Media uncritically report McCain's claim that overseas trip is not campaign-related, ignoring London fundraiser
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Reuters reported Sen. John McCain's claim that his trip overseas is unrelated to his presidential campaign without noting that McCain's trip includes a fundraiser in London or that McCain campaign representatives have reportedly acknowledged the political strategy behind the trip.
In articles noting Sen. John McCain's weeklong trip to the Middle East and Europe, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Reuters reported McCain's claim that the trip is unrelated to his presidential campaign without noting that McCain's trip includes a fundraiser in London or that McCain campaign representatives have reportedly acknowledged the political strategy behind the trip. By contrast, reports by the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post juxtaposed McCain's claim that his trip was not a campaign event with the fact that he will be holding the London fundraiser.
In a March 15 "The Week Ahead" article, The Wall Street Journal reported that McCain is "tak[ing] an overseas detour from the campaign trail this weekend to the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona senator says he is doing it as a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. He insists this isn't a campaign trip." While the article then asked, "How could it not be?" it went on to state: "Sen. McCain is adamant that he will keep the focus on national security and won't talk politics but 'understands the charge' that some people will still see this as a campaign trip."
Similarly, a March 16 Reuters report stated that McCain is visiting Iraq "as a member of a fact-finding mission for the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee" and noted that "McCain, who will be the Republican choice in November's presidential election, and Senate allies Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham will also visit Israel, Britain and France." The report also stated: "While acknowledging that leaders like British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy might see the trip as a chance to size him up as a potential president, McCain has said he is not travelling as a candidate."
A March 16 AP report on McCain's arrival in Baghdad likewise uncritically reported McCain's denial that his weeklong trip was campaign-related: "Before leaving, McCain said the trip to the Middle East and Europe was a fact-finding venture, not a campaign photo opportunity."
By contrast, in a March 15 article, the Los Angeles Times noted McCain's plans to hold a fundraiser:
McCain has stressed that it will be a routine Senate trip focused on military and security issues and that he will not discuss presidential politics during his travels.
The campaign, however, will hold a luncheon fundraiser for McCain at London's Spencer House on Thursday.
The Washington Post also reported March 15 that "McCain plans to hold a fundraiser in London on Thursday, and costs associated with it will be paid for by the campaign, a spokeswoman said."
Also, on the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported that McCain "advisers tell CNN" that the purpose of McCain's overseas trip is to "stay[] in the headlines" and promote the "imagery of a leader comfortable on the world stage":
BASH: McCain's biggest challenge now is staying in the headlines. Knowing that, his advisers tell CNN they have a series of events planned to try.
First, travel abroad. Later this month, McCain will go to Europe and meet with key allies and also go to the Middle East.
McCAIN: I've spent my entire life addressing national security issues.
BASH: The goal: not just words, but imagery of a leader comfortable on the world stage, hoping it provides a contrast to the Democrats' political brawl.
From the March 15 Wall Street Journal article, headlined "McCain Trip May Enhance Perceived Foreign-Policy Edge":
John McCain takes an overseas detour from the campaign trail this weekend to the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona senator says he is doing it as a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. He insists this isn't a campaign trip.
How could it not be?
With the Democratic nomination still hotly contested, most of the media attention these days goes to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Sen. McCain's trip, including a stop in Iraq, puts him back in the limelight. And in precisely the mode he wants.
[...]
Sen. McCain is adamant that he will keep the focus on national security and won't talk politics but "understands the charge" that some people will still see this as a campaign trip. He points to his regular trips overseas, including seven other visits to Iraq, as proof that this is only more of the same. Even so, this will be Sen. McCain's first trip as a general-election contender and will likely be received differently by world leaders and U.S. allies.
From the March 16 Reuters report:
McCain, who will be the Republican choice in November's presidential election, and Senate allies Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham will also visit Israel, Britain and France.
Analysts see the trip as a chance for McCain to show off his knowledge of foreign policy and military affairs while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fight out a bitter Democratic nomination process at home.
While acknowledging that leaders like British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy might see the trip as a chance to size him up as a potential president, McCain has said he is not travelling as a candidate.
From the March 16 AP report:
McCain, a strong supporter of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, is believed to be staying in the country for about 24 hours.
"Senator McCain is in Iraq and will be meeting with Iraqi and U.S. officials," said Mirembe Nantongo, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
This is the senator's eighth visit to Iraq. He's accompanied by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Before leaving, McCain said the trip to the Middle East and Europe was a fact-finding venture, not a campaign photo opportunity.
The senator last met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during the Thanksgiving holiday.
[...]
McCain's weeklong trip also includes stops in Israel, Jordan, Britain and France.
He is expected to meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the first time, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the third time. He met and corresponded with Sarkozy both before and after the French president was elected. They last saw each other last summer.
Most people know that anything that happens during the election year is "campaign related", so this should come as no surprise to any adult.
I think that what McCain is actually trying to do is to distance himself from all of the scandals going on in the USA. And, as an Obama supporter, let me say that I am really worried about what is happening in the Democrat Party.
Zogby Poll: McCain Bests Both Obama, Clinton in 3-Way General Election Tests
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
"Looking to November, John McCain now holds a slight lead over both Democrats in the General Election. It’s McCain 47% Obama 43% and McCain 46% Clinton 43% (see recent daily results)."
---------------
Also, the story is not over for Obama who has a lot of questions that he must answer:
First Problen - Resko
Brian Ross - ABC News
Rezko Played Bigger Role, Obama Says
Next Problem -
earmarks for wife:
Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.
The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works...
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am hoping that Obama can come back and deal with all of these issues, but I'm afraid that simply pointing out that McCain held a fundraiser is not going to cut any ice.
GO OBAMA!!!!!!
Hey, look over there.
The subject is the fact that some in the media are allowing McCain to be less than honest about the upcoming trip.
The fact that educated people know that he's not being totally honest is irrelevant. They need to call him on that behavior. He shouldn't get a pass on it because we know it already.
Summary: The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Reuters reported Sen. John McCain's claim that his trip overseas is unrelated to his presidential campaign without noting that McCain's trip includes a fundraiser in London or that McCain campaign representatives have reportedly acknowledged the political strategy behind the trip.
What's the upside? That he gets the political benefits of this trip while trying to claim that there could be no possible reason he was taking this trip other than him doing his job. The media is ignoring the political benefits to a man running for President.
See his post below. Once again, he's "terribly concerned" in his first paragraph, then in the second he say"...well my concern is just all the greater because I truly just love the guy and hope that he can win! ".
Despite his claims, his concern seems awfully hollow.
Oh, and nice blues parody about Gramps too.
Mary,
The "Democrat Party" is becoming part of the lexicon. The only one's who seem concerned about it are the party loyalists here. There is no disrespect toward the party as members of the party are called Democrats. So calling the party the same, while technically incorrect, correctly identifies the party.
Time to embrace it and move on.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Embrace Luntz's framing? No thanks, honey.
"The "Democrat Party" is becoming part of the lexicon. The only one's who seem concerned about it are the party loyalists here."
And why do you think that is? Because the Republicans think its a pejorative term.
I'm no party loyalist, and I find it rude and insulting.
You "embrace the title, "Brain Dead Party of Bedwetters" for the Republicans, and I for one will "embrace" the name "Democrat" Party.
Worrier,
Your over-the-top attempt at a derogatory analogy does not, in my opinion, do your side any good. Something like the "Rebublic Party" would be analogous to "Democrat Party" and I don't have any problem with that.
Oh, if you can get your name to catch on, go right ahead. :-)
In the meantime don't buy into that fact that leaving the "ic" off is derogatory. It's not. Complaining about it only looks to me like you (as a group,) are being paranoid. If the word "Democrat" were a putdown, then calling one a Democrat would also be insulting. I for one don't happen to think it is. Do you?
The term Democrat Party was conjured up by an RNC focus group. It was conceived as a derisive term to describe the Democratic party. You claim that it is accepted now and it is not. It is a divisive name used to demean anyone who doesn't agree with the powers that be.
You missed the point entirely.
Worrier,
I am simply giving you my opinion. Do as you wish. If you think the word Democrat as opposed to the word Democratic is derisive, that simply makes me laugh. I don't care who made it up. You fell for it. I personally think it makes you (as a group,) look paranoid. If you want to keep tilting at this windmill, by all means, please do so.
I doubt that few, (Democrats or Republicans,) even notice the difference.
*applauds* Way to keep changing what someone says.
The word "Democrat" is not a pejorative word. It's a noun. And when capitalized, a proper noun.
Using it as an adjective is not only bad grammar, but, as pointed out, it's focus-grouped to ensure that it makes those in the party "rats." This is why it's only used by people who think it's hilarious to needle people, rather than debate on merits and abilities. One side has them, the other side seems to cry foul when they're brought up.
Democrat, noun. Democratic, adjective. Democratic Party, proper grammar. Democrat Party, grammar of school kids. Clear enough now?
Though I agree with everything else, a noun can modify a noun.
"shoe store"
"Tennis ball"
AA,
So, your party names ours? Can we name yours? Who on the Left has embraced the term the "Democrat" Party?
By the way, AA, PC, others, what do you make of this:
CNN’s Kyra Phillips speaks to some Iraqi soldiers about the U.S. presidential election and democracy in Iraq. While they spoke enthusiastically about the American soldiers teaching them discipline and how to effectively combat their enemies in Iraq, the soldiers were less effusive in their praise for those managing the war and their plans for bringing about democracy. Phillips tried in vain to locate any McCain supporters among the group.
Fried,
Is your quote referring to Iraqi soldiers wanting a Democrat for President?
As with anyone, they are entitled to their opinion.
As far as the reporter looking for McCain supporters among those Iraqi soldiers, So what? Do they vote?
This anecdote, although interesting, proves nothing. It could simply be the bias of the reporter. Who knows? We'll just have to wait till November.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
AA,
It is what the Iraqi Army has seen. They are the ones we are supposedly fighting for. They want a change in leadership. I just thought it was interesting. Besides, McCain has just advocated for more of the same. Do you really think the country is better after 8 years of Bush rule?
Fried,
It is a long stretch to take the few this reporter spoke to and extrapolate it to the entire Iraqi Army don't you think?
You may be correct that the Iraqi's might want a Democrat as President. But your example doesn't prove that. And even if it does, since they don't vote, it doesn't matter. I for one am not going to base my vote on what a reporter says a few Iraqi soldiers have told her.
In some ways I think the country is better off, in others I do not. I think Bush's spending and handling of the the illegal immigration issue has been terrible. Have we, up till this quarter, had lots of growth in the economy and jobs, yes.
I see McCain as continuing Bush's policy in Iraq, but different domestically. Feel free to disagree. :-)
AA,
Of course the group she found does not speak for the entire Iraqi army, but it is telling she couldn't find ONE who wanted the war to be conducted the same way going forward. How do you propose we keep the number of troops the same as when we performed the surge? How many of the political goals of the surge that Bush outlined in his speech when he proposed the surge have been met? NONE. I think a draft is coming if we want to continue to keep the number of troops in Iraq the same.
As for the economy, Greenspan is calling our financial situation the worst since WWII! Forclosures are at record rates, Gas is at an all-time high and the dollar is at an all-time low against the Euro. How could those three measures be worse?
Could you point me to the differences in McCain's domestic policy that differ from Bush's? I think we are at a crucial crossroads in history. Bear Stearns just had to be bailed out. Do you trust the policies that got us to this point in history to turn this around?
Fried,
You agree with my point about the Iraqi's. This reporter saying she couldn't find one, doesn't tell me anything.
I do not believe the Bush plan calls for an indefinite surge. My guess is that troops will be drawn down by McCain as the generals see fit although I haven't studied the McCain position paper on that issue.
I agree the mortgage loan issue is a problem. Was it all the Bush Administration's fault? I don't yet know. Is the Bear Sterns issue the Administration's fault? If so, would McCain follow the same path? I think that has yet to be determined.
Do I think Obama or Hillary raising taxes will help? No I do not. I think cutting spending would help. Do I think BHO or HRC will cut spending? No I do not. Do I think "cutting and running" in Iraq will help. No I do not. Do I want someone who is ultra-liberal with regards to abortion as President? No I do not. Do I want more originalists on the Supreme Court. Yes, I do.
So, looking at the choices, I tend to drift toward McCain. I forget now if you've shared your preference? Whom do you like? Why?I don't know what happened to that last paragraph.
I wrote: So, looking at the choices, I tend to drift toward McCain. I forget now if you've shared your preference. Whom do you like? Why?
AA,
I see you have the talking points down to a science. Neither Obama nor HRC is going to "cut and run" from Iraq. Obama plans to move the troops home over 16 months according to his website without any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy. If Al Qaeda attempts to establish a base, he said he will move the troops back in.
As far as cutting spending goes, the war has been the largest expenditure. What do you propose cutting? Thanks to the Republicans, my generation NOT YOURS will have to pay back this massive debt. Do you feel comfortable just giving this debt to my generation to pay back?
The bottom line on taxes for me is that if we have to rebuild our roads and infrastructure, I don't mind paying taxes. I favor a tax raise to where it was before Bush cut it to pay for the war. How irresponsible is it that we actually had a President cut taxes in a time when he spent more money than anyone before him? If McCain wants to cut spending, fewer wars would be a great start!
As far as being ultra-liberal on abortion, how do you propose to stem the numbers of abortions? Sex education would be a start, but Republicans (not speaking for you here because I don't know your thoughts) seem to only advocate abstenence education. More education would help. If you are for outlawing abortion, do you plan on investigating miscarriages as well? If a woman loses her fetus, and abortion is illegal, is she subject to criminal investigation because there is a chance that an abortion was performed? No one is "for" having many abortions, many just want it as an option. I think if you are worried about spending outlawing abortion isn't the way to go. How will you house so many unwanted children? Finally, on a less serious note, will you open carpool lanes for expecting women?
As for the originalist argument, what is your background in law, AA? And, do you think the Constitutional process that outlawed slavery was what the founders had in mind? I.E. not allowing the Southern states back in until they agreed to ratify. Define Originalist for me, please. Also, what do you think about judges who overturn the laws of Congress the most, are they activist?
I appreciate the discussion.
Fried,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You make a lot of good points. There is much in what you said to discuss. I'm sure we'll have a chance down the line to continue. I don't know what others think but as for this thread, we have really strayed off topic.
Catch ya later.
On the abortion issue, the way I understand it, before Roe v Wade, abortion was legal, if you were willing to pay enough for it. In other words, abortions were still prevalent, they were just done while skirting the laws. The term "back-alley abortion" applies to these instances because in many cases the operations themselves were dangerous and, without regulations, unwittingly caused the deaths of many women. Therefore, Roe v Wade only made those practices available to everyone, and safer for women than they were.
Yes, it is tragic, which is why I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
It starts with sexual education and instilling safe sex values early. Abstinence is a good philosophy in theory, but it's too absolutist and an unattainable goal. People are going to have sex, it's deeply rooted in our nature, and no amount of abstinence-only education is going to help that.
Solon,
Your posts on this topic always make me laugh. You give yourself a pass to write the most derogatory and pejorative descriptions here but you go apocalyptic if someone writes "Democrat Party" rather than "Democratic Party".
I have no problem referring to the Democratic Party by that name and continue to do so. I am only pointing out, what I perceive, as a paranoia on many here regarding the name. You epitomize that paranoia.
Go ahead and continue to use your childish reference to the Republican Party. You prove my point.
Physician, heal thyself.
Col.
To disavow a Republican Obama supporter with honest criticisms seems a bit paranoid too.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
AA, if you take the last month or so of NAC's comments, it's very easy to read between the lines that he's not actually an Obama supporter. I'm not saying he is or isn't, I'm just saying you can read it that way.
That being said, I love this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
and I suggest you read it, even if you aren't a fundamentalist. Because let's face it, a dominant wing of the Republican party lies in those statements, and the hypocrisy of it all is astounding.
Three threads now where you've gone directly off topic to express your concern about Obama issues but them lamely try to cover your tracks with the "Go Obama" closer.
You are an RNC plant or justanotherconservative. Either way I'm calling you out.
That is just so very unfair, t. I am terribly concerned that Obama is going to lose in the general unless he deals with some very significant issues. Whether or not McCain calls this trip a 'campaign' event is irrelevant.
And now that we are starting to see come real decline in Obama's poll numbers, well my concern is just all the greater because I truly just love the guy and hope that he can win!
The assimilated are conditioned. They believe what they are TOLD to believe unless it comes from the left.
Then your links are unnecessary. Senator Obama did a 90 minute interview with the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times Friday. He said what there is to say. There is no clean bill of health here by his own admission.
Cease and desist with your "concern". We follow the news.
These polls mean NOTHING in regards to the General Election. We are more than 7 months away from the General Election and people are actually worried about polls? Even for the Democratic nominee, we are 3-5 months away from a decision! I’m sure you’ve followed presidential campaigns in the past – ANYTHING can happen.
If it gives you any consolation, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this past week shows that American voters prefer a Democrat in the White House by a wide 50 per cent to 37 per cent margin.
There’s no way the country will vote in another Republican administration in 2008 – even if Reagan was resurrected from the dead!
"McCain has said he is not travelling as a candidate."
Of course he isn't...he's travelling as a straight taling maverick. And I'm sure at his stop in Israel his recent endorsement by self-professed Christian Zionist Rev, John Hagee will never cross anyone's mind either. ;>)
Quite an interesting photo-op for McCain in the Baghdad market he was in,he had on cap,shirt etc.Graham had on jacket etc,no sign of Liberman.
But Ithought it was quite interesting the soldiers were"strapped" and there were many surronding McCain stroll threough the market plus what we couldn't see.
Wish someone would tell him we have quite a few problems here at home.
Oh I forgot he's not that well versed on economic issues.
Straight talk, Maverick, labels that last
Pundits like them, out of the past
They don't tell what train he's on
So they won't know where he's gone.
Johnny's straight talk, going round the bend
All his integrity, gone again
He can't seem to turn that train around
And his honesty can't be found.
Guess what chaps? McCain looks statesmen-like so that we he says that he has spoken with world leaders, then he can tell the American public that they want him to win the election, just like Kerry had those endorsements in 2004!
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1062077.htm
and algore in 2000!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/wh022398.htm
Gramps couldn't get any more statesmen-like than signing a few bars of Bomb, bomb, Iran.
"Statesmen-like"?
I think that Dumb Conservative is trying to say that John McCain is like a Nash Statesman - old, rusty, and 50 years behind the times...
Why dont you let the grownups talk and go play nice with the other challenged children?
The other challenged children don't want anything to do with Moronic Conservative - they think he's beneath them..... :-)
Proud,
At this point the four replies I read above are not interested in discussing your take but really only offering another round of insults toward you and McCain. Oh well, it's Monday and some need to vent while their candidates save the Republicans millions worth of negative ads this fall.
McCain saying his trip overseas is not political is like a politician saying, "To be honest with you..." :-) Who said he doesn't have a sense of humor?
Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone!
Nerzog,
I find it laughable that you defend posters for hurling childish insults simply because you disagree with the poster.
Seems to me like many of you accept and encourage a much, much lower standard of discourse for those that agree with you than those that don't. If you think insulting posters is warranted, in my opinion that doesn't help win anyone over to your side. But do as you like.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
If you don't want to see insults, learn to accept that the name of the party is The Democratic Party. Follow the links that our friend the concern troll uses to bash Senator Obama while proclaiming that he supports his candidacy.
You are not and ""as far as I know" have never been a trouble maker. Notanotherconservative is and has been since he began posting here. He doesn't add anything but straw to the fire.
worrier,
I do try to stay even handed. However I know I am not perfect. Sometimes I notice replies from conservatives who take the same insulting tack as the progressives. Just recently I tried to consul someone who looked new to me to not respond to insults by insults. Othertimes I admit, I have let petty items alone. Good point on your part.
I think we can all agree that the insults don't add to the conversation and really only make the insulter look childish no matter where they land on the political spectrum. Can't we?
That being said, a well placed zinger is always fun. :-) I guess the trick is to know the difference.
I agree about insulting other posters. I generally try to refrain from doing it, but sometimes ridicule is warranted (though I don't believe in this instance.)
For example, I think even you can agree that posters such as Finarfin, with his blatantly racist rants, and Copious Dissent, with his hit-and-run silliness, rightfully deserve ridicule.
It's going to happen, I generally just gloss over them, unless it's particularly snarky and makes a very good point.
DB,
I try to take every thread as a new one. If one is trash talking to me in one thread but says something interesting on another, I very rarely go back to the previous thread. I'll admit I find the continued insults to be rather childish. I don't think anyone ever solved anything here by insulting others. It stifles communication in my opinion and serves only diminishes the person doing the insulting. I find it it interesting that some long-time contributors do not see that. I've seen some get very exorcised about someone else saying "Democrat Party" when they will use all sorts of derogatory and childish insults themselves toward anyone whenever they feel like it. What amazes me is that they are not even aware of how hypocritical they are.
Thanks for the discussion.
Nerzog, It is my opinion that ignoring them is the cruelest cut of all.
I remember for the longest time I would simply scan to the bottom of the threads and if I saw your name at the bottom, would simply pass it by. At some point it seemed to me, you started to lighten up with the over-the-top rhetoric and I found your posts interesting and fun to read even if I disagreed. Since then we've had many interesting discussions which I have enjoyed.
On the whole, I do believe the level of discussion is much higher than it used to be. That is a credit to everyone.
Eggnog,
I say that I take offense at the notion that I come here to insult you. I do take this seriously and I try to put an opposing view with others invited to respond. I disagree with the premise of this site that the media is driven by conservatism or is anti-liberal. That is what my postings related to.
Now, I have admitted that I like to lighten things up, but I never use verbage that is foul, hateful or vindictive. I do tease about the names people use on this site (because some just demand it!) but I stop when the individual asks nicely. I sometimes do ask why they are used.
As far as the links above, of course they were made to add to the subject and make it clear that both sides of the debate are present. Earlier I also linked to this trip by McCain as in part being paid for by his campaign. MM(vl) did not include this item in their story. I think the links were reasonable approaches to fully discuss the subject.
"I disagree with the premise of this site that the media is driven by conservatism or is anti-liberal. That is what my postings related to."
So tell me, what makes you believe the "liberal media" myth? I've only heard one theory, in that more journalists lean to the left, therefore the media is inherently liberal. And that one's easy to debunk, in a myriad of ways.
1. Though individual journalists may be more liberal (and I wonder why that is? Maybe because they have to dig for the truth...), the corporations that they work for are decidedly not liberal. If you understand the top-down structure of the news media today, you realize that it's no longer free and independent, and is under the thumb of big business that only seeks to make a profit.
2. There is an article MMfA itself did on newspaper columnists, and if I could find it (can someone find it? It used to be in the lower right hand corner of the home page) it can show you how something like 90% of columnists in newspapers (the opinionators) are conservative. Take a look at your local paper's editorial section. Mine has George Will and...that's it. George Will and editorials about local issues.
3. This site's premise is not that the media is driven by conservatism. It is that mis-information is spread through the mainstream media that is factually inaccurate, and it is usually reported without question.
The "liberal media" is one of the biggest hoaxes the right has achieved. Just because you believe the myth doesn't mean it's true.
Apparently the Iraqis see McCain's visit there as political...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Unfortunately the market that NcCain visited a year ago is no longer considerd safe enough for him to visit again...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/16/mccain-market-iraq/
Since McCain has totally embraced Bush's fiasco, it's to his benefit to make it look like invading Iraq wasn't such a boneheaded thing to do, after all.
The tie fighter is a one seater.
http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/darth_cheney.jpg