Is McCain's grasp of the Iraq situation any better than Bush's? Watch this video.

people are going to try and goad McCain into a Captain Queeg moment.

Call it the McCain mutiny.

We should all remember how in Bush's two presidential campaigns, he was given a free pass on all of his many troubling issues. One damning story after another would come up, and the media would touch it and ignore it.

When it came to Gore and Kerry, though, the media wouldn't relent on the negative stories, even though most, if not all, of them were false.

Now the media darling is McCain, and it is being done in the most appalling manner.

McCain's platform is running for Bush's 3rd term. He is promising to continue the major policy errors of the Bush administration.

There is no break with the administration. No break with Bush. No break with the present reckless policies.

That's one, rather polite way to look at the clear media bias.

To me it is just one more piece of evidence that for years the Super Elite (or whatever you choose to call the shadowy top dogs who make up the single over-arching elite superior to the hierarchies of both parties) have planned on following Bush II with McCain, after he defeats Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election, of course.  

I was first tipped off to this intention by Hugh Hewitt in his book "Painting the Map Red," published in 2006; Hewitt confidently predicted McCain would be the 2008 nominee of the Repubs, and the Dems would finally settle on a Clinton-Obama ticket, which McCain would defeat handily. Writing as he did in 2004-05 for publication in 2006, he eerily laid it all out just so. While it is easy to dismiss Hewitt as a minor rightie hanger-on (which I did) I'd have to say much of what he wrote rang true for the inner workings of Republicanism, and I have watched as the ducks fall into line over the months, aided by odd ocurrences that, to an analyst's eye, hinted at outside interventions.

Sure, McCain floundered early on, but "miraculously" survived by gaming the public finance system; everyone loves an underdog, so that is a plus. The corporate media carefully nurtured this approach, and kept reinforcing McCain's endlessly repeated "maverick" persona. Personally, I would not be surprised to find that the Super Elite not only had something to do with all that, but also with helping Hillary to survive and land on her feet in New Hampshire, and certainly have been helping her undermine and attack Obama, including through help from the swiftboaters---- I suspect the Super Elite did not think Obama would prove as charismatic and effective a campaigner as he has, and they had to swing into action to keep him for overtaking Clinton's expected victory.

I have a pretty dim view of conspiracy theories in general, and I do not think this scenario I've presented here reflects a secret society plan as such. Rather, like the Zaibatsu of Japanese business leaders before World War II, or the tacit understandings of German big business in helping to raise Hitler in the 1930's, our Super Elite is not formally organized (despite certain Bohemian Grove meetings, for example, nor is it wholly American anymore) ---- but it is very real.  

I agree Teddy, but they can't control everything and I think they are being out flanked by the new grassroots political movement.

Unfortunately it seems that there is always a struggle between the common good and the power hungry (I stop short of calling them elite, I would prefer thugs and criminals). That's why we need some kinds of regulations, because left to their own devices some people will simply rob from everyone and commit various crimes against the average person to advance themselves.

Hi, Teddy,

It is funny how many of these ideas are often push aside as some kind of conspiracy when the desires of the elites are often done in the public. :)

I also agree: there is no organized super elite controlling everything. But there is a lot of groupthink going on with many business trade groups, and ideas do flow more or less organically.

Campaign donations are one way of tying the elites with whom they want to win in an election.

The other marker is how the media reports on news. Some may disagree, but it is quite uncanny how, over time, the conventional wisdom of newspaper editorials and op ed pages just happen to benefit the interests of the richest people and biggest corporations.

This may sound strange, but in many ways, Mexico in the 1990s, during the last decade of the state dictatorship, had a freer press than the U.S. has today. There was a lot more diversity of thought there than there is here today.

but I also believe that the Super Elite have learned some sophisticated lessons about mass media. Such as:
1) that unremitting repetition of particular "talking points" and of chosen elements of certain stories eventually turns the points into part of the subconscious world view of the average person;
2) that most people are too busy trying to make a living to worry about anything outside of themselves, so if you provide them with entertainment and just enough wherewithall to get by, they won't rock the boat---- and, indeed want a strong leader to tell them what to think and do;
3) that people love gossip and usually  need someone else to whom they can feel superior and/or hate, someone who can be a scapegoat for their own problems;
4) and that the system needs to provide just a small pressure valve to release any discontent from the minority who object to being manipulated (hence we still have the Internet blogs, self-help movements like "the Secret," and some churches, but even that little escape valve is being gradually constricted.

The mass culture today is vastly different from when I was a child, and even a young adult. Once Rupert Murdoch arrived on our shores, our goose was cooked insofar as expecting any help from the press, in which I include both print and television.

After tuning in to watch yesterdays conference or at least policy briefing of sorts on Iraq and its future that was presented by a gentleman from the American Enterprise Institute and two gentleman from Brookings I find that the scholars at least these three have more insight to policy on Iraq than "dumb, dumber, and dumbest" in the race for the Presidency. I am no more convinced in McCain ability to capitalize on the gains made in the last four months in Iraq--and had you tuned in for the first time the gains were actually identified something the mainstream does not want to touch--where Sunni and Shia are beginning to care more about issues like -water,sewer etc than they are the religious affiliation of the leader. In other words Iraqi is beginning to finally experience politics as being local as a result of the surge. Whether we agree or disagree on the current policy when a people suddenly shift from "security" being the number one issue or grievance to something else progress on this front is certainly being made throughout the north and to alessor extent the south.
I use the phrase dumb, dumber, and dumbest because based on what was presented and supported by those who actually have been to most of the provinces of Iraq niether Obama, Clinton nor McCain for that matter appear poised to have an effective long term policy that will continue the gradual progress in Iraq.
It was suggested that anything less than 15 brigades in country could result in all the gains made being lost in the vacumm that could result if all forces were pulled out of Iraq. Of course no one is sure what the reality of the withdraw levels should be or the timing, some say a brigade a month, that would allow such gains to be sustain and where troops should be withdrawn first.
I care little for gaffes but would olike to see real policy follow-up by the media to address the impacts of whats being proposed. If someone wants to suggest complete withdrawal of Amercian forces to pander to that element of the Party thats fine by me but once they become President and find that they cannot execute such orders what plan or policy will they be inclined to follow. Its sounded to me based on the scholars on this issue that the only withdrawal of forces that can be undertaken is a long term gradual one over the course of years not months.
Whether one is for this war or not these gentleman clarified for me what has been missing in the media who prop up the same political pundits/cronnies to somehow walk the American people through this whole process like they are not partisan in the outcome.
Just when I think I can get around Iraq and focus on economic issues in this campaign, the folks who actually know what they are talking about prove that these folks running for the White House have their Eyes Wide Shut.

Friday, April 4, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
Fairview Park Marriott
www.nvdembiz.org

Meeting notice will be posted soon.

Come and ask him your questions!