore our leadership in the financial world."

Perhaps he could start at McCain Campaign HQ. At least four of McCain's senior campaign aides--including Charlie Black, Rick Davis, and Wayne Berman have lobbied for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And at least 20 of McCain's fundraisers have also lobbied for Freddie and Fannie. These folks were gaming the system for these now-discredited institutions. And now they are handing McCain his speech lines

McCain is surrounded by lobbyists. One hundred and seventy-seven, according to a report put out by the Democratic National Congress this past weekend. (Yeah, that's a biased source. But the paper trail is well documented.) Does McCain not understand that these lobbyists spend their days doing what they can to avoid making the legislative and regulatory processes in Washington more accountable and transparent. If McCain wants an open system, perhaps he would ask all those lobbyists helping his campaign to fill out reports explaining all their contacts with legislators, staff, and regulators--noting precisely what legislative changes, decisions and favors they are seeking.

In a new add, his campaign says, "Our economy in crisis Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it....No special interest giveaways." The guys and gals running McCain's campaign specialize in special interest giveaways. There is a whopping disconnect between what McCain says and what his top people do. If he doesn't see that, then he is, as the Obama crew says, out of touch.

It's as close as it gets to the most MS of MSM outfits declaring, McCain's lying!

I'm referring to a news article on the front-page of Saturday's New York Times that starts:

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama's record and positions.

Though the piece uses the usual framework of he said/he said--that is, others are saying that McCain is lying--it does present the evidence that McCain's recent assertions about Obama are outrageously false. It also quotes prominent Republicans saying that McCain and running mate Sarah Palin have vigorously mugged the truth in recent days. Though the article was, no doubt, in the works for a day or two, it seems as if comic Joy Behar of The View has pushed the media along. At least, she can claim credit for beating the Times to an obvious point.

Meanwhile, the "Factchecker" column of The Washington Post has awarded McCain four Pinocchios--that's as high as its lying scale goes--for claiming Friday on The View that Palin, as governor of Alaska, did not seek federal earmarks. That's an outright falsehood. But the column felt compelled to go a step further:

Some readers have complained that I have been soft on the Democrats over the last week, while awarding a string of Pinocchios to the McCain campaign. I would like to think that this simply reflects the current state of the campaign: the McCainites have been on the offensive over the last week, tearing into Obama with a series of questionable TV ads. If you think it reflects bias on my part, there is a simple remedy: send in specific examples of Pinocchio-esque statements by Obama and the Dems, and I will check them out.

Both newspapers are essentially saying that at this stage McCain is the liar in the race. (The Post's "Factchecker" gave Palin a pass on her first week--and did not score several of her facts-challenged assertions.) No wonder the Republicans and the McCain campaign are trying to whip up a war against the so-called "Eastern media elite"--for a campaign narrative is close to being born: the fall of the Straight Talker. For the Obama camp, the question is, how best can it exploit this twist-in-the-making?

Much chatter on the Internet about John McCain's appearance on The View on Friday morning. This guy won't do a press conference, but he'll do daytime talk. Nevertheless, it was quite instructive, for McCain lied to the ladies.

He told them that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, his running mate, did not accept federal earmark funds. But Barbara Walters and Joy Behar had it correct when they declared she had. As the Anchorage Daily News has reported, Palin in 2007 sought "52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million." (When I appeared on NPR's Diane Rehm Show on Friday morning, even conservative writer Stephen Hayes had to acknowledge that Palin is exaggerating when she claims she opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.)

Palin's earmark record has been widely reported. Is McCain clueless? Maybe he's out of the loop because he does not know how to use the Internet on his own. Or is he deceitful?

In a way, the View gals let him off easy. Referring to two recent McCain ads--one falsely accusing Barack Obama of sexism by using the "lipstick on the pig" phrase, the other falsely accusing Obama of having supported teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners--Joy Behar said to McCain, "Now we know that those two ads are untrue, they are lies. And yet, you at the end of it say you approve these messages. Do you really approve these?"

McCain replied, "Actually they are not lies. And if you see some of the ads running against me." He then hammered on the "lipstick" point, saying that Obama should not have used that old expression. (See the exchange here.)

The "lipstick" battle is an easy one for McCain to win--or play to a disingenuous draw. He looks as if he is defending the honor of his running mate, even if there is no truth to the fundamental charge that Obama was maligning Palin. But the sex ed ad is utterly indefensible. Behar missed her chance. She ought to have said to McCain, "Can you prove that Obama advocated teaching comprehensive sex-ed to kindergartners? I will donate $10,000 to your favorite charity, if you can. If not, you will have to come back on this show and admit your campaign lied. Deal or no deal, Senator?"

Behar was so close to what colud have been a game changer. At least, a media game changer. (Real life is another thing.)

But United States democracy ought not to depend on Joy Behar pressing John McCain. The bigfoots of the news media should be prepping to give McCain this sort of treatment. It's no wonder McCain has been ducking press conferences of late. He cannot back up what he and his campaign have been saying about either Obama or Palin. But eventually McCain will have to come out of his cave and face some reporters somewhere. And they ought to be ready with tough questions. If this does not come to pass, then the moderators of the debates should step in and serve up the difficult queries. It shouldn't take a stand-up comic to get a presidential candidate running a dishonorable campaign to face the music.

Meanwhile, an advocacy group has taken on McCain regarding his campaign's phony sex-ed ad, noting that McCain was actually denouncing Obama for supporting a bill that sought to protect children from sexual predators. Any parent of small kids ought to cheer the group's effort...and remember how McCain has crassly exploited the issue of sexual abuse for political gain.

If you want to see why John McCain and his spinners might get away with their ramped-up sleaze attacks on Barack Obama, turn to page four of Thursday's Washington Post. There you will find an article headlined "McCain Camp Hits Obama On More Than One Front.". The piece begins:

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign launched a broadside against Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, accusing him of a sexist smear, comparing his campaign to a pack of wolves on the prowl against the GOP vice presidential pick, charging that the Democratic nominee favored sex education for kindergartners, and resurrecting the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And the next several paragraphs go on to describe these attacks and the consequent back-and-forth between the Obama and McCain campaigns. The piece reports,

The attacks over the first three days of this week have come at a sometimes dizzying pace. Within 24 hours, the McCain campaign released a television advertisement saying Obama favored "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners, produced an Internet ad charging that the Democrat had referred to Palin as a pig, then concluded with another ad saying, "Obama's politics of hope? Empty words."

....McCain allies think they have succeeded in knocking Obama on his heels since he accepted his party's nomination in Denver two weeks ago.
"They really are in a meltdown," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), a McCain adviser.

Only after describing the gleeful GOPers and upset Dems does the article evaluate the ads, essentially noting they were, well, crap. For instance: "The sex education ad referred to legislation Obama voted for -- but did not sponsor -- in the Illinois Senate that allowed school boards to develop "age-appropriate" sex education courses at all levels. Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation." The piece suggests--but does not spell out--that it was a complete lie for the McCain camp to say that Obama wanted to teach kindergarteners "comprehensive sex education."

Next to the article on the hard copy of the Post was indeed an analysis of the sex education ad, noting the ad had misrepresented Obama's record and awarding it three Pinocchios (out of a possible high of four).

But here's the perennial problem: the campaign story of the day was not that McCain was lying about his opponent; it was the fight between the two candidates. Whenever the media report false charges in an evenhanded manner--A said X about B; B said X was not true--the party hurling the mud wins. And wins big. Sure, the Post's "Factchecker," Factcheck,com, and Politifact.com each rate political accusations for accuracy and fairness--and often slam a campaign for peddling falsehoods. But, it seems, campaigns dependent on sleaze can all-too-easily survive the negative reviews from these outfits.

The issue then is whether a campaign's reliance on such tactics becomes a key component of the overall media account of the election--and whether a candidate has to answer for such actions. So far McCain has not.

The current issue of Mother Jones has an essay I wrote along similar lines about how the media handle presidential prevarications. You can read it here.

This campaign is becoming ridiculous. And let's be honest: it is John McCain's fault.

Yesterday, his aides went bonkers over Barack Obama's remark that John McCain and Sarah Palin by campaigning for "change" are putting "lipstick on a pig." The McCain camp quickly arranged a conference call for reporters, during which former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift, a Republican, accused Obama of mounting a sexist attack on Sarah Palin. (It was not an attack on McCain, because apparently he does not use lipstick.) Obama's comment, as many have pointed out, was not a chauvinist jab at Palin. He was using an expression that, again as many others have pointed out, McCain has also used on occasion.

Yet today, the McCain campaign released a web ad that quotes CBS News anchor Katie Couric ("one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life") and that accuses Obama of mounting a sexist "smear" against Palin. (A lipstick smear?) Of course, Couric was not referring to Obama's remark. Talk about taking a statement out of context. And the ad maliciously plays Obama's lipstick comment over a headline that reads, "Barack Obama on Sarah Palin." This is nothing but deceitful.

Worse, while the McCainiacs were falsely charging Obama with sexism (playing the gender card?), they were putting out a recklessly false television ad that claimed Obama had backed legislation in Illinois to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners. A McClatchey fact-check of the ad noted this charge was without merit and absurd. The legislation had allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education and had provided schools the ability to warn kids about sexual predators and inappropriate touching. That is, it was designed to protect children. Yet McCain was trying to turn it into anti-Obama ammo. (Joe Klein is really upset about this.)

The McCain Mafia seems committed at throwing whatever it can at Obama: from falsehoods about taxes and earmarks (example: Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere) to silly and unsupported charges about sexism and sex-ed. Their strategic goal, obviously, is to keep Obama pinned down. Should the Obama campaign waste time knocking down these purposeful errors and excessive spin? That would be letting McCain shape the debate to his advantage. But if the campaign allows this stuff to hit the wall--and maybe stick--the McCain mob wins. Should it sling crap back at them? Perhaps Team Obama ought to stick to the ground game campaign manager David Plouffe has designed and not be distracted by the cable news noise. But at some point does that noise affect the ground reality? I suppose the only answer is, the Obama camp has to do it all: swat the flies, make its own case (for Obama and against McCain), and keep moving ahead.

But so much for an honorable campaign from an honorable man. Then again, given that McCain has already explicitly accused Obama of traitorous conduct (opposing a war to win an election), nothing should come as a shock. Not even abusing sex education to score points. The fortunate thing for McCain is that presidential campaigns have no true referees. Some in the media try, but the McCain camp is doing all it can to turn the election into a battle between its side and the media, a naked attempt at delegitimizing media criticism of the Palin pick and other McCain campaign moves. There is no power that can slap McCain with what he truly deserves: a time-out in a corner.

Number of times John McCain mentioned Afghanistan in his acceptance speech: 0

Number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan: 33,000

On Tuesday, Bush announced he would withdraw about 8000 troops from Iraq, which would bring troop levels there to about 137,000, roughly the same amount stationed in Iraq prior to the so-called surge. Meanwhile, Bush said a "quiet surge" is occurring in Afghanistan. A Marine battalion of 1000 soldiers that had been heading to Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan instead, and an Army combat brigade of 3500 will also be deployed to Afghanistan. Two years ago, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan was 21,000. So this all represents a significant buildup in Afghanistan. Still, the increase of troops Bush is ordering for Afghanistan falls far short of what U.S. commanders have asked for: 12,000 additional troops. This number of troops cannot be poured into Afghanistan due to the U.S. military's continuing obligations in Iraq.

Whatever is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan has become more of a challenge. The Taliban and its allies are resurgent. The drug trade is expanding. Al Qaeda remains at large in the mountainous tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghans--including their leaders--are fed up with U.S. attacks that lead to civilian casualties. (A pattern has been repeated too many times in the past seven years: the U.S. mounts a bombing raid, people on the ground claim that many civilians were killed, the U.S. military maintains that the raid was precisely targeted and denies the charge of excessive collateral damage, evidence and eyewitness accounts emerge that persuasively challenge the U.S. military claims.)

Yet as Afghanistan becomes more dicey and a more daunting policy and military matter, McCain had nothing to say about it in the most important speech of his career. (By the way, did you know that McCain was a POW during the Vietnam war?) He did refer to Iran (one sentence) and Russia (four sentences), and he mentioned Iraq briefly. Nothing on China. Nothing on Israel. Where was the national security beef? McCain once again retold his POW story. But he had zippo to say about Americans serving in Afghanistan.

Imagine what Republicans and conservatives would have said if Obama had essentially blown off the Afghanistan war and other national security concerns in his acceptance speech. McCain seems more eager to push confrontation with Iran and Russia than to deal with a war already under way. How's that for change?

Imagine if Barack Obama ran an ad touting his vice president pick like this:

And Joe Biden was against the war in Iraq

There would be far-and-wide condemnation because such a statement would be a lie. (Biden voted for the blank-check Iraq war resolution in 2002 after trying mightily--but failing--to win approval for a more restrictive alternative he crafted with two Republican senators.) But look at McCain's latest ad, which celebrates McCain and running-mate Sarah Palin:

The original mavericks. He fights pork barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.

Okay, how many times does it have to be pointed out? Governor Sarah Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere at first. This is how the Anchorage Daily News put it:

When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center.

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge.

But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."

...In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.

She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens. "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug.

That is, she flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere.

Do "original mavericks" rely on outrageous spin? Apparently so. It used to be that McCain--to a degree--was the sort of politician who would snort at such political shenanigans. Now he relies on them.

SARAH PALIN'S SECRET EMAILS.The Palin administration won't release about 1100 emails from her governor's office--many written or sent by Governor Palin or CC'ed to her--claiming these communications cover confidential policy matters. Then why do the subject lines for some of these emails refer to a political foe, a journalist, and non-policy topics? And how can the governor's office claim many of the withheld emails are covered by "executive" privilege when some were CC'ed to her husband Todd Palin (a.k.a. the First Dude), who is a private citizen? See my new and exclusive report on Palin's secret emails here.