NYT is reporting the shake-up tonight. Click HERE for the link.

GOP gets their way, and Rove gets his buddy David Gregory in as a replacement. 

Sorry for the short blog but I'm out kiddies.  See you all in the funny pages. 

His name is Don Diamond, and he is a real estate developer from Arizona. 

I know it's bad form to quote complete articles from elsewhere, but since this was originally posted in mid-April at Crooks and Liars I'll break protocol, though will still provide a link

It goes well beyond the Keating Five

By: Steve Benen on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 AM - PDT

When considering John McCain’s history of unethical behavior, the list usually starts (and ends) with the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s, for which McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for having shown, at a minimum, poor judgment. In the aftermath, McCain helped improve his public image, and bury the scandal, by becoming an advocate of campaign-finance reform.

But the notion that McCain cleaned up his act may not be entirely true. Take, for example, Donald Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer and generous McCain contributor, who wanted some coastal land in California freed up by an Army base closing.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

Ya think? The closer one looks at this, the worse it appears.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate. […]

For the California projects, the campaign said the McCain aide arranged the introduction to an Army official for Mr. Diamond’s team as “a constituent matter.”

Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

McCain helped a wealthy and generous donor buy land from the Army — complete with special water rights — for a quarter of a million dollars, which McCain’s buddy then sold two years later for $20 million. There’s a term for this — it’s called “influence peddling,” and it’s exactly the kind of thing McCain swears he never gets involved with.

If the Rezko story was considered a big deal by campaign reporters, the Donald Diamond issue should be huge. Why the New York Times ran this the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when it’s likely to get lost in the shuffle, is a mystery to me. If this same story ran on Thursday morning, it would have become the talk of the political world in a hurry.

Another story from The Blotter at ABCNews.com -

Known for his avowed stance against favors for special interests, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced legislation sought by a major campaign donor, the New York Times reports this morning.

McCain also wrote a personal letter of introduction for the donor, Arizona developer Don Diamond, which Diamond used to win business, according to the paper.  McCain's office also arranged for Diamond, who has developed land once belonging to the military, to meet an Army official, the Times said, helping him close a deal which cleared him a $20 million profit.

The McCain presidential campaign told the paper the candidate "had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen." The legislation he introduced which benefited Diamond had broad support from local governments, it said.

It called the introduction to the Army official a "constituent matter," and said the letter was "a character reference," noting that other lawmakers had written similar letters for Diamond.

Diamond, who has reportedly raised over $250,000 for McCain's White House bid, defended his candidate to the Times. "I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents. . . When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help move things along?"

Noting that McCain sometimes expressed reservations about helping Arizona businessmen, Diamond told the Times he encouraged the senator to "loosen up."

The Times notes Diamond and his family has given over $55,000 to McCain's various campaigns, and over $600,000 to other candidates -- and expects a return on that. "I want my money back, for Christ's sake," the paper quoted Diamond as saying. "Do you know how many cocktail parties I have to go to?"

I especially want to point out the last quote in this piece-

The Times notes Diamond and his family has given over $55,000 to McCain's various campaigns, and over $600,000 to other candidates -- and expects a return on that. "I want my money back, for Christ's sake," the paper quoted Diamond as saying. "Do you know how many cocktail parties I have to go to?"

(crosses fingers that formatting gremlins don't eat up this blog)

IN the Saddleback Forum McCain was asked to name three wisest people he'd depend on for advice should he become President.  He names General Petraus, Meg Whitman and Rep. John Lewis. 

Now to put this in proper perspective, this was one of the two questions both candidates were told of before hand so they could prepare their answer according to Rick Warren press releases.  

Now why is this interesting ?  Well this is news to John Lewis.  According to a Mother Jones Blog (Available in Full HERE) :

But even though McCain has now repeatedly cited Lewis as a role model and potential adviser, McCain has not established a relationship with the Georgia Democrat in the 22 years they have served in Congress together. At the time of McCain's Selma speech, a Lewis associate told my colleague David Corn that McCain has never been close to Lewis. Lewis was not told about McCain's speech in Selma in advance, nor was he invited to attend.

In response to McCain's latest invocation of his name, Rep. Lewis said in a statement requested by Mother Jones, "I cannot stop one human being, even a presidential candidate, from admiring the courage and sacrifice of peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge or making comments about it." But, he added, "Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him."

Why did McCain name Rep. Lewis?  Somebody he has never consulted before and someone who he has, at best, a professional  relationship with? 

Last Tuesday, NPR broadcast a story about Cindy McCain's business and charity work. In it, Ted Robbins described McCain as the only child of Jim Hensley, a wealthy Arizona businessman. The next morning, NPR received an e-mail from Nicholas Portalski of Phoenix, who heard the story with his mother.

"We were listening to the piece about Cindy McCain on NPR, All Things Considered, and it just struck us very hard," Portalski said.

His mother, Kathleen Hensley Portalski, is also Hensley's daughter.

The Portalski family is accustomed to hearing Cindy McCain described as Hensley's only child.

She's been described that way by news organizations from The New Yorker and The New York Times to Newsweek and ABC.

McCain herself routinely uses the phrase "only child," as she did on CNN last month. "I grew up with my dad," she said then. "I'm an only child. My father was a cowboy, and he really loved me very much, but I think he wanted a son occasionally."

McCain's father was also a businessman — and twice a father.

For full story click HERE

Admittedly we don't know if this side of the family is the proverbial black sheep side, however when you have $100M fortune and seven houses while your half-sister is living "modestly" at best something is wrong with this picture.

For the record Cindy also has a half-sister from her Mother as well. 

Interesthing that Cindy's father was a bomber pilot in WW2 and was injured and sent to Virginia for treatment and while there and still married to his first wife, met Cindy's mother and married her in 1945.  Cindy's step-sister was two years old at the time her father left. 

What does all this mean?  Largely nothing. There could be a lot more to this story. 

Warren was interviewed on CNN and was asked specifically about the "cone of silence" and initally laughed it off, but when further pushed on the issue said there wasn't any and that John McCain wasn't even in the building for the first half of Obama's questioning. 

The "cone of silence" it turns out was just McCain's word he wouldn't listen, and Pastor Rick took him at his word. 

Why make a big deal about mentioning a "cone of silence" if there wasn't one, other than one mans word.  McCain has flat out lied so much this campaign season, his word is really worthless.

McCain was deathly afraid of the speeches of Obama, so they made it a bad thing. McCain talks about how he can motivate and inspire, well that is exactly what Obama did with his speeches. He needs to uplift people, to get people excited.

Obama was tricked tonight (Saddleback Discussion), and has been being tricked all cycle. They call him out for not speaking specifics, and then when he does, McCain goes all folksy answering nothing but telling stories.

GO BACK TO THE BIG EXCITING SPEECHES. Remember the youtube vid of people parading though the streets in excitement after Obama's speech (I want to say in out doors in Philly). That is what wins elections - this was proof positive tonight. McCain says nothing and he gets praised because he won the room. Obama has crowds eating out the palm of his hand, impassioned, ready to change the world.

Obama has let McCain define him and the narrative and it's a mistake. He's acting like he needs to disprove he is a celebrity by talking about issues and only issues - it was a perfectly set trap. Let the policy wonks read about the issues on your website, this GE isn't about the issues. McCain wants to tell stories and get people to vote for the old timer as a feel good story.

The McCain Campaign has taken away Obama's strength and made it a "dirty word".   Obama needs to reclaim it, and celebrate it.    

Snippet from today's Political Radar:

A Republican strategist speaking on the condition of anonymity reacted to the Caldwell comments by telling ABC News: "My advice to the Obama people: 'proceed with extreme caution.' They don't want to get into a discussion of character and background. They are opening a door that they will not be able to close. They are putting on the table issues and personalities that they do not want to discuss."

Asked which personalities? The GOP strategist cited the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and former Obama law partners.

Now I don't think anybody believes the McCain Camp is not going to bring up Rev. Wright, it's not a question of "if" but "when".  What about the Obama camp bringing it up themselves?  That way they control more of the story, as opposed to letting the McCain camp decide when to play it as an issue.  Because if you are hoping the McCain camp won't "go there" you are incredibly naive, and if you are waiting for him to play it, don't expect it until late October. 

Wouldn't it be better getting it out of the way as an issue now?  So it will lack the election day bite the McCain camp hopes it has by releasing it days before voting day. 

Ideally it would have been best to bring it up during the Olympics, but the media would have seen through that.  So going forward, when would be the best time? It would have to be post Dem Convention, but before the first debate.

What about during the week of the GOP convention? Still too transparent? Would that be giving too much of a potential bump to McCain?

When would be the best time?

Also how would you go about doing it? Have a speech titled "Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers" where he talked about each in length and depth?

I assume Obama will be asked about Wright tomorrow at the Rick Warren summit.  Maybe that could be the impetus for another address down the line

Or leave McCain to play the Rezko and Ayers card because you have the Keating Five and Liddy/Abortion Bombers counter attacks if necessary. 

Now McCain does have a Pastor problem of his own in Rod Parlsey and John Hagee.  However even the staunchest Obama supporter has to agree it's not nearly as damning as Rev. Wright is for Obama.  I think the best way to use Parsley and Hagee against McCain show him as using their endorsments as baldly political.  Using religion as nothing more than a tool to help him win an election.  

If Obama gets out in front of the Reverend Wright issue and plays it when he chooses to and on his own terms he really could mitigate the damage.  He could simply say he wants to address Reverend Wright to the much larger GE audience and get it out out the way.  It would take a huge bullet out of the McCain arsenal and at best Obama could get credit for bringing it up himself. 

So whaddaya think?  Good strategy?

According to a Marc Ambinder blog this afternoon -

The selection of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention comes on the heels of a secret, last-minute effort to convince Warner to submit his name and record for vice presidential vetting.

Sources close to Warner say that the Virginia Senate candidate was subject to fairly intense pressure by Obama advisers to allow the team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy to open an account and begin their work.

Warner resisted, citing, as he has done publicly, family concerns and his public pledge to Virginians.

Full blog available here - CLICK ME

Many have said he would have been the best pick, and it was hard to argue with that sentiment. Alas it wasn't meant to be.  By giving Warner the valuable keynote speaker spot, he's basically sending the message that Warner is his pick in 2016, given Warners age and credentials. This also means that it is unlikely that Obama is picking an younger VP, because in most instances that person would be Obama's defacto pick to replace him at the end of his second term. 

I understand why Warner made his decision, but Obama/Warner would have been a helluva ticket.  Warner has the stability that he wants for his young family by winning the Virginia senate seat, and could reasonably keep it as long as he wanted it. In four(dread) or eight years time he could run for President as his own man and off of his own record.   If he ran with Obama and they lost, Warner would effectively be locked out of Virginia politics with Webb, Kaine and whomever won the vacant senate seat there for the next while.  Also he probably doesn't want his young family growing up in the White House spotlight.

Graduate Student originally blogged on this very article, but since he/she quoted the whole of the article it's against terms and services and I want to get this article noticed and hopefully passed around.  I certainly appreciate that they brought it to my and our attention.

McCain adviser got money from Georgia

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.

McCain warned Russian leaders Tuesday that their assault in Georgia risks "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm.

"Scheunemann's work as a lobbyist poses valid questions about McCain's judgment in choosing someone who - and whose firm - are paid to promote the interests of other nations," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "So one must ask whether McCain is getting disinterested advice, at least when the issues concern those nations."

Click HERE for the rest of the article

This quote from the piece is really telling -

While their politics coincide, Russia's invasion of Georgia casts a spotlight on Scheunemann's business interests and McCain's conduct as a senator.

Scheunemann's firm lobbied McCain's office on four bills and resolutions regarding Georgia, with McCain as a co-sponsor or supporter of all of them.

In addition to the 49 contacts with McCain or his staff regarding Georgia, Scheunemann's firm has lobbied the senator or his aides on at least 47 occasions since 2001 on behalf of the governments of Taiwan and Macedonia, which each paid Scheunemann and his partner Mike Mitchell over half a million dollars; Romania, which paid over $400,000; and Latvia, which paid nearly $250,000. Federal law requires Scheunemann to publicly disclose to the Justice Department all his lobbying contacts as an agent of a foreign government.

The Obama campaign should really push this story because it shows how dangerous McCain's deep lobbyist ties can be.  I mean McCain seems to be wanting to pick a fight with Russia because of some Georgian lobbyist has bought his ear. 

(crosses fingers that formatting worked)

They should do this for every ad (at least the blatantly misleading ones).  Basically they play McCain's current ads and refute them point by point - CLICK ME

TheJedReport - McCain's Neverending War

Once again, John McCain is done in by his own remarks. 

This is one of the best vids Jed Lewison has put together.  It's over nine minutes long so it certainly will not go viral (unfortunately) , but it is worth your view nonetheless.  It's too bad the MSM will not call John McCain on his outright lies (let's call them what they are) or at least do the work much like Mr. Lewison but such a video broadcast via the MSM would be devastating to Senator McCain.

He was completely for the war, how it was sold and how it was planned and executed up until the point it was no longer politically prudent to be when he decided to run for President again.  The story he tries to sell now is that he was one of the earliest and harshest critics of the war, and this vid prooves, using McCain's own words during speeches on the Senate Floor and from various interivews, that nothing is farther from the truth. 

Here is the link to the vid ->  CLICK ME

The Obama camp should reach out to Mr. Lewison and hire him.  Hell the McCain camp should pay him whatever he wants to work for the dark side, or at least close up shop.  

This was brought to my attention over at Politico (Ben Smith Blog).  It's a Meaghan McCain vid about a barbecue hosted at McCain's cabin in Sedona.  The vid was added March 9th, though I don't know when the Barbecue happened. 

Anyways here is the vid -->  Click Me

Imagine if the Obama's were seen hosting a cosy, informal gettogether with the Media.  Of course this is just McCain taking care of "his base". 

DETROIT (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

ADVERTISEMENT
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['eO8_BtG_fzw-']='&U=13f75terl%2fN%3deO8_BtG_fzw-%2fC%3d674272.12804990.13083882.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5406809%2fV%3d1';

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Full article avaliable here

That is ridiculous and is putting Obama's safety and security at risk.  Didn't Geraldo Rivera almost get lynched in Iraq by US Military for giving away troop movement in a in-the-sand drawing? I can't believe McCain wouldn't know any better. 

Shameful. 

John Paul Stevens, appointed by Ford, is 88 years old
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton, is 75 years old
Antonin Scalia, appointed by Reagan, is 72 years old
Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, is 71 years old
David Souter, appointed by George HW Bush, is 69 years old
Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, is 69 years old
Clarence Thomas, appointed by George HW Bush, is 59
Sam Alito, appointed by George W Bush, is 55
John Roberts, appointed by George W Bush, is 53

Looking at todays Gitmo Detainee ruling, it was a 5-4 decision.  Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy agreed that detainees had rights/protection while Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia disagreed. 

John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg both want to retire and I believe I read were basically hanging on so Bush couldn't name another justice along the lines of Alito or Roberts.  I doubt either will stick it out another four years even if McCain is elected, and McCain has promised his Justice nominations to the fundamental right as his election peace offering. 

So if McCain gets elected, SCOTUS is looking at two far right appealing McCain appointees that will probably be in their early 50's, to join Chief Justice Roberts(53yo), Sam Alito(55yo),  Clarence Thomas(59 yo) to control the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. Antonin Scalia would probably retire before McCain was out of office as well, just to keep his views secured on the bench for another two decades.

Basically there would be one Justice appointed by a Democrat remaining - Stephen Breyer.