John McCain has claimed that foreign money is slipping into the presidential campaign, mainly through Sheldon Adelson's SuperPAC. McCain's argument is that Adelson owns three casinos in Macau and that profits from these casinos are going into his SuperPAC. See "McCain says foreign money influencing US elections, sneaking in through SuperPACs", Associated Press, 2012-06-15.
Let's see, if I owned thousands of shares of Nokia, the Finnish cell phone maker, and thousands of shares of CTRIP, the Chinese online travel company (don't I wish), and donated to a campaign the equivalent of the dividends from these companies (if they were paying dividends), would that be Finnish or Chinese money influencing the campaign? I don't think so.
Since Adelson's SuperPAC promotes Romney and attacks Obama, I would doubt that the Chinese government is telling Adelson where his Macau profits should go. After all, Romney wants to have the "strongest defense" in the world. Is it in the interest of the Chinese government to enter into an escalating arms race? Maybe the interest of the Chinese military. But does the Chinese military have that much control that it can direct where the profits of a foreign country go?
No, I think it is just a question of the absurdity of the "Citizens United" decision, which McCain doesn't like, and of the wish of Sheldon Adelson to defeat President Obama.
Maybe we should just call Sheldon Adelson the drunken sailor of politics.
Showing posts with label Sen. John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. John McCain. Show all posts
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Monday, August 22, 2011
Libya - More on the raspberry
It looks like Sens. McCain and Graham knew even less than they should have or were just looking for a way to fault Obama. See "Libya - Three cheers and a raspberry". And I ignored something I had known but forgotten.
McCain and Graham wanted the "full weight of American airpower", and I assumed any involvement would hinder the Libyan cause. Well, it seems American airpower was used efficiently and without a lot of flash and weight.
"U.S. and NATO officials cited an intensification of U.S. aerial surveillance in and around the capital as a major factor in helping to tilt the balance…" and "… the United States established around-the-clock surveillance over the dwindling areas that Libyan military forces still controlled, using armed Predator drones to detect, track and occasionally fire at those forces." - Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, republished in the Star Tribune, 2011-08-22
McCain and Graham wanted the "full weight of American airpower", and I assumed any involvement would hinder the Libyan cause. Well, it seems American airpower was used efficiently and without a lot of flash and weight.
"U.S. and NATO officials cited an intensification of U.S. aerial surveillance in and around the capital as a major factor in helping to tilt the balance…" and "… the United States established around-the-clock surveillance over the dwindling areas that Libyan military forces still controlled, using armed Predator drones to detect, track and occasionally fire at those forces." - Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, republished in the Star Tribune, 2011-08-22
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Libya - Three cheers and a raspberry
As I write this, it looks like the revolution in Libya is almost over. May Gaddafi's fall not crush anymore people than have already been crushed by his 41 years of misrule.
The raspberry is for Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham for their statement that included:
"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
One: would anymore airpower than was provided by NATO been needed? One more set of airplanes might have made the skies over Libya more crowded and more dangerous for the crews.
Two: have they considered that more U.S. involvement might have given more weight to Gaddafi's claims about "crusaders" and "colonialists". Especially given that the U.S. almost always insists on being the leader of any coalition.
Three: don't they belong to the party that wants to cut the Federal deficit? Bombs cost lots of money. Money we don't seem to have for activities they don't like.
The raspberry is for Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham for their statement that included:
"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
One: would anymore airpower than was provided by NATO been needed? One more set of airplanes might have made the skies over Libya more crowded and more dangerous for the crews.
Two: have they considered that more U.S. involvement might have given more weight to Gaddafi's claims about "crusaders" and "colonialists". Especially given that the U.S. almost always insists on being the leader of any coalition.
Three: don't they belong to the party that wants to cut the Federal deficit? Bombs cost lots of money. Money we don't seem to have for activities they don't like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)