Since George Stephanopoulos takes requests, here are some questions for Sen. McCain

As has been reported, conservative hack Sean Hannity of f(au)x news hand fed George Stephanopoulos a loaded question for Sen. Obama:

HANNITY: There are two questions that I don’t think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don’t know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is – the only time he’s ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I don’t think we did enough.” When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I’m taking notes right now.

And here’s the question that Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Obama:

STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

Well, since Stephanopoulos is so amenable to repeating questions that others put in his mouth, I’m sure he won’t mind much as another puppeteer’s hand slips up his back. It’s with that in mind that Keith Olbermann offers this question (and other questions) for Stephanopoulos to ask Sen. McCain, when he’s scheduled to appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday:

After first calling Jerry Falwell an “agent of intolerance,” you took that back and began praising the man, despite the fact that he blamed America for 9/11.

Why in six years have you not repudiated Mr. Falwell’s damning of this country? Why do you still symbolically share the same pew?

UPDATE: Here are some additional questions for Sen. McCain, via PERRspectives:

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were “very proud” to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed”, your “spiritual guide.” Do you believe America’s mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about “bomb bomb Iran?” If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?

2. Doesn’t your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?
Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don’t your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?

3. Doesn’t your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan “unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn’t your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America’s national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called “family values.” Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn’t your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an “agent of intolerance” show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?
In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell “an agent of intolerance,” a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, “‘no, I don’t.” Why shouldn’t the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren’t you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?
You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over $38,000 a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn’t the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?
I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, “McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian.” In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as “Episcopalian” in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News’ August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, “It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist.” But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you’ve said, “When I’m asked about it, I’ll be glad to discuss it.” So what is your religion? And couldn’t Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?

8. Didn’t President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren’t you a hypocrite for voting “no” on the Senate waterboaring ban?
You’ve said that “we can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured”. And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted “no” on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn’t it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn’t it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?
You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and “would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.” Isn’t it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn’t it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn’t Americans be concerned over your past statements that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should?”
Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” Then in December 2007, you admitted, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” Shouldn’t the American be worried about President McCain’s ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn’t the American reject out of hand your claim that “I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?”

Olbermann on Fox News Memos

Keith Olbermann did a good job of unmasking the Faux News memo that was originally exposed by the HuffingtonPost.com. Video courtesy of CrooksandLiars.com:

Olbermann Delivers a Great Speech

I’m glad to see that, like myself, there have been many that have been inspired by Keith Olbermann’s courageous and eloquent ripping of Donald Rumsfeld’s you know what. Writing for the Huffington Post, Richard Greene, a professional presentation and communications coach, concludes that Olbermann’s speech is "the greatest speech of the decade." Now, I ain’t no pro, but that was one great speech by Olbermann. What’s curious is how starved we, the modern American public, are for eloquence and courage (and us, liberals, appear to be more famished than others). Richard Greene does a great job of breaking down and, deservedly, praising Olbermann’s outstanding job:

The host of a national television program gave a speech. A real speech. In fact, a great speech. In my opinion, probably the greatest speech, thus far, of this decade.

That a deep, thoughtful speech could wend it’s way through the halls of the corporate media and box out, for a few glorious moments, the breaking news coverage of John Mark Karr’s airplane landing on a runway in Colorado or Brittney Spears or Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise or polygamists and the rest of the NewsPorn that passes as news while the country endures - and does not seem to care about - non-stop death in Iraq, a looming attack on yet another sovereign nation, a complete mess in the Middle East, upcoming elections to be conducted on electronic voting machines that are completely hackable, illegal wiretapping, a culture of fear and an apparent Houdini terrorist leader who has outwitted the entire American military for 5 years… is pretty close to a miracle.

[...]

Listen to the subtlety. Without calling names he blasted Donald Rumsfeld and everyone else in the Bush Administration more powerfully than if he had filled his entire 6 minutes with 4 letter expletives.

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

[...]

Listen and watch the history. Only by the deep understanding of history was Olberman able to do what needed to be done - to turn the “Appeasement of the Fascists” argument around on Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Rove and the Bush Administration. He uses the much maligned Neville Chamberlain against those who use him so often. A brilliant turn.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For, in their time, there was another government faced with trueperil - with a growing evil - powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s - questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone to England. It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it had received, which contradicted it’s own policies, it’s own conclusions - it’s own omniscience - needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all - it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile - at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name… was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

[...]

And, listen to the humility… always a sign of great speakers who understand, at least on some level, that they are mere channels for that which flows through them…

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed, “confused” or “immoral.

With this I must disagree, Mr. Olberman. Perhaps because the void has been so deep and for so long you, Keith, may be unaware that you have stepped, firmly, into it. Your words, not in a thousand years, but in 6 minutes, stirred the soul of a nation thirsty for the courage and brilliance of Mr. Murrow and were hardly distinguishable from his. You have earned the right to quote the great Edward R. Murrow on television. And you have earned the respect of those who have longed for a real journalist . . . and a real speechwriter and speech giver to step up for America and against those who might have forgotten what we are, indeed, fighting for.

May your courage be rewarded by ratings that rival those of John Mark Karr’s.

I couldn’t agree more.