When Republican nominee John McCain was asked that question, he blinked, stuttered, then mumbled he’d have to check with his staff for the answer.
Isn’t that a laugher. How many people do you know who don’t know how many houses they have. When millions of Americans are trying to stave off foreclosure on the one house they own, multi-millionaire McCain is so far out of the economic mix that he can’t answer a simple question about a house.
Is this faux-pas a deal-breaker? If ordinary hard-working Americans begin to realize that McCain lives on another economic planet, will they turn on him in November.
Does this story have legs? Will it follow McCain around like an anchor until election time?
McCain has made a monumental blooper.
Do you think it could sink him?
Testing…testing…my posts aren’t posting…
It will only sink him if he expresses regret for having 7 houses.
But I suspect he only owns one or two houses and that it is his wife Cindy (a multimillionaire heiress) who owns everything and that McCain simply was not clear in his own mind what was separate property (hers) and what was community property.
Whatever.
But here’s the real issue: your question, Neil, is dripping with the notion of class warfare; that is, that it is somehow “evil” to be rich. In reality, most people strive for more and more and to take McCain to task for being rich, as the Obama camp is doing with their ads attacking McCain over the houses, will backfire on him. All it is doing is getting people’s backs up who will resent Obama for playing the “rich man, poor man” card and entrench them in the pro-McCain camp.
Look at what happened to Bill Clinton who claims that Obama played the race card against him…he still hasn’t forgiven him yet (something maybe he will do in these coming days of the Convention; we shall see).
As for those millions being foreclosed? Many of them did it to fulfill a dream of owning a house…why in God’s name would they resent someone who fulfilled that same dream 7 times over? They may envy McCain for it and they may even admire him for it.
But why would they get angry at him for it?
The blunder is only in the minds of those who are predisposed to voting Democrat anyway. It won’t change any Republican votes but it may change the undecided’s, many of whom who now will resent Obama for playing the class warfare card.
XXXXXXX
I’m sorry… but am I the only that thinks that Obama is HELLA rich too?!
Haven’t we come to the realization (yet) that you can’t be poor to run for president of the US? Come on!! Obama calling McCain rich is like McDonalds calling BurgerKing fat food!
Back to my previous comment: it’s a choice of the lesser evil. Housing and money considerations apart, minor problems, most Americans, I believe, will still be confronted by that choice. The polls are clear about that. The undecideds will carry the day…at the last minute in the voting booths
“How many houses do you own?”
This looks like an innocent question, therefore, there must be a trap in it. Because when a politician is involved, there is no such thing as “innocent.”
“But I suspect he only owns one or two houses and that it is his wife Cindy (a multimillionaire heiress) who owns everything and that McCain simply was not clear in his own mind what was separate property (hers) and what was community property.”
I think you may be on the right track, Tony, but I would take it a little further…
The president, on taking office, turns over all his personal effects — his credit cards, his stocks and bonds, his property — into hands other than his own. I think the purpose of this is to keep him from falling into the temptation to benefit his own fortunes as a result of any legislation that gets enacted while he’s in office. He’s probably in the middle of getting all that organized right now (and at the same time, he’s probably wondering if it’s actually worth the effort, given that Obama is looking better and better all the time).
But I think Neil’s question is probably right on the money. There are an awful lot of people in the US who are frantically trying to tread financial waters, and a lot of them are drowning. They are doing their level best to keep afloat, and they look around and see this candidate who has so much that he can’t even count his own worth without consulting his staff, and some of them have got to be thinking, “Is this the guy I want leading this country out of an economic disaster? A guy who doesn’t look to have any personal incentive to get the economy fixed so that I don’t end up living on the street?”
The class warfare is not in the question. It’s in the answer.
But chimera: What about Obama’s net worth?? The guy’s f-ing rich – more rich than most of us could imagine… how is this not a factor?
The USA is in a financial sinkhole.Do you think that a President who can’t count beyond 6 is equipped to handle trillions of dollars.
Joe, simply put: Nobody asked Obama.
It’s not that his net worth isn’t a factor (and I personally don’t think net worth is any more important than religion, but that’s just me). It’s that none of Obama’s opposition thought to make an issue of it.
Obama is worth $4 million as reported by the McLaughlin Group. Not THAT rich.
And no it won’t sink him. I think Neil is trying desperately to find something to hang a Republican on… ;<)
As far as people are financially strapped go, well, I can’t be there to take their hand and neither can a politician. Everyone is free to make their own decisions. Here in Montreal we’re already seeing people having overstretched themselves by buying expensive houses beyond their means. According to “liberals” I’m supposed to feel bad and bail them out.
Rubbish. I take careful care. Why should I pay for someone else’s inability to make financial decisions? That makes me “callous” in their eyes. Well, I never signed up to run a garderie.
So whatever McCain failed to say about properties is irrelevant. I think Chimera and John are on the right track. At the end of the day Americans seek to attain lofty goals. They praise successful people. Not like here in Canada where we shoot down success.
Good morrow, all!
The question is not: How many houses do you have, Mr. McCain? The question is: DO YOU EVEN KNOW how many houses you have? DO YOU EVEN KNOW the difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites in the Middle East? DO YOU EVEN KNOW that drilling offshore can and will damage the already delicate offshore environment, and do the same in the environmentally sensitive areas in Alaska? DO YOU EVEN that with great power, comes great responsibility? DO YOU EVEN KNOW that you are also running for President, and that to disparage another man for having the audacity of such ambition (uppity pickaninny don’t know his own place) is to tar yourself with the same brush? DO YOU EVEN KNOW that to lie down with the current administration is to get up with he same fleas that infest it? DO YOU EVEN KNOW what Einstein said: You cannot solve a problem, using the same thinking that created the problem in the first place?
John McCain: he puts the MENTAL back in environmental. But, I digress…CTZen
CTZen, I would argue that for a guy who fought in Vietnam I’m pretty sure he understands the “intricacies” of wars and differences in cultures. So Shi’ites and Sunnis shouldn’t be too hard for him. In fact, I’m not so sure many of us know as much as we think about that region.
I’m just playing devil’s left hand here.
An update on my first comment on this topic:
Since I wrote it I saw a clip of McCain on Jay Leno responding to the “houses scandal”, for lack of a better term. McCain responded, essentially, with two points:
1) McCain brought up the fact that his father-in-law had, through hard work and entrepreneurialism, make a fortune in business. McCain’s wife, Cindy, had inherited a substantial amount of that fortune and that was mainly responsible for why they had 7 houses.
Fine. Acceptable answer.
2) But McCain also brought up that he had spent nearly 5 years in the prisoner-of-war camp. What???? Why the hell did he bring THAT up? It simply isn’t relevant to the issue at hand, first of all, and even though we may find tangential connection to the issue at hand (such as “well, for 5 years I didn’t live in my own home…I was in the Hanoi Hilton being tortured every other day), I think the whole prisoner-of-war thing is something that is not proper for McCain to bring up, but for others.
It’s like if he had won the Nobel Prize. If you’re running for office and touting the fact you won the Nobel Prize — something that is kinda sacred and everyone knows about it anyway — then it comes off as a little tacky. Don’t bring something that is “sacred” down to the level of street-fighting because it reduces its value.
His experience as a prisoner-of-war is a sacred thing. We all know about it. It’s got a sacred kinda “vibe” to it. Don’t use it as a tool during a political debate. OTHERS can use it, such as your supporters, but not you.
Tony:-
Excellent point. Just the other day, Maureen Dowd has a biting column in the New York Times in which she accused the McCain people of cheapening his war heroism by bringing it up in every political context. Even the argument that his imprisonment has prepared him to be commander-in-chief is a ridiculous stretch.
Thanks for your comment.
“Hero.” People worship the darnedest things, don’t they? But hero-worship and hero-naming can backfire on a guy, too.
A hero is not supposed to get caught. Or if he does get caught, he’s supposed to escape. But he’s definitely not supposed to spend five years as a POW, being used as someone else’s punching bag. He’s supposed to turn the tables and kill all the bad guys single-handed, rescuing all the other POWs in the process. He’s definitely not supposed to need rescuing himself.
In the age of cinematic heroes like Wolverine, Iron Man, and Batman, McCain’s allowing anyone to label him with the status of “hero” may very well be the last mistake he ever makes as far as his political career goes.
Biden describes a typical Rudy Giuliani speech as “noun, verb, 9/11″, he could equally describe the typical McCain speech as “noun, verb, POW.” Very sad and unbecoming.
Barbara:
And the sad thing is: HE DOESN’T HAVE TO DO IT!
It’s already out there, people know about it. Every time McCain opens his mouth about it, it cheapens its value.
And, yes, the POW thing most certainly DOES have value and DOES have relevance, in my opinion, as to whether he would be a good president.
But for McCain to be anything but silent about it will be a disadvantage in getting votes.
As for Biden’s three word comment on this issue: well, that is the stuff of which makes up quotation reference books. It’s succinct and right to the point.
For some reason it reminds me of Mary McCarthy’s response to Dick Cavett when he asked McCarthy what she thought of her former friend, Lillian Hellman: “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.”
I totally agree, Tony. He does not have to mention it. Everyone has heard about it a thousand times. He is to be respected, but, as you said, it cheapens the experience to repeat one’s POW story, especially on occasions where it is irrelevant.
I don’t agree that his POW experience makes him a better candidate for presidency. While he served in Vietnam and paid a high price for his service to country, it doesn’t strike me as experience relative to being president.
Barbara:
I agree that both being shot down and serving time in a POW camp does not give one any special qualifications to be president.
However, refusing to go home when they presented him the opportunity to do it so that he could have left that hell-hole and, instead, submit yourself to years more of torture: yes, this is an indication of one’s character and, yes, this is a factor to weigh in choosing a president.
Not my choice, however. McCain only impresses me about one or two notches above Obama whose only claim to fame is being a community organizer. And when he’s compared to the Gold Standard of community organizers, he falls very, very short:
http://tinyurl.com/2trsut
.
Mother T ain’t no community organizer! Sure, she started up her own religious community, but that is not the same as organizing neighbourhoods to improve living standards, to educate children, to find jobs, to battle drug abuse and crime, to deal with bureaucracy.
It says at least as much about Obama’s character that he eschewed a Wall Street job (editor of the Harvard Law Review opens all kinds of doors!) to work on the streets as it does that McCain stuck it out in Vietnam. One wonders how much the McCain story has been embellished over the years. Both are decent men. The country doesn’t need another four years of Bush, though.
Barbara:
I disagree. I don’t think Obama is a decent man.
Why?
Because he spent 20 years in that church at the feet of a racist demagogue.
Because he played footsie with that terrorist who bombed the Capital and who is, to this day, unrepentant.
And exactly what did he do “on the streets”? Can you tell me ’cause no one seems to think he did much at all…
Tony:
Tony:
Are you a paid up member of the Republican attack machine? I hope not.
I don’t think Obama’s erstwhile pastor was a a racist demagogue. In fact, as reported, he said little that I disagreed with.
You have every right to trash Obama’s policies. But to impugn the decency of this splendid father, husband, advocate for the poor who is now the nominee of his party for the highest office in the land, why those tactics are a page right out of the Rove playbook.
I impugn his character and his decency.
I don’t impugn his policies because he has flip-flopped on practically everyone that I don’t know where he stands.
And there’s little you disagree with here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ
Sad.
I hope McCain (whom I am not a fan of) spends $50 million the last week of the campaign showing clips of this guy.
Tony, that was an absolutely fascinating collection of sounds bites. Tell me which ones you think show bad character and/or indecency. Racist demagogue? Perhaps demagogue, but then what preacher does not instinctively speak to the emotional heart of his audience in order to engage their undivided attention? But in that entire clip, where was his racism?
I didn’t hear one thing with which I can disagree, given that he is a sixty-something black man who grew up with all the experiences about which he was ranting. In his place, would you be able to simply turn the other cheek and let bygones be bygones without so much as a, “Hey! Waitaminnit!” and carry on as if nothing bad had ever happened to you? Would you not grab the suddenly-available spotlight when it turns to shine on you, and seize the chance for a little redress of grievance?
And do you actually know for a fact that during the past twenty years Obama spent “at the feet” of this man, that the man actually engaged in such high-energy ranting? Or is it just possible that he spent most of those twenty years just being a pastor to his flock and only began to rage when he had everyone’s undivided attention? What man-with-a-mission would deliberately turn away from such an opportunity?
Yeah, it appears as though Wright may have gone overboard at a couple of points (that are not shown on the clip, BTW). But his doing so caused Obama to take steps away from him, didn’t it?
But enough of Wright. What is it you can find to attack about Obama’s character? Or his decency? And keep him entirely separate from Wright, please. They are not the same person.
Which sound bites of Wright you ask?
The Tuskegee incident, for one, in which the implication was that the U.S. Government only singles out Blacks for experiments. If anything, the US Government has performed many more experiments on Whites than Blacks. Certainly, you remember the CIA/LSD experiments at the Royal Vic.
Re: Obama’s character (aside from staying with Wright for 20 years, without protest):
1) his campaign’s treatment of Bill Clinton who, until yesterday, was NOT enamoured of the man because of the accusations against Clinton by them of playing the race card. The treatment of Geraldine Ferraro was worse.
2) His cozying up to terrorist Bill Ayers (this alone will sink any chances he has for the presidency).
3) His flip-flopping on virtually every issue of importance out there (his stance on Iraq is now pretty much equal to that of John McCain).
I don’t know enough about the Rezco scandal to speak on it but many feel that is an indication of his tendency to corrupt.
And as for Obama being entirely separate from Wright, sorry, when you have NO CLUE about a person, one’s associations are the very thing to look at to get an idea of what that person’s character and decency is.
“…the US Government has performed many more experiments on Whites than Blacks.”
Not at Tuskegee, they didn’t. And he specifically mentioned Tuskegee. If he had had any ties at all to Royal Vic, he might have mentioned that, too. But he didn’t. So he didn’t. So far, I see nothing for which to fault him.
And as for Obama’s “cozying up to” “terrorist” (you mean the former Weatherman?) Bill Ayers, indulge me for a few moments…
When I was a kid (pre-teen), I had a best friend I’m gonna call Jake (which is safely nowhere near his real name). We played together, traded comic books, planned our futures as much as kids can, spent lotsa time at each other’s houses, and were practically joined at the hip. He was a regular, nice kid with the usual streak of mischief. Like me, when he grew up, he went into the military (both our father were military). Afterward… Well, one day he walked into a restaurant and did something that caused the deaths of five people (no details needed — the basic facts will do). And suddenly my best friend was a mass murderer.
Following your logic, what does that make of me?
The other side of my coin is that when I was in high school, one of my best friends went on to become an Anglican priest.
I guess my point is that it’s not only possible, but it’s almost inevitable that you will be influenced in some way by everyone with whom you spend any time, but you do not become that person. And nobody ever shares exact values with anyone else. We are all different. The wishes of all organized religions and government agencies notwithstanding.
And when you have NO CLUE about a person, the very least you can do is ASK HIM, no?
Oh, and I forgot to include:
4) Obama lying about when he was in church listening to Wright. I documented this extensively in one of Neil’s blogs several months ago.
By the way, on this very point: do you for one minute doubt that had the Wright thing come out in the media in the way it did only 2 months earlier that Hillary would have won by a landslide? Unfortunately for her, it came out in a big way by the time Obama had already procured almost all the delegates he needed.
Now the Democrats are stuck with him and are making do the best that they can.
Can you link to that #4, Tony? I don’t remeber seeing it. What did he lie about?
And I have no idea if Hilary would have won otherwise. I wasn’t on her bandwagon to begin with, in particular. I was simply looking for the strongest Democrat. And it looks like I found him.
But you think the Dems are stuck with him? You think they’re turning cartwheels because they see themselves as being stuck?
Chimera:
I couldn’t find the McKenty discussion via Google, but the following is an attempt to recreate the discussion through the following quotes and references.
On March 14, 2008 in the HuffingtonPost (see: http://tinyurl.com/23hqyu ) Obama said this about the controversial statements Wright had made:
“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.”
Only 4 days later he said something quite different. Someone must have pointed out to him that people would dig up exactly what Wright had been saying and when he said it and, more importantly, exactly when Obama was sitting in that church because his tune changed quite dramatically. So he said this on March 18, 2008 in another HuffingtonPost article (see: http://tinyurl.com/2qorn9 ):
“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”
So it went, in four days, from Obama only becoming aware of controversial things Wright said “at the beginning of my presidential campaign” to “while I sat in church” which, of course, spanned some 20 years.
That’s lying.
Chimera: I’ve posted quite a detailed response to your request but it hasn’t appeared…but I’ve saved it and will repost it in case it’s lost in cyberspace!
Chimera (I’m posting my response again here but without any links which may have caused the problem):
I couldn’t find the McKenty discussion via Google, but the following is an attempt to recreate the discussion through the following quotes and references.
On March 14, 2008 in the HuffingtonPost Obama said this about the controversial statements Wright had made:
“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.”
Only 4 days later he said something quite different. Someone must have pointed out to him that people would dig up exactly what Wright had been saying and when he said it and, more importantly, exactly when Obama was sitting in that church because his tune changed quite dramatically. So he said this on March 18, 2008 in another HuffingtonPost article:
“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”
So it went, in four days, from Obama only becoming aware of controversial things Wright said “at the beginning of my presidential campaign” to “while I sat in church” which, of course, spanned some 20 years.
That’s lying.
Tony, I think I found the thread to which you’re referring:
http://neilmckenty.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/will-race-sink-obama/
Okay, so let’s see…You said that Obama said (I don’t watch TV or keep up with a lot of this stuff too closely this far out, so I’m taking you at your word, here…’kay?): “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.”
So…Obama says he never heard the the particular statements from Wright that caused the immediate flap (whatever they were…and honestly, unless they’re part of that sound clip you linked to, I’m not sure which ones they would be, myself).
And then you said that Obama said: “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”
They could be entirely different statements than the ones that caused the immediate controversy.
Obama also then goes on to say that he disagreed with some of what Wright had said. He wasn’t specific, but I don’t think he had to be. I don’t know anyone who always agrees 100% with any other person. I know of closely-knit families who members frequently disagree with one another, and loudly. It doesn’t stop them from being close. Or family.
I don’t translate this to mean that Obama lied.
I do.
And, yes, your analysis is correct in that he could have been referring to OTHER controversial remarks in his March 18th speech and not the ones that caused all the brouhaha. But you’ve got to remember that the first speech was supposed to, specifically, address the Wright controversy. He worded it the way he did on March 18th to obviously cover himself if investigative reporters were, in the future, going to go in and dig out when he had been in church and what was said when he was there, to cover for his goof on the 14th.
Obama is a trained lawyer. By carefully crafting the words the way he did on the 18th, he covered himself for the eventuality that if reporters were to find out that he was in church for the most controversial remarks that he could now point to March 18th and say: see, I did say I was there and I was mistaken on the 14th when I said what I did. If no reporters find anything controversial, he can now point to March 14th and say: see it only came to my attention when I launched my campaign.
Had he covered the issue satisfactorily on the 14th, there would have been no need for him to bring up the issue a second time on the 18th. Obviously, in between those two dates he and his handlers looked at what he said on the 14th and realized he would be accused of lying if it was ever going to be reported that he knew about it before he launched his campaign.
This was duplicitous and dishonest.
Of course, this is all moot because the brewing Ayers scandal is going to make the Jeremiah Wright affair look like Mother Theresa. And the controversy with Ayers isn’t just that Obama played footsie with a hard-core and unrepentant terrorist but that there is apparently $50 million or $100 million that Ayers and Obama both, together, applied for and got in public funding that has apparently disappeared. No one seems to know where it is.
So much for successful community organising.
“By carefully crafting the words the way he did on the 18th, he covered himself…”
Of course he did! I would do exactly the same thing!
Is he running for president or messiah, that you think he needs to lead with answers by anticipating the questions? It wasn’t duplicitous and it wasn’t dishonest.
With most politicians, you can read between the lines of what they say to find out what they really mean. With Obama, you read between the lines at your own risk, because he does not write anything there. I understand what Obama said (and he’s one of the few politicians I can understand on this level) because he uses the same kind of language patterns I use — what a refreshing change!.
“…there is apparently $50 million or $100 million…”
Apparent? Who apparented it? And there’s a big difference between fifty and a hundred, even when you’re talking in the millions.
This little scandal-in-waiting seems to be still in the rumor stage. Let me know when (and if) it grows up, and I’ll take another look.