The commentary about the inconsistency between McCain's campaign criticizing media coverage and McCain himself in his Newsweek interview saying "I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage" is getting wide coverage. This is simply one more media house, naturally picking up on it. The other stories "First Read" highlights are McCains campaign criticisms of Bush on the economy and McCains problems with evangelicals. Links are provided in the blurbs but overall this is nothing more than storyline teasers.

More learned writers clearly prefer to avoid using the term flip-flop and wish to debate the changing positions McCain has taken on FISA and Article II authority as a matter of divining what McCain thinks. This article is an attempt to do just that. However after writing at some length about the constitutional arguments and court rulings swirling around the issue, the author sums up his frustration with McCains thinking as "so internally inconsistent". That one explanation offered for this obfuscation is that - it's a deliberate ploy by McCain's campaign in order to avoid alienating any group in the way of true politican posturing - is not I would suggest a very smart campaign strategy. The article implies that this writer has ... More »

Readers will understand the point of the headline when they read through the article. It's all about framing the environmental debate in terms of effective government for public benefit rather than for the benefit of energy sector corporations. The underlying premise is that environmental issues can be discussed within the context of conservative small government philosophy versus progressive views on effective government. The headline however would never lead you to believe that this is an environmental article and it's a shame because it is well sourced, thoughtful in analysis and quite balanced. There are numerous links to sources (yes, some are opinionated but many are very objective). Very good analysis of just how green ... More »

It's puzzling why the debate about Obama and McCain's policies on the environment is being framed in the context of the size and role of government. This is at least the second recent article that has done so. Here the view is conservative and the slant is that policies that favour a smaller government role are preferable. However, the size and role of government in environmental policy is not a fixed variable in increasing taxes, which is what the article seeks to imply. Government must set the US policy on energy and the environment and can not delegate that role to the market or corporations. Maybe the article isn't disingenuous with its argument but its certainly biased with its underlying preferences

The more McCain engages his 'base' the more reporters are connecting dots and labels are now beginning to stick -gaffes, senior moments, memory lapses, flip-flops, and if this last one gets traction, McCain is in real trouble - lies. This article is about the Newsweek interview conducted in Florida last week, which was poorly titled by the magazine as "How to beat a Rock Star: Substance" Here, this writer comments on his and other reporters observations about the interview picking up two gaffes and offers plausible explanations of what may be happening with McCain. Unfortunately for him neither are good things. Others, reviewing the interview itself, note instances of another emerging trait on the campaign trail - McCain's ... More »

Poor reporting and wrong headline. There was one reference to fiscal responsibility in the article - McCain talking about his opposition to earmarks which facts have shown won't do much to reduce the deficit and also, if the reporter had done some background on, McCain is not actually universally opposed to. The article is more about the reporters seeming to be impressed with McCain's ability to wing it without the aid of a teleprompter. The explanation offered for McCain's lack of voting support for the Everglades restoration project was simply accepted at face value

This blog post speaks to the McCain's' camp recent comments that critical press coverage is 'smear jobs' and 'scurrilous attacks' Odd then that only last week in a Newsweek interview in Florida McCain said "I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage" This is a good analysis of the perils of getting what you wished for. The article rightly points out that McCain sought attention, and his campaign was annoyed with the press coverage that was given to the Clinton-Obama duel. Now that attention has focussed not only on McCain's record, but his recent inconsistencies, and perhaps unexpectedly and most annoyingly to him, his temperament and attitude to questions from his former 'base', the press and public ... More »

Bill O'Reilly's opinion. 'Nuff said. It's not balanced or fair, but surprisingly to me, it's also poorly written. I genuinely thought that he was a reasonably good writer. It's also a view from a parallel universe. In O'Reilly's opinion "McCain must make the case that a victory in Iraq, which means the country stabilizes and becomes an ally against Islamic terror and Iran, means a much more secure United States" Attempting to follow the thread of that logic actually hurt my head.

The headline tells you what the writers opinion is, and further goes on to advise us to 'make no mistake' presumably forewarning us that his article will assist us in this. So its not very balanced and offers no possible explanations for McCain, but it is fair as it is replete with McCain's own statements and views. It is reasonably sourced with links to the relevant speeches. It looks at three areas of McCain opinion - support for war, the anti-UN stance (which is what the widely panned 'league of democracies' is) and the expansion of executive authority.

The title of course is designed to get you to read. Nowhere in the interview is there any specific mention of 'substance' raised as a counter to Obama's arguments, and certainly neither McCain nor the interviewers gave the impression of viewing Obama as 'Rock Star' The title is therefore glib and unfair to Obama and McCain's responses. The interview is reported verbatim and readers can decide for themselves whether the questions were fair (I think so) and whether McCain answered appropriately or not (testiness in at least one response)

A very short punchy investigative article that focuses on one specific potential problem for McCain - campaign co-chair Phil Gramm's lobbyist links to Swiss financial giant UBS, and the latter's connection with US banking legislation and the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Readers will notice three recent dates the article mentions and their relevance to Gramm (1) Dec 2007 - still a registered UBS lobbyist on mortgage backed securities (2) April 2008 UBS withdrew Gramm's registration as lobbyist (3) Ongoing investigation into UBS activities in allegedly supporting tax evasion in US. This article simply states the facts and invites further inquiry

This short opinion piece is by a student at the University of Florida. It's not very well written. The writer is too choppy with the points he's trying to make. It's useful in terms of the insight it gives as to what politically engaged young people are looking at in the respective candidates. That perspective is worth exploring some more and perhaps this writer should try again taking that approach.

On the narrow subject of telecoms lobbyists in McCain's campaign and their supposed influence on FISA regs and warrant less wiretaps, this piece is chock full of information, sources, and links for happy explorations. It's not a particularly engaging article but is nevertheless revealing in the scope of the lobbyist connections exposed. Good investigations don't tell readers what to think, they simply show you the information uncovered and invite you to follow the trail yourself. There's a lot to explore here.

Excellent analysis of the true deficit swelling potential and fiscal irresponsibility of McCain's economic policy. It is very well sourced and has numerous references and links to sources for further exploration. This is one of the most thorough 'call outs' on McCain's tax cutting proposals and although the writer mentions McCain's inconsistency, "calling this the mother of all flip-flops' the article is less interested in the hypocrisy, but more telling in its substantive analysis of the cost and sheer irresponsibility of McCain's proposals

This article is too short. When I reached the end I scrolled down looking for the rest of the story. There are more economic arguments that both candidates have put forward than the two that the article briefly covers. McCain's so-called middle class tax has been shown to be not really offering relief to the middle class at all, unless that's what you call households earning over 200k. Obama has spoken about economic issues other than the mortgage crisis. The one redeeming feature of this piece is the link to the economic plans of the candidates. Go there instead.

From the headline of this FOX commentary viewers who are becoming more exposed to McCain's gaffes and shifting policy positions might be excused for thinking that this would be a piece complaining about media exposure of McCain. Not so at all. It is about the coverage of Obama's nomination. The commentator seems a little piqued that McCain was not getting equal attention. The last point Cavuto makes is correct though - Obama is done no favors with fawning coverage and sentimentality about the event historic though it is. The headline for this video clip is a self-inflicted wound by FOX. It has only served to highlight the fact that the mainstream media is still sadly lacking in its analysis of the candidates positions, ... More »

Who is the ad pitched to? Independent older voters perhaps? Certainly not the core, conservative base of the republican party who still support George Bush. McCain's opening gambit that republican's won't recognize the slur on Bush with his "only a fool or a fraud talks tough" remark is highly risky. The video creates a dark mood and rather than emphasize the perils of war simply makes McCain seem sad and old. The music is awful.

Good interview. Huffington's answers are rational and reasonable and she quotes sources that can back up her contention that McCain said he did not vote for George Bush (a claim that McCain, as the republican nominee, is naturally denying). The fact that Huffington did not put that claim in her book dispels the argument that she's saying it for sales. The larger point of the interview is that the MSM, according to Huffington, is still enamored with the straight talking maverick of 2000. This expose by someone who was a McCain supporter and admirer is all the more plausible for its understated tone. It draws viewers in and invites you to explore more about what is being said.

Revealing article. Want to know how Sen. McCain sets (flip-flops) his policy? He succumbs to pointed questions, pleas, and cajoling. This op-ed was a call for McCain to show his conservative bona-fides. Apparently he has listened and has, as the article beseeched, decided to lead the Bush cause on warrantless wiretapping. The context here is whether we as readers should be concerned that a presidential candidate policy positions are so flexible, adaptable and and this stage of a campaign, still open to not just change, nor evolution even, but complete reversal.

A good fact check article. Keeps the complicated tax policy issues quite simple and provides good references for those who may want more detail. Very fair and balanced by comparing the candidates positions. That fairness however is to McCain's detriment as his tax proposals are shown to be impractical. The all too frequent errors that McCain makes was higlighted here in his April 15th speech and tagged as a "verbal typo" Who says economic reporters have no sense of humor?

A short commentary on a McCain speech where he tried to lay out what the world would be like at the end of his first term. The plain vanilla title 'The McCain Speech' does not invite readers. Perhaps this is not the fault of TIME but the speech itself as there was no real theme or policy position being laid out. The commentator describes the speech as McCain's attempt to walk back from his comment on occupying Iraq for '100 years' The quote from a McCain colleague that the speeches unsupported generalizations and predictions are what the old John McCain would have "scoffed at" highlights that others, including those who know McCain, not just journalists, are puzzled by the speech.

This is how a fact check article should be written. Forget Pinocchio's nose or the 'pants-on-fire' gimmickry. This is a lengthy analysis of the facts and a detailed assessment of who is fudging and how. When hearing reports of McCain's speech to AIPAC, I thought he had actually pinned Obama by highlighting the Democrat's unwillingness to designate Iran's revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. Not so at all! Obama had co-sponsored earlier legislation that specifically would have designated the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization as well as spurred dis-investment in Iran. I find it disturbing that, as this article points out, McCain's website is now pushing this line. That's disinformation and propaganda not ... More »

The interesting thing about these 'fact checkers' is that they are actually opinion pieces. The writer thinks this one deserves two "Pinocchio's" but its only his view. The opinion here is that McCain has forgotten how he voted. These fact checkers are fun - more like journalistic candy - and generate commentary which is usually more interesting than the fact itself. On this one the fact being checked is whether McCain is right or wrong about his statement that he "supported every investigation" into Katrina. He did not. But as his campaign would naturally be expected to do, they have explained that he misunderstood the question. Fact checked, scored, and story over. It's not serious journalism

Good article on the specific aspects of McCain's economic strategy for Michigan. In that context it provides good background contrasting his position and speeches six months ago with his approach now. The article is balanced in that while it points out the changes and indicates that they may be in response to political expediency, it is seen as more of a nuanced evolution rather than flip-flopping or political pandering. The article maintains its objectivity as an analysis of economic policy rather than a political critique of campaign strategy.

A good expose on McCain's increasingly frequent practice of flip-flopping on policy positions and issues. The subject of this particular switch however - given McCain's unique perspective as presidential candidate and former torturee - is what makes the article a fascinating read. The author tells us his own family history and while it does provide background, it introduces his own feelings. Granted it's an opinion piece but leave it up to the readers to decide if the facts warrant outrage. Other than this one slip, the article is well written, succint, and the appropriate context is provided. The countervailing positions are presented and readers are allowed to decide for themselves what side of the argument they come down on. ... More »

A pattern is emerging. On almost every stop on the campaign trail there are crumbs left behind by McCain that reporters are picking up and investigating. These are turning into articles about inconsistencies in his voting record, awkward associations, and changing policy positions. This article is just one more. It is specific in scope focusing on the inconsistency between what McCain says and how he voted on the Everglades. It is concise, reasonably sourced (links to some of the Everglades support groups quoted would have been nice), and fair. Emphasis is on how he voted. His camapaign has offered explanations and they are provided. Readers can decide for themselves, as it should always be.

The gist of this opinion piece is that McCain the Republican presidential candidate is not the maverick senator nor the straight talker of years past. The article chooses three topics to show that he has vastly different positions now than those that he held previously, which the article holds up as the principled positions. The title is trite and the treatment of the policy shifts too light. With three topics to cover the article is too short. These are very important issues but they need more in-depth coverage

I don't know that this is necessarily good journalism but it is a well done piece by a watchdog group. That we need such research, context, and analysis is just a reminder of the sell-out by MSM. Does anyone still believe that FOX news and "Fair and Balanced" is anything more than a slick marketing tagline and a sick joke for journalism?

The one quote from this article that strikes the right note for why this topic will continue to be a problem for McCain is this: "McCain is counting on people having very short memories and not connecting some pretty obvious dots" There is more here that needs researching and it is obvious that journalists sense this also. Good article. This one and others about McCain's and Gramm's labyrinth of lobbyist connections, seem to be emerging as a scent that reporting noses are now following.

Good Research. Excellent Context. Fascinating insights. The writer does not interject any opinion or analysis in this investigative piece. The article is powerful enough without them. We as readers come away with our heads swirling with questions that we now want answered? How could McCain's campaign not think that a one-term presidency would raise questions about age? Just how certain is McCain about his own beliefs? How many befuddled people are involved in his campaign - McCain himself, Phil Gramm, Lindsey Graham and who else? What was that about McCain the Maverick? The bumbling, stumbling, mish-mash of message is stunning!

This is a well researched article with a good historical analysis of how Gramm has become 'Foreclosure Phil' I refer to the title given to him in a 'Mother Jones' article about the same financial legislation and lobbying practices mentioned here for two reasons (1) the title fits and needs to become viral (2) because it has less of a Texas slant to it, the Mother Jones article will have wider national appeal. Make no mistake some of the responsibility for the economic mess we are in with the meltdown of the mortage market can quite legitimately be placed at the feet of Phil Gramm. Question time yet Phil?

This special report by 'On The Issues' organization is actually a book review and critique of 'McCain: the Myth of a Maverick' Its a good review of Matt Welch's book which is described as a fair and balanced assessment of McCain. That's significant because both the reviewer and the books author claim libertarian leanings. They find aspects of McCain to both support and criticize but overall the book seemingly concludes that McCain is a libertarian maverick. While this review and the book itself may be of particular interest to those who see a conundrum for McCain by trying to please the neo-con, evangelical, and libertarian branches of the Republican party -impossible for someone who is seen as a maverick by all three - the ... More »

Are tax cuts good or bad? Maybe I was hoping for too much from the article but I did not come away with much new information about McCain's tax policy. Sure the author explains the difficulty with the 'new' math proposed by McCain and the fudging about whether he is really against earmarks. But as long as McCain is for tax cuts he will get traction with his argument. The bigger the tax cut, the more we will approve of it! The main point of the article seems to have been that what McCain is proposing is impossible. Is it? I don't think that was sufficiently explained and I would have liked some contast with the Democratic position.

Good reporting. Decent journalism. Mild context. The reporters' analysis of McCain's comments in terms of motive, context, and setting is pretty good. They were subtle but effective in showing that they saw through the McCain media management approach. It is clear that the reporters were not impressed by the either the substance or the presentations by McCain. Memo to McCain staff- inviting reporters to press events and not allowing or answering questions is a good way to add to your PR problems rather than solve them!

There's nothing here but snippets from John McCain's AIPAC speech. No analysis, no contrasting viewpoint, no journalism whatsoever - just mere editing and reporting what was said. The only evidence that of an attempt to provide some opinion by the writer was the highlighting of some of McCain's remarks. I assume that this is meant to show the writers agreement. If so, say so, and say why. Feeble!

Perhaps sinister is not the right word...since we are only talking about a speech given by an elected public figure afterall. However when that public figure is seeking to be President and is offering his vision of the Supreme Court we should pay close attention. Scary then when after reading this analysis of McCain's speech I am left with...yep, it is the right word...a sinister feeling. The coded phrases McCain uses are picked up by Toobin and shown to be cookie crumbs for insiders to follow to McCain's gingerbread house vision of his conservative court. Toobin's analysis is excellent. Required reading!

I don't see how McCain survives any debate with Democrats as long as Phil Gramm is advising him on the economy. There is a perfect storm brewing of lobbyist influences, wrong policy prescriptions, Washington hubris, pathetic packaging and poor timing that rain hail on McCain's economic message. This is one of an increasing number of biting articles on the role of lobbyists and out-of-touch policy prescriptions that characterize McCain's economic plan. Given that he has admitted publicly that this is not his area of expertise you are left to conclude that Gramm would be shaping his administrations economic policy. Foreclosure Phil? Stunning!

A very fair and balanced analysis of the economic plans of the presidential candidates. Was written when Clinton was still in the race. There are gaps in all of the candidates proposals and none will reduce the deficit, with McCain's growing the deficit the most. Well referenced with links for further analysis and the opinions that were sought are objective and non-partisan. Good analysis.