World Affairs Brief, February 22, 2008. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)
SCANDAL SEASON: WHICH CANDIDATE (IF ANY) WILL GET THE MEDIA AXE?
Ron Paul was right: "It's not over till it's over." He was referring to the fact that anything could come up between now and the nominating convention for President--a scandal, some indiscretion, anything that would embarrass a candidate--and ruin someone's political career. That's why the only Republican anti-war candidate is still in the race despite support in the single digits, hoping the big two ahead of him (McCain and Huckabee) stumble. The media hasn't got anything on Ron Paul, so he can only rise higher in stature if McCain becomes an embarrassment. This week the NY Times unleashed a potential bombshell on McCain concerning a romantic relationship with a lobbyist. The story, even it its watered-down form is getting big coverage. What isn't getting any coverage except on the internet is a man claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with Barack Obama. Hillary has any number of indiscretions (financial and personal) that could be fodder for the pundits. This week I'll analyze how the media will determine who wins the presidency by which scandals they choose to make big and which ones they choose to suppress. It's all part of the process of manipulating the outcome of US elections.
McCAIN BOMBSHELL FINALLY DROPS
Establishment newspapers have been investigating this story for months and holding it back until now. The why is a story in itself, which I will cover shortly. First, the NY Times is holding back the most damaging source testimony, perhaps to protect McCain and allow for a credible denial. The indiscretions occurred eight years ago while McCain was running for President the first time. Here are excerpts from the NY Times revelations [my comments in brackets].
"That February [2000], Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator's advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene [note, they leave out names of the sources, for now, so as to allow the McCain campaign to question the validity of the story].
"A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices. In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career [no such warning would have occurred unless both had seen McCain entangled in romantic activity on the plane]. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."
The McCain campaign reacted predictably with outrage and denials, claiming the NY Times was guilty of shoddy journalism more appropriate to the National Inquirer. But there is method to this kind of reporting. This could have been a shot-across-the-bow tactic with the tacit threat that actual statements by the two sources could be later revealed. These statements would certainly be more graphic and more damaging to the Senator. Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly says Josh Marshall [well known Leftist blogger at Talking Points Memo] agrees that the NY Times is holding back:
"Josh Marshall thinks there's more here than meets the eye: At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was.....I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go....Equally telling is the McCain camp's response and their clear unwillingness to address or deny any of the key charges of the piece. (Read the statement closely. It's all bluster.)
"Radar reports that the Times, which has been chasing this story at least since December, only published now because it was forced into it: According to [campaign advisor Charles] Black, the Times only went with the story now because The New Republic (TNR) was set to run a piece next Monday about internal dissensions at the paper over whether to run the long-held article."
The New Republic is also an establishment paper and was anguishing over how to protect McCain and still not lose a big scoop. We also have to keep in mind that the NY Times has already come out and endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination and they did so while they were in possession of these damaging statements by former McCain staffers. If they really wanted to kill the McCain campaign, they would have told all before the endorsement. My analysis is that the Times is playing the role of spoiling the story for future use by McCain's enemies within the conservative wing of the Republican party, as well as the Democratic Party. By revealing it now, in its mildest form, they allow McCain to come out in a press conference full of indignation.
In essence, by offering up the story in minimalist form, they allow it to be written off more easily and dismissed. A blogger on CNN named "RK" said it best: "I believe the NYT has elicited the precise response they were aiming for, A rallying of support for a candidate they endorse. The credibility of the 'accusations' are non existent [actually, the credible parts were simply withheld]. This is a carefully calculated media maneuver." If anyone tries to bring it up later, McCain and his defenders can always say, "That's old stuff that has already been resolved." This is precisely what they did to sanitize the various stories of George W. Bush's moral indiscretions and his shoddy National Guard service.
The LA Times revealed that McCain may have protested too loudly in his denial. "McCain, who is on the verge of clinching the GOP nomination for president, denied categorically that he had ever had a romantic relationship with Iseman or that he had ever done anything that would 'betray the public trust' or give undue favor to lobbyists. He also said his staffers never told him they were concerned with the relationship.'" How can John McCain, with his known role as one of the Keating Five Senators, claim he would never betray the public trust or give undue favor to lobbyists? That's what the Keating Five Savings and Loan scandal was all about--five Senators, including McCain, received large campaign contributions in exchange for pressuring federal bank regulators to ease off on investigating Keating's role in the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan.
But, it's that last statement, claiming he was never warned by staff about Iseman, that the Times could make hay with. The Times has the testimony of two former staffers who say they did warn McCain. If the Times wants to paint McCain as a liar, they can certainly do so, but I don't think they will. If the Times doesn't pursue this, to me it will be proof of intent to sabotage this scandal and not see it through.
But for McCain, this isn't a slight lapse or one time occurrence. McCain is a serial adulterer, from his sordid history as a Navy pilot on the prowl, to cheating on his wives after his return to the US as a phony war hero and POW. As Patrick Briley wrote, citing various sources with first hand knowledge, "McCain molested a MIA's wife (that many POW/MIA families know personally) in the mid 1980s while McCain's second wife, Cindy, was giving birth to one of their children [McCain had also had an affair with Cindy while still married to his first wife-yet she defended her husband and assured all that he would never dishonor his family. What depth will a potential first lady stoop to protect her roving husband?]. McCain has publicly admitted to having extra martial affairs during his first marriage. John McCain's biographer Robert Timberg has listed and documented McCain's sexual affairs with his military subordinates when he was an Executive Officer and as a Squadron Commander."
OBAMA'S SKELETONS
The media has plenty of dirt on Barack Obama as well, but so far he is being completely shielded. Worldnetdaily.com says it all: "The electrifying presidential campaign of Barack Obama faces a new challenge - a Minnesota man who claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with him. When his story was ignored by the news media, Larry Sinclair made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed more than a quarter-million times. And when it was still ignored by the media, Sinclair filed a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff. Sinclair, who says he is willing to submit to a polygraph test to validate his claims, will now get his chance - thanks to a website offering $10,000 for the right to record it and $100,000 to Sinclair if he passes."
I can't vouch for the personal credibility of Larry Sinclair--one rarely can, given the kind of low-life activities his charges and admissions involve. However, homosexual activity and moral compromise is one of the main doors through which corruptible people get into the protected system the insiders control. Whether it is through Skull and Bones initiation or one of the many other venues the establishment has built up to screen potential future leaders for corruptibility, homosexual acts seem to be the favored technique for assuring that a person needs immunity and protection from discovery--which the insiders can provide (as long as the person plays along).
What is also very well documented about Barack Obama is his radical Leftist background. I have previously covered his close relationship with the radical Marxist Church of Christ congregation under Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who gave a Lifetime Achievement award to radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is well known for his racist remarks, anti-semitic remarks, violent epitaphs against whites, and praise of dictators like Hitler and Stalin.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (AIM) did more research into Obama's background and how hiding his weaknesses has become a habit. It does appear that Obama has a lot to hide. "In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a 'secret smoker' and how he 'went to great lengths to conceal the habit.' But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
"In his books, Obama admits attending 'socialist conferences' and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a 'hard-core academic Marxist,' which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes. However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).
"Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points."AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a 'Global Poverty Act' designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action."
Obama has recently wrapped up another 10 primary victories over Hillary Clinton, and it thus becomes more and more unlikely that the super delegates, who hold the power to overturn Obama's lead in primary delegates, would risk defying Democratic voters by throwing the nomination to Hillary. If the PTB were intent on allowing Hillary to win, they would more than likely air at least some of this dirty laundry on Obama so as better justify their choice. That could still happen.
A lot is hinging on the mainstream Chicago reporter that Larry Sinclair says has been tasked by a major newspaper to corroborate or debunk Sinclair's story (checking hotel registers, limo rentals and other aspects of his story). If nothing shows up in the Chicago Tribune, then I suspect the story was corroborated and the establishment has chosen to bury it. If they can find a few selective holes in it, they'll do a hatchet job on him and defuse the story either way.
As for the McCain scandal, I strongly suspect that the media has exposed it early, only to help it die an early death. McCain has dozens of known scandals besides this one affair. Can anyone imagine the lone remaining Keating Five Senator still in office as President? If it does become a factor, the establishment can and will turn to Huckabee as their candidate. Romney is probably kicking himself for endorsing McCain too early and releasing his delegates. This damaging story by the Times may well have been timed to come after Romney had already closed the door to coming back into the race, in order to foreclose a Romney resurgence.
McCain is still showing his true colors by encouraging the president to veto a bill out of Congress intent on applying an anti-torture statute to the CIA. Remember, McCain once claimed to be the champion of anti-torture legislation (excepting the fine print allowing the president to authorize it when he sees fit.)
As Libby Quaid of the AP points out, "Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects. McCain voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding ---- a simulated [NOT simulated at all] drowning technique that McCain also opposes ---- yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions."
"'I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,' McCain said." And, waterboard is NOT degrading or inhumane? We want this kind of man as president?