Max Bergman, Huffington Post

This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.

But let's unpack McCain's week in a little more detail.

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security "an absolute disgrace." This is not a quote taken out of context. John McCain called one of the most successful and popular government programs, which uses the tax revenues of current workers to support retirement benefits for the elderly "an absolute disgrace." This is shocking - and if uttered from Obama's mouth would dominate the news coverage and the Sunday shows, as pundits would speculate about the massive damage the statement would cause him among retirees in Florida.

2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy. Words cannot fully explain how devastating this statement should be from Phil Gramm. You would think it would be enough to sink McCain's campaign. Of course McCain only thinks that the economic problems are psychological.

3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop. The Iraqis now want us to begin planning our withdrawal - McCain however wants to stay foooorrreeevvveerrrr. So what does McCain say - First, he refuses to accept Maliki's statement as being true. Then he concedes that it was an accurate statement, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and WOULD NOT influence his determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Yet, McCain in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to go. No matter what. But that was apparently a younger and less experienced John McCain.

But let's just look at his comment that Maliki's statement is "just politics." If that is true, then it must also be true that the American military presence in Iraq is so unpopular with Iraqis that the government is forced to push for a timetable in order to survive at the ballot box. That's a reason to stay for 100 years.

4. McCain's economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable. There are so many things here. McCain pledges he would eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term (the campaign latter flip flop flipped about whether it was four years or eight years), but does not provide any details about how he would do it. Economists on both sides of the political aisle said that this was simply not believable, especially given McCain's other proposals to a) cut individual and corporate taxes even further, b) extend the Bush tax cuts and c) massively increase defense spending on manpower (200,000 more troops) and d) maintain a long-term sizable military presence in Iraq.

5. McCain's deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop. Speaking of the long-term military presence - a story that has gotten absolutely no attention is that McCain now believes the war will be over soon. The economic forecasts made by his crack team of economists predict that there will be significant savings during McCain's first term because we will have achieved "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The savings from victory (ie the savings from not having our troops there) will then be used to pay down the deficit. The only way this could have any impact on the deficit in McCain's first time is if troop withdrawals start very soon. So McCain believes victory is in our grasps and we can begin withdraw troops from Iraq pretty much right away -- doesn't sound that different from Obama's plan does it. Someone should at least ask McCain HOW HE DEFINES VICTORY - and why he thinks we will achieve it in the next couple of years.

6. McCain campaign misled about economists support. In the major press release the McCain campaign issued to tout its Jobs for America economic plan that would balance the budget in 4 years, it included the signatures of more than 300 economists who the campaign claimed to support the plan. Only problem is that the economists were actually asked to sign up to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Um, hello?

7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians. Haha... that's just McCain being McCain. I am sure that is exactly how it is being reported in Tehran. This guy is running for President not to become a talk radio pundit. Yet according to the AP this was just a humanizing moment between candidate and spouse - I am not sure when joking about the deaths of civilians became humanizing.

8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics. Are you kidding?









9). McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.





10.) McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain said "I think if there is some good news, I think that there is a glimmer of improving relationship between Karzai and the Pakistanis." Pat Barry notes how crazy this comment is..."Just what "glimmer" is McCain talking about?? Maybe he's referring to President Karzai's remarks last month, which threatened military action in Pakistan if cross-border attacks persisted? Or maybe McCain is talking about Afghanistan's allegations that Pakistan's ISI was involved in a recent assassination attempt on Karzai? Maybe in McCain's world you could call that a silver-lining, but in reality-land I'd call it something else."

Any one of these incidents and comments would dominate the news cycle if they came from the Obama campaign. Yet McCain barely gets a mention. The press like to see themselves as political referees - neutral observers that call them like they see em'. But they want this to be a horse race and so all the calls right now are going one way. How else can you explain the furor last week over the Obama "refine" comment - which represented zero change in Obama's position on Iraq - and the "swift boat" mania over Wesley Clark's uncontroversial comments (psss... by the way McCain exploits his POW experience in just about every ad - yet he says he doesn't like to talk about it).

This Sunday expect the ten incidents above to get short shrift from pundit after pundit, because after all Jesse Jackson said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off.

Well, I knew McCain had gone down the crapper, but not this badly...

He's not getting my vote no matter what. He'd be better than Bush, but not by much...

Edit: Forgot to say this: part of the reason none of this got huge amounts of attention is because everybody's focusing on Obama right now, especially after Jesse Jackson's idiotic comment. That said, it's not the biggest reason(Which is the mainstream media is mostly in love with McCain.).

Did Max Bergman just arrive in this country and/or planet? Whaddaya know, a prominent politician with nearly his entire professional life on the record in some form or another contradicted himself at some point! And, wonder of wonders, the mainstream media tends to dwell on inconsequential things! Nice scoop, Woodward. Yawn.

YouTube, see what you have wrought? Yes, you offer up wonderful and sad Alf bloopers, but you've also turned bloggers, pundits, and anyone else with an agenda into a half-assed video researcher.

Wow, only 10? I can think of a lot more than that for Obama. You guys just don't get it.

True. However, these are pretty big gaffes. Obama's really only had one big gaffe: Voting for the FISA legislation this week(Which is just such bullshit i'm probably not voting for him). McCain didn't vote for it, but he wasn't present at the time. he would have if he was there.

Hey I have an idea, how about we all sit around and fling poo at each other instead of debating issues of substance.

That's the American Way!

god bless america

In just the past week? Go for it, list away.

Lest we forget he called his wife a cunning plan.

Best swear filter

Again WhY do you CaRe? WhY n0t maKe 0nE post/thread with all your anti-McCain hopes and dreams.

So just to clarify: Are you annoyed that I have an interest in world politics, or are you annoyed because your prefered candidate is a mess?

I don't like McCain because of the way ROSEDOGGYDOG types.

I don't like McCain because he isn't the McCain I would have voted for in 2000.

Seriously, is there some neocon code hidden in there or something?

And pfx to Madhammer and mourning the loss of the McCain who was.

although part of me wonders if he isn't just pandering to the right to secure the vote and we'd get the McCain we all learned to admire, even from across the aisle, were he to take office.

The McCain I admired stood up to the right when the right was wrong... so it's hard to know what you'd be getting at this point.

Although the idea of a president who could ever change his mind ever about anything isn't so unappealing...

That's the thing I didn't understand in the last election. People seemed to think that just because Kerry changed his stance on something it meant his brain broke or something. What's wrong with re-thinking something and coming to a different conclusion based on newer info?

Isn't that what a good leader would do? Or is stubborn single-mindedness the only way a President should ever be?

Generally Americans prefer presidents who don't think to much.
They chose Andrew Jackson over John Q. Adams and Henry Clay, James K. Polk over Henry Clay, Warren G. Harding over James M. Cox, Ronald Regan over Walter Mondale, and George W. Bush over Al Gore and John Kerry.
If Americans are given a choice between an intellectual and an "every man" they choose the "every man" 9 times out of 10.

Which causes me to no end

:hoosane

Well you could come up here (plz, we needz teh peoplez)
Our longest serving PM was WLM King, a man who thought so much that he never actually did anything.

Seriously though, I attribute America's distrust of intellectuals to the circumstances of the country's birth. You guys rebelled against monarchy. With monarchy comes nobility. So Americans distrust anything and anyone that seems reminiscent of monarchy and nobility.
As it turns out the intellectuals are often depicted as people who live in an ivory tower out of touch with "the people," just like a monarch.

So when intellectuals like John Kerry or Al Gore run for the office of president Americans subconsciously equate them with nobility, and due to the nature of the United States, prefer the common man to the noble.

Never mind that George Bush is an Ivy League educated prep school alumni from Connecticut, he was able to pull the "every man rancher from Texas" persona off.

I believe I hear Jefferson, Franklin and Adams turning over in their graves.

Yeah... I'd more equate American anti-intellectualism with the whole "we missed the Enlightenment" thing. Cuz, you know, all the smart people tend not to believe in God, guns, and.... uh, whatever the other "G" word is. (Is there one?)

Gays?
Geriatrics?
Gnomes?

I give up.

Gender?

"I'm just a simple man, but I believe in the three Gs: God, Guns, and Gender."


Meh.

Great Big Trucks?

Gonads?

Strife?

about that "people voting for the idiot."

the peoples vote is not related to the presidential election. the electoral college decides who is president. regardless so blame them not the general public.

Yeah, but people's votes decide the electoral colleges......

actually no, the method for determining electors varies from state to state. but we as the population do not directly vote for the electors, as far as I know, in any state.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


used to be the same for senators, I kind of wish it still was. at least then our state government would have some sort of representation directly involved in law making on a national level. but that is another discussion.