Wow, how the connections line up. According to the New York Times and Newsweek, as Senator John McCain claimed that his campaign manager has has no business with or didn't benefit from Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, we have this new news: Rick Davis' firm had a contract with Freddie Mac as recently as last month.
WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.
The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.
Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the people said.
They said they did not recall Mr. Davis’s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis & Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.
Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafort for the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.
Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.
Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end of 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign. McCain and his aides have vehemently objected to suggestions that Davis has ties to Freddie Mac—an especially sensitive issue given that the Republican presidential candidate has blamed "the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats" for the mortgage crisis that recently prompted the Bush administration to take over both Freddie Mac and its companion, Fannie Mae, and put them under federal conservatorship.
But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated. The two sources, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive information, told NEWSWEEK that Davis himself approached Freddie Mac in 2006 and asked for a new consulting arrangement that would allow his firm to continue to be paid. The arrangement was approved by Hollis McLoughlin, Freddie Mac's senior vice president for external relations, because "he [Davis] was John McCain's campaign manager and it was felt you couldn't say no," said one of the sources. [McLoughlin did not return phone calls].
When asked about his own campaign manager's associations with the mortgage giants, McCain, in an interview with CNBC Sunday night, said that Davis "has had nothing to do" with the Homeownship Alliance since it disbanded and "I'll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it." (The Homeownership Alliance was set up and funded by both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to promote the goal of home ownership and counter efforts to impose tighter regulations on the two federally sponsored entities.)
Davis, in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign on Monday, said "it's been over three years since there's been any activity in this area and since I had any contact with those folks." Davis also said he "had a severed leave of absence" from his lobbying and consulting firm, and "I've taken no compensation from my firm for 18 months." (A campaign spokesman said that Davis receives no partnership distribution under his arrangement).
It is not unusual for major corporations to enter into consulting retainers so that individuals could be available if needed. And the two sources stressed that Davis at no time made any threats or demands on Freddie Mac. But the sources indicated that Freddie Mac seldom called on Davis or the firm. On one occasion, Davis was asked to attend a meeting of the firm's political action committee during the 2006 campaign in order to give the Republican Party's perspective on the upcoming elections. In addition, Davis did meet with McLoughlin for breakfast on "one or two" occasions. Other than that, one source said, Davis "doesn't do anything" for Freddie Mac. The firm "doesn't even talk to him." In addition, Freddie Mac has had no contact with Davis Manafort other than receiving monthly invoices from the firm and paying them. But the money could be perceived as helping Freddie Mac ensure a good relationship with one of McCain's top aides in the event that he became president. The payments, along with other lobbying and consulting contracts, are expected to be terminated by the new federal overseers, the sources said.
In case you wonder if deregulation is the pivotal policy that led to the collapse on Wall Street, here's a quick, easily-grasped explanation that should help you grasp why that lofty "ideal" has failed in our never-quite-ideal real world. Are you surprised that some have tried to use the crisis for their own political or financial gain?
In what other industry would you have confidence enough to let the people with the most to gain act without regulation? Would car companies be so concerned with passenger safety without regulation? Would you want doctors to practice unregulated- no assurance they’d act with YOUR best interest in mind? Lawyers? Accountants? Toy Manufacturers? Food processors? I’m not suggesting there’s nothing good about a free-market economy, nor am I suggesting every insurance company or investment firm is run by greedy executives, but there have been snake-oil salesmen preying upon the unwary since before the dawn of history as nearly as I can determine.
We left foxes guarding the chicken coop. It's time for a carefully considered change.
• END Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible, greedy Wall Street executives who lobbied for deregulation and engineered this disaster. Those who have earned millions must return their salaries as a starting point... imagine if that money might be used to PAY those loans down.
• TAXPAYERS, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.
• Bipartisan Oversight -- $700,000,000,000 is a staggering amount of money involved, and since it's coming from taxes the source MANDATES bipartisan expert oversight to ensure accountability.
The "Richard Cabrera Report" is the basis for the much-used number "$16 billion" as the cost of Ecuador's lawsuit against Chevron. Now, Chevron representatives hammered this claim for the following reasons:
1. Cabrera manipulated and altered findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos;
2. He presented no evidence of pollution by Texaco Petroleum, erroneously assigning $1.4 billion in remediation costs to pits he did not visit and do not exist;
3. He presented no evidence to support cancer claims - neither identifying a single individual nor including a single medical report;
4. He did not take a single drinking water sample to establish contamination, yet he assigned $428 million in damages to be paid to improve Ecuador's potable water system;
5. Plaintiffs helped Cabrera compile the report, accompanying and assisting him on field trips, influencing the content of his report by providing him methodological tools such as questionable surveys and pre-written reports to use as report exhibits;
Item number 5 is key, because it's another example of how the government of Ecuador has been assisting the lawsuit against Chevron. Finding evidence to support this claim has been hard but this is one more item.
This is new and extraordinary news, considering that both sides expected a ruling this year. Well, someone's going to have to finance Steve Donziger for another three years!
By Mercedes Alvaro - Dow Jones Newswires, September 16, 2008: 5:47 PM
QUITO - (Dow Jones)- A five-year-old environmental-damage trial in Ecuador against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) could take at least two or three more years, lawyers said Tuesday.
The delay is expected after objections to an April report from a court- appointed expert were received by a court in Lago Agrio.
The report prepared by Richard Cabrera, a geologist and environmental consultant, recommended that Chevron pay at least $8.3 billion, and maybe as much as $16 billion, in compensation for environmental damage in Ecuador.
Chevron is facing the lawsuit in Ecuador for alleged contamination by its Texaco unit in the Amazon region of Lago Agrio. The company is accused of having used out-of-date technology that led to environmental damage.
The complaint was launched in 1993 in a lawsuit in New York courts, which ruled that the case should be tried in Ecuador. In May 2003, several indigenous groups filed a lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio (Nueva Loja).
The judge is expected to give Cabrera a reasonable timeframe to answer the objections from both Chevron and the plaintiffs.
Pablo Fajardo, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, told Dow Jones Newswires that he expects a final decision in 2011.
Chevron on Monday submitted its objections to Cabrera's report, saying that it contains "fabricated and erroneous evidence," exaggerated claims for damages and "was developed in collusion with the plaintiffs and their attorneys."
The company urged the court to reject Cabrera's report and accused him of manipulating and altering findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos.
The aim, said the company, is to make Chevron liable for all the environmental impact caused solely by Ecuadorian state oil company Petroecuador during 18-plus years of operation of the concession.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted their objections on Tuesday.
Fajardo said the plaintiffs are asking Cabrera to calculate the amount of damage to water supplies, and other damages.
Chevron has said several times that it has met all the requirements for environmental cleanup that were agreed upon with Petroecuador.
Chevron also has said that in 1998 Petroecuador released the U.S.-based company from any liabilities regarding cleanup efforts.
The plaintiffs said that this release isn't from individual claims and that the so-called "cleaned up" pits remain contaminated.
This is new and extraordinary news, considering that both sides expected a ruling this year. Well, someone's going to have to finance Steve Donziger for another three years!
By Mercedes Alvaro - Dow Jones Newswires, September 16, 2008: 5:47 PM
QUITO - (Dow Jones)- A five-year-old environmental-damage trial in Ecuador against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) could take at least two or three more years, lawyers said Tuesday.
The delay is expected after objections to an April report from a court- appointed expert were received by a court in Lago Agrio.
The report prepared by Richard Cabrera, a geologist and environmental consultant, recommended that Chevron pay at least $8.3 billion, and maybe as much as $16 billion, in compensation for environmental damage in Ecuador.
Chevron is facing the lawsuit in Ecuador for alleged contamination by its Texaco unit in the Amazon region of Lago Agrio. The company is accused of having used out-of-date technology that led to environmental damage.
The complaint was launched in 1993 in a lawsuit in New York courts, which ruled that the case should be tried in Ecuador. In May 2003, several indigenous groups filed a lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio (Nueva Loja).
The judge is expected to give Cabrera a reasonable timeframe to answer the objections from both Chevron and the plaintiffs.
Pablo Fajardo, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, told Dow Jones Newswires that he expects a final decision in 2011.
Chevron on Monday submitted its objections to Cabrera's report, saying that it contains "fabricated and erroneous evidence," exaggerated claims for damages and "was developed in collusion with the plaintiffs and their attorneys."
The company urged the court to reject Cabrera's report and accused him of manipulating and altering findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos.
The aim, said the company, is to make Chevron liable for all the environmental impact caused solely by Ecuadorian state oil company Petroecuador during 18-plus years of operation of the concession.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted their objections on Tuesday.
Fajardo said the plaintiffs are asking Cabrera to calculate the amount of damage to water supplies, and other damages.
Chevron has said several times that it has met all the requirements for environmental cleanup that were agreed upon with Petroecuador.
Chevron also has said that in 1998 Petroecuador released the U.S.-based company from any liabilities regarding cleanup efforts.
The plaintiffs said that this release isn't from individual claims and that the so-called "cleaned up" pits remain contaminated.
What's stunning about this election is the degree to wish there are people who seem invested in maintaing a kind of racial status quo where someone in America has to be on "top" if their White, and on the "bottom" if they're Black. It reminds me of what my Mom told me when I tried to bring the 2005 Super Bowl to Oakland:
Between Black's who are jealous and Whites who think someone White should be doing what you're doing, you've got a problem.
Some of those people want you killed. People like Omhari Sengstacke for example. This guy came to the security perimeter of Barack's home, was told to leave, then came back and had a gun in his car. Plus, he's a convicted felon.
I just received an email which points to a website page article accusing -- in a ton of detail -- Senator John McCain of covering up information on Vietnam POW's still in that country. I personally remember the clamor for information on what happened to POWs who never made it out of Vietnam.
Senator McCain and the Vietnam War Prisoner of War Cover Up
Sydney H. Schanberg
September 18, 2008 - John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.
Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.
The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.
Mass of Evidence
The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What's more, the Pentagon's POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of "debunking" POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.
The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.
One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon's performance was an insider, Air Force Lieut. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon's position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.
Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general's briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war's end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.
Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a February 2, 1973, formal letter to Hanoi's premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in "postwar reconstruction" aid "without any political conditions." But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party "in accordance with its own constitutional provisions." That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored - and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.
In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi's desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men—those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture—were eventually executed.
My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few—if any—are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the agency's Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted "off the record," but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)
For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans' groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain's role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.
The Arizona Senator, now the Republican candidate for President, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon's and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief and national security advisor, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H. W. Bush's defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.
McCain's Role
Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as "the McCain Bill," suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. (See one example, at left, when the Pentagon cited McCain's bill in rejecting a FOIA request.) The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence...more here
Senator John McCain has been known for making racist and sexist comments. So many, one wonders why they've not been reported by the mainstrea media. Well, here's a video report on just some of what McCain has said, as well as his agreement with Bill O'Reilly that he's part of a "White Male Power Structure."
The foundation for my video was the work on Doug Thompson, who's the main author of the blog "Capital Hill Blue" I happened to find his work on the matter of McCain's racism while conducting this search "john mccain racism" on Goggle, and scrolling down. Doug's work is perhaps the most comprehensive collection of comments and actions that McCain has made and taken that have been identified as racist and sexist.
Doug says that he was a Capital Hill Chief of Staff in his blog, but I checked via search and did find a more detailed information set on his other website about himself, and which read:
Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressman and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. From 1987-1992, Thompson served as Vice President for Political Programs for The National Association of Realtors and then joined The Eddie Mahe Company as a senior associate for Communications. During that stint he became involved in campaign finance issue and was a founding member of the Project for Comprehensive Campaign Reform. He also lecturer at the American Campaign Academy and was a sought-after spokesman on campaign finance issues.
He also claims that he was a staffer to the House Committee on Science and Technology and during that time worked on the "transfer of DARPANet from the Department of Defense to the National Science Foundation" in the early 1990s -- "the beginnings of the Internet" as he wrote.
That's valueable information because some have called Doug's credibility into question, but what he seems to provide is a good first-person view of how elected officials like McCain behaved when they weren't in position to become President of The United States.
Since I don't believe in reinventing the wheel, I'll copy and paste what Doug wrote below but I will alter their apperance because Thompson didn't seem to appropriately catagorize each example.
Examples of racism:
Question: Why does Mexican beer have two "X's" on the label?
Answer: Because wetbacks always need a co-signer.
John McCain, a member of the House of Representatives in the mid-1980s, often held court at a table near the bar at Bullfeathers, a popular Capitol Hill watering hole, telling jokes and matching hangers-on drink by drink.
As a Capitol Hill chief of staff, I often drank at Bullfeathers and was invited to join the throng at McCain's table one evening. A few minutes listening to the racism, bigotry and homophobia of the Arizona Congressman told me all I needed to know.
McCain loved to tell jokes about lesbians, blacks, Hispanics and the Vietnamese community that occupied a large section of Arlington County, Virginia, just south of the District of Columbia.
I checked to see if Bullfeathers was still open, and lo and behold, it was. It's located at 410 1st St SE # 1, Washington, DC 20003, and the number is (202) 488-7160. The website reads:
Serving the House of Representatives and all their friends since 1980. Come enjoy the party atmosphere at our forty-foot bar. Happy hour every night from 5:00 to 8:00 pm. The food is great, with a wide variety to choose from - and we still serve the best burgers on the Hill. Come out and enjoy our outdoor cafe. If you're having a private party or fundraiser from 50 to 250 people, let us cater your event!
At the time of the events Doug points to, Senator McCain was Congressman McCain, thus a perfect candidate to patronize Bullfeathers. While his is the only comment on McCain at Bullfeathers I can find, I also didn't see anything refuting his charge, either.
Examples of Sexism:
Exampe:
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because Janet Reno is her father.
Another example:
Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’
Even his wife is not immune. Writes Cliff Schecter in his book, The Real John McCain:
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
And as if that were not enough Katie Hong of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer went on a one-person crusade to point out McCain's anti-Asian -- more spefically Anti-North Vietnamese given his background as a Prisoner of War -- comments. This was posted on March 2, 2000, but it's still easy to find online because it's been linked to so much:
On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.
It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.
It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.
Contrary to McCain's attempt to narrowly define "gook" to mean only his "sadistic" captors, this term has historically been used to describe all Asians. McCain said that "gook" was the most "polite" term he could find to describe his captors, but because it is simply a pejorative term for Asians, he insulted his captors simply by calling them "Asians" -- a clearly disturbing message. To the Asian American community, the term is akin to the racist word "nigger." A friend of mine, a white male Vietnam veteran, pointed out that veterans, especially Vietnam veterans, know how spiteful the term "gook" is. It has everything to do with labeling someone as "other," the enemy and yellow. McCain sent the message that all Asians are foreigners and remain forever the "other" and the enemy.
The perception of Asians as "foreigners" or "the other" isn't new. This sentiment is what led to passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Japanese American internment during World War II. The internment of Japanese Americans is now recognized as one of the worst civil rights violations in our country's history and a powerful lesson in what can happen when race alone is used as a test for loyalty or who is defined as an American.
We've made tremendous progress as a nation in overcoming racism. That is why it is so disturbing that a major candidate for the U.S. president can perpetuate the stereotype of Asians as permanent foreigners, hurtling us backward to a time and a place where such racial epithets were an acceptable part of mainstream discourse.
The question is, did McCain appologize? The question's important because he' had eight years to do so. The answer is yes he did and three days after he made the remark in 2000 as he was running for President. This is what I found:
Less than 24 hours after stories ran about Sen. John McCain’s statement to reporters that he would continue to refer to his Vietnamese wartime captors as “gooks,” his campaign announced Feb. 18 that he would no longer use that term. Three days later McCain issued an official apology.
Several stories that ran last Friday quoted McCain as saying “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live… I was referring to my prison guards and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend.”
But after APIs blasted his unabashed use of the highly derogatory term that has historically been used against Asians and Asian Americans, the campaign made an apology after annoucing that McCain would no longer use the racial slur.
“I will continue to condemn those who unfairly mistreated us,” McCain said in a statement released Feb. 21. “But out of respect to a great number of people for whom I hold in very high regard, I will no longer use the term that has caused such discomfort… I apologize and renounce all language that is bigoted and offensive, which is contrary to all that I represent and believe.”
This year, Fred Soto revisited the matter of that slur in an excellent post that's a must read for anyone. Sote writes:
Much has been made of the reference that humbled the American war hero. Some apologists will fight until they are blue in the face to try and excuse John McCain’s words. Others will ask why this issue is worth revisiting, if for no other reason than to hurt the GOP front-runner? I’d respond simply that when a presidential candidate uses words that are racist in nature, Americans should jump to conclusions about his or her character. It is our duty to determine whether John McCain has the ability to lead and unite our nation. The information presented below shows that John McCain’s age and “experience” may play a big role in the presidential elections, after all.
If you’re still waiting for me to explain how and why this is relevant to American politics, I’ll do my best to explain my position. If John McCain had used the word “nigger,” do you believe for a second that John McCain would be standing above the GOP’s perch? The correct answer is “No,” it’s highly unlikely that he’d be the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. What John McCain did was make a reference that is equally derogatory, but the media seems to want to stay out of the fray on this one.
Americans forget that racism exists on a multitude of levels but the only time we recognize the problem is when it is done to minorities of the darker persuasions.
Unfortunately, Soto does not give us the idea that McCain actually evolved from this 2000 problem with Asians. He concludes with a sadness over the way the mainstream media has ignored the issue. I agree.
Irwin Tang explains why John McCain's racial slur is still relevant today:
There's also evidence that McCain commonly used the term before 2000. A 1973 article in U.S. News and World Report contains several examples of McCain's use of the word, here's one:
After I had been there about 10 days, a "gook"—which is what we called the North Vietnamese—came in one morning. This man spoke English very well. He asked me how I was, and said, "We have a Frenchman who is here in Hanoi visiting, and would like to take a message back to your family." Being a little naive at the time—you get smarter as you go along with these people—I figured this wasn't a bad deal at all, if this guy would come to see me and go back and tell my family that I was alive.
Supposedly, there's a video around where McCain uses the term, but I've not seen it. What's clear to me is that there's enough evidence of McCain's intolerance for those who's skin is darker is of such historic depth, it's disturbing.
What's more upsetting is that CNN and other media outlets don't focus on this problem with John McCain.
If you're in the sports industry or in a sport management program, this video explains my experience in finding the right program to be a part of.
After some good experiences and some terrible ones, I joined Women In Sports And Events (WISE). Regardless of gender, it's an excellent grassroots style program and they treat their members as welcomed guests.
IF you're in a college, then you're already in a networking group, but you still can't go wrong with WISE. But there's one organization I recommend you not join and it's the National Sports Marketing Network.
The National Sports Marketing Network does not have -- in my experience -- a good customer service track record. My story is personal in that I recently was sent an email to come to a member's only event, but then when i RSVPed -- after some hestiation because of the NSMN's terrible reputation in the SF Bay Area and after a friend encouraged me to do so -- I got the weird rebuff email.
When I enquired and expressed my displeasure with the email, the head wrote me back an even nastier email -- all for no reason. And also essentially threatened me if I shared the matter with you all.
So I'm doing so.
I trust you don't want that -- go elsewhere. Join Women In Sports Events and other groups. Or start your own group. But I do swear by WISE.
Wall Street, here's a quick, easily-grasped explanation that should help you grasp why that lofty "ideal" has failed in our never-quite-ideal real world. Are you surprised that some have tried to use the crisis for their own political or financial gain?